Vim's speed is not really the point (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://wrongsideofmemphis.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/vim-speed-is-not-really-the-point/ <comment><USER2> I'm not going to read the article, and I'm not going to even say if I like VIM or not. I have become completely bored with the discussions about the pros and cons of VIM and other editors. My only hope is hundreds of years ago people were having the same discussions about pens versus pencils, and they were equally as bored with it as me. I only comment because I care enough about any others out there, who may think they are all alone, who are as bored with this topic as I am.

<comment><USER3> I think the tool obsession blossoms with repetitive jobs. If you perform essentially the same programming task over and over, you focus on finding the most efficient way to do it. If your tasks are less repetitive, you probably spend more time thinking than writing code, so you are not as concerned with tool efficiency.

Car mechanics debate who makes the best 3/8" flex-head ratchet. Engine designers don't. _[citation needed]_

Still, the flex-head ratchet was probably invented by someone who got frustrated trying to turn a tricky bolt with a fixed-head ratchet. Discussing the benefits/limitations of current tools is worthwhile.

However, when it comes to text editors, I see a lot more "X editor is amazing, here's why" than I see "all editors are insufficient, here's how we should make them better."

<comment><USER4> I am not sure about "the tool obsession blossoms with repetitive jobs". Maybe my counter-example is very specific, but I think about painters (even on digital mediums) and the obsession about their tools.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I personally am a fairly lazy person, so moving my hands away from the keyboard all the time to reach the mouse is just too much, and I get tired fairly fast. That's the main reason I use vim.

<comment><USER6> Same, though I don't know if tired is the best word for me. For me, its just like, whats the point? Being able to use a computer without having to move my arms more than an inch or so is kind of...relaxing?

<comment><USER7> Maybe what you need is the AlphaGrip[1]!

[1] [http://allthingsergo.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2011/08/gri...](http://allthingsergo.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2011/08/grip-front-view1.jpg)

<comment><USER8> I've got one, the mouse leaves a lot to be desired.

<comment><USER9> An upgrade I've made to my Alphagrips (with the optical trackball) is to use either a stainless steel ball or a teflon ball instead of the cheap plastic trackball. Edit: Just remembered I also replaced the tiny balls holding the trackball with teflon balls. I think the biggest improvement was just from replacing the main trackball though, I rarely have to clean the sensor/rollers anymore.

My biggest issue other than that is the behavior of Shift doesn't match other keyboards :\ Can't shift click to select ranges of text.

<comment><USER8> Where did you get them to ensure the right size? I'd be really interested. I tried to mod mine with an IBM trackpoint, with no success.

<comment><USER9> Ordered them from Mcmasters. I'll have to check exact dimensions later, but I want to say they were 1" and 1/8"

<comment><USER9> Extreme-Temperature Slippery PTFE Ball, 3/4" Diameter

316 Stainless Steel Precision Ball, 3/4" Diameter

Extreme-Temperature Slippery PTFE Ball, 1/8" Diameter

Hope that helps! I also tried the same stainless steel in 1/8", but that made the trackball loud.

<comment><USER8> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> a-dub ahh yes, editor holy wars...

a) it has little to do with the tool itself (vim vs. whatever), it's about the payoff from investing time in learning an editor or environment well. once you know your tool well, friction drops substantially. if you take someone who knows something like intellij well and put them next to someone who knows vim well, it would probably be a wash in terms of who is hobbled most by the shortcomings of their tool. if you know a tool well, you know where it excels and where it sucks, and you have strategies for using it effectively.

b) to really know a tool well, a significant investment of time and effort must be made. i prefer to spend my time and effort on projects, to be honest.

c) vim is a tool that can be taken anywhere and the rewards of learning it can be paid back for years. corporate environment? usually already there or easy to get due to it being open source. platform? you can get it for pretty much any visual environment. language? if more than 10 people have written in it, there's a syntax colorizer for vim. need to do some ops stuff? vi will be there. hell, in a pinch, even busybox has a vi clone.

is it intrinsically better or worse? hard to say. but as far as i'm concerned, vim is a worthwhile investment because of its portability, longevity and constant adaption by a strong community to changing environments.

<comment><USER10> > it has little to do with the tool itself (vim vs. whatever)

I don't know about that. I've been proficient in other editors too, but I found that vim's modal editing mode confers unique advantages when it comes to staying in flow.

But if compared to an IDE there are several flow-breaking things in vim that just don't work as well out of the box (navigation, indexing, debugger integration etc), so if that's your point then I agree.

Of course most major IDEs have some sort of vim emulator these days so you can have your cake and eat it.

<comment><USER11> It's curious that vim uses modes and it is actually one of the things I really like about it. A lot of HCI talks about how modes are "evil" because the user can get confused and what mode they are in. I do occasionally issue a command from the wrong mode but I find that the time to correct is usually extremely small and far outweighs having to create more cumbersome bindings that don't have collisions in other modes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> To me, the difference between using a command-driven tool and a graphical interface is comparable to the difference between explaining a native speaker how to get to the museum (straight-on for 200 m, second turn left, first turn right after the park) and trying to do the same to someone who does not understand any of the languages I speak by pointing, making walking movements with my hands, mimicking left and right-hand turns and trying to find a way to bring across the concept of a park by these means.

Yes, I had to learn German, English, Swedish and French before I could converse with people using those languages. This took time, but it was well worth the effort. It took time to learn (eg.) vi as well, but this too was worth the effort. I can still point and click my way through a maze of menus if I want by using a GUI-enabled version of vi or any other editor, but why bother when I can just tell the thing what I want in a few keystrokes?

<comment><USER13> I suppose you could use one of the thousands of GUI-based editors that also have key shortcuts for their commands. I don't know which one you used that required menu navigation to do everything you should name-and-shame so we know to avoid it.

<comment><USER14> Unless you are talking about emacs and/or vi bindings, the key shortcuts you are talking about are just barely scratching the surface.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> While this is going to seem (and probably is) a bit inflammatory, I don't think any article will ever make a convincing _Why Editor X Is Better_ argument for people who already use Editor Y.

In practice, there's a functionality bar for editors to clear; the likelihood that you're going to gain massive productivity improvements by switching between editors that are both past that bar is honestly pretty low. And that bar is likely lower than most people think. Reasonable syntax highlighting, good regex support in search/replace, _some_ kind of "project" support, _some_ kind of scriptability, and an ability to set basic editor configuration variables on a per language basis (e,g., 2-space tabs for YAML, 4-space for Python)... once you hit a certain point, then you get into progressively more dubious arguments. "I can change the contents between these parentheses on line 9 by simply typing '9Gf(ci(' while _you 're_ clicking in the line with your mouse like an animal!" Good for you, ace, but you're not really saving the time you think you are. (Also, you can perform a rough equivalent of "select or delete the stuff between these parentheses" with a single command in BBEdit, Sublime Text, and Emacs, and I'm sure in many other editors.)

I'm not suggesting all editors are absolutely fungible past a certain point -- there's solid reasons you may prefer one over the other -- but once you get really good with a given editor, "modality is awesome" and "everything in my editor is actually a Lisp command" shouldn't be particularly convincing arguments. Generally speaking, you probably have better things to do with your time than figure out how to replicate your favorite Editor X power moves in Editor Y. Don't you?

<comment><USER16> But can you repeat it in a slightly different place? That's where vim typically beats other editors for me. Every editor can do a one-off in some way. It's when you can repeat them in different contexts or quickly adapt them to slightly different ones. vim gives you tools right up front to do this quickly and accurately instead of doing repetitive mouse gestures or filling out dialogs.

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure that my interpretation of this is quite what you mean; most editor operations I do day to day, at least, _aren 't_ particularly context- sensitive. The balance command in BBEdit that I referred to above, for instance, just selects whatever's in between the closest pair of braces, brackets or parens, and if you keep hitting it, it expands the selection outward. There's not much I can think of that _is_ context-sensitive other than functions relating to the language you're editing, and I can't think of any "class A" editors -- Vim, Emacs, Sublime, TextMate, BBEdit, etc. -- that seem way below (or way above) the median in this regard.

The debate about mouse-vs.-keyboard will probably be argued long after nobody's actually using either mice or keyboards. Personally I've found that the farther you need to move the cursor the more likely it is that using a pointing device for at least part of the operation will prove faster, and AFAIK most studies done on this going back 30+ years corroborate that, but it doesn't "feel" faster to us. (That's not directly relevant to editors, since Vim and Emacs both support mice just fine, even if their diehard fans consider that heretical.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It takes too much thinking to use editors like that. I'm very much of the "don't make me think" school, and I grew up using Notepad. Well, maybe I don't use Notepad anymore, but I like it when I press the up-arrow key and my cursor moves up a line. Simple.

<comment><USER18> You're right it takes more thinking in order to learn vim or _any set of key bindings_. Vim has taught me that you are able to "speak", by typing, a language related to editing text. You are severely limiting your self in your efficiency of editing if you choose to ignore your ability to define macros/modes/whatever in a powerful text editor.

I use emacs now with a highly configured set of key bindings, and you're right it's taken me a lot of time. You're comment makes me think there are two types of programmers, those in the "don't make me think" school and those who spend an insane amount of time in one of the big editors, i.e vim/emacs/sublime. To make a gross example of the deficiencies of each, the "don't make me think" school are the people who would manually enumerate function calls instead of learning what a for loop is, while the crazy emacs hackers are the type to spend more time fine-tuning their config than actually working.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Some things feel unnatural about vim. For instance I always tend to remap its default paste behavior to more commonly used one, and claims that one has to "adjust muscular memory" don't sound convincing to me when it introduces a drastic inconsistency.

Most editors paste text before the cursor position, and also set cursor position after the pasted text (after pasting). Vim defaults are different. If you press "p" it pastes after the cursor, and as well puts cursor on the last character of the pasted text (not after!). Vim offers an option that's similar to common behavior. It's "gP" (instead of "p"), so I usually remap p to act as gP, since that's what I use all the time:

        noremap p gP
        noremap P gp
        noremap gp P
        noremap gP p

Another thing that's commonly different in vim, is that when you select text in visual mode, it picks the character under cursor as well i.e. beyond the highlighted area. Most editors only select it until the cursor, and not including. Luckily this is also configurable with

        set selection=exclusive

May be in vim it was always the other way for historic reasons, but consistency is convenient and at least in my case all other editors / text forms that I use (including browsers) act differently from vim defaults in regards to select / copy / paste behavior.

<comment><USER20> > claims that one has to "adjust muscular memory" don't sound convincing to me > when it introduces a drastic inconsistency

Sorry, emacs user here... I just wanted to say that adjusting muscular memory can go faster than you expect. I learnt how to use emacs a couple of months ago, and have recently noticed the tendency to do ctrl-x + ctrl-s to save, or ctrl-y to paste, even when not in emacs ;-) The latter can be a bit annoying, but learning emacs was such a big plus that I don't mind much.

The article on vim sounds interesting, I tried and gave up learning it some time back, I should definitely revisit it again.

<comment><USER19> I don't mean you can't adjust muscular memory - you can. But when behavior is inconsistent (like pasting I described above), you need to switch it each time you use something that's not vim. For me it's not about what key combination to press - that's not as hard to switch, but more about what behavior to expect from the action "paste" and etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Oh yes, this is why I find Vim much better than any other editor. Because I don't need to think about editing, it just happens as I need and when I need.

</comment><comment><USER22> As noted in TFA, was discussed here before:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5448983](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5448983)

</comment><comment><USER11> Some other helpful hints for the vim users:

1) You can use Ctrl-C instead of escape in most cases. This results in less travel distance and avoiding the wrist rotation. Which leads to...

2) Bind Caps Lock to Ctrl like God intended it to be. That way you can use Ctrl-C really easily and also the page navigation commands like Ctrl-(F|B|U|D) are really easy. This one might not work if you have a caps lock key with those weird notches.

3) Bind your Leader key to Space. I have the Unite plugin do fuzzy file / buffer finding when I hit Space Space.

4) Set up your own custom key bindings to the other Ctrl keys are aren't used by anything yet. Ctrl-S and Ctrl-V to split screens horizontally and veritcally.

5) Bind Ctrl-(H|J|K|L) to move between screens.

</comment><comment><USER23> As a front end web developer, I am not really sure I understand any "advantages" to VIM or VI, or any command-line based edit for that matter. Sure, they might be great if you're doing scripting, messing around with the back end, or dong DB stuff. But for me, writing day-to-day JS, HTML, CSS code, VIM seems like a very huge burden. It's like trying to unscrew a screw with scissors when you have a screwdriver laying next to you. Why not just use a good, well-rounded editor like Sublime or Atom, or even Eclipse, for that matter..? I often see web developer, dabbling in front end code, doing their coding in VIM. Yuck. Someone explain?

<comment><USER24> No, you understand just fine. VIM has developed mostly irrational cult following. It exists because it came from an era when computer keyboards were not much more than typewriter keyboards. In that context you needed to get creative in order to interact with any software. I was building and messing with computers as far back as 1978, so yeah, I lived that era. And, yes, I too wrote editors and programs that operated in similar fashion. The motivation wasn't to make it more efficient or to keep your hands on the keyboard. The mouse did not exist. All you had was a crippled keyboard.

I don't know anyone of my generation that doesn't simply laugh or look at the cult of vim and isn't perplexed by some of what proponents of the cult say. We ran as fast as we could from those kinds of interfaces once the computer keyboard developed further and the GUI took to the world. The people who had to use that shit 'cause there was no other choice dropped it like hot potatoes as soon as they could.

Here's reality from the perspective of designing, building and programming all sorts of computers for over 30 years:

If you are spending so much time typing that fractions of a second at the keyboard make a significant impact on the development cycle, you are a hack and don't know what you are doing.

Real software and hardware engineers spend far more time designing and planning than coding. Coding is the end result of a process and, in terms of time, is often dwarfed by design and debugging.

As an example, we are in the middle of a month-long process of designing a database for a project. Not one line of code has been written. Every day is devoted to database structure discussions and documentation. Once settled, the DB code might take a week to write.

We are also designing an FPGA-based board as part of the same project. Over three months have gone into research, circuit design and other tasks. The time coding in Verilog won't even compare to the effort before getting to that point.

And then there's debugging and the inevitable pivot or two.

There's nothing whatsoever an editor can do to impact this development cycle in a measurable way. We use several GUI-based code editors. Nobody here is saying "if I could only keep my hands on the keyboard for another few seconds I could...". If they did, the laughter in the room would be so loud you could measure it with a seismograph because it is so utterly ridiculous.

Do I use vim? Of course, only when I have no other choice.

<comment><USER25> > If you are spending so much time typing that fractions of a second at the > keyboard make a significant impact on the development cycle, you are a hack > and don't know what you are doing.

The win isn't that you saved fractions of a second. It's that your quick edit was fast enough that it didn't interrupt your thought process.

> As an example, we are in the middle of a month-long process of designing a > database for a project. Not one line of code has been written. Every day is > devoted to database structure discussions and documentation. Once settled, > the DB code might take a week to write.

You say this like trial-and-error isn't a valid way to design something. You can spend as much time as you want designing things up front, but until you try them, there's a good chance you won't know if it's a good design. You'll always find issues later on.

Another way to look at it is this: you could write down you ideas on paper or in diagrams, or you could write them down in code, and run them to see if they make sense/work the way you think they should.

The code you write while designing doesn't have to be the same codebase as the final product. It can just be a bunch of small programs you use to help formulate your ideas.

<comment><USER24> Once you have enough experience you do far less trial and error. I rarely write code that does not work. By that I mean, my code generally solves the problem to be solved on the first write and is generally significantly bug- free.

That's not because I am a genius or somehow super-human, I have a lot of experience and have developed a decent process of design-before-coding. Trial and error is really wasteful. It still has it's place in areas that might not be entirely clear. Outside of that, design-before-coding can save tons of time and aggravation.

In other words, coding is the end of a process, not the process.

<comment><USER25> Ah, I think the difference is that usually when I'm working on something, it's a new problem, and I need some time to not only try to find a solution, but first understand the problem. I find that trying to write a solution helps me to get the problem space loaded into my head.

Different people have different processes, I suppose. And that's a probably a big reason for why people have different opinions on tools: they have different use cases.

<comment><USER24> Whatever works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A programming language / environment is at its best when it minimizes the amount of cognitive load and context switches. Mouse movements require a feedback loop where the user must lift their hand feel around for the mouse, then move the mouse, then there is a rapid loop where the user moves the mouse, sees where the cursor goes, determines how far from the destination it is, then repeat until the goal is reached.

Vim cursor movements however are more logical and absolute. Go up 2 lines, end of word, end of line, everything inside the quotes, etc. The cognitive load required is much less in vim -- at least once learned, but definitely not in the beginning when going through the learning curve.

It may not seem like much but every bit of brain power that can be freed up is that much more brain power that can be used to concentrate on the task at hand.

To someone who is trained in vim it just feels much more relaxed and fluid when editing. To exaggerate, imagine if every time you had to use the mouse, you had to open a drawer, pull out the mouse, plug it in, perform your action, then unplug it, then put it back into the desk. This is a contrived example for sure but it gives an illustration of the subtle distraction and annoyance many vim users feel when they have to use the mouse.

</comment><comment><USER26> Oh, I thought this was going to be about how fast "vim" runs. "vim" has performance good enough for looking at large text files such as logs in the 100MB range. Some editors will choke on that. Gedit on Linux blows up on excessively long lines, which is embarrassing for 2015.

</comment><comment><USER27> You can count me as one of those who simply don't like modal editors. Every vi(m) user has had the experience of pasting something in while in command mode or typing commands while in editing mode. It's disruptive and annoying (IMHO). Obviously YMMV.

But take the poster's example of changing parameters. Let me tell you how I do this in IntelliJ:

1\. Click anywhere between the parentheses; 2\. Press Ctrl+W (context- sensitive selection) repeatedly until I have everything within the parentheses; 3\. Type the new parameters.

Now some might object to the mouse use here. There is a belief that the keyboard is faster, which seems to at least in part be an illusion [1]. Anyway, (1) can be replaced by any number of keyboard navigation techniques. Incremental search tends to be my "go to".

The one big use case for vim/emacs for me is the ability to use them over SSH. That's actually pretty huge but I won't use either all the time just for that.

At the end of the day vim (and emacs) are just text editors, which is fine, but you see this limitation all the time. Regex based syntax highlighting will have funny edge cases (emacs is a little different here I know).

An IDE is built to understand code constructs and concepts like the context- sensitive selection I mentioned above. Being able to move a java file and have it update all my imports and packages. Being able to auto import when I start typing a class name. Code templates (eg type "iter" or "itar" in IntelliJ then hit tab when you want to write a loop).

The amount of mental effort that seems to go into recreating an environment you get for free with an IDE is mind-boggling to me. By this I mean the constant tinkering with plugins and extensions.

Unfortunately many vim/emacs diehards use Eclipse as a strawman argument against IDEs ("I once used Eclipse and it was slow thus IDEs suck") when Eclipse is (IMHO) at best a medicore IDE with a lot of warts.

The other area where vim/emacs have survived is with the C/C++ family of languages (Visual Studio notwithstanding for Windows users). That's because tooling in this area has been pretty basic. I applaud Jetbrains' recent CLion effort.

The problem here is that the C++ grammar is so incredibly complicated it makes tooling difficult.

This is one reason why I appreciate the design goals of Go: simple grammar leads to easier tooling and faster compilation.

[1]: [http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30682/are-there-any- re...](http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30682/are-there-any-recent- studies-of-the-keyboard-vs-mouse-issue)

<comment><USER28> > Let me tell you how I do this in IntelliJ:

>1\. Click anywhere between the parentheses;

You lost me at step 1.

I know you mentioned 'some might object to the mouse use', but I would argue that a large number of people who prefer modal editors like Vi(m) do so because they can be driven completely by the keyboard and don't require you to use the mouse - which is disruptive and annoying (IMHO), obviously YMMV.

P.S. I gave you an upvote and I'm not sure why people were downvoting you. You presented clear and logical arguments for your opinion and even if I disagree with them, I can still respect them.

<comment><USER29> > I know you mentioned 'some might object to the mouse use', but I would argue > that a large number of people who prefer modal editors like Vi(m) do so > because they can be driven completely by the keyboard and don't require you > to use the mouse - which is disruptive and annoying (IMHO), obviously YMMV.

For some of us annoying is the least of the problem. Using the mouse to edit for more than an hour or two causes me crippling pain. Without Vim, or something else that would allow me to avoid the mouse 100%, I'm not sure I'd still be able to edit code at all.

Not every developer will develop RSI problems, but fewer would if they used a mouseless workflow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The way I'd put the point of this article: Vim enables the user to more directly translate their intentions into actions

</comment><comment><USER31> vim is like the force. you think about what you want and it happens.

</comment><comment><USER32> I think vim's real point is its crazy visual block mode --

[http://vimcasts.org/episodes/selecting-columns-with- visual-b...](http://vimcasts.org/episodes/selecting-columns-with-visual-block- mode/)

</comment><comment><USER11> When I first learned vim, it took me a week to get to the same proficiency of MS notepad. After that it just got better. Now it's my main editor.

</comment><comment><USER33> I have no idea how fast vim itself is. I know that i'm faster when i use vim , so i use it all the time, because time is the most precious thing.

</comment><comment><USER34> From my experience the argument applies just as well to SublimeText.

But yes, you need to know your shortcuts.

</comment><comment><USER35> That was a good read :) I love vim it's beautiful</comment>


Ask HN: How to Learn Web Design? - <AUTHOR> I'm pretty good with React/Angular concepts and general development but when it comes to styling my pages I totally suck. I either throw Bootstrap or something similar at it and that makes it somewhat presentable but when I try to customize my own styles I always end up with something wack.<p>Is there any books or any way of learning how to apply CSS right to get beautiful pages? <comment><USER2> Try designing to communicate

This book is some sort of opening to that world. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Make_Me_Think](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Make_Me_Think)

If you want to jump ship later, the paradigm to design for other people will help in other disciplines e.g information architecture, API design

It might be

<comment><USER3> One of the best books I've read regarding UX. Don't sleep on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was looking for a basic intro to design from a dev perspective (sounds similar to your use case) and found this: [https://refactoringui.com/book/](https://refactoringui.com/book/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I have the same problem. My designs look like crap. That's why I've decided to try this one here: [https://scrimba.com/course/gdesignbootcamp](https://scrimba.com/course/gdesignbootcamp)

He talks about design principles, like spacing,colors,etc. - I haven't gotten around to take the course yet, but I'm hoping that this finally frees me from needing a UI designer.</comment>


Ask HN: How much does working at a Big 4 company help longterm career prospects? - <AUTHOR> For context: I'm about to graduate from college in India and have an offer for an SDE role at one of the biggest tech companies(in their Indian offices)<p>I'm split between doing a masters(my original plan) and taking up this job. In the long term, which would provide more value(to a non-US citizen): A masters degree from a ~top 40 university or a year or two at one of the Big 4's non-US branches? <comment><USER2> If you're doing Masters in AI/ML/Autonomous vehicles where your eventual thesis will be on-par with current tech companies, you should do Masters. Else, get into SDE role, figure out real world and with money in hand (salary savings)figure out whether to do Masters or not.

My background: Did Masters in US, worked as SDE, been in Consulting for many years at big-4. I now get called on high risk projects.

<comment><USER3> May I ask for a few examples of high risk projects?

Also, would you please elaborate on what technologies did you work at your Big4?

Thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Most Big-tech companies, and even some startups, seem to prefer recruiting people with an existing big tech background, so taking the offer will indeed improve your career options in the long run IMO.

</comment><comment><USER5> IMO the work experience is probably more valuable, especially from one of the big 4.

I've definitely worked with people whose only qualification seemed to be they worked at one of them.

</comment><comment><USER6> Once you start working, experience is more important than education. No matter if you're on a big-4 or not: After the first 3-4 years, work experience wins...

If you go to a big-4 expect not having time to study. Not even a 4-week mooc.

</comment><comment><USER7> Would the degree be at a top 40 school in India or in the US?

<comment><USER3> Presumably US, but would like to hear from the horses mouth.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the US or Canada</comment></comment></comment>


When Grown-Ups Get Caught in Teens' AirDrop Crossfire - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/06/why-teens-try-airdrop-you-memes-concerts/591064/ <comment><USER2> This article is about teens pranking strangers (mostly) by sending them images via AirDrop. If you're not familiar with AirDrop, it uses a combination of Bluetooth and WiFi to allow Apple users to easily share files between devices. AirDrop reception can be placed into three modes: send only, contacts only, everyone. If you don't want to be pranked, don't leave AirDrop reception set to everyone. Here's an Apple article explaining it:

[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204144](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT204144)

I've never had AirDrop work reliably much farther than about 10-15 feet.

<comment><USER3> Bluetooth should be off also, unless you have a use case.

(Apparently Bluetooth has some valiant defenders, but I stand by my assertion on security grounds.)

<comment><USER4> With Bluetooth headphones being pretty widespread now it'll probably be enabled most of the time for most people. Especially with the low energy version if doesn't really matter any more too.

<comment><USER5> I have (and love) Tile Bluetooth locators on my keys and in my wallet. I never loose phone/wallet/keys anymore (or I lose all three simultaneously, in which case I have to log into my laptop or ask my wife to use her Tile app to alarm my phone for me).

And my car starts music over my Bluetooth when I turn on the radio. I can answer calls hands-free by pushing a button on the dash. I don't have to touch my phone at all for these things to happen, just to keep it in my pocket or bag.

Both of these highly useful functions mean that my Bluetooth is on perpetually. Enabling it only when I wanted to use these features would be a major reduction in functionality for me.

<comment><USER3> I have a basket that I put stuff in when I walk in the door, those things never get lost. My whole music collection is in flac on a thumbdrive in my car. I don't need to do anything else.

Different people do different things, of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have to laugh about them making this out to be a teen thing. Messing with people who have insecure settings is a cornerstone of hacker culture. I'd do this all the time if I had an iPhone. I haven't been a teen for 20 years.

<comment><USER7> A few years ago I would name my phone Satan and try to pair with other phones during church.

Phones these days aren't visible by default so it's rarely possibly anymore.

<comment><USER8> Hah, awesome. Well, you still have some options. Having a tethered WiFi hotspot open at all times with a silly name - it almost seems to have turned into a sort of contest on Caltrain who can have the most absurd hotspot name.

<comment><USER7> Haha that's pretty good. I also considered connecting to unsecured wifi and renaming it (since 99% of the time it uses default creds) to something like "Brother Tim's porn server" but that is probably too far.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> An aside, this seems to be a recurring theme: Kids don't feel like they have anonymity/a way for something not to last anymore, so they are searching out ways to get it.

I recall this being something that came up as SnapChat being valuable for, letting stuff be ephemeral.

The good part of this is kids being kids, they find ways, but I am curious if anyone else have found different examples of this type of behavior?

The only other equivalent I have seen is the large "group texts" movement for connectivity (with associated Bitmoji/memes etc)

Edit: Replaced WhatsApp with SnapChat, thanks for the correction! (Shows how out of touch I am on this stuff)

<comment><USER10> Snapchat?

I still see the majority of college-aged and younger using it consistently.

<comment><USER11> Instagram's taken alot of that userbase

<comment><USER10> Not really.

That is older adults, 22+.

Their userbase is getting older.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't know if it's just teens. Unfortunately it's pervs too.

First time I ever got a random AirDrop was a dick pic while I riding the subway in NYC. Somebody just sending dick pics to strangers on the subway.

I hadn't realized Apple had created a whole new avenue for sexual harassment. Great. Apparently at some point in the past I'd changed from the default "contacts only" to "everyone" without realizing what it would open me up to.

Obviously it seems like technologically there ought to be a way to identify the sending phone and pass it to the police to find the perp and charge them with a hefty fine at a minimum... but I'd already deleted it (of course) and didn't have the time.

Still, seems like Apple ought to provide a kind of "report abuse" mechanism that would disable it from your Apple ID, or _something_.

Also, maybe when an image is from someone not in your contacts... don't show a preview??? Or make it super-super blurry, so you can reject it without being subjected to it?

<comment><USER13> You would want to press criminal charges for a dick pic? I never really understood who that hurt, especially when it is adult to adult. I've had them sent to me before and it never really bothered me.

<comment><USER12> You can already press criminal charges for someone exposing themselves to you sexually in public.

How is it any different whether it's in person or in pixels?

Do you honestly think you should be able to go up to anyone in public and wave your genitals in their face, that that should be legal? Because I don't see a big difference.

I believe that it's right and proper to maintain a certain level of public decency and enforce that by criminal law. And today in 2019 in New York City (where I live), that means being topless or dressing risque in public is OK... but that exposing yourself or having sex in public is not. That seems like a pretty reasonable line.

<comment> Joe-Z Yes, that is a reasonable line. The big difference that I see is, if someone is waving his genitals in my face I may fear he may come unto me, rub his penis against me or whatever else.

A dick pic is just that, a picture of a penis. I'm not sure what we're enforcing when we ban other people from exposing themselves to others is 'showing genitals to others' but rather 'behaving very sexually aggressive towards someone else'. And you can't really argue that with an anonymous dick pic.

Of course dick pics are rude, but arguing they are just the same as exposing yourself in public seems ingenuous

<comment><USER14> Everything about sending a women a dick pic from the other side of a subway ride is threatening. Since she will have to step off the subway and walk to her destination alone, I consider it a serious offense.

<comment><USER15> How about a picture of a gun?

A knife?

A baseball bat?

... carried by a little leaguer in his team photo?

Where is that line drawn?

</rhetorical>

<comment><USER15> I knew this would get downvoted, instead of actually answered. Emotional arguments are easy to make, but hard to justify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Hey, adults do this too! I keep a picture of George W. Bush with cornrows on my phone for exactly this reason.

<comment><USER17> As someone close to AARP age physically, but still only 13 mentally, I keep Astronaut Sloth just for Airdropping to random people.... [https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/437645-astronaut- sloth](https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/437645-astronaut-sloth)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Gotta wonder how many airdroppers are sharing photos with Exif data.

</comment><comment><USER19> I have experienced this first hand while chaperoning school field trips - it's an amazing ad-hoc local area social network! Definitely emerging cultural patterns via technology. Going to apply for grant money to study, brb.

</comment><comment><USER20> As a grown man I've engaged in some healthy airdropping while using public transport or while waiting in long lines.

<comment><USER21> This sounds fun, I'm actually considering changing mine to "everyone". Is it safe?

<comment><USER20> I mean it's using bluetooth. There are known vulnerabilities but if you keep your phone up to date those have been patched. We try doing it in places with crowds: arenas, restaurants, airports, and buses. It can be a nice ice breaker if the receive isn't paranoid, or socially awkward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> AirDrop is one of a few iOS-only technologies I really wish Android and Windows would adopt. I hate having to upload files from my Android phone to Google Drive, open the Google Drive web app (which isn't a quick loader mind you), find the file, and then download it to my computer. Android Beam (may it rest in peace) was a close alternative, but even then it only worked Android- to-Android, and both devices required NFC.

<comment><USER23> Is your computer a Mac? I just plug my phone directly into my PC to move files.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, macOS doesn't support the MTP protocol, and the Android File Transfer app has been broken for ages now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Veronica could've just turned Airdrop off and moved on with her life.

<comment> T3OU-736 Eh. Sorta. The small form factor of pocket computers belies their functionality, and makes most people treat them as if they are much simpler devices than they really are. The fact that there isn't a manual of operations included with it doesn't help - when was the last time a manual on settings and their ramifications was included with the device? Reasonable defaults, I guess?

<comment><USER25> Isn't the default "contacts only"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I had no idea Airdrop is this popular. Do we have numbers on this? Does it have competition? How is the competition doing?

</comment><comment><USER27> We need mandatory military service for people 16-20.

<comment><USER28> I saw more dicks drawn on random objects when I was in the service than anywhere else.

<comment><USER29> The ancient Romans apparently enjoyed drawing dicks in public toilets and such. We may think we're more civilized, but it's doubtful that we are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Absolutely not a thing in Europe or Asia.

<comment><USER31> Are you sure? Because the first thing I Googled seems to say otherwise

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Airdrop is pretty much why I'll never get an android, and believe me those android phones are looking pretty sexy these days!

Still, its a serious social handicap. At least the emojis ALMOST translate to the same things on a lot of non-Apple devices now

Nobody:

Android users: BUT ACTUALLY there's this convoluted way to do it for a whole decade that never works, and look at all this control I have over my device

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm surprised that privacy focussed Apple allows you to leave your phone broadcasting itself indefinitely.

At least that's how I presume Airdrop works.

I'm surprised they mention getting lots of requests can crash or slow down the phone.

<comment><USER2> AirDrop reception has three modes: everyone, contacts only, receiving off (send only).

<comment><USER34> It also depends on what's the default is

<comment><USER2> The default is contacts only. I don't know a single iOS user, including my technically clueless mom, who doesn't know how to change the setting.

<comment><USER35> That was harsh.

I've had friends AirDrop me stuff. I was pretty sure it was contacts only by default. Had to search in settings to find it though, sure enough, contacts only.

<comment><USER2> Sorry. You can get to it from the iOS Control Center more easily. Force/long touch the box with the wireless controls if you don't already see the AirDrop icon in that box.

<comment><USER35> I figured it was something like that. I could picture it. The force touch actions are such a great idea but they need to be more intuitive for the 99% of people who don't RTFM and memorize what has an action. It can be so hit or miss.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How do you manage your web server? (openvz) - <AUTHOR>

Hi all,
I have a website currently running on a shared hosting and it starts getting traffic and with the iphone app connected for push notification the server starts to be slow, for info it's running wordpress with a bunch of plugins that are hitting heavily the data base  and I already use a plugin for caching. In terms of visit it's about 100k unique visitor a month and 800 iphone app user after 2 days in the app store.
So since I plan other web related project I was looking into a private server http://www.online.net/serveur-dedie/comparatif-serveur-dedie-start-dell.xhtml probably the one for 40 bucks a month since it supports VT and I want to use openvz and here are my concerns.
For security purposes I was thinking of doing the following:
- 1 container/website each container using their own apache/sql/php stack so in case one gets compromised it's contained. where each container has it's own ip accessible from outside (using the failover ip's provided). And basic iptable rules (ssh allowed only from a given IP ...)
But for there, how do you manage patches and security updates? Are you all simply using a crontab with apt-get update (or emerge update world depending on the distro you use) ?
I ask this because long time ago this update mechanism broke my distro.
Anyway I'd like to know what are your security practice for such environment.
Thanks a lot ! <comment><USER2> We just used an openvz environment in one of our deployments. My system administrator is using a combination of puppet and yum (using the hardware node as the main repository for the ovz containers) to facilitate updates and other simultaneous maintenance tasks.</comment>


How Tencent PCG Uses Apache Kafka to Handle 10T+ Messages per Day - <AUTHOR> https://www.confluent.io/blog/tencent-kafka-process-10-trillion-messages-per-day/ <comment><USER2> [https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1258391908319137797](https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1258391908319137797)

>WeChatApp spies on the content that all users send to each other, including Americans. The results are fed into their censorship of Chinese users.

[https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they- watch/](https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/)</comment>


Startup Marketing: You're Doing it Wrong - <AUTHOR> https://generalassemb.ly/blog/startup-marketing-youre-doing-it-wrong

<comment><USER2> I hope no one's actually doing these things. At least not all three.</comment>


Is turntable.fm legal? - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20110621/turntable-fm-really-is-awesome-is-it-legal/

<comment><USER2> How does this sort of legal uncertainty factor into the way investors view a product/company? On one hand, I feel like the risk could make it a less attractive investment since its an extra liability.

Or would it be a reason for founders to ask for more money, under the idea that they need a warchest of funds to fight expensive lawsuits?

On the other hand, being in a legal grey area could be seen as a barrier to entry for people who don't want a potential litigation nightmare hovering over their heads.

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't they use, and have an agreement with MediaNet (<http://www.mndigital.com/>) which provides all the licensing they need (since MediaNet has deals in place with the record labels)?

<comment><USER4> They have an agreement with MediaNet yes, but it's definitely not some sort of blanket immunity to use copyrighted music.

As a simple example: turntable allows uploads. What happens when I upload an MP3 from a band that isn't part of the MediaNet catalog? And at what point does streaming radio become a "digital locker"?

<comment><USER3> > Develop your own streaming or radio service. Pair this capability with our > recommendation engine to have the ability to create track and/or artist > based playlists on the fly with minimal effort.

(source: <http://www.mndigital.com/services/content-fulfillment.html>)

Seems pretty compelling that as a customer of MediaNet, their service (aside from uploads) is totally legal, unless MediaNet is somehow not.

But they could simply turn off uploading should they be called out for that--I should have addressed that in my original comment. My guess is that much of the community wouldn't care if that feature was gone.

<comment><USER5> MediaNet is a product of the labels.It started in 2001 as Musicnet, created by Real Networks, AOL Time Warner, Bertelsmann and EMI.

In my time at a label I tried to work with them, but their technology is kind of awful, so I wouldn't be shocked if Turntable is looking for a better partner.

Essentially they are a proxy between the label catalogs, reporting for royalties and DSP's (digital service providers) who license and distribute content.

Or as I referred to it internally, the "API Model"

Regarding the user uploaded stuff, that's under DMCA.

Of note: Turntable really falls into two licensing camps: DJ and listener. Very different terms required.

<comment><USER5> The other company in this space: <http://developer.7digital.net/>

These guys have much better tech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't like turntable. While the idea is appealing (streaming music for friends or strangers), the UI is awful. There's too much color and illustrations are not helping. I would be happy to help if founders are reading this.

<comment><USER7> I think the color and illustrations are what give it its appeal. It isn't your run of the mill streaming service, its fun and it has its own character. I currently pay for rdio and would probably pay a minimal amount for turntable.fm also if it came to that being what had to be done to keep it around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wouldn't be surprised if they start seeing legal trouble soon if it hasn't started already. I would gladly pay money to use it, if it comes to that, as I haven't had this much fun with a site for a very long time.

<comment><AUTHOR> agreed - i think they could make considerable $ on affiliate traffic with iTune/Amazon if they improved the process to bookmark songs and purchase later

<comment><USER9> Disagree. You make pennies on an mp3 purchase at best. It takes a lot of pennies and purchases just to hit 10 bucks.

<comment><USER10> The entire traditional music licensing world is based on scaling up pennies and it has provided real income for many for a long time.

<comment><USER9> Pennies from radio play is different from pennies from an mp3 sale.

I don't know any start-up making significant $ from mp3 referral sales. Tops they may make couple grand but that is not much when you are getting 5m uniques(won't even pay for the streaming; and making 2k from mp3 affiliate sales is tough even with 5M uniques.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _I'd say it's astonishing no one has done it before, but it's not: The music business has a long tradition of resisting good ideas._

I'd say it's astonishing he doesn't know internet radio station have existed for ages. It took a little bit more know how before getting getting put on the web, but its always been there.

<comment><AUTHOR> turntable.fm is more then just an internet radio station. I've been disappointed by those for the last generation (besides NPR) - now with turntable.fm, I'm literally listening all day</comment></comment>


The New Tech Bubble - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/18681576 "Compared with the rest of corporate America, Silicon Valley feels like a boomtown. Valuations are once again soaring. In our leader, we point out the differences from the last tech bubble, but we still think that irrational exuberance has returned to the internet world." <comment><USER2> I think it goes back to the learnings from the original tech bubble: companies with a real business plan survive, those with a nebulous product don't make it.

For example: Amazon was a rising star during the late-90s tech bubble, and it's still around today. And it's very much a player in the tech space. How many of us use AWS?

Google has a solid business platform and has definitely made it by all measures.

Netflix is another example. Good product, has upset the industry, sky's the limit type stuff.

Could all of these golden companies fail? Absolutely. For example, look at Microsoft right now - they are still innovating in some spaces, but really struggling in others. Will they go the way of IBM? (Hey, I hope so, but let's not start dreaming now).

Then there's Facebook and Twitter - arguably the stars of the current tech bubble. Are they worth what people say they are? Really depends on what happens over the next few years. Both are definitely becoming platforms that people do all kinds of interesting things on. But at the same time, people could get tired of social networking. (That's my personal bias shining through).

So...it's a bubble for some and not for others.

<comment><USER3> I don't think Amazon, Netflix, and Google are the companies people are referring to when talking about this new bubble.

<comment><USER4> Amazon was definitely one of the companies people were referring to when talking about the _last_ bubble, though.

It's hard to predict the future. A bunch of companies that people have thought could never be worth their outlandish valuations turned out to be. And vice versa.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I call bullshit. This article is heavy on speculation and light on (if not absent of) actual analysis. Tell us, beyond valuations you disagree with, what fundamentals are unsound here. Are businesses IPOing despite being unprofitable? Are companies burning cash and garnering additional investment despite no steps toward profitability? What, exactly, other than a _sneaking suspicion_ that Facebook might not be worth it's valuation? Clearly some people, the people buying Facebook stock, disagree with you. Why are you right and they're wrong?

<comment><USER6> > "What, exactly, other than a sneaking suspicion that Facebook might not be > worth it's valuation? Clearly some people, the people buying Facebook stock, > disagree with you. Why are you right and they're wrong?"

It's not about anyone being right or wrong. The future is inherently uncertain. Investing is about making a bet that will pay off on average. As valuations go higher and higher, it becomes more and more likely that people are only going to make money on an above average future. That's a bubble, and the longer it takes for a below average future to come the bigger that bubble will grow.

<comment><USER5> You're not totally wrong, but this is a 'first-level' analysis that is devoid of any real depth or understanding. I generally expect more of The Economist. The point is to try to explain the world in a way that makes sense despite the uncertainy, giving specific examples that _explain_ the reason for high valuations and _why_ those valuations are unjustified.

<comment><USER6> You're taking the stance of investors are valuing Facebook and the like at X. Prove that's wrong. I think in general if you're going to value companies at significantly abnormal multiples of earnings. The burden of proof should fall on the person assigning those multiples.

But I'll play along anyway. I'll use Facebook as an example. One of the reasons for Facebook's lofty valuation is the very thin trading volumes. People are buying/selling very small $ amounts of Facebook stock in a private market at very high valuations. Imagine company X has one million shares of stock outstanding and I sell 1 of them for $100. Do you think company X is worth $100 million? If so I've got an endless supply of companies for you and I'll even be silly enough to part with them for the bargain price of $50 million. One of us will be rich...

So I contend that the published valuations are somewhat meaningless. The question then becomes what is a company like Facebook worth? Generally there are three main factors that determine a companies value. Tangible assets (cash in this case), earnings, and the value of retained capital. The first is easy and relatively insignificant in this case. The second is very hard, the third is just about impossible. My point is simply that high valuations relative to earnings should imply that there is a very high probability of significant growth in earnings. I think the people that believe in Facebook believe in what it could become not what it is today. If that's true, then the true profit engine is vaporware and it is therefore impossible to have enough certainty in a sufficiently positive future to justify the earnings multiple.

Now one example doesn't prove the point but I do think there is enough anecdotal evidence to justify thinking about the possibility of a bubble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> From the article: This time is indeed different, though not because the boom- and-bust cycle has miraculously disappeared. It is different because the tech bubble-in-the-making is forming largely out of sight in private markets and has a global dimension that its predecessor lacked.

</comment><comment><USER7> This may be a private tech bubble though. To me it don't seems like tech stocks are too inflated compared to the revenues we can see. Facebook may be overvalued, the Skype buy was very expensive, VCs invest like crazy, but all of that is private investment. Does anyone here see a risk for the stocks also?

<comment><USER8> Where do you think all the VC and angel money is coming from? Banks and pension funds and investment firms are almost certainly funneling money into these things, we just don't get to see it because it's being done on the private market.

The very thing that makes everyone comfortable with this bubble (that it's mainly "private" capital) is the scariest part. Last time, you could mostly tell when grandma's retirement fund was betting the bank on social networks for dogs. This time, it's all on the down-low.

<comment><USER6> It's really more about the amount of leverage and the total volume of money at stake. I haven't seen much evidence of either, although that doesn't really mean anything. But let's take Facebook as an example. It really seems like the "valuation" is due to the tiny volumes of shares being traded.

In general it seems like VCs are throwing 10s of millions around fairly recklessly. 10 million is a lot for most of us, but it's nothing in terms of the US economy. If/when it starts turning into billions instead of millions we could see trouble

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is the cover of this week's Economist, despite the fact they really only have two other articles in it...one talking about the Skype purchase and another talking about the increased investment of web technology companies in both the US, Europe and China.

</comment><comment><USER10> Bubbles require genuine belief of a large group of experts and leaders. They need to be convinced that eyeball counts will rise forever, that real estate will keep going, and that the growth potential of users is near infinite. They will come up with lots of analysis to protect their viewpoints and their belief will get more profound with every passing minute. I dont see that type of blind naivete in today's tech community

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you say to the fact that Skype just sold for $8.5 billion when it's income is only about $400 million? And there is Color that is valued at $100 million even though its product is in almost-beta? Anyone who has watched the tech. industry for the past few years could notice that the way valuation of tech. companies are going up, it is alarming and exude "exuberance".

(Figures mentioned above are from the original article).

<comment><USER11> These are just potentially poor decisions made by people with lots of money. Tech startups are inherently risky -- many more succeed than fail -- even if they are well funded. It is a fundamentally different equation than starting a bagel shop or a car wash.

<comment><USER12> I assume you meant many more fail than succeed?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think a lot of the responses here call out some definite omissions in this article (detailed analysis, the preparedness of certain companies, etc.). All of these points are valid, however, I don't think the concept of another bubble should be entirely dismissed. The thing to pay attention to does not revolve around the major companies like Facebook. The focus, rather, should be on the smaller companies that seem to get ridiculous valuations and investments for seemingly cheap ideas. Yes, Angry Birds is great but millions of dollars in investments? The bust will come from mindless investments like these. People will get bored with this game or that app and any dev that can't keep up will find themselves having to answer for insane investments that went nowhere. Luckily, like some have said, we've learned from the past in regard to bigger web firms, but until recently, "small business" didn't have a large voice in the web. You love the bakery down the street, but are their cookies worth millions? Probably not.

We'll see.

</comment><comment><USER14> There is a bubble of tech bubble articles. No?

Edit: What I mean here is that we seem to like to read about "the new tech bubble". It still is largely a speculation, no matter what arguments are presented. The present time _may_ , just may be a golden period for tech innovation, rather than a bubble.

</comment><comment><USER15> The fact that "are we in a bubble?" is the question on everyone's mind is highly telling.

</comment><comment><USER16> Are we in a Bubble? Who cares?

Really. Who is investing in startups right now? Rich people who think they can make more money investing in startups than they can investing in other investment vehicles.

What happens if these rich people lose their money? Nothing. No bail outs. No massive loss of income for "normal" citizens. Rich people get a little less rich. Some rich people who put all their money into angel investing lose all their money.

Who is getting funded? Teams of two and three engineers who have built a product and have gotten some form of traction. Last published figures I've read said that Angel List has gotten 300 startups funded this past year. How much money are these startups getting? Anywhere from $50k to $1M.

300 startups * $1M = $300M in funding in angel capital this past year. The National Venture Capital Association's numbers [1] states that Total VC in 2010 was $23B, which is still 1/5th of the VC that was spent in 1999, and is in line with VC investment over the past 10 years.

$300M in angel funding is roughly 1.3% of the average VC funding per year over the past 10 years.

What _is_ different this time around, is that there are hundreds of smaller bets being placed, rather than dozens of huge bets.

Are all of these hundreds of startups going to have decent exits? No. Are a number of them going to turn into successful businesses, perhaps.

But, what is going to happen is that hundreds of founders are getting an amazing education on raising capital, starting a company, shipping product, and trying to make money. What really excited me is what Silicon Valley and the tech landscape is going to look like in 10 years. What this surge in angel investment is doing is educating massive numbers of engineers in how to build and ship product.

As far as I'm concerned that's a huge win for everyone, regardless of how many exits there are this time around.

Is this a Bubble, really, who cares? Writers that need to sell magazines.

ref:

[1] [http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar...](http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=102)

</comment><comment><USER17> They're hedging. They even go as far as to say "you heard it here first". I'm sure they would rather be in a position of being overly cautious than have people lose faith because they didn't report on a coming bubble.

In terms of actual analysis, they're falling into the trap all other journalists seem to be by just repeating the bubble rumors that are floating around. You'd think Economist could come up with more substance for their argument.

</comment><comment><USER3> If by "bubble" they mean companies that aren't profitable are being valued at enormous amounts, and continue to garner investment even without any clear revenue or exit strategy, then yes we are in a bubble.

The problem is the web industry considers investment to be revenue... in which case you're never in a bubble because profit doesn't really matter. Success in the web industry is simply getting someone to throw money at you.

</comment><comment><USER18> I have not really studied this issue in depth, but from what I can tell most of the increasing investment activity that they are referring to is occuring in the private investment world - not on stock markets.

With that said, it seems that it would be difficult to call this activity a "bubble". "Bubble" in the popular nomenclature are typically used to refer to developments that can have widespread consequences when they "pop" (Re: the housing bubble, the credit derivative swap bubble, etc, etc).

There has been a lot of private investment activity in the tech world recently, but I think that it would be fear mongering to refer to this activity as a bubble. The Internet in general (and the web specifically) is still a relatively recent development. It makes sense that you will see a lot of investment activity in this area.

This same type of thing tends to happen whenever a major technological advancement spurns rapid innovation (Re: the gilded age). It is merely capitalism at work - not necessarily a bubble.

<comment><USER6> The real danger is that it's fairly localized to Silicon Valley. So it's fairly likely that if this is or becomes a bubble it will be sort of contained in a small area. As more money gets pored in, wages go up, rent/real estate goes up, ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Tech bubble or not, judging companies based on how much finding they raise alone is bad. Put profitably first and you shall survive any disaster. I don't think we are in a bubble because people who invest usually consider profitably over potential to flip to the next sucker. Investors I've spoken with seem to be wanting in for the long haul.</comment>


Ask HN: Where can I find meta.News.YCombinator.com - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
There are many (hidden) features which are not documented, at least not in a single point where one can find them all.
I always wondered what is the way to create polls. You know, with the up/down voting options, etc.
Also, how to quote in comments, and how to post code having it displayed in a fixed width font.
There are probably more features which I, and probably other members of the community would appreciate if they were documented.
(although, this poll thing might be risky, if some might misuse it, and will turn this site into a stupid poll site, but I am not afraid too much since the signal-vs-noise ratio has been kept very well ever since). <comment><USER2> Both of your questions are answered in the FAQ: <http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> well, I should have looked at there first, faq me!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The poll feature is, I think, intentionally vague as a soft-firewall to having a shed load posted (I wont post a link just in case that is the theory; it's not hard to work out though). THere is a karma threshold but I am not sure what it is.

There arent too many guidelines on how to quote. I usually use italics and others use >.

Formatting guides exist on this help page: <http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc> (it's linked too next to most text boxes but sometimes not hugely noticeable)

(I dont know if your _asking_ to find out about these things or requesting additional help pages; either way at least the questions are answered for others :))

<comment><AUTHOR> I managed to guess it (poll url) though! thanks anyway</comment></comment>


Vue3 TypeScript Starter App - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nkoehring/vue3-typescript-app-starter <comment><AUTHOR> A webpack configuration and example application for Vue3 with Typescript, Router, simple global state (no Vuex) and some neat build time features.</comment>


Monetizing Business Ideas - <AUTHOR> http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/monetizing_business_ideas/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FihdT+%28The+Dilbert+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER2> What Adams is describing is a staging area for business formation. The general insight is that there is a large class of transactions that need a staging area in which the components needed for the transaction have a chance to come together.

Online dating sites, bars, clubs, etc are staging areas for dating. They bring together interested people and hold them in proximity until dates happen. Dates in turn are staging areas for marriage.

Stores, markets, auctions, and stock markets are staging areas for purchases. They bring together buyers and sellers and hold them together in proximity until purchases happen.

International talks, conferences and political summits are staging areas for treaties and political agreements. They bring together political decision makers and hold them together long enough for agreements to happen.

Writing and broadcasting are staging areas for learning. Both writing and broadcasting connect a speaker with a listener long enough for information to be transferred.

Democratic governments and corporations (with chains of authority) are staging areas for coordinated group action. A democratic government allows citizens to work together to accomplish big tasks like building a national highway system, putting a man on the moon, and waging a war. Corporations do the same for private profit-making activities.

Banks are staging areas for loans. Banks allow borrowers and lenders to get together.

Ports are staging areas for trade. Ports allow buyers and sellers of goods and transportation to meet each other.

The Internet is a great tool for making or improving staging areas because it makes communication easier.

</comment><comment><USER3> Firstly, I think YC addresses some of the problems he mentions (i.e., that most people might not be able to get VC money, but have valid ideas that could be made into semi-successes).

But the big problem is this: ideas aren't worthless because they require execution. Ideas are worthless because, _before_ the execution, the idea itself is just not good. It takes executing on the idea and constantly pivoting to get to a "good idea", because when you first think of a direction, you barely understand the problem, and definitely don't understand how you're going to solve that problem.

In other words, the problem isn't a lack of access to resources - it's that your initial idea sucks, and only if you keep refining it do you get to anything usable.

<comment><USER4> Just read this: <http://paulgraham.com/start.html>

Graham argues if ideas would be worth a lot, there would be a market for them. If you understand how the market works, especially in the US, even more so in the Valley, you would agree, I certainly do...

Or if you don't like Graham's argument think of any established venture's story: it has never, ever been a straight line from the idea to success. Business models change along the way: it's the people that count, their attitude and execution

Would you have thought that coke is a good idea in the late 19th century? A black, sticky drink? Or mobile phones in the 70s? Or messages with 140 characters in the era of emails?

<comment><USER5> > If you understand how the market works,

If you know a bit about economics, you would see why there are not, and cannot be markets for ideas, unless someone finds a very clever way of making them 'excludable' without hordes of lawyers and contracts and various other very high transaction costs. See my other post above/below.

<comment><USER4> The problem with ideas is not that they are non-excludable or that transaction costs are too high (contractual costs, monitoring, you can cite the whole institutional economic literature from Coase to Williamson). It is not so hard to construct excludability, think of non-excludable goods such as fish, "ideas" for fiction, "ideas" for scientific research. They need to be linked to something, fish: best fishermen, fiction: best novelists like Stephen King get contracts without writing down a single word, research: a professor gets tenure. They just need to be linked to something excludable, e.g. to the person itself, or the service of a venture. (And I am still not talking about regulation, patents, etc!)

There is no market for venture ideas without the founders who are credible in executing them. Not because they are non-excludable, but because in fact they don't exist for a long time: it is very rare that somebody has an initial idea that won't change during building a company. Markets, customers, technology change.

If the world of startups would work like you say they do, it would be enough for the most creative persons to get a long term contract from VCs just to tell the ideas that pop out of their minds every morning.. Have you ever seen that happen? VCs invest in people who execute and are able to adapt ideas as circumstances change.

Btw, I am an economist so I happen to understand economics (to a certain degree :)

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't argue that ideas are worth a _lot_ , my point is that if the value of ideas is lower than that of various clunky mechanisms that attempt to make them excludable, that there will be no market.

That does not mean, though, that the ideas do not have _any_ value, only that the vast majority if it lies in the execution rather than the idea itself.

For practical purposes, it doesn't change much, but the idea of "there's no market for it, so it's worthless" bugs me and I think it is not good economics. There are other things that we value that aren't directly bought and sold on 'natural' markets, or where markets must be artificially created via things like "intellectual property" or "cap and trade", government provisioning or other mechanisms like that, or where we simply accept that there's no viable way to make a market.

The classic example from economics (added for the benefit of other readers, you're surely familiar with it) is the lighthouse (which is also non- rivalrous): they're valuable to shipping, but generally, governments have provided them, because there was no way to make individual ships pay directly for their usage. They are not "worthless because there was no market for them".

<comment><USER4> I see where you are coming from and what bugs you in the logic of Graham.

None of us denies that there are transaction costs related to operate an "idea market", we just seem to argue about their amount/importance/relevance. I say these costs are not the primary reason behind the absence of the market but rather the fact that there are no stable ideas that can be used to found a sustainable business upon. You say there are stable ideas but it would be too costly to operate or even establish a market mechanism. (Although I am sure there would be a charity organization or even the government that would establish the market if it would be mostly a one-time fixed cost and low running expenses such as in the lighthouse example).

I should go to sleep now, have to wake up in 2 hours.. (but I really enjoyed the conversation, thx :)

(btw, a question - do you really think there is anything that is valuable to people but nobody has ever tried to monetize it if it wasn't banned by authority? Air, love, aesthetics of a building or a landscape, even values and religions... I have seen business models related to all of these)

(btw2, it may be worthwhile to define what we mean under "1 idea" :)

<comment><USER5> > there are no stable ideas that can be used to found a sustainable business

I didn't mention 'stable'!

What I think is that there are ideas that, at the right point in time, allow people who can execute on them well to do really well. And I think some of those ideas, at least, can be done well by a reasonable number of people. For instance, something like eBay was likely to pop up at that point in time. So for a little while, prior to its inception, it would have been a valuable idea.

However... no, I don't think a market for ideas can be stable due to the non- exclusivity of ideas! Once one is out there, its value drops quite a bit. It's similar to markets for some kinds of information, like knowing the closing price of the DJIA on the 3rd of November. If I knew that today, it'd be worth a lot of money. Next week, it'll be worth nothing.

<comment><USER4> I think we are stuck here, should probably discuss while having a beer :)

<comment><USER5> More than willing to next time you're in Padova!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So we need someone with capitol, someone with attorney and tax skills, and someone with web-design skills and someone with backend and systems arch skills to build Scott's idea. Oh, and servers. Let's start refining the details and come to an agreement everyone is happy with.

<comment><USER7> And then you get to be one of those clever pieces of software that says, "Most of software x was created by software x!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think Adams has a thread of an interesting idea. But, I think his starting point for it (monetizing business ideas) might be the wrong one. As he says, the ideas would be stolen. As edanm notes in another comment, the basic idea is worthless until it is refined.

However, the concept he arrives at: a web based way for people to contribute and retract resources to a project until you get a combination everyone is happy contributing to is an interesting one. It probably won't work, I have objections coming to mind immediately, but it would be interesting to find out. If it did work it might be very useful.

I wonder what a MVP or "qanta of usefulness" from this idea would look like.

</comment><comment><USER5> The economic concept at the heart of "worthless ideas" is that they are non- excludable goods, for most practical purposes:

<http://journal.dedasys.com/2007/04/26/ideas-are-worthless>

Which Scott Adams does acknowledge in this piece.

I think that non-excludability, combined with the fact that execution _is_ more important than the idea, will keep markets for ideas from forming.

</comment><comment><USER4> Always agreed with the first sentence of the post: "Ideas are worthless. Execution is everything."

I advise 50% of people telling me about a new iPhone app idea to go and open a restaurant at the corner. You make 4-800K a year, with 10-30% margin: that's way more than what most ideas are worth - given solid execution.

However if I would have hired all these people mentioned in the article: "Management, Marketing, Sales, Legal, Accounting, Technical, Human Resources" ...instead of doing 90% of these by the 2 founders we would be already bankrupt, lol. Focus and execute, use everyday opportunities to gain momentum, be more thoughtful of resources, etc. There hasn't been one day in the past 6 months when I couldn't improve something, find a workaround, etc (by myself, without HR or a lawyer). Just in the past 1 hour I manage to spare $1500 by using someone else's network and resources almost for free.

Think of Netflix & the US Post; Google & Yahoo; Microsoft & IBM; Intel & IBM; Yahoo & Netscape; Facebook & Harvard. What is the common element in their stories? :)

</comment><comment><USER9> What if partially executed ideas have value?

Idea = zero value

Idea + Execution = much more than zero value

If there is value in partial execution:

Idea + Partial Execution = more than zero value

Then Scott Adam's suggestion that idea creators who use his hypothetical service to start to assemble the resources required to execute (i.e. partially execute) should receive a minimal return makes some sense (he suggests 1% which may be too high). This can be true even if the eventual idea is many pivots from the original because the pivots are points on the same continuum of execution.

<comment><USER10> An idea in and of itself is free from technical debt.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Given that most startups have to pivot, the people doing an idea should pay approximately 0% to the author of the original (and soon to be discarded) idea.</comment>


Liberty, Self-Esteem and Self-Governance - <AUTHOR> http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/wendy_kaminer/2009/09/_our_inalienable_right_to.php <comment><USER2> This is all a bit alarmist. The (proposed) law would just require advertisers to indicate that photoshopped pictures are indeed photoshopped. This is a pretty normal kind of "truth in advertising" law analogous to labeling laws for food. Doctrinaire libertarians may object to this sort of law in general, but to most people they have an obvious utility in enabling markets to function more efficiently. Of course, the idea of a government which will do anything at any cost to increase (what it takes to be) the psychological wellbeing of its citizens is fairly alarming, but what the author misses here is that the _opposite_ is just as alarming: a government which is completely unconcerned by the misery of the people it's supposed to represent. Complete indifference of the government to the actual wellbeing of the people (as apart from their formal legal rights) is apparently central to the author's rather myopic ideal.

<comment><USER3> It may be alarmist, but I don't think only libertarians would object. One of the authors points -- admittedly, not his most vocal point -- is that in the British case _government action seems especially unnecessary_. This is my main objection (although I am roughly libertarian). The number of people who actually do not know that models are not retouched does not represent a large percentage of people. Expending real energy to solve non-problems seems like a universally bad practice.

<comment><USER2> Yes I agree that this is unnecessary, but the article goes a lot further than just saying that it's unnecessary. The claim appears to be that any attempt by a government to increase the happiness of its citizens is inherently wrong. It is not as if labeling shopped images for what they are would actually do any harm.

<comment><USER4> I am an American; the rules of your local jurisdiction may vary. The government does not have the power to make me happy, in any useful sense of the term power. (It lacks both the capability and the authority, among other things.) It has the responsibility to protect my right to _pursue_ happiness, and that is all.

In fact the government has great power to make me _un_ happy, and I have the right to pursue this problem electorally, but that's about it.

The article's point is once you start arguing against the preceding two paragraphs, you really ought to be aware that you just threw liberty out the window. The only way the government can make you happy is to exert an awful lot of control, and given how things actually turn out in real life, all that control is just as likely to make you unhappy, only, now, you have no recourse left, because what is making you unhappy is the Ultimate Authority.

It isn't inherently wrong, but it _is_ inherently very suspicious, and for any given _concrete_ proposal of how the government plans to make you happy, the odds of the specific proposal being inherently wrong are _very high_.

(I'm also reacting much more to the British thing than the proximate photoshopping debate, though I tend to think that anybody who still thinks that any magazine picture has any reality left to it is not going to notice or process a tiny little "This image may not be real" note. That is to say, this is a feel-good measure for the lawmaker, I don't see how it will actually change anything.)

<comment><USER2> >The government does not have the power to make me happy, in any useful sense of the term power.

I'm not sure what you mean here. It certainly doesn't have the power to guarantee your happiness under all conceivable circumstances (and neither do you, and nor does any other entity) but it can certainly make decisions which either increase or decrease your happiness. You would be happier, I assume, if the government decided to cut your taxes, and less happy if it decided to increase them. (Or pick some other example if that particular one doesn't work for you.)

>The article's point is once you start arguing against the preceding two paragraphs, you really ought to be aware that you just threw liberty out the window

This is the alarmist part. Efforts on the part of a government to make its citizens happy do not _necessarily_ entail "throwing liberty out of the window". This is simply nonsense. And in general, saying that anyone who fails to agree with your "preceding two paragraphs" is inherently opposed to liberty is a rather childish rhetorical tactic.

>The only way the government can make you happy is to exert an awful lot of control,

Governments do all sorts of things (e.g. running the legal system, maintaining basic regulations on the market) which tend, on the whole, to increase levels of happiness. I don't know if this counts as an "awful lot" of control, but it doesn't seem especially unjustified or sinister. Neither does the particular form of control in the case at issue, which is nothing more than a minor market regulation of an unremarkable sort. You are talking as if the aim here was for the government to somehow guarantee the happiness of every citizen, but of course no-one is proposing that it either could be or should be so. Some people do think that in those cases where a government policy may reasonably be expected to increase people's general well-being, it _might_ , _typically_ , _absent reasons to the contrary_ , be a good idea to enact that policy. But this sort of moderate position is of course too radically pro- statist for the doom-and-gloom libertarians.

>I'm also reacting much more to the British thing

What's the "British thing"?

>That is to say, this is a feel-good measure for the lawmaker, I don't see how it will actually change anything.

If it's not going to change anything, what is there to get so upset about? I suppose it is a good chance to jump on the usual "gub'mint outa my 'shop" bandwagon.

<comment><USER4> "Governments do all sorts of things (e.g. running the legal system, maintaining basic regulations on the market) which tend, on the whole, to increase levels of happiness."

You seem to have missed or not understood the point about protecting my right to _pursue_ happiness. This entails things like keeping the criminal justice system working, and a military sufficient to defend the country. Everything you outline except taxes fits into that framework.

Where things go off the rail is when "the ability to pursue happiness" as a metric for goodness is replaced by "happiness" as a metric for goodness. This is not the same thing at all. Once you permit that as an argument for letting (or requiring) the government to do something, you're in a different domain.

Taxes is an example of government making me less happy. You speak as if the government by default owns all my money, and I should be happy about what I am graciously permitted to keep. No, I am unhappy about what they take. I acknowledge the need for it, but it would be fairly odd if it made me happy. Failing to make me less unhappy is perhaps in some sense increasing my happiness, but I'm not ready to accord them much credit for that action, in the hypothetical world in which my taxes might go down anytime soon.

<comment><USER2> >Everything you outline except taxes fits into that framework.

You have missed my point, which is that governments do indeed have the power to both increase and decrease your happiness. Your contention appears to be that they do not have the power to increase happiness but only to decrease it (or perhaps, at best, fail to decrease it). This contention is what I'm arguing against. I am _not_ arguing against the libertarian conception of a perfect minimal government (not because I agree with it but because this is a separate issue from the one you've raised).

>You speak as if the government by default owns all my money, and I should be happy about what I am graciously permitted to keep.

Actually, I didn't speak like that at all; you may be confusing me with a statist caricature. Which part of what I wrote are you referring to here?

>Failing to make me less unhappy is perhaps in some sense increasing my happiness,

So the legal system merely "fails to make you less [sic] unhappy"? I'm pretty sure it makes you happier in the ordinary sense of the phrase. I could choose many other examples, but I suspect that you are ideologically incapable of admitting that any government programs outside the bare libertarian minimum have made you any happier (whether or not this is in fact the case).

I realize, having been on the internets for more that five minutes, that most libertarians are in favor of the government maintaining a legal system. Some of them are even willing to admit that they are happier as a result of its doing so. But this just goes to show that government-run things are not inherently bad and misery-causing, which is my point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why should Photoshop be distinguished from the retouching, etc., that have gone on since I suppose photography has existed? Google for "Pfeiffer Esquire Harpers" and look up what happened about 1990.

And "misery"? My own waist is hardly tauter than Sarkozy's; what misery is inflicted on me when a French magazine redacts his flab?

<comment><USER6> I agree. Imagine the distress caused to supporters of Trotsky: [http://220.127.116.11/~jordigetmaneraso/behold_the_disappea...](http://126.96.36.199/~jordigetmaneraso/behold_the_disappearing_trotsky.htm)

Imagine the emotional distress felt by viewers duped into believing that _Dali Atomicus_ was real! [http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/dali_atomicu...](http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/dali_atomicus_philippe_halsman.jpg)

<comment><AUTHOR> When the state does it, it's not illegal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Shame on Ms. Kaminer for using "photo-shopping" as a verb, instead of respecting the property rights of Adobe, which considers "Photoshop" to be one of its most valuable trademarks.

</comment><comment><USER8> A great piece. As a tie-in to Hacker News, note that the article it links to is by ucla prof Eugene Volokh, a successful software hacker himself.

<comment><USER9> I'm an avid reader of Prof. Volokh's blog, but was unaware he had anything to do with software. Can you elaborate?

<comment><AUTHOR> Does this help ?

<http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/>

"Volokh also worked for 12 years as a computer programmer, and is still partner in a small software company which sells HP 3000 software that he wrote. He graduated from UCLA with a B.S. in math-computer science at age 15, and has written many articles on computer software. Volokh was born in the USSR; his family emigrated to the U.S. when he was seven years old."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> i like where this is going if only because i wish more processes were transparent. i want to know how the products and services were made so that i can both respond and learn from them.

by respond, i mean support authenticity, passion, risk and avoid poor social and environmental practices. we've all happily bought software that was super cool and built by a single person or small team, and just as happily pirated ubercorps ubiquitious whateverware.

by learn, i mean that how-things-work shouldn't be so mystical. why _is_ that junk food shaped that way? what planning process lead to those awesome features? what were the intentions behind that ad?

most importantly, let us not forget that advertisements are intentionally deceptive, even malicious. it's one thing to want to buy something and to do a suitable amount of research to make a decisions. it's another thing to create a need where there isn't one. if you have kids, then you know how horrible advertisements are, and how insanely they play with a person's emotions and identity.

we need more advertisement transparency and honesty, and that means regulations or a superior ethics than currently. transparency is vital for a healthy free market. regulations that promote transparency are probably a good thing, though of course there are numerous ways to go about solving this larger problem. after working on a consumer empowerment startup for a couple years, i'd say that data collection is a huge problem, not least of all because companies expose nada, and that getting information to consumers at the point of 'caring,' which is somewhere between finding out about a product and purchasing it, comes second.

better advertisements would go along way. how to make brief but objective _advertisements_ is a tough problem. my imagination wants a solution that automatically aggregates information across the internet and public resources and then provides a succinct summary overlayed on top of the advertisement or brand logo that i'm looking at...and only when i want to see it. i'm rooting for AI but i'll settle for wisdom of the crowds meets poorly-paid turks.

<comment><USER11> > most importantly, let us not forget that advertisements are intentionally > deceptive, even malicious.

Does that mean that the Swedish Bikini Team is not coming over to drink my Coors Light?

<comment><USER2> No, it just means that you won't be disappointed if they actually do ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Meh. I'm on the fence on this one: while photoshopped images are speech, they're false speech, which the speaker knows to be false, while the viewer perhaps doesn't. If they do cause psychological problems for girls growing up, that's bad.

The combination of deceit plus harm makes a half-decent argument for the sort of regulation that's on the table.

</comment><comment><USER13> Yes, these are probably silly and/or harmful laws, but how is this article not just a political fluff piece?

An article with more on how these kinds of laws might impact a startup and less political rhetoric would be both more interesting and more relevant.</comment>


How The FCC Plans to Save the Internet by Destroying It - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/7805f8049503 <comment><USER2> After reading the article, I see a typical abstract call to speak to the FCC. So what is the best way to do that? Send public comments to the FCC? I see this: [http://www.fcc.gov/comments](http://www.fcc.gov/comments) with a listing of proceedings, for example:

Proceeding #14-28 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

hmm

</comment><comment><USER3> For god's sake, why didn't this get more upvotes?

For those interested, a public comment inbox at fcc.gov:

email@example.com

Also, please take a moment to contact your congressmen:

[http://www.house.gov/representatives/](http://www.house.gov/representatives/) [https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_...](https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)</comment>


Linguician – a platform to learn languages based on commercial music and lyrics - ro-_-b http://www.linguician.com <comment><AUTHOR> Awesome Product!!

<comment> ro-_-b Thanks - I am happy you enjoy it. It took us 1 year to build!

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Great idea!

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool thing

</comment><comment><USER4> Great!</comment>


9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About Wealth Distribution - <AUTHOR> http://utrend.tv/v/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact/

<comment><USER2> Wealth is not distributed like some kind of natural resource that is just sitting there. Wealth is created by individuals.</comment>