Hacker News Job Board? - <AUTHOR> I'm thinking of setting up a job board that only people who are Hacker News users can post to.  I would use the same arc code that is used for HN, but this board would be open to the non-YC companies.
To authenticate your account you would need to:
1. Create an account on the jobs board with the same name as your HN username
2. Place a magic string in your HN about: box to prove that it was you
3. Have at least 200 karma or have been an HN member for more than 2 years
4. Unauthenticated accounts could still comment, vote etc., just not submit jobs.
Would people use this? <comment><USER2> Have a field for telecommuting as well. I wouldn't mind switching in to web dev, but I don't want to leave Toronto to do it. Places that would accept telecommuting would make that easier.

<comment><USER3> Yes, please. It would be much more useful that way.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Since there's enthusiasm for this I will set the site up and submit it here. Unless PG cries foul and says he doesn't like me hijacking the HN karma for this purpose.

OK. I built it. Here's the announcement: [http://blog.jgc.org/2011/06/usethesource-job-board-for- hacke...](http://blog.jgc.org/2011/06/usethesource-job-board-for-hackers.html)

<comment><USER4> I don't meet your qualifications, and I'm already thinking to myself that I need to post/comment more. So here's a data point.

<comment><AUTHOR> I decided to change it to over 1 year instead of 2.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What's the thinking on the limitations? Is this just supposed to make the users think they are part of an elite bunch? Are the employers supposed to think that somehow selects only elite hackers?

<comment><AUTHOR> The biggest problem with job boards is... recruiters. The idea here is that members in good-standing of the HN community are unlikely to be recruiters and thus can be trusted to freely post jobs to the board. If it was open to anyone then it would be flooded with crap immediately.

<comment><USER6> Incase anyone reading this isn't convinced that recruiters really are the biggest problem with jobs boards you could check out Tobin Harris' write up of his experiences here [http://wip.engineroomapps.com/post/3927805265/hiring- without...](http://wip.engineroomapps.com/post/3927805265/hiring-without- agencies-lessons-learned-part-1)

For my part, recently I was in conversation with a friend who'd advertised a role themselves. They were getting calls from recruiters saying unless they took their candidates through them they would actively contact those candidates and tell them not to apply. They said they would tell the candidates that they'd already put them forward and not to bother applying. Jobs Boards without recruiters can I think benefit candidates and employers. The only people who wouldn't benefit would be the recruiters

<comment><USER7> One of the points of Tobin's writeup is the rampant copying/reposting of job descriptions by unscrupulous staffing firms. Had a related idea a while back, not sure of enforceability of copyright laws: 0) Charge for service that: 1) Takes a job description that is 'creative' enough or unique 2) registers copyright 3) includes verified link that denotes the posting is locked and unauthorized reproduction will be pursued with threat of copyright infringement lawsuit 4) Profit? Not sure if this is a real enough pain for employers to be a standalone product. Maybe an add-on to existing job boards as a differentiator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Make sure that the name of the employer is a required field. There's so many job websites these days which are dominated by agency ads.

</comment><comment><USER9> Make sure the name of the employer AND the location of the job is a required field.

Give it a try. Worse case scenario is loss of face.

</comment><comment><USER10> Direct link to jgrahamc's job board: <http://jobs.usethesource.com/>

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm planning on building the reverse soon. Hacker Resumes I guess. If you're looking for a job, you post info about yourself, location, links to all of your relevant info, and select from a few categories. Companies can then browse and see if anyone meets their needs.

<comment><USER12> You're aware that there's already careers.stackoverflow.com, right? That said, is anyone else disappointed by the lack of response there? I'm not actively looking, but in ~2 months on the site I've had "search hits: 8, employer views: 0". Kind of disappointing, considering all the hype.

<comment><USER11> Careers.stackoverflow is a good option, but the HN one keeps it within the HN community, which may not be as large, but is more close knit (at least from my experience). In addition, a HN Resumes would, in my mind, be a much simpler and straight-forward interface.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd certainly register, look at it, and play with it a bit.

<comment><USER14> Unfortunately, I need to post a "me too" comment to let the OP know (I can't just upvote anymore!)

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I agree too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Would people use this?

I definitely would have when my company was looking for a programmer a month or so ago, and would use it the next time we want to hire someone.

<comment><USER17> And, additionally, if nobody uses it.. It's just the work of shutting it down. No big harm made.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> In addition to length or karma, you can look at length and karma. Lower length on HN means it takes a higher average karma to post, but not necessarily 200 karma (which I barely have, due to a low posting volume and not being very interesting, despite being here for a long time).

</comment><comment><USER19> The jobs threads are already incredibly active on the first of every month. If you want the community to get into this you might try to come up with a way to scrape that data.

Additionally! If you want people to actually remember this thing exists it needs to show up on the front page from time to time. I'd get with whoever is handling the automatic submission of job threads via the whoishiring account to see if you can get the link to your site added into the description field of the monthly threads.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=whoishiring>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=whoishiring>

</comment><comment><USER20> I'd welcome such a job board. And it would be wonderful if it won't be just for permanent jobs, but also for contractor jobs.

</comment><comment><USER21> How about some kind of "This is an agency!" button in case one somehow manages to get onto the system?

</comment><comment><USER6> Nice idea, and given I've had success hiring through a HN who's Hiring thread in the past I'd very likely use it. I had been working on a job board project of my own (<http://www.jobstractor.com>) but have struggled with traction to date. I think there's definitely opportunities for better jobs boards and especially for cutting out recruiters from the process. If I can lend a hand let me know and I'll do what I can.

</comment><comment><USER22> Danger: could encourage (more) karma gaming on HN, if such a board actually worked.

<comment><USER23> I comment pseudonymously so that I can speak my mind honestly. If this takes off, I would be somewhat tempted to create another account and write enough shallow, uncontroversial, professional, heavily self-censored comments to reach the threshold under my True Name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> HN karma would be a great metric for vetting experience and track-record. It's one of the trickiest things when trying to hire above-average talent. May I recommend using jobberBase (<http://www.jobberbase.com>) as a platform? Also open-source, with a great community around it.

Disclaimer: I've built jobberBase, so I'm biased :).

</comment><comment><USER25> I would find this useful. Having a HN member in good standing submit the job sends a positive signal about the position.

(shameless plug: <http://eupathdb.org/> is hiring a front-end developer, see <http://bit.ly/kYH9zp> for more information)

</comment><comment><USER26> One simplification: try to parse e-mail addresses from the about: box, authenticate via e-mail. Obviously, ask for permission before sending e-mail - some people have employer-(provided/monitored) e-mail.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think this is a great idea, and would use it very actively. What would be good is to get a shared GDOC going so you can capture the e-mails and cities of those interested?

E-mail to keep us all in the loop, and city to make local hiring easier?

</comment><comment><USER28> I've been hanging around the site for a long time, but I haven't been here for over two years. Is it really necessary to have that long of an account to stop spam? I believe 1 year should at least be fine.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'd definitely use this...

</comment><comment><USER30> "Have at least 200 karma or have been an HN member for more than 2 years" this is too restrictive.

<comment><USER31> I think if anything, it's not restrictive enough. The idea is that HN acts as a community filter for membership, and 200 is really not much for an active member of the community.

<comment><AUTHOR> What value would you suggest?

<comment><USER32> If the main point is to filter out recruiters, then 100 or 2 years should be fine. There's no need to filter out less active posters.

<comment><USER33> For a brief moment there I thought you were suggesting that it should only be available to people who registered 100 or 2 years ago

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> When can you have it done by?

<comment><AUTHOR> How's now?

<comment><USER34> That was quick!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Thank you. I've had very good results from HN contacts. I can't wait for this.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'd definitely use this.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'd use it.

</comment><comment><USER38> Seems you really need better filtering tech to keep off the information that is offensive to you. Limiting the amount of information is good how?</comment>


Leaded gasoline caused violent crime? Critiques wanted. - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted the article. First and foremost this appeases my "common sense" but the article seems to attach the strongest importance to the weakest evidence which is a pattern that the original researcher sifted through data to find a match.

One reason this is important is this: Why is it a 23 year lag? If there were another set of data that could relate the lag to ages of criminals that would be pretty great but the author leaves this open.

It seems like an excellent jumping off point but for many reading this I think they might see it as case closed which it isn't.</comment>


The Coolest Server Names - Recently undeleted - <AUTHOR> http://serverfault.com/questions/45734

<comment><USER2> The people who argue against naming machines in an automated fashion don't have hundreds or thousands to manage.

We do something simple: class of machine + number . city.

      m1.sjc1 == generic machine in san jose
      m2.sjc1 == another generic machine in san jose
      db1.ams1 == database class machine in amsterdam
      ops1.chi1 == ops class machine in chicago

Very scalable and easy to manage. Custom names are annoying. Your machine management system can tell you what function they serve.

<comment><USER3> _The people who argue against naming machines in an automated fashion don't have hundreds or thousands to manage._

The people who argue that their use case -- regardless of whether it's ten machines or ten thousand machines -- can be generalized into something everyone has to do are the people I try to avoid arguing with.

<comment><USER2> Right, which is why I didn't do that (unlike the entire point of the URL in the OP, which does that).

I just said that those groups of people don't have hundreds or thousands of machines to manage if they can maintain a custom naming scheme. I didn't say everyone has to do that. All my personal servers are few-lettered women's names. Laura, Amy, Mary, Sara, Christy, etc. To each, their own.

So please don't troll for karma. Especially on Christmas. Especially on HN.

Or maybe I misunderstood your point as being some snippy remark, in which case, sorry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A few years ago a co-worker and I built a system for integrating our company's statements with the post office's online bill payment system. I picked "Brownlee" and "Harris" for the server names after two postal workers that... went postal.

The names stuck for a while until someone high up asked what the names meant. I had to change the names after that :(

</comment><comment><USER5> At home I use star names (from the sky):

      * deneb
      * vega
      * betelgeuse
      * nashira
      * procyon

At work, for simple networks, I use the name of the function the server implements:

      * mail
      * fw (firewall)
      * fs (file server)
      * intranet
      * backup
      * virt (eg. ESXi vCenter)

I don't understand people who insist on appending a 001 postfix to every server name. Firstly, you will most likely never have hundreds of servers fulfilling the same function. Secondly, if you do you will 3 digits may not even be sufficient. So just start with mail, mail2, ... mail10, ... You have files named after servers and "ls" don't show them in numerical order? Use "ls -v". Your management tool don't sort them? Big deal. It's much more painful to have to type "001" the hundreds/thousands of time you will need to ping a server or ssh into it.

<comment><USER6> Depends on who you are:) We number them with a -01 suffix, and they also have a client name prefix, but each cluster will often have 20-30 servers. Plus it's easy to enable bash auto-complete for ssh/ping/scp based on your known hosts file.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Cheesy, but I use types of birds, based on what the machine reminds me of.

        iPhone — Chickadee
        Macbook — Pigeon
        MacbookPro — Peregrine
        Time Capsule — Grouse
        Windows box — Dodo

</comment><comment><USER8> My team came up with using Pixar characters for server names but were told no by the Universities hostmaster. Apparently the University had previously gotten C&D letters from Disney for something similar.

</comment><comment><USER9> I've worked places where monsters (dracula, zombie, etc.) and planets (mars, europa, etc.) were names.

The periodic table example seems the most useful, as it's roughly the size of a /24.

<comment><USER10> My University CS department used classical music composers: copland, holst, strauss, &c.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> One place I worked at used the seven dwarves as machine names (not that many machines at that time). I can understand the need to use functional names where dozens (or hundreds) of servers are accessed by dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of people.

On my personal network I use ship names from Iain Banks Culture books.

</comment><comment><USER12> At work, we use our pet names for physical servers, and city names for virtual servers (and my partner always gives me grief over truth-or-consequences). One problem we found is that we now have to maintain a mapping of city names to customers, so moving forward, we're naming our virtual servers after customers.

</comment><comment><USER13> Our main servers are named after X-Files characters

scully.domain.com

mulder.domain.com

skinner.domain.com

reyes.domain.com

etc. :)

We have other servers with single roles given "normal" names, such as chat.domain.com and mail.domain.com

</comment><comment><USER14> At my former company we used car names (yugo, veyron, fetish (yes that's a car), ...) and at some other we used (Slovenian) river names (sava, drava, mura, ...).

Where I work now, we use super heroes (batman, hulk, ironman, ...).

</comment><comment><USER15> I use punctuation for my home servers.

      Solidus /
      Guillemet >>
      Pilcrow ¶
      Interrobang ‽
      Snark .~
      Numero #
      Caret ^
      Bullet *
      Tilde ~

</comment><comment><USER10> I worked for a company where naming conventions for the server farm were left to me, so I used Transformers names: jetfire, mudflap, landmine, and so on.

</comment><comment><USER16> We use the last names of famous 80's baseball players

Mattingly Gooden Puckett Dawson Ripken Gwynn Saberhagen

</comment><comment><USER17> I use animals from the Simpsons, but I have to admit, santas-little-helper is not fun to type.

</comment><comment><USER18> We were using Dakota numbers for server names. It is a little typing when you hit 8 and 9.

</comment><comment><USER19> I use composers for my slices: copland, glass, tallis, bach

</comment><comment><USER20> We use philosophers: sartre, camus, plato, aristotle, etc.</comment>


1 rule you will need in Web Design - <AUTHOR> http://alexsblog.org/2014/08/20/1-rule-you-will-need-in-web-design/

<comment><USER2> Finally you advise something that it right.

It only took about 50 blog posts!</comment>


The next generation of Mark Zuckerberg wannabes - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/12/07/rate_your_classmates/index.html

<comment><USER2> What a fluff piece. First, it is only one wannabe. Second, it is a niche website that can't expand beyond things that have an abbrievation BU. I understand Facebook started at Harvard, but this article is a stretch to connect the two.

</comment><comment><USER3> Since it hasn't even been a generation since MZ started Facebook, shouldn't that be 'the current generation of MZ wannabes'?

<comment><USER4> How many generations do you think it has been since the original .com boom? (Hint, they aren't biological generations)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> HotOrNot already exists.

<comment><USER6> I wonder how hotornot is doing these days? I haven't been to that site since they sold it, and before that only once since 2001

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> this was a waste of 20 seconds, they should have at least put more than one example here. total fluff.

</comment><comment><USER7> Standard reporter trick when you hear something you want to write about, but realize it's way too petty for anyone to give a shit: Spin it as, "Could this be a trend?"

Then, abracadabra! Your story about a kid copying a silly prank he saw in a movie becomes a story about a whole generation of people trying to follow in Mark Zuckerberg's footsteps.

</comment><comment><USER8> So anyone who attempts to build a "better" mouse trap is a wannabe?

</comment><comment><USER9> So, this is about HotOrNot, except that.... Well, except nothing.

</comment><comment><USER10> He really is like Zuck. He can't come up with his own ideas either.

<comment><USER11> You _seriously_ didn't have the balls to post this under your own account?

<comment><USER10> Actually I just didn't didn't realize I was logged into this account.</comment></comment></comment>


Regulating Big Tech makes them stronger, so they need competition instead - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/06/06/regulating-big-tech-makes-them-stronger-so-they-need-competition-instead <comment><USER4> Regulations have their purpose to be sure. But they have a dark side as this article points out.

Regulations lead to lobbying. And lobbying leads to corruption. I think one of our biggest problems is we have tried for years to have a pseudo free market while tampering with it so much to create the situation we are in now.

For instance the financial crisis. One big reason for this was regulations forcing banks to make awful loans in Bush's "ownership economy". This led to a situation where free market products (mortgage backed securities and derivatives) were corrupted with so many bad loans. The free market never had a chance.

We all blame the banks but it wasn't entirely their fault.

We see it with college loans. You either make things like this entirely socialized or market based. Too much socializing the free market or free market socializing, depending on your point of view creates these problems.

<comment><USER5> > _For instance the financial crisis. One big reason for this was regulations > forcing banks to make awful loans in Bush's "ownership economy"._

No, it wasn't. Regulations didn't force credit rating agencies to give AAA ratings to securities backed by subprime mortgages[1]. Greed did.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis)

<comment><USER6> But you can't "fix" greed. Even punishing greed doesn't make people less greedy. That's a bit like thinking that the war on drugs will make people want drugs less, or even seek them out less. Constraining an inflexible market only moves it to places you no longer control.

<comment><USER7> >But you can't "fix" greed. Even punishing greed doesn't make people less greedy. That's a bit like thinking that the war on drugs will make people want drugs less

Or that punishing robbing banks makes people do it less?

<comment><USER8> Cant fix murdering people either, even punishing them dosen't stop it. We just have to accept that sometimes people get murdered. /s

<comment><USER9> Drop the /s and you're right! We can't fix people's desire to murder other people. We punish harshly as a deterrent but unfortunately someone who's in a place where they'll murder someone usually isn't weighing the risk or making a list of pros and cons. So people get murdered. It's inevitable and there's very little we can do to prevent it in general.

<comment><USER8> The point it is isnt a justification to let people go around murdering others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is an excellent piece by Cory Doctorow but I wouldn't say he argues against regulation:

> _One exciting possibility is to create an absolute legal defence for > companies that make "interoperable" products that plug into the dominant > companies' offerings, from third-party printer ink to unauthorised Facebook > readers that slurp up all the messages waiting for you there and filter them > to your specifications, not Mark Zuckerberg's. This interoperability defence > would have to shield digital toolsmiths from all manner of claims: tortious > interference, bypassing copyright locks, patent infringement and, of course, > violating terms of service._

Isn't that just calling for a different kind of regulation, one that forces interoperability? Which, btw, sounds like a good start, but OTOH I'm immediately thinking of how slowly changing APIs are being abused by big tech to create moats.

In general I find the headline problematic (although that might be editorial meddling). Yes, the current and upcoming regulation of tech is being abused by big tech companies for the worse, by exploiting loopholes that are in the regulations, and I would not be surprised at all if those loopholes are there partially or mainly thanks to lobbying by big tech companies and other vested interests.

But saying that therefore regulation does not work feels a bit like saying that some laws are unethical, therefore laws are inherently bad.

Plus regulation (in the abstract) can be set up in such a way that it encourages healthy competition. Take the Dutch Health Insurance system (which has tons of other issues but that's not relevant to this point). Regulation forces any health insurance company to offer a "core package" with basic coverage for most health issues, at a price per month that has a fixed maximum. This "core" package cannot be denied to any patient based on pre- existing conditions. Insurance companies can then compete by offering better deals for greater coverage. The point being that the regulation means that health insurance companies are limited in _where they can cut corners_ and as a result are encouraged to compete by providing a better service.

<comment><USER11> In Germany, reverse engineering for compatibility reasons is explicity allowed.

<comment><USER12> So it is in the US too, under the DMCA (17 USC § 1201 (f)(1-4))... not that I would actually try pushing that claim in court.

See too the Oracle v Google case, currently pending certiorari before the Supreme Court, where CAFC has held that API is copyrighted, and you're therefore not allowed to independently implement it, even under fair use claims.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I remember learning in college ECON 101 that many companies strive for government regulation because it erects more barriers to competition. I was floored. But you see it happening all around you.

<comment><USER14> Exactly what I thought when I saw the GDPR.

 _" Does any one else than big, established, companies have the means to really properly comply with that? Heck, I don't even know how to comply!"_

<comment><USER15> Have you seen new European Medical Device Regulation (MDR)? Especially classification rule 11 for software makes things interesting. Regulatory compliance is going to be difficult/costly for smes...

<comment><USER14> Oh my. Just when I thought of getting into patient management systems because every doctor and med student around me keeps complaining about those

<comment><USER15> You still can. There is an exception to MDR rule that says; "Information systems that are intended only to store, archive and transfer data are not qualified as medical devices in themselves."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How do you ensure competition when Big Tech can (and do) literally buy any and all potential competition? I'd say this is the biggest issue we have, and it doesn't seem like anybody is addressing it. After seeing countless interesting startups be bought up by Facebook or Google, it's time legislation was introduced to limit what Big Tech can do to distort the market with their obscene amounts of money.

Interoperability would be _fantastic_ , but utterly pointless if they can just buy up somebody who's plugging into their API and gaining significant popularity.

<comment><USER17> > How do you ensure competition when Big Tech can (and do) literally buy any > and all potential competition?

Heck, let them keep buying. They're literally _paying_ for new competitors to spring up! And it also makes investors more willing to fund potential competition, as the prospect of an acquihire puts a floor on valuations.

<comment><USER18> > They're literally paying for new competitors to spring up!

They're paying for competitors to spring up and then disappear, which does nobody but the investors (and _maybe_ the founders) any good whatsoever.

Alternative idea: let them buy, but levy a 100% tax on the acquisition amount. The proceeds can fund development of truly open alternatives, or be paid to the users as recompense for their privacy loss, or perhaps just used to make regular people's lives better. That would discourage anti-competitive acquisitions, and even if they do occur at least somebody besides rentiers would get something out of it.

<comment><USER19> That hurts investments and tech advancement because it removes acquisitions as an exit strategy. It also favors the larger incumbents because they can afford the tax, thus moving markets more towards a tech oligopoly.

<comment><USER18> I'm not suggesting such a tax _generally_ , just in the cases that people are already so keen to regulate in other (IMO even more harmful/ridiculous) ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I am all for interoperability, and personally I wait for a Facebook API to write your own news feed filters, that will open so much new possibilities. But I am afraid that, at least in the beginning, it will only make "hateful, extreme bubbles" worse, because of two things.

The first, most fundamental, is that these bubbles are created not by the business model, but by connectivity alone - we crave extreme content, and now we can get it all time because of [https://www.gwern.net/Littlewood](https://www.gwern.net/Littlewood). That craving is quite similar to our craving for calories, extreme news are 'high bayesian calories' and used to be useful for quickly updating our Bayesian brains, the problem is that now the probabilities of these news are completely outside of the ranges our brain evolved around.

The second is that if the new commercial Facebook filter startups use the same advertising business model as Facebook then they will do the same engagement maximising as Facebook itself.

<comment><USER10> The thing with APIs is that I have a feeling that companies only offer them as a way to externalize costs.

They offer an API, someone else builds something with it on their platform for them. Then of course they can tweak the API to make sure only things they want on their platform are being built. Or what also happens is that they wait until a community grows around those many tools other enthusiastic people build on top of the API, and there is enough of an invested userbase that they can remove the less profitable parts bit by bit.

This is why I personally think APIs are often moats in disguise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Treating the idea of regulation as a binary operation makes this problem seem artificially harder than it really is. If regulations scaled proportional to market impact/value, then you can still have smaller companies that can afford to innovate without clamping down, because the impact of their usage is small. Similarly, you can expect more from larger companies with massive influence, because firstly, the vastness of their influence matters more, and secondly, because of that influence, they also have much higher revenues and can afford to make those changes.

We need to enter an era of more fluid and dynamic regulations.

</comment><comment><USER22> Since I started to work for big tech myself this is what I tell people most of the time: Stop thinking about complaints, start thinking about solutions to problems that everybody has. That is where the power of big tech comes from. I mean, facebook knows all our social contacts because it's the best way to communicate over long distances and having different live situations. Gmail can learn how we write and think because it's the best and most flexible mail client out there. Google and Apple can spy on us via smart phones because these devices have gave us so many opportunities like navigation, translation, communication, photos etc.

Start building a better future and you can be part of defining what it will look like. Doesn't even have to be a competitor. Employees inside the big tech companies also have more push towards their personal goals than people outside.

<comment><USER23> This is where the power of big tech used to come from. Now it comes from the ability to use the wealth generated by innovative products to buy the market for non-innovative products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> An issue not talked about enough if the type of regulation.

Think about plumbing and electrical systems. There is a great amount of interoperability within a region which enables competition. We mostly can't imagine having to have your appliances coupled to the company where all the parts for the electric wiring in your home are from. Things are interoperable.

Interoperability in this sense is good for competition and people. It's also a regulation type that's mostly not talked about.

If big tech is going to be regulated it should be no surprise that their lobbyists work to have regulation that is more likely to benefit them.

There is a type of regulation that could be very useful that's not getting enough airtime.

<comment><USER25> >Think about plumbing and electrical systems. There is a great amount of interoperability within a region which enables competition. We mostly can't imagine having to have your appliances coupled to the company where all the parts for the electric wiring in your home are from. Things are interoperable.

The overwhelming majority of that interoperability came from a battle of competing standards that left only a few standing. It was a situation is a lot like the state of PC hardware in the 80s through mid-'00s but spread over a longer timeline.

If you go buy a $15 machinist/tool room desk reference from the early 1900s on eBay and it will be chock full of specifications for various thread forms for fasteners of which a few now dominate. Even today hydraulics and plumbing suppliers publish multi-hundred page catalogs of the various widgets used to control fluid and gas flow. Much has been written about the various competing standards and ways of doing things for electrical and I'm not very familiar with that history so I'll omit it here.

Most of the regulation we have is in the form of this or that regulator body saying things need to comply with this or that code. The only reason this forces interoperability is because most codes just take the industry default and apply that. For example we use NPT for gas plumbing not because it has some magical properties that make it good for that, but because we always have and that's just what the trade groups trying to write building codes wrote about which then got codified into law. So codes and standards do sort of force interoperability but only as a side effect of the circular cause and effect pattern leading to those codes having the force of law.

I'm all for interoperability and portability in tech but I'm not sure how we get there quickly without botching it. I have heard of many little proposed regulations that would be steps in the right direction but it would take time to see if that would solve the current problem of too much centralized power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Interoperability and preventing them from buying competitors after they reach certain market share would do the trick. Facebook bleeds users, but they are moving to Instagram bought by Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER27> The problem with current initiatives for regulation is that they are attempts to regulate how Big Tech does business.

Outside of some specific limits on business transactions, such as forbidding tie-in sales, antitrust does not limit the way companies do business. So breaking up Google into 8 companies, like the Bell System, would not limit the behavior of the Baby Googles.

If either there is very strong economies of scale or there is a need to control the behavior of the companies, regulation is the more effective tool. The chief objective of regulation is to limit the return on investment that the natural monopoly can earn in order to prevent monopolistic price gouging. However, regulation can also govern some aspects of business conduct as well.

</comment><comment><USER28> Tech companies aren't regulated at all. Nobody knows how to regulate them. They're also afraid of making google and other american tech giants noncompetitive with entirely unregulated chinese companies all vyying for AI/quantum computing supremacy.

</comment><comment><USER29> The problem is when the regulation doesn't accomplish anything, but also costs a lot.

For example imagine a hypothetical email safety law that says you must keep everything encrypted and have multiple audits over all of your processes and systems. Such a law doesn't do anything to protect users, but audits will suddenly result in a massive flat cost to start a new email company.

In reality look at the "privacy" legislation pushed by Facebook and google: mostly it reduces/removed their liability if they do a few relatively cheap things but doesn't require them to stop spying on you or stealing your data. But relatively cheap for Facebook and google isn't cheap for anyone else.

<comment><USER30> It does change the way we culturally view the practices relating to privacy though.

I think a lot of the net effect of legislation like GDPR, can be viewed through the lens of 'in essence'. Ultimately, it's setting in place a culture where companies need to think twice before monitoring users without consent.

The smaller companies are more likely to build their companies with a view to good practice, while the larger companies can be brought closer to an acceptable line through punitive measures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think Doctorow is missing the elephant in the room: Monopolies can only exist without competition when there is Government power behind them that inadvertently (or not so inadvertently) defend them/prop them up by regulation.

A natural monopoly can be challenged by any market entry competitor - <USER2> barriers to entry are created by regulation.

Remove the regulation overhead/government enforcement and the next entrepreneur-type that sees a market opportunity will challenge that monopoly. And if that new entry is better, there goes the previous monopoly.

<comment><USER32> I read though a bunch of your post and thought I would reply to this one. Are you not aware of network effects and economies of scale? Do you actually think monopolies are only a product of government?

<comment><USER31> Good question. I attempted to draw attention to the government-enforced part. Natural monopolies will occur over and over again. If a good product or service is offered and little effective competition exists, that company/person offering it will likely enjoy a de facto natural monopoly.

What I was trying to point out was that when government organizations get involved, monopolies may end up with protection from competition, the most obvious being barriers to entry, typically through legislation/regulation that favors the current position holder.

When entrepreneur-types see a profitable market occurring due to that "good product or service" it tends to attract them into wanting to compete to earn some portion of that market. And if the competing product is a better "mouse trap," then the previous monopoly is likely going to be broken up. Those who make up said market are likely going to act in their own self-interests (i.e. better price, quality, availability, etc.).

Thanks to very economical communications (the Internet, as the biggest example) a single person with motivation and the appropriate skill (which can be learned from existing examples) has the ability to present themselves as legitimate as other large companies that may be made up of many people - <USER3> leveling of the playing field, to me.

My bias is that I come from a "voluntaryist" point of view. All who have the opportunity to voluntarily enter into trade agreements with others stand to benefit according to their own values.

Does that make sense?

<comment><USER32> Sure but it feels like only half the story. Yes new law could favor existing position holder but the more democratic the institution the less likely this is to happen (for obvious self interest motivations). There are some kinds of legislation that almost seem directly targeted at the current position holder, like legal requirements for Interop. Would you be in favor of those kinds of laws?

<comment><USER31> What is an example of a "more democratic institution"? And what are the "obvious self interest motivations"?

I would like to make sure I am answering the question you are asking...

To answer your general question of whether I am in favor of "some kinds of legislation... ...targeted at the current position holder", my general answer is "only for the smallest municipality possible against that entity."

First, I am assuming that harm can be proven to have been done against someone(s) within that municipality by that entity.

Second, I am making the assumption here that the municipality involved (City? County? State?) is enforcing the will of its constituents as obtained by their appropriate mechanism (i.e. voting or other delegation of power). They are authorized to wield this power over their territory, but no other (scope definition).

If an entity spanned multiple territories (Cities, Counties, States) here in the US, or multiple nations, then agreement/consensus must be sought to convince those other municipalities to concur and to mutually enforce the decree at those levels.

If the other territories choose not to support the effort, then the legislation can only have effect within the territory that approved it.

Power should always be determined and enforced at the smallest possible level, requiring consensus all the way up any possible authority-chain of command.

This allows the entity to move its operations to a territory that agrees with the activities, assuming one can be found.

This also allows for the most possible satisfaction of the residents of the respective territories.

I also hold the opinion that current behavior of US States and of the General Government (Federal) have strayed far too much from the original design of individual sovereigns granting limited powers to representative government. And this is likely the reason for so much of the polemic disagreement (unfortunately to the point of virtriol in many cases) that I witness today.

A solution to that (granted, not that you asked for one :) ) would be to reduce the General Government to a tenth of its current size to start, and see if that is enough to have a more satisfied populace. With the understanding that it is immoral to enforce my own ethics upon any other under any measure of coercion; Only through consent between all parties involved.

The power hierarchy below this level (State, County, City, Township, etc.) would choose to incorporate that legislation that was formerly being wielded/enforced at a higher level, that is _approved by their constituency_. Think local, act local.

Again, if it is not already obvious, my bias is much more anarcho-capitalist, working towards a voluntarist society. Individual people coming to agreements to conduct trade and agreeing to delegate _limited_ power to representative government.

Maybe too much caffeine for me this morning ;)

<comment><USER32> Hmm that sounds like "Geomocracy" which is a video my brother made. [https://youtu.be/ZVroI2_o5QA](https://youtu.be/ZVroI2_o5QA)

I found the idea to be to be silly an naive but perhaps he was on to something I didnt understand.

As for voluntarist society. I dont think such a think is really a coherent idea because the concept of voluntary is ill conceived. To give you and example I could totally argue that you already live in a completely voluntary country. You had a choice of N places to live and you choose that one. It may not have been a real choice but the lack of choice does not enter into the narrow conception of what voluntary is! So long as there was no direct physical coercion you are contractually obligated to be a citizen of your state.

<comment><USER31> I watched the video - I prefer personal freedom resolved at as small a level as possible, rather than ideas submitted to experts/researchers (who chooses the experts?) then managed over by administrators (again who chooses this roster?).

And why is "the concept of voluntary ill conceived"? Taken at face value, that sentence means people should not have freedom over themselves or their property... Also known as a definition of slavery.

<comment><USER32> Yes but serfdom is compatible with a voluntary society so in the end what's the difference? Serfs were born with nothing and had to bind themselves to a Lord to live. There was also no land that was not parseled out to an owner so there really was no where to go except to choose between hard masters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This article is just catnip for hacker news. There are good reasons why 'big tech' exists, as Schumpeter explained many decades ago (or Tyler Cowen recently in his book on big business), large companies are productive, innovative and essentially more dynamic due to capital they accumulate than some bazaar economy that writers like Doctorow imagine. Small is not beautiful. Large scale complex problems can only be solved by institutions that are sufficiently complex and large to deal with them. Monopolistic competition produces better outcomes than a sort of hyper-competitive market of small players who are constantly squeezed to produce short-term results.

Competition and lack of regulation do not necessarily result in more safety or higher standards as a look at the 'crypto-economy' proves, and consumers will probably not benefit from having big tech broken up, and it would hurt regions like the EU or the US internationally to stifle their own businesses.

The problem with big tech isn't the size, it's that many company's goals are not aligned with the interests of society at large or the state. The thing to do is to regulate them, provide incentives and rules to fix their problems even if it comes at the cost of competition.

<comment><USER34> What folks like Cowen advocate imho is that there are huge benefits. That's it.

But are you prepared to have just one online vendor for everything (Amazon), or have just two major phone OSs (Android iOS) forever, or just one search engine? Just one streaming service grouping netflix, disney et al (that will eventually arise and be the cable 2.0)

The fashion industry is fragmented, hugely fragmented, and I don't see people claiming everyone should wear just Adidas or Nike.

What big corps are creating is just this plutocrat monopsony where about 100-200 families control the planet finances. So here's where I and my love for the big corp tend to go sour.

But when you say:

>many company's goals are not aligned with the interests of society at large or the state. The thing to do is to regulate them, provide incentives and rules to fix their problems even if it comes at the cost of competition

You go back to where we are now.

The solution for the big corps isn't to regulate them, is to regulate their commodities.

People need to be able to create. That's what we do as humans. Big corps are blocking us here. Big automation is coming, so what then?

Wanna keep Nestle accountable for bottling our water? Regulate access to it.

Wanna curb Facebook data monopoly? Make them erase all their data and start over, now any company can make a new Facebook.

Wanna curb big pharma? Stop acting like fools with the patent trolling.

We have all means in the world to promote healthy economics, everyone is just too busy getting richer while enabling big corps to promote their entry deterrence as business as usual. No.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> A stellar pitch for breaking them up instead

<comment><USER36> How? Sorry to snap but I am sick of seeing "they are monopolies break them up" from a tortured definition of monopoly mindlessly chanted towards Google and Amazon while massive black hole olf media conglomerates like Comcast, Disney, and Sinclair Media and their ilk walk by whistling.

There is no explanation of the harm, no plan for division, how subentities could be viable in competition, just gaped mouthed sloganeering. All of the virtual and real ink spilled and not even a bad plan. It is like Brexit all over again but with even less of a plan all over again - "just do it and trust us to come up with a plan latter and ignore our transparently terrible motivations!".

<comment><USER37> I see Facebook as a net negative to society. If a clumsy breakup plan instead destroyed them entirely... good.

It absolutely does make it easy for me to propose plans to break them up as a result, yes, because no, I'm not worried about how the parts may be viable afterwards.

I will admit this is not necessarily an appropriate attitude for a bureaucrat in charge of the breakup to take, but it's a valid attitude for Congress to take.

<comment><USER38> That's not really the question. You kinda missed the whole point.

These companies exists because they serve a need. There's proven demand; killing Facebook will create a Facebook-shaped hole, which will immediately be filled by the most capable alternative.

In today's climate this almost certainly means that any American tech firm you destroy or break up will be replaced by the Chinese state-controlled equivalent, because at the moment they're the most capable existing competitor in most cases.

There are a few alternate potential outcomes, but all of the likely ones are just as bad or worse. The "break up tech giants" concept is very much like the "war on drugs" from years ago; it sounds like you're doing something good, but the end result can only be unmitigated disaster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> While it may seem like he is against regulation until he for it, the principle behind his message is clear: opening up competition. Expensive regulations favor big tech -- but in contrast, if people have a right to interoperability, it doesn't require anything new of companies. It only prevents them from suing to stop interoperability efforts.

</comment><comment><USER40> Slightly off-topic, but I find it interesting that Google has been taking out two-page ads in The Economist for the past few weeks pushing the message that you control what data you share with them, and that it's really easy to decide what is and isn't saved by Google.

No specific mention of any Google products, paid or otherwise, just a pure PR exercise.

<comment><USER41> I just interpreted as Google trying very hard to make sure that it isn't the Walmart/McDonald's/Uber of the industry - the huge lightning rod that has to deal with the public dislike of the consequences of that industry.

It has been successful in many ways, since Facebook is largely the one taking the hit. Zuckerberg is the famous CEO having to deal with the politicians, but most people probably don't even know who the CEO of Google is.

Of course, behind the scenes I consider Google as damaging, if not more damaging.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> So take them into public ownership. Then their strength can work for everyone instead of just some billionaires.

</comment><comment><USER43> [http://archive.is/1adpc](http://archive.is/1adpc)

</comment><comment><USER44> Big Tech paying/obeying Regulations is their version of Certifications. It costs them a bit of money but it also appears to the customers that they're "doing the right thing" (akin to buying integrity?). Unfortunately, while the ideals may be correct behind regulation, I don't think the results match the intent. Humans are too good at gaming things.

Also, the "regulators drawn from their ranks" phrase in this article is quite apt. We tend to think of companies and governments as distinct, exclusive entities when in fact they movement of people between them is fluid. I see that all the time even from my neck of the woods.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think he doesn't quite "close the loop" on how this proposal would work. Requiring open API access doesn't just create competition. It gives that competition a bit of an advantage, in the sense that the platform would still have to bear the considerable cost of providing the base infrastructure - storage, user management, at least some privacy enforcement, etc. This is, I suppose, to offset other advantages that the platform would unavoidably retain.

Is it fair? Would it work? I'd have to think about that some more, but I think the cost factor is a necessary part of those analyses.

<comment><USER45> An open API triggers that other fear, a bigger attack surface to a closed- source system that was built in a hurry with less regard for security, and more room for exploits.

<comment><USER18> No doubt. Every mistake (or "mistake") once made by the platform would almost inevitably be repeated by many API users, until some of them become platforms themselves. there might be some technical measures that can improve things somewhat, but overall I suspect it will make the security/privacy situation worse. Instead of keeping an eye on one shark, individuals and regulatory bodies would have to apply the same level of vigilance to each of a thousand piranhas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Regulation is not a predicate. It cannot, as a whole, cause anything. The set of types of regulation has nothing in its intersection. Using the word in this way is 80s propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER47> The real problem for privacy are behavioral profiles, credit scores, consumer scores, social scores etc. because they all lose context and picture you as someone you are not.

Paid services won't scale as ad based services. And context ads won't scale as personalised ads. So the money will flow first to behavioral profiling tech companies and privacy by default tech will never be able to compete with personalised ad tech.

So there will never be privacy for the masses.

</comment><comment><USER48> I agree that these companies need competition but how do we achieve that? The article doesn't really address how we create competition for these companies. Who here is will start a company that competes directly with Google or FB? Who would fund such a company? How would it make money? How can we convince investors that investing in such companies is important and they can make money doing so?

</comment><comment><USER49> Problems solved by computers are easy to scale. So the bigger the company gets the more profits it will make. The entry costs are high, eg. pay 10 engineers for 3 years to build a product that you are not sure people want. And even if its better in every aspect it will be hard to get people to switch from products they are already used to and solves the problem good enough, and is also free.

</comment><comment><USER50> Is there room for a company that provides managed services that take care of the compliance aspects (don't know how, but say if this were possible) and indemnifies their clients? Would that rekindle the creation of smaller firms that may aspire to compete with Google and ilk? Should, perhaps, the EU or such bodies take on the task of creating these services at running costs?

</comment><comment><USER51> Regulation doesn't need to apply equally across platforms. Regs could be made to kick in at certain sizes of users, or other quantifiable measures of impact and revenue and views.

...kind of like we do in lots of other places, like taxes. It isn't a wild idea, but this author forgets.

</comment><comment><USER52> How about, the larger the company gets, increasing the tax bracket/percentage?

The problem today is that the larger a company gets, the more influence and power it has - both in financial and political terms.

</comment><comment><USER53> The most helpful thing for competition right now would be breaking up the FAAG. Alas, the US wields a lot of power with them across the world, so that won't happen.

</comment><comment><USER54> In some cases aren't big companies also involved in the actual writing of regulations? I seem to remember that happening in other industries.

</comment><comment> ur-whale It's really nice to see an article on HN that shies away from the usual "the govt oughta do something about this" tack.

</comment><comment><USER55> I'm at a bit of a loss on the premise of this; as the main focus is on social networks, search, and ad space - which I'm pretty sure aren't the only companies effected by things like GDPR.

I work in high ed. and previously worked for a small genetic software company and I know both of these spaces are effected as well; and quite frankly in both cases and many others, these regulations just create a middle industry for dealing with the regulations and regulators that a small company or less technical institution could and would work with to make sure that their information is in compliance.

A mix of regulation and cracking FAANG like we did with Bell, Standard Oil, Anaconda, and many others is the route to go. Rebuilding our patent/trademark system would also go a long way to correcting some of the more egregious issues around intellectual property & content... just don't tell "The Mouse." And, as to lobbying, if a company isn't large enough to lobby for itself, it actually will need to go through grouped channels for representation and maybe need to think of more folks in the industry than themselves (take Tavern Associations, various SBAAs, etc etc etc).

Cracking FAANG and Wireless Telcos is possible, but it starts with the big voices like Doctorow not going "it's too darn hard to do, woe is us."

<comment><AUTHOR> TIL: Anaconda Copper Mining Company.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda_Copper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda_Copper)

<comment><USER55> Montana and Wyoming are a treasure trove of the ills of both government and business ran amok. Our high school history classes were always super interesting due to this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ayup.

I think I'd heard of Anaconda in that context, though didn't make an immediate association with your original comment.

It also raises some interesting questions about the prominant featuring of "D'Anconia Copper" in a popular if grossly flawed bit of popular juvenile fantasy literature.

The Johnston County War is another personal fave:

[https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/xwjjk1bh7yki6ja4lrg7ka](https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/xwjjk1bh7yki6ja4lrg7ka)

<comment><USER55> Best laugh I've had all day; I hadn't thought about it, but I'm sure it's no coincidence.

Random trivia that the wiki article leaves off... The Anaconda Company essentially single-handedly helped get rid of state legislatures electing Senators due to having bought off most of the Montana state legislature - which was obviously bad enough for the federal government to step in and give a big nope to things.

Which is an odd thought in the land of big business lobbying and I'm sure has absolutely no parallels to today's situation. Nope, nope, nope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> > While there is much to like about these rules for privacy, the cost of > implementing it has meant consolidation in Europe's ad-tech market. The > American giants have emerged as the clear winners.

I'm in the European ad-tech market and I'm confused about what he's discussing here, consolidation where? Which countries? Google and FB were already the largest players because they have always had the most personal information about users, and the most ubiquitous and unblocked tracking cookies.

Nevermind GDPR, what's screwing over European ad-tech currently is the moves by browser makers on blocking third party cookies by default, especially Firefox which is up to 30 - 40% of the market we see - the industry has been addicted to them for years and has refused to move away from them despite warnings from engineers that sooner or later they'll be blocked by default.

</comment><comment><USER57> I'm not sure that it's a bad thing that regulation has made it hard to compete at surveillance capitalism. Arguably, a few accountable, regulated companies is better than many judgement-proof, unregulated ones, with zero being better than that.

The GDPR applies to all companies, and it makes it hard for a startup to do what Google does, but it doesn't make it hard to do what DuckDuckGo does.

</comment><comment><USER58> One vivid example is Microsoft after the inception of GDPR. They released a lot of conformitiy tools and implied their new security tools to be helpful (and needed) for compliance. Using them would immediately lock you into their eco-system.

They probably sold a lot of licences from the panic alone.

</comment><comment><USER59> By codifying the limit of unethical behavior, regulation also ensures every participant operates at the limit.

<comment><USER60> This is not true, in my experience. For example, the EU roaming charges regulations for mobile data allows service providers to apply a lower cap to the data if the home tariff is cheaper than €2.25/GB; but almost no providers actually do this, and they instead give the user the full data allowance, at least for providers based in the UK. Before the regulation came into effect, roaming rates were much higher for almost every provider, and an EU tourist would have to buy a local SIM card (or just accept the roaming charges).

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Why don't we have our governments fund the development and maintenance of infrastructure and platforms that enable competitive products and services?

We know governments aren't good at innovation, and they have little incentive to provide great products or services. But, we know they're well capable of building roads and bridges.

<comment><USER62> > Why don't we have our governments fund the development and maintenance of > infrastructure and platforms that enable competitive products and services?

I agree with you, however for social networks this is _dangerous as hell_. You can bet it will take only five minutes for the first law-and-order idiots to demand real time access to all data and especially private messages to mine for "terrorists" (=everything that challenges capitalism) or "child porn", and that in reality it will only be another piece of the surveillance state.

Apple, Facebook etc. can at least put up a fight for privacy in the legal system.

<comment><USER61> No one has any innovative ideas on how to do both? Disappointing

Why not do a global block chain where each state hosts a node? Someone's got to have some ideas on how to use cryptography to prevent abuse

<comment><USER62> > No one has any innovative ideas on how to do both? Disappointing

Because it is literally impossible to run a social network with encryption. It is possible to run a messenger but the demands of police/secret services are already enormous on private companies, what do you think will happen with a government-run service?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Here's How Managers Can Be Replaced by Software - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2015/04/heres-how-managers-can-be-replaced-by-software

<comment><USER2> Without more information about iCEO, this reads like a late April Fools joke. Interesting topic, though.</comment>


Moving to Go - <AUTHOR> http://blog.toggl.com/2012/09/moving-to-go/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=moving-to-go

<comment><USER2> The only interesting thing would be to see how much of a performance improvement each of the separate changes brought.

Phrases like "Most of the time was spent by the server to compile the necessary dataset of time entries, but also related data." seems to hint at:

a) missing profiling (was it database queries, actual computation, network I/O, disk I/O, ... ?)

b) architectural problems (a database schema that didn't perform, missing indexes, ...)

I'm sure Go is a nice language, but I don't see how Go could improve any of those besides maybe a more managable approach to parallel computations.

Given the amount of seemingly parallel changes that happened, it's pretty much impossible to determine what actually caused the improvement (at least with the information in this blogpost).

</comment><comment><USER3> I've got nothing against Go, but this smells fishy. 5-20 second load times on a page in Rails? That doesn't sound like an issue with the programming language, it sounds like an underpowered server, lack of proper caching, or an under-tuned database (or data model).

</comment><comment><USER4> What's going on with all the upvoting of technology enumeration posts on HN? Is it so interesting that someone uses a different language or library?

<comment><USER5> Yes, it is. I like to keep up with new technologies so I can better determine which language to choose for my next projects.

<comment><USER4> Let me help you out then:

        I switched from ruby to clojure because jvm is awesome
        and it's a lisp and I also use coffescript, backbone,
        requirejs and raphael. I've been using this stack for
        about a month and a half, it's awesome.

Does this help? How does this help you solve _your_ problem? I'm going to go with "It doesn't". All of these posts boil down to that form.

The good ones start with: "Over the last year we deployed [insert stack] into production..". And then tell me what sucked because not everything is awesome.

<comment><USER6> This is very cyclical. We're in the honeymoon period with some of these technologies. Two years ago you saw a lot of posts proclaiming that NodeJS and MongoDB were fantastic, world changing technologies.

Now you see a lot of posts saying "We're switching from MongoDB to Postgres/Riak because of X, Y, and Z". I suspect we'll start seeing similar posts about Node.js very soon.

No telling what will happen with Go, but just enjoy the honeymoon period for what it is and stay tuned to find out what happens later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sorry, our self-hosted Wordpress blog did not scale with the traffic. Blog is now relocated, works better.

<comment><USER8> How big of an impact did each change you made have on the load? Say, would have just upgrading to Redis 1.9 reduce the load time by a few seconds?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm curious about the LABjs usage. In my own testing it ends up not having any significant impact in load times, sometimes it's even slower (same for other loaders). Just concatenating+minifying files has a huge effect already, the added complexity doesn't justify itself.

<comment><USER10> Agreed. I recently moved from LABjs to RequireJS. I regret ever going down the LJS route because it really doesn't encourage / enable you to modularize your JS. It was over complicated to get my head around RJS, but once I did, it really cleaned up a lot of my code and I'm super glad that I made the switch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How is this continuing to rise on HN while the site is down the whole time? Just the title?

<comment><AUTHOR> The page works now. Seems like they switched to another (static?) version of the page. It looks quite different than it looked when I posted it.

Seems like their switch to Go didn't go so well if HN entry with 7 upvotes can break it ;)

<comment><USER11> The page is still not live.

<comment><USER12> You should maybe try to empty your cache as I can visit the page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A layman's question, I'm not a Ruby expert, but I was wondering - did you try jRuby and were not happy with the performance? or you already run on the JVM? My narrow notion on the Ruby world was that if it doesn't scale, put it on the JVM and you are done, am I living in fantasy land?

</comment><comment><USER14> Why would anyone use Go?

<comment><USER15> If you look for the stream of articles that invaded HN in the last weeks, it is usually because someone implemented a web site in Ruby or Python and when it gets scalability problems all is heaven on earth with Go.

Of course if you're doing server side development already with more performant languages and runtimes, there is little incentive.

<comment><USER16> Or you could use a caching strategy, like enabling cache in apache.

<comment><USER15> That would work as well, yes.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Spam sent via YouTube - <AUTHOR> https://vgy.me/Rs0sEi.png <comment><AUTHOR> Someone is sending spam via YouTube. Link is already disabled. Sent from: [https://vgy.me/NdJHGg.png](https://vgy.me/NdJHGg.png). Really creative. Think twice before You click anything.</comment>


Behind the scenes of a seed round - <AUTHOR> http://hippoland.tumblr.com/post/29555433091/part-1-behind-the-scenes-of-a-seed-round

<comment><USER2> > _He said, "I don't want to say the wrong thing and call you a "meek Asian > woman", but I wonder how you'll lead a company of 100 people."_

So much about investing, VC's claim, is investing "in the team", and trying to figure out "what kind of people" the founders are.

After all, you're not being hired for a well-defined position -- your success may depend on your very character as a human being. Your drive, your persistence, and your ability to inspire others.

But since these things can't ever be objectively measured, there's tons of opportunity for stereotypes (conscious and unconscious) to affect the process.

There's a positive side to going with your "gut instinct", and a negative side as well.

<comment><USER3> As sickening as comments like his are, there's some comfort that it identifies the people you shouldn't waste time with. The only thing worse than a loud bigot is a silent bigot.

I only wish that I could get this information as well so that I could avoid investors with such poor decision making skills. But naming and shaming isn't in your or your company's best interest, so I can't argue with your decision to keep the person's name to yourself.

Perhaps an anonymous post to TheFunded?

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree!

I doubt you'll run into this person. He isn't well known and hasn't even made his first angel investment yet. (that in itself should probably have been a clue for me to not waste my time with him...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This part was really surprising to me - definitely one of those things you don't learn until you try it yourself:

 _> I soon learned that lots of investors liked to reschedule meetings at the last minute to meet with other seemingly "hotter" entrepreneurs. Having a full pipeline gave me leverage to say, "Well, we can move our meeting, but my schedule is so booked — I don't know if our round will still be open by the rescheduled date." This ultimately caused some investors to un-cancel our meetings._

<comment><USER5> There's also some high-school-with-more-money-attached gamesmanship with that sort of thing.

Generic business lesson, not specific to raising funding: you may be occasionally asked to reschedule a meeting on very short notice, sometimes to a time which could not possibly be convenient. This is occasional used as a test: if you say yes, you're communicating that you _really want this deal_ to go through, which means your other options are likely poor. That can then get used against you in negotiations. If, on the other hand, you say "We can't reschedule", you _may_ find that scheduling conflicts resolve themselves as if by magic.

 _Having a full pipeline gave me leverage to say_

n.b. Truthfully conveying to investors/clients/etc that the market circumstances concerning one's availability can quickly change in a fashion against their interests and that as a consequence they should decide quickly does not require any particular state of one's pipeline.

<comment> grey-area Interesting that so much of negotation comes down to brinkmanship and confidence.

 _n.b. Truthfully conveying to investors/clients/etc that the market circumstances concerning one's availability can quickly change in a fashion against their interests and that as a consequence they should decide quickly does not require any particular state of one's pipeline._

Saying 'We _might_ not be available next week' as you do above is not as convincing as saying 'We have 10 meetings this week with potential investors, and we have a closing date of next Tuesday when we'll decide who to go with' or something similar, if that is a truth which they can then confirm with other contacts. I imagine the more truthful and specific you can be about having interest the more convincing it is going to be as a reason for them to be interested.

<comment><USER6> _Interesting that so much of negotation comes down to brinkmanship and confidence._

This is pretty much true for every social interaction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great article and sounds very similar to my experiences. Raising capital is hard work with very long hours and no guarantee of success. It's also requires a tremendous amount of strategy and gamesmanship (such as the "Well our round might not be open by then").

Overall, I hate the experience. Will always try to avoid it at all costs.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm genuinely interested in this whole process of creating a company and getting funds and stuff. Where could I find some resources on equity/angel investor/VC/seeding and all those buzz words I see here. I'd really like to understand this process better.

Oh and, nice blog post! I'm looking forward to read the next part!

<comment><USER9> <http://www.venturehacks.com> is a good resource. There are a number of good books on the topic as well. And there's a lot of good info on Quora. And, of course, search the historical posts here at HN, there's a TON of good stuff here.

BUT... be aware, fundraising is only one aspect of creating a company, and not all companies even want/need to raise outside funding, and of those that do, not all need institutional funding. If you decide to launch something, make sure your focus is on creating something that creates value and has a valid business model... don't just focus on "how do we raise VC money"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The Meek Asian Woman comment is outrageous.

<comment><USER11> perhaps, but also useful information... much better that the person said it, rather than think it and _not_ let her know.

at least now she has information to process about that pattern of interaction behavior.

<comment><USER12> I agree. Maybe not the best choice of words, but it's useful information.

I'm actually impressed by her response. It wasn't to go out and complain about his comment, it was to analyze it and see if it was something useful she could use.

If not, discard. If useful, act on it.

She's not letting a crappy comment slow her down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm curious to know how do investors judge whether given founder has strong or weak personality? Especially in 30-60 minutes meeting? I'm sure it must be gut feeling but good salesman can easily fake it, unlike most of the founders who are geeks.

<comment><USER14> I'm not an investor but I would imagine the answer is in pattern matching. Investors who meet a ton of people inevitably will have longer relationships with some of them and find out in the end whether a founder has a "strong" or "weak" personality.

I think it's reasonable to call this pattern matching a "gut feeling." Eventually, with more data points, I would assume the pattern matching becomes more nuanced and would be able to better distinguish who is faking and who isn't.</comment></comment>


Co-founder of Youtube makes his first comment in 8 years - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/WIApJHX.png <comment><USER2> In answer to his comment: Because you sold your product to Google.

<comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawed_Karim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawed_Karim)

For a measly $60M share. My expertise in valuing Twitter tells me he should have got at least 43.6 bajillion runes.

<comment><USER4> And what, pray tell, is the limit on what is 'enough'? A billion? Two billion?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ironically, the quality of a comment from the co-founder of YouTube isn't any better than a typical YouTube comment.

Lost cause?

<comment><USER6> When in Rome...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What I find appalling is that now if I like a comment it is public on G+.

<comment><USER8> I agree. Google doesn't seem to understand that the way in which a thing is expressed is important. It's like they don't understand the difference between something announced at a press conference, and something mentioned in passing to a friend. My inability to reason about the social context of online interactions tends to seriously discourage me from expressing much in an non-(semi)-anonymous way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> [https://www.youtube.com/user/jawed](https://www.youtube.com/user/jawed)

 _Joined Apr 23, 2005_ \- It's actually legitimate.

<comment><USER10> Indeed - the one video on his channel was the first YouTube video uploaded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> His first comment is a word for word of my last comment.

<comment><USER12> Was the choice of the word "last" as opposed to "latest" deliberate? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> so google can claim higher google+ subscriber rates. i just wonder if investors, ad men will be that idiotic when comparing user counts betweent say Fb and G+. real vs. forced users.

<comment><USER14> Does it really matter to them? (serious question)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Part of the point is that according to their own numbers, YouTube is the only part of Google+ anyone gives a ____ to interact with: [http://marketingland.com/google-hits-300-million-active- mont...](http://marketingland.com/google-hits-300-million-active-monthly-in- stream-users-540-million-across-google-63354)

</comment><comment><USER16> A bit of an overreaction, considering the quality of YouTube comments has notoriously been below acceptable levels for quite some time.

While I can't agree that Google is doing the right thing by forcing +, they are mitigating the problem by doing so. We'll know in a week if the quality of comments goes up dramatically or stays the same in a few days.

</comment><comment><USER17> .. Waiting for John McAfee-style video. "I sold it to them, and I don't know what they did to it..."

</comment><comment><USER18> So what is next? Youtube becomes Google+ its video section.

<comment><USER19> My guess is yes. Picasa is already being merged into G+ and I hate that. It's totally confused the whole product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> For the record: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6695904](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6695904)

</comment><comment><USER21> Because the single to noise ratio on Youtube was beyond a joke. This is, possibly, an easy way to mitigate that.

<comment><USER22> The Android Market, erm, Google Play Store, has made the switch to Google + reviews only as well. As far as I have noticed, this switch has not improved the quality of comments (although the quality was never as bad as with Youtube).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Just out of curiosity, why do you even need an account to comment on a video?</comment>


Using carbon nanotubes and rectennas to yield a 90% efficient solar cell - <AUTHOR> https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/11/23/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-a-90-efficient-solar-panel/ <comment><USER2> This set off one of those "hey, didn't I read about this a long time ago? Like quite a few decades ago?" bells.

A quick trip down memory lane, and here's an archive of one of the stories I was following, back in the day: [http://rexresearch.com/marks2/marks.htm](http://rexresearch.com/marks2/marks.htm). Lumeloid was broadly the same as what NovaSolix proposes -- cheap ultra-high- efficiency PV with optical rectennas -- albeit using polymers rather than carbon nanotubes. I had high hopes that these would be just around the corner in the 1990s, but alas the technology seems to have vanished into the mist. I'm curious to know why: was it a failure of the technology? Financing? Personalities? Alas its demise seems have been undocumented.

Hopefully NovaSolix will fare better; at least today there is complementary infrastructure (far better batteries, electric cars, etc.) which makes investment in any kind of solar tech much more viable than it would have been in the 1990s.

<comment><USER3> There's a 10min interview from 1991

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMGyob166Cg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMGyob166Cg)

crazy to think that so many things were already done and fell below the radar

<comment><USER4> Plenty of perpetual motion patents, does not mean they work.

The system is designed to protect ideas, not validate them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just want to post a reminder that solar cells are already efficient enough and cheap enough to be cost effective for power generation in many regions of the world. I am all for continued research to improve efficiency or decrease cost, but sometimes articles like this one lead people to believe that solar cells are not yet cost effective. They already are!

<comment><USER6> Just to footstomp this, there are other costs that are already beginning to dominate the analysis for solar, like customer acquisition costs. Convincing someone to attach something to their house has significant costs. Like, "over $2000 per install" significant.[0]

Other soft costs, like land acquisition and taxes, still play dominant roles in many projects.[1]

The naive assumption is that solar succeeds when there's lots of sun and it's all just physics.

But these other factors, like, say opportunity costs (the cost of available substitutes), are why you're often better off installing solar in Alaska than Florida.[2]

Theoretical physics are great, but at this point I'd be far more excited about big ideas to deal with the messy economics side of solar generation. An announcement that some sort of "solar council" was going to pursue a national marketing campaign to drive solar adoption would be huge news. Or Elon deciding that strip malls were his new target, to drive installation of solar on every commercially leased roof, which would reap huge efficiencies of scale in local installation costs over residential.

Or, the cheesy TED talk clincher would be: the next big solution isn't always about electrons, sometimes it's about people.

[0] [https://www.solarreviews.com/solar-leads/customer- acquisitio...](https://www.solarreviews.com/solar-leads/customer-acquisition- costs-in-the-solar-industry-2017/)

[1] [https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf)

[2] [https://solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much- electricit...](https://solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electricity- does-a-solar-panel-produce/)

<comment><USER7> Another issue is theft. I own a remote desert property in many ways ideal for solar, but the utility electric bill averages < $20/mo.

Nobody is going to try steal the hot copper wires connecting my house to the grid.

But where there's a substantial PV array on display, there's batteries and an expensive inverter nearby, and not much to prevent taking them.

<comment><USER8> Also in some parts of the world they will definitely steal your copper wires (out of the walls of your house if there isn't sufficient security!) But in those places your solar gear wouldn't last a week.

<comment><USER9> In the UK an acquaintance of mine has regular phone outages because the copper comms lines are pulled. They're shallow ditch laid; the thieves hook one end to a tow-hitch and drive, I gather.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's the money shot:

[https://l0dl1j3lc42iebd82042pgl2-wpengine.netdna- ssl.com/wp-...](https://l0dl1j3lc42iebd82042pgl2-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/2/2018/11/antennae-600x300.jpg)

If they can really make that happen cheaply (green shaded areas, meaning efficient collection of power from near IR photons) this is revolutionary.

Current silicon based tech (blue shaded) is useless for light energies below red.

<comment><USER11> I am always fascinated by how people that don't waste their time with the latest data visualization trends can come up with slides so ugly according to latest trends yet so effective at exposing information.

<comment><USER12> Apart from the (ugly) colors, the plot looks like standard R/gnuplot/whatever tool existing since (I grow old, I grow old) the beginning of time...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Folks here are missing the fact that the rectifying diodes must operate in the THz region. The fact that NovaSolix has demonstrated Proof-of-Concept chips says they are able to build diodes that work at 100s of THz. That, alone, seems impressive to me. (example: green is 630 nm; f = c / lambda, that is, 476 THz)

<comment><USER14> Just to check my understanding:

A green light would create a AC current at 476 THz. We put this through a diode to capture the pulses of current that are moving in the right direction?

<comment><USER15> Yes.

Also, the voltage won't be very high. The diodes have to be efficient in the millivolt regime.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A carbon nano tube antenna that is capable of working at infra-red frequencies have been around a few years, thats fairly simple[1]

The hard part was finding a diode/rectifier that was capable of running at terahertz frequency. I cant see how this rectifies. I assume its to do with the layout: [https://l0dl1j3lc42iebd82042pgl2-wpengine.netdna- ssl.com/wp-...](https://l0dl1j3lc42iebd82042pgl2-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/2/2018/11/materials.jpg)

If they are not telling porkies, then this is a wondrous breakthrough. (assuming the nanotubes are UV stable.)

[1] 1/2 wavelength conductor, which is possible with carbon nanotubes

</comment><comment><USER17> 90%? I thought the theoretical maximum was 86%: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_efficiency_lim...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_efficiency_limit)

<comment><USER15> I think you are on to something. For non-concentrated solar, what a low-cost application would use, the limit is given as 43%. The numbers given trigger my bull-detector hard and I've had some insight into the difficulties that you face if you actually want to build a rectifying diode. Those things are hard. Really hard. You're getting nowhere near where you'd have to be to achieve the limit. To satisfy the claims given, these guys have to be geniuses beyond imagination.

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > And like so many other ideas, if the sales pitch is real, if the scientists > can deliver, if the hypothesis can move to theory – and the theory become > applicable in a scalable, manufacturable good – then all the rules change.

</comment><comment><USER19> Wow - this is a totally different approach than crystalline silicon, and could be much cheaper to produce as well as more efficient. Something new is going to be required to do much better than 35% efficiency, as you can only do so much lining up the band-gap of semiconductors.

On another note, it's nice to see that crystalline silicon PV is perceived to be so successful that people are lining up to comment on how a dramatic improvement in power density and cost wouldn't really matter.

</comment><comment><USER20> Carbon nanotubes, the wonder material that's only as toxic as asbestos [1].

[1] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon- nanotube-d...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-nanotube- danger/)

</comment><comment><USER21> I assume this won't ever hit the market at the promised performance and cost. In the past decade or so we've been inundated with hundreds of stories, maybe thousands, about new solar breakthroughs and they never come to pass. The same is true of all the battery "breakthroughs". For some reason this stuff is never commercially viable. I wish I understood why.

</comment><comment><USER22> Just a random thought on the idea that there might be a limit function as it pertains to the desirablility of increased efficiency.

We have a 13 kW array. I make it a point to keep it cleen. However, this isn't something one can expect to accomplish daily. At the very least it would waste a lot of water. As a result of this, my panels, on average, enjoy a combination of dust, leaves and, yes, bird poo, sometimes lots of it.

If we had 90% efficient panels the combination of dirt, dust and a determined flock of birds could take out 50% of my energy generation capacity. Having a less efficient system distributed across a larger area might actually be a better idea.

<comment><USER23> 90% efficient panels would have ~4x smaller area. Wouldn't be that easier to clean and secure from bird poo etc?

<comment><USER22> I don't feel like getting too scientific today. My gut feeling is that the accelerated loss rate due to greater Watts per square meter will at some point intersect with the curve denoting cleaning needs. At one point water waste and man-hours might become a problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Their argument that it will be cheaper because of raw materials costs is pure rubbish. That was supposed to be the point of silicon - it's just sand! Then people realized that the structure (crystalline) and energy intensive processing required to obtain that structure were the real cost drivers, not to mention the housing, transparent electrode arrays, and installation costs. Nanotechnology is difficult to manufacture because of the energetic factors working against the formation of long-range nanostructure.

<comment><USER25> Energetic? It sounds like it would be entropic. Every crystal or polymer is a long-range nanostructure.

<comment><USER24> Sorry, you're right- but entropy is a part of the thermodynamic free energy of a structure, I was glibly rolling all that into "energy"..

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_free_energy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_free_energy)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think scientists and inventors often do themselves no favors by making claims like "90% efficient". That's the theoretical maximum. Now if they hit 80%, we'll all say they failed despite it being an incredible achievement.

They should claim "75% or more", and then hit 80% and blow our minds. The Scotty Factor[0] should be liberally applied when possible[0].

[0][http://wiki.c2.com/?ScottyFactor](http://wiki.c2.com/?ScottyFactor)

<comment><USER27> I don't think that's an issue at all. If the panel actually comes out and it's 60% at comparable prices to existing ones I'll still be overjoyed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The highest cost of Solar installations these days is the installation cost itself and the batteries -- if you're willing to spend the cost for the batteries. 90% efficient is great but the real value for most would be in reducing the cost in the additionals to the solar cells.

Less than 40% of the installation costs are the actual solar panels.

If someone came out with a DIY solar installation, that would be a major advance.

<comment><USER29> I've done numerous DIY solar installs, to power outbuildings on my property, as off-grid battery-powered systems. I hired professional help for our system that powers the main house, as the scale was larger and the grid-tie was beyond my expertise. But an experienced electrician could surely do that part as well. So the lack of DIY installs is less about the solar tech, and more about where any given individual's DIY skills fall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> There's a speculative solar announcement like this every week. Until they actually produce results don't get your hopes up.

</comment><comment><USER31> Any technology that surpasses 50% efficiency will never double its efficiency again.

We are already very close to 50% with 40-46% efficient solar cells. The installation cost, scaffolding cost, maintenance and the cell price start to dominate. Solar panel tilt can improve efficiency up to 30 percent (flat panel versus sun following 2-axis panel).

<comment><USER19> If you double efficiency you halve the size, roughly halving the installation, scaffolding, & etc. costs you mention.

Also those 40-46% efficient cells are expensive, requiring 3 different layers of semiconductors each tuned to a different band-gap. The panels we all buy for ~$1/watt are about 20% efficient, single-layer designs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I this is actually true and feasible, this has immense implications. Imagine mirror powered airplanes.

</comment><comment><USER33> >yield a 90% efficient solar cell

Yield a 90% efficient solace cell _for a single wavelength_

<comment><USER34> edit: actually, I'm wrong, see below

You're right, I believe. I don't have time to investigate, but if the claim is 90% efficiency w.r.t. total radiation input, it's certainly wrong. Doing so would violate the 2nd law. For example, room temperature thermal radiation has significant emmitance in the radio range of the spectrum. Needless to say nobody can build radio antennas to turn this energy into work.

If it is 90% of the thermodynamic limit, then maybe. But then I think multijunction cells are already significantly close to the thermodynamic limit (much better than 22% claimed).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s_theorem_(thermodyna...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s_theorem_\(thermodynamics\))

(obs1: substituting Tsun as Th and Tearth as Tc left as an exercise to the reader ;) )

(obs2: try changing Tc to CMB temperature! )

<comment><USER27> Those "significant" amounts of radio are an extremely small amount compared to the visible and near infrared output of the sun.

> substituting Tsun as Th and Tearth as Tc left as an exercise to the reader

Left to the reader because doing the math reveals that it's only a 6% difference and undermines your point? ;)

<comment><USER34> Oh thanks. I hadn't actually plugged in the numbers, shame on me :P

It seems the maximum efficiency in this case is ~94.8%, so the claim does seem plausible at least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> ELI5: What is a 'rectenna'

<comment><USER36> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna)

Radio waves jiggle the electrons back and forth in your chunk of metal. Stick in a diode so they can only go one way and you have power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> > hopes to use carbon nanotubes to...

> a process they hope will yield...

Yawn. I hope to get a new truck for Christmas- let me know when Santa Claus is real.

</comment><comment><USER38> Nice in theory. Very difficult to get anywhere near that efficiency in practice. Best of luck to them, but I'm not holding my breath.</comment>


How to Make a 'Gold Standard' Remote Work Office - <AUTHOR> https://workremote.us/how-to-make-a-gold-standard-remote-work-office/ <comment><USER2> Really insightful article on making your office suitable for remote work.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great to see behind the scenes, hard pro remote work setup

</comment><comment><USER4> when you want a real impact in a video conference as a remote worker pro</comment>