kevinelliott

You criticize the OP for not liking the incentive system, but then openly admit that you don't visit the SO site much anymore because you have other priorities and don't want to play the waiting game. You're nearly saying the same thing in different ways, but you're still criticizing him.

Next, you criticize him for being narcissistic but forget to detail that the SO site is built around reputation, which is an INCENTIVE system for encouraging/discouraging participation, and thus actually encourages narcissism. After all, most people on that site are essentially working for a form of virtual currency to their personal brand. How much more narcissistic can you get? It's all about yourself, with an illusion that you're there to help others. Whenever reputation systems are in play, it's likely impossible to leave narcissism completely out of it. It would have to be anonymous, but even then, some people are still narcissistic privately.

Then, you go on to mention that the questions are less interesting to yourself (how is that not more about yourself than the posters on the site?)... I mean, the hypocrisy is thick here.

Sure, the OP is being critical of SO, but he brings up some good points. He's not really whining about not getting 1000 points after 2 posts. It's evident that he's used the site for a reasonable amount of time and then made some observations that he just can't deal with anymore.

You're obviously smart, perhaps more than most. Perhaps a more constructive reply to the OP of the article makes more sense than simply tearing him down? He makes good points, from his perspective.

I personally see the degradation of SO due to these problems. Less experienced developers can only earn reputation by knowing more than they do, because they are unable to ask repeat questions on simpler topics. Newbies still continue to do it, and thus the site is flooded with repeat questions, and more experienced users get annoyed and condescending. There is no warm culture there, and it's purely self-administrating, other than by some reputation filters. Contrast this to HN where PG and others help to continually curate the community personally and not just with software implementations.

Writing a thoughtful response takes time, and when 7-10 other people are writing thoughtful responses, don't you think that's a bit discouraging? Especially when you think the subject matter is less interesting as you have progressed?

If SO wants to grow a good community, they're going to have to make some serious changes.

I don't know the specifics of your product (or anything about it at all really), but it may be possible if you primed your database with data you've gathered yourself. Depending on the content, you may be able to spend 20 hours, 40 hours, or hundreds to thousands of hours to develop a base layer of data that will be enough to attract a userbase to "do the rest."

Chances are, for most people, this will not work for you, but it is an option, and has worked for others in the past. It's risky though, because if you spend hundreds of hours priming the data and then no one comes, you've wasted a lot of man hours. For some products, there is no other way.

I wish this wasn't so far above my abilities. It would be fantastic to find a course to work up to this point.

Where are all these likeminded individuals? Are there places other than meetups to find them?

I'd rather not discuss details, but I chose not to work for Google simply because I had worked for other large companies with similar perks and I was too young at the time (and at heart) to see myself there. In the future, I may change my mind, but I certainly don't see that happening any time soon.

Most people don't drive home a success. Those failures still teach hard lessons, ones that a cushy job rarely can. Not that I'm even suggesting this is for everyone, but those willing to take the plunge will certainly gain from the effort, whether successful or not.

Congrats! I run a startup too, at the age of 32, and my wife helps me out when she has time (data entry, marketing tasks, brainstorming, etc). It's exciting, but hard work with long hours. After all, you've got to manage finances, licenses, supplies, taxes, development, design, environments, IT, marketing, invoices, inventory, reporting, etc etc.

At some point you may actually need to take the plunge and work fulltime on it if you want to really make it a success, but until then have some fun!

Your reasoning is synonymous with why I never accepted an offer from Google in the past. Big companies often have a lot of perks, but much like continually buying electronic toys every week, it's only medicating most people's existence.

Breaking out on your own to create your own products forces you to adapt in ways a "cushy" corporate job just can't stimulate. And although it's infinitely harder, the battle is worth fighting through. Seeing it through, persevering, and then driving home a success, all on your own (or with some help) is an experience you simply can't replace.

Best of luck to you. This is a great community to help see you make it happen. And congrats!

This is truly remarkable. Those of us yet to have submitted to YC now have an additional reason to do so. And it took a foreigner to do it. Po.iticians should take note, because this is how you stimulate an economy and innovation.

Congrats! Can you give us a hint on what's next for the platform?

Yes, failed is a bit harsh, but see how difficult adoption has been? A near apocalypse of ipv4 is required before the leap occurs. My point, though, was simply to illustrate how insane it sounds for a bunch of random people to do what an organized and financially backed group even struggles with.

Very excited to see what becomes of the Atomontage Engine. For years I've been annoyed with static 3D environments where walls don't actually crumble when shot at, and windows never shatter. This engine will change the way we react to realism in virtual environments.

Almost so much that it becomes easy to ponder if we're already in someone's 3D simulation ;)

The one fatal flaw is that the author assumes disparate hoards of people can come together to create a new network to replace the existing one, which is a difficult task (dare I say extremely difficult). Just look at how an organized, business & government sponsored approach to creating a new network has already failed to take much traction (re: ipv6). Hardly disparate, yet a decade of efforts and still not truly active.

Don't forget that for most of the ones that wanted something immaterial they also have "already made it" and have a reasonable allocation of wealth and material things already.

Besides, it looks fantastic to look like you care about people, the world, etc. I'm not saying they're making it up, but this whole article reads like a PR campaign for "look how nice and selfless I am!"

I suppose it depends on if a man is loyal to his conscience, or loyal to his pocketbook. It wouldn't necessarily be a "moral crime" to have kept the money, but it might have been one of "personal value."

I'm sure that many of us set personal values that are more or less progressive than society's moral foundations, and that's a reasonable reason to not keep the money. And donating $100k to charity does not necessarily mean it will go to a good cause. Not all charities materialize "good effect" on society with cash contributions, even if advertised. It may have helped a charity, but it could have also been swallowed away into beauracracy. It doesn't make him a wuss to have returned the cash.

People have a right to be compensated for their effort. If you don't like it, no one forced you to tip him, and you got all that valueless writing for free. Had he charged up front, you either 1) wouldn't have paid, or 2) would have been disappointed with what you bought. Instead, he gave it away, and if you liked it he suggested a tip. No different than what I see on endless blogs on the net. If he hadn't "begged" for a tip, chances are he wouldn't have gotten any.

What gets me puzzled here though, is it seems that it's OK for a company to charge for something (that may even be valueless to many, many people) and it's expected, but if an individual person suggests tipping on their "product" everyone gets their panties in a bunch. He's viewed as weak for returning the money, and annoying for asking for a tip. Oh well, being reasonable isn't always popular.

If you don't want to tip, don't. But it doesn't make what he did any less noble.

After reading the full story I read all the comments here on HN. I didn't see mentioned several thoughts I had while reading the story, so I thought I'd share them here.

1) Transparency. I thought it was really interesting how candid and transparent the author was with his story. And this was in 1995. In many ways this was an experiment of its time, as he was willing to let all parties involved know about what he was thinking and what others were thinking as well (by republishing the public's opinion letters). You don't see this much of a "black box" in people's activities these days, even with all the social networking status updates. People simply leave out a lot of detail in fear of what others will think, or how it might affect them in some way (personally, professionally, etc...)

2) Big corporations often forget how to relate to their customers. This story exemplifies how nasty and out of touch big corporations often are, even when a loyal customer (10 years is a long time for anything) attempts to negotiate a reasonable outcome. Big companies simply "feel" bigger and stronger than individuals; and they generally are. Millions of people feel insignificant when they're treated so systematically unappreciated. These problems are likely worse today.

3) Insider details revealed. It is interesting to note that he revealed a lot of details that only someone in his position (or work for a bank, news agency, or television studio) would know. That really makes the story interesting because you feel like you're learning about how things work behind the scenes. In particular, it was interesting to follow the route of the check and hear about the clearinghouse bank, as well as how quickly the check landed in the hands of the Fed. Additionally, it was really valuable to see how the media works, specifically for how stories have to be pitched/approved/edited all across a large organization such as the WSJ before it's printed. Also notable was how the radio seemed to take a back seat to television, and would only really come in after national press already covered the story. You walk away from this story thinking you have a better idea of how these systems work.

4) Social engineering / social influence. His approach to getting information, or changing a person's attitude is evident in his anecdotes. He was social engineering in several instances, whether he realized it in those terms or not. It was interesting how he was able to change a person's negative attitude by simply sticking to his guns, but then phrasing things in a way that comforted the other person. There is likely a lot of value in his approaches for all of life's situations (business, friends, etc).

It's hard to imagine that I missed this story when it was originally happening. I certainly remember the OJ trial, and I was very active on BBSes and the Internet in the 80s/90s. Quite awesome that a 15 year old story resurfaced and I got a chance to feel it out now.

Perhaps, but just because he gave the money back to the "evil bank" instead of a charity doesn't mean it wasn't noble. He stayed within the limits of the law, and now instead of looking like a sneaky anti-system Robin Hood, he's fought a larger cause of awareness. Rather than justice mimmic the cruel, but legal, injustices performed by the banks by spending their wad of cash, he turned it around and gave it back while keeping some form of integrity.

While people seem to think that placing PayPal links in the article was begging, I don't see people complaining about 37 Signals placing order forms on the web on the Basecamp demo page. So, let me understand... Because he gave the story away for free, asking for a tip makes him lame, but companies who flat out charge for a product are not?

I've noticed that too. I try to write very personally when I post things on the net for just that reason. It's getting to dark and impersonal on the net these days, even with all the bright colors :)

I miss BBSes for exactly this, too.

I did too. While these ads felt a little uneasy, his assurances and explanations for the ads were reasonable. And when you see him turn down almost $100k of "easy" money, and instead take the route of sharing the story for free (even with almost all of the news agencies) and earning "hard" money by "begging," it's worth mentioning that what he did was honorable, even if it didn't really "get back at The Man."

I wonder how many people would have turned in that much cash if they knew they were legally in the clear. Not many, I'd guess.

And also take note that the author was flabbergasted by the quantity of people that read it online. Untraditional media was such a new thing then! He almost seemed more excited by the Internet traffic than the hundred million viewers of the 2 big news broadcasts.

I struggle with placing items like my iPhone on the bed for 2 reasons: 1) althoughly likely harmless (not convinced, but it's prob true) my mind worries about having my cell phone at head level and so close while I sleep with radiation, and 2) since I know something is on the bed, it affects my feeling of space around me and contributes to poor sleep. Interesting how suggestive your own mind can be.

There has been much debate about making customizations like these that stray from the UI guidelines. I actually like subtle customizations like these, but some more orthodox folks feel that it's a crime.

In any case, it's nice to see someone reverse engineering some of them, as I've always wondered how a few of them worked.

I really get a kick out of Google satellite images of China. There are a lot of oddities, such as that 1/3rd scale replica of a mountain region (assumed to be Tibetan?) with a facility nearby full of tanks/cars/etc.

The solution to cut up the $100 bills is quite smart, although I'm shocked that the user did not care to mention that it's illegal to intentionally damage money in that way. I'm sure you could play the "I didn't know" card once or twice, but if this were to become a larger practice by lots of people, you'd quickly see some kind of policing/seizing/etc take place.

Wow, so Douglas Adams' babelfish is real, only it's an app for iOS. Fantastic. You've got an exciting venture on your hands!

How was the author's productivity doubled? Where is the proof? How long has this been evaluated? Was it more than one day and a few strolls?

It's already known that the brain is a "muscle" and thus needs rest to function properly. What I'd like to see from the author is more about why hourly rests might more positively benefit the brain than some other interval, and why.

Otherwise, most of this is pure speculation!

I've been helping with iDroid and Bootlace, and I can tell you that a lot has progressed over the last couple of months. Power management has been a huge priority, and while some of it is there now, much more is to come. Also, it runs incredibly slowly on a 2G, but quite reasonable on a 3G, and absolutely awesome on a 3GS. In fact it feels faster on a 3GS than on a real droid phone.

Part of the reason that it runs hot is the screen power management is incomplete, so it's always on, albeit dimmed. This should change soon.

I've seen Derek's design abilities grow over the last couple of years, and I think his post seems to sum up many of the steps he took to improve.

It's actually quite disappointing to see that the Linux kernel performance essentially never increased over 5 years. A lot of nice functionality was added, so at least the lack of a net loss is quite fantastic.

I wonder if this report might give the kernel folks the boost they need to be truly innovative moving forward.