Looks like a great product and congratulations on your success.
I miss the days when HN was more stories like this of people using their expertise to make money - whether it was code, book launches, writing courses etc. Is that harder to do these days, or has the HN news appetite shifted?
There's limited space on the front page, and the topic of AI is so prevalent, it occupies a lot, every day. Right now 10 out of 30 stories on the front page are about AI and LLMs.
Yeah, it's a Trump-related political outrage, or it's an AI thing. I feel anecdotally like the AI-related things are even more prevalent, but would love to see some data on it.
The Trump stuff seems to get flagged very much, and the AI stuff, very litle.
to see flagged stuff too is great. Not sure if you see everything, but I definitely am more interested in a less curated frontpage. I don't find ignoring headlines I'm not interested in to be such a major affront to my sensibilities.
> The Trump stuff seems to get flagged very much, and the AI stuff, very litle.
Speaking personally, I flag the political posts and not the AI posts because the political posts always turn into flame wars. AI posts do not, so I leave them be (even though I don't personally like them).
Hmmm. Is there a statement of HN policy somewhere about that? Or is this just a thing you decided to do on your own accord?
No judgment, just curious. I presume you've reflected on the idea that one person's flame war is another person's gentle exchange of opinion.
I can see what you're saying though, and I have seen discussions where I've thought "oook, don't really understand what these people think they're achieving", but I wouldn't say I've seen anything horrendous. I mean, individual horrific comments get quickly flagged to death. Why bother flagging the whole topic? Why not simply not investigate those threads?
Yes, but maybe this rose-tinted glasses, but it seems like every week we would have a story like yours, an essay from Patio11 on how much money Bingo Cards are making, Nathan Barry talking about how a book launch earnt him $50k in a weekend, Brennan Dunn launching a course for 5 figures etc.
I also love side projects and have done a few. What I was commenting on is "people using their expertise to make money". For me it's more of the opposite. I could have earned way more in traditional things but I do side project because I can select what I want to do.
Nothing beats the freedom and fulfillment of owning and operating your own business. A job at a FAANG company with a high salary is so overrated. I know, since I have worked in multiple FAANG companies over the last 12 years.
True, and the author also said that they are working with a 20 person team. But looking at those growth projections they will likely double in a few years.
I quit a AU$300k job almost exactly 2 years ago to work on my ‘side project’ full-time. My partner too: it’s our only income.
I earn perhaps 20% what I used to. We just quit our lease and sold all our stuff so we can live in a cheap country for a while. I’ve never been poorer. I’m 48.
It’s the best decision I ever made. I pity you fools at your FAANG jobs. Because I know how unhappy you are.
> It’s the best decision I ever made. I pity you fools at your FAANG jobs. Because I know how unhappy you are.
I think you might be projecting to try not to feel bad for your life choices. A telltale sign is the way you try to claim every single engineer employed by half a dozen companies is unhappy. This is obviously unrealistic. I personally know quite a few of them and they are having the time of their life. Keep in mind that you hear far more reports from those who quit/were fired than from those who are happily chugging along in their role.
They are having the "time of their life" sitting in a desk chair at a corporate office. It's not the same as what the parent poster is describing -- which is presumably traveling and exploring the world. Try asking the younger generation which is the better job.
> They are having the "time of their life" sitting in a desk chair at a corporate office. It's not the same as what the parent poster is describing -- which is presumably traveling and exploring the world.
Is it though?
The FANG engineers I know have been leveraging internal transfers to relocate abroad to places like Madrid, Milan, Amsterdam, etc. Not to mention business trips abroad for all kind of things like hiring events.
> Try asking the younger generation which is the better job.
This is not a generational thing. This is about objectively comparing jobs. Accusing each and every single FANG engineer of being miserable whereas a random low-paying role is the envy of the world screams the fox and the grapes.
Internet psychoanalysis based on "telltale signs" is just seeing what you want to see especially if you're responding to a perceived personal slight. The people telling you they're having the time of their life also might be projecting to try not to feel bad for their life choices.
I didn't read OP's comment as "every FAANG employee is miserable". That's uncharitable but easier to fight than the more realistic one that those people might be in a "golden cage". The "wolf and the dog" fable above is impressively accurate.
> Internet psychoanalysis based on "telltale signs" is just seeing what you want to see especially if you're responding to a perceived personal slight. The people telling you they're having the time of their life also might be projecting to try not to feel bad for their life choices.
Not really. I've worked at a FANG for quite a few years and I can tell you from my own personal experience that in many ways it was the best job I ever had. The misery imagined by OP has no bearing in reality, and screams projection. I see it a lot, sadly. People are desperate to get in and when they don't then they resort to shit-talking things to try to make themselves feel better.
There are definitely a lot of FAANG engineers who are not unhappy and miserable with their lives, they are gainfully employed and live rich fulfilling lives providing abundance for their families.
In contrast I know plenty of people who quit jobs and are now working way harder to earn less at the expense of those around them, resulting in broken homes, divorces, and all around miserable lives, all pinned on the hope they will get their big break and it will all be worth it. They are very pathetic but can’t see it because they are so wrapped up in some foolish idea that isn’t going anywhere.
Except you’re not free, you’re bound by the constraints of how much money you have, which isn’t much.
And traveling the world is a bit overrated. It’s cool to change scenery, but at the end of the day, you’re just doing the same work you always do, just in a different country. You’re just running away from the fact you have nothing worth settling down a bit for, no where to truly call home and invest in a local community, just a drifter chasing their next hit of stimulus. Eventually, you run out of truly novel places to go. You’re not giving back to a community and making your mark, you’re just leeching off the lifestyles built by people who chose to settle in one place. If everyone was a traveler, there wouldn’t be anything worth traveling to.
I like changing the scenery a lot but I disagree that it makes me a bad or immoral person. Most people do not want to leave their country. Some people do and that benefits local people through tourism and retirees. The system is working out well for developing countries. It helps them develop faster.
Do office workers do anything to help other countries develop? Or does all their effort go towards making their rich friends richer?
You make that salary only if you physically live near Silicon Valley, or some other HCOL areas where FAANG have offices. And guess what? The world is bigger.
Well, perhaps people see such success stories for what they are, well curated commodity flowers in the walled gardens of the major players, who will not hesitate to pluck them the instant they threaten to have any kind of uncontrolled growth. It's "ISVs" all over again, commoditization of complements etcetera, the tech molemen that serve the big machines.
AI looks to many as a wall buster, at least for the time being, so even if breakout success is unlikely you can't blame people for at least trying to escape the underground caverns where the "widely successful" ceiling is capped at perhaps reaching a FAANG manager level of compensation.
I think what that is demonstrating is that models are commodity objects. The model factory may have a value. I think it would need a specialized context. It would need a market large enough to support it and small enough to keep the context out of the mainstream.
My guess is this will always be a moving target. The consumer will choose models based on their value proposition.
>it bothered me because I come here to get away from all the propaganda.
Somehow, I doubt this statement is true, given the rest of your post, which was in no way adding to the conversation, is exactly the sort of propaganda you claim to try and get away from.
>We have to educate and inform.
Which you did not do in any stretch of the words - all you did was add noise.
How are the things I mentioned not real? I didn't say that we are talking about those semantic arguments on this Hacker News thread, I'm talking about the world outside of that.
I've been here since August and I haven't seen anything that even remotely resembles
> semantic arguments about why it’s ok for ICE to bust down random doors looking for brown people to deport to the death camps
If you feel you have, I humbly suggest you go back and re-evaluate whatever it was that you read. Keep in mind that in order to qualify as such, the other party would have to agree with you that ICE's actions could be fairly described as such, in every aspect.
Because otherwise they aren't actually arguing that it's okay for ICE to do the things you say they do; they're arguing that it's okay for ICE to do the things they do, per their own perception of what those things actually are.
If the distinction doesn't make sense to you, it would be better to take a break from all political discussion on the Internet. This kind of outside view is essential to actual productive discussion.
This isn’t a perception thing. ICE is breaking down the doors of people, arresting others without warrants or identifying themselves. They’re deporting people to a concentration camp in a foreign country that no one has ever left alive. Just because people choose to not educate themselves doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. And as a matter of fact, I’ve heard plenty of people arguing that all of these things are good and that ICE should do them.
Yes, it is. It very much is, and until you understand the simple ideas I explain below, I don't consider you qualified to discuss political matters in a space like HN.
Since my previous comments weren't enough of a hint (I didn't really expect them to be, because I've dealt with people using rhetoric like yours before), I'll go ahead and give a detailed explanation.
Again, here's the part I quoted from your original comment:
> semantic arguments about why it’s ok for ICE to bust down random doors looking for brown people to deport to the death camps
You said they bust down "random" doors. That is not the same thing as saying that they don't have a warrant. It's saying that they target essentially whoever they feel like, or that they go through neighbourhoods and randomly choose places to enter without any a priori reason to expect a legitimate deportation candidate to be there.
You said that they are "looking for brown people". That is to say, you use common rhetorical flair to imply that this is not only racially motivated, but motivated specifically by the racism of ICE themselves. Not only that, you suppose the sort of folk racism that puts Mexicans and Central Americans in the same category as Middle Easterners and South and South-East Asians. You do this without evidence, and against simple real-world observations that would tend to refute it.
You said that they do this "to deport [them] to the death camps". To support this claim, it's not sufficient to show that they go "to a concentration camp in a foreign country that no one has ever left alive"[0]. To support "who are deported to death camps", you would have to show that ICE directly and knowingly causes them to go to such camps. But to support "to deport them to the death camps", you would additionally have to show that this is their specific intent - i.e. that the ICE agents expressly believe that their targets should die, and that they have the goal of ensuring their deaths abroad - rather than the actually stated goal of, you know, just having them off American soil.
> Just because people choose to not educate themselves doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
2. Please contemplate how many things might exist in the world about which you know absolutely nothing, and then re-consider whether the phrase "choose not to educate themselves" is at all coherent.
> And as a matter of fact, I’ve heard plenty of people arguing that all of these things are good and that ICE should do them.
I absolutely believe that you've seen people argue that, for example, ICE can be excused for not having had a warrant, identifying themselves etc. if they successfully located and extradited someone not lawfully entitled to be within the USA. I also absolutely believe you've seen people argue that whatever happens after that point is not ICE's concern.
But I don't believe you've seen people make the claims you think they have.[1] I think you've simply failed to understand the massive differences between what they're actually saying and what you think they're saying. I furthermore think this is a result of your personal attitude towards political topics, and that you need to fix this before you can have a productive discussion on HN.
[0]: Although you do have to evidence that and not just assert it. And I really do think this would be an extraordinary claim, because even some disproven, sensationalized claims I saw people make during Trump's first term involved "concentration camps" being within the US and not at all fatal, merely inhumane....
The parent comment was more about submissions than comments, and it is in a sub thread that is already a tangent from the main topic: a wiki app on the teams store that was successful.
I feel the same way as parent, that the idea of keeping politics off HN made more sense when the US wasn't going through a "bloodless coup" to destroy it from within.
Is this comment a primer on ranked choice voting or ascendant fascism? No. Do I welcome those posts more now than before? Yes.
Oh, facts are propaganda now? Well, I know who you voted for then. At first I thought you were talking about maintaining quality but now I’m pretty sure I touched a nerve. lol.
you half joke, but having one administration (lying) about solving abusive interest on student loans, vs current one boasting (probably lying too) about sending millions to jail for failing to pay that abusive interest, do change peoples priorities in a way that lead more people to work flipping burgers instead of trying to code a wiki for a niche audience for example.
I'm grateful that HN informed me about right-to-repair, EFF, privacy, cybersecurity, and so forth.
I was so upset I when the Clinton Admin promoted the Clipper chip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip I can't believe we're still arguing about the issue (right to use encryption) today. That was probably the first time I realized that politics had real impact on my world.
Coincidentally, Neil Postman's book Technopoly was my gateway drug into criticism (Ted Nelson's Computer Lib, McLuhan, Chomsky, Donald Norman, etc, etc). Transmuted me from a naive optimistic technophile into a skeptic.
Then the (now evergreen) electronic voting and tabulation debacle radicalized me. I just couldn't believe that otherwise intelligent people supported that crap.
Then I tried (and failed) to protect personal privacy (electronic medical records, secret ballots).
It makes me crazy when people, like geeks and policy makers and bosses, who I think should know better, advocate for stuff that can't be true. I've tried to explain that perpetual motion machines simply aren't possible. Making me sound like the nutter.
(One of our local papers called me a "sweaty paranoid kook" for having the gall to correct their misunderstandings over how voting with postal ballots works. That was fun.)
(Workwise, I got a soft demotion when I/we tried to explain to the boss that the blackbox demographic database they licensed (without our knowledge) simply doesn't work. "How can that be true?! Everyone else is using this database." Ya, sure, believe the sales pukes over your own team. Terrific.)
So. I don't know how to separate technology from politics. It's unfortunate that everything swiftly gets coded as partisan. Whereas I see everything in terms of punching up vs down; our popular culture persists in making everything a team sport.
--
FWIW, Joshua Citarella (Do Not Research, Doomscroll, etc) is probably the most cogent contemporary critic I follow today.
Initially, Citarella just wanted to figure out how to be a working artist. As in "get paid to produce culture". He (and his community) ingested acres of knowledge and have synthesized a largely coherent worldview (criticism of platform economics, neoliberalism). Helping me to gel and articulate my own worldview, forged over the decades of working on the frontlines of technology and policy.
--
Absolutely, I'd rather spend my time programming, solving problems, tinkering, hanging out with my peers, talking shit. Alas, the real world continues to conspire to deprive me of these simple pleasures. Makes me cranky. I choose to fight back.
My moment was when the Australian Liberal Party destroyed the previous government's plan to rollout fiber to the premises to 90-odd percent of the Australian population. They stole a decade of fiber internet from me because they wanted to play politics. They rolled out new copper in some areas for goodness sake. They said they were technology agnostic, they said something better than fiber may come along, yet they rolled out copper. Said a lot about their competence.
It was disgusting. It set Australia's technology landscape back by a decade (it didn't just affect me, it affected the entire industry in which I worked, which is a foundational industry to almost all others - what does not depend on communications infrastructure these days?). Somewhat at the behest of Rupert Murdoch, who's not even an Australian citizen anymore, to protect his interests in the dinosaurs of traditional media. The roots of the issue also stem from the privatisation of the owner of most of Australia's communications infrastructure a number of years before that - also a great decision of the same political party. I don't know how / why people can still take them seriously (I do know, but that's actually worse).
Both sides of politics are biased and corrupt to some extent, but only one side has burned me to that degree on something I actually cared about.
Separately, it's only niche political parties that actually seem to care much about the privacy invasion that's rampant on the internet. No major parties seem to have any willpower to take that on.
The ongoing attacks on encryption, including the ridiculous comments from Australian Prime Minister at the time Malcolm Turnbull about the laws of Australia overlooking the laws of mathematics. SMFH.
When technology is woven into our daily lives it cannot be apolitical.
For anyone into this vein of criticism, I highly recommend `The Technological Society` By Jacques Ellul [0].
Among other things it makes the point (paraphrasing poorly) that politics is intrinsically technological. More precisely, he says modern politics and technology are both instances of the same underlying process of "technique". It's heavily informed my way of looking at technology, politics, and their interconnection.
>
But seeing just how incompetent, corrupt and lawless this administration is, it no longer bothers me. We have to educate and inform.
That has been politicians through time. It is you care at this point.
I shifted through life from: Not my problem, to "I know who and what is right", to "We touched bottom", to (currently) the world has always been this way and I have little agency.
Edit: Do what you want with your little agency. And enjoy life what you can. Not mutually exclusive
Once wealth inequality reaches a certain threshold, revolution becomes inevitable.
I'd argue that we're seeing various indicators that suggest we've passed a tipping point. We can look at things like the high national debt vs unprecedented low tax rates on the wealthy, the wealth of the top 1% surpassing that of the bottom 90%, how government agencies and safety nets are being gutted when we have the highest GDP in history, how the wealthy build gated communities instead of relieving even the most basic suffering (like infant mortality), how tech profits get vacuumed up by a handful of people through financial instruments and crypto rather than going towards investment in new businesses, how private equity firms own a 5% stake in most companies and are buying up all housing and real estate along with foreign investment to turn owners into renters, how politicians are so involved with insider trading that we can no longer distinguish campaign contributions from Wall Street bribes and kickbacks.. the rabbit hole goes so deep that we fall forever if we get sucked into it.
Meanwhile how many of us are struggling to win the internet lottery with our 2nd, our 3rd, our 10th startup? When deep down we know the odds of succeeding are perhaps 10% or less, and the system feels rigged to deny us access to any capital at all, especially when we need it most to cover a mortgage payment or health emergency that should have already been covered by our exorbitantly high insurance rates and taxes going into a private healthcare system that's twice as expensive as the rest of the developed world.
In many ways, I consider us to be in a worst-case scenario. It wasn't supposed to turn out like this. We could have had a technotopia like solarpunk with full automation and UBI, instead we're racing towards fascist dictatorship. Where we once had democrats and republicans at least symbolically opposing one another, now we effectively have a single center-right party funded by the same private donors, which uses wedge issues to keep the population divided and conquered.
I'd even say that we got here by banning political content on HN and elsewhere. So we have a generation of young people who never knew an America before everything was privatized. We can imagine what a center-left government would look like, a we society instead of a me society, where most profit flows into a pot shared by all, with equal pay regardless of gender or race, a national surplus as large as our current debt, free college and healthcare paid for by that endowment, nearly free renewable energy, climate change reversing back towards baseline, etc etc, an ivory tower so high it would reach the stars.
But sadly that's all just a dream now, so far away that it's hard to see a way to get there without going through societal pain that as recently as the late 1990s could have been completely avoided.
Ours was supposed to be the quick and easy path. Is it any wonder that we succumbed to the dark side?
> Is that harder to do these days, or has the HN news appetite shifted?
I'll speak as someone who is part of the problem. As groucho Marx says, I wouldn't want to be a part of any club that will have me as a member!
HN is a victim of its own popularity. Things just get diluted and more mainstreamy by people like me, who are perhaps hackers in spirit but don't have much to show for it.
I work in IT at an international company everyone knows the name of. I've got a garden and there are meals in my fridge made of meat from pigs I raised. I've got furniture in my house my wife and I made years ago in a different state.
I'll submit random articles, but never a show HN. How could I? Woodgearsca built a woodworking shop out of his woodworking shop. No one cares about the tables I built. I try to speak only when I know I can contribute, but im very unsure i raise the quality here.
I've submitted articles that I thought were really valuable, and never had any success [0] (maybe the first is too business-y, not hacker-ish, but I genuinely believe what I wrote there matters and it's worth understanding, at least in the sense it was transformative for me when I did understand it) and then an article on a random weekend project a friend and I did made the top five on the front page [1] and stayed there for ages.
People very much just might care about the tables you make! Especially if you can share something you learned.
I'd also like some horror stories, like someone vibe-coding their way into burning a million dollars by accident and having to sell a kidney on the black market so they don't lose their house.
Or about building tables… I don’t think hacking has to exclusively be about programming and computers.
If you submit a story about raising pigs or building a table on a weekend, it would probably get a lot of interaction. Please think about doing it. I’d love to hear the story!
Do you have a blog or Instagram or something with your work? Non computer projects sometimes get traction here if they are unusual or interesting or are made by a regular or whatever criteria the hivemind uses to choose the upvotes.
I'd like to take a look, in case there is one where my spider sense feels that can farm some karma. (Obliviously, my spider sense can fail!)
I was not expecting this comment here but it tracks with my observations.
Things that previously could be taken for granted now require applied thought and physical capability.
For example, people regularly ask how to find reasonably priced housing in /r/askPortland. The OP usually mentions constant looking at Zillow and other sites / apps.
Very, very few good deals will be found there because the marketplace is too fluid and too accessible. You gotta hustle on the ground in the neighborhood you want to be in to find the best housing compromises.
Used to be you could wing it on craigslist.
From concert tickets to new Nike shoes, you want a good seat / common size? How about a nice family campsite?
Well you better have set up automation. It’s to the point where public swim lessons can’t be got without a bot. Unless, you go to the pool and ask about lessons not scheduled on the internet.
It is an absolute hustle, across the minor daily desires of good things and experiences.
Those products rejected by the most motivated get binned into some consultant optimized vertically integrated reseller.
The services get marketed heavily with dark patterns just to cancel their membership.
> Is that harder to do these days, or has the HN news appetite shifted?
The popular keywords for some time have been AI, Trump, Russia, Ukraine.
As these are hot topics, the "Hacker" part of HN has taken a noticeable backseat. There are still interesting submissions but they don't reach the front page that often.
For example, there's a huge thread on this very post about the source site because of its supposed origins.
There is good reason why these posts don’t regularly make front page.
The genre of content is regularly abused by hypesters. There is a forum / podcast dedicated to this kind of success story and it is just massive cheerleading and success bias.
If you go look for it, you’ll find it.
HN readers achieving this success either don’t need or don’t want the attention that might come with this kind of content marketing.
It’s much more interesting to learn about detailed technical solutions engineering and the SOTA.
Keep that surplush cash in the business with a window of a few years to absorb any downturn, don't get a Bugatti :) Not that I am qualified to provide advice on this topic. Great success story.
kidnapping your family in Russia makes you vulnerable, what precautions do you take so i can be sure Russian government can not get to my data thru you ?
If you think Putin is going to kidnap someone's family to force a developer to hand over data that you put into a MS Teams wiki, you certainly have delusions of grandeur.
What I took away from this story is that I forget that there are ecosystems outside the Apple App Store. I’ve become so accustomed to thinking of releasing on Apple first that I didn’t even know you could make money through Teams addons.
roblox :) Honestly though anything with a lot of users typically either has a way to make money selling addons, or by hosting your own content related to their product, like wikis and leaderboards and such.
There’s even a niche within Roblox, which is making plugins for the IDE used for making games for it, Roblox Studio. There’s a built-in marketplace where you can charge money for them.
>What I took away from this story is that I forget that there are ecosystems outside the Apple App Store.
Which is very limiting considering that the Apple ecosystem, other than for phones, is the smallest one. A lot of software companies don't even target Apple at all because it's not worth it.
Other ecosystems are smaller (probably nothing has more consumers than the two major app stores) but often much higher intent. The same person who you have to coax into paying $1 for an iOS app won’t bat an eye at a productivity tool that costs $20/mo.
So while the platform has less reach the lower competition and higher RPUs make them great. If I were still making games I’d be looking at Steam before iOS, for instance.
I love this story, so happy for your success. It reads great, and makes me feel great (oddly - maybe it gives me a sense of hope I can do the same thing one day).
>Currently, the team behind Perfect Wiki is just two people. I handle the development and product, and my colleague manages user support
Good product, but I'm concerned about relying on something developed essentially by a single person due to the bus factor... If it's open-source, that's fine — we can fork it if needed. But if it's a SaaS product, what happens if something happens to the developer? Will all my data be lost? Then again, one of the tools we used before was discontinued despite being developed by a fairly large team...
Exactly, it can also happen with larger companies and if the creator here decides to step back for
Example he might organize some sort of continuity by selling the product or hiring someone to maintain it
They seem focused and dont have and debt or funding burdens. There risk of something catastrophic happening to an individual is lower than the average business going out of business.
Some sort of data and data structure export/external backup would be a good feature though if it doesn’t already exist
But if I depend on a business making a critical tool, and am paying for the pleasure, then my prior for their going out of business decreases greatly. Their susceptibility to bus attacks remains unchanged however.
Congratulations! Great work so far.
I too have been looking to do something like this for a long time now. The biggest challenge for me is that I am locked into the golden handcuffs that FAANG companies put on you. Guess I will wait till I get laid off. I don't have the guts to resign and follow my dream (heavy sigh)
Every talent needs to be helped to grow, make all kinds of peoples life easier, so democracy invites everyone with good will to do that in west. Making Russia stronger means making west weaker. Because russian "government". After russian people get rid of their murderous gov...
For ordinary US citizen without a broad worldview, this thing i wrote seem like writings of a mad man. As Kennedys presidential address says:
"...we shall pay any price,
bear any burden,
meet any hardship,
support any friend,
oppose any foe,
in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
My duty is to warn ordinary citizens, this is it, you were warned.
answer to your question follows:
because product is Russian, programmers are Russian, so your data will be under influence of Russian government directly or indirectly - his family is in Russia.
so HN bots want to be edgy but failed to comprehend that Russian regime IS directly involved in making life for US citizens difficult, even tho Russian regime had 20 years worth of chances to not do that, not be bad actor, but they did not want that. they want to be bad actor and they act as bad actor. im not saying anything about Colonial Pipeline attack of course that would be silly.
Russian people are not outsiders, they are complicit in Russians regime activities. but it is so hard to explain this to people because even XTwitter is allowing Russian propaganda / soft power activities of Russia unimpeded.
Also a lot of Israeli people have family, ancestors in Russia so they project their feelings for them, towards Russia uncritically.
Russia is not democracy, Russia is not USA. Russia IS Russian people. Russia IS acting as a bad actor so call it as it act as.
Congrats on the success, but I feel like you hit gold because MS has little to no interest in providing actual good software for their users. Hopefully for you that stays that way and you can maybe expand to other areas where they come short (basically anything in Teams)
I admit I didn't read the entirety of the post, but I read the following:
> Many of our clients came to us after trying the Microsoft built-in Wiki. It was clunky, inconvenient, and didn’t do the job well. We focused on simplicity: the essential features only, nothing extra — and everything should function inside Microsoft Teams.
So I know it wasn't a coincidence, and rarely are such software built without understanding the needs first.
I just wanted to point out that in this case, the business relies on Microsoft not doing a proper job. Otherwise they would be at a serious risk of being Sherlocked by the provider.
Slack is, I think, mainly focused on the messaging and relies on third parties to integrate other features. Microsoft is a behemoth that wants to sell their complete software suite and tries to integrate all of them together for a "seamless" experience. They do have an incentive for their own products to be good and used instead of third parties.
Plus once they realize how much data is in these wikis, they will want to ingest them for AI (if not already done), so there is an incentive for them to have more users on their solution instead.
Edit: And even if the OP is not relying only on MS for sales, they still depend heavily on them and their App Store. They are not competing with Confluence or other systems, they are competing with Teams itself.
Used to work for a company that owned a Teams extension. Teams updates will just randomly break your extension behavior without any warning or heads up. The migration to their "new teams" app was brutal.
Their SDK is built into 2 view render portions. 1 for in-message rendering using their own markup syntax for structuring views, and another that's just a web browser. So if you want to share components between 1 for messages and another for your pane, you can't.
Ingesting events is not very well defined. Everything gets sent to 2 endpoints you define and it's up to you to determine how to handle it.
Just some of the issues I came across in my short time at the company.
None of the onboarding material actually works. I guess because it’s all based on Azure/Entra which changes so frequently.
So there’s videos, articles, VSC extensions, all to help you navigate this Byzantine structure. But they’re all just wrong.
Look I’m not a pro dev so YMMV. Kick the tyres for a few days and see if you can get it to do anything. I never could, and the experience was just no fun at all.
At least with web dev, that I’m also no good at, it can be fun. Teams was like pulling my own nails out.
Tried to build a teams chatbot for our org. There are five different official starter templates, none of which work, but all use different outdated versions of the Microsoft packages required. They point to documentation that is missing (like 404 missing), outdated, containing code samples that don’t match the SDKs; the build fails after startup, or only works together with a VS Code extension. Tasks require an obscene amount of boilerplate code that is never really explained; configuration options are not properly documented, sometimes the types are broken.
Everything you could imagine being wrong with an enterprise JavaScript package and much more is in that hellish rabbit hole.
This is cool, I never even heard of MS Team's marketplace. My wife uses Teams a lot for work and likes it. I should put BrowserBox on there. I need marketing ideas.
The way he did product research to find out what customers really needed, after testing the waters with a translator, was really good.
Definition of make something people want. Classic way business has always been created, by keen observation of the market. Well done!
However, this is one of my frustrations about Teams - it absolutely sucks, and what few integrations it has from Microsoft absolutely sucks. You are already paying too much to MS for it to not be working properly.
God knows how much my company is giving to Microsoft for us to have crappy and expensive (read: time wasting) experiences with Teams, Windows 11 onboarding, Azure DevOps (better than what wr had, at least), Visual Studio 2022, etc.
In my (admittedly very limited) experience, Teams was almost free when you're already paying for microsoft 365. At least last time I had any involvement with it, the price difference between having teams in the bundle or not was negligible. It makes it cheaper than any competitor.
Now in reality, I think the true cost is hidden by the frustration it causes (some?) users, but it's very hard to quantify that in a dollar amount. Which is why companies stick with Teams.
The hidden cost is also the removal of competition. Google get more heat for browser "monopoly" when they even provide a free browser base for others to customise, and Microsoft gets almost none for incredibly overwhelmingly anti-competitive behaviour around lock-in to Office, Teams, Sharepoint, Azure.
Yup. That's because they had actual competition in the space. Throwing a (bad) Slack clone for free was a way of preserving and extending their monopoly.
But you're still paying for it. The costs to build and fund the product still exist, and are still coming out of customer payments. Manipulating their pricing to manipulate their customers doesn't change that.
> Every time I check out competitors' sites — those who also build knowledge base or customer support platforms — I notice something odd. Almost all of them use third-party tools like Intercom or Zendesk to support their own customers. That surprises me. If your product is so great — why don’t you use it yourself? For me, that’s a golden rule: your product should be so good you want to use it yourself. If not, that means something’s wrong.
Is this not just because Intercom and Zendesk have their own ticketing systems tightly integrated to the docs? Integrating the two allows e.g. customer query auto-reply based on RAG with the documentation, or auto-replying with the 3 support articles most likely to solve the problem. I assume Perfect Wiki has no equivalent ticket integration?
BTW - I see you have a LLM answering questions based on your docs on the help pages (which is great). So really I mean for customer support issues that are raised outside this channel
I also see it as a contingency plan. How do customers get help from you if your service has interrupted downtime? Relying on separate systems helps you be available still. It's one of those things that is not a problem until it's a problem.
When working for my former employer, we rolled our own help center, but after awhile, it was deemed easier and cheaper to just cut it and transfer everything to zendesk.
Given the state of the typical Microsoft PM he will be safe. They'll always prefer more features over a fast UX.
Even if there will a fast enough teams wiki one day, the next PM will butcher it to death again.
Perfect Wiki = Perfect History for a coder: He lost his job and looked for ways to make other people's lives easier in a growing niche market. Perfect Receipt. Congratulations
You as a Western customer currently have no way to pay to a Russian legal entity, meaning that VAT and corporate income taxes from your payments are paid in EU and probably supporting Ukraine. I highly doubt that owners repatriate the profits to Russia or they cover operational costs in Russia from foreign income. It is also possible that part of that income goes into salaries of the staff which emigrated after 24.02.2022 and works for Habr remotely, as it happened with many Russian IT companies.
So question is, do you have any specific evidence that your money would fund the war or it is just application of collective responsibility?
I am certainly well aware of that. However this proves nothing and my question still stands. Not every company founded by Russians on Cyprus is a money-laundering or a war-funding enterprise. Tax optimization - yes, everyone does that. Friendly jurisdiction - yes, and now more than ever, if you are Russian, you want to do business but stay away from Russian government. A lot of people actually moved to Cyprus because they were opposing the war.
Is there any specific evidence that Habr supports the war? This is not a rhetoric question, I expect the answer and I'm fine if the answer is yes.
We are not talking about convicting them in a court of law. It's perfectly fine to refuse to deal with Russian companies because every ruble they pay in taxes goes to support the war. When the whole society (and yes, regular people too) are in favor of waging a war of their neighbor, refusing to deal with their companies should and must become the default way of action.
Just like with BDS in case of Israel, this principle is incompatible with Western values. If you apply collective punishment to Russia, how are you different from them?
> The punished group may often have no direct association with the perpetrator other than living in the same area and can not be assumed to exercise control over the perpetrator's actions.
Here, the point that's raised is: isn't there any collective responsibility for a group of people that support and re-elect a political leader with 87% of votes, who was, and promised to continue engaging in a war of genocide?
Notice that I'm being cynical here, referencing the 87% vote count. While it might be a theatrical display, the regime likes to preach about the legitimacy of Democracy (especially how Ukraine is conducting its democracy), and Russians accepted these results - so even if it's not actually 87%, it's still high.
Also, let's not forget that a lot of the invading force is composed of individuals with entrepreneurial ambitions; they're contractors, not conscripts, meaning people who sign up to get well paid to go to Ukraine and kill as many Ukrainians as possible, just because they're Ukrainians. The latest estimates of +950.000 Russian casualties point that it's not just a few people willing to do this, but a lot.
So the question that I want to ask you is, at what point does collective responsibility apply?
Two points to clarify:
- This is an honest question, because I don't know the answer to it, but I just don't think that "there should never be collective responsibility" is a good answer.
>So the question that I want to ask you is, at what point does collective responsibility apply?
There’s no such point. This is the main reason why Russia is still not under full trade embargo and Russian citizens can still get visas. Justice is a fundamental human right, so sanctions always target individuals after some due process and may be repealed in court.
Well, I disagree; the people of a nation contributing to and supporting genocide are responsible in part.
> This is the main reason why Russia is still not under full trade embargo and Russian citizens can still get visas.
I don't think those are the main reasons:
- Embargo would have a global economic impact and would have to be militarily enforced; Also, it wouldn't be enforced everywhere as Russia has borders with countries that aren't sanctioning them.
- As far as I know, Russian citizens can't get Visas everywhere; several European countries have banned all sorts of visas for Russian citizens.
In fact, there's a case to be made that Russians are being collectively held accountable, for example:
- Sanctions;
- Seizing of Russian State assets (they don't belong to Putin or the regime, these assets actually belong to Russians);
>Well, I disagree; the people of a nation contributing to and supporting genocide are responsible in part.
Why exactly do you think human right for justice doesn’t apply here? Do you include in this group everyone, even those who were not able to or actively tried to stop it? What is their responsibility exactly? If not, how do you make the distinction?
Then what country are you talking about? Russia is not committing genocide in Ukraine, so it must be Israel and Gaza? But even in that case, with dramatically higher number of civilian casualties and people having more agency in state matters how exactly do you want to hold every Israeli citizen responsible?
>In fact, there's a case to be made that Russians are being collectively held accountable, for example:
- Sanctions;
I don’t understand this part. “To make a case” means to present arguments. You don’t present arguments for sanctions with saying “sanctions”.
> Why exactly do you think human right for justice doesn’t apply here? Do you include in this group everyone, even those who were not able to or actively tried to stop it? What is their responsibility exactly? If not, how do you make the distinction?
Unfortunately, there's no way to separate accomplices from those who don't support it, but what do you expect to be done? Pretend that nothing is happening and that there's no support at all for the war and only one man, Putin, is to blame?
> Then what country are you talking about? Russia is not committing genocide in Ukraine
Well by the definition of genocide and the actions Russia is taking, it is genocide:
- Denial of Ukraine's existence as a sovereign country and as a people (a very clear admission of genocide by Putin in his speech denying the existence of Ukraine - he just happened to fail to achieve it in full).
- The destruction and stealing of cultural artifacts;
- Forcibly transferring and filtering children of Ukraine to Russia;
- Destruction of maternity hospitals, medical facilities, power grid, all with the goal to bring suffering and inflict on Ukrainians conditions of life;
These are elements of the crime of genocide[0]. You might not like that reality, but that's what's happening. It's not about the number of civilian casualties - the Nazi Germany was committing genocide before the Final Solution. I'm not even addressing war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Just speaking of Genocide.
What baffles me is that it's like you don't grasp the scale of what Russia is doing in Ukraine, where 700.000+ children were kidnapped by Russians, there are more than 10.000.000 refugees, and God only knows how many were filtered in Russia.
> I don’t understand this part. “To make a case” means to present arguments. You don’t present arguments for sanctions with saying “sanctions”.
The point I was making is that Sanctions are already an example of collective responsibility. I wasn't making a case for Sanctions, that's self evident by many laws, such as International Law, UN Charter, etc.
>Unfortunately, there's no way to separate accomplices from those who don't support it, but what do you expect to be done?
First of all, there is a way. See EU sanctions. They are targeted because there was an effort put in identifying the accomplices and finding the appropriate way to sanction them precisely. Second, by even contemplating the idea of punishing the innocent by applying the principle of collective responsibility you put yourself on the same level as Russian supporters of war. They do exactly the same to justify the war.
> Denial of Ukraine's existence as a sovereign country and as a people.
This is factually not correct. Russia recognizes Ukrainian ethnicity and Ukrainian language (see e.g. the annexation paperwork) and currently accepts existence of Ukraine as a sovereign non-aligned state. That’s literally their proposal for peace.
> The destruction and stealing of cultural artifacts;
Probably war crime, but not genocide. Ukraine wasn’t particularly careful about cultural artifacts in Russia too.
> Forcibly transferring and filtering children of Ukraine to Russia;
That’s complicated. They did move Ukrainian children from the war zone into Russia. It doesn’t constitute genocide obviously (they received proper care), but may constitute crime in some cases.
> Destruction of maternity hospitals, medical facilities, power grid
War crime. Not genocide.
>These are elements of the crime of genocide[0].
You missed the most important part. The definition actually starts with intent: following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
Russia does not have an intent to destroy Ukrainians as a nation or ethnicity. Without intent every war would be a genocide. E.g. Americans did bomb a hospital in Afghanistan and did kill civilians.
I am aware of the scale of what’s going on there. More than you think.
>700.000+ children were kidnapped by Russians
This number is off by orders of magnitude.
>The point I was making is that Sanctions are already an example of collective responsibility.
Not exactly. They target state and certain actors. Yes, that may make life of ordinary people less comfortable, but this is not the same as when they are applied to a specific person or entity without due process.
> They are targeted because there was an effort put in identifying the accomplices and finding the appropriate way to sanction them precisely.
I'm not talking about sanctioning individuals, I'm talking about sanctioning Russia - visa bans, economic sanctions, seizing assets of the Russian state. That affects people, not a select group of individuals. There were additional sanctions for particular individuals, as you stated.
> This is factually not correct. Russia recognizes Ukrainian ethnicity and Ukrainian language
I can't believe I'm still arguing this in 2025, but here we are, from the dictator himself:
> Vladimir Putin reportedly claimed that “Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? A part of its territory is [in] Eastern Europe, but a[nother] part, a considerable one, was a gift from us!” In his March 18, 2014 speech marking the annexation of Crimea, Putin declared that Russians and Ukrainians “are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus’ is our common source and we cannot live without each other.”[0]
> That’s complicated. They did move Ukrainian children from the war zone into Russia.
It's not complicated at all, they kidnapped children from Ukraine, their state. They could have allowed for humanitarian corridors, they could have requested the UN, or other organizations to take the children back to their parents and guardian, they could have ALREADY RETURNED THE CHILDREN - SINCE 2022.
I'm sorry, but it's absurd that you're trying to wash one of the most despicable crimes of genocide.
> War crime. Not genocide.
According to the definition:
> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;[1]
Russia didn't destroy and brag about destroying Ukraine's power grid in the winter to bring them good health. You don't destroy medical facilities, including children's hospitals and maternity wards to help them thrive.
> You missed the most important part. The definition actually starts with intent: following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
No, it's YOU WHO MISSED THE IMPORTANT part by disregarding Putin's speech with the intent to wipe out Ukraine:
" In a televised address to the nation, Putin explicitly denied that Ukraine had ever had “real statehood,” and said the country was an integral part of Russia’s “own history, culture, spiritual space.”"[2]
There's the intent, Putin own admission of genocide is more than enough, the problem is that it was when he thought Russia could take Kyiv in a few days.
>I can't believe I'm still arguing this in 2025, but here we are, from the dictator himself
Politicians often say a lot of provocative things in interviews. What matters is what they actually do and whether they do it consistently. You pick one quote from an the interview and think it is more important than all the legislative framework and all the peace proposals that were written on paper. I disagree and will not continue, since you are apparently arguing based on beliefs not based on knowledge of the facts.
>It's not complicated at all, they kidnapped children from Ukraine, their state.
As I said, your number of 700k children is wrong by order of magnitude. That number comes from a Russian source, Ukraine has a database of 20k confirmed cases (could be higher by now). Russia annexed Ukrainian territories and offered citizenship to inhabitants. Russia also hosted a number of pro-Russian Ukrainian refugees, some of them children who left the war zone with their parents and preferred to stay in Russia (yes, those people do exist and there's a lot of them). I do not deny abductions, I just say that that number includes very different cases and taking them into account will paint very different picture from "genocide".
>There's the intent, Putin own admission of genocide is more than enough
You are making up things. He did not admit genocide. I did watch that televised address, you just make conclusions from news reports.
> Politicians often say a lot of provocative things in interviews.
Well, it was in the national address when the second invasion kicked off in 2022. So we have the denial of the Ukrainian state and people, while launching an invasion, trying to capture the capital to topple and kill the government - how aren't these actions following the words?
What is more important are the actions - 3 years of bringing death and misery to Ukrainians, all while preaching they're either Russians or they're nothing. There was no peace proposal from Russia that was ever taken seriously by Russia itself.
These are facts.
> As I said, your number of 700k children is wrong by order of magnitude.
The number is between 25.000 and 700.000 - but what's absurd is that you're arguing about thousands of Children. Doesn't matter if it's 100, 1000 or 10.000, it's the genocidal intent behind it to transfer and filter Children from one country to another.
Russia threatened Ukrainians to accept passports or to be ejected from their homes, it's yet another instance of genocide/crimes against humanity[0]
Why were these people, children, women, and the elderly displaced across Russia and not given a safe passage back to their homeland? It's just like when Russia allied with the Nazis to help with the genocide of Poland, by removing people from their land and displacing them far away.
> Russia also hosted a number of pro-Russian Ukrainian refugees
Who are you to say if refugees that have no way to go but to the land of the aggressor are pro-Russian Ukrainians?! What kind of fcked up mentality is that?
You keep trying to wash genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity by arguing about numbers, and hypothetical political, and by trying to change the definitions of the UN - of which Russia is part of. In reality, what defines these horrific crimes is their actions and intent.
> He did not admit genocide. I did watch that televised address,
Again, they are not being punished in a court of law. Being incorporated in Cyprus, they (sadly) enjoy all the rights and privileges of being a Western company.
I, as an individual, can refuse to do business with any company I please, on the basis of my beliefs and moral convictions (and on the basis of the likelihood of them being complicit in something I oppose to).
If you prefer one brand of ice cream over the other, is this a collective punishment of the other company (looking at you, Ben & Jerry)?
Sure thing you and everyone can. This is why I call it “cancel culture”, not violation of human rights. It describes boycott on ideological grounds and without dialogue and consideration of alternative possibilities and nuances quite well.
OK, and you would be right to boycott US economy and refuse to cooperate with the US companies if this is your conviction. But I guess you are not doing this, since you are commenting on Hacker News, run by Y Combinator, a US company?
>Russia is highly centralized, so whoever operates in Russia has to not only abide by its laws, but actively collaborate with the regime.
You are saying this based on what? Do you have any relationship to Russia, have you visited it after the war started or you just read the newspapers?
Yes, there are some businesses receiving the direct calls from the government and I'm aware of several examples where they just tell "f. off" to a very senior official. Among the rest the level of cooperation or resistance varies from unstoppable patriotic propaganda and fundraising to CEO tipping employees about military recruiters during the mobilization campaign and relocating staff abroad. Russia is certainly not as centralized as you might think.
There is a tiny differenence between donating equipment to countries being invaded or under constant missile attacks (US) and actively invading a country with the stated official goal of exterminating local population (Russia)
Coz colonialism never went away - Iraq, Afghanistan, the CIA overthrow of multiple elected governments, the French yoke over Africa, the Hague invasion act, etc.
As OP points out you can boycott Hacker News too if you want to take a principled stance on any group tangenially linked to colonialism.
To be fair, one can take a principled stance based on the nexus to the bad thing and the practical effects. It’s pretty undeniable that Russian invasion of Ukraine and the context around it makes it the worst active example of colonialism.
Not even close. The Israeli genocide is the worst active example of modern colonial behavior. It mirrors very closely the Nazi genocide both in intent (i.e. ethnic cleansing of the untermensch) and actions (trying to dump the untermensch in africa first and then graduating to genocide).
> Not sure why there are so many salty comments. Russian invasion of Ukraine represents a regression to colonialism.
Reads to me like the people have no problem with the idea of boycotting countries or products one doesn't align with as much as OP's apparent hypocrisy and selective application of his reasons.
But I say "apparent" because he doesn't flat out condemn invasions. He says he had no problem with the smaller scale invasion going back to 2014, or the many other invasions around the world, they were fine. Only the "full-fledged invasion of Ukraine" in 2022 crossed the boycott threshold for him.
This could leave a bad taste at best for some fellow HNers.
Maybe I did, maybe he made absolutely no mention of "enforcing censorship". Without reading his comment we'll never know. Let's do it together.
> This is the biggest Russian IT resource that contributes to the Russian economy and thus to the war effort.
> I unpublished everything there and asked to delete my account in Feb, 2022, just after the full-fledged invasion of Ukraine started
Habr contributes money to Russia and their war effort. OP (@sam_lowry_) was fine with this and implicitly Russia's lower scale invasion until 2022 when the full-fledged invasion of Ukraine started.
Moreover, habr is a great example why you should not let your site be 'out of politics' (which basically means making a silent deal with fsb to let their ambassadors roam free in the comment section for the luxury of not being blocked). At a certain point in time the site pivoted from being somewhat anti-censorship to a cesspot full of turbonormies, all because of the owners desire to stay highly monetized. There is nothing they would not force you to accept if you are only interested in views and money, but you will get neither in the end.
I don't believe the regime in Russia (and potentially many other places) will allow your site to be "out of politics" in the classic western-democratic sense. If I understand correct, it either exists (and in unison with the regime) or it just ... doesn't exist. There might be an option if it's really small, then the FSB simply isn't interested. If it becomes big enough, you don't get the option.
> My assumptions were confirmed — people were actively looking for an alternative to the built-in Wiki, and they searched for it directly in the Teams marketplace. They found my app using the keyword “wiki.” It was an awesome free acquisition channel.
417 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 288 ms ] threadI miss the days when HN was more stories like this of people using their expertise to make money - whether it was code, book launches, writing courses etc. Is that harder to do these days, or has the HN news appetite shifted?
The Trump stuff seems to get flagged very much, and the AI stuff, very litle.
It's heady times, anyway, that's for sure.
https://news.ycombinator.com/active
to see flagged stuff too is great. Not sure if you see everything, but I definitely am more interested in a less curated frontpage. I don't find ignoring headlines I'm not interested in to be such a major affront to my sensibilities.
Speaking personally, I flag the political posts and not the AI posts because the political posts always turn into flame wars. AI posts do not, so I leave them be (even though I don't personally like them).
No judgment, just curious. I presume you've reflected on the idea that one person's flame war is another person's gentle exchange of opinion.
I can see what you're saying though, and I have seen discussions where I've thought "oook, don't really understand what these people think they're achieving", but I wouldn't say I've seen anything horrendous. I mean, individual horrific comments get quickly flagged to death. Why bother flagging the whole topic? Why not simply not investigate those threads?
There was a great post by someone who did some analysis on HN content, just yesterday. Can't remember keywords to find it though.
Or. If you like the idea of having no boss, no standup meetings, no Jira, no commutes, no open office plan, etc.
> All of this — without investors, [without] a 20-person team, or [without] a “Series A” round.
Later on, the author says:
> Currently, the team behind Perfect Wiki is just two people.
I earn perhaps 20% what I used to. We just quit our lease and sold all our stuff so we can live in a cheap country for a while. I’ve never been poorer. I’m 48.
It’s the best decision I ever made. I pity you fools at your FAANG jobs. Because I know how unhappy you are.
I think you might be projecting to try not to feel bad for your life choices. A telltale sign is the way you try to claim every single engineer employed by half a dozen companies is unhappy. This is obviously unrealistic. I personally know quite a few of them and they are having the time of their life. Keep in mind that you hear far more reports from those who quit/were fired than from those who are happily chugging along in their role.
Is it though?
The FANG engineers I know have been leveraging internal transfers to relocate abroad to places like Madrid, Milan, Amsterdam, etc. Not to mention business trips abroad for all kind of things like hiring events.
> Try asking the younger generation which is the better job.
This is not a generational thing. This is about objectively comparing jobs. Accusing each and every single FANG engineer of being miserable whereas a random low-paying role is the envy of the world screams the fox and the grapes.
Internet psychoanalysis based on "telltale signs" is just seeing what you want to see especially if you're responding to a perceived personal slight. The people telling you they're having the time of their life also might be projecting to try not to feel bad for their life choices.
I didn't read OP's comment as "every FAANG employee is miserable". That's uncharitable but easier to fight than the more realistic one that those people might be in a "golden cage". The "wolf and the dog" fable above is impressively accurate.
Not really. I've worked at a FANG for quite a few years and I can tell you from my own personal experience that in many ways it was the best job I ever had. The misery imagined by OP has no bearing in reality, and screams projection. I see it a lot, sadly. People are desperate to get in and when they don't then they resort to shit-talking things to try to make themselves feel better.
In contrast I know plenty of people who quit jobs and are now working way harder to earn less at the expense of those around them, resulting in broken homes, divorces, and all around miserable lives, all pinned on the hope they will get their big break and it will all be worth it. They are very pathetic but can’t see it because they are so wrapped up in some foolish idea that isn’t going anywhere.
And traveling the world is a bit overrated. It’s cool to change scenery, but at the end of the day, you’re just doing the same work you always do, just in a different country. You’re just running away from the fact you have nothing worth settling down a bit for, no where to truly call home and invest in a local community, just a drifter chasing their next hit of stimulus. Eventually, you run out of truly novel places to go. You’re not giving back to a community and making your mark, you’re just leeching off the lifestyles built by people who chose to settle in one place. If everyone was a traveler, there wouldn’t be anything worth traveling to.
Do office workers do anything to help other countries develop? Or does all their effort go towards making their rich friends richer?
And $250k is the current point on the graph - it could be $1m this time next year.
He chances on a Mastiff as powerful as handsome Fat, sleek, who had strayed by chance.
To attack him, quarter him Lord Wolf would gladly do;
But he would have to join battle,
And the Mastiff was of such stature As to defend himself with ease.
So the Wolf approaches him humbly, Enters into conversation, compliments him On his girth, which he admires.
"You fine sir could be as fat as me" Replied the Dog.
"Leave the woods, you would do well: Your like are miserable there,
Dunces, hairshirts and poor devils, Their estate is to die of hunger.
Every bite of food is hard won By dint of fang and claw. For what?
Follow me: you would have a fate much better." The Wolf replied, "What must I do?"
"Almost nothing," replied the Dog, "Chase beggars And people carrying sticks;
To flatter those at home, to please one's Master: In exchange your salary would be
A great many scraps of all kinds: Bones of chickens, bones of pigeons,
Without mentioning many caresses." The Wolf already imagines a happiness
Which makes him teary from fondness. Walking along, he saw the bald neck of the Dog.
"What is it there?" he said. - Nothing. - What? Nothing? - Nothing much.
But still? - The collar by which I am tethered Is perhaps the cause of what you see.
"Tethered?" said the Wolf: So you do not run Wherever you want? - Not always; but what matters it?
It matters so much that all your meals I would not want in any wise or manner,
And would not desire even a treasure at such price." This said, master Wolf runs off, and he runneth still.
— Jean de La Fontain, 1668 ( translated by Tad Boniecki)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
AI looks to many as a wall buster, at least for the time being, so even if breakout success is unlikely you can't blame people for at least trying to escape the underground caverns where the "widely successful" ceiling is capped at perhaps reaching a FAANG manager level of compensation.
Hmm. I see a lot of people trying to build products on top of models trained by other people, which seems very vulnerable.
My guess is this will always be a moving target. The consumer will choose models based on their value proposition.
We all have to start our sandcastle somewhere.
Somehow, I doubt this statement is true, given the rest of your post, which was in no way adding to the conversation, is exactly the sort of propaganda you claim to try and get away from.
>We have to educate and inform.
Which you did not do in any stretch of the words - all you did was add noise.
Nothing of the sort is occurring here.
In the part of the HN guidelines where it says:
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
A big part of the reason for that is that habitually doing things like that tends to blind one to reality.
> semantic arguments about why it’s ok for ICE to bust down random doors looking for brown people to deport to the death camps
If you feel you have, I humbly suggest you go back and re-evaluate whatever it was that you read. Keep in mind that in order to qualify as such, the other party would have to agree with you that ICE's actions could be fairly described as such, in every aspect.
If the distinction doesn't make sense to you, it would be better to take a break from all political discussion on the Internet. This kind of outside view is essential to actual productive discussion.
Yes, it is. It very much is, and until you understand the simple ideas I explain below, I don't consider you qualified to discuss political matters in a space like HN.
Since my previous comments weren't enough of a hint (I didn't really expect them to be, because I've dealt with people using rhetoric like yours before), I'll go ahead and give a detailed explanation.
Again, here's the part I quoted from your original comment:
> semantic arguments about why it’s ok for ICE to bust down random doors looking for brown people to deport to the death camps
You said they bust down "random" doors. That is not the same thing as saying that they don't have a warrant. It's saying that they target essentially whoever they feel like, or that they go through neighbourhoods and randomly choose places to enter without any a priori reason to expect a legitimate deportation candidate to be there.
You said that they are "looking for brown people". That is to say, you use common rhetorical flair to imply that this is not only racially motivated, but motivated specifically by the racism of ICE themselves. Not only that, you suppose the sort of folk racism that puts Mexicans and Central Americans in the same category as Middle Easterners and South and South-East Asians. You do this without evidence, and against simple real-world observations that would tend to refute it.
You said that they do this "to deport [them] to the death camps". To support this claim, it's not sufficient to show that they go "to a concentration camp in a foreign country that no one has ever left alive"[0]. To support "who are deported to death camps", you would have to show that ICE directly and knowingly causes them to go to such camps. But to support "to deport them to the death camps", you would additionally have to show that this is their specific intent - i.e. that the ICE agents expressly believe that their targets should die, and that they have the goal of ensuring their deaths abroad - rather than the actually stated goal of, you know, just having them off American soil.
> Just because people choose to not educate themselves doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
1. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) and make sure you understand how it applies to your political engagement here.
2. Please contemplate how many things might exist in the world about which you know absolutely nothing, and then re-consider whether the phrase "choose not to educate themselves" is at all coherent.
> And as a matter of fact, I’ve heard plenty of people arguing that all of these things are good and that ICE should do them.
I absolutely believe that you've seen people argue that, for example, ICE can be excused for not having had a warrant, identifying themselves etc. if they successfully located and extradited someone not lawfully entitled to be within the USA. I also absolutely believe you've seen people argue that whatever happens after that point is not ICE's concern.
But I don't believe you've seen people make the claims you think they have.[1] I think you've simply failed to understand the massive differences between what they're actually saying and what you think they're saying. I furthermore think this is a result of your personal attitude towards political topics, and that you need to fix this before you can have a productive discussion on HN.
[0]: Although you do have to evidence that and not just assert it. And I really do think this would be an extraordinary claim, because even some disproven, sensationalized claims I saw people make during Trump's first term involved "concentration camps" being within the US and not at all fatal, merely inhumane....
The parent comment was more about submissions than comments, and it is in a sub thread that is already a tangent from the main topic: a wiki app on the teams store that was successful.
I feel the same way as parent, that the idea of keeping politics off HN made more sense when the US wasn't going through a "bloodless coup" to destroy it from within.
Is this comment a primer on ranked choice voting or ascendant fascism? No. Do I welcome those posts more now than before? Yes.
TLDR: Technology is intrinsically political.
I'm grateful that HN informed me about right-to-repair, EFF, privacy, cybersecurity, and so forth.
I was so upset I when the Clinton Admin promoted the Clipper chip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip I can't believe we're still arguing about the issue (right to use encryption) today. That was probably the first time I realized that politics had real impact on my world.
Coincidentally, Neil Postman's book Technopoly was my gateway drug into criticism (Ted Nelson's Computer Lib, McLuhan, Chomsky, Donald Norman, etc, etc). Transmuted me from a naive optimistic technophile into a skeptic.
Then the (now evergreen) electronic voting and tabulation debacle radicalized me. I just couldn't believe that otherwise intelligent people supported that crap.
Then I tried (and failed) to protect personal privacy (electronic medical records, secret ballots).
It makes me crazy when people, like geeks and policy makers and bosses, who I think should know better, advocate for stuff that can't be true. I've tried to explain that perpetual motion machines simply aren't possible. Making me sound like the nutter.
(One of our local papers called me a "sweaty paranoid kook" for having the gall to correct their misunderstandings over how voting with postal ballots works. That was fun.)
(Workwise, I got a soft demotion when I/we tried to explain to the boss that the blackbox demographic database they licensed (without our knowledge) simply doesn't work. "How can that be true?! Everyone else is using this database." Ya, sure, believe the sales pukes over your own team. Terrific.)
So. I don't know how to separate technology from politics. It's unfortunate that everything swiftly gets coded as partisan. Whereas I see everything in terms of punching up vs down; our popular culture persists in making everything a team sport.
--
FWIW, Joshua Citarella (Do Not Research, Doomscroll, etc) is probably the most cogent contemporary critic I follow today.
Initially, Citarella just wanted to figure out how to be a working artist. As in "get paid to produce culture". He (and his community) ingested acres of knowledge and have synthesized a largely coherent worldview (criticism of platform economics, neoliberalism). Helping me to gel and articulate my own worldview, forged over the decades of working on the frontlines of technology and policy.
--
Absolutely, I'd rather spend my time programming, solving problems, tinkering, hanging out with my peers, talking shit. Alas, the real world continues to conspire to deprive me of these simple pleasures. Makes me cranky. I choose to fight back.
It was disgusting. It set Australia's technology landscape back by a decade (it didn't just affect me, it affected the entire industry in which I worked, which is a foundational industry to almost all others - what does not depend on communications infrastructure these days?). Somewhat at the behest of Rupert Murdoch, who's not even an Australian citizen anymore, to protect his interests in the dinosaurs of traditional media. The roots of the issue also stem from the privatisation of the owner of most of Australia's communications infrastructure a number of years before that - also a great decision of the same political party. I don't know how / why people can still take them seriously (I do know, but that's actually worse).
Both sides of politics are biased and corrupt to some extent, but only one side has burned me to that degree on something I actually cared about.
Separately, it's only niche political parties that actually seem to care much about the privacy invasion that's rampant on the internet. No major parties seem to have any willpower to take that on.
The ongoing attacks on encryption, including the ridiculous comments from Australian Prime Minister at the time Malcolm Turnbull about the laws of Australia overlooking the laws of mathematics. SMFH.
When technology is woven into our daily lives it cannot be apolitical.
https://preview.redd.it/l0q7wkqc92z11.jpg?width=640&crop=sma...
Among other things it makes the point (paraphrasing poorly) that politics is intrinsically technological. More precisely, he says modern politics and technology are both instances of the same underlying process of "technique". It's heavily informed my way of looking at technology, politics, and their interconnection.
[0]: https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci...
That has been politicians through time. It is you care at this point.
I shifted through life from: Not my problem, to "I know who and what is right", to "We touched bottom", to (currently) the world has always been this way and I have little agency.
Edit: Do what you want with your little agency. And enjoy life what you can. Not mutually exclusive
I'd argue that we're seeing various indicators that suggest we've passed a tipping point. We can look at things like the high national debt vs unprecedented low tax rates on the wealthy, the wealth of the top 1% surpassing that of the bottom 90%, how government agencies and safety nets are being gutted when we have the highest GDP in history, how the wealthy build gated communities instead of relieving even the most basic suffering (like infant mortality), how tech profits get vacuumed up by a handful of people through financial instruments and crypto rather than going towards investment in new businesses, how private equity firms own a 5% stake in most companies and are buying up all housing and real estate along with foreign investment to turn owners into renters, how politicians are so involved with insider trading that we can no longer distinguish campaign contributions from Wall Street bribes and kickbacks.. the rabbit hole goes so deep that we fall forever if we get sucked into it.
Meanwhile how many of us are struggling to win the internet lottery with our 2nd, our 3rd, our 10th startup? When deep down we know the odds of succeeding are perhaps 10% or less, and the system feels rigged to deny us access to any capital at all, especially when we need it most to cover a mortgage payment or health emergency that should have already been covered by our exorbitantly high insurance rates and taxes going into a private healthcare system that's twice as expensive as the rest of the developed world.
In many ways, I consider us to be in a worst-case scenario. It wasn't supposed to turn out like this. We could have had a technotopia like solarpunk with full automation and UBI, instead we're racing towards fascist dictatorship. Where we once had democrats and republicans at least symbolically opposing one another, now we effectively have a single center-right party funded by the same private donors, which uses wedge issues to keep the population divided and conquered.
I'd even say that we got here by banning political content on HN and elsewhere. So we have a generation of young people who never knew an America before everything was privatized. We can imagine what a center-left government would look like, a we society instead of a me society, where most profit flows into a pot shared by all, with equal pay regardless of gender or race, a national surplus as large as our current debt, free college and healthcare paid for by that endowment, nearly free renewable energy, climate change reversing back towards baseline, etc etc, an ivory tower so high it would reach the stars.
But sadly that's all just a dream now, so far away that it's hard to see a way to get there without going through societal pain that as recently as the late 1990s could have been completely avoided.
Ours was supposed to be the quick and easy path. Is it any wonder that we succumbed to the dark side?
I'll speak as someone who is part of the problem. As groucho Marx says, I wouldn't want to be a part of any club that will have me as a member!
HN is a victim of its own popularity. Things just get diluted and more mainstreamy by people like me, who are perhaps hackers in spirit but don't have much to show for it.
I work in IT at an international company everyone knows the name of. I've got a garden and there are meals in my fridge made of meat from pigs I raised. I've got furniture in my house my wife and I made years ago in a different state.
I'll submit random articles, but never a show HN. How could I? Woodgearsca built a woodworking shop out of his woodworking shop. No one cares about the tables I built. I try to speak only when I know I can contribute, but im very unsure i raise the quality here.
I've submitted articles that I thought were really valuable, and never had any success [0] (maybe the first is too business-y, not hacker-ish, but I genuinely believe what I wrote there matters and it's worth understanding, at least in the sense it was transformative for me when I did understand it) and then an article on a random weekend project a friend and I did made the top five on the front page [1] and stayed there for ages.
People very much just might care about the tables you make! Especially if you can share something you learned.
[0]: https://daveon.design/what-are-you-optimising-for.html and https://daveon.design/creating-joy-in-the-user-experience.ht...
[1]: https://daveon.design/adventures-making-vegemite.html
If you rose them at home, contrary to a dedicated farm, I want to hear about it!
If you submit a story about raising pigs or building a table on a weekend, it would probably get a lot of interaction. Please think about doing it. I’d love to hear the story!
Do you have a blog or Instagram or something with your work? Non computer projects sometimes get traction here if they are unusual or interesting or are made by a regular or whatever criteria the hivemind uses to choose the upvotes.
I'd like to take a look, in case there is one where my spider sense feels that can farm some karma. (Obliviously, my spider sense can fail!)
Take a look at https://hn.algolia.com/?q=woodworking
Things that previously could be taken for granted now require applied thought and physical capability.
For example, people regularly ask how to find reasonably priced housing in /r/askPortland. The OP usually mentions constant looking at Zillow and other sites / apps.
Very, very few good deals will be found there because the marketplace is too fluid and too accessible. You gotta hustle on the ground in the neighborhood you want to be in to find the best housing compromises.
Used to be you could wing it on craigslist.
From concert tickets to new Nike shoes, you want a good seat / common size? How about a nice family campsite?
Well you better have set up automation. It’s to the point where public swim lessons can’t be got without a bot. Unless, you go to the pool and ask about lessons not scheduled on the internet.
It is an absolute hustle, across the minor daily desires of good things and experiences.
Those products rejected by the most motivated get binned into some consultant optimized vertically integrated reseller.
The services get marketed heavily with dark patterns just to cancel their membership.
It is tough out there.
The popular keywords for some time have been AI, Trump, Russia, Ukraine.
As these are hot topics, the "Hacker" part of HN has taken a noticeable backseat. There are still interesting submissions but they don't reach the front page that often.
For example, there's a huge thread on this very post about the source site because of its supposed origins.
The genre of content is regularly abused by hypesters. There is a forum / podcast dedicated to this kind of success story and it is just massive cheerleading and success bias.
If you go look for it, you’ll find it.
HN readers achieving this success either don’t need or don’t want the attention that might come with this kind of content marketing.
It’s much more interesting to learn about detailed technical solutions engineering and the SOTA.
People will reproduce what you made - to the pixel.
It is really, really frustrating. Founders who have experienced this learn to avoid sharing the stories on HN, etc.
Reason why i am asking this :
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/30/inside-taganro...
(this is not sarcasm, im just taking your nearsighted worldview as a joke.)
If you think im exaggerating than educate yourself on matter more then 2 minutes of googling.
Situation is simple. Question: does russian establishemnt attacks European and USA infrastructure?
Answer: Yes.
If you genuinely asking about delusions of grandeur then your answer to that question is no. So who does have delusions? Pure logic.
Slack addons or plugins used to be a good example before it was acquired by Salesforce.
Which is very limiting considering that the Apple ecosystem, other than for phones, is the smallest one. A lot of software companies don't even target Apple at all because it's not worth it.
So while the platform has less reach the lower competition and higher RPUs make them great. If I were still making games I’d be looking at Steam before iOS, for instance.
Congrats!
Good product, but I'm concerned about relying on something developed essentially by a single person due to the bus factor... If it's open-source, that's fine — we can fork it if needed. But if it's a SaaS product, what happens if something happens to the developer? Will all my data be lost? Then again, one of the tools we used before was discontinued despite being developed by a fairly large team...
Some sort of data and data structure export/external backup would be a good feature though if it doesn’t already exist
"...we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
My duty is to warn ordinary citizens, this is it, you were warned.
answer to your question follows:
because product is Russian, programmers are Russian, so your data will be under influence of Russian government directly or indirectly - his family is in Russia.
so HN bots want to be edgy but failed to comprehend that Russian regime IS directly involved in making life for US citizens difficult, even tho Russian regime had 20 years worth of chances to not do that, not be bad actor, but they did not want that. they want to be bad actor and they act as bad actor. im not saying anything about Colonial Pipeline attack of course that would be silly.
Russian people are not outsiders, they are complicit in Russians regime activities. but it is so hard to explain this to people because even XTwitter is allowing Russian propaganda / soft power activities of Russia unimpeded.
Also a lot of Israeli people have family, ancestors in Russia so they project their feelings for them, towards Russia uncritically.
Russia is not democracy, Russia is not USA. Russia IS Russian people. Russia IS acting as a bad actor so call it as it act as.
> I started reading forums, comments, and online discussions. It turned out the built-in Wiki in Microsoft Teams annoyed users really a lot.
> Many of our clients came to us after trying the Microsoft built-in Wiki. It was clunky, inconvenient, and didn’t do the job well. We focused on simplicity: the essential features only, nothing extra — and everything should function inside Microsoft Teams.
So I know it wasn't a coincidence, and rarely are such software built without understanding the needs first.
I just wanted to point out that in this case, the business relies on Microsoft not doing a proper job. Otherwise they would be at a serious risk of being Sherlocked by the provider.
Plus once they realize how much data is in these wikis, they will want to ingest them for AI (if not already done), so there is an incentive for them to have more users on their solution instead.
Edit: And even if the OP is not relying only on MS for sales, they still depend heavily on them and their App Store. They are not competing with Confluence or other systems, they are competing with Teams itself.
I’ve been down that rabbit-hole and Je-sus what a horrific experience. Never again.
Their SDK is built into 2 view render portions. 1 for in-message rendering using their own markup syntax for structuring views, and another that's just a web browser. So if you want to share components between 1 for messages and another for your pane, you can't.
Ingesting events is not very well defined. Everything gets sent to 2 endpoints you define and it's up to you to determine how to handle it.
Just some of the issues I came across in my short time at the company.
So there’s videos, articles, VSC extensions, all to help you navigate this Byzantine structure. But they’re all just wrong.
Look I’m not a pro dev so YMMV. Kick the tyres for a few days and see if you can get it to do anything. I never could, and the experience was just no fun at all.
At least with web dev, that I’m also no good at, it can be fun. Teams was like pulling my own nails out.
Everything you could imagine being wrong with an enterprise JavaScript package and much more is in that hellish rabbit hole.
The way he did product research to find out what customers really needed, after testing the waters with a translator, was really good.
Definition of make something people want. Classic way business has always been created, by keen observation of the market. Well done!
However, this is one of my frustrations about Teams - it absolutely sucks, and what few integrations it has from Microsoft absolutely sucks. You are already paying too much to MS for it to not be working properly.
God knows how much my company is giving to Microsoft for us to have crappy and expensive (read: time wasting) experiences with Teams, Windows 11 onboarding, Azure DevOps (better than what wr had, at least), Visual Studio 2022, etc.
Now in reality, I think the true cost is hidden by the frustration it causes (some?) users, but it's very hard to quantify that in a dollar amount. Which is why companies stick with Teams.
But you're still paying for it. The costs to build and fund the product still exist, and are still coming out of customer payments. Manipulating their pricing to manipulate their customers doesn't change that.
> Every time I check out competitors' sites — those who also build knowledge base or customer support platforms — I notice something odd. Almost all of them use third-party tools like Intercom or Zendesk to support their own customers. That surprises me. If your product is so great — why don’t you use it yourself? For me, that’s a golden rule: your product should be so good you want to use it yourself. If not, that means something’s wrong.
Is this not just because Intercom and Zendesk have their own ticketing systems tightly integrated to the docs? Integrating the two allows e.g. customer query auto-reply based on RAG with the documentation, or auto-replying with the 3 support articles most likely to solve the problem. I assume Perfect Wiki has no equivalent ticket integration?
It would have been 20 people if investors were brought in. Missed opportunity!
Edit: forgot to mention that it would have had the same revenue and been a failure :)
https://perfectwikiforteams.com/
https://perfectwikiforteams.com/
This is the biggest Russian IT resource that contributes to the Russian economy and thus to the war effort.
By comparison, I unpublished everything there and asked to delete my account in Feb, 2022, just after the full-fledged invasion of Ukraine started.
Actually, I wonder if I should start a consulting business to help others clear the skies from US clouds.
Anyone?
/s
- This never happened
- They deserved it
- They did it themselves
- What about Iraq?
Similar things could be said about the US, excluding 90% of websites.
Habr Blockchain Publishing Ltd. Diagorou 4 Kermia Building, 6th floor flat/office 601 1097 Nicosia Cyprus
You as a Western customer currently have no way to pay to a Russian legal entity, meaning that VAT and corporate income taxes from your payments are paid in EU and probably supporting Ukraine. I highly doubt that owners repatriate the profits to Russia or they cover operational costs in Russia from foreign income. It is also possible that part of that income goes into salaries of the staff which emigrated after 24.02.2022 and works for Habr remotely, as it happened with many Russian IT companies.
So question is, do you have any specific evidence that your money would fund the war or it is just application of collective responsibility?
Source: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/11/14/d...
Is there any specific evidence that Habr supports the war? This is not a rhetoric question, I expect the answer and I'm fine if the answer is yes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment
Just like with BDS in case of Israel, this principle is incompatible with Western values. If you apply collective punishment to Russia, how are you different from them?
Here, the point that's raised is: isn't there any collective responsibility for a group of people that support and re-elect a political leader with 87% of votes, who was, and promised to continue engaging in a war of genocide?
Notice that I'm being cynical here, referencing the 87% vote count. While it might be a theatrical display, the regime likes to preach about the legitimacy of Democracy (especially how Ukraine is conducting its democracy), and Russians accepted these results - so even if it's not actually 87%, it's still high.
Also, let's not forget that a lot of the invading force is composed of individuals with entrepreneurial ambitions; they're contractors, not conscripts, meaning people who sign up to get well paid to go to Ukraine and kill as many Ukrainians as possible, just because they're Ukrainians. The latest estimates of +950.000 Russian casualties point that it's not just a few people willing to do this, but a lot.
So the question that I want to ask you is, at what point does collective responsibility apply?
Two points to clarify:
- This is an honest question, because I don't know the answer to it, but I just don't think that "there should never be collective responsibility" is a good answer.
- Collective responsibility =/= perpetual collective responsibility =/= collective punishment;
There’s no such point. This is the main reason why Russia is still not under full trade embargo and Russian citizens can still get visas. Justice is a fundamental human right, so sanctions always target individuals after some due process and may be repealed in court.
Well, I disagree; the people of a nation contributing to and supporting genocide are responsible in part.
> This is the main reason why Russia is still not under full trade embargo and Russian citizens can still get visas.
I don't think those are the main reasons:
- Embargo would have a global economic impact and would have to be militarily enforced; Also, it wouldn't be enforced everywhere as Russia has borders with countries that aren't sanctioning them.
- As far as I know, Russian citizens can't get Visas everywhere; several European countries have banned all sorts of visas for Russian citizens.
In fact, there's a case to be made that Russians are being collectively held accountable, for example:
- Sanctions;
- Seizing of Russian State assets (they don't belong to Putin or the regime, these assets actually belong to Russians);
- Visa bans;
Why exactly do you think human right for justice doesn’t apply here? Do you include in this group everyone, even those who were not able to or actively tried to stop it? What is their responsibility exactly? If not, how do you make the distinction?
Then what country are you talking about? Russia is not committing genocide in Ukraine, so it must be Israel and Gaza? But even in that case, with dramatically higher number of civilian casualties and people having more agency in state matters how exactly do you want to hold every Israeli citizen responsible?
>In fact, there's a case to be made that Russians are being collectively held accountable, for example: - Sanctions;
I don’t understand this part. “To make a case” means to present arguments. You don’t present arguments for sanctions with saying “sanctions”.
Unfortunately, there's no way to separate accomplices from those who don't support it, but what do you expect to be done? Pretend that nothing is happening and that there's no support at all for the war and only one man, Putin, is to blame?
> Then what country are you talking about? Russia is not committing genocide in Ukraine
Well by the definition of genocide and the actions Russia is taking, it is genocide:
- Denial of Ukraine's existence as a sovereign country and as a people (a very clear admission of genocide by Putin in his speech denying the existence of Ukraine - he just happened to fail to achieve it in full).
- The destruction and stealing of cultural artifacts;
- Forcibly transferring and filtering children of Ukraine to Russia;
- Destruction of maternity hospitals, medical facilities, power grid, all with the goal to bring suffering and inflict on Ukrainians conditions of life;
These are elements of the crime of genocide[0]. You might not like that reality, but that's what's happening. It's not about the number of civilian casualties - the Nazi Germany was committing genocide before the Final Solution. I'm not even addressing war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Just speaking of Genocide.
What baffles me is that it's like you don't grasp the scale of what Russia is doing in Ukraine, where 700.000+ children were kidnapped by Russians, there are more than 10.000.000 refugees, and God only knows how many were filtered in Russia.
> I don’t understand this part. “To make a case” means to present arguments. You don’t present arguments for sanctions with saying “sanctions”.
The point I was making is that Sanctions are already an example of collective responsibility. I wasn't making a case for Sanctions, that's self evident by many laws, such as International Law, UN Charter, etc.
[0]https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
First of all, there is a way. See EU sanctions. They are targeted because there was an effort put in identifying the accomplices and finding the appropriate way to sanction them precisely. Second, by even contemplating the idea of punishing the innocent by applying the principle of collective responsibility you put yourself on the same level as Russian supporters of war. They do exactly the same to justify the war.
> Denial of Ukraine's existence as a sovereign country and as a people.
This is factually not correct. Russia recognizes Ukrainian ethnicity and Ukrainian language (see e.g. the annexation paperwork) and currently accepts existence of Ukraine as a sovereign non-aligned state. That’s literally their proposal for peace.
> The destruction and stealing of cultural artifacts;
Probably war crime, but not genocide. Ukraine wasn’t particularly careful about cultural artifacts in Russia too.
> Forcibly transferring and filtering children of Ukraine to Russia;
That’s complicated. They did move Ukrainian children from the war zone into Russia. It doesn’t constitute genocide obviously (they received proper care), but may constitute crime in some cases.
> Destruction of maternity hospitals, medical facilities, power grid
War crime. Not genocide.
>These are elements of the crime of genocide[0].
You missed the most important part. The definition actually starts with intent: following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
Russia does not have an intent to destroy Ukrainians as a nation or ethnicity. Without intent every war would be a genocide. E.g. Americans did bomb a hospital in Afghanistan and did kill civilians.
I am aware of the scale of what’s going on there. More than you think.
>700.000+ children were kidnapped by Russians
This number is off by orders of magnitude.
>The point I was making is that Sanctions are already an example of collective responsibility.
Not exactly. They target state and certain actors. Yes, that may make life of ordinary people less comfortable, but this is not the same as when they are applied to a specific person or entity without due process.
I'm not talking about sanctioning individuals, I'm talking about sanctioning Russia - visa bans, economic sanctions, seizing assets of the Russian state. That affects people, not a select group of individuals. There were additional sanctions for particular individuals, as you stated.
> This is factually not correct. Russia recognizes Ukrainian ethnicity and Ukrainian language
I can't believe I'm still arguing this in 2025, but here we are, from the dictator himself:
> Vladimir Putin reportedly claimed that “Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? A part of its territory is [in] Eastern Europe, but a[nother] part, a considerable one, was a gift from us!” In his March 18, 2014 speech marking the annexation of Crimea, Putin declared that Russians and Ukrainians “are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus’ is our common source and we cannot live without each other.”[0]
> That’s complicated. They did move Ukrainian children from the war zone into Russia.
It's not complicated at all, they kidnapped children from Ukraine, their state. They could have allowed for humanitarian corridors, they could have requested the UN, or other organizations to take the children back to their parents and guardian, they could have ALREADY RETURNED THE CHILDREN - SINCE 2022.
I'm sorry, but it's absurd that you're trying to wash one of the most despicable crimes of genocide.
> War crime. Not genocide.
According to the definition: > Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;[1]
Russia didn't destroy and brag about destroying Ukraine's power grid in the winter to bring them good health. You don't destroy medical facilities, including children's hospitals and maternity wards to help them thrive.
> You missed the most important part. The definition actually starts with intent: following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
No, it's YOU WHO MISSED THE IMPORTANT part by disregarding Putin's speech with the intent to wipe out Ukraine:
" In a televised address to the nation, Putin explicitly denied that Ukraine had ever had “real statehood,” and said the country was an integral part of Russia’s “own history, culture, spiritual space.”"[2]
There's the intent, Putin own admission of genocide is more than enough, the problem is that it was when he thought Russia could take Kyiv in a few days.
[0] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine...
[1] https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
[2] https://time.com/6150046/ukraine-statehood-russia-history-pu...
Politicians often say a lot of provocative things in interviews. What matters is what they actually do and whether they do it consistently. You pick one quote from an the interview and think it is more important than all the legislative framework and all the peace proposals that were written on paper. I disagree and will not continue, since you are apparently arguing based on beliefs not based on knowledge of the facts.
>It's not complicated at all, they kidnapped children from Ukraine, their state.
As I said, your number of 700k children is wrong by order of magnitude. That number comes from a Russian source, Ukraine has a database of 20k confirmed cases (could be higher by now). Russia annexed Ukrainian territories and offered citizenship to inhabitants. Russia also hosted a number of pro-Russian Ukrainian refugees, some of them children who left the war zone with their parents and preferred to stay in Russia (yes, those people do exist and there's a lot of them). I do not deny abductions, I just say that that number includes very different cases and taking them into account will paint very different picture from "genocide".
>There's the intent, Putin own admission of genocide is more than enough
You are making up things. He did not admit genocide. I did watch that televised address, you just make conclusions from news reports.
Well, it was in the national address when the second invasion kicked off in 2022. So we have the denial of the Ukrainian state and people, while launching an invasion, trying to capture the capital to topple and kill the government - how aren't these actions following the words?
What is more important are the actions - 3 years of bringing death and misery to Ukrainians, all while preaching they're either Russians or they're nothing. There was no peace proposal from Russia that was ever taken seriously by Russia itself.
These are facts.
> As I said, your number of 700k children is wrong by order of magnitude.
The number is between 25.000 and 700.000 - but what's absurd is that you're arguing about thousands of Children. Doesn't matter if it's 100, 1000 or 10.000, it's the genocidal intent behind it to transfer and filter Children from one country to another.
Russia threatened Ukrainians to accept passports or to be ejected from their homes, it's yet another instance of genocide/crimes against humanity[0]
Why were these people, children, women, and the elderly displaced across Russia and not given a safe passage back to their homeland? It's just like when Russia allied with the Nazis to help with the genocide of Poland, by removing people from their land and displacing them far away.
> Russia also hosted a number of pro-Russian Ukrainian refugees
Who are you to say if refugees that have no way to go but to the land of the aggressor are pro-Russian Ukrainians?! What kind of fcked up mentality is that?
You keep trying to wash genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity by arguing about numbers, and hypothetical political, and by trying to change the definitions of the UN - of which Russia is part of. In reality, what defines these horrific crimes is their actions and intent.
> He did not admit genocide. I did watch that televised address,
Well, you need to watch it again.
We're done here.
[0] https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2025/03/26
I, as an individual, can refuse to do business with any company I please, on the basis of my beliefs and moral convictions (and on the basis of the likelihood of them being complicit in something I oppose to).
If you prefer one brand of ice cream over the other, is this a collective punishment of the other company (looking at you, Ben & Jerry)?
US economy contributes to endless wars in Middle East, crippling economies in South American countries. Commenting in HackerNews is bad taste at best.
Russia is highly centralized, so whoever operates in Russia has to not only abide by its laws, but actively collaborate with the regime.
There is still a fair amount of dissent and chaos in US business circles.
But business leaders are shamefully silent in US indeed. I'd hope bg and pg and zuck and besos to take clear positions on tariffs, for instance.
You are saying this based on what? Do you have any relationship to Russia, have you visited it after the war started or you just read the newspapers?
Yes, there are some businesses receiving the direct calls from the government and I'm aware of several examples where they just tell "f. off" to a very senior official. Among the rest the level of cooperation or resistance varies from unstoppable patriotic propaganda and fundraising to CEO tipping employees about military recruiters during the mobilization campaign and relocating staff abroad. Russia is certainly not as centralized as you might think.
Not sure why there are so many salty comments. Russian invasion of Ukraine represents a regression to colonialism.
As OP points out you can boycott Hacker News too if you want to take a principled stance on any group tangenially linked to colonialism.
Reads to me like the people have no problem with the idea of boycotting countries or products one doesn't align with as much as OP's apparent hypocrisy and selective application of his reasons.
But I say "apparent" because he doesn't flat out condemn invasions. He says he had no problem with the smaller scale invasion going back to 2014, or the many other invasions around the world, they were fine. Only the "full-fledged invasion of Ukraine" in 2022 crossed the boycott threshold for him.
This could leave a bad taste at best for some fellow HNers.
> This is the biggest Russian IT resource that contributes to the Russian economy and thus to the war effort.
> I unpublished everything there and asked to delete my account in Feb, 2022, just after the full-fledged invasion of Ukraine started
Habr contributes money to Russia and their war effort. OP (@sam_lowry_) was fine with this and implicitly Russia's lower scale invasion until 2022 when the full-fledged invasion of Ukraine started.
Otherwise half of threads will be about Nazis by Godwin's law [0]
Like this one ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[0] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
This is the money quote for me.