As far as I know they didn't, about 2 years ago they just replaced several high value bills over night to battle corruption (you essentially had to go to a bank to get your old bills replaced, which in turn layed open your income/wealth).
Most of these pain points go away if you purchase the iGPU only version. I own a Thinkpad T470 and Ubuntu works like a charm.
The only issue I still have is that the Gnome interface (Ubuntu 17.04+) does not support factorial scaling, meaning that I am stuck between 100% (which is way to small on a 14 inch screen) and 200% (which is way too big).
Ubuntu 16.10 still supports factorial scaling though, which means I am stuck with it until a better version comes along.
Factorial scaling means being able to set the entire desktop scale to 120%, 140% and so on.
It is important to me because most of the work I do in my PC is text based (coding and research), so being able to scale text and ui elements 'globally' is critical for good visibility.
The word "factorial" makes no sense here. Maybe "fractional"?
Besides, what is the fucking point of "scaling" at the display level? Isn't it exactly equivalent to setting the font size in points using your physical resolution?
No, it's not like setting font size. Actual fractional scaling as done by macOS and Wayland compositors is rendering at 2x and downscaling.
e.g. 1.5 scale on a 3840x2160 display means you have 2560x1440 logical pixels (3840x(1/1.5) = 2560), applications render for 5120x2880 (2560x2=5120) and get downscaled for 3840x2160.
Yeah, I just realized it's called fractional scaling too, my bad.
It is still important though, because on 14inch desktops the Ubuntu interface looks way too small on 100% scale and way too big on 200%. At the end of the day you can think of fractional scaling as giving yourself more screen real-estate while at the same time keeping everything in a readable state.
Most programs aren't coded to have all of their elements scale properly. You have icons, buttons, pictures, etc that may be bit mapped images, then you have other elements that are vector mapped. So if you just change the font size, you can read the text, but it may be in a text box that is too small (so it overflows).
So the best thing you can do, other than re-write all the applications that have been around for the last 30 years or more, is to make the app think it is writing to a display with a specific resolution. Then scale that up to whatever resolution your screen actually is. Then, any element that is bit mapped in the app may not look very crisp, but things like fonts or any element drawn by a UI library can be drawn at the screen's native resolution (because those libraries have been updated to know about the "fake" vs "real" resolution).
This is very similar to when you hit "ctrl +" in a modern web browser. If the web app says "place this element 25 pixels to the right", those are logical pixels and has little to do with actual screen pixels anymore.
Can confirm that the T470 has been rock solid under Linux (I got one from work; running Slackware 14.2 with a -current kernel). Even OpenBSD ran reasonably well (had to switch off it because my work required me to use things like Google Hangouts that required Linux, but I might switch back pretty soon and try using an X-forwarded Linux VM).
I would've been much happier with the intel only version, the nvidia card is not worth it at all but at the time they didn't have 32gb of memory. Now the latest does, but too late.
When it comes to the greater public, default settings might as well be the only available setting. Apart from a few 'techies' most people will never even touch the default settings out of the naive belief that "the default setting is what's best for me".
As an alternative approach I would suggest empty settings to begin with, forcing the user to think about their preferences on first use.
That would only work if every browser implemented it but for the average user, choosing between a blank-slate approach where they have to parse through terminology they don't understand, and an alternative offering "sensible" defaults, I suspect most users would just pick the easier latter option.
Perhaps there's a middle ground. Give users a range of options (say 3 to 5) that aggregate the settings, ranging from "I don't really care about privacy" to "I wear a tinfoil hat to bed", along with pointers to where and how they might wish to delve deeper into more detailed settings. It can't be that hard...?
If you put a big scary decision as the first thing users see, many will just close the browser because they don't know what they should pick. When they open a different browser that doesn't present them with that choice, they may conclude that it's not a problem on that other browser.
The service itself is really cool and lines up nicely with the likes of Netlify and Github pages. I have two concerns though:
1) This doesn't seem to be connected to any major company, so how are you going to handle abuse of the service? With 'free hosting' offerings like this often comes a wave of abuse and malicious actors, so dealing with them is going to take significant resources.
2) How are you planning to monetize the service? Even though most sites hosted wont exceed a few kb, hosting fees will quickly add up, and unless you are using a cheap bare metal server you will likely face significant monthly bills.
These concerns aside, the service looks really awesome for most personal blog use cases, so congratulations to a successful launch!
1. For the past half year I’ve been moderating the site myself and also have automated filters I’ve coded. I’m recruiting some volunteer moderators soon!
2. 1MB was monetized in the past but got banned by our payment processor because they consider web hosting to be a risky business. It’s honestly my own fault I should’ve read the terms. 1MB will be monetized again soon when I implement a new payment processor: https://pro.1mb.site
Just dig into each that might fit your situation looking for people's props and gripes about them. Edited to add the HN link since commenters mentioned other services.
This seems like 'growth hacking' gone wrong. Facebook's growth has been loosing momentum for several year's now and it seems to me they are trying to make up for it by using every trick they have up their sleeves.
They might want to overthink their motto 'Move fast and break things'.
I feel like the main advantage AWS has at this point is that "everyone is using it". While it may not give you a competitive advantage over your competitors, it at least doesn't put you at a disadvantage if you are using the same platform as them.
Personally I feel like the most ridiculous part about the App Store is Apples so called "developer program". Charging 99€ a Year for a nearly nonexistent service is absurd, especially since they are already taking the 30% cut.
I am a flutter developer myself, so technically I could publish all my apps on iOS and Android with minimal changes. But since Apples developer program would eat up a significant portion of my potential yearly earnings I simply publish only on the Play Store that only charges a modest 25€ one time registration fee.
I like the $99/yr bar of entry. That, combined with the more rigid review process, keeps the App Store's average app quality higher than the Play Store's.
It makes a lot of apps simply impossible to exist. (Indie dev made an app for themselves catering to a niche, also wanting to put up their app for free.)
This trade off is typically okay for iFolk though.
If the market isn’t sigficanlty large so that 144 people will pay 99 cents a year for the app (the minimum requirement to cover the developer’s cost) than the application is probably not tested and developed to a high enough standard that I want to run it on my cell. I consider my cellphone production hardware, and treat it as such.
What difference does it make? Average app quality is surely a pointless metric given that people tend to spend their own money carefully (Or at least I do, I've spent £10 total on apps in my life)
Some people were up in arms about crap being pushed onto Steam, and it had no long term effect (Before or after anything was done about it)
To Apple, the $99 fee for developers is a minuscule fraction of 1 percent of a rounding error. Apple don't love it because it's money, they love it for the exact same reason I love it: it makes it a little bit harder for malicious scammers to get away with repeated criminal activity.
No, it's not a panacea. But it does weed out the utter junk and spam. It means when Apple finds something dodgy, they can sometimes find the human responsible, and it makes it expensive for developers to create new accounts if they are banned.
And people who cannot afford the greens fees can't participate in the Golf economy.
The world isn't fair, and Apple isn't obliged to give away their stuff for free.
If you can't afford $99/year, then you can't afford the substantial time investment required to learn Objective C / Swift, write an app, submit it, support it, and maintain it.
The AppStore is a decade old, and the gate is holding strong. It’s likely that gate will exist for the rest of the iPhone’s product life, which hopefully ends within 20 years as smartphones are replaced by new technology.
And Apple has thus done the world a favor. The last thing we need is more cross platform not quite native apps...
But as far as $99, between my $300 a year Linux Academy subscription, $144 a year JetBrains Resharper subscription and the money I spend on Udemy, $99 a year is nothing.
It also keep very interesting apps from being in platform, from hobbysts/opensource developers, for example.
Last time I used iOS had terrible apps for Keepass (I tested them all, trust me [1]), while Android has at least two very good implementations (both opensource, one based on the official C# implementation with a native interface in Mono and another one less featured however fully written in Java).
> But as far as $99, between my $300 a year Linux Academy subscription, $144 a year JetBrains Resharper subscription and the money I spend on Udemy, $99 a year is nothing.
Congratulations, so for you this is nothing. If I wanted to develop for iOS as a hobbyst I would need to pay ~R$400,00 (this is equivalent almost half of a minimum wage in Brazil) [1]. I am not even including the expenses of buying a iOS device and a Mac just to have the "privilege" to develop to an Apple device.
[1]: Or don't, because Apple Store search is terrible.
[2]: Just to make clear, I could afford this too if I wanted. However just because you and I can afford it doesn't mean this tax is abusive.
If you consider spending money on software licenses a waste of money than you should consider getting out of the business of writing liscenced software. In general I find it’s unhealthy to work on products you don’t believe in.
IIRC they ended the DTAG transit agreement due to DTAG having unreasonable pricing requests for the renewed agreement (i.e. DTAG holding Hetzener hostage, you can read more about it here [1]. If you are interested you can still buy DTAG transit for your Hetzner servers via https://wiki.hetzner.de/index.php/Double_Paid_Traffic/en, do keep in mind however that this is a metered connection, not unlimited like for regular web traffic.
I know perfectly fine about this. It has nothing to do with being held hostage. DTAG simply wants to charge more money, which is just business. You can either pay it or not. Hetzner decided that it's not worth it for them, the victim is the customer, because you probably are only able to download with around 5mbps in the evening from a DTAG connection. The upgrade is not possible with their cloud services, so it's a nightmare if you are a DTAG customer.
The same as Level3 charges more than others (even though not as extreme as DTAG) because they think their pipes are premium.
Hetzner simply wants to pay less money, which is just business. You can either sell at that price or not. DTAG decided that it's not worth it for them, the customer is the victim, because you probably are only able to download at around 5mbps in the evening from a Hetzner server. The upgrade is not possible with their internet connection, so it's a nightmare if you are a Hetzner customer.
I mean, yeah, sure, it sucks for the customer. What I don't understand is your implication that this is Hetzner's fault. Both sides could accept the other side's conditions, neither side did, all of that is "just business".
What isn't "just business" is asking much higher prices than the competition for the same kind of service and expecting customers to buy it. And if you find that there are customers who do buy anyway, that's a hint that you are dealing with a monopoly situation, which is appropriately described as "holding people hostage".
Sounds like a nightmare to be a DTAG customer.. But why would all of us pay to subsidize DTAG when we want servers in Europe peered with our reasonable ISPs and there are plenty of French ones?
The same thing works perfectly for me as well. I configured my ThinkPad to dual-boot both Ubuntu and Windows 10. All work related things are on Ubuntu, all games and entertainment apps are on Windows.
I found that this really helped me to focus on my work when I am on Ubuntu, and in my free time it makes gaming much more enjoyable on Windows without constantly getting reminded of my work.
Even if you pay your #1 employee at market rate he is taking huge risks and should be compensated accordingly. Working at an early stage company often comes with huge job insecurity, loss of medical benefits more mature companies might be able to offer (better insurance etc.) and a possible kink in your CV (3 years at Microsoft look much better than spending 3 years at an unsuccessful company that eventually shut down).
To sum it up, I would expect a #1 engineers equity to be at least half of a founders equity AND payed at near-market rate.
lol @ startups with no engineers yet paying “market rate”... they will maybe pay market rate within their stage band i.e. compared to other SV seed-stage startups, but this will still be way below the liquid total comp at a post IPO tech company. At this point in the tech cycle the math is so out of whack in favor of big co that I can’t with a straight face recommend to anyone that they join a seed startup as an early employee engineer unless they’re already well off financially (5-7 years ago I felt like I could). There are exceptions, of course.
Yeah but those exceptions are pretty big. The hiring pipelines at FAANG are so over-tuned for false negatives that there are plenty of engineers who are good enough to work at a FAANG for FAANG-level compensation yet are not actually getting offers from FAANG companies. They're on the market for (market minus FAANG)-rate compensation.
Then you have to remember that FAANG companies are large enterprises, by definition, and that comes with a lot of overhead - design by committee, politicking between middle-management fiefdoms, not being a part of the conversation when irrefutable directives are issued by executives four levels above you, varying levels of paperwork and documentation that are necessary in large organizations. That's soul-sucking for a lot of people, and those people will exclude themselves from FAANG-level compensation, and are on the market for (market minus FAANG)-rate compensation.
The real reason why a lot of founders can't hire at market rate compensation is that any early employee, even if you're paying them market rate, needs to buy into your vision just as much as you do. The upside for early employees, even more than potential compensation, is in being a strong influence, including at relatively senior levels, as the company grows. If, as an IC, you find yourself being recruited by somebody who you think is a strong and experienced leader, selling a product that you personally think is important, then you grab the bull by the horns and get on. If somebody who rambles and can't make eye contact asks you to join to build out Uber-for-pidgeons, it doesn't really matter how much compensation is being offered; you're going to walk away.
>The hiring pipelines at FAANG are so over-tuned for false negatives that there are plenty of engineers who are good enough to work at a FAANG for FAANG-level compensation yet are not actually getting offers from FAANG companies.
What happen is that these people will keep trying until they get in. They will focus only in one thing and one thing only: FAANG.
> That's soul-sucking for a lot of people, and those people will exclude themselves from FAANG-level compensation, and are on the market for (market minus FAANG)-rate compensation.
I find things have changed a lot where housing dictates personal career choices lately. It sucks to not be able to buy your own property. I don't care what people strategy is (be it work 4-5 years for FAANG and move midwest or whatnot).
There are many companies that offer pretty good pay and great job security outside FAANG. Try Microsoft, Oracle, Siemens, Airbus, SAP or one of the million medium sized companies whose name you've never heard of unless you're in the same line of business.
My experience has been that those companies (except for Microsoft and Oracle) have been well below FANG compensation levels, while being in line (and sometimes lower) than what I can get from later stage startups and not much higher than I have heard from early stage startups. I have only looked for opportunities in NYC and Dallas, though, so that might skew my observations.
Absolutely. Having said that, I won't join non-SV startups. Why? very simple: the chance of hitting the jackpot is significantly higher in SV.
> You realize not all job markets have developer jobs paying 400k?
For sure, but why would I joined non-SV startups getting paid peanuts while I can join a more established company and get paid double (base, stock, bonus, health benefit).
I felt that First Engineer is a sucker if you don't get compensated well enough (be it way more equity than the typical 0.5-1% or something else).
At the end of the day, I'd choose to maximise my career: be it joining a startup to gain experience knowing the whole stack or joining large enterprise for better career-path and compensation.
I don't join startups to "Change the World" or to "Hit the jackpot with 0.5-1% equity".
> Even if you pay your #1 employee at market rate he is taking huge risks and should be compensated accordingly. Working at an early stage company often comes with huge job insecurity, loss of medical benefits more mature companies might be able to offer (better insurance etc.)
Sorry, but no. Jobs are very easy for a good dev. You are taking no zero risk as engineer #1 at a startup if your pay is market rate.
> and a possible kink in your CV (3 years at Microsoft look much better than spending 3 years at an unsuccessful company that eventually shut down).
To who? I would hire the 3 failed startup guy any day over the 14 years at Microsoft guy.
> To sum it up, I would expect a #1 engineers equity to be at least half of a founders equity AND payed at near-market rate.
Haha. I mean I guess it's fair to expect that. Maybe someone would give it to you. To me, it sees like a very inflated value of self worth if you are wanting to take little to no risk but then reap MOST of the benefits of being a founder.
I mean "market rate" in terms of salary is 30 - 50% pay cut over total comp compared to working at an established company with RSUs and massive EoY bonuses. That coupled with the general resume risk means your first hire is leaving a lot on the table.
If you need the best, you're going to have to pony up equity since you just can't compete otherwise. The open secret however, is that for most startups, you really don't need the best. You don't need top quality to throw together a web backend and a mobile app and start growing a base; for those companies it makes no sense to dilute the massive payout for the founders by sharing anything with the code monkey actually delivering the app.
I think the earlier stage you are (seed, angel) then yes, there is definitely risk for a large class of employees. You're taking a risk on the founder's ability to execute, joining a company that is not cash flow positive and tying your mortgage payment/insurance to their ability to raise money in the future... it's derisked in each successive round and startups/founders are not all equal, but I think if we're talking 1rst employee it's fair to say there's some risk.
Yep...if I'm going to be offered $x as employee #3 with little to no equity, and the same $x at a stable company...I don't see why I should risk joining when there's little reward.
Risks can be:
Stress due to working more (wearing more hats, not enough employees)
Not having a stable paycheck because company needs to pay venders otherwise they go bankrupt.
Recession or downturn, loss of job immediately while big company can weather.
If your first engineer is any good, “job insecurity” is the last thing he’s worried about. In today’s environment, even a slightly above engineer can get a job within a month.
Loss of medical benefits is just another number to add to thier salary. Statistically, equity especially for an unproven idea is meaningless. It’s likely not to be worth anything.
Three years as the lead engineer at even a failed startup looks a lot better on your resume than just being a low level drone at Microsoft. You will probably also have your hands in a lot more pots making you even more valuable.
> If your first engineer is any good, “job insecurity” is the last thing he’s worried about. In today’s environment, even a slightly above engineer can get a job within a month.
Can get a job. There is no end to the stream of recruiters offering jobs that I am overqualified for and pay well below what I currently make. The companies that can match what I have now (which, to be honest, is still lower than I could get at the Google tier) are few and far between.
Can we just charitably assume that s/he knows that English lacks a gender-neutral second-person pronoun and picked one out of he or she (like those baby books that alternate between gendered pronouns) to finish what s/he said so s/he didn't have to use the thought-interrupting construct "s/he"?
It'd sure be great if people didn't make that assumption, but the HN guidelines ask you to make the strongest-possible interpretations of comments when responding, as doing otherwise leads to unnecessary, off-topic flamewars.
Other commenters use different pronouns when describing hypothetical scenarios, and that's great, but it also sometimes triggers flamewars from a different direction.
About what kind of startup are we talking here?
When we discuss #1 engineer compensation we are most likely talking about a very early stage company that likely lacks a profound company structure and employee benefits program.
So I would assume that #1 engineers will most likely not be greeted with a good health insurance on the employer side.
I was employee #1 at a startup. Right out of the gate our medical was better than Google’s. Having been exposed to the financial side of things, the cost difference between shitty and decent insurance for employees was inconsequential in the overall cost of doing business.
I was engineering hire #1, and we had no insurance and pay was half market rate, but at least the founders were incompetent and abusive depending on the day.
And therein lies a valuable lesson: don't be employee #1 if you don't know the founders personally, or can otherwise make sure they have a good track record.
