Capitalist Soul Rises as Ho Chi Minh City Sheds Its Past | Hacker News Reader

Capitalist Soul Rises as Ho Chi Minh City Sheds Its Past

nytimes.com

93 pointsnyodeneD65 comments

I have a passion for history. I love reading biographies and hanging out on history forums.

As we're getting to the 50-year mark past the American involvement in Vietnam, things are progressing in ways not anticipated at the time. Vietnam, like several other Asian countries, is embracing capitalism and entrepreneurs. Old enemies hug and pose for photographs.

This seems to be a pattern, at least among American conflicts (I have not studied others very much). As the combatants grow into old age, it's not worth carrying a grudge around. Things that were worth dying and killing for 50 years ago are still important, but they're fights for young people. It becomes easier to see things from the other side.

I'd argue that by simply having a huge presence of Americans in Vietnam for so many years, the two countries have become joined for the next century or so, much the same as having kids in a marriage joins the two partners together even if they can't stand one another. I also note that things may end up turning out better for Vietnam in terms of economic development than if South Vietnam had won the war -- which would have only institutionalized worse corruption than they currently have.

This is all speculative, of course, but I seriously doubt anybody in the mid-70s would have guessed that this is where we'd all be 40 years later. It's been an interesting journey for both countries.

>>This seems to be a pattern, at least among American conflicts (I have not studied others very much). As the combatants grow into old age, it's not worth carrying a grudge around.

If you've ever been to Serbia/Croatia/Montenegro this is evident - to the point of being a little bit weird. You see the former combatants doing business and living next to one another and it's hard to believe that less than 15 years ago they were roaming around in paramilitary groups murdering each other. Going to Belgrade as an American, I expected at least a little bit of animosity...considering you could still see strafing/bombing damage from American bombs in certain parts of the city... No one cared - and Belgrade seemed to be doing pretty well. It was bizarre. But damn beautiful place - would recommend Belgrade, St. Stephan in Montenegro (actually, don't go there...you will ruin it) and Dubrovnik.

I was in Belgrade in 1999 about five days before the US started bombing the place. The people there were very friendly to me, even when they knew I was an American. The border guards sure scrutinized me and my passport (I had a transit visa), but they didn't give me any trouble other than that.

One of my more memorable experiences was visiting Tito's mausoleum. It was very quiet and I was the only person there. I got the impression that nobody was interested in visiting Tito anymore. The elderly security guard there was very happy to seem me and he talked to me in rudimentary German, the only language we had in common. As a gift he gave me some book discussing some Yugoslavian communist party conference back in the 60s with an English translation. Nice guy.

I was traveling from Sarajevo (a sad city at the time) on a bus through the Serbian part of Bosnia, and I was a little nervous about that. There were no problems though. Our bus did break down in a snowstorm and we were stuck there next to the road for about six hours, so I had plenty of time to talk to the other passengers (all Serbian as far as I could tell). They were either friendly or didn't pay attention to me, probably because most didn't speak any language I knew.

A couple in front of me on that bus were telling me that they heard that the Americans were about to bomb Belgrade at any moment. There was no animosity toward me personally, though: they were friendly people. I thought that was nonsense because the news had been talking about that for months and nothing seemed to be coming out of it. It turned out that in the few weeks I'd been traveling that things had gotten much more serious. I might have reconsidered traveling through Serbia if I knew things had gotten that serious. I saw a newspaper in Greek a few days after I left the country showing Belgrade and pictures of stealth bombers. I knew then that the people I was talking to had been right.

I haven't been to that region since that time, but I'd love to go again. I have lots of memories of friendly people.

> Things that were worth dying and killing for 50 years ago are still important, but they're fights for young people.

So what was behind the Vietnam War that was worth dying and killing for? What would you have died and killed for, when young?

Protecting your country, friends and family from an aggressive, invading force?

Ridding your country of a brutal, corrupt puppet dictatorship propped up by said aggressive, invading force?

I think most people would see that as a valid reason to kill and die for. Hell, said aggressive, invading force even convinced their young it was worth to go kill and die to do the invading, should be a piece of cake to convince those being attacked

I meant that from the American perspective, but alright.

> Protecting your country, friends and family from an aggressive, invading force?

And on the invaders' side? What exactly were the American soldiers dying and killing for?

> Ridding your country of a brutal, corrupt puppet dictatorship propped up by said aggressive, invading force?

How about just going for the dictators specifically? The Vietnamese people declaring that they will kill any dictator the US installs there might have done the trick, as opposed to dying by the millions fighting the vastly superior American military.

But it's not that simple either. Think of something like North-Korea. Any sane person there sees that what's going on is totally. fucking. fucked. up.

But even if someone thinks freeing people from the insanity there is worth dying for, what if his death didn't actually result in the insanity ending? .. Fear, is sadly what keeps mass-murdering tyrannical regimes in power.

Many people truly believed at that time that countries re-forming into Communist states could build a kind of momentum, like a row of dominoes tipping over, and that allowing Vietnam to fall would inevitably lead to the US fighting off a "Red Dawn" invasion from the rest of the world that had gone Communist.

As with other wars, the justification was "fight them there, so we won't have to fight them here."

This works, because young military recruits are not often skilled at the skeptical, rational questioning of authority. Many of them literally believe that the invasion and occupation of foreign territory makes the US safer. It isn't until much later, if ever, that they face down the cognitive dissonance and accept that they were just pawns in the game of global politics.

Sure, but now you're just describing the propaganda that was used to get ordinary people to die and kill for their rulers.

Every step backward along the chain of causality is an equally valid reason.

Someone believing the propaganda is as much a reason as someone writing it, or someone ordering that it be written, or someone inventing the casus belli behind it.

It is a fallacy to assert a true root cause in anything, because no event is so cleanly disconnected from the rest of history that you can definitively say that a deciding event is truly independent of all those that came before.

The root cause for any war is psychopath rulers wanting more power and more wealth for themselves. The rest follows from that. Of course, the rulers will be spewing bullshit propaganda to get their peons to go die for them.

The commenter I originally responded to seemed to suggest that there would be a "good" reason for people to go die or kill people in a war.

But enriching his rulers is not exactly a good reason for an ordinary person to kill or die trying. What's in it for him? Wouldn't he much rather not do it?

> And on the invaders' side? What exactly were the American soldiers dying and killing for?

Rich old men back home.

Yes, or more accurately: the psychopath rulers and their cronies back home.

That's what I've been getting at, as you probably gathered.

In other words, ordinary people don't actually have a good reason to die and kill for X in a war, because X is always rulers and wars are always about their personal gain at the expense of countless ordinary people.

You can always convince enough of the plebs that they are in danger and that your country needs to be the first to act. After that, it's just inerta.

The difference now is that there is economic incentive enough not to want that as much.

Reminds me of this:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

-- In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

> What exactly were the American soldiers dying and killing for?

Many were drafted into compulsory military service. They were placed into a situation where it was "kill or be killed." If they didn't want to fight or they deserted, then it was federal prison.

Sure, but although it certainly suits their rulers, that's not exactly a good reason for them to go die or kill people.

That's how wars are maintained, by the way. Ordinary people are told they need to go kill some "enemies", or they will be killed by the um.. not-enemies..

At the time, there was an existential struggle going on between Soviet Union and Europe/US. Vietnam war was ultimately the wrong turn in that struggle, but it was far less obviously wrong at the time.

The so-called "domino theory" hypothesized that Communism could be modeled as a sort of ideological contagion. If one country became Communist, its neighbors were more likely to become Communist. So if left unchecked, Communism would spread throughout the world in a giant, red wave, leaving America as the last remaining bastion of freedom in the whole universe.

This theory was given additional credence because apparently, the Communists believed in it, too.

Well, it turns out that theory was just so much hot air.

Laos, Cambodia ended up Communist (though, ironically, it was Kissinger and the USA who ended up tolerating the Khmer Rouge as a pawn against the USSR and Vietnam, and Vietnam who ended up removing the Khmer Rouge from power and replacing them with a puppet state). It's also worth mentioning that Malaysia was fighting off a Communist insurgency, though that was pretty much dead by 1960.

And, perhaps most importantly, Indonesia had the largest (non-ruling) Communist Party in the world, with a seven figure membership. Had Vietnam been re-united under Communist rule, it's hard to anticipate how it would have developed. (1965 ended any chance of Communist revolution, there, though, with the US-supported mass murder of 500k+ CP members and Indonesian Chinese).

Even India and then-East Pakistan had to deal with a background level of Communist terrorism. We've got the benefit of the present to be able to poo-poo others' choices, but it was a genuinely big deal back then, and even now I'm not sure how things would have developed differently with a united Communist Vietnam in 1960.

ETA: Thailand and the Phillipines also had fairly active Communist insurgencies, though it seems their governments were able to put them down without too much difficulty.

ETA Again: As another counterfactual to build intuition: had the KMT beaten Mao in the 1940's, would there be a Communist Vietnam? A North Korea? The latter almost certainly not. The former is less definite--I'd personally expect an authoritarian anti-colonial regime. Something like Burma, with better outcomes than it because of regression toward the mean. A Communist Vietnam conditioned on a Nationalist China seems highly unlikely to me.

Exactly. Korea itself of course has been dealing with communists.

Burma and Laos had communist insurgencies. The CP of Laos, too, is an offshoot of the Vietnamese CP.

Most of Africa and South America had strong communist parties too.

It's quite simple. The CI (communist internatinal) was a world-imperialist organisation, and was trying to take over governments all over the world, following the Leninist model that had been 'successful' in Russia.

I look at it more in terms of concrete, material support: if you're geographically near a Communist state, that Communist state has a strong interest in undermining your government for its own ends. It's also far easier for them to supply material and men, rely on social networks to diffuse propaganda, etc. A Communist Vietnam IMO makes a Communist Indonesia and even India much more likely (which would be a disaster on a huge scale); South Africa or Peru, though, next to no effect, or maybe even a negative effect.

The real genius of Kissinger was realizing the abstraction of a unified Communist block was pretty faulty, and national interests superseded any ideological fidelity to the Communist cause.

    realizing the abstraction of a unified Communist block was pretty faulty, and national interests superseded any ideological fidelity to the Communist cause.

Interesting perspective. I think sino-soviet split, which was ideological, not nationalist, led Viet Nam to align with Moscow and Pol Pot with Beijing. This split was exploited.

    As another counterfactual to build intuition: had the KMT beaten Mao in the 1940's, would there be a Communist Vietnam?

Moscow sent weapons to Ho Chi Minh's and Pol Pot's armies via China. So it's extremely doubtful.

In what sense was it hot air? Saloth Sar (better known as Pol Pot), radicalised by the French communist party, trained in Moscow, Belgrade and Beijing, took over neighbouring Cambodia, aided by the communists in Hanoi. Indeed the Cambodian Communist party was an offshoot of Viet Nam's People's Army (the armed forces of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam).

The domino theory was a good one, because, as you point out yourself, it described the explicit modus operandi of the communists. Where it failed, it failed primarily because the communists received serious pushback.

It failed because the "domino" states represented an additional support burden on the Communist core states of Russia and China, who were themselves split ideologically. The Cold War basically prevented some internal conflict within the Communist Bloc by providing an external menace and scapegoat. But it was also economic warfare, turning what would have been a shooting war into another kind of money-spending contest.

Rather than building momentum, additional satellite nations just stressed the central powers economically. In theory, it would have been a self-supporting revolution, but in practice, it looked like just another overextended empire.

But it's too easy to criticize with the benefit of hindsight. They had no way of knowing back then the typical failure modes of Communist nations.

My hypothesis is that a better anti-Communist strategy would have been for the non-Communist nations to offer generous asylum/refugee-based immigration programs to those fleeing from the threat of Communist rebels in their home countries. Aside from that, stay out of the internal politics of the Communist bloc. Sadly, this is now untestable, so nobody should give it more than a few moments of light consideration.

    The Cold War basically prevented some internal conflict within the Communist Bloc by providing an external menace and scapegoat.

That's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure I can agree with it. Before the Sino-Soviet split, the communist world was really just one state, the Soviet union and everybody else was but a satellite.

   better anti-Communist strategy would have been for the non-Communist nations to offer generous asylum/refugee-based immigration programs

That is more or less exactly what West Germany did with refugees from East Germany. It was extremely successful, until the East build the wall and made fleeing next to impossible.

yes. But it wasn't obvious at the time. Part of the reason it turned out to be hot air, because communists failed to execute on this strategy, at least in part because they had to fight against non communists. It was a dynamic system, not a static one

No mention of Cuba in the article but I think we can all agree that increased engagement could very well lead to the same results - increased freedom and wealth for all Cubans.

Interesting note on that topic: only 20 years after Bill Clinton normalized relations with Vietnam it's now "one of the most pro-American countries in Southeast Asia, with 78% of Vietnamese people viewing the U.S. favorably in 2015" according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Vietnam_relation...

This is a speculative outsider's view but a few things likely contribute to the pro-American statistic. My musings are based off of living in Vietnam for the last two years with my wife's family.

1. Half of the country was on the side of the Americans in the American War. The people that were on the losing side had a bad time after the end of the war. The Vietnamese refugees who went to the US had a much better time. Almost everyone in South Vietnam has a friend or relative who moved to the US.

2. An unusually large percentage of the population is young. They were born after the war and have been consuming American movies and pop stars since they were kids.

3. The Vietnamese don't seem to hold grudges for very long. For whatever reason, they seem to be a lot less traumatized by the war than the US was. This is despite the fact that they lost millions of people in the war.

4. China is currently the only real existential threat to Vietnam. It has been periodically invading Vietnam for thousands of years. The only ally powerful enough to curb a belligerent China is the US.

The other thing I would say is that I think the current economic growth is more a consequence of changes in economic policy in the 80s than anything that Bill Clinton did - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_Moi

I do agree however with you that the current US policy towards Cuba is silly.

>The Vietnamese don't seem to hold grudges for very long. For whatever reason, they seem to be a lot less traumatized by the war than the US was. This is despite the fact that they lost millions of people in the war.

Did people in the US hold a grudge against Japan forty years later? By then all the people who were actually making decisions are long dead. In any event Vietnam was involved in a dozen wars during the 20th century. We were just one of a long line of enemies. Also, it's easier to be gracious in victory.

>Did people in the US hold a grudge against Japan forty years later?

Well, actually, some of the ones left alive still do. At least among the few remaining veterans. It's not just the people old enough to have been making decisions, but people who joined to fight in their teens and were on the Pacific front of that war. Sad, but I've seen it first hand. Admittedly that's less and less true all the time as there are fewer and fewer of that generation left each year.

I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find the same in Vietnam. But it's not a culture-wide attitude.

Cuba does better than Vietnam by all measures. Education (literacy rate is 80% in Vietnam vs 100% in Cuba), healthcare, nominal GDP (2k in Vietnam vs 6.9k in Cuba per capita), Human Development Index etc.

Being pro-American (whatever that means) is not the holy grail or something like that. Besides, the notion that Cubans hate the US is just wrong.

Cuba has all the benefits of a European nation. They've had major Universities for many centuries. They've had one of the highest literacy rates in the region for most of their existence. They have a tiny population (11m). And most importantly, they universally speak Spanish.

Vietnam has more than 80 million people, in 54 major ethnic groups with more than 50 distinct languages spoken.

"By all measures..." No, not by all measures. By some statistics, sure. But Cuba is an oppressive police state. Sure, humans can live long, healthy, literate lives in captivity. Yet what value is literacy when the state regulates what you can read and what you can say?

> But Cuba is an oppressive police state.

So, like Vietnam? [1]

1: http://www.ibtimes.com/vietnam-police-state-where-one-six-wo...

Universal literacy enables samizdat-style dissenter communication.

Vietnam is arguably a lot less homogenous than Cuba with respect to disparate linguistic and cultural groups. There is value in preserving heterogeneity just as there are in metrics derived from a unified market (or state) economy.

How great was life for the average Cuban in pre-revolution days? I think if I were a Cuban I would be more than skeptical of undoing all of the positive things that have been accomplished since 1959.

Getting your fingernails torn out by the secret police for criticizing the Castro regime isn't too great.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/07/02/cuba-a...

Economically, $6,000 GDP per capita isn't much to be proud of, compared to the US aligned Puerto Rico which is at $27,000.

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...

Puerto Rico isn't "US aligned", it's part of the US. There's a pretty big difference.

Yeah, "aligned" is not the right word. But it's not part of the US either. It's not a state. It's in a weird protectorate gray area.

By historical standards the most accurate appellation would probably be "colony".

Capitalistic economies in the region do much better, so who do you want me to compare to who is "fair?" Brazil, Argentia, Chile?

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...

Still 2x Cuba and with usually less fingernail pulling. Communism is a worldwide failure both political, human rights-wise, and economically. Lets stop being "edgy" and defend it for easily garnered anti-US upvotes.

Are we going to ignore the largest carceral state in the world?

We can have a sober criticism of all forms of states and capitalism without insisting on one hand that there are only two possibilities and on the other hand that we must choose one as morally superior.

The imperialist nationalist history of capitalism is more than bloody, blood is what makes the world fertile for capitalism.

I will only briefly mention that leftists have attacked states like the USSR as a form of state capitalism since the days Lenin was still alive. I see little potential in developing this line of thought here.

You don't want to develop that here, that's ok, but It's worth saying that these were not the most common leftist opinions, and the USSR in particular was popular on the left far longer than was prudent, from a modern perspective. (Not saying I wouldn't have made the same mistake as human alive in the 50s)

Totally true. My claim is smaller than I made it seem. I don't like Marxism even though I find some of the analytic tools it provides to be very useful. Even so, I have to give it credit that its largest experiments were very popular with a lot of leftists.

Well, the USSR and other similar states funded a lot of leftist groups (and some still do). It's hard to say what's a "common leftist opinion" when you have to discriminate between people who speak honestly about their opinions, people who only echo the democratic centralist tendency of their party, and people who lie about their true values and goals in order to get resources from nation-states.

Breitbart is bias news.

The dude who died, Breitbart, framed an Obama nominee for secretary of arigculture. He heavily edited a video to make it seems like she was racist.

She ended up suing him.

Just fyi, there are better sources to source.

GDP per capita doesn't mean much when you have food and shelter provided for you. I know most of my income in the bay goes to shelter alone.

Article said something of 70%+ of the Vietnamese population was born after the Vietnam War. They don't remember the terrible things.

Plus China is being a bad neighbor right now to everybody. Enemy of my enemy is my friend. USA is currently at least to them is not an enemy, an enemy of the past yes.

Cuban still hates us and they got no other enemy other than us, USA. Plus their population still remember us and what we did, cause the embargo is on going and we are occupying Guantanamo which they wants back.

Hello Saigon! I'm curious what other tech entrepreneurs/nomads we have out here. I've met many interesting, passionate technology people here, some expats and some locals. It's great to see the diversity in the scene here, just like you would expect from a major US city.

There's a lot of raw talent here, thanks to the outsourcing industry, university system, professional schools and huge number of young people looking to exceed their parents' standards.

If you're in Saigon - what are you doing here? I have a US company and am building the product with a relatively small team. Web focused, microservices/React stack.

I'm a programmer who just left Saigon after ~ 6 weeks.

Excuse the language, but it's kind of a shit hole, even a lot of the "nice" D1 parts... One of the most polluted cities in the world, swarms of motorcycles everywhere, always trouble walking from A to B, permanent hearing damage from crappy vehicles' shrieking breaks or the constant honking.

The expats I met (and let's not kid ourselves, a lot of them are straight up 'sexpats'... and there are infamous bars in town for that) wanted out. YMMV.

The good parts... Vietnamese people are amazing, very friendly. There are tons of cafes to work from. You can live in a 4 star hotel on the cheap.

Even so, I wouldn't move to Ho Chi Minh. Has a long way to go.

The experience you get out of something largely depends on how you approach it.

I live in a wealthy, quiet neighborhood - where most of my neighbors are Vietnamese and a majority of them are wealthier than me. Because of this and good networking I've met many successful business people, startup entrepreneurs and consulate generals. I'm also committed to here. I speak the language, have an office and team here. That level of commitment opens more doors than if I was just passing through. When I'm ready to move on to my next project, it will be hard to say no to many of the opportunities here.

There are a lot of expats who are unhappy here, though you'll find that in any expat community. A lot of them like to complain. I avoid those types if possible - more fun to be around future oriented people than past. (And that's one of the best things about Vietnam - it's so young. I'm sure you've read the statistics before, 70% under 30 years old. And most of them are excited for the future.) As for the sexpats maybe I don't see them - maybe I'm happily married with kids and don't hang out in the backpacker areas or bars.

Completely agree with you about the pollution. It's the hardest thing for me, which is why I live on the edge of town across from a jungle and a river and not in District 1. (View from my office https://goo.gl/photos/wuMnNcKFFnAMUNsn9)

Had my approach to Vietnam been different my opinions would be completely different. No way is the right way, just different.

Hello from Saigon,

It's sad to see you go. But it's very true that the air is critically polluted, esp. in the central area. I moved from DaNang city (You would try!) to Saigon to seek for a job; except for the money and the high tech air, Saigon isn't worth living.

The most critical thing is that people seem not to believe in others any anymore, and/or to believe in the future. (The author said people only thought of today, that's a reason.) Living fast, living short. And killing the future. :(

Hey Lucas, I'd love to connect. I'm currently in Saigon bootstrapping http://thinklab.com

Regarding talent -- what do you think about the technical talent here? I find myself still working with guys from Eastern Europe. Would be awesome to find some talent locally though.

You can check out this FB group https://www.facebook.com/groups/launchpad/. It's the most well known discussion group for startups in Viet Nam. Around 70% of the posts include English translation.

I relocated to HCMC 2 years ago from Hanoi. Many of my friends have also decided to move southward, especially those studied abroad. It's quite an obvious choice because HCMC economy is way more dynamic than Hanoi with lots of interesting jobs and higher pay. HCMC also has good food, lots of places to hang out, everything is generally cheap. Last but not least, the weather is much better than the capital.

I have a company with a few (local) friends. We build contents solution for web and mobile.

Hi neighbours. I'm up the Red River from Hanoi in Yunnan, the far southwest corner of China. Often spend time in Vietnam, since 2000... lots of changes. Durian juice is the best! I have a friend and ex-colleague of 10 years who runs one of the big print publishing outfits in Saigon, let me know if you need an intro for ads.

I'm building a team in Saigon right now. I've been traveling back and forth from Los Angeles. The talent can fluctuate, but if you know how to read resumes, you can find real gems. Those who graduated from public schools are quite good. The wealthy go to private. The work ethic is very solid.

Totally agree. Never felt so free to go about my life and business as in Saigon. Watch out with physical businesses however, foreigners can get scammed out of their stake.

Do you have any personal experience you can share with foreigners getting scammed?

There was a French accountant in his late 20s who came here with 50K EUR of life savings and opened a French restaurant with a local partner. Worked 7 days a week for 6 months, restaurant was losing money, one day he gets kicked out by his partner with the help from some of his gym friends.

That guy is now back in France in a job. He somehow managed to find a girlfriend while starting his restaurant though. He's now engaged to the girl but she's still here.

I had a chance to talk to a Vietnamese-American (born in Vietnam) who has done a lot of business in Vietnam. I ask him about the opportunities for foreigners. His response was "the gov't is more than happy to let a few foreigners make out well to keep the investments coming, but if they want to, they can take everything you have and you'll have no recourse".

Just an anecdote, but he has more experience in Vietnam than I do.

Also a good place for digital nomads & bootstrappers: https://medium.com/digital-nomad-stories/bootstrapping-in-sa...

I'm about to try the same thing in Mexico but reading that made me really home sick [sic] for Vietnam. Almost looking forward for when my visa in Mexico runs out and I have to leave...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com