gabrielroth

Do you have a soul at all?

Other things being equal, more choice might be better. But other things aren't equal, thanks to (a) economies of scale, which make insurance cheaper for larger pools, and (b) favorable tax treatment for health insurance when it's part of employee compensation.

The words 'Software Developer' are in 260% type at the top of the page.

If they're looking to weed out unsuitable candidates, TLDR might be a feature rather than a bug.

Oh hey no you're right, sorry.

That's from the next post. Were you reading in Safari Reader? It's running the posts together ...

That doesn't surprise me at all. What would surprise me would be if he copied the actual text provided for him by a PR firm, as the OP suggested Lohr had done.

Like every other daily newspaper, the Times produces some rushed, lazy journalism (as well as some very good journalism). But there are certain lines they don't typically cross, and literally taking dictation from PR is one of them. You might argue that the difference isn't meaningful, and that rules like "Don't just copy out someone else's text" are a fig-leaf to hide bigger problems. I'd have a lot of sympathy for that argument. But if we're going to criticize the Times we should criticize them accurately, for the things they're actually doing wrong, rather than accusing them of doing things they haven't done.

I'm not defending the story as a masterpiece of journalism or anything, and I'm sure it was pitched to the reporter by an interested party. But you shouldn't blame 'such clunkers as "To generate story 'angles,' explains Mr. Hammond of Narrative Science...." when Mr. Hammond has already been introduced earlier in the story' on PR agencies. They don't actually write the copy that runs in the NY Times. That particular clunker was probably imposed on the writer by the copy editor ("It's been a while since Hammond was referenced; we need to remind the reader who he is"), unless the author has internalized the style himself.

This story was provided, probably almost word for word, by a PR person to the NYT reporter.

Definitely not. The idea for the story was provided to the reporter, probably by a P.R. person. The reporter conducted interviews with representatives of the company, some of whom are quoted in the story and some of whom aren't. The reporter went away and wrote up the story himself. It was edited by at least one line editor and at least one copy editor. The reporter, line editor, and copy editor have all beaten many competitors to obtain jobs at the most prestigious company in their field.

If anyone at the New York Times were found to have submitted a story that was "provided ... almost word for word by a PR person" that person would be fired and the paper would issue a public apology.

Again, I'm not defending the story, and I'm sure the PR person who pitched it was thrilled by it. But, you know, Steve Lohr's byline is on this story, and you've accused him of pretty bad professional misconduct, and I don't think that's warranted.

The idea from the book that seems most obsolete to me is that a web startup founder could gain a competitive advantage by using Lisp. (Not that a Lisp might not be the best choice, but your competitors are more likely to be using it too, and if they're not they're using something much closer than they were in 2004.)

The poster above was asking specifically about software patents.

Well, smart people have made that argument (http://www.amazon.com/Life-You-Can-Save-Poverty/dp/140006710...) but it's not the argument I'm making.

I comment on HN because I enjoy it. But I suspect that some people add money to Jonathan's Card because it gives them a feeling of virtue. I'd like to interfere with that feeling.

Thanks for the response. My question wasn't really directed at you—I can see all kinds of ways you could justify the project, including just curiosity. My question was for the people who are putting money on the card.

I hope one of your other ideas works! Good luck! But I suspect a big part of the impetus behind the contributions is a feeling of reciprocity, which is a different impulse from charity.

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here and kind of not: How can you justify spending $n to buy coffee for someone with a smartphone instead of donating $n to someone with fewer resources and greater needs?

A meta-comment on the answers to this question: For various reasons, a disproportionate number of HN commenters are fans of "Austrian School" economics. You'll see links to papers from mises.org, books by Murray Rothbard, etc. Without passing judgment on any of this work, if you're new to economics it would probably be helpful for you to understand that it's outside the mainstream.

To answer your question more directly (although only partially): Wikipedia is quite good on the major economic concepts and figures. I'd imagine that the Wikipedia article on any of the subjects you mentioned would be a good, brief, thoroughly hyperlinked starting point. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation, for example.

Re your point one: This service wasn't for help with what an American would call term papers. It was for help with exams, which you have to write yourself (unless you hire someone to impersonate you, which I'm sure is not unheard of in big classes but is certainly riskier).

Here's something that's easy to forget: Everyone else at a Hackspace or a meetup or a user group is there for the same reason as you. If they just wanted to write a bunch of code they'd be at home in their bedroom. If they go to one of these events, they're hoping to meet like-minded people. The more people there, the better. So they'll be pleased if you attend.

This goes double for the organizers, by the way. Imagine organizing one of these events: booking the space, posting about it online, arriving early to set up ... Your biggest nightmare would be that no one shows up. When you arrive, walk up to the organizer, introduce yourself, and thank him for his effort. I guarantee you he'll appreciate it.

Good comment; I agree with almost all of it. I would add, though, that it would also be possible to invent a legislative solution that's not absurdly narrow, for instance by providing an inexpensive and reasonably prompt means of arbitration.

My understanding is that the person who asked that question wants to measure the value YC is adding, separate from YC's ability to select promising teams. Obviously there's no way to separate those things, so s/he suggested an absurd experimental setup in which half of the accepted startups, chosen at random, would be excluded from YC.

This is an issue that comes up over and over. The real problem is a mismatch of supply and demand: there are lots of ideas out there, and not enough developer hours to bring them all to fruition, so a guy with an idea will need to offer more than just the idea if he wants to attract developer time. Someone who fails to understand this problem probably shouldn't be trying to start a business.

Just responding to your 'for once': U.S. publishers have long had this kind of trouble with Canadian obscenity standards. In many ways the U.S.'s free-speech regime is pretty broad-minded compared with other western democracies. I suspect you're experiencing a kind of sample bias, where you (as an American) hear more about U.S. free-speech violations than about restrictions elsewhere, and thus believe that they're more frequent.

> So we're discouraging asking questions now? That's a troubling stance.

It seems pretty obvious that some questions are better not posted on a discussion site, because they bring down the value of the conversation.

You might want to put 'Hacker News' in the app's title, though.

That's one way in which a discussion community like HN is different from an open-source product-user community.

He's a product guy. He would have run some kind of company making some kind of consumer-electronics item that would attempt to be the best in its class. Without the talent, resources, brand, and exposure of Apple to work with, he might or might not have been successful.

It's an idea that was discussed here recently, and its adoption by Google is a sign that it's got some traction in high-profile places.

I think the post makes the distinction very clearly. First we hear about Netflix doing this surprising thing on purpose. Then we hear about the Stack Exchange guys pulling out their hair to fix a recurring problem. But "even in our time of greatest frustration, I realized that there was a positive side to all this." Where's the ambiguity?

Good thing it has them for comments!

You're confusing dynamic range compression with digital file compression. Totally different things. The only thing they have in common is that they make something smaller.