Spotify and Facebook: Is that phishing? - <AUTHOR> https://weluse.de/blog/spotify-an-facebook-ist-das-schon-phishing.html#spotify-and-facebook-is-that-phishing <comment><USER2> The fact that the user was logged into Facebook after giving Facebook credentials to Spotify is not the problem. The login screen communicates that this will occur. Maybe it doesn't communicate it as well as it could, but it does communicate it.

The problem is that Spotify added itself to the user's list of apps and granted itself access to the user's data without any communication that this would occur. I guess you could say that permission for Spotify to do that is implicitly granted by giving them your Facebook credentials. But these days, federated authentication and authorization are two different things for end users -- especially so for Facebook apps. Spotify should _at least_ prompt the user before making these changes on their behalf. Very underhanded behavior.

<comment><USER3> Here's the tricky part: they do ask for permission to post on your behalf when you open the app. It's pretty muted, at the bottom of a popup, and dwarfed by a larger, more colorful call to action.

Here's a screenshot: <http://i.imgur.com/oWDstiC.png>

It's also not entirely obvious to me what happens in every case. If I close the popup, does it still count as my giving consent? If I close the app? My guess is that most people skim over the copy and click the big blue button, totally disregarding the checkbox down there.

<comment><USER4> Well spotted. But a user who'd disabled/cancelled/deactivated their FB account would assume that action was moot rather than that Spotify were going to illegally access a secondary service posing as you in order to enable that activity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm ashamed that this doesn't surprise me much. This looks like a huge oversight on Facebook's part, but with the countless reports on Facebook failing with privacy here, there and everywhere, it's like I don't care anymore.

The thing that numbs me even more is that client work, no matter how good of an argument one gives, will always have some form of third-party social login because it's oh-so-important and users will _always_ use it.

<comment><USER6> It isn't an oversight by Facebook - it is by design. Facebook was a part of the decision to use Facebook login credentials to log into Spotify. Additionally, Facebook does not list access to your friend list (and your friend's email addresses) in their list of permissions. Rather, those details are implicit in using Facebook to authenticate.

As an example, using FB to authenticate with Quora does not list access to friends list in the permissions but Quora will send an email to every friend of yours already on Quora to notify them that you joined.

Another issue with this is that if you have never given any Facebook permission to Blizzard, but happen to use the same email address as listed on your Facebook account then Blizzard will attach your real name to your account without your permission.

<comment><USER7> Facebook does not give implicit permission to access "your friends' email addresses." In fact, they don't grant that permission under any circumstance.

<comment><USER8> What I believe the OP was saying is that they grant access to the friends list, and that Quora already has many of their e-mail addresses. Thus, they indirectly get access to your friends' e-mail addresses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It says "Facebook Email or Spotify Username" in the login box before typing in a username/email.

As far as I know, spotify uses username for login, and not email. By using your email, it's assuming you want to use facebook.

<comment><USER10> And yet that in no way gives them the right to use that to log into your facebook (rather than using the API to authenticate) and install the spotify facebook app (giving themselves whatever permissions they like without asking the user).

Of course, the lesson here (besides that spotify cannot be trusted) is that you should never use a password for more than one account. Sure makes me glad I switched to using a password manager that uses randomly generated different passwords for each service I sign up to.

<comment><USER11> Facebook and Spotify are tightly partnered together - at one point they actually REQUIRED the use of Facebook to log in. The option to register without Facebook was only reintroduced recently.

<comment><USER12> Not true, I don't use Facebook and I was one of part of the Open Beta many years ago.

<comment><USER13> In the US, when spotify first opened up to Americans you could sign up without facebook credentials. About a month later, they decided to go facebook only for new setups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Facebook and Spotify share a number of investors: billionaire Li Ka Shing has a stake in Facebook and Spotify. Yuri Milner's DST Global, which owns roughly 10% of Facebook, is also in negotiations to buy a stake in Spotify. Facebook's founding president and Napster founder Sean Parker, sits on the board of Spotify.

[http://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom- of-t...](http://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-thought- requires-free-media)

<comment><USER15> I don't understand this comment. Many companies share investors, especially at the level of Facebook and Spotify.

Are you trying to suggest that a mutual investor somehow has enough product control to strong-arm Facebook and Spotify into this?

<comment><USER16> I assume the parent post does - and so do I, in at least this particular case. Seeing how closly knit Facebook and Spotify are.

There's not just a shared investor group - there's also a partnership between the two companies. And it's pretty strong, as in; yes, it does seem like they have shared product control or at least great influences on each others product management

Mark Zuckerberg is listed and quoted as one of the references on their sign up page, by the way.

<comment><USER15> I would understand if the parent comment had noted everything in your second and third paragraphs about the strong partnership between product teams and Mark Zuckerberg's reference on the sign up page. That stuff seems incredibly relevant in this context.

If the intention was to paint the companies as working closely together, talk about how they actually work closely together, not about how the same VC firms at two different points in time happened to give them some money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is just Spotify not finding a user with username=[your email address] and looking for that user on Facebook.

I did a test by creating an account with the email email@example.com (not linked to a Facebook account) and username benjamintesterton. When I tried logging in with the email, it failed, but with just the username worked.

If logging in with the email did work, it would mean that Spotify authenticated you with their server and then abused your credential re-use to hack your Facebook account. However, this appears not to be the case.

They should just check email=[input] OR username=[input], but that may be backwards-incompatible and break the functionality of people who use their Facebook credentials to login.

<comment><USER11> That is correct. It says quite clearly "Facebook Email or Spotify Username". It's the user's mistake for using their Facebook account instead of the account they just created.

<comment><USER18> I don't think it's fair to blame the user for that. This is a standard-looking login form that users will have seen hundreds or thousands of times before. You don't reinterpret the words on a login form every time you see a new one; you type in the stuff to log you in without really thinking about it.

Regardless of Spotify's intentions here, they're benefitting from users' trust in normal login processes to get Facebook account access. Lots of designs exploit users' automatic behaviors like that; see Dark Patterns [1].

[1]: <http://darkpatterns.org/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Spotify is able to do this because they have partnered with Facebook. Facebook has white listed them for a set of API's that allow them to convert a Facebook User/Password into a Facebook auth token. Any time this whitelisted API is called the application that called it is automatically added to the users list of applications. Spotify is then white listed (by Facebook) for a second set of API's that allow them to add any permission available to the Facebook access token they were issued. This is why you see permissions being added to the application that were not clearly communicated. Facebook requires partners that are on these white lists to clearly communicate what is happening, but IMO Spotify does a particularly poor job of this.

</comment><comment><USER11> It says quite clearly: "Log in with Facebook or Spotify". That means you can log in using a Facebook account or a Spotify account.

The username field says "Facebook Email or Spotify Username". So when you type an email, you log in using a Facebook account.

It's not that hard to understand. By the way, that account you made on the sign up page is still unused: you logged in using a Facebook account, which is a different account from the one you just registered, so you have two spotify users now - one you signed up w/o Facebook and one you actually logged into.

<comment><USER20> It says "Log in with Facebook or Spotify," not "Log in with Spotify, or log in with Facebook, reactivating a disabled account if necessary, and then grant us a bunch of permissions." Nobody cares that it attempted a Facebook authentication. We care that it silently reactivated the Facebook account and silently gave itself permissions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Simple solution, don't use the same password for all of your accounts and read the instructions, it says username or facebook email.

<comment><USER22> Not only don't use the same password, but don't give your FB password to another app or website. Duh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you don't want someone to mess with your Facebook account, then perhaps you shouldn't give them your Facebook login and password...

<comment><USER24> Well yes of course, you shouldn't use the same user:pass for different sites. But a lot of people do, and that opens them up to being hacked if the password for one site is revealed.

Spotify are knowingly logging into the OPs Facebook account without OPs permission. Shouldn't this qualify as unauthorised access, as in a Federal offence?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Amazing.

Also, this is yet another privacy threat that I dodged because I use the PwdHash extension (<https://www.pwdhash.com/>). _You_ type the same password for all sites, but the extension invisibly uniquifies them on a per-site basis.

<comment><USER26> Doesn't seem like a good fit for the paranoid. If you screw up and your master password leaks, an attacker can access _all_ of your accounts.

I greatly prefer KeePass + Dropbox, which also lets you securely store usernames and notes. And the passwords are random and not derived from anything.

<comment><USER27> While it's not a perfect solution, most of the time you are not trying to protect yourself from a dedicated, thinking, hacker. Instead you're protecting yourself against automated systems that share passwords. Unless it was commonplace it would avoid a majority of those issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> If this type of behavior continues to be tolerated by users, the entire industry will suffer the backlash at some point. A few companies using obfuscated or unclear defaults will make it more likely that the government will bring down heavy legislation on all companies.

<comment><USER29> Why is everyone jumping to blame Spotify for maliciousness? All I see is that they have a bug where they instantly assume emails = Facebook login. Then they try logging in using that email, and because this user reuses passwords, it works.

It takes two to Tango, but I see incompetence on both sides rather than maliciousness.

<comment><USER30> It's not a "bug" if they specifically ask the user for their "facebook email" or their "spotify username" - which of course they do!

So if the user provides their facebook email and the correct password to match, which this user did, the correct behaviour is to log the user in via facebook. Which of course Spotify did.

No bug there. I'd say that this is mostly user error - but possibly Spotify could make it more obvious.

<comment><USER31> So reactivating the facebook account and adding the app to the facebook account without the user agreeing to either is fine for you?

<comment><USER30> I would argue that the user did agree to that when they provided Spotify with their facebook email AND the correct password.

But, as I said before, Spotify could make this clearer.

Also see this comment: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5267040>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'd want to know if the OP ever had a Spotify account before, with the same email (m email@example.com). I suspect he has, and that Spotify account was previously linked to the FB account.

Another strong possibility is that he has an existing Spotify account which was created using Facebook Connect. Creating an account with FB Connect would provide Spotify his email, and Spotify would likely have created a user record for that email (this is the recommended behavior from FB).

If either is true, then I think this is what happened:

\- Spotify has an old user record in their database, associated with his Facebook account. He might not realize this, especially if his Spotify account was created via FB Connect.

\- When he created the new Spotify account, Spotify had a bug/feature which linked the new Spotify account with the old Spotify account.

\- Spotify then sent a "logged in via FB Connect" signal to Facebook, which caused his Facebook account to reactivate. This is normal behavior for Facebook - FB interprets any login gesture as a signal that you want to reactivate your account (be it a 3rd party login via FB connect, opening the FB app on your phone, or logging into the FB website)

This seems plausible to me, and wouldn't indicate any malice. Whereas Spotify's engineers writing a screen scraper to login to Facebook and secretly install an app seems exceedingly unlikely.

</comment><comment><USER33> It is, or at least was, possible to delete your facebook account. Not just deactivate it.

<http://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674?_fb_noscript=1>

That's in Swedish for me but I assume it's localized. It says that there are two options, one is deactivation, and if you don't believe you'll need your account again, the other is deletion.

</comment><comment><USER34> So happy that I use 1password to generate random passwords for every single service I use. This wouldn't be possible if everyone was more aware of security - still, I find the way facebook treats its users increasingly disturbing and seriously consider to leave it.

</comment><comment><USER35> I remember once when I was automatically logged in to my roommate's Spotify account on my computer just because we were on the same WiFi network (?). She had never used my computer, let alone logged in to her Spotify account on it.

I'm still not sure how or why it happened.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm may be wrong here, but isn't it the case, that Facebooks re-activates your account, as soon as you login with Facebook Connect on a 3rd-Party site?

I really hate that, but what if you're using something like _cough_ BangYourFriends _cough_ Spotify, deactivate your Facebook account and can't use Spotify anymore? Maybe you're a paying customer to Spotify? How do you cancel your membership if you can't login anymore?

To me this seems like a Big Communication Problem™ between the User and the App/Facebook. The Facebook API needs a functionality that says "Using a deactivated account for Facebook Connect re-activates your old account automatically".

I totally disagree on methods like this, but i seems plausible in that way.

</comment><comment><USER37> I somehow thought that apps could no longer 'login' to social network accounts using usernames/passwords, so that they would have to use OAuth instead? There should be a way that Facebook and Twitter would prevent an app from using login information in order to bypass the 'app authorization' dialog which is supposed to be shown to users to tell them what the app can do to their account.

<comment><USER38> You mean they can't do it from Terms of Service point of view? Because from a technical perspective there is nothing that could prevent an app or any other piece of software to login as you once you've passed your credentials (in this case username and password) to such app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is why no two services know me by exactly the same email address, and different passwords are used everywhere. If I want to share some of my information with your app I will do so deliberately, otherwise you are not getting anything. What's that you say? I can only sign-up via facebook? Well then fine, I guess that means I'll be living without what-ever you are hawking.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is pretty shameless, even for Facebook.

<comment><USER41> Except it's Spotify doing it, not Facebook...

<comment><USER42> Unless Spotify has some backdoor API with Facebook, it seems like a major oversight in the Facebook API that an (any?) app can re-register a deactivated account and give itself whatever permissions it wants.

Just because Spotify accidentally (or purposefully) took advantage of that hole doesn't mean it's not Facebook at fault here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> No, it's not phishing.

<comment><USER44> What would you call it? Asking for information for activity X and using it to do activity Y without your permission sounds exactly like phishing to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> To Summarize:

1\. using the same password for spotify and facebook is a dumb thing to do. don't do it.

2\. by entering an email address instead of a username means spotify will use facebook auth (it should be made more obvious to users).

3\. using facebook api to auth will re-enable your facebook account (apparently restoring photo's and friends lists).

4\. facebook adds spotify as an app and gives it access to your facebook account data without explicit permission.

</comment><comment><USER46> It should be noted that Spotify is directly integrated into Facebook

<https://www.facebook.com/music>

You have the ability to pause and play music from Facebook (which I doubt exists for any other music player with any sort of Facebook integration)

</comment><comment><USER47> I wanted to try spotify a while back but got stuck when it required a FB account.

Sounds like it's no longer required, but I suppose I still don't trust them enough to try their service.

<comment><USER48> You can signup with an email address , but the option is hidden quite low in the signup page.

Best way to avoid this sort of stuff is just to sign up to spotify with throwaway email.

I have found that it's worth buying a domain name and just tying it to a VPS with SMTP installed (or using a third part service that offers unlimited addresses). That way you can just generate throwaway email addresses as you need them.

<comment><USER17> You can also use Mailinator[0] and their many other domains for throwaway email addresses. In fact, you can point your MX records to mail.mailinator.com for a custom domain without running a VPS.[1]

[0] <http://www.mailinator.com/> [1] [http://mailinator.blogspot.com/2008/01/your-own-private- mail...](http://mailinator.blogspot.com/2008/01/your-own-private- mailinator.html)

<comment><USER48> True, but those services are quite limited and not that secure in that anybody who knows the email address can login to your account.

<comment><USER49> Not necessarily. They also give you a "gibberish" address to the account. So if I use "foobar" as my mailbox on mailinator, they will list an address like _M8R-wk43th@mailinator too_ , that does _not_ let people log in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Did anyone else read this and then scroll to the top only to realize they'd been reading and comprehending german the entire time and then suddenly forgot it?

I did. :/

<comment><USER51> I actually hadn't scrolled up. I had to revisit the page to understand what you were talking about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> It's funny though that Facebook frequently asks you for your password to your e-mail account.

For very similar kind of thing.

</comment><comment><USER53> Spotify up on the front page of HN 2 days in a row now..and for all the wrong reasons. Hah

</comment><comment><USER54> That is why I always use different password for different services.

</comment><comment><USER55> Use separate passwords. This is Spotify's screwup as much as Facebook's. I noticed the same thing (because I use separate passwords) and was able to avoid this. Stupid Spotify. That's why I run my own Subsonic server. No uploading, nobody else's limits, etc.</comment>


The iPad2 smart cover is just plain dumb  - <AUTHOR> http://theorangeview.net/2011/04/the-ipad2-smart-cover-is-just-plain-dumb/ <comment><USER2> Why do you need a case for protecting the back? The important thing to protect is the glass, the back is irrelevant as far as actual use of the iPad is concerned.

If you care about scratches on the back a cover is not for you but don't pretend for one second like there is no difference in severity between scratches on the back and on the front.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a camera on the back!

<comment><USER2> There is a useless camera on the back. The camera is not what the iPad is about. It's at any rate a lot less important than the glass.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Does anybody else have any data points on this? I particularly liked the look of the poly covers from a colour perspective (use of colour is a key part of my business branding), but form can't win out over function.</comment>


Foursquare vs. Gowalla: Who's Winning the Geolocation War? [INFOGRAPHIC] - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2010/04/22/foursquare-gowalla-infographi/

<comment><USER2> So now the success of a company is measured by the number of "mentions" on social networks?</comment>


Ask HN: Should I just program or should I continue to go for engineering? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN.
I'm having a bit of a hard time. Since Aug 2015 I've been studying to get a bachelors in computer science. The first year was a base technical year to get my math skills up to par and since august this year I've been enrolled in a program over at KTH in stockholm, Sweden.
During this time I've been going at it quite hard. Around 40h of school and 16h of work each week (i have a contract with a swedish start up). It's been working out fine but I'm starting to grow frustrated with this path. I started studying to ensure a safe future. I have by no means any hard time finding work and I've been doing things for major ad agencies and some major brands (nike, samsung, wwf, mentos). I just thought I needed a bachelor to be safe in the future.
Now I've just been at websummit in portugal and I've just missed a weeks worth of studies but I can already feel how much I need to do this week to get everything done. Quite frankly I'm sick of the workload. My courses only partially connect with what I want to work with (developer) and the stress is hard to motivate.
How much of a difference does a bachelors in computer science really make? Is it really bad for me not to go through with this? <comment><USER2> Degrees don't guarantee anything. People hire based on what you can do and how well they get along with you. I think it's more important that you know what kind of work you want to do and then learn everything about it. Deep understanding of a marketable skill (networking, SQL, design, system software, containers, product development, etc) is very valuable. And universities don't have a monopoly on knowledge. You can work through all the textbooks and talk to engineers doing hard things without stepping foot in a school.

Having said that, schools are good at helping you navigate an endless body of knowledge. They have knowledgeable people to answer your questions and systems in place to verify your learning. Unfortunately, in many cases, you won't be interested in what you're learning until you understand the benefits in the real world. From personal experience, I was never interested in networking and databases until I had to build a back-end server for work (16 years after graduation). Now, I wish I had taken those classes or paid more attention because it would really help now. And I don't always have the discipline and energy to work through a textbook or open courseware now that I'm full-time employed and married.

Since you are already doing work you like, I would probably put more time into work and either go part time at school or suspend my enrollment for a year or two. After a couple years (or decades) you will probably figure out what you want out of school and be in a better place to take advantage of what a formal education has to offer. Never be afraid to put off school. It will always be there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply man. Your answer really solidifies my decision.</comment></comment>


Open products. How can we open-source consumer products? Why should we? - <AUTHOR> http://thechangelog.com/open-products/

<comment><USER2> Growl a famous Mac open source product selling being sold on the Apple AppStore.</comment>


EU Police Push for Pan-European Facial Recognition Network - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2020/02/21/eu-facial-recognition-database/ <comment><USER2> Weird, just 18 days ago this was posted:

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/european-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/european- parliament-insists-it-will-not-use-facial-recognition-tech)

HN thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22254864](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22254864)

Did something else get leaked?</comment>


Ask HN: Redis... but not in-memory? - <AUTHOR>

I've grown to love redis quite a lot. Its data types are relatively easily understood, yet combinations thereof can be quite powerful. I would love to design an application using Redis' data-structure paradigms, yet I am concerned about limits regarding memory usage. Surely I could, at some interval, dump data to some other on-disk data store. Two questions then:<p>(1) what would be a good on-disk alternative data store?<p>(2) are there any alternatives to redis that are performant, yet have similar data models?<p>Of course, there is the VM route. But as the redis documentation itself says, "An important concept to take in mind is that Redis is not able to swap the keys, so if your memory problems are related to the fact you have too much keys with very small values, VM is not the solution." <comment><USER2> I was recently hit by a service running Redis exceeding RAM for the first time. I looked around and found two compatible alternatives:

[https://github.com/mpalmer/redis/tree/nds-2.6](https://github.com/mpalmer/redis/tree/nds-2.6)

[https://github.com/ideawu/ssdb](https://github.com/ideawu/ssdb)

Beyond that I realized I only used get/set in my applications so I used a perl module that understands the Redis protocol and wrapped it up as a network service:

[https://github.com/skx/predis](https://github.com/skx/predis)

In terms of speed, writing the data to a local SQLite instance, it averages 3-4 times slower than native redis. I'm happy enough with that, although obviously I'm sure that some other projects wouldn't be.

I realize this doesn't directly address your main questions but as it is still fresh in my mind I hope it was slightly useful.

</comment><comment><USER3> From what I know, Redis's virtual memory mode isn't bad at all. Odds are that unless you have an absurd amount of keys or have very little RAM, Redis will likely be able to fit all of the keys into memory. To help with this, use short key names, and use collection data types (so one key may be able to hold hundreds or thousands of values).

I'd say experiment with Redis, with actual testing, before looking at an alternative solution. You can set a maximum memory limit in Redis's config and see what performance is like. You can also have it prune entries once the memory limit is reached.

At the scale at which Redis stores data, RAM is pretty cheap.

</comment><comment><USER4> I mean, nothing is really going to be as performant as Redis if you put it on disk.

The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head is MongoDB. Mongo will combine with on disk and in-memory storage. But you can do pretty much all the same things within mongo, just slower. It might not be that huge of a difference in performance depending on exactly what your doing of course. But if you're doing something in Redis that is, say, doing 100k+ ops/sec, you're highly unlikely to get that in mongo.

</comment><comment><USER5> How much of the Redis API do you rely on? You could write a client library for say any of a dozen data stores that mimics the redis API. Disclaimer: I've only used redis for small side projects, and I'm sure some of the in-memory data structures would be difficult to replicated on disk while maintaining performance.

I use redis mostly for stream processing, keeping the latest few gigs of data in memory while streaming the old data to mongo for archiving.</comment>


StartupStories.tv Videos of Recent Lean Startup Conference (MI) Speakers - <AUTHOR> http://startupstories.tv/tag/leanstartupmi/

<comment><USER2> It was a great conference, way to catch up with some great speakers!</comment>


Ask HN: What did you have to unlearn after leaving a large corp?  - <AUTHOR>

As someone who's currently working for a software giant and is planning to move into the world of startups as soon as the time is right, I'm concerned that many unfortunate habits that have been ingrained in my head over the years will haunt me for a while.
I've read several times on these very pages that folks coming from large orgs tend to be overly conservative, not think outside the box enough, not take risks and instead worry about covering their asses.
As I haven't made the transition yet, I cannot speak from experience, but I'd love to know what such traits you were able to identify in yourself when you joined a leaner business and how you dealt with it.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> 1\. Stop asking permission. Permission in BigCo is usually asked in the form of documents that "plan" what you want to do in 3 months. Don't do that.

2\. Stop thinking that documents are "progress". Most stuff that is rewarded in BigCo isn't actually progress. Almost all documentation. Most of the stuff you tend to spend your time on.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good answer, thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Learning to just do something when it resonates with you. Stop asking permissions, stop asking ahead of time what the outcomes will be. Treating the market as a lab, of sorts, rather than trying to predict results ahead of time.

</comment><comment><USER4> 1- Explaining how it can make profit. well making profit is top priority of every company, but at least explaining that a lot is not really feeling good _to us_ tho :)

2- Reporting progress of something you work on.

3- Confidential data. If you're gonna work/found startup, you probably should forget this and be openminded. I saw some who really don't want to talk about (even) brief blurb of idea.

</comment><comment><USER5> A big corp environment can condition you into being a passive, reactive person. IMHO, this can be one of the hardest things to "unlearn".

This might be considered to be akin to the "just a number" paradigm.

<comment><AUTHOR> Would you elaborate on that point please? Do you mean that a large organization teaches you not to be proactive and wait for instructions to be passed down to you?

<comment><USER5> For example, you're young and both want to solve problems and make an impression. You've heard and read comments and advice about "initiative".

But, it turns our that your own immediate management is heavily invested in the "status quo". A few things may happen:

1) They outright don't understand your initiative, even in the face of the proof of the model you may have up and running. "That can't work." "No one will want it." "Why would you do that?" It can be rather disheartening to invest yourself in such work, only to be criticized for "wasting" your time, resources, etc. You can literally show someone that it works as you describe, with all the affected parties liking it, and still be shot down.

More likely, you may have some good ideas for improvements, but not the actual implementations. When you suggest these, you get a similar reaction.

2) They feel threatened by your work. They've cornered their own little domain within the organization, and your improvements threaten that model. If all the reporting becomes electronic, how will the reporting managers justify their headcount, or their own position? Maybe the organization would find value in the transition; however, _your_ interface to the organization is a manager who sees this innovation as a threat.

3) You know of a better tool, but you "can't use it". Your management has decided on [crap product] from [other big co.] and you _will use it_. You spend 8 hours doing what should take you 4, or less. Your management does not care. (All the more so if they signed off on [$big-budget] for [crap product].) If you are lucky, you may be able to install or develop and use an alternative "unofficially". Management becomes a mockery as the effective people count such "under the radar" workarounds as some of their larger successes. (At least this scenario allows for individual initiative.)

4) You are forced to make decisions that you feel compromise your own ethics. E.g. the compensation system is not tallying credit correctly. You could fix it, but you are told this is "not a priority". You know people are not being compensated correctly -- albeit within rules that are in practice already interpreted loosely and somewhat at management's discretion -- but your management is telling you to ignore this.

5) You see co-workers slacking for hours each day. In brief, "social" results win over actual productive results, in your corner of the organization. Perhaps adding to this, you see other areas of the organization struggling to make up for this deficiency. But the reporting structure keeps your area isolated from these downstream effects.

Spend a few years under these conditions, and you can become very cynical. The only real solution is to get out. (Some people successfully climb in the organization; others leave.) But if you start to see the world in these terms, the job hunt itself can become difficult to engage in.

I guess a quippy way to sum it up is, "You are what you eat." And that includes your work.

From others' experiences, I gather not all Big Co. environments are this way. Often, it seems in good part a matter of which team you are on -- which domain within the larger organization. But, the Dilbert cartoon strip has been successful for a reason.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can definitely relate to the cynicism, thanks for the extensive response. The speed of progress even within small teams is pitiful. Moving away from ancient tools, especially when they were written by the company itself, is incredibly painful and slow, wasting days of engineering time every months.

Reminds me of my company where we spend hundreds of hour maintaining the service's docs as Word docs files checked into a proprietary source control system, instead of relying on a wiki or anything else easily editable on the fly. God forbid someone makes a modification to the document you were editing before you submit, you'll be copying and pasting between the two docs for ever.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: I'm not happy, should I resign from my company or power through? - <AUTHOR> I'm a full stack engineer working as a frontend developer at a tech company and I am bored out of my mind working here. This is my first full-time position and I've completed a year at this company now. I'm in my mid-twenties and I want to try starting a tech company, but I barely get any time during the day to get anything done.
Everyday is just office, gym, shower, dinner, 1-2 hour gap, sleep. I try to get some side project work done during that 1-2 hour gap but I'm exhausted by that time so I don't get much done. My parents said that they would be willing to put me up, if I decided to resign and tried to start a company.
But I know that, that support will not last very long, because all our friends and family members will judge me and my parents for spoiling me like that. They will say that I'm just slacking off and tricking my parents into thinking that I'm trying to start a company, so eventually either I or my parents will get too frustrated with me living like that and I'll have to start looking for a job again. My guess is this will last about 1-2 years.
My therapist says I should quit if its making me miserable or change my point of view towards my work. My father, on the other hand, is of the opinion that I should power through the misery and continue working on the startup on the side, but at the same time he is willing to support me no matter what path I choose. He has a point plus my skills have improved a lot, but I get very depressed thinking that I would be throwing away my youth for job security instead of using to do something more ambitious. I have no dependents and a decent amount of savings.
I was also considering improving my skillset during the time I would be staying with my parents, like doing an online bootcamp like Lambda school.
What should I do HN community? Am I being stupid and selfish for considering this? Should I take a leap of faith and resign and see what happens or should I power through this path that makes me miserable? <comment><USER2> Working a full time job is IMO a crucial life skill.

If you give up now, and your startup fails (as most do), will you be able to bring yourself to go back to the 9-to-5 life? If you can't learn to live that life, you're likely to find yourself in a very difficult position 5-10 years down the line. Moreover, having only one year of conventional employment under your belt will serve as a red flag to many future employers.

Before you give up on conventional jobs entirely, consider the possibility that what's causing you distress isn't working full time but rather the particular environment you're working in. Finding a new job should be much easier now with a year of employment than it is with zero experience. If you truly enjoy software development, you should be able to find a job where the hours spent at work will be engaging and enjoyable.

That feeling at the end of the day when you've spent all day at work and you're tired? That's normal. Have you tried getting up earlier and working on your side project in the mornings before work, when you're more energetic?

</comment><comment><USER3> You have a number of options but before taking the leap I would consider a few things. 1) Exactly why are you bored? 2) Will starting your own business really be that much different to what you are doing now? 3) Perhaps there is a third option - contracting or part-time work or staying another year or two, saving hard, and then taking a gap year. That would give you some downtime to work on your business. You might find, with a gap year for example, that you don't actually like working on your own business.

My own thoughts - almost any job can be made more interesting. You don't believe it now but it my well be your mindset that needs to change, not your job.

</comment><comment><USER4> Your life will get less hectic as you will get used to the pace of it, and that 1-2h gap will be productive again, in about 3y or so. That's how people with kids find time for side projects.

That said, if you hate your job, change jobs. Right now no programmer should put up with being "bored out of [their] mind". Everybody's hiring. Your therapist is right. If you're not quitting you have to find it in you to be mostly engaged at work, otherwise it will destroy you from the inside.

If you like your job, but think not doing a startup is throwing away your youth, consider you definitely don't have to be young to be an entrepreneur, and plenty of people's first successful startups are when they're 45. It's not a race. Don't do a startup unless you have an idea, and you really want to pursue it.

</comment><comment><USER5> 1\. When was the last time you went on a 1 to 2 week vacation away from everything, with no work (job and side project) on your mind?

I was feeling similarly to you and I took a 2 day vacation and that was enough to give me enough will power and motivation for a few months. I'm due for another vacation now.

2\. What do you spend your 1 to 2 hours on each day? You should be prioritizing your time carefully. You should stay part time on your side project until you have 12 months of expenses saved up.

This is what I do. I have a notebook where I write the 5 tasks I'll focus on for the day. Then I'll take a look at all of them and decide which task is the fastest to complete or which task will create the most impact, then I come up with the first thing I have to do to finish that task. I then write that tiny task down on a whiteboard and I keep working until I get that tiny task done. I keep this process up until I finish my five major tasks.

For example, your task could be close a sale, so instead you write down upgrade linkedin to pro account, once you finish that, you write down identify one potential client, once you're done with that, ...

Another example, build my authorization library is the task so the first tiny task you write on the white board is identify one authorization library on ruby toolbox.

3\. 10 years ago I felt my actions were driven by what others thought of me. Now, I don't even remember who those others were or what they thought of me.

What i'm trying to say is it won't matter in the future what others think of you.

4\. Surround yourself with people that believe in you and with people that inspire you. Surround yourself with people that you respect and want to emulate or become.

This is what will keep you going. This is what will make you work hard and this is where you'll find your next co-founder.

Where is this place? It could be a co-working space, a few great meetups, a hackathon or two, demo days of accelerator programs, college classes that you sit in or it could be soccer intramurals.

5\. Get yourself a mentor. Find people on linkedin that you want to be like and reach out to them. Tell them that you're at a crossroad with your startup and that you need advice.

the more meetings you take, the more people you meet, the more ideas you create, the more vision you have, the more opportunities that you get.

</comment><comment> who-knows95 hello,

before quiting you should have a idea of what you are going to do; if you are starting a company, what is it you would be selling?

i understand what you mean by the daily grind, it might be that the work you are doing is not challenging enough, or you aren't learning anything new and this daily wear is getting to you.

depending on the company, you could ask for a shift to part time work, working only 4 days a week would give you a weekday to focus on your side work?

either way, i wish you the best.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, thanks for taking the time to answer. A part time job was something I definitely considered, but I was told that they're not very useful and it's better to go all into startups or all into a full time career path. Nonetheless, I'm actively considering this, but out of curiosity (and a little fear) are part time jobs looked down on by hiring managers in the tech industry?

<comment> who-knows95 I'm sorry, i don't know if that is the case. i can find job listings for part time, but it might be something you workout with the employer during the interview phase.

kind regards

<comment><AUTHOR> Understood, thank you :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who is hiring enginnering sales guys? - <AUTHOR>

This is a strange question, I've been fairly successful in various technical / leadership positions in the past (CEO, CTO, Co-Founder, Senior Developer, Developer etc.).  I would really like to try a highly technical sales position next, is anyone looking? <comment><USER2> what kind of stuff would u like to sell?</comment>


Panel: Systems Programming in 2014 and Beyond [video] - <AUTHOR> http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/Panel-Systems-Programming-Languages-in-2014-and-Beyond

<comment><USER2> Does anyone have a TL;DR of topics discussed in the panel?

<comment><USER3> You can get a good idea by reading the discussion over at reddit: [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/278twt/panel_sy...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/278twt/panel_systems_programming_in_2014_and_beyond/)

<comment><USER2> thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: A VC stole my idea. Should I do something about it? - <AUTHOR>

I've sat on this for a few months. I feel like I should get the word out so people stop going to these guys for money. I'm not going to post details of the situation just yet. I was given the "we don't sign NDAs" speech so there was zero protection both ways, but I wouldn't want to go around badmouthing a firm without thinking hard about it.
Their implementation of my business is faring terribly (or the idea was just crap). Also, none of their investments have done well (it's a new firm), and they've turned away a few entrepreneurs that have done great things.
Overall, I'm relieved I didn't take such an unethical person on as a board member. Should I just leave this to karma? I consider it punishment enough that the MP seems to be less than great at choosing investments. What would you do? If you'd publish something, would you be afraid of getting sued or publicly attacked? That's my main hesitation.
Thanks in advance for any advice. <comment><USER2> Lucky you! Somebody made mistakes for you, tested your model for you, showed you what not to do, and gave you proof that your idea is awesome - all at their own expense!

On the other hand, why'd they prefer someone else do it but not you, when both parties costed them roughly the same?

<comment><AUTHOR> According to a friend who works with them, the MP is the "entrepreneur" who received funding though he brought in others to run it. He earned cuts on both ends, essentially. Yes, very shady.

<comment><USER2> So why are you refraining from pointing them out? Say on day x I went in with my idea y, and nect thing I know this happens. You have evidence that you had this idea before day x, while they don't (in case a journalist inquires).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Well there are a few questions here. First of all, how do you know the VC didn't just reject you because someone had brought him the idea first?

I have never heard of VCs taking an idea and convincing some programmers to develop it.

Perhaps you should speak to him about it. If they are failing, send a reasonably nice letter asking to work on the project as there are many similarities and you think you could really benefit the project. You would have to swallow your pride, but you might get funding...

<comment><AUTHOR> He named the business with the same name I pitched.

<comment><USER3> Hmm, well my last statement still stands. If you believe in the project and want to work on it AND the VC group is faltering, then perhaps you should contact them.

Or it was not a viable business in the first place and that is why they are failing (in which case that's karma and you can move on).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well, the VC really did steal your idea. And yes, ideas are worth something.

Talk to a lawyer, find out the statute of limitations, document everything, then make a note to keep an eye on them. If it seems like they come into some money, go for a settlement or a judgement.

</comment><comment><USER5> It probably won't hurt you at all. Copying rarely works.

So the only thing you could help other people avoid is something that didn't even hurt you.

Probably not worth the effort and stress worrying about. Put that energy into kicking their ass in the marketplace.

</comment><comment><USER6> Hey,maybe you're onto something if you had an idea worth stealing!

Now forget them and build it the way you think it should be done.

</comment><comment><USER7> Chances are you were the 4th guy to pitch the same idea to them. I worked briefly as a VC and you would be surprised by the number of times you saw roughly the same business plan come in.

If you're going after a big market, you're going to have competitors. No competitors, no market.

<comment><USER8> "No competitors, no market."

Let's see: Start with Xerox with their first good machine, about 1962. Due to the difficulty of making that technology work and their patents, they had no 'competition' and no good 'substitutes' except, say, carbon paper. "Market"? It was HUGE.

I know someone who had a heart attack and got a stent installed in an artery. Blood wants to clot at the stent, So there's a drug Plavix that helps a lot, really, is essential. Plavix goes for about $7 a day, and there is NO 'competition' or substitute except a clot and death.

Here's the recipe: (1) Find a problem where a much better solution will be very valuable. (2) Do some original R&D to get a much better solution difficult to duplicate or equal. (3) Market the solution with high margins and carry the money to the bank. Difficult to duplicate or equal? One protection is a patent but there can be others, say, some IT software locked up in a server farm. Is such software possible? Actually, yes. Exhibit A: Xerox. Exhibit B: Plavix.

Done.</comment></comment>


Blog for topics relevant to someone new to free software development - <AUTHOR> http://yakking.branchable.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Yakking has now been publishing weekly for just over two years, with 103 posts.

</comment><comment><USER2> [http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/](http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/)</comment>


Corporate Monopoly in America - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-05/here-s-how-they-play-monopoly-in-america-and-who-wins <comment><USER2> The challenge in a globalized economy is that what may be a monopoly in the US is likely competing against several global corporations within a given industry. Leveraging anti-trust regulations against that dominant US player may limit its ability to compete with global rivals, leading to the demise of that company and the dominance of foreign corporations in the industry.

In the past, when the US economy was more isolated and the level of global competition was much lower than it is now, breaking up monopoly corps in the US wouldn't leave the resultant child corps vulnerable to foreign competition.

<comment><AUTHOR> While that might be true for some organizations, it is not 'the' issue. Most mergers and consolidations that have the potential to be most damaging aren't necessarily global businesses. e.g ISP's consolidating, Health Insurance companies in the US.

And I'd argue even companies that have a global presence, example US airlines, might benefit from consolidation but it does harm their local market, in this case US domestic travellers since they inevitably end up paying more due to a lack of choice.

<comment><USER3> Honest question: How can we help companies here "playing by the rules" in a global field against (in your airport example) entities like heavily subsidized UAE airlines, when they are essentially capped in some ways like this?

Now my "opinion" section WRT the above: If preventing consolidation and economies of scale forces airlines to other avenues such as sardine can planes, deceptive ticketing (economy levels that just take away things at the same price to push upselling), and govt protectionism (potentially exemplified by the laptop bans to some arab countries recently), is this the route we want to take? I don't have fantastic suggestions outside of "treat air as part of a US infrastructure which drastically needs govt. investment" so thus my question 1. (since I neither see my pipe-dream of infra commitment coming to pass, nor am completely sold on routing tax dollars to private corps, even if it would be an improvement on where they're being routed now. Perhaps build/maintain airports and infrastructure and be a "common carrier" of hardware that the companies simply rent? (I recognize states do this now, but I also know the level of infrastructure funding my state has available, and even intact roads are a fantasy.))

<comment><AUTHOR> Slightly tangential but, to your point about UAE airlines this is a good read to clear up some stuff coming from US airlines: Link: [http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/03/22/campaign-a...](http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/03/22/campaign- against-gulf-carriers/)

I'll admit there is no perfect solution to issues like these. We mostly don't want government to pick winners or losers, but being completely free market based and no monopoly protections is great for companies since it is a race to the bottom line and they get to go to town on consumers with an array of fees in the airline context. I don't think preventing consolidation however results in any of those things that you mentioned, airlines are free to do what they want and what the market will let them. I'd recommend reading that article since I feel like we are not on the same page when we talk about 'playing by the rules' airlines. +1 on infra investment though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


TC Heartland case taken by Supreme Court (to abolish Eastern Texas patent venue) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121416zr_4h71.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Background here:

[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/16-341-...](http://www.scotusblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/16-341-cert-petition.pdf)

The patent venue law (28 USC §1400) reads: "Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."

The Supreme Court has found that it means what it says.

But the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the Supreme Court decision and allowed Eastern Texas to take any case in the country starting in 1990.

The current case asks the Supreme Court to assert primacy and overturn the CAFC. And The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and will now hear the case.

This would be the biggest strike against trolls in decades. It would be bigger than Alice.</comment>


Harvard Law Review Freaks Out, Sends Threat Over Public Domain Citation Guide - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151224/23582933173/harvard-law-review-freaks-out-sends-christmas-eve-threat-level-over-public-domain-citation-guide.shtml <comment><USER2> Go get'em Carl. I find the whole "lets make money off public documents" thing really offensive.</comment>


WTF is technical debt? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@adamberlinskyschine/wtf-is-technical-debt-b9e9d5f89d9 <comment><USER2> Sometimes throwing money at the problem isn't the answer.

There's a 4th option invest in people so they can function as productive members of society. Am I saying that some day UBI might be needed...sure once computers are doing all the jobs. But, until then let's help those that need it most first.

Does a child with cancer deserve more cash help than an opioid addicted violent felon? yes. Am I morally judging them? yes. Does opioid addicted violent felon need help? yes. But direct cash assistance isn't what they need!</comment>


iOS 14: Keychain password manager to gain new 1Password-like features - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2020/04/01/ios-14-keychain-password-features/ <comment><USER2> iCloud Keychain definitely needs an update as it's kind of ancient in terms of user experience compared to a modern password manager. And of course, the keychain in macOS was a very forward thinking feature of the operating system.

On the other hand, you'd be bonkers to choose a platform-locked password manager in 2020.

<comment><USER3> Over the last year or so I've migrated from LastPass to Keychain and I'm glad I have. The integration is far smoother to the point where I don't have to think of it at all. Having said that, I have only just recently gone all in on the Apple ecosystem, but I definitely don't see myself leaving.

<comment><USER2> Try 1Password or maybe Bitwarden. I've only used the former, and I've also used LastPass.

LastPass is so awful that I'm not surprised the keychain is a better experience.

1Password is a huge breath of fresh air compared to LastPass and feels much more native.

Learning the keyboard shortcut to fill passwords is also key to your enjoyment (command backslash).

I still have a gaming PC on Windows and I wouldn't rule out Linux or Android in the future as I think it's important to evaluate all solutions available before making a purchase, so I think the idea of never having to migrate passwords is an important one. My own opinion, of course.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: iOS app portfolio, is it legal/ethical?  - <AUTHOR>

I have built many iOS applications as a full time employee of a development company. I am going freelance this year. Is it legal and/or ethical for me to include links to these apps in the AppStore as part of an online portfolio. If not, what about screen shots? What about in a private meeting? Thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> It would be better that you were able to get permission from your soon-to-be former employer, but it seems like this is something that they or you are not willing to discuss. You are not asserting any ownership rights over the apps; you are simply stating the facts. As these are (presumably) App Store downloadable - there is no case that these are proprietary. The ideal situation is that you leave on good terms with your soon-to-be former company but I think it is perfectly ethical to state which apps you worked on, as long as you clarify that you only did part of the app (assuming you did). It's not like you are stealing their entire Git repository. As for legal, think of yourself as a producer or director. What company would have the right mind to sue someone for claiming that they worked on a film. So this is not legal advice but logical: it should be fine to tell people online what you worked on and be sure to include a backlink. The bigger problem for you in my mind is them asserting ownership of what apps you may have started while still working their, on your own time.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you provide the link, accurately describe your role in their delivery and to clearly list the company which developed them (Font at least as big as the one describing your role).

As you develop your own works, pull this stuff out.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does your employer advertise which apps they've built? Some companies build apps for clients with an agreement to keep the identity of the dev shop private. If your employer does this, neither the clients or your employer will be happy with you telling the world what they agreed to keep confidential.

<comment><USER2> Good point. If this is the case (not that likely as how would an iOS dev shop market itself if it could not market itself?!), then either a) paint broad outlines of the specific coding you did (e.g. Live updating and synchronization of CoreData store over carrier pigeon network) or b) start building your own apps and marketing them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think as long as you correctly state that it was project at company you were an employee at, and no NDA's it should be fine.</comment>


How to Lay Off Your Developers the Right Way  - <AUTHOR> http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/web/620559733.html <comment><AUTHOR> It wasn't just THAT he did this or WHAT he said. It was HOW he said it. I feel like I practically know these 3 people already.

You can't make this stuff up.

</comment><comment><USER2> I don't understand why managers don't do stuff like this more often. Good people are always in demand, and if you must get rid of people, then do it in a way that they'd want to work for you again in a heartbeat.

And not to mention, someone should hire the guy who just posted that listing to Craigslist. Really. That's the kind of guy that you want to wrangle your engineers. (Code Monkey and Geek comments aside).

<comment><USER3> "I don't understand why managers don't do stuff like this more often."

Because it requires insight and to put in extra effort -what is commonly known as traveling the extra mile- which most people simply lack.

<comment> a-priori It requires -- dare I say it? -- _humanity_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is great recruitment tactics if he ever needs to hire in the future. The word of something like that gets around.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've seen people get culled with a tap on the shoulder and a littany of basic platitudes. Seeing something like this really makes me believe in the decency of people.

<comment><USER6> My friends who are managers say it is one of the most difficult things to do as a manager - tell someone they are being let go. "You're not a manager until you have to do that"

Some managers disassociate with the actual task - by acting very remote

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Commendable as this is: it's of course a lot easier for employees you think highly of than employees you dislike or with whom things simply didn't work out:

"I'm letting go Bob. Bob is an ok coder, but it didn't really work out with him. Bob is more interested in trying out new tricks than in writing solid, maintainable code. He's also arrogant and won't listen to a word you say, even when you're trying to tell him what the specifications for the project are."

Who'd want to do that?

</comment><comment><USER8> Wow, this gives me a lot of hope in humanity. I'd be mad/sad if I was fired, but knowing that people are looking out for your ass once they drop you really says something about the integrity of that person.

Kudos to the boss, and I hope the ex-employees find some work. :D

</comment><comment><USER9> I had a manager write a recommendation for me once. It was an embarrassing mischaracterization, and I never used it, since I couldn't live up to it.

On the other hand, at least I didn't get called a "geek" or "code monkey".

</comment><comment><USER10> It's certainly a lot better than the result I got when I was told by KeyBank that I was being laid off: "Here's your HR rep. She will work with you to help you find placement within another department."

Little did I know that "She will work with you," means she will never contact you and thus you will be forced to move halfway across the country to find a job that is nowhere near what you used to do. She sure did manage to help me find work in another department, albeit at a different company.

</comment><comment><USER11> It would be interesting to see if these guys actually get work from this. It's a nice thing to do, but if you're hiring people you still are going to need a lot more information than this.

<comment><USER12> As someone who is trying to hire a really good Perl programmer right now, I can almost guarantee you they will (if they're actually as good as the ad promises). I'm more worried about competing with the other offers I expect they'll get.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "they may not survive a long commute"

That makes them sound VERY old and frail. Other than that, nice touch.

<comment><USER14> Coding, telecommute, 9AM start. Choose any two.

<comment><USER15> Wait a sec... Telecommute makes _possible_ the 9AM start...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I agree: developing a strong relationship with coworkers in every direction is highly important, and this is a stunning example!

</comment><comment><USER17> That's awesome. I live near Herndon VA and if I was hiring I'd definitely give those guys a look.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is pretty schmaltzy. Nice, if true.

</comment><comment><USER19> If a startup is thinking about laying its developpers, it should do it fast. If you're going to make mistakes, make it as fast as possible. However, a startup should always prevent mistakes. Don't hire developers, software engineers, scientists, CEOs, CTOs unless you're sure the person is an evangelist of your business. An early startup should never hire to fire.</comment>


Ask HN: Cryptocurrencies - <AUTHOR> I am backend web developer by trade and I am sure like many of you have been hearing more and more about cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. I did research about the underlying Blockchain technology and after some perseverance I think I understand the basics.
However I am struggling to understand the economics of these cryptocurrencies and I am hoping the HN crowd can shed some light on it by answering a few questions.
The original Bitcoin paper was titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" however from talking to people who have Bitcoin they don't want to use it as cash because the price is too volatile instead they are basically buying Bitcoin as an investment. Is this a narrow view and are people around the world using it as a cash system? If people are not using it as cash is this even a problem but then what is driving its value?
To me it looks as if the Bitcoin system is wasting vast amounts of computing power and in turn electricity. Is this actually scalable or are we going to reach a point where it no longer becomes profitable to actually mine Bitcoins and as a result the network dies.
Etherium is another cryptocurrency that seem interesting due to it's smart contract system. However is anyone doing anything useful for the end user with these smart contracts? I had a look at https://dapps.ethercasts.com/ and I struggle to see the value of it from looking at the list.
I apologize for coming over quite negative but I feel as if I am missing something and it is difficult to find balanced arguments when looking at cryptocurrencies. It seems to either be the "next big thing" or simply a bubble. <comment><USER2> Here is my take: Crypto (pick your favorite hash) is used more as a study of supply/demand than a currency. I considered mining and buying a bunch of ANT machines. I also think that the lure of bitcoin was the fact that there would only be X number of Bitcoin to mine leading to an appreciation of the coin because of less supply. But now there are many crypto currencies with more total supply than the current money supply. I eagerly await to see what happens after the last bitcoin is mined.</comment>


Invasive species could increase the risk of disease for humans - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/07/climate/everglades-pythons-mosquitoes.html?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur <comment><USER2> In this article opossums have been all but wiped out by snakes.

In my country we are overrun by possums (I guess they are close relatives of opossums), originally introduced for their fur, but now eating everything green in sight.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is remarcable the over-cautious use of the word 'could' here.

There are tens of examples, from Achatina fulica to Aedes albopictus. Biologists study this since hundreds of years (and nobody listens).

</comment><comment><USER4> Is it so hard to just put microchips that identify the owner into these animals?

Just imagine how easy it would be to punish the citizens releasing animals into the wilderness if micro-chipping was mandatory. No need to ban imports, nothing.

<comment><USER3> Micro chips can be removed, and some people just don't care the small probability to face a fine (that will not cover the 0,00001% of the economical damage caused in any case)</comment></comment>


Plastic Rain Is the New Acid Rain - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/plastic-rain-is-the-new-acid-rain/ <comment><USER2> "After collecting rainwater and air samples for 14 months, they calculated that over 1,000 metric tons of microplastic particles fall into 11 protected areas in the western US each year. That's the equivalent of over 120 million plastic water bottles. "We just did that for the area of protected areas in the West, which is only 6 percent of the total US area,"" "30 percent of the sample particles were microbeads, tiny synthetic spheres that the United States banned from beauty products in 2015."

"researchers .. speculate that the microbeads are coming from industrial paints and coatings. If these are sprayed, they could easily spew the microbeads into the atmosphere, "

"the stuff never truly goes away, it just gets shredded into smaller bits that disperse all over the world, perhaps spending many years cycling through different systems—air, land, and sea."</comment>


Ask HN: New Architecture for Legacy Spagetti - <AUTHOR> Lets say you have this legacy spagetti of 100s of services and different data sources and you want to start thinking about a better architecture as there is a need to expose a lot of this data via apis and get away from point to point integrations. Its different databases, datawarehouses, transports. Its a a state Where people hardly know where to find the different data and there is a lot of duplikation and inconsistency. What would be worth looking into going forward to slowly transition to a somewhat standard way of handling integrations and data management.
Is there any buzzwords that would make this easier.
My own thoughts would be an integration platform, some api management product, event-sourcing architecture... Perhaps Kafka or similar, graphql api.
There is no way of migration of data to to some master data format but is there ways to add a frontend on different databases eg postgresql external source and add graphql on postgres or does this sound crazy.
Is there data lake software, or graph databases that could load All this data in its own format and connect the dots or is the best still to leave it as it is and expose it via their own apis.
Any ideas are welcome. <comment><USER2> Step one: high-level acceptance tests. Does the system as a whole do what it should do from the end user perspective? Add your highest priority cases first: the functionality that if we it breaks, your business is at risk. Keep adding more cases.

As for many services, are these to separated out to help teams from stepping on each other? I firmly believe that if you have many teams running their own services, that each service should control its own data store, and any communication that does not need an immediate response should happen through a message bus of some sort. If the response is real time, a network call makes sense. However! If you have micro service hell and it is not for scaling teams, you might benefit from going back to fewer services doing more things with shared data stores (but well defined data boundaries and packages). If you have a tangled mess of services calling each other and services dependant on other services and cyclical dependencies, something is wrong. Dependencies should be one direction. If two services share many dependencies, it is worth asking if they should be combined to one service.

Is there an API gateway that allows one place for requests to go? That could help with the confusion of where to find data.

Whatever the desired architecture is, migrating to it requires refactoring and that requires tests. You need to be confident that a change does not break the system.

<comment><USER3> I'd add that an incremental approach is also important, determine the 20% that will give the biggest bang for the buck. Then the next 20%, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> With graphql, you could provide a unified access point and the resolvers can go to different backend data stores. This does depend on the consumer.

Someone will surely try to convince you of a data lake product. I would leave them separate and then migrate components as appropriate.

Kubernetes and Istio / service mesh, more so, are things to consider. Search for cloud native design patterns and the paper by Brendan Burns

</comment><comment><USER5> What your looking for is not new or revolutionary. It's just an abstraction. Read about the strangler pattern and it will get you pretty far.

<comment><AUTHOR> A lot of the current services and data will stay as is for now but new needs to be created on the basis of this mess. So one thing that would be of benefit is to create this uniform interface towards a lot of different things while adding access control, Security and such in a consistent manner. Graphql being one of the things Im looking at but also data virtualization solutions like denodo or Redhat and stuff like neo4j+Graphql seems interresting. On top of that we would consume and build new api and services in a more fixed schema. Adding api mgnt

Atleast its my initial thought that it would shorten the development cycle if all data could be found one place and acccessed the same way rather than now where people spend months just analyzing Where to find and connect to it. Hoping someone had experience with some of the techniques and Can say somehing thats more than marketing you read at a vendor site.</comment></comment>


What are 5 mistakes to avoid when using Redis? - <AUTHOR> https://www.quora.com/What-are-5-mistakes-to-avoid-when-using-Redis/answer/Danny-Ricciotti?__snids__=1297130840&__nsrc__=2&share=1 <comment><USER2> SO many shops just adopt Redis as a cache store after seeing the benchmarks and local tests. This needs some more attention. I have seen a few systems crash and burn from bad implementation of a caching layer.</comment>


Blind Return Oriented Programming [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.scs.stanford.edu/brop/bittau-brop.pdf

<comment><AUTHOR> The slides [1] and overview, with supplementary software [2], are also available online.

[1] [http://www.scs.stanford.edu/brop/bittau-brop- slides.pdf](http://www.scs.stanford.edu/brop/bittau-brop-slides.pdf)

[2] [http://www.scs.stanford.edu/brop/](http://www.scs.stanford.edu/brop/)

</comment><comment><USER2> An exceedingly clever and thorough bit of work!

Am i right in thinking that this would be stopped in its tracks by SafeStack: [https://github.com/llvm- mirror/llvm/commit/7ffec838a2b72e684...](https://github.com/llvm- mirror/llvm/commit/7ffec838a2b72e6841d9fb993b5fe6a45f3b2a90)

<comment><AUTHOR> I hadn't heard of SafeStack, but it sounds like very cool research. Thanks for sharing!

I'm by no means an expert on binary exploitation, so I don't feel qualified to answer your question. That being said, SafeStack sounds very similar to a fairly recent exploit mitigation technique known as heap partitioning, or heap isolation. My explanation wouldn't do the concept justice, but Google recently wrote a great article on how they're using the technique to eliminate some of the biggest causes of Flash 0day [1]. I don't know how effective the technique is in practice, but it seems to be in use by a few major browsers now, and it seems like Internet Explorer has been using it since June of last year [2].

[1] [http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2015/07/significant- fl...](http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2015/07/significant-flash- exploit-mitigations_16.html)

[2] [https://labs.mwrinfosecurity.com/blog/2014/06/20/isolated- he...](https://labs.mwrinfosecurity.com/blog/2014/06/20/isolated-heap-friends ---object-allocation-hardening-in-web-browsers/)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: About to launch a web app, am I missing anything? - <AUTHOR> I am in the final stages of building up a web application that I have been working on for some time. Like many of you with startups on HN, I would like to start with a paid and free level of access.<p>Since I will be accepting payments, do I need to file as a business / acquire a business license in my state? I want to make sure I am covered if anything goes wrong. I will obviously be using Stripe or another process company to handle all payments. Any tips on money collection would greatly be appreciated! <comment><USER3> I'm in the same situation. I'm very close to launching [http://pitcher.io](http://pitcher.io) ... with all the usual SaaS things - <USER2> tiers, free trial, maybe a free account level. I have thought long and hard about free accounts though. Here's roughly where I'm at:

1\. Are free accounts actually worth having? If your service offers enough value to the users that they'll invest time and energy using it then why won't they also invent a token amount of money? Even if it's just $10/year, that's going to be worthwhile for you if there are 5,000 accounts at that level.

2\. Will a fee really put people off signing up? Putting credit card in to the sign up process definitely will, so don't do that. But people will try software even knowing it's going to cost them eventually if the pain you're taking away is great enough. If you can afford to give them a free account, just give them a long term free trial instead. "3 months free" is effectively the same as a free account to someone trying a new app.

3\. Remember the popular saying "If you're not paying, you're the product." that people love to quote on HN when they're admonishing Facebook. It has an element of truth to it. If you're planning to make money from users by means other than direct payment, be upfront and honest about it. Tell them that they'll see adverts unless they hand over money. Tell them that you're mining their data. Tell them that you've invented a revolutionary new business model that makes money out of nothing. And tell me. :)

4\. Consider that if you don't have a free tier you won't need to subsidise your free users, so you might be able to lower prices. But also consider that the price you start with will be the highest you ever charge. Users don't like increases in prices. But you can always grandfather old price points in.

5\. Ultimately, until you launch, it's all speculation really. Just get it out there and get data to make proper decisions with.

I have no tips about money collection because I'm in the UK.

Actually I do: "Don't use Paypal."

<comment><AUTHOR> First, thank you for the thoughtful feedback. Second, pitcher.io looks great, it inspired me to think about some potential features.

I have spent the last two days doing some research and visiting lots of "paid" web applications and I came to the conclusion that maybe having a way for customers to try out the application without even having to sign up is a great way to gain traction. I am still considering a very limited "free" version but will for sure be focusing on the paid tiers even if they are relatively inexpensive upon release.

Oh yea, Stripe seems to be the way to go for my application.

Best of luck to you and pitcher.io!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1\. Yes form a limited liability company (I think a C-corp in Delaware. You should probably pay no more than 150-250 bucks but never done this outside UK)

2\. Be tax efficient / aware. In the UK certainly you are best off drawing the majority of income as dividend. Of salary. If you have a wife strongly consider having her own half the business and draw salary too - this however more applicable of you are a contractor

3\. Sensibly estimate a portion of your revenue as chafgebacks and related support costs - start at 10% and work down as you get enough real customers.

4\. If this is B2C ask is it a good idea? It's a tough market

5\. If it is B2B I strongly suggest not doing a free plan - in fact start at something like 49.99/ mth and discount at rly and yearly. Basically you want people who have both money a d are serious enough that they will not email you to fix things the very second they cannot get it working

6\. A stripe self publish book has just come out - may be worth while

7\. Build a mailing list. Do this by creating a landing page that just has your main selling point on it and a "sign up for a Pre launch discount code". Mail these people something interesting you have written each week / fortnight that's related to you.

Publicise this - HN, Reddit, forums related to your product. Just get google used to you as eay as possible

If you really cannot stop yourself from giving free access try giving away a private beta access. This is easier to shutdown and lets you test the waters as it were. Use landing page for that.

A lot of this is stashed in different parts of HN

[http://m.techcrunch.com/2013/08/24/the-ultimate-cheat- sheet-...](http://m.techcrunch.com/2013/08/24/the-ultimate-cheat-sheet-for- starting-and-running-your-business/)

</comment><comment><USER5> It sounds like your main questions are regarding accounting. Therefore I recommend you talk to an accountant. Find someone (preferably by referral) who has experience in this area, get a free consultation, depending on your advice (and your state law) potentially hire them to incorporate a S-corp, C-corp, LLC, or whatever is appropriate. Ask them about liability, taxes, etc.

You don't need to have everything ironed out before you start, but if you start making money beyond couch change, you will probably want to talk to someone before the tax year ends.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, good point about getting some consultation. I am not expecting huge returns for quite some time (if any) so I will launch first and ask questions later. Thanks for the input!</comment></comment>


Implanted RFID tracker found in sex trafficking victim - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketplace.org/2016/03/02/health-care/health-care-takes-fight-against-trafficking <comment><USER2> Criminals are never far behind, this is terrible, but technology isn't the problem here, tougher penalties and more resources to catch those at the top of the ladder in trafficking networks.</comment>


Do you want to sell sugar water or do you want to change the world? - <AUTHOR> http://cdixon.org/2011/08/28/do-you-want-to-sell-sugar-water-or-do-you-want-to-change-the-world/ <comment><USER2> What's with this recent push to ask computer scientists "why aren't you saving lives with your skills?".

No one asks the same question of accountants, or sociologists, electrical engineers, or mechanical engineers or any number of smart individuals in the liberal arts fields.

Why is CS special in that its members need to be harried about selling sugar water, where as everyone else in the supply chain for that sugar water doesn't have to worry?

<comment><USER3> You also don't see breathless AccountingCrunch articles about accountants getting $41 million to develop accounting for pets and similarly silly things. The call for loftier thinking is in response to the fact that the tech industry seems to actively _celebrate_ shallow crap. It's easy to forget that there are more praiseworthy goals in the world than having a successful social network when that's what everyone actually praises.

<comment><USER4> _You also don't see breathless AccountingCrunch articles about accountants getting $41 million to develop accounting for pets and similarly silly things._

I don't agree with the normative implication here, but strongly suggest you subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. It will help expand your worldview vis- a-vis questions like "Is accounting Important?" or "Is $41 million a lot of money?"

<comment><USER5> "Is $41 million a lot of money" is a perspective-less question. Is it a lot of money for an individual? Tell me you don't think so. Is it a lot of money for an investment bank? Doubtlessly not.

Did the person you're responding to somehow say accounting was not important? How will the Wall Street Journal help me understand that further and why do you assume we need that insight based on all of this?

<comment><USER6> All he's saying is that it's not a lot of money for accountants.

<comment><USER5> Not much to take home or own part of, or not much to push around on someone else's behalf? I have yet to understand. The first seems pretty unlikely, unless accounting is a much better career path than I've heard, and the second seems irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "The problem is I'm older now, I'm 40 years old, and this stuff doesn't change the world. It really doesn't.

"I'm sorry, it's true. Having children really changes your view on these things. We're born, we live for a brief instant, and we die. It's been happening for a long time. Technology is not changing it much — if at all.

"These technologies can make life easier, can let us touch people we might not otherwise. You may have a child with a birth defect and be able to get in touch with other parents and support groups, get medical information, the latest experimental drugs. These things can profoundly influence life. I'm not downplaying that.

"But it's a disservice to constantly put things in this radical new light — that it's going to change everything. Things don't have to change the world to be important."

Steve Jobs [Wired, February 1996]

</comment><comment><USER8> Sorry. I find this kind of self-importance nauseating to say the least. Curing cancer or connecting the entire planet is the only way one can change the world? Really? If that's the case, then I guess 99.99% of our resources as a global community are misallocated, along with the hopes & dreams of thousands of entrepreneurs. Who says one can't create valuable human experiences in games or some other form of social entertainment? Or with a nutritional product? Seems to me like Dixon is conflating Acai berry-esque products produced by scamsters with folks who (god forbid) aren't trying to create the next Google. As if there are no shades of gray in between.

Yes, many entrepreneurs move on to bigger and better things. Which is great. We should encourage thinking as big as possible. But to sweep aside the smaller projects they & others created to get to that level (products/services that may not have "changed the world" in the traditional sense but still might've solved a burning problem) or to actively discourage folks from solving similar-scale problems is the height of pretentiousness.

I think solving big problems impacting humanity is fantastic. Actively discouraging people from innovating in spaces & making those folks feel like douchebags because they're not the developer equivalent of Mother Teresa and aren't "changing the world?" That's absurd. And it ought to stop. I've seen & heard it too many times from a litany of folks in the tech scene.

</comment><comment><USER9> This type of platitude sounds good and all, but from the actions speak louder than words file, I have to wonder if Chris' company Hunch which mines your "taste graph" to help advertisers sell you stuff you may or may not need lives upto the changing the world sound-bite?

Agree with jasonz above. IT absolutely can make a real difference. Healthcare software, Kiva, etc.

</comment><comment><USER10> _But information technology is what I know, and it's probably too late for me to learn a new field from scratch._

Information technology can absolutely save lives - I'd argue that a developer building medical software can save more lives than a PhD working on a treatment for cancer. The subtle killer these days are all the extra days a patient spends in the hospital. An extra day or two is what leads to complications. Work on solving the inefficiencies of inpatient medicine (documentation, communication, decision making, ect.) and you can go home at night knowing you are literally saving lives with your programming skills.

<comment><USER11> >Information technology can absolutely save lives - I'd argue that a developer building medical software can save more lives than a PhD working on a treatment for cancer.

 _Anything_ you do that makes an economy a little more efficient frees up resources for other things. In the US those other things end up being more consumption, mostly, but in countries where people don't get enough to eat you could be saving lives. That's why they call it progress. Or used to, anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Said to John Sculley who absolutely sucked at changing the world and should have stuck to selling sugar water.

</comment><comment><USER13> Yeah, I had this exact feeling about finance and was lucky enough to be able to get out. Working for organizations that do little but spend ever-increasing amounts of resources so that computers can edge each other out by nanoseconds in the market to the continuing aggrandizement of the uber rich is about the most depressing thing I can think of now.

I'd like to think that working on Stack Overflow's Careers service will help keep at least a few people from taking finance jobs like I did by providing them an alternative to needing to throw their lot in with a technical recruiter in a big city. Due to the economics of recruiting, recruiters tend to work with big finance (big salaries mean big commissions) instead of companies that y'know, _make things_ but have lower salaries. I'd like to think we provide a slightly more level playing field to regular jobs (because we don't get paid on commission, therefore won't send applicants towards a finance position before all others).

"You can't change the world, but you can make a dent" - Sheldon Mopes

</comment><comment><USER14> Whether someone "changes the world" is not a binary function. It is continuous. Has Steve Jobs changed the world? I think so. Has he changed the world to the extent of Gandhi or Mandela, or Hitler? Probably not.

People change the world everyday by doing their daily duties. Parents, friends, teachers, they all change parts of our world everyday. These impacts should not be diminished.

Life is too short to chase someone else's world-changing dreams. Do what you love. If you happen to change the world in some way during the process, all the better.

</comment><comment><USER15> I can't buy into this argument.

What's important is that you're supporting society, not whether you're at the coal face of saving lives. If it were, Elon Musk should be a paramedic, not inventing electric cars.

Even if you do only run an online payments system, a project management webapp, or a site like Twitter, people and businesses are using those things in _support_ of other enterprises. Those things could include space travel, saving lives, new technologies, and more. You don't need to be at the coal face to be pushing the world forward, just doing _something_ to support all of the people who are.

</comment><comment><USER16> Right now, I want to make good grades. Later in life, I want to be a great husband/father. Throughout all this, I want to use programming to make some people's lives easier/better (and be good enough at it to financially support my family). That's enough for me, and it can be enough for you if you want.

</comment><comment><USER17> "We must not, in trying to think about how we can make a big difference, ignore the small daily differences we can make which, over time, add up to big differences that we often cannot foresee."

Marian Wright Edelman

</comment><comment><USER18> Conversely, one question that, if asked of enough people, could end up destroying civilization:

 _"Why are you doing that?"_

('Mister Pinschur', by Maurice Ogden & Betty Fuller, Astounding SF, February 1955)

</comment><comment><USER19> Somewhere in between I guess?

That quote is from Steve Jobs, and while he certainly has changed certain parts of my lifestyle (I have the information of the world at my fingertips via my phone!--I don't use their other products), are you really saying that Steve Jobs has "changed the world"? I suppose it's a matter of semantics, but that seems like a stretch to me. He's certainly done more than sell sugar water and made absolutely amazing personal/professional accomplishments, but "change the world"?

And do I have to work in clean-tech or biotechnology to change the world, or can I build a vertically integrated hardware and media empire instead? Is the latter noble enough? I dunno, I'm pretty unimpressed by this article's sentiment and find the whole thing a bit facetious and condescending.

<comment><USER20> Non Apply Fanboy here.

You can say what you want about Apple: cut-throat business, closed platforms, etc. - BUT I don't think you can deny that they've been able to build the bridge between the oligarchs blocking progress (AT&T, music labels, etc.) and those building the future. The perfect bridge? Hardly, but I think they get a good deal of credit for making glass smartphones and tablets popular products.

Technology and social progress is often blocked because of business and other social issues - rarely just technology. Apple has been the marketing force trying to push throw this - while certainly securing its position and profit immensely. I think you can argue that they're a net-benevolent force for the world - unlike Coke which is certainly a net-negative one - while being as marketing savvy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't understand this question. Didn't sugar water (colas for example) change the world?

<comment><USER22> Record levels of childhood obesity say yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> To counter this sentiment, one need not come up with examples of how such-and- such software contributes a great deal to the noble cause of blah, because society is built on abstractions. Much of the world is hungry, but becoming a master hunter is not the way to solve that problem.

In my view, you have two choices: (1) trust the market to determine where society needs help and to give job opportunities in those areas, or, since that rosy picture may not be reality, (2) gather as much wealth and power as you see fit and push society to be better.

<comment><USER20> #2 never seems to materialize. People who change the world when they made their money (Bill Gates) generally keep trying to change the world with their own philanthropy. Whereas the path of: 1.) Make Partner at Goldman -> 2.) Commit your money & agency to solve problems - isn't shown to happen in most cases. Sure a % to charity - but that's far less than what's possible if you're really taking that route.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> History tells us that not everyone can change the world. That's ok

</comment><comment><USER14> While I agree that we can try to "change the world" in our own way, there is another side to these types of goals.

Steve Jobs also said "Things don't have to change the world to be important".

I wrote about this just last week "Why changing the world is overrated"

[http://girishrao.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/why-changing- the-w...](http://girishrao.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/why-changing-the-world-is- overrated/)

</comment><comment><USER25> "when I came home at night, I'd know that I had literally spent my day trying to cure cancer or prevent global warming"

Someone can have a very large influence on the world if they make enough money (by doing anything) and then spend that money to empower others to "cure cancer or prevent global warming".

</comment><comment><USER26> You know, I really enjoy drinking sugar water. It's one of my enjoyments in life.

<comment><USER27> I'm glad you enjoy it. Because it's not doing your body any good.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> How did Steve Jobs change the world for the better exactly?

<comment><USER29> Well, to be fair, we were in a bit of a rut on where to go with computers. Now the future is more clear.

<comment><USER28> To be fair as well, creating beautifully designed, expensive personal computers has never really been a world problem.

<comment><USER29> I was talking about tablets. Most people don't need a desktop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> reading the title, i thought that the article would be about the difference between the master of sales that sells lemonade since his childhood, and the nerd that can't speak smoothly but has disruptive and needed project and working skills. and that investors start to prefer the latter.

</comment><comment><USER31> It's important to recognize that you don't know where the earthshaking ideas will actually come from.

</comment><comment><USER32> "But information technology is what I know, and it's probably too late for me to learn a new field from scratch."

Rationalization; party line.

(Someone as smart as Chris Dixon could pick up a new field in 3 months. It actually doesn't take that much intelligence to learn a new field. It takes some intelligence, it takes a good mentor and it takes discipline.)

<comment><USER33> See also: <http://sivers.org/kimo>

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> If you want to change the world, chances are you're going to be depressingly disappointed. I find it best to limit my definition of the "world" to save to: a family, a couple of friends, and hopefully, if I'm lucky: a team of employees that I can manage and work with to create something many people will want.</comment>