1gor

From the last paragraph I got you're OK with having an unregulated surveillance system in the US which records information about you and makes god-knows-what conclusions from your movements, behaviour etc. And that's absolutely fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

But you have taken much efforts trying to ridicule OP's use of words "digital", "encrypted, "instantaneously", "undisclosed" etc. How is this discussion tactics called?

It is sad that propaganda war between the US and Russia is spreading to 'technology' news media. We are better off discussing technology, not politics.

    Thinking about it, this is the same model as the app store. 

Does Apple allow multiple alternative app stores? If not, then Android should eventually make it obsolete, since you do not have to 'ask Google' to create and market a mobile app there.

But seriously, why some network system layers failed and others thrived? It is not protocol. Gopher was also TCP/IP based, and it has disappeared...

Their British Pub culture guide (http://www.sirc.org/publik/ptpintro.html) is the best and I think the only available research on the subject. It really helped me when I moved to the UK...

   You don't get Nobel prizes for stating something that's common sense.

> Things got a lot worse in 1997. The Swedish academy gave another round of Gaussian-based Nobel Prizes to Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton, who had improved on an old mathematical formula and made it compatible with the existing grand Gaussian general financial equilibrium theories—hence acceptable to the economics establishment. The formula was now “useable.” It had a list of long forgotten “precursors,” among whom was the mathematician and gambler Ed Thorp, who had authored the bestselling Beat the Dealer, about how to get ahead in blackjack, but somehow people believe that Scholes and Merton invented it, when in fact they just made it acceptable. The formula was my bread and butter. Traders, bottom-up people, know its wrinkles better than academics by dint of spending their nights worrying about their risks, except that few of them could express their ideas in technical terms, so I felt I was representing them. Scholes and Merton made the formula dependent on the Gaussian, but their “precursors” subjected it to no such restriction. /.../

> And the option formula went on bearing the name Black-Scholes-Merton, instead of reverting to its true owners, Louis Bachelier, Ed Thorp, and others.

Essentially, you are claiming that North Korea is also a democracy, only without free elections.

The choice that managers of public companies are facing is the well known "Consume vs. Invest". Or, in the terms of an evolutionary fitness landscape, "Exploit vs. explore".

If a manager wants to maximize his next quarter's earnings, he could stop new product development, shut down customer service and equipment maintenance departments and sell, sell, sell. He could have a short short-term spike in profitability, but in the long term the company won't survive. He has exploited his current position but has failed to explore, to look to the new opportunities and threats, and to provide for the future.

(Note: the manager could also buy a portfolio of high-yielding/high risk securities hoping that the crash will not happen before his next bonus is due. This is the same thing -- maximising short-term gains at the expense of the long-term prospects of the company).

The manager could also overexplore, that is to overinvest in customer and product development, purchase the newest equipment and end up with a croud of excited customers and an exciting new technology/product, but no liquidity left in the bank to live to see it taking over the market.

"Maximizing shareholders value" idea got a bad press, because it has become associated with the 'exploit' approach. Managers endanger the long-term prospects of the company because they can be paid well for achiving relatively short-term goals.

But the working definition should be "Maximizing shareholders value in the long term"

Let's make the law that the managers' options can only be excersized after 10 years. That'll do the trick.

   what competes with this?

Since xeround is pay-as-you go, if your initial DB requirements are low, you can run it on something like http://fluxflex.com (which heroku-like PaaS, also AWS-based) and have 10 db-backed apps for something like $3 per month that will scale up when needed.

   provide a legitimate reason why he was an asshole.

Hm, sorry, what hegemony are you talking about?

I always wonder why people who go all excited about gender issues can't accept that women are not men and do not have to be like men? Your 'hegemony' (I assume you speak the well known thesis about male-dominated society) may not actually exist, and the 5 year old's desire to look attractive may not be bad at at all.

Imagine, there are two dimentions to the world. One is manifesting itself in social power structures, money, status, smart jobs, Nobel awards etc.

The other is completely different and involves sense of belonging, security, plans about rising children and actual time to spend with children, emotional connection with friends, caring, feeling etc.

It just could be that most of women are not interested in the masculine dimension of this life. Heck, I dare say they may not even be particularly fit for the struggle/rat race due to their biology, exceptions notwithstanding. But they are powerful masters of another, parallel universe, which is always here with us, and where majority of men just not quite make it.

I think of many girls/women I've known in life who absolutely hate to spend their precious time on stupid things like going to work, making sure your last project is a success, competing, 'achieving' in the eyes of others etc. This distracts them from their sacred passion in life -- that is to rise a child, to shape the child's mind and soul and to protect him/her. And protection means having a secure, clean and comfortable house. And yes, that means having a strong competitive man next the them who would provide for all of that. Basically, that means a family.

(The idea of the family seems to have been discredited both by the idiotic religious right and no less idiotic crusading left, but a strong family has a clear evolutionary biological advantage. It ensures the partners reproduce and their children get competitive advantage while growing in a happy/secure place. On the other hand, a lone over-achiever may as well become the richest man in the cemetery).

A young girl is conditioned to think about her looks because this will help her later to chose her mate and to create her family. And yes, she will be chosen for the large part because of their biological traits (beauty). And that's not a bit shameful or reproachable.

Thankfully, beauty is not the only criteria, so chill, you gender activists and spare me the flaming. Of course not only looks matter in life, and child beauty contests are a horrible thing. But still, it is normal for the girls to try to look beautiful, just as it is normal for the boys to try to be strong.

  While working on a sinatra app recently, I noticed 
  that sinatra has no rails equivalent to rails console. 

"It's like script/console in Rails or merb -i in Merb, but for any app built on Rack. You can use it to load application environment for Rails, Merb, Sinatra, Camping, Ramaze or your own framework provided there is config.ru file in app's root directory /.../ It loads whole application environment like Rack web server, but instead of running the app it starts irb session. Additionally it exposes $rack variable which allows you to make simulated HTTP requests to your app.".

   The typical creative professional is not a minimalist.

...or http://www.everydayminimalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09...

Not responding/objecting, I am told, will be interpreted as a kind of silent agreement by the judge, if the case ever lands in court.

The premise of the whole drama was that there may be a collusion between individuals who are involved in early stage financing of startups.

A startup founder is by definition in a weak position commercially when facing prospective investors. An engineer puts a significant chink on his life in his venture, he does not have a portfolio of alternatives. This fact is very well known to the party on the opposite side of the table, to the investor that is.

For a rational investor, a startup investment is a high financial risk. It is not a well-researched public stock, it is an option. But it's OK, since it is a game he is in. He knows that most of his portfolio will be worthless, but a few (maybe one) stars in the portfolio will potentially make him wealthy(ier).

So, when two parties are facing each other at the negotiating table, the investor looks at the founder as a sort of a 'disposable' asset. After the deal is struck and the venture goes under, the investor is financially damaged, but he is alive and will have another termsheet discussion sometimes this week. The founder is left picking up the pieces of his life.

That's why the balance of power at the negotiating table is very important. The founder has a single recourse -- there should be competition between suppliers of money. Now, the AngelGate has shown us that such competition may be a myth. There may appear a cartel between technically-savvy suppliers of money. The market is small anyway, and when the bulk of the suppliers can fit at a restaurant table...

The article is quite dangerous in its goal. So what, instead of addressing the issue -- how to prevent collusion of early-stage investors -- the hackers can go back to work and focus on putting more hours in their startups? Really?

Let me suggest a few points that should come out of this scandal before all is forgotten and quiet.

- reputation of the individuals involved in AngelGate should suffer. This will give a chance to potential new entrants on the scene (new investors). Game theory tells us that 'tit for tat' strategy is the most viable in the long term. The cost of future collusion will be higher, and the founders will benefit from that.

- there should be a discussion about how to prevent cartels in the startup field. Maybe a self-regulating body should appear eventually in this market.

- any experts in the field of private equity (lawyers etc.) should seize the opportunity to provide impartial advice to the founder community (via blogs etc.). Angels have lost credibility, the void should be filled. We speak about standard sample term-sheets, financing terms etc.

- a credit should be given to Michael Arrington who has performed a function normally done by a regulator in the marketplace. Founders should probably supply him with more information from now on.

The first one was a simple issue tracker. The 'nudging' and 'motivating' bit became almost redundant. There always was a list of issues that needed to be addressed one by one, and the employees could work on the simplest ones, or on the complex ones, depending on their skill level and personal energy level at the time.

The second piece was the idea of short 'sprints' we borrowed from the Scrum process. Each week we aimed to deliver something that worked, so there was a set of issues that needed to be addressed as a matter of a priority. In this way the team stayed motivated and saw results of their work, i.e. there was an (almost) instant gratification.

Interestingly, one of my developers was a 'star', and another was a 'rookie', but they found a happy balance under this system. The experienced one tackled complex/architecture related issues and avoided the boring simple tasks which the less experienced employee was happy to do because that kept him feeling productive and contributing.

The management process consisted of a weekly skype conference call where we would agree on a issue set for the next 'sprint', and then we simply communicated through email to check on the progress during the week and to address problems. Obviously, I had to write up the requirements (in the form of issue tickets) as well.

Again, a simple issue tracker (we used Roundup) was the single most useful management tool for that project.

   How to explain Singapore’s growth despite lack of stimulus?

China's growth is not cyclical. It is driven by demographics mostly and it can be described as a secular trend. Rural population migrates to cities, they become consumers and bring down their abnormally high savings rate to the levels common for developed consumer societies. China today is what Japan used to be in the 60s. Its growth will continue for a while, crisis or no crisis.

The author spends much effort estimating an 'average' app income and costs. Talking about averages does not make any sense in case of power law distribution. He is using Gaussian approach which is a wrong model for given phenomena. Bringing skewness/kurtosis/whatever to the table doesn't help a thing since he has completely mis-classified the problem.

> That said, independent developers making money on that app store directly is a complete crap-shoot.

Can the same can be said about entrepreneurs in general? What is an 'average' income of an entrepreneur (including failed ones)? Is it worth it? Do you aim for this dismal income when you start a business?

Scalable business model is completely different animal from a non-scalable one (i.e. selling your personal time as a developer, consultant etc.). Quite a few developers expect from iPhone apps the same they are used to in their contracting/salaried careers.

Therefore all of his numbers and his final conclusion are wrong. People do not write iPhone apps in order to achieve some sort of 'average' income. They hope to strike it lucky and get a disproportionately large payoff.

Seriously, the parent post is so full of old clichés, it's not even funny. I lived outside of Russia for the past 20 years and I've moved back half a year ago, and I'm not even located in Moscow now. I live in a large industrial city in Ural region.

Russia has changed a lot in past 10 years and 90% of what I see in my daily private and business life is not much different from what I'm accustomed to in the UK. Some things are positively better (for example communal services are great though I can judge by my apartment block only).

Let me say something about bribes and corruption. I never gave a single bribe in my life in Russia then or now, with a possible exception of a small fine to a traffic cop paid on the spot in cash (to save myself time going to a nearby bank).

I know there are people who pay bribes, but plenty of businesspeople don't. Those businesspeople who don't pay bribes CAN be successful and quite often are. And those who do quite often get caught together with corrupt officials. The key point is -- today corruption is much less than it was in the 90s and it's falling year by year.

The image of organised crime driving around with armed body guards in SUVs is total bullshit nowadays. Most of SUVs you see on the streets in my city is driven by beautiful blond girls with artificial sun tan on their way to a gym.

I am walking the streets at night (admittedly, not in the depressed areas) without fear of being mugged, since the last fight I saw in this city was when bouncers kicked some rich guy out of a club for being too drunk.

The key is to look at the dynamics. Russia is getting better, cleaner, wealthier. Lawlessness that happened in the 90s is quickly being replaced by the rule of law. It's not perfect, but the progress is amazing.

When author of the parent post implies that somebody (like me) cannot make an honest living in Russia today, I take it quite personally. The irony is -- he is not Russian, he has not lived in Russia for years, his friends are emigrant Russians -- but he has a long list of clichés that earn upvotes on HN.

Climate change and its perceived influence on the mankind is a very controversial subject, and today most of people's suffering from poverty and misgovernment has nothing to do with it. Advancing your own pet theories using a real-life tragedy as a prop is a bad taste.

   you know you are trolling/ karma whoring.

Also, there are people who have strong views about gay marriage, not necessarily aligned with yours or The New Yorker's. Just imagine what would happen if these people started forcefully expressing and defending their views on this thread?

Jekyll is a spin-off of a server-side application. Safety features of Liquid templates make sense on the server, but for a desktop application using Liquid is completely pointless. In Webby you are free to do whatever you want with ruby using erb or haml.

Another killer feature is ability to write plugins for Webby in a snap. For example, Webby can process LaTeX snippets and generate formula images for your web page. There is even a gnuplot plugin that lets you plot data that you save alongside your document.

   he's been in deep teabagger territory

Shoud we disregard everything you say just because you seem to be a 'left-wing treehugger' (using your language)?

Let's not turn HN in an echo-chamber for a particular political grouping.

I would also argue that banks accumulated toxic assets because theey believed that they would be bailed out (moral hazard argument), which is the direct consequence of regulation.

'Too big to fail' idea has been around for quite long, one can start from LTCM more than 10 years ago, and it of course existed before that.

Fraudulent behavour is common to free market economies, but normally market participants develop mechanisms to filter out scammers (for instance J P Morgan used to say that nobody could become client of his bank without an introduction). It is when the government takes over controlling responsibility and then fails to deliver (Madoff) we have massive problems.