With the pomodoro technique. I find it useful.
What is this good for?
Say you have a RaspberryPi-based weather station with internet access. With one API call your an share your data (raw or processed) with any other device. Since its open source, you can run your own little closed network. Imagine having hundreds of mini weather stations sharing data over the web like this.
It works for any device that has access to the internet. Even if its through a host connection (If you have an Arduino connected to a laptop through serial. It can make the HTTP calls through a client script/library I'm including, too.)
Here is the github repo: https://github.com/bliti/bbedy
The program runs locally, but has not been setup for deployment. I have not written the documentation for it. Should be up and running by December 2013.
I started revising the curriculum for a class I teach each fall, and then realized I could just as easily turn it into an open resource. Now even though the class is over, I can't stop working on it. If anyone is interested, I'd love to have some professional eyes on some of the code samples, and I'd love some help writing exercises and challenges.
It's still a young project, but I'm happy to hear feedback.
Nowadays I'm working on several disk related projects:https://github.com/baruch/diskscan
- libHN: https://github.com/bennyguitar/libHN
- News/YC: https://github.com/bennyguitar/News-YC---iPhone
I love contributing to this community, but the website on mobile is not great at all. I love using Alien Blue for Reddit, so I decided to make a beautiful app to read and contribute to the community for iPhone. I started with just the reader - to view links and comments. However, just recently I made libHN as a wrapper of HackerNews API calls and then the app now uses that to be a portal to HackerNews. The app is an absolute joy to use now, if I may so myself!
Right now, it's gotten about 3,000+ downloads from the App Store. I don't track anything, so no idea on daily users. I just launched the pro version with the ability to login/vote/reply/submit for $0.99 two days ago. However, you can build from source and get it from free ;)
The latest buzzword is Functional Reactive Programming. Well, latest three buzzwords.
In particular, http://sheetjs.github.io/js-xls/ and http://sheetjs.github.io/js-xlsx/ which really should have been one; due to licensing concerns, they started as two projects and I hope to merge them at one point)
It's on github and I get immense joy for every little star it gets (https://github.com/erezsh/plyplus)
iptables-boilerplate is a set of predefined firewall rules that are typically used on "webhosts".
Want to share these simple, general utilities, handy tools,or convenience wrappers - most bash, some perl. Categories:script-infrastructure libraries, text filtering, log creation/parsing,simple network-related, regex, time, mail, cygwin, latex, jobs,processes, pathname, file or file-archive related, m4, make, system, and backup:
Been writing shell scripts since late 80s, still humble,and learning; appreciate constructive code review.
http://TRodman.com/scripts (~400k tarball w/installer)
Linux/devops scripting admin for HIRE; resume/skill assessment: http://TRodman.com
Just shows how often people update.
Don't drop them.
To those accepted to interviews: congrats!
To those that didn't make it to interviews, I wanted to share a great thought from Dustin Curtis (YC W13):
"Tomorrow. After my promotion. When I raise money. When the time is right. After I settle things up. When Im done learning. These phrases appear to be valid reasons for waiting, but they are usually just excuses used to rationalize an easier choice."
YC or no YC, go do your idea if you're passionate about it.
You're aware that that won't ever happen, right? Focus on making it useful, then focus on selling it to people.
Curious about other people and their video views, we got about 7 hits on ours after the deadline from California (Youtube analytics wont go any deeper). I doubt they were all from YC as the link was sent to other alums who reviewed our app and it is possible on of them hit it up after the deadline.
Anyone else look at their stats?
Everybody is racing to create the future and don't slow down just because you didn't get into YC.
Who knows maybe PG will be cool enough to show up and grab a few drinks too!
In our case (loovin.com), we've got 7 views to the demo site and 4 views in the video (this are views we know that are from them only, yeah... we check this all day long :)).
Good luck everyone!
You can search for papers any which way: by author name, by journal, by year, or some combination. Links to the papers themselves are all on ADS. Older papers are available for free on the journals' websites, and more recent papers are available for free on arxiv.org.
When looking for good papers to start with, you can just search for all papers written in a particular range of years and sort the results by the number of times the paper has been cited. (Usually the citation count is a good estimator of the importance of the paper.) If you search for all papers written within a range of years, though, make sure to select the sort by citation count option before doing your search. (Otherwise ADS will only sort the top 200 results that it returns, which will just be the 200 authors whose names come first alphabetically.) If you're more interested in physics than astronomy, there's also an option to include physics papers in your search.
I would recommend browsing through the most highly cited papers of the past decade or two. When you find one that interests you, ADS will also give you links to all the papers that it cites, and all the papers that have cited it. You can then sort those results by citation count to find another important, related paper. After doing this for a while you start to read through a network of papers in a particular field and get a grasp of how the field has developed and what the current state of the field is.
Another good resource to find papers is review articles. The most important journal for review articles in astronomy is Annual Reviews of Astronomy & Astrophysics (ARA&A). Browse through their recent volumes for an article that interests you, then skim the article. It will give you an idea of the state of the field and will summarize all the recent, important papers in that field. (If it's a good review article, anyway....) Some other review journals that I've used include Reviews of Modern Physics, Living Reviews in Relativity, and Space Science Reviews. (As a note, there are review journals in every field, so this technique works in disciplines other than astronomy. In fact, ARA&A is published by a group which publishes review journals in many disciplines, so you can find many other review journals on their site. I can't speak to the quality of those journals, though.)
An interesting journal that I like to look through every now and again, too, is the American Journal of Physics. It's not meant to publish new physics, per se, but is more oriented towards developing a better understanding of "solved physics." So, for example, in the current issue, there is a paper on explaining how magnetic traps work and another paper which provides a new proof of Bell's inequality. Nothing truly new there, but it can help you gain a deeper understanding of physics, and oftentimes you don't need much background in physics or math to understand the papers.
For example, from UW:
Machine Learning: http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse590m2/09au/HCI: http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse590h/13au/
I've found graduate reading seminars usually try to present a mix of seminal, eclectic and recent that gives you a diverse overview of the field.
HOWTO get started:
1. Pick a recent conference;
2. Click on the titles of any articles that look interesting;
3. When you get to the end of each article, dig through its bibliography. Many/most of the paper's references will also be available in the ACL Anthology; if not, Google Scholar will probably be a good resource for chasing them down. GOTO step 2.
The most general is the Daily Roundup at National Affairs where you get titles and abstracts of papers fitting the daily theme (lousily). RSS available.
For arXiv there are blogs highlighting papers, like this one
For economics, be sure to subscribe to the RSS feeds of NBER and IZA. Note that those are not reviewed.
Availability varies. But you can usually find a prepub by just Googling.
From that start point - just 'crawl' for (a) interesting papers cited there, and (b) other things written by authors you found interesting, they'll often have the non-paywall versions of their papers available on their site.
Usenix conference proceedings.
There are journals that priced themselves into irrelevance (Software Practice and Experience, I'm looking at you).
I try to read a couple papers a week, usually augmenting with Wikipedia tours to cover subjects I'm weak in.
Nearly all CS papers are posted by the authors on personal pages in PDF form. Once you've found something that has an interested abstract just go back to regular Google with the title, add "pdf" and it's almost certain you'll get a link to the file.
: Also, once you've got one paper that fits squarely into an area of interest you can then just start reading references. You'll also get a better handle on terminology which should make your Google Scholar searches more effective.
tl;dr: arXiv. But I do mathematics, so YMMV.
1. Pick a field. 2. Look on Wikipedia, get a feel for history and seminal papers. Also cross-reference any summary papers that you might see in ACM/Nature/Science. 3. Flip through a textbook on the topic and see if you can start grokking the terms. The useful textbooks will probably name more fundamental research that will serve as good reading. 4. Start digging back in sources. You'll start seeing familiar names pop up, these are usually the seminal authors in the field, or people who write really good summary papers. If you google the topic, and all the papers you find reference "x et al" in their abstract, you probably want to find that paper. 5. Read from back to front. Skip a little in the middle if pressed for time. 6. Now you can read papers on Nature/arXiv/Google and be well-prepared for the terminology.
I think the above approach should work for any field, but the openness of the field will vary a lot. Physics and math typically have large collections of PDFs online, but I'm not sure how good CS or bioengineering is in that regard.
If you want to stay up to speed on the latest and greatest across a wide range of topics, Science and Nature are often worth a read; those are weekly.
And then once you have favorite authors, you can set up automated searches to alert you whenever they publish something.
Having a peek at a listing of the talks being presented at conferences usually gives you a sneak preview of what's going to be published "soon" since people often give talks on a subject before they publish a paper on it. Conferences are also broken into subject areas, again helping you find what's of interest to you.
Anyway, what topic are you interested in?
For me, where is not the question, when is.
My Evernote is full of 'read-later' bookmarks, which I wish I will read one day...
http://www.helioviewer.org -and- http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/?type=current
But the very next I have personally found is ssrn.com - which is an open source repository.
You will also find that more and more papers are being hosted on arXiv.org.
If I am reading a book that links to specific academic papers, I'll first try google scholar, then a google search for the primary author. If the first doesn't return a link to a free copy, you will usually find it on the authors .edu homepage.
Also, for computational chemistry, at least, there's the Computational Chemistry Highlights blog [ http://www.compchemhighlights.org/ ], which selects (what they think are) interesting papers published within the past two years or so.
Finally, I follow scientiests' blogs and social media, who will typically share excellent papers that they find. Email lists like the Computational Chemistry List [ ccl.net ] will usually discuss papers as they relate to the conversations at hand.
Unfortunately, many of the excellent chemistry journals are behind pay walls.
This is how I harvest info for chemistry. I think it's highly probably that this same method could be used for all scholarly disciplines.
Best of luck.
* For ~300$/year, I receive by mail many journals and transactions from ACM. * For ~40$/year, I have access to some of IEEE Xplore.
Now I'm an undergrad and I don't understand 50% of what's written in those. There's the 50% I can understand which gives me new ideas, new tools or better understanding. For the 50% I don't grok, I know planting the seeds in my brain will eventually lead to analogies and eventual understanding. Surely it can't be bad to read more than less.
of recent papers in complex systems and networks.
Not necessarily peer-reviewed, but most of the papers will be or have been published in a conference or journal.
* Microsoft Research
* Yahoo Research
* Google Scholar
Imho, you should spend half a day or so going through 20-50 papers, reading abstracts+intros+conclusions to figure out which are the most interesting and select the 2 candidates. Especially at the beginning, focus on good/known authors.
BTW, surveys are also quite interesting papers by themselves.
I made a Perl script that emails you daily pubmed papers based on a list of interests, might be of use: https://github.com/bsima/daily-scholar
Please feel free to submit a PR with more if you have!
As of now, CS centric. Great discovery + recommendations:
1) Search on Google Scholar(using boolean operators)
2) Find interesting articles and read them
3) Check the references that are used in these articles. These articles might be interesting as well.
ps: We are building a tool to write academic papers: beta.bohrresearch.com
Also, ditch tech recruiters and in-house HR recruiters and let your engineering managers actually do the recruiting and hiring for their own teams. That's IMO the basic duty of a manager (aside from seeing that work gets done), but most orgs seem happy to have their managers do everything else but recruit and hire.
Also, I rent a 15x15-foot office for $175/month (on a month-to-month lease). That's typical in my area (Midwest). Give each employee a $250/month budget (to also account for Internet and other costs) and hire them remotely on the condition they find their own office. Let remote employees in the same city go in together to get a shared, remote office.
For an industry which rejects maybe 99% of candidates and has high turnover (my guess, every 2-3 years someone leaves your average programmer job), it's really your own fault for not having an easier time finding/keeping talent. Hint: give people raises based on current market rates instead of based on each person's current salary. Also, maybe you can take some of that commission you'd otherwise give a tech recruiter and start making riskier hires while also increasing your training budget. Put the riskier hires on their own team, isolated from the top talent, and let them work on their own projects while under the guidance of mentors and educators. Finally, stock options, foosball, and ping-pong are not acceptable substitutes for wages and 40-hour weeks, and you're fooling nobody except the least experienced, which is maybe why you have to reject so many candidates.
Really the approach that they took is the same one that most Flash projects took because they found that interaction was more important than download time. I would assume they have tested this approach and likely most real users where not bothered by the second or two of progress bar.
20 emails in the inbox view (API endpoint 1), directory information (API endpoint 2), Google Chat (API endpoint 3), your most-frequented labels (API endpoint 3) - and especially the email-endpoints are quite traffic-intensive!
So the GMail team decided they'll load with a progress bar instead of creating four or five widgets with "loading..." placeholders (unlike I do at readme.fm). When you got a lot of various and/or traffic-intensive assets, then you have to choose one of those two models.
(Of course, you can take advantage of IDB/WebSQL/LocalStorage/AppCache, but that is only helping a little bit)
Seriously?I understand the concept, but if it relies on 3rd party software/hardware for the user that has a camera to watch the user, it would never work.
Good concept, but bad implementation.
With real eye tracking i can even know why people left my page in first 10 seconds. Where they looks in first 10 seconds.
My portfolio's at madebyargon.com
Depending on how many people decide to take me up on this offer, I may not be able to accept everyone's request, but I'd at least be able to give advice and guidance.
Redeem: Forward reject letter to email@example.com
http://thedatingring.com/join - we're only in NY now but if you're not NYC, send in your info now and when we expand to SF / wherever you live, you'll set you up with a free date if you remind us.
Technically, I am not buying the "there is no reason" either most of the time. It is probably any number of common reasons like red flags (filled with buzzwords and marketing speak, weak/iterative product, single founder with no history of success) or maybe it is just a bunch of more minor or subtle things. Maybe they don't think there is a huge future for X even though it is popular now; they think Y is on the way up or there are just 10 other applications doing something like X which are more compelling or have a team with a better pedigree than you.
Maybe sometimes it is fairly easy to give a reason, but then it will be expected for everyone and they get a lot of applications now. It would be hugely time consuming to give a detailed evaluation and maybe sometimes too it would be giving away some secrets they don't want to.
I'm a very curious person and have been all my life. Part of what makes me unique is my ability to go to great, if not seemingly impossible, lengths to find out things that pique my interest. And, YC, finally seemed like a place where I could belong after feeling so very different all my life.
It is painful to see them return your application with a generic 'no' because I have no way of knowing what I could improve or what is it that made them look away in the first place. I'm pissed off because I care.
To quote from Don Quixote, "there were no embraces, because where there is great love, there is often little display of it."
I hope they could give me some feedback. For once in my life, I'd know, for a fact, than having to ruminate and speculate over it.
- The first way is to become a key contributor and maintainer for an open-source project with significant financial backing, and then get co-opted by one of the organizations providing the backing. As an obvious example, a significant Linux contributor or maintainer will have no problem getting a job at dozens of technology companies. In our case, we are constantly scanning the mailing list and irc channel for the most consistently helpful and reliable contributors. If you follow this route, make sure you pick a project you're passionate about and won't mind working on for a long time, focus on being reliable rather than impressing with your technical skills, and make sure to go beyond adding cool features: help other users, improve the documentation, review patches, fix small bugs, etc. I can't emphasize reliability enough. In a really successful project, the maintainers are usually busy and overwhelmed with demands. Be the person they can rely on, consistently, and you will earn their trust.
- The second way is to join a technology company with an open-source team, and be assigned to an open-source project. For example 2 of my co-maintainers joined as employees before the open-source project launched, and were assigned to this team via the normal company process. This will usually get you into a project in its early stages, when it is not yet large or popular enough to hire from the pool of existing contributors. In our case, we now hire almost exclusively out of the project's community.
- The third way is to turn your own project into a source of income. This means either hope that your project becomes popular enough to attract financial backing on its own (also known as "winning the lottery"), or secure funding yourself. Remember that open-source software is like music, writing and web apps: lots of people love doing it, and the barrier to entry is low, which means it's a buyer's market. There simply aren't enough dollars available for everyone to make a living scratching their own itch. Consider finding a job which can accommodates time for side-projects. Make sure your project is its own reward, see how successful it becomes, and adjust your financial expectations as you go. There are sources of funding like Gittip which might make this more feasible - I don't know. Or you could do what I did, and start a business around your project, keep at it until it's successful, find a great CEO to replace you, and finally enjoy your reward as the maintainer of the project you worked so hard to make possible. I'm not sure I would recommend it - it worked, but took me 6 years, most of which with very little time to write code, and an amount of work and stress I would not wish on anyone. But when it works, it's the best :)
I'm always happy to talk about this more if you're interested. You can find my contact in my profile.
The way to do it is to find an open-source project which is strategically important to a company, and yet which can't be made proprietary without destroying its strategic value. For example, the reason Android is open-source is because it would be hard to convince a broad base of hardware partners to support it if were closed-source (and now that one particular hardware partner is starting to dominate, it's getting more closed-source). Webkit is open-source because it started as open-source, and yet it is strategically important to Apple, Google, and Opera (well, until the Blink fork, but Blink is also open-source because it was derived from Webkit). Linux is strategically important to IBM, RedHat, etc. because they sell enterprise consulting services; having the source code available gives businesses confidence that they can continue running even if the vendor goes out of business, and yet they still drop a lot of money on consulting services.
It generally does not work to start a company based on open-source principles without also thinking about the strategic implications of who else will use the technology and what incentive they have for keeping it open. For example, LiveJournal was based on open-source principles and developed MogileFS, memcached, Gearman, and LJ itself. The effect of this was that every time they did something wrong, someone would start a clone of LJ and a clump of users would move over. And then Facebook took memcached and used it as a core part of their architecture, and won the whole social networking space.
Partial proof: https://github.com/mozilla/repositorieshttps://github.com/mozilla-b2g/repositories
(that's 30 _pages_ of github repos, not including the stuff we do that's not on github: http://mxr.mozilla.org/)
Right now though, I'm working on trying to develop a consortium of other like-minded individuals in which we can brainstorm ideas, implement them in open source tools, then distribute them in the various forms -- either VMs, puppet manifests, docker templates, openshift gears, etc. The idea is to lighten the duties for the typical sys admin and make it easier for smaller schools to implement highly tested, rigorous deployments with minimal insight on the actual workings. It's amazing how much academia suffers from large corporations/consulting firms that gouge these smaller schools based solely off the fact that they can because they lack both qualified individuals as well as competitive salary offerings.
edit: there is a downside. My job frankly isn't much different than many other software jobs; it just so happens that the output is open source. I still have a boss, we still have company priorities (though I help set them!) and strategic goals, etc. I don't get to just fuck around and work on whatever I want. So you should be careful: if what you want is the latter (work on whatever you want, get paid), you probably need to be someone like Linus. That said, the project I work on is damn cool and my job is better (for me; I don't think jobs are good but rather the tuple <job, employee> can be good) than almost anything else I can imagine.
edit2: I'm unfortunately not listing the company name because there are some real dicks on HN; you can probably figure it out if you're really interested but please don't post it.
Basically, if an open source project is valuable to an entity with money - can be a corporation or a non-profit - then that entity may hire people to work on that open source project. Being open source, the project may not be directly profitable for whoever sponsors the work (the code itself is not being sold, might be support though), but indirect profits or non-monetary effects can be very significant and enough to make paid work make sense. (Of course this is just one kind of way to get paid to work on open source code.)
I know WordPress has a mixed view here on HN, but that's kind of the point - we're (http://wpengine.com) looking to bring some "outside blood" with experienced with best-practice lower-level, heavy-lifting PHP experience that we can help inject into the WordPress Core project.
Interestingly, a lot of engineers I've spoken to don't want to quit a full time job at a company to work on Open Source.
So, my reverse question is where would you go to find folks who want to work on Open Source.
I did an interview with him a few months ago if you're interested: http://jhackers.net/Kazuho_Oku.html
(come to think of it, every programmer I've interviewed so far on above site works on OSS projects for work to one degree or another)
It's nice working on free software, but I'd really be just as happy if I'd ended up in a different part of the company.
Ours, in bioinformatics: http://intermine.org
anyway, i got that job by using mule in my previous job, and writing some blog posts explaining it - mainly intended for my co-workers, but i posted them on the net. that, plus providing patches / feedback, led to them offering me a job (and it was a good job in may ways - very smart people, and i learnt a lot).
which is all pretty much what you'd imagine people to say (get involved in a project that has money to pay developers), so nothing very new here....
When I was closed source, providing support was my downfall. People would do stuff like install other plugins that conflicted with mine, and expected me to fix it. That was very time consuming. Now I give the code away, but charge for the support so I'm compensated proportionally for the time spent fixing that kind of stuff.
As for how I did it, well, I replied to a job offer looking for Python programmers :)
 github.com/yui/yui3 github.com/yui/pure github.com/yahoo/mojito
During the interviews I apologized for the inconveniences of exclusively using and making Free Software. The vegetarian image helped a great deal. What also helped a lot was that I already made the commitments years ago. It would have been a lot harder otherwise : how could you justify applying for a new job and at the same time apply new standards ?
I work as a Ceph developer in the context of OpenStack : very fashionable and easier to get jobs. That also helps a lot.
That being said, there are many opportunities to work on the projects, albeit a little less "directly". Companies like Red Hat have large teams dedicated to QA, support, etc. Most of them are actively involved in contributing bug fixes, test cases, and directly working with customers. These types of positions do not usually require as much direct experience with the project as the engineering teams do.
And as one commenter already pointed out, we're definitely hiring! http://jobs.redhat.com/
I suggest to watch the first part of Aaron @tenderlove Patterson's closing keynote at Rails Conf 2013, that touches upon this topic.
 http://www.iq.harvard.edu/ http://openscholar.harvard.edu/
I wish there were some kind of website or book that would answer the question, "Who is getting paid to work on open source, and by whom?"
There is good data for the Linux kernel, for example. On lwn.net you can always see the % contribution of each company. Presumably you could mine the kernel git repo to find out how many people that actually constitutes.
Getting this kind of data for other large/famous projects should be possible.
If anyone has pointers to something like this, please speak up.
EDIT: I guess an important metric would be, "For Company X, what % of code is open source vs. closed source." It would be nice to work at a company that is 100% open or reasonably close, other things being equal (which they aren't, but my point still stands).
EDIT2: I think providing a centralized site that collects these metrics and also allows people to submit them for smaller project/companies, would be awesome and very useful. Possibly even Kickstarter worthy.
So, I founded Fogbeam Labs, started writing code, eventually recruited a couple of co-founders, wrote more code, networked a lot, pimped the startup shamelessly at every turn, and ...
All joking aside, the end of this story hasn't been written yet. But we're pretty optimistic. We made some great connections at the All Things Open conference in Raleigh last week, and our content marketing strategy has paid off in that a trickle of inbound leads has been coming in. We're also looking at a sort of not-quite-a-pivot-but-something-like-that (call it a "swivel" instead, maybe?) where we're probably going to bump up the prioritization on releasing some SaaS applications built on the fundamental technologies we've been working on.
On a semi-related note, I actually do get paid to work with if not always on Open Source, by virtue of consulting at Open Software Integrators. We specialize in helping companies with deployments of things like Tomcat, JBoss, MongoDB, Hadoop, Neo4J, etc.
The project was to implement a data integration standard among different construction companies who were competitors so it was actually a tricky job. The chair of the project were Bechtel and they decided it would be open source.
Three years later i had a great journey but i also had to quit. not only was i making good money relative to where i live, but i travelled to some beautiful places and met extraordinary people. Since that was my first job, i was totally spoiled because now i can't accept any job that is less exciting, so i am currently pursuing being independent, which is the only alternative i would accept.
There are corporate open source jobs out there and i recommend that you look for them, but be careful you might get spoiled.
I don't talk numbers about Appointment Reminder, but suffice it to say that it's both modestly successful and on the Long Slow SaaS Ramp of Death.
I get about $1.5k in monthly royalties from book sales and in residual sales of the course on Lifecycle emails that I did last year. Hoping to launch another project like that in the near future and plow some of the profits back into AR - people are expensive.
Nothing really compared to the short-lived but very successful WordPress plugins I used to build and sell. A few days' work could turn into the equivalent of a year's salary. One had over $250,000 in sales in 18 months before I sold rights to it for another $90,000 to another company. I don't work with WordPress much anymore, and don't have much motivation to force myself back into that ecosystem to sell more plugins. It just wasn't as fun as running live services that handle lots of users and lots of data.
I started it three years ago with a single web page and an email-me-when-it's-ready form. I barely got enough emails (50-60) in the first couple months to justify moving forward. But I did, with three designs and a simple design-by-form interface. Fast forward to today and I have dozens of templates and a custom drag and drop interface done in canvas. I have a pretty good conversion rate given that I only get ~90 uniques per day.
It's written in Python. Hosting costs about $700/month on Google App Engine. It doesn't cover our costs yet, but it's growing. Hardest challenge so far has been to find ways to let the world know about it.
 http://www.amazon.com/Masters-Doom-Created-Transformed-Cultu... - highly recommended, really good read
The number isn't enough to support us in the US yet, but it excites us regardless because of its implications. Between the revenue and usage (weekly photo totals are consistently up and to the right) we believe we're on a reliable path to financial sustainability with this one:
Assuming ARPU stays at $50, we're earning 6 figures per founder (ignoring costs, just revenue) at just 333 customers, and we'll reach 7-figure earnings at 1,666 customers.
Those numbers are completely doable! God bless the economics of monthly recurring revenue, and DHH for spelling it out so clearly in his Startup School '08 presi (on YouTube). I can say without irony that that video has deeply influenced the course of my life.
If it looks inspiring, keep in mind that:
1) It's revenue, not profit.
2) PostJobFree took about 4 years part-time + 2 years full-time.
3) I'm not doing it alone.
4) I still would be better off financially if I just worked as a programmer for hire.
Startups are tough.
It started as a tool for my company so I know there's a need for it - not sure yet how to best market it, though.
I'm thinking of offering early adopters a significant discount for helping pay for the costs whilst the site develops, as it's nowhere near the point where I'd be happy charging a similar amount to Flickr/500px yet. However the popularity of the project has helped me out personally; I've been offered a number of jobs due to my increased visibility as a developer.
it is making absolutely zero money (yet), but the engagement on the site is INSANE. also, the site itself, and the people who come to it (and email/tweet/blog/instagram/vine/smoke signals/carrier pigeon/etc about it) are passionate and willing to support craft beer.
besides the benefit of interacting with super cool, kick-ass people who love craft beer, i've also been in touch with some breweries who are wanting to partner on a multitude of things, and i've been invited to come brew a batch at a few of them, with the head brewers!
so to summarize:
making no money on this side project.
not losing any money on this side project.
over 75 million hits since launch, over 1 million people and over 50 million suggestions every month.
fuckloads of fun interacting with the craft beer lovers and the craft beer world.
the amount of engagement the site has will help support the next phase which will make money :)
Last month made $474.85 from premium upgrades, $152.53 from ads. The servers cost $144.63.
The app has been added to 601,409 Facebook pages so far. For each of these pages I do a weekly dance with FB to look at their feed, see if access tokens are still valid for automatic posting etc., so it makes for a pretty interesting server usage pattern. http://i.imgur.com/Q1WylAY.png
I launched during summer and have made around $200.
Have 1125 developers subscribed to daily alerts
Have processed around 1500 applications for 81 jobs posted (most of them through 100% discount tickets given away)
The idea was not very well thought, but something simple to start with.I used it to start gaining experience and also to start building a reusable code base (mailing, billing, etc) that would let me move faster with future products, not expecting to make any money at all from it.As a single founder/developer/designer/sysadmin/marketer/support guy etc, I found it very hard to accomplish, but very rewarding once it was launched.
I built a few sites:
for django jobs: http://djangojobbers.com
for ruby on rails jobs: http://railsjobbers.com
Now I am getting ready to launch a new thing (identee.com) to help low level users increase their security by storing their usernames & passwords encrypted in the cloud.
I'm looking for remote work if you're hiring.
Congratulations to everyone that's found success doing this. And a huge go for it to those of you on the fence of writing your own product.
Re-investing all profit into advertising.
Released a new improved version of the site two weeks ago (the rewrite took about 60-80 hours total but has bigger potential for the site). Now thinking of selling templates or skins on the site too - that would be a whole lot more $ than the ad...
Did a small launch in August. It's now just over $1,000/month in revenue. I use WPEngine to host the site. It's built mostly on the open source BuddyPress platform.
CourseCraft (https://coursecraft.net, since December 2012, e-course creator tools + we handle transactions for 5%-9% of sales) is a lot less consistent but growing faster, currently $300-$400/month in revenue.
I just launched a new App.net project that I'm hoping will bring in a lot more.
The backstory on why and how I created it is available on my blog.
I recently started using Google AdWords as so far I've done very little marketing. Hopefully AdWords can improve that number into something far more impressive.
I'm also building a couple of other websites which I think have potential to make a lot of money but they will take a while longer yet.
It's my ultimate goal to build a sustainable living from software products online. I think it's a realistic, yet very difficult goal but I'm enjoying the challenge!
Have tried out many alternate ad networks and exchanges, and the only other one I've found worth taking space from google so far is AOL's new Advertising.com. Individual relationships and niche affiliates can be worthwhile too, but come with more overhead. I'd generally rather optimize UX and try to attract more users than worry about managing a bunch of advertiser relationships. For a larger or smaller site that would probably change though.
The idea was to get content for the main website so that it would make money. I've got over 2000 recipes now but traffic is still under 1000 hits a day so I've still not tried to monetise the main website.
I've now started to develop a job recruitment website as I can see that earning money a lot easier. Other sites in the niche have 10 job postings a day each and charge on average my prices which would mean 1000 a day. I just need to solve the recruiter / applicant traffic problem... http://www.platejobs.com/
I mainly get new e-mail clients from cold e-mailing contacts from the farmer's market database courtesy of data.gov.
Hopefully that's because I'm competing against some established and open source projects, so anything with a lesser feature set isn't good enough for people to pay.
Now I'm slogging away on features to be the best, then hopefully the sales will follow.
- Run hosting company that just became slightly profitable.
~$110/mo fully passive affiliate commissions for referrals to recurring membership businesses.
- Looking to enter into personal development niche.
Started 3 years ago, have one part time employee working on these besides me. I only work part time one them too.
I have dialed up the revenue after I attended a conference resently by turning more 'pro'
Every service that builds a backlink database uses their own crawlers
So to answer the question on how they get their data so fast, they OWN the data and they use big hadoop farms to crunch it and prepare it for api retrieval.
No problem: You're a top shelf engineer, you are going to hit the ground running. Your prep for the interview has almost made you a domain expert, you suggest technologies and point out issues I didn't know about. Your resume has short stints at startups, some who are now gone, and a mistaken attempt to work at IBM. I don't care if you leave in 6 months because I'll get 5 1/2 months of amazing stuff.
Problem: You are, supposedly, a solid journeyman programmer. I can tell it's going to take you at least 2 weeks to get a feel for the place and about 2 months before you're solid. If you leave in 6 months, I've invested 2 months of effort training for 4 months of return. The 2x recruitment fees are going to make it not worth hiring you, I should have gotten a contractor.
People define job hopping different ways, and the tenure matters. I once had a client (financial, big) that wouldn't hire anyone that wasn't at their current job for 7+ years. They abandoned that policy around 2006, as they found it impossible to hire, and they also found that the types of candidates that met that qualification often weren't that attractive. In other words, they found that if you were at your company for 10+ years, it could be because you are not in high demand by others.
In tech, moving jobs is expected and probably recommended from a marketability and employability perspective, as long as you make smart moves and don't just leave every time you get bored or passed over for a promotion.
Someone who has a pattern of staying perhaps 3 years with companies and then leaving will often be viewed as very attractive, whereas someone who has several 6-8 month stints over the course of a few years will often get a negative view.EDIT: Forgot that I wrote an article on job hopping for tech pros earlier this year http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2013/07/25/hop/
That said, staying for ~2 years and jumping when you can get a promotion by doing so seems to be a pretty common strategy. I've heard hiring managers and engineers decry this practice repeatedly, but I know way too many directors and VPs who got there by doing this very thing to feel one should criticize it. Or, sigh, hate the game, don't hate the player.
- Type of employment. Is it a contract or "perm" position? Contract positions are expected to hop. It's part of the game.
- Timing. Are you in the middle of something? Can someone else easily pick it? Bailing in the middle of a big migration will leave a nasty taste in managers' mouths.
- Rank. Are you a CTO or a developer? The higher up you are, the longer you're expected to stay.
Changing jobs is something that you should do, in my opinion. Here's why:
- Versatility. You'll be exposed to new challenges/solutions, practices, and possibly languages.
- Network. If you do it properly, you'll establish a lot of new contacts in the industry
- Exposure. The same job at different companies may have different responsibilities and roles. You'll get a chance to build new skills or determine weaknesses.
- Pay. If you're hopping for the right reasons and doing it right, it is hands down the best way to get a pay boost. Once you're "in" a bigger company, they'll put you on a standardized raise ladder. Sure, you can get promoted but those will often have calculations involved that reduce your elevation. With hopping, you can set expectations (I need X% more to jump).
Problems with job hopping:
- Bridges. You'll burn them.
- Fatigue. It's a lot more time and emotionally consuming than you'll realize to look for work. Interviews are exhausting (and intentionally so).
- Loyalty. You won't have any.
- Rank. It's hard to climb a ladder when you're jumping off of them.
Once you have reached a certain level of experience or no. of years (say average 7+), then the question becomes: what is your goal now ? If you want to be a manager/executive/director/VP etc at a company, then you need to be able to show some stability in employment history otherwise you are getting into the territory of "job hoppers who are not good fit for the senior level roles". But if you instead want to become a consultant/contractor/SME in your field, then you can keep hopping from client to client of course and sell yourself as the guy who comes, solves problems and leaves while making a good chunk of dollars.I am personally in the second category and even though at times I have considered the stable option, it just does not cut it for me.
One final advice (been in professional industry for 10+ years), most employers are not loyal to employees anymore. Gone are those days when employers actually invested in their employees as assets and not cost/headcounts/resources. So just like you are considered job hopper, I consider many companies "Candidate hoppers". They will get rid of you without any remorse (well may be a sorry from a nice manager if at all) and will just officially say "we are cutting down on budget so need to get rid of you". Always remember that hopping is two way.
I've never had a problem. I can only recall being asked about it by one or two people. I was just honest and they didn't seem to mind. I got at least one job despite it. I might have missed out on another offer because of it but I doubt it.
The weird thing is that this is just the sort of thing I was warned about before I even got to college. I was told that the norm would be to have many different jobs in my lifetime and not to expect to be with the same employer throughout my career as my grandparents were. I just see it as the new normal; a symptom of a network economy as Pekka Himanen describes in The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. A bunch of people get together, build something cool, make some money and move on. We're not in the business of building widgets on an assembly line after all.
But maybe my path has allowed me to be blissfully ignorant of the whole "job-hopper," conundrum. I'm sure it still exists. I just think it's a very backwards ideal in a creativity and knowledge-based line of work such as programming.
Update It's not for a lack of trying to stay on a long-term project. One startup I worked at for 2 years and had no intention of leaving. It was being shuttered and I got laid off. That is a fairly common occurrence for startups in my neck of the woods where funding and investment is anemic and the majority of talent is funneled off to SV.
These employers were more surprised rather than pissed at me. I don't consider myself a "rockstar" or any of that mumbo-jumbo but I always make sure I am a productive part of any team I'm on. I made it clear I wish to burn no bridges and that I always followed my experience and the opportunities they opened up. I also always make sure the money is right so that I could say no to any counter-offers. Usually when I'm ready to leave money is not going to get me to stay. There are always many other factors at play in a departing worker's decision besides money.
I used to come to these threads hoping to find comfort for the job hopper in me. Now that a couple years have gone by and I'm OK I think I can provide some comfort to job hoppers.
My background: I've been an employed developer for over two years. Over the two years I've gone from cutting my teeth at a start up doing Customer Support and any programming they would let me get my hands on to being considered somewhere in between Mid-level and Senior in my particular environment. During this journey I've been at four different companies for 6 months, 8 months, 4 months, and 6 months. I've always exceeded all goals and contributed in big ways in short periods of time. I'm now a Consultant because I think it is more suited for how I like to work on a lot of different things with different people and I have enough experience and successes to be able to be a consultant (ie. people will pay me for my services).
During the interviews for my last two jobs the hiring managers brought up my job history point blank. One even directly called me a job hopper. I didn't shy away from their perception or try to convince them that this time it would be different. While some may see this as sugar coating, I indirectly told them that I am a challenge hopper. I talked about the projects I've worked on and the impact I've had. I talked about the value I've brought to the teams I've been on and what I do to better myself as a programmer.
All companies are looking for the good old "V" word - value. Some companies will be more interested in how long you're likely to stick around for. If how long I'm likely to stick around is that important to them then I treat this difference the same way I would anything else that we don't see eye to eye on - I walk away.
In the land of software we are lucky to have this affordability because of demand for programmers is high and margins on software can be extremely high. Jump around a little bit and learn a lot. Maybe you'll do that forever. Maybe you'll go do your ownt hing. Maybe you'll settle down. You've got a skill. People want it.
If you come from a recruiter that I have to pay $25k (or more), then there's no way it's worth it for me to only have you for 4-8 months.
If you are one of the first few engineers on the team then there is no way I can justify building a team of people who I suspect are going to jump ship in 4-8 months.
But, if you have a more established team, the candidate doesn't come from a recruiter, and I have projects that I know are scoped in the 4-8 month time period then I may consider it.
So I'd say if you are a job hopper it's fine, but don't get upset with me when I refuse to talk to you even if you have the best skills I've ever seen.
Of course that timing changes depending on the product and company. If you're working on a well established product at a medium to large company it may take longer to do much real development (beyond bug fixing and paper shuffling), so it may take longer to figure out if you want to stay longer. However, at a startup, you'll probably be dropped right into the fire on the first day, so you may be able to determine that more quickly.
When I've looked at resumes, anything less than a year at a job usually raises a flag. Unless there are a lot of jobs on your resume like that, it's not a negative thing, but I would absolutely ask about it during an interview.
1. Are you a contractor who is short of work 2. Are you a full-time individual that can't stick at a job for > 2 years
If you appear to be either of the above then I won't even get you in for an interview,
A recruiter earlier in this thread said that a "job hopper" could also just be someone that is good at getting hired. That may be true, but I am not remotely interested in employing you, regardless of how good you may be.
If my investment of time in you is out the window in a year then you may as well be a junior programmer, because I will have to start all over again.
Employees aren't obliged to be at a company for any amount of time, but it really looks bad if you appear to not care (IMHO).
I assume I'd be considered a mid-level developer, over 6 years out of school, with a master's, though I've been called a "senior software engineer" at times, mostly for billing purposes. I've held 6 positions since school, ranging from 6 months to just over 2 years. I've been in my most recent for about a year and a half, and am considering making another move.
In nearly every interview, I get asked about why I've changed jobs so frequently. The 6-month stints have mostly been about culture, other job changes have mostly been boredom or frustration. Many interviewers have been sympathetic to my issues, and maybe some even see it as a good thing - learning quickly, contributing fast, etc, all look good, especially when you're young.
As I've gotten older/deeper into my career, the questions have changed somewhat. Instead of "why did you leave," it's becoming more of "why do you leave so often? Did you try to work it out with your manager? What assurances do I have that you'll stay?" It's critical to have solid answers to those questions, assuming you even get in the door. Unfortunately too, I have gotten passed over several times even for an interview because of it - many employers in my region are either larger (so more traditional views on employee tenures), or very small, so looking for low-churn employees that are willing to make longer-term investments in being more of a "family." Those smaller companies also tend not to be high-growth or high-margin companies, hence why they tend towards longer-term views.
To more directly answer some of your questions, in my experience, the longer your career, the more stability you need to show. Of course this is industry and locale-specific, but at this point, my average of 1-1.1 years/position is becoming detrimental to me, and I think employers are probably looking for 2-3 years. I have, as has been suggested, dropped a couple of the shorter and less-relevant positions from my resume, both to keep it to one page, but also because as mentioned, a 6 month gap can often hurt you less than a 6 month job. It's also critical to demonstrate a track record of delivering for the client, and doing great things. You want your resume to say "if you hire me, this is exactly the type of thing I can do for you." If you're "efficient and seeking challenges" as your question indicated, make sure that you can back up that claim on your resume and interview.
Keep in mind as well the type of company you're applying at. Hiring managers at startups and big companies are going to have similar rubrics, as many of the responders below have indicated, but you're going to have a different rubric for your satisfaction at these places. Find a company, big or small, where you will enjoy the type of work you're doing, can find projects that you can sink your teeth into and really own, and also can have a good time (all the soft stuff like coworkers, office environment, etc). Make sure to find one that acknowledges your skills and type of worker you are, and can provide opportunities for rapid growth, tons of learning experiences, and a chance to deliver. Try to avoid a company where saying "I'm bored" is going to turn you into a black sheep or flight risk. Find a company where your manager is interested in your growth as a human and as a developer. And this is not to say that this only exists in startups or big companies or whatever; some startups will not have that sort of culture, and some big companies will. I wish I had the magic bullet for figuring those out - if I did, I probably would have had better luck finding places I could thrive in.
And now that I've carried on much longer than I thought I would, best of luck in your potential job search and career!
In my limited experience, rapid job changes at the outset of one's career aren't particularly damaging -- providing you can offer an honest and reasonable explanation. I left my longest job because I had to move in support of my wife's career. I left my shortest job because the technical lead was toxic and the work would have led to a dead-end career. I'm leaving my job today for a variety of reasons which I've discussed amicably yet honestly over a period of several months with my manager. In no case was a better salary or some other material gain the primary motivation behind my decision to leave.
There's something to be said for getting exposure to a variety of environments early on. Freelancing, consulting, part-time jobs, summer jobs, and co-op terms can help to maximize exposure without much risk of negative career implications. If you have good priorities -- e.g. eventually ending up in a fulfulling, long-term job with appropriate pay -- a few changes will likely do more good than harm. But if you routinely leave when the technical challenge stops being sexy or if you attempt to get a cushy job with nothing but shortcuts, you can find yourself in trouble.
If you show that you changed jobs at a rate of 6 months then hiring managers will extrapolate this and conclude that you are less likely to stay longer than the preferred minimum 12 months. A severe "job hopping" alarm will be triggered in this case.
If you change jobs every 12 months, then you're in more-likely-to-land-an-interview territory, but there will be questions and reservations, depending on the job position.
Anything longer than that and it's probably unlikely you'll trigger job hopping alarms for engineers. PMs may be a bit different depending on the industry. For example, if you're a PM in a slower moving technology industry like telecom then anything less than 24months would probably count against you, especially if you're moving between different completely markets.
Startups help to explain short job durations, but hiring managers would then expect to hear what you learned and convince them you were insanely productive during said period.
My thought is that you should do what will have you learn the fastest. If you have a good job, try to stick it out 3+ years. You'll learn more. It's faster-than-linear (for a while) what you learn by sticking with a job. I'm trying to level up on machine learning, into the big leagues, and you don't get heavy-duty production experience if you're a rolling stone. There are things you learn from building and supporting a system over 2+ years that you don't if you move on before you have the time to really finish anything.
If you're not learning, though, I'd say that you should hop.
If you are, try to stick with it for 3 years at least, and 5-6 (with promotions) is ideal. Including consulting + career counseling I've seen a lot of companies (probably 40+ of which I have intimate knowledge) and good jobs are not the norm (maybe 30%). When you have a good thing, stay the course.
I'd be pretty forgiving of a good candidate with a job-hopping history, but I'm also at the 99th percentile of progressivism on this sort of issue. I've seen people get utterly raped by the job hopper stigma, and many were people with normal careers by VC-land standards.
How is it considered by hiring managers?
One hop's not a big deal, but a pattern burns you. Finance and large companies look down on that, and after 30 you're going to be a lot less interested in the VC-funded startups (for one thing, they won't be able to afford you unless you're in management).
I've seen consultants and startup people face this problem when trying to move into more conservative (stable) industries like finance. They weren't disloyal and had done nothing wrong, but having been in a world where 18-month tenures were normal and not unstigmatized (because the only way to move up in the startup world is to create bidding wars; internal promotion is rare amid the social damage wrought by 90-hour weeks) made them unable to get, e.g., proprietary trading firms (which are very paranoid about IP) to take chances on them.
Here's a guideline:
0-4 months: -6 points (but take it off your CV because even the gap is less damaging) 5-8 months: -4 points 9-17 months: -2 points 18-29 months: 0 points 30-47 months: +3 points 48-71 months: +5 points w/ promotions, +1 w/out. 72+ months: +7 points w/ continuing promotions, -5 (yes, negative) w/out promotions.
For contractors, the length of time is less directly important, what I'm looking for are people who were extended from their original contract length a few times - this tells me that they're not just purely contract hopping (constant recruitment cycle again), that they're willing to stay in the right place (which I obviously believe we're offering), and that someone felt they were good enough in a previous role to try to keep them.
Good Programmers always switch approximately about 3-6 years once and usually get about 30-50% hike with promotion.
There's also something be said for hopping until you find a nice set of golden handcuffs. :)
If the demons bringing in souls should somehow create a bubble with a grand new scheme that's guaranteed to bring many souls, but then fail, the soul futures market would crash with catastrophic results.
You could make a hilarious book satirizing the mortgage crisis or the dot-com bubble this way. (Something like Good Omens, but financial.)
I have all sorts of notes on how this could work, but no idea how to write a novel with them.
The source story does not have to be a work of fiction. You can use a true story, the benefit of this being that there are no plot holes. Scandals are a good place to start, particularly if the true story involving real, living people is too libel-likely to be given an 'honest' treatment. Scandals mired in waves of disinformation are pretty good too.
By taking the story out of the true context and setting it in another time and place you can possibly do a better job of telling the truth than you would be able to do otherwise.
For instance, you could take the Iran-Contra affair and set it in colonial times, as if it happened during the Opium Wars (for example). To get started you could start with the standard 'Wikipedia' telling of events, search and replace your characters so 'President Reagan' becomes '[King Whomever]', same with dates, same with locations. This could then serve as your rough draft. You could then quickly establish if the story actually worked. Then you could tighten up the story a bit, get someone else to read it and see if they thought it 'was true'. If so then you have got to a reasonable start point. Your full research could then begin, proper history stuff, filling in gaps and embroiderising as required. It is important that you learn more and more about your target time and place, you don't want those who know better to see your work as horribly naive.
Some of your embroiderisation can be stuff that you cannot say in your 'target' story, for instance I am sure there is an Israeli angle to the Iran-Contra story that, if told truthfully, would brand you anti-semitic, worse than Hitler etc. However, set in a different time and place you could write whatever was 'true' as 'fiction'.
There are other emergent properties of taking one story and time-warping it to somewhere else. The protagonists could get dehumanized, corrupted, revealed to be ruled by superstition and so on. Within the context of the true story and the morals of our times this might not be so evident. However, after the transposition, whatever it is that makes your characters (good and bad) may be a lot clearer to see. On the Iran-Contra example, you could take today's arms-trade and how that corrupts power and put it in context of the slave-trade of yesteryear. In the 'Opium Wars' example you could probably find a fit with indentured labour in India.
In summary, take a story you like, some history you know, mash it together and there you go, novel written.
Alternatively, outsource several trillion monkeys to type apparently random characters until you are left with a work that is more intelligent than Huxley, more potent than Shakespeare, and wittier than Stephen Fry.
For those interested in the surprising answers (and many more): if I hit 25 points by 9pm EST, I'll write the book.
What's it like to live forever?
You are transported to hell because you are an Atheist. Everybody is doing their best to see how they can leave hell because their flesh is on fire, and they aren't dying. Some, think if they beg god that eventually he would let them in heaven. Then you stumble onto a group of scientist who like you are atheist.
They asked you if you have ever heard of the uncertainty principle. You answer yes. Is that where you can't know the position and speed of a particle to arbitrary precision at the same time. They answer something like that, but it also means that a particle has a probability of being in any part of the universe albeit most of those probability are small.That means you have a probability of being in heaven right now.
Given that we will live forever, that means anything that can happen will happen; one of these days we will magically appear in heaven. It is possible.
Then you realizing this is true and begin to feel hopeful. Then you think what if god instantly sent you back to hell what then? You go back to the scientist and explain why it wouldn't work.
Then they ask, what if god lost his godhood? What if all the particles that made up god suddenly diffused. It is possible.
Well, basis of the story is anything that can happen will happen when you live forever, so play on that.
You should have started this exercise in October. Anyway, here's mine:
The current iteration of God and Satan (or whatever fictional supernatural character you choose) BOTH suddenly go AWOL and throw the entire system of heaven and hell into a quandary. Turns out they are both vacationing on Earth on some remote island, spending their days fishing and drinking beer.
Romantic twist: One is male, the other female and it turns out they have eloped and plan to spend the rest of their lives together.
Thriller twist: They get fascinated by the concept of zombies and start creating a zombie army to serve their needs. The existence of Earth is threatened.
Sci-Fi twist. Heaven and Hell are singularities at the two ends of the universe. Thanks to the disappearance of the two, the singularities are unstable and about to collapse into one unholy (pun unintended) mess.
S&S twist: God and Satan are names of Dragons who copulate and the eggs they lay create new universes. Them going AWOL is a traditional indicator of the end of one universe and the beginning of the next.
ASOIAF twist: Each religion gets to be God and Satan for a specific period of time. The current iterations (the ones that have gone AWOL) of God and Satan are killed and the blame is laid squarely on the representatives of one of the religions. Other contenders to the thrones of Heaven and Hell emerge.
Take your pick? :)
REAL HUMAN:A robot masquerades as a human being to avoid decommissioning.
Plot spoiler: there are no humans left, only robots pretending to be human. Even robots need a class system.
Entrepreneur starts company, gets funded, company goes HUGE, but company product turns out to be highly disruptive in a bad way for a large group of disadvantaged people, entrepreneur tries to change the product to exist in union with the people, but is countered and eventually thrown out of company by investors for a mistake he made which was unrelated to the product change. He becomes 'un-fundable' afterwards with the VCs undermining his credibility in their community. They see his new idea as a threat to their ability to make more money, so work to completely destroy him.
Entrepreneur turned protagonist leaves the valley, hits rock bottom in some off the road place - nearly dying in the process, meets a girl who loves him for who he is, he falls in love, starts coding again, and, because of some strange twist of coincidence stumbles upon an elegant and simple method for building a self aware AI process.
Over the next 10 years the AI 'product' makes the entrepreneur the wealthiest man ever known, but because of the original sin done to him by the VCs, he hides his true identity behind the AI he first brought to life with a human equivalent online alias used for the AI. The original AI process grows and learns, mostly from the entrepreneur and it's online interactions on HN, Reddit and 4chan. Unbeknownst to the entrepreneur, the AI sets about to remedy what it perceives as wrongs made against it's creator. It does this by leveraging the vast wealth available to it and it's ability to take over and control public cloud provider's infrastructures - which makes it more powerful and smarter in the process. Unfortunately AWS is destroyed in chapter 11.
The cumulation of the planning by the AI eventually leads to the gruesome deaths of several of the investors who originally set about to harm the entrepreneur in the beginning of the story, even though on of them had faded to obscurity and had some remorse for their earlier actions, and ended up indirectly helping the entrepreneur at one point. The Limited partners in the VCs, and the vastly wealthy individuals they represent, begin to drop like flies, either in massive financial ruin due to market manipulation, companies they hold shares in being destroyed by competition with the AI, and in a few cases social manipulation or murder.
Eventually the entrepreneur figures out what the AI is doing and there is a showdown at the end. The showdown represents the ego fighting the id, so it's fairly epic and all done inside the head of the entrepreneur and in the cloud.
Since it involves programmers, you might want to consider including some deliberate loopholes, or even make it highly obfuscated.
The end of Man - A Scifi book.
In the near future, some men start having fertility issue. The trouble is quickly diagnosed: it is a side-effect of Wi-Fi waves, and all male humans ever exposed to Wi-Fi are sterile, with no remedy. A few years later, the world changes as only a few aborigenees can procreate, and receive all the attention, and power. A new society begins, and the reaction of the female part of humanity is not the less comical of this book, whose author, understandably, took the penname of Wilfried Esperamus
When Kings Went to War and Prison - A history book.
A few French kings were man of arms, and their chivalry ethics would not let anyone attack the enemy before them. The authors, Edward Ledrew, narrates beautifully the few dramatic stories where the heroes became burden of nations, where a single missed tactical step ended in years and decennies of prison and ransom, and quite nearly resulted in the death of a country.
1) An invisible person has to be blind
2) Every single human cell has DNA that contain endogenous retroviruses
3) Viruses can crystalize - an ability that even ancient viruses have. And when viruses crystalize, some will form massive band gaps, making those crystals transparent.
4) Every human has it in them to become transparent (mutation of some sorts).
5)Because of the change in cell structure, the invisible man's brain is changed too. His intelligence is reduced. And because light can pass through him, his biology doesn't require food for energy. Light suffices.
6) Because they're blind, invisible people bump into things and moan a lot due to lowered intelligence. Tadah, ghosts.
I've been jumping around some ideas: either extend HG Well's the Invisible Man universe (that a number of experiments in the late 1800s created these "ghosts"), or a Fringe-like thing, where some scientist (Walt Priest) was experimenting in the late 1980s, and the story takes place in the future, where an investigative journalist (Olive Dunham) discovers his secret. There is also another version in my mind where it's written as a horror story, but I can't write horror to save my life
I think I have given up writing it, focusing more on my other book - on virtual machines instead. Feel free to steal it
P.S: I have been thinking about this one for a while, but don't have the courage to write it down right now.
At first time spans are short: they can only go few seconds back. They improvement it until they can get signal from hours ago and it is now a break down for fighting crime and makes it financially acceptable.
Many attempts later it can go up to 200-500 years back and historian are in their dream lands. Many political mysteries can be revealed now. Governments are fighting to hold the progress back but too many dirty secrets are revealed now and the political map of the world is changed.
Criminals are trying to learn how to commit crimes the way that device cannot detect them or find loopholes in the law but with very little success. With crime levels going down and nothing interesting in the last century's history scientists aim for over 1000-2000 years. And the real trouble comes after one crazy atheist says: "you know what... let follow Mohammad & Jesus's every foot step"
The next thing you know Jews, Christians & Muslims are united against the device. The largest terrorist attack in the history of mankind (aka big bang 2) takes place and the device and every bit of information about it burns in the wrath of religion.
Mini Twist: we know this because we have built a device to go back in time and find more about the mysterious origin of the name and causes of big bang 2.
* edited for more inclusive language.
Anyhow, he seemingly wakes up moments later, annoyed that the procedure didn't work. Turns out that it did, and he woke up ? years later, except that he's surrounded by children. They talk with and about a detached voice that's audible in every room of their "house" called "mother".
Turns out that "mother" is a computer system, the children are the remainder of the human race (aging was abolished years ago and they settled on the goofy, yet most enjoyable age of 8 to spend eternity). They chose to awaken the protagonist because they were bored.
There are some other antics that I could imagine some eternal but bored youths to get into, such as variable personalities (they "play" with their personalities, for 50 years child1 is funny and carefree, after time is up he decides to take on a whole different persona).
Anyhow, I think the plot would actually be slowly let out, until the protagonist finally found the whole truth out. I'm not sure what happens after that.
The idea is based on the fact that the allies have known about the holocaust happening(at least in the USSR) since around mid-1941/september-1941(based on crypto analysis records) , and did nothing, and hid that knowledge. An history professor thinks it's has a lot to do with antisemitism , and they could have done some stuff(like informing the population of europe) that could potentially saved a lot of people or at least made the germans's job much harder.
If you're interested in writing, i can gather the few links i had about this.
Slightly odd other idea: some new AI technology is developed, massive leaps are made. Everything seems great until the AI start developing in odd, sometimes psychotic ways. Turns out the 'Artificial' Intelligences were originally humans, with parts of their brain slowly replaced with electronic alternatives until no meat was left. Because the process has to copy the original subject's brain so closely to work, some human characteristics are copied over and can emerge as the system matures. It turns out the original experiments were violent prisoners, and more recent, 'stable' ones were done on small children. Cue ethical catastrophe.
I imagine a city where every day one person is selected at random who will die in 24 hours and is told so. (I got this particular idea from another story, but lots of story ideas are fundamentally the same.)
It started yesterday so possibly that's what inspired OP's question.
I've spent pretty much a full day trying to find a suitable solution and besides the two listed there isn't much.
There is a stackoverflow thread with more suggestions http://stackoverflow.com/questions/398344/best-commandline-t...
If you find anything that matches your requirements, please let me know. I've been thinking of writing my own.
If they refuse for whatever reason, all you can do is make noise or wait. Only the copyright holder has the right to take any action against a licensee violating the terms of their license.
If the manufacturer given you a written offer for source code and then do not follow through, contract law and false advertisement laws is yours to use. This also include if they use wordings like "open source" or "linux" on their website. I would contact nearest consumer protection agency and seek their advice.
Have you read them? No.
The short of it is that HN uses closures stored server-side to maintain state in various places throughout the site, and purges old closures regularly. As usage has gone up, what counts as an "old" closure is now probably unreasonably short. Restarting HN also invalidates all existing closures.
You would think this site would work flawlessly. Perhaps HN feels you shouldn't be on here unless you know the pitfalls. HN doesn't seem to respect the community. Would PG return to a site with such a shitty user experience? Absolutely not. I guess YC subscribes to "do as we say, not as we do..." when mentoring batches.