Another programming interview I blew - <AUTHOR> I am an old fart. 47 years old. Thats dead in computer years. First computer at 16. 48k of memory. A closet nerd. closet. I don't look like a computer guy. I know. I know. I have been told so many times. I go back. ms dos.. dbase qbasic. And I know the modern stuff. 20 year track record
I won't bore you. 10 years C# SQl server. Im playing with nodejs and vuejs now...<p>Anyway. I have been to 5 interviews this month
and nobody gave me a fucking job. Programming has humbled me I know you can only know so much. I blew 5 interviews this month. 5. Thats crazy. Every single one of these interviews was somebody asking me some random shit. RANDOM shite and if I didn't answer there random generated shite I didnt get the job.
I should have been a dentist I would have gotten more respect and maybe more love. Any replies. <comment><USER2> Bullshit interviews are part of the system now. The only way to beat it is with interview-er accountability.

In interviews today, the expectation is that the candidate should be perfect, do this, that, don't forget to do this. But the interviewer has no such requirement. The interviewer can reject you because "They had a bad day".....seriously, this is what companies say. Look at some answers here: [https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-possible-reasons-of- being...](https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-possible-reasons-of-being- rejected-even-after-doing-very-well-in-an-onsite-coding-interview)

So the candidate has to be PERFECT but the interviewer can reject because they are just HUMANS? How the hell does this make sense?

Maybe we need yelp for interviewers. A rating system will weed out bad interviewers and bad company policies.

<comment><USER3> I believe this is why Starfighters was being made; because the system is broken. Too bad it didn't work out(not the CTF or stock game; the idea). I wish there was a site where, in my own time, I can do some tasks to prove that I can actually do what I've been doing for the past 15 years. As in, "here I reversed a string and this is proof. now can we please discuss something relevant to the role or am I being hired to reverse strings all day?"

<comment><USER4> But then the interviewer trots out the old adage "but we're not testing your ability to reverse strings. I want to see how you approach solving problems." And yet, a wrong answer is an almost guaranteed no hire. I can't tell if these people believe their own bullshit or if I'm being lied to my face.

<comment><USER5> I don't know many of these interviewers (I myself interview but I would never ask people to do these silly tests) but I spoken to one of them from Boston a while ago at a party and he said he just has this list of questions and they need to be answered correct; he himself would not even be able to _recognise_ if the person was attacking the problem right or wrong but he says 'I want to see how you approach solving problems' as that is what he has been taught. So in my 1 point empirical research I would say you are being lied to.

<comment><USER4> Well, now I know! thanks. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm 47, had plenty of shitty interviews. Forget about them, move on. I changed jobs twice last year because one of the companies went bankrupt. All beyond my control. I specialize in mobile app programming. If the interview strays much beyond that I remind the interviewer of the specific type of job I am looking for. If that does not work then I end the interview. If they did not read my resume then they are wasting my time. For the last shitty interview the interviewer was quizzing me about regex - apparently not being a regex expert means I was not worth moving forward with. A couple days later I had an offer from another company.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've taken a lot of shitty interviews. I have also interviewed many devs.

Testing a candidate in one hour is really hard.

CV's can be very deceiving. What I look for is folks who are good coders and good communicators. I don't care about culture fit. Our team is diverse from 50 year Olds, 19 year Olds, males females, black, white, brown etc.

Having a github profile with interesting projects is a boon. Even better if you've contributed to some meaningful open-source projects. This is great because it gives lots of data. The issues you file, the commits, comments and code give good insights about you. Much more than a one page CV.

I use the same question on every candidate and evaluate them.

I allow my candidates to use google/Bing, chrome console, whatever resources they would usually use in day to day work.

I look for understanding of basic data structures like maps, sets and techniques like recursion. I also give a ton of hints to guide in the right path. I can only help though if the the candidate wants help. Some candidates really don't get the hints even after multiple repeats.

Some candidates just dive into code and then get stuck. They confuse them selves.

The best candidates are the ones who ask lots of clarifications at the start, they break down the problem into little pieces without writing a single line of code. They emulate a computer and trace the steps in an abstract manner. They think like "to solve Z, I need A then do B and C and D." They then slowly write code for the little steps.

I love candidates who can give me a deep dive into a subject they are an expert on. I get to learn a ton on random things. Also gives insight on what makes them tick.

Don't give up. Please keep on trying. Feel free to PM me for any help. I really want you to succeed.

<comment><USER8> _Some candidates just dive into code and then get stuck. They confuse them selves._

 _The best candidates are the ones who ask lots of clarifications at the start, they break down the problem into little pieces without writing a single line of code. They emulate a computer and trace the steps in an abstract manner. They think like "to solve Z, I need A then do B and C and D." They then slowly write code for the little steps._

My thoughts exactly

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Get out and meet people at software meetups, etc. This is and always will be the best way to get a job. If you are finding resistance down the path of interviewing, go down a different path to find a job. Big companies like Google will pretend it is the only way to get in, but that is a lie anyway. Smaller companies are easier. If you find that you are struggling in that venue, ask for help. Developing emotional intelligence is something you can do easier in your older years, and some companies really value that.

</comment><comment><USER10> The proper answer is to sabotage the process.

If you go to an interview and they ask contrived questions, go to their page on Glassdoor and post everything they asked.

Once their filter gets too noisy, they'll have to start interviewing for the actual role they're trying to fill instead of this oral exam bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think you just need a pair of glasses, even if they are not prescription. I'm in the same position as you and I think glasses are what makes the difference. Almost hysterical to the point of tears, I know, but it seems more true the more I experiment.

</comment><comment><USER12> Keep at it -- places that don't have a thoughtful enough interview process to ask you something practical and relevant aren't companies you probably want to work at anyway.

<comment><USER11> You got spunk

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The job market and hiring processes for software engineers are screwed up.

One problem is that it's hard to get good information about which candidates and which companies are the ones you want, since the bad ones also pretend to be good.

Another complication is that recruiters are often not technical, and the hiring managers in startups are not always experienced, so you have to pass through too highly imperfect filters.

I can tell you that, a couple years ago, there was so much demand for Ruby and Python developers that good recruiters wouldn't even take the assignment of looking for them, because they knew it was fruitless.

One way to get around the problem of imperfect information is just to build stuff that resembles what you think people need, with the tools they advertise that they are using, and then to post your code on Github. Or commit to an open-source project. Really, the smart companies have scouts watching those projects and if you show competence, reliability and culture fit (being nice) you'll probably get an offer.

I used to write about this a bit from the point of view of a technical recruiter, which is not popular on HN, but fwiw, it's good for SWEs to understand the gatekeepers.

[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141003230509-13992315-how-t...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141003230509-13992315-how- to-reject-people-and-hire-them-later-a-handbook)

[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140922170916-13992315-if- yo...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140922170916-13992315-if-you-think- the-job-hunt-sucks-try-recruiting)

[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/job-markets-information- probl...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/job-markets-information-problem- chris-nicholson)

</comment><comment><USER14> 44, myself. I tend to interview well, which frankly surprises me, because I'm on the whole not as good at people as I'd like to be. I think, though, the thing that has best served me in that regard is walking into every interview remembering that I'm interviewing the company, as much as it is me.

Are these people I can spend as much of my life with as I would by taking this job? Do I respect them? Does the person I'd be reporting to seem like someone I'd be okay reporting to?

I've no shit been in a place where getting this one, specific job was the only chance I had — less than a month's burn rate in the bank, and with no other prospects — but walking into an interview like that has, in whatever part, landed me an offer every time.

</comment><comment><USER15> _I should have been a dentist I would have gotten more respect and maybe more love_

I have had similar thoughts.

<comment><USER16> I shudder at the thought of being a dentist. Imagine your first day on the job, looking into people's mouths all day... then going home and thinking that this is what you will do every working day for the next 40 years.

Dentists, I heard, have high rates of substance abuse, depression and suicide. These are very talented people (they have to be to gain admission to dentistry), who have to spend their life... doing dentistry.

<comment><USER17> I doubt looking into mouths is a big deal. I don't see how that's any worse or better than being a surgeon. The problem is so much of dentistry is cosmetics which is a horribly shallow thing to be dedicating your life to.

<comment><USER18> What's so shallow about giving back self-confidence to kids and adults who didn't win perfect teeth at the genetic lottery?

<comment><USER19> It's a cultural perception. Japanese girls are happy with snaggle-teeth because in Japanese culture these are cute. Some even want fake crooked teeth.

[https://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/why- japan...](https://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/why-japanese- women-go-for-fake-crooked-teeth)

So don't get too hung up about perfect teeth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm not a software developer. I have passable understanding of what computer science _is_ , and what goes into software (a few semesters of programming at a bad level). The following list is some things I keep in my list of ideal interview parameters/meta-questions. I'm not sure if they are really for me, since I doubt I would ever be interviewing a developer for a job, but who knows, maybe I'll need to find a technical person some time.

1\. I feel strongly that people should be allowed to prepare for interviews by seeing the actual questions. In fact, I think the questions should be public. What might these questions be? I want to immediately know if someone took the time to do some diligence and also to make certain that my own biases didn't cause me to avoid hard questions for candidates I liked.

2\. I don't want to ask something which can be easily googled. Simple answers aren't any good; I need something where it is open ended enough and the answers to the question can be "good enough" where I feel the completeness is sufficient for the role.

3\. I need to be able to practically communicate what the real purpose of the role is. the Job posting will not always be _allowed_ to do that, but through the interview I need to make it clear what work I actually need done. Should I do this via questions (keep this a secret from the interviewer) or tell them the honest truth and risk losing potentially excellent employees. Both employee and employer have high frictional costs in this case.

4\. Interviews are a mostly artificial format - similar things do happen in sales and client-facing scenarios, but usually in a toned down way. In an interview, the risk of performance is entirely on the person interviewing, in a customer-facing scenario, the person is representing the company, but also has the company support behind them. How could you put the interview into a position where the interviewee felt as if the company interviewing them would back them up to help them succeed? (could you do a pair interview where someone already hired for the role helps them work on an interview problem, while someone else interviews them?)

</comment><comment><USER21> My last interview was through a recruiter and I got an email back saying they liked me and we'd hear something the following week then I never heard back from the recruiter. Emailed a week later no response. emailed again another week no response.

I did eventually get a job.

I've decided to work on getting my loan officer license.

<comment><USER3> If we started talking about recruiters, I am pretty sure HN would crash due to the longest threads ever made! I don't know if this is just recruiters for software dev jobs that act this way but they make the whole process a lot more stressful than it needs to be.

Because of all the BS involved in building software, I am considering starting my own food truck. I used to enjoy writing code and solving problems...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> You're not alone. I'm older than you are. Theoretically I'm too old to be employed as a programmer. Yes, I've lost out on a lot of jobs because they asked trivia questions about some language or computer science concept I hadn't thought of in years. I prefer to look at it as their loss. It seems to me that the emphasis on memorization of abstruse detail tends to favor younger people. Us older folks don't remember quite as quickly but we have more experience in solving problems. Therefore, those interviews show a fundamental misunderstanding of the needs of the job. In other words, you might be better off avoiding those places anyway.

All that said, I have been almost continuously employed for a dozen years or so. Periods of unemployment are short, and when I work the pay is high. While I may fail to answer the random BS questions at several interviews in a row, I get far more interviews than people I know in other lines of work, and wind up employed again after far shorter periods of time. Sometimes it's freelance or contract work but even those are paying excellent money for programmers these days.

I guess it's a trade off. You have to endure a lot of frustration to get to the satisfying and successful bits. Don't give up hope! (But do see if there's a side project that can tide you over. Programming skills can support many baskets to put your eggs in)

</comment><comment><USER23> No offense, this is a huge pity party you're throwing yourself.

You said you "blew" five interviews without providing any information or taking any responsibility. Also, you say that you've been doing development for 20 years. Do you think you're entitled to something purely based on your experience, even though it might not be relevant?

Also, five interviews is just a drop in the bucket. What did you expect your interview pass rate to be, over 20%? That seems highly unrealistic.

</comment><comment><USER24> It may be stressful, but I would not sweat it. In my experience, the only way to get better at interviews is to do more interviews. Then the random questions start becoming more common.

I interviewed a guy once who was trying to talk his way into a VP-level position. Except he was talking to me, and I was just a hired hand suited only to make a recommendation for a n additional developer. The guy had a sound mind but the company was not hiring for his role.

At the same time, I mostly don't want to work at the companies that do puzzle interviews, though you may feel differently. A lot of times these center on approaches like recursion algorithms, but I'm a full-stack/backend web developer, and I've written less than 10 recursion functions for production. I now ask these interviewers how often they write recursion algorithms and the answer I usually get the line "oh it's just useful to know the underlying concept," except it isn't. I can write them, but I don't care for them, and the concept isn't particularly mind-blowing, and you'll have to explain it to the rest of your team.

Anyway, hang in there, best wishes

<comment><USER7> As a full stack dev, I write recursive stuff all the time. It's a very effective technique.

I do agree though? A lot of interview questions are trick questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Last week I got the following answer: "We cannot process your CV for security reasons." I sent them a plain text CV_name.txt. "Please send us your CV as PDF."

This was for a security related job. I guess we are just not a good fit.

</comment><comment><USER3> Tough but not unusual. For the record, I'm 33 and I have had a similar experience. I am not sure it has anything to do with your age but ageism is very real and I am trying to prepare for it because 40, assuming I'll make it, is just around the corner.

I did 3 interviews so far this month and even though I didn't get any rejections, I still don't have any offers. Things around here do move slow(Australia) but I am not holding my breath.

2 of those interviews asked me questions about algorithms even though the job had nothing to do with that and I explained that I am not good at those puzzles and that I preferred to discuss my experience.

I don't know your situation but you have to keep trying. Even 20-30 interviews, whatever it takes. Not getting an offer from an interview says nothing about you or your abilities. Every single user on this site can tell you horror stories when they were looking for a job so you're not alone.

<comment><USER5> You could also plan for another life (style) (because approaching 40 for which we started planning early 30s) which is what my wife and myself did. We prepared a few years to make sure (we invested money and time in that) we had remote gigs all over the world set up and then moved to a much cheaper country and to the cheapest part of that country. Not only did we find, after a while, that life is actually nicer, we don't miss anything we had before and we literally need a tiny fraction of the money we needed in the popular city. Obviously you need to be a certain kind of person to do this, but many of my friends now did / are doing it and feeling the same experience. Most of them come from high paying IT jobs which means they have enough money in the bank (especially after selling their house) to provide additions to their pension or even live out their entire life without needing income in a much cheaper place.

Edit; now planning for 50 by removing dependency on doing development gigs

<comment><USER3> The theory is sound but it assumes that I am able to move to any country legally to live there. That requires certain types of passports which I was not born with. It also has more assumptions to what my financial/family situation is. I don't meant this in a negative way of course since you don't know me but what I am saying is that this plan is not always possible.

The idea of keeping expenses down and foregoing frivolous luxuries is what allows me to wait for a better offer inbetween jobs if i needed to. So I strongly agree with that bit.

<comment><USER5> > since you don't know me but what I am saying is that this plan is not always > possible.

Ofcourse, did not mean to imply you should pack up and leave, but it is an alternative scenario for some and they might not have considered it (well). It took us years of planning and checking out locations when still in fulltime employment, so it's not this 'f*ck it, we're off' kind of thing.

Edit: checked your profile/site and I do believe the 'unintended privileged' (you cannot help where you are born or who your parents are) like me cannot really understand how it is not to be able to just travel anywhere, so sorry if I stepped over that too easily. I just try to help as I was in your position 10 years ago work wise, but not in quite in the same region...

<comment><USER3> Oh yes, it's pretty good advice in general. Thank you for that.

Luckily, I am in a better situation than most, having the chance to move to Australia a year ago as part of their immigration system. I say luckily but really it took a lot of effort and planning to apply and then wait for the process and take care of all the details. Its a great country but I still face some issues being a foreigner.

P.S. The mountains in Spain... Sounds great!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I am not as old as you, but old enough to be done with the hiring BS for software engineers. I also get pissed when I get asked a random-ass puzzle someone found on the internet.

I've had interviews where the question / puzzle took the interviewer 30-40 minutes to explain and he needed an answer by 45 minutes.

The whole system is just fucking stupid.

</comment><comment><USER27> I graduated quite a while ago with a CS degree, and am still searching for my first entry level position.

I have been asked the most ridiculous questions in phone screens and on-sites.

"What is your SAT score?"

"Why did you choose your university over a better ranked one?"

"Tell us about how you used connection strings." (is a CS grad really supposed to know this)

"Do you volunteer teaching kids how to code on your off-time?"

"How do you use this HTML API?" (stuff like micro workers)

"How do you find about the latest tech?" (they weren't satisfied with just HN and Reddit)

Some companies gave me comprehensive projects to spend two weeks or more to work on, in a dozen or so technologies I never encountered.

With one company, I spent a week working on their project. They told me that since I had only 90% done, I didn't pass. Two weeks later, they call me back and ask me to complete the last 10%. It sounded like they were asking for free work. I finished it, then they lied about the expected salary. I wanted an X average salary for the area. They cut it down to X/2 with no benefits, a 6 month probationary period, and no perks.

Another company wanted me to solve a challenging, practical problem. I spent a month figuring it out. Then there were two more parts to this prescreen. The next one wasn't too bad. For the last one, they wanted a written report. I wasn't smart enough to solve their impractical problem for the report. Don't forget this was only step one of the interview process.

Sometimes company reject you due to a bad day. I interviewed with Walmart. The recruiter never set up an appointment, then decided to randomly call me in the morning. The person who referred me to the position said there were no hard requirements about knowing a technology. The recruiter on the phone questioned why I had C# projects instead of Java keywords like Spring listed on my resume. She kept yawning throughout the call. She thought I applied to the wrong job, then abruptly ended the call.

Sometimes I would pass interviews, and told I made it to the next round. Months passed, no reply, not even a rejection.

I'm still searching for a job. I'm honestly scared of all these job posts I see that require experience in a dozen different frameworks. It's getting harder every day.

<comment><USER15> _I 'm honestly scared of all these job posts I see that require experience in a dozen different frameworks. It's getting harder every day._

Don't worry about it too much, just focus on improving your interview skill and you'll get it. When I first graduated, it took me a year to figure out the hiring/interview process, failing everywhere. Then once I figured it out, I suddenly had plenty of offers. You'll do the same.

<comment><USER28> It's the crazy companies that are hard to figure out. Don't seem excited working there for 10+ years? Auto-rejection. The last on-site I was able to pass, at a startup, but then they changed it into a contract at the end. Full time promised, etc. Last week came. Oops, nevermind about that full time, and we can't extend the contract.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Keep up the good fight. Hell most would probably have given up by now. Do you have a portfolio or fun projects that you spend time on? Almost everywhere I interview asks for my github account. Also the book "cracking the coding interview" is awesome and only 30 bucks at Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER30> Be direct and tell them that you aren't interested in answering their random internet puzzles. Offer to complete a programming assignment directly related to what you would be working on in the job, on your own time. (Assuming you are willing to do that.)

</comment><comment><USER31> Feel for you. I've been in very similar positions. Just today I had an interview with a very well known company and the interviewer sounded like he couldnt really care. Ive 20+ years pro experience and over that time, if you are a good problem solver, you end up getting a whole bunch of experience in different things. Problem i've found is everyone is looking for specialists that fit into a narrow box. I really don't, and i'd guess most people with any length of experience don't either. Perhaps startups are your best bet?

</comment><comment><USER32> Wow, I hear you, that's hard. Can you share some more thoughts on the interview itself, perhaps we can help you here if you provide more details as to the questions and the response.

</comment><comment><USER33> Work out which company you would actually want to work with (ask questions) and just do do their friggin puzzles if that's what gets you in the door.

</comment><comment><USER34> Hi Irishguy - I believe there was a fellow here that was promoting a job board for very experienced (i.e.: non-teenager) software developers. I remember he had 100s of comments after putting together a simple google doc. I am sure there must be lots of jobs on that board already. In what cities are you looking for a new position?

<comment><USER35> oomph. old geek jobs. now only 2 are specifically for old geeks, the rest are just culled from other job sites.

i've seen some really nice pallet and tarp houses around lately

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Very sorry to hear about your case. As a 35 yr old programmer I hear you. Its hard. Praying for the best

</comment><comment><USER37> My advice is to network, to never give up and to attend more meetups. Its a numbers game. Eventually you will find the right match.

</comment><comment><USER17> There are some pretty good interview practice sites. Read glass door. It's a hoop you have to jump through.

</comment><comment><USER38> If you're looking to vent, then I'll say, "That sucks, dude. Keep in there, it's all a numbers game." Tomorrow will be a better day.

But, I'm going to be bold. I'm going to out on the limb and suggest that: maybe it's not being asked "RANDOM shite," but maybe your attitude. Generally speaking, I've had to do three to five or so interviews to get an offer. Depending on the market and the timing, I've had far, far worse. I once spent four months trying to find something, anything. So, here are a few thoughts for you or anyone else.

People who have 10 years (or claim 10 years) C#/SQL are a dime-a-dozen. You're competing in a market that is dying, the same way Java developers are dying: a smaller and smaller group of employers who are stuck on the tech. Microsoft lost, which is why they are trying so desperately to incorporate Linux/Open Source technologies. You're going to be valuable to company if you're either inexpensive or the best-of-the-best. Your skill set is dated. Get it back into shape. Luckily, our profession is one of the cheapest to retool. Unfortunately, you should have been doing this two years ago. Spend your free time learning, always. Get yourself up to speed with NodeJS/Vue/React, etc. If you don't have experience with Linux, get it.

Companies want one of two things: a reason to hire you or a reason to not hire you. Be involved in that process. Is it a really a random problem? Or, are they trying to gauge how you think and approach problems? How did you respond to it? Were you inquisitive or were you as hostile as this post? When I've been a hiring manager, I always ask questions like, "How many baseballs will fit in a 747?" Good candidates say, "Well, I'll just estimate that a 747 is 100 feet long and 30 feet wide and so.." Great ones will point out that if packed it full, it may be overweight to fly. Bad ones say, "I don't know." The interview is there for you to present what you know and what you're interested in. Your resume should be tailored to present things can talk about. It's all about selling you. If you have a recruiter, talk with him or her. If you're not using a recruiter, get one. Have them get feedback on the interview. Then, take it to heart. Period.

On the flip side, there are companies want conformity. You're either "it" or not. If I don't get an offer, I don't _want_ the job. There is zero point in being in a place that questions your ability to fit in. I've gotten turned down from some pretty cool places, but that's life. I wouldn't have had the career or the friends in my profession that I do had some of those jobs worked out. I even found out later that whole groups of people got laid-off, quit, etc.

The important thing is: getting a job is not a right and it doesn't come from meritocracy. It's people looking for people who solve the problems the company has and doesn't bring more problems to the company. Think about it from their perspective and try to figure out how you, your experience, and your attitude is benefit for them. If you've been in this profession for several decades, you have it in you.

By the way, my first computer was at nine and it had 4k of RAM. I always sell that: "So, I got into computers when I was nine. After punching in two plus two and see it spit back four, I instantly wanted to know how it could possibly know that. I've never stopped learning since." Right then and there I set the tone for the company: You may have problems I don't understand, but I _will_ figure out the answer.

<comment><USER39> > People who have 10 years (or claim 10 years) C#/SQL are a dime-a-dozen. > You're competing in a market that is dying, the same way Java developers are > dying: a smaller and smaller group of employers who are stuck on the tech.

I think your in a bubble. 90%+ of the jobs around here are c#, java and php. Only one local company seems to be doing anything with node (and not something node is suited for), in fact, I haven't seem them advertise for a while, so it's probably zero now.

<comment><USER38> I do not deny certainly that 90% of the job offers are C#, Java and PHP. Recruiters are always trying to get me to look at various offers, and I agree; however, they're pretty much all large, established companies that are desperate to hire people because the word on the street is that their projects have spun out of control, are behind schedule, etc. At least, that's the running M.O. in this city.

I also agree that NodeJS is jumping the shark. But, again, if your at where he/she is, there is where the more up-to-date Microsoft companies are hiring. NodeJS is the new hotness (five years late) in this town.

Personally, I'm already working on exiting Node. Having used it hard core for high-performance APIs, I've found all the sharp edges and failure modes. Node really falls down when you have to get fine-grain control of flow control, such as processing files and large data. Ironically, I'm seeing a resurgence of Ruby.

I've been working on tooling myself back in to Ruby (did Ruby for five years), Elixir, and Docker/Flynn/etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> guest-speaker-4 Their interview process signals their strengths and bullshit. You also signal to them things which have to filtered correctly.

Also, interviewing is partly arbitrary hazing to make incumbents feel valuable.

Five is not very many interviews at all. 30 would be significant. In good interviewing, much more time is wasted to have many more offers.

If you're going for instant respect, wage slavery is the wrong port to chat up. It's always earned over time by demonstrating invaluable performance as useful to the current business "growing pains."

Finally, the usual standards: positive, hygiene (no nasty ear, nose, neck hair), fit, energetic, quick, confident and dressed impeccably. And, all the usual canned answer "brain teasers" which are Glugglable. Perhaps tactfully- suggesting how such arbitrary mental fappenings apply to the job without pointing out how they are often ineffective shortcuts which may make the interviewer feel superior. Oh joys of big ol' corporations and their bloat and waste.

</comment><comment><USER40> show me your Github profile or your learning blog, you need to build a personal brand as a developer... :)

<comment><USER11> I abhor the notion of developing a private "brand" so strongly and resist- fully that it's hard to keep my cool commenting about it. That said, it would be cool to have a service that would take all the code you have and some of the stuff you've made, and make a decent portfolio for you. Like <pour years worth of work into wood chipper> -> out comes a shiny portfolio site

<comment><USER41> Build it! Just a simple matter of programming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > I have been to 5 interviews this month and nobody gave me a fucking job.

1) People don't "give" you jobs, you earn them.

2) Swearing is unprofessional

> SQl

Hmm, ten years of SQL and you can't spell it correctly? Something is fishy there.

> Every single one of these interviews was somebody asking me some random shit

I admit a lot of interviews focus on the wrong stuff. But there is actually a LOT of leeway in interviews, where you can show your understanding of software engineering even in the presence of dumb questions. If those companies were actually dumb about hiring, then you probably didn't want to work for them anyway. Find some quality companies to interview for.</comment>


Microsoft's loyalty to Windows and Office blamed for a 'lost' decade - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/3/3134719/microsoft-windows-office-loyalty-lost-decade

<comment><AUTHOR> Vanity Fair source: [http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/07/microsoft- dow...](http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/07/microsoft-downfall- emails-steve-ballmer)</comment>


Four million parts, 30 countries: How an Airbus A380 comes together (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/airbus-a380-parts-together/index.html <comment><USER2> Not a huge Airbus fan in general real but the A380 was a pleasure to fly.

However Airbus was just wrong on the business side. It was the wrong plane built with old technology at the wrong time.

It's also not clear why Airbus didn't focus more on a freight version. The Boeing 747 is rarely used as a passenger plane anymore but Boeing realized these aircraft would have a second life as freighters hence why the nose section is as such (you can chop off the nose and put a giant door there for cargo). The 747 will continue as a freighter for many years to come.

Sadly it's likely that many of the currently grounded A380s will never take off again.

<comment><USER3> One point to bear in mind is that converted 747s don't have the option of a nose door and there are some disadvantages to converting vs buying a freighter variant [0].

A380s also have a greater volume than a 747 but not a radically higher carrying capacity. A 747-8I (passenger variant) has a cargo capacity of 76t vs 84t for an A380. Numbers from wikipedia, excluding the freighter variant of the 748 as it's not comparing like with like. This means that there could be some cases where transporting bulky low density items would be much superior on a A380 freighter but there's not a clear cut case for it in the market.

[0] [https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/airline-leader/air- ca...](https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/airline-leader/air-cargo- booms-747-freighters-needed-but-conversions-unlikely-427366)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I highly recommend the Airbus factory tour in Toulouse, France: [https://www.toulouse-visit.com/let-s-visit- airbus/blagnac/pc...](https://www.toulouse-visit.com/let-s-visit- airbus/blagnac/pcumid031fs00038)

They definitely don't "reveal all the secrets of the A380" (as if), but it is interesting and the facility is staggeringly large (second largest by volume and sixth by floor area in the world).

<comment><USER5> Damn I was there last summer. I wish I knew about this! But I did at least go to the museum and got to see a Concord up close. That was cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I met an Airbus test pilot once.

Among other stories he told me that the A380 is one of best balanced planes out there, and apparently a joy to fly. He said even without engines he could easily land it like a glider.

Now, I can't really verify what he said, but he seemed sincere.

Having travelled in the A380 as passenger, I will sure miss it.

<comment><USER7> > one of best balanced planes out there

Airliner design is regulated for stability for passenger flight on IFR approaches. So they're all pretty smooth.

(The reason for the 737 MAX MCAS system was to meet those requirements, although they failed in that case.)

All planes can glide if the wings are attached, and any essential electricity is available for control (if necessary.)

A corollary of "all planes glide" is that planes cannot really fall or dive straight (vertically) down from an appreciable height with the wings attached. A good story to tell passengers afraid of flying.

<comment><USER8> All planes can glide, but not to the same degree. The glide ratio, or the ratio between distance travelled per distance dropped, varies wildly between planes.

A purpose built glider has a glide ratio of about 60:1, so it could travel 60mi while only losing 1mi of altitude, while a Cessna 172 has a glide ratio of 9. Large passenger aircraft have glide ratios inbetween, with a 737 having a ratio of 17.

On the other extreme end you have military fighter planes, which tend to more closely resemble well propelled un-aerodynamic objects once their engines give out. The worst I could find was the F104 Starfighter, which has a glide ratio of 3-5 depending on its exact configuration. Dead stick landings of these aircraft tend to be rare, as the availability of ejection seats (especially before zero-zero seats became a thing) encourages a not-my-problem-any-more attitude among pilots who discover themselves absent a working engine.

<comment><USER9> It is worth pointing out that many military aircraft are made to be unstable by design. Unpowered or underpowered Commercial aircraft want to glide, with aerodynamic resisting change of course for safety and ease of use. On the other hand, aerodynamics of military combat aircraft operate in unstable equilibrium to encourage greater maneuverability.

<comment><USER8> For sure. Modern military aircraft are so unstable that they're unflyable without computers. And that's not just because computers directly control the control surfaces, but because humans would really struggle to stabilize the aircraft on reaction speed alone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This reminds me of the f-35. I find it absolutely insane that a mix of tax incentives can lead to this inefficient mess involving custom built ships and airplanes.

Wonder how much this supply chain dynamic ends up adding to the cost of the a380 in aggregate

<comment><USER11> Maybe when it comes to flying you wouldn't want too much corner-cutting in pursuit of the max profit. Max.. why does that sound familiar?

<comment><USER12> Corner cutting on safety is quite different from supply chain optimizations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Of course it remains to be seen if they can still to that with the UK post brexit.

<comment><USER14> A380 is EOL so doesn't really matter.

Knowledge loss...maybe for very large wings. UK is mainly responsible for A380 wings. But there are Airbus (smaller) wing operations in Germany too so should be fine overall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> four million parts, and one whistleblower.

Let's not forget [https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/a380-whist...](https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/a380-whistleblower.4091/)

<comment><USER16> A very complex story from 15 years ago. There haven't been many depressurisation incidents on the A380 and like they say in the article, why would they cover this up? Maybe the whistleblower really is just a disgruntled employee.

<comment><USER15> you will never know if the lack of pressurization issues was because their plan was fine or caused by changes thanks to his campaign. hindsight is 20/20.

the fact that they took that route is the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> *came together. The A380 program is nearly over. The most incredible passenger plane in the sky. Comfortable for 16+ hours. I hope they can archive the blueprints for it well enough to consider building it again in the future.

<comment><USER18> Is the comfort really any difference in an A380 vs a 777 vs an A350? Cabin configuration is really the only differentiation between modern wide bodies and that's mostly on the airline.

<comment><USER19> You listed the 777 which is an older plane. The newer 787 Dreamliner has been in service for almost 10 years. It is more comfortable because it's composite structure allows for higher humidity and higher air pressure. A normal flight has an air pressure equivalent to being at 8,000 feet altitude. The 787 is equivalent to 6,000. The humidity levels are also higher at 15% vs 4% for other planee. Both of these make you feel less tired and more comfortable.

<comment><USER20> A really informative concise post, shame it can't rise to the top.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The A380 was a technological marvel that was built more for European pride( see our jumbo jet is bigger than yours) than for real business reasons. Nevertheless, it is a joy to fly in.

(Though I do think it doesn't look as beautiful as the 747).

<comment><USER22> > than for real business reasons

Any explanations for that?

Large airliners was a monopoly by Boeing, Airbus obviously wanted to cut a part of that market.

<comment><USER14> >Any explanations for that?

A380 isn't profitable.

<comment><USER23> But not because it wasn't technically insufficient, the market has changed priorities.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: AllcountJS – Framework for application development with MEAN stack - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/allcount/allcountjs <comment><USER2> > The fastest way to deliver web & mobile applications with business value > using Node.js

It's like Django's admin module, but for the app itself.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep. Exactly!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Great work. Looks nice and clean. If you haven't taken a look at it, you should probably look at Oracle's APEX framework. It is the BEST declarative RAD framework I've seen so far. Perhaps you can get some ideas of what to tackle next.

<comment><USER4> Thank you for your great feedback! We surely worked with APEX and it's really powerful. But it's also one of the reasons we are trying to make the fully open source alternative. If you have any ideas to discuss, pls, welcome to our gitter chat: [https://gitter.im/allcount/allcountjs](https://gitter.im/allcount/allcountjs). We would appreciate it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hi Pavel,

This looks very promising! We're currently evaluating MEAN stack alternatives for KAPTL, a language and platform for web application development ([https://www.kaptl.com/build](https://www.kaptl.com/build))

AllcountJS might work very well for us. Thank you for your hard and awesome work on this!

Alex

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Alex, Great thanks for your feedback! We're about to implement app configuration API to use by other declarative RAD languages like yours. Please reach us in our Gitter chat or by any other convenient way ([https://allcountjs.com/community](https://allcountjs.com/community)) so we could discuss how can we be helpful.</comment></comment>


This colorless, odorless powder could help solve the global food waste problem - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/23/tech/apeel/index.html <comment><USER2> Independent information from trusted sources would be good. My simple initial google searches don't throw up enough, any even.</comment>


Retailers Gave You Free Returns and You Ruined It - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-16/how-to-return-online-purchases-for-free-retailers-hate-it <comment><USER2> Capitalist Gaslighting /s.</comment>


The complicated business of funding open source software development - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43zak3/the-internet-was-built-on-the-free-labor-of-open-source-developers-is-that-sustainable <comment><USER2> "The Internet" is more than just software - open source or otherwise. Open source developers were not sitting on trans-oceanic cable-laying ships. Open- source developers are not building the (very proprietary) electronics that form the basis for all the communications infrastructure. The applications that people use from Google search to your banking website were not built with free labour. In my narrow exposure in the nineties, it seemed that the Internet was built on the back of low-paid students providing support for dial-up customers and medium-sized businesses paying eye-watering sums of money for a leased line so that mediocre email services would work. We weren't as cool as the open source rockstars sticking it to commercial Unix, we were just stacking modems in cabinets.

Open source software and open standards (all the RFCs) have made, and will continue to make, a significant contribution - but saying that 'The Internet Was Built on (the) Free Labour' is simply incorrect and positions open source advocates, who are trying to draw attention to real problems in the industry, as holier-than-thou shills that people stop listening to.

The Internet is a very commercial space, built on the backs of people that are well paid for their services, by companies that are the most valuable in the world. Some crucial infrastructure needs recognition and/or some way to share in the commercial aspects. Try and find a solution to the funding problem for OpenSSL without saying that the Internet exists because some people (thankfully) worked for free.

<comment><USER3> Looong time ago the internet wasn't a very commercial entity :( and a phone cable was enough.

<comment><USER4> Long distance phone service was also involved for those of us not located near enough to a service provider.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Like the cherished image of a startup beginning in someone's garage, $title has only a grain of truth. Sure, _some_ open-source software was built on free labor. Much was built by people who were paid to do it, either willingly and intentionally, grudgingly, or sometimes quite unwittingly when developers used company time and resources to do something other than their jobs. Bored students are an interesting case. Is that "free labor" or an unstructured but still mostly intentional use of tuition dollars?

Myths and stereotypes aside, though, there is at least some subset of open- source software that has relied too much on altruism and needs to be put on a more sustainable financial footing. The example that comes to mind for me is not mentioned in the article: NTP. Here's an article about it.

[https://www.infoworld.com/article/3144546/security/time- is-r...](https://www.infoworld.com/article/3144546/security/time-is-running- out-for-ntp.html)

The Core Infrastructure Initiative (mentioned in both that story and the OP) is great, but it's simply not enough. Maintaining a project like NTP is hard enough that acquiring the necessary domain and code knowledge is likely to mean years spent a long way from anything resembling a viable career path. Without _guaranteed_ long term support that's a lot of sacrifice. This kind of thing needs a government-level (or Gates/Zuckerberg/Bezos level) benefactor to provide resources, salaries, and organizational support.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's true. Companies are amazingly reluctant to pay developers to support open source that is absolutely critical to their business operations. As a result they don't have a leg to stand on when code that they rely on - but don't pay for - doesn't work. You know all those crazy disclaimers about how this code MAY NOT BE FIT FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER IN PERPETUITY PLEASE DON'T CALL US IF IT KILLS YOUR DOG AND BURNS DOWN YOUR HOUSE? _That 's_ the level of support that a lot of companies are willing to go for.

We developed a library for regex matching used in a lot of security products, and I was always blown away by how little support people seemed to want/need once it was open sourced. Support contracts? Follow-up? Feedback of any kind? "Nah, we're good".

As a corollary of this, companies that don't even _acknowledge_ the open source that they use or provide feedback have only themselves to blame if the developers of those projects aren't recognized for their work. If you do OSS development at a BigCo, and no-one bothers to tell your management that they are using your stuff, it's pretty hard to make the claim that the development is still worth funding.

<comment><USER7> It is possible to look at this from a different perspective. Paying a grant to a couple of developers may be a nice thing to do, but you still don't get a contract with any guarantees.

Paying a shitton of money to established company like Red Hat, on another hand, gives you a contract with liabilities and all other stuff that you'll be able to lean on - and cover your ass with, if need arises.

<comment><USER8> > Paying a grant to a couple of developers may be a nice thing to do, but you > still don't get a contract with any guarantees.

We started polyglot.network for exactly this reason. It's an external development agency that works on the FOSS features/bugfixes that you care about. By having multiple customers, it can distribute the costs (which would not be possible if you tried doing the same work in-house).

So, you essentially pay 1/3rd for a developer seat but get 2/3rd of a developer's output. The buffer exists because open-source projects have some inherent risks. You might want a library/framework to implement a feature, but the upstream may not be willing to merge their PR: Either to protect their commercial interests, or philosophical differences.

We've been working with a few companies and have started contributing to a few Clojure, Python projects already. We work with a community of developers working remotely, and hence, have talent available at almost all languages/frameworks (hence, "polyglot.network").

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm a board member of Clojurists Together[ct] who is trying to solve this problem for _just Clojure_. Obviously this is a generic issue and while most Clojure libraries are hardly core infrastructure underpinning 2/3ds of the servers on the Internet, every language community ends up with projects everyone uses and no-one maintains in earnest.

Clojurists Together asks maintainers to put together a proposal, then we vote on projects and give them money. Donors ("members") are both companies and individuals[members].

It works! I wish more communities had this. Stuff like the core infrastructure initiative is fantastic, but I think it's hard for them to identify or even justify "niche core infrastructure".

[ct]: [https://www.clojuriststogether.org/](https://www.clojuriststogether.org/) [members]: [https://www.clojuriststogether.org/members/](https://www.clojuriststogether.org/members/)

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm pretty sure the folks at Cisco, Juniper, BBN, etc., are getting paid. Also, fun fact: more than 85% of Linux contributions come from developers with corporate sponsors: [http://www.extremetech.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/02Data...](http://www.extremetech.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/02DataFlowBills3-1390852937757.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER11> Open Collective ([http://opencollective.com/](http://opencollective.com/)) is a donation platform for open source projects, they recently announced Back Your Stack ([https://backyourstack.com/](https://backyourstack.com/)).

Another useful document on this topic is Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure (14 July 2016) by Nadia Eghbal [1].

[1] [https://www.fordfoundation.org/about/library/reports-and- stu...](https://www.fordfoundation.org/about/library/reports-and- studies/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure/)

</comment><comment><USER12> The labour was never free. The price of benefiting from that labour was paid, in part, by becoming a part of the community - through contributing back and giving others the choice to do so in turn. This fact is why it worked and continues to work so well.

<comment><USER13> Unfortunately many people seem to expect free software, free support, and features they want added for free, without expecting to contribute or join the community themselves. This imbalance (imho) puts extra burden on open source devs and is where the issues happen. :/

<comment><USER14> The expectation to join a community or to contribute as a cost for using FOSS code is a limitation on user freedom which goes against the free software ethos.

If one _wants_ to contribute back, one is free to, but one is equally free not to. Developers are also free to support software however they choose, or fork and add whatever features upstream refuses to add themselves. If developers want to release code under a nonfree license that requires reciprocation then that's what they should do.

<comment><USER15> > The expectation to join a community or to contribute as a cost for using > FOSS code is a limitation on user freedom which goes against the free > software ethos.

It's really hard to argue with this. But I'm not sure "freedom to be an asshole" (to state the extreme case) is the primary ethical good that is being sought -- particularly since one could easily restate the freedoms of, say, the GPL in negative terms. You are _not_ free to redistribute the program without its source, you are not free to use the software without accepting the terms of the license, you are not free to not indemnify the authors of the software against lawsuit over fitness for a particular purpose, and so forth.

But what this does imply is that however you slice it, fixing this problem involves ethical coercion. You can only try to persuade people (and companies) that it would be better to behave a certain way. You can't force them to do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Internet was developed and funded by DARPA so it was payed for by American taxpayers. So, no, it wasn't free labor which built it.

</comment><comment><USER15> From the article: "On the other hand, regulating the production of open source software (for example, establishing an organization similar to the National Science Foundation to distribute publicly-funded grants to open source software projects) undermines the main advantages of open source development. The stability afforded by regulation comes at the cost of efficiency, and in the fast-paced world of software development, this simply wouldn't fly. Furthermore, regulation would also undermine the spirit of open source development insofar as it could result in gatekeeping that determines who can contribute and who can consume the resource."

This is a really good article, but this paragraph gave me pause. If there were something like the NSF for FOSS, is the threat really "regulation," "gatekeeping," and loss of efficiency?

If it were set up along the general lines of the NSF, then I understand that there would be "gatekeeping," in the sense that some group of people would be determining which projects are worthy of funding. I also know very well the way that writing grant applications can be a massively time-consuming task that might be better spent on actually doing things.

But neither of those seem like show-stoppers to me. And it's really the word "regulation" that is throwing me off. Perhaps gatekeeping is regulation per se, but the author seems to be using this term in a stronger sense: particularly with the idea that an NSF for FOSS would necessarily determine "who can contribute and _who can consume_ the resource."

I'm not trying to argue that the idea is unassailable or somehow the obvious solution, I'm just not following this line of reasoning as an insuperable downside that "wouldn't fly" with the community. Particularly since the creation of such an entity would not eliminate the existence of the standard model in which people develop free software as they always have.

Perhaps it's the phrase "publicly-funded" that is the key one here. The author might be specifically imagining a taxpayer-funded entity, and not a private foundation to which large tech players contribute.

<comment><USER17> I think you have provided a very good list, but I think the list contains actual showstoppers.

I know several OSS ecosystems where grants and commercial funding already destroy the original OSS spirit.

You get a set of bureaucrats who control who gets to work on OSS and what is being worked on. Often they take the credit for the results.

I think OSS should be result oriented: If someone can demonstrate that a piece of software he wrote is used widely, there should be a possibility of retroactive public funding.

But results rarely count in the current OSS boiler room atmosphere.

<comment><USER15> > You get a set of bureaucrats who control who gets to work on OSS and what is > being worked on.

So I get that a grant necessarily defines some kind of _who_ \-- even if the money is given to "the project," it will ultimately boil down to a person or persons who is receiving funds to work on the project. And there's also a _what_ , in the sense that there has to be some kind of boundary to what is being developed.

But it sounds like you're thinking of scenarios in which the "what" isn't "working on OpenSSL" or "writing Git," but some more specific demand: paying someone to work on some particular feature or problem, as opposed to giving the project money and having the people on the project decide where to put their attention.

Maybe there's no way around that. Maybe there's no practical way to define the "who" precisely, while leaving the "what" ambiguous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here's a "free" startup idea if someone wants to run with it: an opt-in feature bounty service for open-source projects.

Essentially, project maintainers could join the service with their projects, and then users could offer financial bounty for specific features/bugs to be resolved. The core maintainers would have right to veto any bounty, and once the corresponding pull request is merged the payment would be released and distributed, following a formula, between the implementers (the majority), core maintainers and the service itself (a small, possibly fixed amount).

I can see something like this as a core feature of GitHub, but an independent service could include repos on other platforms.

</comment><comment><USER19> _> As Steve Marquess, the former CEO of the OpenSSL Foundation noted in a blog post after the fact, the cause of Heartbleed was attributable to developer burnout and lack of funding. _

I don't agree that you can directly draw a line between security exploits like Heartbleed and lack of funding. In fact, it's even possible that you have the counterintuitive scenario of providing _more funding_ to OpenSSL will lead to _more exploits_ \-- because you now have more paid programmers making new exploits.

As counterexamples to Steve Marquess reasoning: Apple funded Facetime with fulltime developers and yet they had a recent publicized audio security hole, and Intel with its billions funded x86 chip development and yet it still had Meltdown and Spectre holes. All the various CVEs constantly issued every day mentions commercially funded projects (e.g. Adobe Acrobat, Java runtimes, Windows zero-days, etc).

It's seductive to to think that paying developers will naturally lead to "better security". It does seem logical that if we set funded OpenSSL with $250k/yr to pay a salaried programmer whose only job is to look for security holes, something like Heartbleed wouldn't have happened. The problem is that there would still be security holes found by a teenager in Russia; possibly Heartbleed or a different security hole.

It's easier to directly connect cause & effect of adding programmers will lead to _added features_. E.g. if software widget doesn't have a PostgreSQL db adapter, add an additional programmer to code it. However, the effort of _removing security exploits_ lives in a weird area of (un)measurable and (un)observable work. It's difficult to assess that the security holes were really removed.

Maybe there's some game theory thinking about how to best fund security bug hunting. Is a fulltime security auditor the best use of money? Or is it bounties? I don't know. Does the industry have any empirical data connecting amount funding to number of security exploits?

</comment><comment><USER20> > The 43-year old British software developer had accepted a small change to > the code for OpenSSL,

I am not sure I would categorize that as a small change ...

</comment><comment><USER21> I loved this article. Disclaimer, I'm the founder of CodeFund (formerly Code Sponsor). As such, my focus is funding for open source.

To start, you should check out Nadia Eghbal's Lemonade Stand ([https://github.com/nayafia/lemonade- stand](https://github.com/nayafia/lemonade-stand)). She lists many different ways to generate funding, along with the pros and cons. There is no silver bullet. I believe that real substantial funding must come from all directions. Also, funding sources vary based on the personality of the maintainers. Some may prefer to go the fund-raising path with Patreon or Open Collective. Some may prefer the TideLift SLA path. Some go the route of selling merchandise, training or books.

However, most paths of funding require the developer to take on the role of fundraiser, marketer, or even publisher. Developers may not want to do this and would prefer to focus on the code. This is why _advertising_ fits most models. It provides passive, recurring and consistent income that does not require the maintainer to veer from their chosen path. It supports DHH's "fuck you" policy. The maintainer is not beholden to the advertiser with CodeFund, because there is no direct agreement.

CodeFund ([https://codefund.app](https://codefund.app)) is an open source platform that helps fund maintainers, bloggers, and builders through non- tracking ethical ads. We only display ads based on the context of the website, not the visitor profile. Our ads are relevant and non-obtrusive to visitors.

For example, go to [https://jsbin.com](https://jsbin.com) or [https://codesandbox.io](https://codesandbox.io).</comment>


All activity in Baltimore to be recorded by persistent video surveillance planes - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/baltimore-maryland-to-become-first-city-monitored-by-police-surveillance-planes/ <comment><USER2> I don't know if this will work, but something badly needs to be done.

The Wikipedia "Crime in Baltimore" article says "Baltimore, Maryland, U.S. is infamous for its significantly high crime rate, including a violent crime rate that ranks high above the national average. Violent crime spiked in 2015 after the death of Freddie Gray on April 19, 2015, which touched off riots and an increase in murders. The city recorded a total of 344 homicides in 2015, a number second only to the number recorded in 1993 when the population was 100,000 higher."

Furthermore, according to a Sep 4 2019 article in the Baltimore Sun, "The cumulative clearance rate — all homicides solved in a year, including killings that occurred in previous years—is down to 38 percent compared to 51.5 percent last year."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> There's a well-informed comment on Reddit here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/baltimore/comments/e2kqla/baltimore...](https://www.reddit.com/r/baltimore/comments/e2kqla/baltimore_free_to_fly_we_should_discuss_the/)</comment>


The snarling contempt behind the media's fake news hysteria - <AUTHOR> http://theweek.com/articles/663436/snarling-contempt-behind-medias-fake-news-hysteria <comment><USER2> The "deplorables" get the vote, too, no matter that they have "wrong" opinions and "deny" facts.</comment>


US agriculture department suspends data collection on honeybees - <AUTHOR> https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/451839-agriculture-department-suspends-data-collection-for-honeybees-after <comment> eks-reigh I spent the summer of 2017 as an intern in the department of the interior. At the time, the white house was proposing to cut the DoI's budget by an order of magnitude. I went to a fascinating talk about how they strategize when faced with budget cuts. They don't just cut things from least to most important, they start by cutting things that have champions. For example, the first things on the chopping block at the time were Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay restoration, because those programs have champions in Congress who would fight to get them funded again. More obscure programs don't have that advantage, so if they get cut they're just gone.

<comment><USER2> who are the bee champions then? Can't think of a specific name, seems too obvious of a thing to support.

<comment> eks-reigh I have no earthly idea, really, but I don't think we would have seen this on hacker news of they were suspending studies of pill bugs, or food packaging, or something boring like that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> So while Europe is warning of a insect apocalypse the US is following a eyes closed approach. sigh...

<comment><USER4> We are already in the middle of an insect apocalypse.

<comment><USER5> Didn't they figure out it was mostly pesticides? Makes sense if the manufacturers were American.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> But meanwhile we can give the military more money than they asked for, with _zero_ accountability.

It's not about money, this is a war of ideology.

</comment><comment><USER7> Such a shame, not only are bees incredibly fascinating beeings we also _need_ them _a little bit_ maybe.

Ever wondered how we pollinate our food without bees?

<comment><USER8> In China, they use humans with little brushes.

No, really: [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/humans-bees- china_n_570404b3e...](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/humans-bees- china_n_570404b3e4b083f5c6092ba9)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What do you do when your prevailing ideology fails, well double down on it obviously. Any economist worth her salt will tell you all you need to do is pay more and you can get all the insects and honey bees you want. Same goes for animals, environment, natural resources. You just gotta pay more and the invisible hand will produce these things. It's really magical thinking that works.

<comment><USER10> Please do not take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They are highly repetitive, therefore predictable, therefore off topic here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Republican Party has repeatedly demonstrated that if actual facts stand in the way of their god driven view of the world they just stop collecting facts, or claim that facts are a conspiracy by "liberals" and "socialists"

<comment><USER10> Would you please not take HN threads into political flamewar? Such discussions are all the same, and lead nowhere but deeper into flamewar hell.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Edit: would you please not post political flamebait to HN generally? It looks like you've done this repeatedly lately, and the site guidelines explicitly ask you not to.</comment></comment>


Uber riders suggested to pay fee in NYC for increased congestion - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/nyregion/uber-car-congestion-pricing-nyc. <comment><USER2> Step one: add a tax to exploit people who can't vote you out of office -- crazy high parking fees, hotel room taxes, convention center scams (e.g., requiring that you hire a licensed electrician to plug in a computer), etc.

Step two: get shocked when the downtown area of your city dies off.

New York can maybe get away with it. Maybe.

</comment><comment><USER3> Real link. [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/nyregion/uber-car- congest...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/nyregion/uber-car-congestion- pricing-nyc.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Missing article</comment>


All AngelPad Companies Will Get $100K Investment Offers From 2 VC Firms - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/01/angelpad-investment/ <comment><USER2> The reason START/Ron Conway didn't do a cap is the risk of adverse selection.

Assume a YC class has 65 companies. If they offer a $5mm cap, there will probably be 5-10 companies which have either already raised on better terms, or could easily raise on better terms. Maybe they'll get lucky and half of those will take it anyway.

If one of the ~4 startups which pass on the note is the next Dropbox, LinkedIn, or Google, they've just hurt themselves a lot more than they've made by negotiating a lower cap on all the other deals.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting that they didn't disclose the cap, which is arguably the most important term in a convertible note. The difference between, say, a $1mm cap and a $5mm cap is huge.

The Start Fund terms make a lot of sense to me. They're uncapped, but inherit terms (cap, discount) from later convertible notes. Caps are not entirely dissimilar from setting a valuation, which is a monstrously hard thing to do -- trending towards impossible the younger a company is.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, the Start Fund terms are IMO very smart, both for "classes" of startups, and in general as an early stage startup raising money (if it will soon raise more) and is too busy to come up with terms.

I'd also consider a fixed discount above Start (e.g. "we inherit terms and get an extra 5% discount") to be reasonable in some cases. For a class, I think discounts are less silly than fixed common caps; for individual financings, caps are more reasonable than discounts, but the cap is a lot more company- specific than the discount.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Could be good. The big questions are a) who are the firms involved and b) what's the cap?</comment>


Band releases album as kernel module - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/usrbinnc/netcat-cpi-kernel-module <comment><USER2> I find the sound produced playing on gentoo a little warmer than other distros.

<comment><USER3> I'm afraid you're right. On Ubuntu I tried rolling my spin locks and ring buffers, but it just didn't produce the deep soundstage that I would expect from raw source.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I love that Greg Kroah-Hartman has made a couple of pull requests to this album:

"A number of coding style cleanups for the netcat kernel module": [https://github.com/usrbinnc/netcat-cpi-kernel- module/pull/11](https://github.com/usrbinnc/netcat-cpi-kernel-module/pull/11)

"netcat: allow multiple readers to work properly": [https://github.com/usrbinnc/netcat-cpi-kernel- module/pull/13](https://github.com/usrbinnc/netcat-cpi-kernel-module/pull/13)

He can now add "Assistant audio production engineer" to his already considerable CV.

<comment><USER5> Now I want to see people forking the project to do remixes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wut? That's the most pointlessly complex thing I've heard in quite a while. Awesome.

 _the album 's track data in source files, that (for complexity's sake) came from .ogg files that were encoded from .wav files that were created from .mp3 files that were encoded from the mastered .wav files which were generated from ProTools final mix .wav files that were created from 24-track analog tape._

<comment><USER7> > from .ogg files [...] that were created from .mp3 files

Oh no. Mixing lossy compression algorithms is a very bad idea. Even at high bitrates, it tends to destroy certain kinds of sounds (eg, cymbals).

<comment><USER8> For audiophiles, they do offer their music in other formats. Such as high-bias cassette tapes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Their next album will be in Javascript.

You'll just have to configure a NetCatProvider, providing the class name and instantiation arguments as parameters, from which you can then create a NetCatFactory. This can be used to create singleton instances of the NetCatService class, from which you can use arbitrary proxies to bind transactions and get access to the audio stream.

<comment><USER10> You might be conflating Angular with Javascript. I can't blame you given its coverage on HN.

<comment><USER9> Yes, I know.

It was a joke referencing that discussion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you want to listen to the tracks: [http://netcat.bandcamp.com/](http://netcat.bandcamp.com/)

This music is very enjoyable. I'm working to it right now.

</comment><comment><USER12> Album is not under a free license, so be wary of using proprietary kernel modules :)

<comment><USER13> Working on that today (between our real jobs)! [https://github.com/usrbinnc/netcat-cpi-kernel- module/issues/...](https://github.com/usrbinnc/netcat-cpi-kernel- module/issues/8)

In any case, if you use this in production machines for real, vaya con dios :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> For the lazy, I'm no fun:

      curl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/usrbinnc/netcat-cpi-kernel-module/master/tracks/trk3data.h | perl -ne 'print chr hex' | mplayer -

<comment><USER15> If you curl those tracks and like what you hear, you might want to check out our bandcamp page at [http://netcat.bandcamp.com](http://netcat.bandcamp.com) too

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Making such overcomplicated nonsense while still having it sound good is a great achievement. My hat is well and truly off.

You _really, really really_ should get a modular synthesizer involved for the next project. Fire packets directly into the CV inputs at ±12V and see what happens. Or run linux _inside_ the instrument itself...

<comment><USER13> We actually shot a video on a modular video synth, to be released soon (gotta edit it).

I've thought about how cool a synth module would be that sends modulation voltage out based on wifi packets. It would be a nod to the Teenage Engineering OP-1 which has an FM radio for modulation.

<comment><USER16> It's possible to send out CV directly from software, you just need an audio interface with DC-coupled outputs (you can build a convertor trivially), and enough output gain.

Check out Silent Way for an example of an integrated solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am disappointed that this doesn't use a tracker format[1] and software instruments. And fits into 4Kb. Maybe next album!

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker)

<comment><USER13> The album does use software instruments, but they are Native Instruments Kontakt/Absynth/etc.

I'd love to use a tracker, but I dunno how! But I do know how to play cello. So that's on there. Ok cool!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Odd, I pretty sure that wasn't the link I submitted.

<comment><USER13> Maybe a mod edited it? There was another submission of this link that never made it to the front page.

<comment><AUTHOR> Don't know, IMHO jwz's article had a better title and was a better introduction than the actual project.

<comment><USER18> Clicky: [http://www.jwz.org/blog/2014/04/band-releases-album-as- kerne...](http://www.jwz.org/blog/2014/04/band-releases-album-as-kernel- module/)

But the text was just a direct quote.

<comment><AUTHOR> Dammit, going senile, this was the one where only the title was better. The title github gives for things is not very descriptive.

Sorry, long - long day

(Thanks, wow every comment in every thread in the last two hours down voted - guess I'll sign off for a while)

<comment><USER19> Ok, I changed the title back to jwz's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've had a similar idea which I want to implement in the near future. Using a DSL, write some raw code which is coherent enough as lyrics. Run it on the cli and boom! Music!!

But the kernel thing sounds harder...

</comment><comment><USER21> Very plan9'ish. Nice.

</comment><comment><USER22> I love open source</comment>


Why We Think GoLang Is Ready For Early Stage Startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.jellolabs.com/blog/why-golang-is-ready-for-early-stage-startups.html

<comment><USER2> Did you also consider Java or any JVM-based language?

Modern Java is a lot less verbose than it used to be and it knows a lot of tricks (e.g. akka, play framework, dropwizard, Rx, dependency management, good IDEs, advanced profiling and instrumentation etc.)

Netflix is an excellent example of how you can leverage the JVM to build one of the most advanced system architectures hosted on AWS.

</comment><comment><USER3> We've been using Go for our startup as well and love it. Having programmed in a variety of languages, including Java, Scala, and Python, I have to say that Go has been as easy to work with if not easier than my previous experiences with other languages. Particularly awesome is the tooling they've built around the language. Dependency management is a cakewalk compared to other systems (say goodbye to Spring/Maven/etc. headaches) and compile time is extremely fast. Plus you get all the benefits of static type checking without much verbosity.

</comment><comment><USER4> What on earth were you comparing with to come up with go as having stricter code checking?

I'd say early stage startups are probably the least likely place for go to be a good choice - it sacrifices a lot for the sake of performance, which only matters once you've made it. As they say, scaling is a nice problem to have.

(Edit: and like Java it makes other sacrifices in the interests of being maintainable by less talented engineers. Again, that's something big companies need, not early stage startups)

<comment><USER5> What we are discovering is that actually it doesn't sacrifice as much as you'd think - and I think that's the point we are trying to make with our article.

You get both the performance, and you get a very lightweight language - I'd say almost as easy to write as Ruby or Python - with great open source support and growing and with a great community around it.

<comment><USER4> Many modern languages in any field are almost as easy to write as Ruby or Python, have great open source support and a great community.

If you use Ruby or Python, you get extreme dynamism that makes things like ActiveRecord or dealing with external semi-structured data very easy (though you pay a performance cost).

If you use OCaml or Scala you get a lot of control over effects, making the code very safe and easy to reason about. And the type systems let you pull out high-level patterns in your code without going crazy, even when those patterns are very abstract, resulting in more concise and maintainable code.

From here go looks like the worst of both worlds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would like to know the reasons why they rules out Java and the gangs on the JVM such as Scala, Clojure.

<comment><USER5> We haven't really ruled out any of the common stack tech choices. They are all good in their own ways, and have their own tradeoffs - and the intention here was not to spark wars about which tool is the best.

I think the choice was much more of a proactive choice - we liked Go, we like the way it fitted us - good for fast iterative development upfront, good for the long term, fun to write code in and with a lot of advantages that come with the fact that it's a language designed today - with a lot of lessons learned from the past.

<comment><USER6> _> We haven't really ruled out any of the common stack tech choices. They are all good in their own ways, and have their own tradeoffs - and the intention here was not to spark wars about which tool is the best._

This is way diplomatic. Though for me your article has no beef, the Pros and Cons of Go has been repeated here for so many times. I was expecting to see the v.s. stuffs, why this, why that, your thought process and experiments. Right, those are the beefs I wanted from your article but didn't find.

 _> I think the choice was much more of a proactive choice - we liked Go, we like the way it fitted us - good for fast iterative development upfront, good for the long term, fun to write code in and with a lot of advantages that come with the fact that it's a language designed today - with a lot of lessons learned from the past._

This is not convincing though. As much as I admire Ken Thompson and Rob Pike, I tend to agree with the perspective that Go to C is like Plan9 to Unix. Of course, I could be wrong and am glad to be corrected by insightful comparisons and opinions.

<comment><USER5> I understand what you are saying, and indeed I am trying to be diplomatic.

Picking on Rails/Node was not my goal and I feared that a stronger comparison between these choices would have been seen as such by the current startup community.

At the end of the day most of these choices are tools and I truly believe that while they have their trade-offs, they are all good from one point or another. The point I was trying to make is that Go is a tool worth looking into as an alternative to Rails/Node for early stage.

Unless you build the exact same product in Rails/Node/Go it's hard to make meaningful broad comparisons - and you end up comparing lab experiments around speed in specific toy examples, or end up comparing only certain isolated parts of the toolset.

We are planning on writing more blog posts about our experience using it, more into performance internals and how it all plays out - but I do feel that we'll stay away from comparisons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Love this. We made the same choice for our startup.</comment>