HN: Why is GitHub's web interface not responsive yet? - <AUTHOR> I want to be able to look at documentations and vs code at the same time with the screen split in two<p>why are they making it so difficult. What could justify this lack of consideration for basic user experience? <comment><USER2> Good question. You can spoof your user agent to get their separate, half-baked mobile version.

I wonder what their mobile traffic looks like. I find myself ending up on GitHub on my phone all the time, and can only barely get by without switching to the desktop mode.

</comment><comment><USER3> Honestly, I don't know. Since MS bought them they have made many improvements, and seem to take gitlab seriously. What they lack is a decent mobile/tablet experience so I don't always have to be at a laptop/desktop.

I'm not willing to provide is trusted access to a third party when they have the full backing of one of the most well funded companies in history.

</comment><comment><USER4> Their website is so old that it was before one was thinking, mobile-first, and now to rewrite, they don't want to spend the effort combating legacy :)</comment>


AT&T Announces New Call Management API and Alpha API Program  - <AUTHOR> http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=23651&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=35916

<comment><AUTHOR> Brian from Voxeo Labs here: I'm really excited that this has publicly launched. I worked on the call management api from the operations side of things, and I'll be happy to answer any questions I can.

<comment><USER2> Can you give a brief overview of how the API works. I can't really understand the press release on what solution does the API provide.

<comment><USER3> I agree. They start out by talking about video and phone integration in apps. But then they are like, you have 1 million api calls, and it will translate text for you. Please pay us money for our babel fish. Also we will populate forms for you sometimes.

<comment><USER4> So they're talking about all of the AT&T APIs with respect to the 1 Million API calls which includes things like Watson translation and other such niceties.

Does that help explain?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Had to reread this a couple of times:

 _AT &T products and services are provided or offered by subsidiaries and affiliates of AT&T Inc. under the AT&T brand and not by AT&T Inc._

Gotta love corporate America.

<comment><USER6> I agree that the fancy legal/business structures are offputting.

On the other hand, AT&T is making a strong endorsement of the product by offering it under their name. Since the customer trusts AT&T when it comes to telephony technology, this saves a lot of money for the 'subsidiaries and affiliates' on marketing etc. AT&T saves money by not having to develop their own in-house product.

Who doesn't win here?

<comment><USER7> Company the size of AT&T working in highly regulated areas, everything's a subsidiary for various accounting and legal reasons.

AT&T Mobile and AT&T UVerse are two different companies. They probably have different operating entities for different states, even. But they roll everything up into a single brand for ease of sales and marketing.

<comment><USER5> True, though it's interesting that you can purchase UVerse at an AT&T Mobility store. (I have a friend who's an AT&T store manager) While it has the appearance of being one company, I guess it's the rough equivalent of an "affiliate" sale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Man.

I immediately dropped what I was doing to see if I could send or receive an MMS from my laptop. The documentation and sample apps do not make it easy for someone to figure out how to actually do that.

<comment><USER9> Hey Jeff,

Did you check out the sample applications, they have a pretty well documented example ( <https://gist.github.com/3125729> )

-John

<comment><USER8> Thanks for the reply, John. I did check out the gists of the apps, so I guess it's only fair to explain why I'm not a fan yet.

In the "download sample apps" gists, you don't actually include all the files: where are the views? Where is the public directory? Clearly, someone could create these themselves, but when I click a link to download the sample app, I want to download the entire sample app and not just selected files. I don't want to spend time debugging what's missing.

In the MMS sample app2, there are files for phone number lists and a "tokens" file. But you'd have to go directly to the github repository to find out what they're used for and how to use them. (I'm still not sure how/what "tokens" does.)

I appreciate the amount of work it takes to release a public API (and one as robust as this), but it's just kinda .... AT&T-y at this point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Tremendously excited for the folks at Voxeo for this huge win.

In the past year they've inked with AT&T and T-Mobile.

My BIG question here is: Where does this leave Twilio? Did they not just ink a deal with AT&T to provide apps for call control?

Reading between the lines: Twilio got locked out of AT&T because they don't do IMS, whereas Voxeo does. Very interesting, very very interesting.

<comment><USER10> Looks like AT&T screwed them (Twilio).

<comment><USER4> I agree: [http://thepbxblog.com/2013/01/07/att-and-apis-where-does- twi...](http://thepbxblog.com/2013/01/07/att-and-apis-where-does-twilio-land/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> We've been using Tropo (by Voxeo) for phone and SMS integration for Flocknote (www.flocknote.com) for almost two years, and I have to say they've done a great job scaling up their services and support in that time. This new service looks like a good step forward from AT&T!

</comment><comment><USER12> My main question here would be could I use this API in an app that is installed on phones on AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc.

I'm sure this is just my ignorance of understanding the press release.

<comment><USER7> Yes, Call Management is cross-carrier. Don't worry about not understanding the press release. Those aren't ever written to be understood by humans.

<comment><USER13> So they're white labelling Tropo?

<comment><USER7> Not exactly. Instead of white labeling our APIs in our cloud, AT&T is running their own APIs in their own network, just like our previous announcement with Deutsche Telekom in Germany. We (Voxeo Labs) provided the technology to them, and licensed the APIs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Woot, Way to go Tropo !

</comment><comment><USER14> Great job guys! :)</comment>


Video demo of Cloud Assassin, a TCD hackathon project - <AUTHOR> http://www.tuaw.com/2011/06/24/video-app-demo-cloud-assass-in/

<comment><USER2> We are doing a simultaneous release on Android for this project as well. check it out and let us know what you think.</comment>


Behind tech layoffs lay cash flow-negative companies - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@watfly/behind-tech-layoffs-lay-systemic-cash-flow-negative-companies-bd8592110422 <comment><USER3> How is this article on the front page of HN? It conflates cash flow with net income, and shows a lack of understanding of the business models of these companies.

Also... "why did we allow so many unprofitable companies IPO? When did losing money become acceptable and the new normal for publicly traded companies?"

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how public markets work.

<comment><USER4> Your comment isn't really saying anything, though. It can be summed up as "Nu uh."

Could you go into detail about _why_ there's a lack of understanding of the business model, or how public markets work?

<comment><USER5> Because many of the businesses are profitable, but spend money to grow.

Uber, for example, could probably lay off 80% of its engineering staff and turn profitable if it was truly necessary. This would be stupid, because then they can't build new products (and thus compete) but they are default-alive [1].

The original author says that these companies "dump" stocks at IPO, but fails to recognize that (1) institutional investors who purchase most of the supply of stock at IPO are highly sophisticated and (2) there is a lot of regulation around proper disclosure of financials of public offerings.

Hell, the one recent tech company which tried to "dump" stock at IPO got laughed out of the public markets (WeWork).

I agree with the above poster that this article is nonsense and shows a complete misunderstanding of how markets and valuations work. Of course you would expect companies that are not profitable because they are investing in growth to lay off employees in tough times!

[1] [http://paulgraham.com/aord.html](http://paulgraham.com/aord.html)

<comment><USER6> > Uber, for example, could probably lay off 80% of its engineering staff and > turn profitable if it was truly necessary.

A lot of people say these things, but:

We don't know if that's true. If they turn off the hype and marketing juice and stop spending more money acquiring customers than the revenue they accrue, do we know that they'll become profitable?

We really need something more specific than, "just lay off all the expensive tech workers and bam, instant profitability."

What we need is a specific plan, that we then go over with a fine-tooth comb looking for unintended consequences that could bite our "rightsizing" plan in the ass.

Many a company has set out to cut costs and drive towrds profitability, but very few make it. Honestly, very few make it. Most of the time, when a CEO sets out to make a systemically unprofitable company profitable, they end up in Chapter 11.

It's really, REALLY hard to pull off, and it's not for lack of trying or inexperience on the part of management. It turns out that for most companies, the right way to become profitable is to grow your revenues, not cut your costs by 80+.

JM2C.

<comment><USER5> Yes, minus engineering and marketing, they are profitable for now ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23382477](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23382477)), but it's not a good idea. Growing revenues is much better, especially since Uber has competitors who are also trying to grow.

<comment><USER7> I don't know what companies you've been working for, but even if you do zero product research and development, a company as tech-focused as Uber is still going to need a _substantial_ engineering department just to keep the lights on. Not to mention a tech company that isn't developing new products and features, and isn't marketing, isn't going to remain profitable for long no matter how much they've cut labor costs.

I understand that they're investing in growth, but the key points still stands - money is flowing down the drain with the promise that it'll all be worth it "some day."

<comment><USER5> > a company as tech-focused as Uber is still going to need a substantial > engineering department just to keep the lights on.

Which is why I initially estimated keeping 20% of engineers. Then Uber would be slightly profitable in the short term, pre-coronavirus.

<comment><USER6> This is all speculative, of course, so you are entitled to your beliefs based on your views and experience.

In my case, I have often seen the case that companies have certain stable modes, and many unstable modes. It could easily be that after slashing 80% of their engineering workforce, and cutting their marketing, they subside into becoming a slightly higher-tech taxi company.

But what about the remaining 20% of engineering? Do they want to work for a company that has let go 80% of its engineers, and has given up on self-driving cars and drones and whatever else they were dreaming of?

Or will the rest of the talent head for the exits, their options hopelessly underwater forever, because investors have no interest in the faded hulk of a company that was once a Unicorn?

It could be that if they try to shrink to 20% of their engineering talent, they keep on shrinking involuntarily, shedding their best talent in all areas, not just engineering.

I don't know for a fact what will happen, but for the moment, if I had to bet, my bet is that if they try to cut 80% of their engineering and most of their marketing, they will keep on shrinking until they become a penny stock.

It would probably be easier for them to have Private Equity come in and take the company private first. If they have to cut that much flesh off the bones in public, it's going to be brutal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's an adverse selection problem with today's public markets. If you're profitable, in a solid and sustainable business, you a.) usually don't need more cash b.) if you do need more cash, there are plenty of private investors that will give it to you, c.) don't want to disclose your profitability to attract competitors and d.) don't want to spend the multi-millions per year for SOX compliance. So the only reason you have for going public is to unload your shares in an unsustainable business before the rest of the world realizes it's unsustainable. Hence, that's what we get on the public markets.

There are definitely profitable tech companies out there which are still hiring, but they are largely private. Some may have $35B valuations and a few thousand employees, but don't find it worthwhile to go public.

<comment><USER9> At the same time, Amazon was not cash flow positive when it IPOed and it figured out its profitibility just fine. Further, SOX makes this a lot more complicated.

If you give out stock (say, an employee stock ownership plan or options), you are already subject to SOX. [https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2004/03/sarban...](https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2004/03/sarbanesoxley- what-it-means-for-private-companie__) shows an older article about some of the other reasons you might be subject to SOX.

Further, if you give out options, your employees might expect to be able to sell those. So, once you normalize options, you have set yourself on the path to either acquisition or IPO. Once you take venture capital, they will want a way to sell their shares at the highest price, which means acquision or IPO. So, while you can point to ESRI or Basecamp or any number of private companies, they are in the minority.

If you can bootstrap a company (or rely on alternative funding sources to VC), and you can make it profitable enough to hire employees at market rate without the lure of options, and you can fend off any VC-backed competitors who can undercut you on cost and hire a larger team, then you're golden. However, there's more than an adverse selection problem going on here.

<comment><USER10> Amazon is also the apotheosis of the growth model tech companies build on. I was working in finance in the early 2010s, and it was then fashionable for analysts to point out that Amazon's classic profitability metrics were flashing red.

However, the Amazon model (and to a lesser extent the Uber model, etc.) was to continue penetration pricing as well as plowing every dime made over costs into growth. It made the company look overvalued but the share price was in retrospect justified.

<comment><USER11> > plowing every dime made over costs into growth

I've been trying to build a mental model around this i.e., what options do companies have to utilize profit?

1\. Distribute to shareholders -- dividends. 2\. Distribute amongst employees -- salary increase, bonuses. 3\. Add it to their pile of cash. 4\. Invest in growing the business. 5\. Something else!?

Perhaps a combination of all four?

I guess Apple does mostly #3 which is how they are now sitting on a huge pile of cash. Perhaps it's a signal that they don't need cash to grow their business or maybe they don't see how to grow either.

Whereas Amazon genuinely believe that investing in growth is the best return the cash from profit can earn. I guess it makes sense, e-commerce is still about 10% of retail in US alone. So there's a big room for growth.

<comment><USER12> Some companies also invest in growing other businesses.

[https://www.cbinsights.com/research/startups-investing-in- st...](https://www.cbinsights.com/research/startups-investing-in-startups/)

[https://www.businessinsider.com/to-4-corporate-venture- capit...](https://www.businessinsider.com/to-4-corporate-venture-capitalist- funds-slack-airbnb-coinbase-stripe-2019-6)

<comment><USER11> Indeed! I think another option is financialization through investment banks wherein the money is used in all sorts of investment vehicles such as forex trading, futures/options, bonds, hedge funds and whatnot. There's been a steady increase of such companies it seems.

[https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/pitfalls- financi...](https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/pitfalls- financialization-american-business/)

[https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-63512018000200549...](https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-63512018000200549&script=sci_abstract&tlng=en)

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308901243_Financial...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308901243_Financialization_of_non- financial_companies_an_insight_in_the_automotive_sector)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm pretty amused by the byline on this piece.

"Here's to a new generation of entrepreneurs who prioritize building sustainable businesses," says the guy whose job title is apparently "Flying cars salesman" at a company that has mostly produced CG renderings of their future product.

[https://www.watfly.ca/](https://www.watfly.ca/)

As the market is currently discovering, what goes up, must come down. A principle that applies to flying cars as well.

</comment><comment><USER14> To me this just illustrates the excess some companies have. Frankly I wonder what some of these companies are doing to even require these staffing numbers do VCs like headcount or something?

<comment><USER15> Yes. Headcount is a metric just like anything else and is often included in decks as an example of growth.

Most of the jobs are sales people. When trying to scale fast, most VCs expect most of the money to be spent on sales people in a b2b product that has found product market fit.

<comment><USER14> fair enough. makes sense, in that light.

Sales isn't my thing/department, I'd probably be amazed at how big the sales teams are at some of these places. Is that part of tech a kinda of a turnstile as it is?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Many of these businesses are also predictably linked to the broader economy - ticketing at Eventbrite, reservations/shopping for Yelp. It would be prudent to keep a cash stockpile for the inevitable cyclic downturns.

Full disclosure, I worked at Eventbrite two years ago.

<comment><USER17> Until recently, Yelp had a giant stockpile of cash, but an activist investor successfully launched a campaign to get Yelp management to return much of that cash via buybacks [1]. By the end of 2018, Yelp had a cash balance of ~$837 million and proceeded to return almost $500 million in cash to stockholders via buybacks in 2019 [2].

Hoarding cash may seem like a good idea in hindsight, but public market investors will often raise a huge stink if you try.

[1] [https://sqnletters.com/content/uploads/2019/01/Yelp-A- Fresh-...](https://sqnletters.com/content/uploads/2019/01/Yelp-A-Fresh- Perspective-SQN-Investors-01.16.2019.pdf) [2] [https://ycharts.com/companies/YELP/stock_buyback](https://ycharts.com/companies/YELP/stock_buyback)

<comment><USER18> GOOG[0] & AAPL[1] each have stockpiles of cash & securities in excess of $100B. If thier investors are raising a stink, their CFOs don't seem to care.

Disclosure: Google employee

[0][https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2020Q1_alphabet_earnings...](https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2020Q1_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf?cache=4690b9f) [1][https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY20_Q2_Consolidated_Fin...](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY20_Q2_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf)

<comment><USER19> GOOG & APPL market capital is basically 1000x larger.

Activist investor shows up with $100M fund that they can throw behind Yelp giving them ~10% of the company, they'll have a major say and in some other public companies they might hold the largest share stake depending on the shareholder splits.

The same investor could show up with $100M on a $1T company, have 0.01% and nobody even knows who they are and they can't really push the company to do anything.

There are not that many funds that can take major voicing stakes in GOOG or APPL because of the capital it would require.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I am surprised at the poor economics behind Eventbrite. In 2019, they lost a cool $26 million with a -21% margin. What are their major unit cost items? At the risk of sounding ignorant, isn't it _just_ a website?

<comment><USER21> I'm pretty sure 99% of the companies people on this website work for could be described as "just a website" if you want to be snarky

<comment><USER22> Yeah, but there is physical and people infrastructure behind many websites. Uber/DoorDash/Lyft have drivers and cars. My organization has large parking garages. GoPro makes hardware. Zoom has horrendous bandwidth costs and requires a ton of servers.

They all have some element of their business which doesn't meaningfully scale exponentially.

What does EventBrite have that would be like that?

<comment><USER23> \- Sales staff to get event organizers to use their platform and help with setup. \- Customer support to deal with issues. \- Maybe loss and employees to deal with fraud of some kind (since payments are involved).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Why did we allow so many unprofitable companies IPO? When did losing money become acceptable and the new normal for publicly traded companies?"

First off, the SEC "allows" companies to go public in the US. Any company can do so, assuming you meet the regulatory requirements. Being profitable is not one of them. Being transparent enough on their business and their outlook _is_ one of them.

Now, when you go public, you take on a bunch of additional constraints - <USER2> having to report regularly to shareholders, that private companies don't have to do. So now, the question should be "why did investors invest their own cash into unprofitable companies IPO'ing?"

The answer partially lies into how profitable companies typically do not IPO, as they do not need capital. Want to be a part of IKEA? Not a public company? The Mars Group, who sell most candies worldwide? They are also doing great. LEGO? Nope.

Okay, so you have investors - pensions funds, private individuals and many others - who want to invest, and gain returns on their money. So why do they invest in no -profitable companies? Because they think it's an investment that they are comfortable with. And they usually believe that short- or long-term, their stock value will go up, thanks to the performance of the company.

Welcome to how publicly traded markets work.

</comment><comment><USER25> And once again the tech workforce wakes up in the gutter wearing clown makeup and wondering what happened.

In a functioning economic regulatory environment the whole "Spend big money upfront to Capture & Control $MARKET" game would have been illegal from the get go. We would have had a much greater variety of companies and a much greater variety of size of companies. But, hey. Here we are. In the gutter. Covered in slapstick.

<comment><USER26> By your reasoning Intel would have never been created. QED.

<comment><USER12> Who's to say that wouldn't have been a better world, technologically speaking? Who's to say Intel's market dominance was a good thing? I thought it was a truism in tech that monocultures are a bad thing?

<comment><USER26> I think the more pertinent focus is to ask: was Intel created naturally or artificially? To that, we must look at its effects on human civilization, including the compounding network effects on the Valley. I see its merits as natural and therefore, per Aristotle, necessary. So I can't consider a parallel universe where Intel is not a wealth creation signal which causes the venture capital industry to grow to the point where now every cosmopolis has some sort of VC Fund.

<comment><USER12> It's easy to get sucked into counterfactuals, which are fun hypotheticals but sort of useless in debate. Yet one has to consider- if Intel was never created, wouldn't someone else simply have invented the microprocessor technologies they created? Were there not competitors? It seems inevitable.

<comment><USER26> I remember from a Nova special that TI was actually right there with the planar lithographic technique. And yes, I am also of the position that their R&D was really more like "intrinsic value exploration" \- microprocessors being an inevitable necessity for advancing the state of the art of human civilization, so there is a first mover advantage. But this is where "risk- taking" is so underrated, even in a "swingin' dick" American culture, there aren't many of those types in EE departments and Bell Labs!

So, while I would argue it was practical necessity to mass fabricate central signal processing units, gunning for that opportunity would be reserved for a self-selected population pool, which Nature has determined to be those already opting to be mavericks when launching Shockley Semiconductor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Companies such as Uber tend to be biased towards growth rather than profitability, even at the time of their IPOs. Uber's layoffs are in part due to the coronavirus situation, but perhaps also due to their transitioning towards a profit bias.

It may seem counter-intuitive to invest in companies that are not biased towards profitability, as they tend to be risky and volatile, but portfolio management theory predicts that including some volatile assets in a portfolio makes it perform better. See e.g. [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capm.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capm.asp).

</comment><comment><USER28> > When did losing money become acceptable and the new normal for publicly > traded companies?

It's when big investors decided they'd better keep a selected few companies on life support while they kill fair competition with their suicidal price dumping, and then milk the monopolies they inevitably become.

They don't lay off because they're on their deathbeds, they do so because of automation and optimization. No need for that many mechanical turks.

</comment><comment><USER29> Many of these are gig companies, middle man companies who add no value to the market. Maybe it's time for them to go to the history.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is like saying most people who died are old.

</comment><comment><USER31> >why did we allow so many unprofitable companies IPO?

the Amazon business model? VC/Public's money to gain market shares.

</comment><comment><USER32> Op of the article assumes that you have to be cash flow positive to operate or even IPO. This is false on so many levels. Just look around so many companies exist today which were not cash flow positive at the IPO or even after IPO...Amazon, Tesla to name a few.

</comment><comment><USER33> Since when making points with dirty data is actually relevant ?

We don't even know if the data is representative of anything, there have been millions of layoff, and this db contains 60k of them, and this guy even decided to consider 30 % of it

<comment><USER34> Numbers are on par with what Bloomberg is reporting. Maybe comment with source to the millions of layoffs in the tech industry?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This topic is best explained by Russ: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo)

</comment><comment><USER36> "We are burning money like hay but we need these 20 people to be maintaining our Kubernetes clusters. THIS IS THE WAY."

</comment><comment><USER37> The unit economics of some of these companies may have worked during the good times, but these are unique times. Uber and Lyft are notable examples that barely made a profit even during the good times. Yelp was already in decline long before COVID-19 and having mass business closures didn't help. These layoffs exposed the fact that many companies are like most Americans who live check to check.

<comment><USER38> There's a ton of speculative cash-flow negative rental properties. Probably much more money is invested in this space than VC companies. I wonder how these landlords will fare in this and which will cause a bigger long-term problem.

<comment><USER39> > speculative cash-flow negative rental properties

Usually that means rents aren't enough to cover the mortgages.

Example: Buy a house for $2 million. Mortgage, taxes, upkeep, insurance, pushing toward 100K a year. But there is no chance at all you are going to be able to get $8K/month rent to cover that.

Long term rental property owners, on the other hand, are doing very very well even if they don't sell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Most of these are sustained by investment funds that are interested also in the consumer data

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Allegedly, most public tech companies that have fired staff, are largely unprofitable.

<comment><USER41> One thing that is obvious in this observation is those high growth companies who have an all time high burn rate, headcount, little revenue and once the pandemic hit the tech industry, those found in that category are hardest hit and are operating in an unsustainable fashion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> ...and loads of ML/AI hype.

</comment><comment><USER43> > _...why did we allow so many unprofitable companies IPO? When did losing > money become acceptable and the new normal for publicly traded companies?_

Huh?

In a market nobody's "allowing" things or not, people simply choose to purchase/invest or not. Losing money has _always_ been acceptable in _every business ever_ because businesses require investment and investment takes time (months, years, decades) to pay off.

Why _shouldn 't_ you allow an unprofitable company to IPO? He's arguing that I should be _prevented_ from buying shares in Uber or Yelp no matter how badly I want to? That's incredibly presumptuous of him to think he knows better how I ought to invest my money than I do.

> _Here's to a new generation of entrepreneurs who prioritize building > sustainable businesses._

Nobody would be investing money in these companies if they didn't think there was a good chance of them becoming sustainable long term. Obviously, the board of Uber is doing their best to make it a sustainable business. (You may disagree that it's sustainable, but that's business -- you can disagree about everything.)

Essentially, the author appears to be anti-investment, which is basically anti-economic growth broadly.

Bizarre.

<comment><USER44> Well, zero interest rates from federal reserve definitely allow such businesses to flourish. Where you try to corner a market with infinite money for a monopolistic position.

<comment><USER5> Startups don't get 0% loans from the federal reserve. Banks "do", but interest rates for unsecured, high-risk startups is well above 0%.

Startups get investments from investors, but investors have an opportunity cost. A lower bound on opportunity cost is market index growth, around 7% per year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I believe they are trying to make it up in volume.

</comment><comment><USER46> Interesting to see some of the comments from people who are so buried in the bubble that they can't see how bad these companies often are.

I feel like this insanity started in SV and has grown out to the other tech hubs over the past 10-12 years. Whatever the case it's made me glad I never managed to move out to SV.

I've tried to navigate my career around not ending up at this kind of company. The common things IMO:

\- Not profitable

\- Keep getting more rounds

\- Likely B2C

\- Likely involved web marketing, ads, etc..

\- Likely involvement in "social".

They're all a gamble.. if you're young/single and have little to risk and you go to one of these and it hits you might win big.. but they've never been safe/responsible companies.

I did work for 1 year at one place that I quickly realized was super messed up. It was amazing to me when they IPOed with accelerating losses.

It wasn't always this way.. you used to have to make solid product with a business model that clearly showed growth AND profitability.

<comment><USER47> > It wasn't always this way.. you used to have to make solid product with a > business model that clearly showed growth AND profitability.

Its because there isn't anywhere to put cash.

The market tolerance has expanded because the market was desperate for things to invest in.

So whether it is non-voting shares, profitless companies and bigger issuance sizes, it is all a symptom where there is no predilection for a cure.

The government's growth targets cannot be met without giving money to the credit worthy. Money is free for them and they have make more from that money. It doesn't "trickle down" very far, but it does still lack a place to go where a return beats inflation (the speed at which the government gives other organizations cheap money).

<comment><USER12> And yet, these investors still aren't putting a lot of money in companies working on the stereotypical moonshot "big problem" ideas that Silicon Valley is derided for not caring about- curing cancer, fixing climate change, fighting poverty, inventing fusion power, etc.

<comment><USER48> Turns out the 50+ years we'd need for fusion is a bit too long a position for a system that demands quarterly growth for growing retirement accounts, whodathunk. They take 50 years to mature anyway, what's the point?

Granted, you probably want a bit less than <the time you expect to cash out the account> to figure out if your bets were correct or not and you actually have a retirement account, so it sorta makes sense, but we've gone off the deep end in the other direction, so it doesn't.

<comment><USER12> Eternal never fusion is basically a public policy failure writ large:

[https://i.imgur.com/D6cDJ22.png](https://i.imgur.com/D6cDJ22.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Isn't this also because of tax considerations ? If you make a profit you have to pay taxes, so its better to inflate expenses as much as possible. However this argument gives some credibility to the business models of these companies.

<comment><USER50> No one ever went poor paying tax.

<comment><USER51> I'm out on a tangent, but that is too broad a statement.

There exist constant taxes over non-liquid assets. I am pretty sure we'll people that have been bankrupt over then if we look. They just aren't a problem for people with money (top of middle class or above).</comment></comment></comment>


Mechanical Keyboard Buying Guide - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ruifigueiredo/mechanicalkeyboardbuyingguide <comment><USER2> I have two sources that have been good for me if you don't mind lightly used keyboards that are unlisted. I have had lots of success in /r/mechmarket on Reddit and also on eBay for the older models.</comment>


Porting Node.js crypto to the browser, part 1: all about ciphers - <AUTHOR> http://calvinmetcalf.com/post/104082905653/porting-node-js-crypto-to-the-browser-part-1-all

<comment><USER2> What are your thoughts on CryptoJS ([https://www.npmjs.org/package/crypto- js](https://www.npmjs.org/package/crypto-js)) or SJCL ([http://bitwiseshiftleft.github.io/sjcl/](http://bitwiseshiftleft.github.io/sjcl/))? They both seem to work in the browser well.</comment>


Improvements to the First Time Sign-up Flow - <AUTHOR> http://identity.mozilla.com/post/27914354400/improvements-to-the-first-time-sign-up-flow

<comment><USER2> Persona/BrowserID really seems to be coming along. I am hoping that it becomes the defacto standard for signing into sites, and passwords dramatically lose their importance (for most sites).</comment>


Russia invading Ukraine right now - <AUTHOR> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-28/ukraine-minister-accuses-russia-of-armed-invasion/5291986

<comment><AUTHOR> As always, the Guardian has good coverage that seems to be keeping pace with the flow of information.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/ukraine- accuses...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/ukraine-accuses- russia-of-taking-over-airports-live-updates?CMP=twt_gu)

</comment><comment><USER2> "Ukraine: President Viktor Yanukovych says he was forced to flee due to threats; slams 'pro-fascist' forces" is the actual title.

Posting it to hacker news as "Russia invading Ukraine right now" is editorializing. (See the Guidelines.)

<comment><USER3> Editorializing or link bait? Either way it's a stretch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So one President backs one gas pipeline deal, and the other President another deal. Russia has an interest in the latter.

Both stood to gain massive backhanders. The people of Ukraine have to suffer.

Does that summarize the core issues?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Follow on twitter: [https://twitter.com/search?q=ukraine%20invasion&src=tyah](https://twitter.com/search?q=ukraine%20invasion&src=tyah)

</comment><comment><USER5> I do not like this turn of events. Not one little bit.

<comment><USER6> I don't either, but this is the way the world works. Exiting powers create a vacuum. Expect to see more of Russia and China asserting themselves on the world stage now that the United States is no longer a credible military power.

<comment><USER7> >now that the United States is no longer a credible military power.

It is hard to fathom such a level of confusion.

<comment><USER6> Care to explain? We just lost two wars, were embarrassed by Putin over the "red line" in Syria that turned out to be an empty threat, Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons, Hagel said a few days ago he wants to draw down the Army to pre-WWII levels, and now this with apparently no response from the US.

<comment><USER5> > We just lost two wars

Politically, perhaps, but certainly not militarily. I.e., neither the Afghan Taliban nor Saddam Hussein's forces have the ability to mass forces or hold territory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think this title is slightly sensationalist.

<comment><USER5> _More than 10 Russian military helicopters also flew into Ukrainian airspace over the region on Friday, Kiev 's border guard service said_ [http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/us-ukraine- crisis-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/us-ukraine-crisis- idUSBREA1Q1E820140228)

<comment><USER8> "The fleet denied its forces were involved in seizing one of the airports, Interfax news agency reported, while a supporter described the armed group at the other site as Crimean militiamen."

<comment><USER5> Lol.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rubynetes: Using OpenAPI to validate Kubernetes configs - <AUTHOR> https://www.brightbox.com/blog/2020/02/17/using-openapi-to-validate-kubernetes-configs/ <comment><USER2> I am just today wrestling with the OpenAPI-generated libraries for Java and, summarising: I hate it.

I even went as far as trying to set up my own code generator using the OpenAPI generator toolkit. It is not my favourite code. Everything is deeply nested inheritance hierarchies with humptyjillion methods that do oddly specific stuff. I eventually gave up on it.

Now I am at the point where, to map the generated types to the same types described in the original OpenAPI YAML, I have about 50 goofy lines of string juggling and chasing data structures through 4 or 5 levels of nullable references.

I don't know how we wound up here but I wish we hadn't.

<comment><USER3> IME that's more of a problem between Java and the generator than it is OpenAPI. Expressing things feels clunky when generating Java code in general. Which, I stress, is not to say it's not a problem, and it super sucks when you hit it.

The languages I tend to consume OpenAPI in the most are TypeScript (great), Ruby (pretty good), and on-demand JavaScript (really flexible and comfortable) via openapi-js. I've had some luck with the Kotlin generator on the JVM, too.

<comment><USER2> As it happens, my main code is in Kotlin. I found myself thinking "maybe I could do a better generator" and then my fingers and toes began to tingle ominously.

<comment><USER3> You very well may. The generators are, right now, the worst part of the entire OpenAPI experience. But they're getting steadily better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ultimately, you have to ask the API server because of things like admission webhooks:

[https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/access-authn- authz/exte...](https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/access-authn- authz/extensible-admission-controllers/)

<comment><USER5> And also because the API schema doesn't express state machine constraints.

For example, you can't modify some fields of a statefulset or a job after they've been created. The read-only state of certain fields depend on the status of the object.

Validating purely with OpenAPI also won't catch things like a volume mount referencing a secret that doesn't exist.

At the company I work for, I built some tools for deploying apps that wrap around kubectl, Helm, etc. To "lint" a Kubernetes manifest for deploy, the tool pipes the data through "kubectl apply --server-dry-run" first. (You can also use --dry-run for pure client-side validation.) Works pretty good.</comment></comment>


Why you should wear a bow tie. - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.masukomi.org/2013/01/25/why-you-should-wear-a-bow-tie <comment><USER2> I consider that article flawed.

1) If I wear something 'odd', that doesn't mean that I spent extra time for this interview. If you care about that, ask me how I prefer to dress and I'll tell you an anecdote about me getting married in a Star Wars tee. That I wear a suit to your interview is a big change.

2) A skill to tie a bow tie doesn't translate to anything valuable (except to tie a bow tie)..

3) Being different just for the sake of standing out can be archived in a number of ways and the opposite of coming with a bow tie (? Maybe wearing the a short of your favorite sports team?) would archive _that_ just as easily.

My prejudices?

Suit is already a little over the top. Suit + tie is for old men or greasy sales people. Bow ties are only allowed if you were already a grown-up during WW II.

<comment><AUTHOR> The skill to tie a bow tie is indicative of ones willingness to learn skills that are not necessarily "essential" but are still useful. You're right that odd does not translate into spending extra time for an interview, but it does translate into caring more (assuming that the "odd" thing is something akin to a bow tie which indicates an attempt to look more refined and / or valuable within the context of social norms). 3 of course there are other ways of standing out. That doesn't mean that bow tie's aren't one. Regarding suits... I never mentioned suits. Bow ties can look quite good without a suit. Just like a well chosen standard tie.

<comment><USER2> I don't want to be mean or anything. But that argument is still really, really weak.

First of all that's very superficial. Maybe we're talking about the first impression here?

Second, it's a matter of taste. You think it indicates ones willingness to learn to use that thing, people might very well think you're a show-off, stuck in the past or a weirdo.

Third: Again, your argument can be reduced to 'standing out' (as you acknowledged). Maybe a pair of laces with LEDs inside are just as good to show that you're interested in - well - uncommon stuff.

By all means, wear bow ties wherever you want and tell all your friends to do just that. In my universe it makes no sense though and the arguments so far seem unconvincing. Non-existing (ignoring 'I like the idea to wear bow ties').

So, final words: An article about bow ties is fine. An article with anecdotes about how bow ties got you a job might be okay. An article about how people should wear bow ties, because that totally sets them apart and shows their dedication to ~something~ is just plain false in the way it's set up here.

(P.S.: '.. still useful' is actually quite debatable here, unless you buy into the whole idea of bow ties being useful/nice to wear)

<comment><AUTHOR> I find that any skill that provides me with additional option when performing common tasks is "useful" to some degree.

re LEDs for standing out: i did say "within the context of social norms"

re "dedication to ~something~" I never said, or implied dedication. I said "willingness". This is VERY different. I don't want employees who are "dedicated" to finding alternative ways to do things. I want employees who are "willing" to find alternative ways to do things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not that I wouldn't take fashion advice from HN, but I would never take fashion advice from HN. I can guarantee there are more important things you can do to change your appearance and 'have an effect' than wearing a bow-tie. An example would be having a proper fitting suit, which most men can't seem to understand. This can show attention to detail.

I'm not going to go on because frankly there is probably a threshold for interviewers - if you look like shit, its a bad thing, if you are passable then that is status quo. It won't matter how well you dress beyond that unless you're being hired as a stylist.

<comment><USER4> Well fitting clothes--suit or not--that are clean, a hygienic personal appearance and good posture will go a long way. If you add in some basic manners and tact you're ahead of the game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> As someone who consults people about proper business attire (a side business of mine), let me tell you that this advice is dangerous. The idea of wearing "boring" standard stuff (like a tie) is that clothes shouldn't get in your way and IF you intend to emphasize aspects of your personality THEN you should do it more subtle.

Most people (especially IT) wear their business clothes wrong and it takes me less than 1 second to spot the major errors and around 2 seconds to see more sartorial disasters. And then such a fella puts on a bow tie and looks like a wannabe, a fake. And it shows me that--considering his other sartorial flaws-- he doesn't care about detail enough to get the whole thing right.

tl;dr: If you don't know how to dress and wear a bow tie, it probably backfires. If you know how to dress, you don't need people telling you to put on a bow tie.

</comment><comment><USER6> At least in the US, a bow tie often means, "young republican / political conservative," although I guess the article indirectly makes the case that wearing a bow tie can also mean, "I like to talk about and defend bow ties." So, be aware that you're giving off those vibes if you follow this advice.

You'd also be taking style advice from someone who thinks you need a definition of "de rigueur" and writes parenthetical asides like "(can't forget the ladies)." And generally, if someone tells you, "you should wear this so people will know you're a freethinker," reconsider.

<comment><USER7> "you should wear this so people will know you're a freethinker"

Made me chuckle :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why you shouldn't wear a bow tie: You'll look like a tool.

Sorry - but in general any "wacky" clothing generally misfires drastically.

<comment><USER9> I am reminded of this internet gem:

<http://www.lolwithme.org/wp-content/uploads/FedoraSucks.jpg>

<comment><USER8> :-) Someone should do similar for the leather trench coats people started wearing after The Matrix.

<comment><USER10> I did that. But it got stolen. I'm never getting into Zion now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not sure why this is here, but it should be pointed out that the reason why this author is saying this is because bowties are trendy, and people always try to rationalize something that is trendy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, no. Your mind reading skills need improvement. It was posted because I happen to like bow ties and find that they are neither trendy, nor something anyone particularly wants to wear here in Boston. As such I felt it might be beneficial to geekdom if my comrades were presented with a set of considered reasons why the bow tie is something worth possibly adding to their wardrobe. If you knew anything about me you'd know that I don't really give two @#$! about fashion trends. My favorite suits are heavily armored, and regularly coated with dirt. They are considered excessive, and decidedly _un_ fashionable by others, but I say fashion can sit and spin. I'd rather keep my skin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I must say this is a really interesting conversation.

It seems to have two camps, people who have not considered what they are wearing, and those who have.

I reminds me of foodie arguments where arguments over frying potato chips and baking potato chips break out.

A very useful technique for creating recognition and 'mind share' is to wear something credible but unusual. You go to a bar and remember the gal who had the low cut blouse and ample cleavage but not the dozen who dressed more modestly. You remember the person in college who wore a cape but not the folks who lived in your dorm and you shared a couple of years with, you remember the person who always wore a red shirt and red sneakers, or all purple, or always something leather. The list goes on.

For what ever reason our brains tend to 'note' those folks who stand out a bit through their clothing choices. You may have experienced it personally, or you may not. If you haven't, consider the advice of the OP or something like it and pick some 'thing' to make your brand stand out. Then use it regularly and at the same time try to track your personal 'visibility' in the conversations around you. You may be surprised (if you choose badly you may be horrified) but you will be noticed.

Bashing the idea that you wear a bow tie is silly unless you've done it and can relate how it ruined your life. Its perfectly reasonable to wonder how effective it would be but since bow ties are relatively cheap you could satisfy your curiosity if there was any truth to this by wearing one and seeing the results. You might be surprised at what you find.

</comment><comment><USER13> professions where a bowtie is suitable for a job interview:

\- clown

\- english professor

\- that is all

<comment><USER14> I've met a number of doctors (UK: "Consultant" / US: "Attending physician") who wear bow ties.

Many surgeons have a certain personality. I find this is also true of people who wear bow ties.

Am I missing the trend?

<comment><USER15> These days, long neckties are banned in hospitals because they transfer infections. Your bow tie-wearing doctors likely figured this out for themselves years ago, and settled on a bow tie as an alternative way of looking presentable. For a certain generation of doctor, it'd be unforgivable to appear in front of a patient in an open-necked shirt. (A cravat, of course, being suitable only for confidence artists, gigolos and Europeans.)

<comment><USER16> Continental tie would be acceptable, no? Or do only 50's band members and western outfits get those?

<comment><USER15> Heh :) Permissible by the regulations perhaps, but definitely not acceptable (at least not in the UK).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Because bowties are cool.

<comment><USER18> Damn you. I came here specifically to say the same thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Pee-wee Herman, PSY, The 11th Doctor ... and the classic Playboy Bunny > outfit

These are not the mental associations I want an interviewer to make when I walk into an interview.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll take those associations over "yet another developer" any day of the week. A developer who reminds me of [anyone in that list] is going to stick out in the interviewers mind. Hopefully the interviee demonstrate the skills and decorum to make that a positive memory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> _"Never trust a man wearing a bowtie"_

<comment><USER20> "Never trust a man who doesn't shine his own shoes."

<comment><USER8> "Never brown in town."

i.e. do not wear brown shoes with a work suit. Unless your an italian or something.

I had a trader friend who rejected someone at interview by just writing "BROWN SHOES" across his c.v.

<comment><USER21> Your friend is an idiot.

<comment><USER8> They also wrote into a fat intern's contract that he had to do star jumps on the steps of St Paul's Cathedral every Friday morning.

Their management style is... unique.

<comment><USER21> You're saying this like it's a joke, but it's not funny.

<comment><USER8> I doubt whether they followed through on it more than once or twice.

It's a niche brokerage company. All of the above would be firing offences in a major bank.

Other random items from their company:

\- The CEO insists on being called "The Captain", and once told potential investors that he gets his secretary to roll his spliffs for him

\- Traders who fall asleep at the desk after a night on the town are normally awoken via having their bin or chair set on fire etc etc

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Consider that the most formal/regal of outfits, the Tuxedo, requires the use of a bowtie. A white shirt with red bowtie is a classic, though there's plenty of different colors and styles to mix and match. A friend of mine instituted Bow Tie Tuesday at his job and i'm totally shopping for ties now.

<comment><USER8> And never wear a white dinner jacket unless you wish to be mistaken for a waiter.

<comment><USER22> There are exceptions for warm weather outdoor events, assuming of course a peak or shawl lapel. But definitely not for a job interview.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't think I'd go full bow tie, but I'd conider one of these: [http://agreeordie.com/blog/musings/553-how-to-tie-a- necktie-...](http://agreeordie.com/blog/musings/553-how-to-tie-a-necktie- trinity-knot)

</comment><comment><USER24> Might just be the circles I hang out with, but there hasn't been anything distinctive about a geek in a bowtie since Doctor Who said "bowties are cool".

I do like the ties in the shop they linked to, though.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you're under age 70, and you wear a bow tie, you might be Tucker Carlson.

</comment><comment><USER26> I recommend suspenders.

<comment><AUTHOR> Please provide reasons why I should consider suspenders. To date I have seen little evidence of suspenders being fashionable, or particularly good looking. I am open to the possibility.

<comment><USER26> I can't really tell. I just like them a lot.</comment></comment></comment>


In October 1953, I coined the word 'software' (1995) - <AUTHOR> http://www.niquette.com/books/softword/part0.htm <comment><USER3> I had this moment recently....

What's between hardware and software?

Firmware

Hard - Firm - <USER2>

Maybe I never saw it since I am not a native English speaker. But better late than never

Like:

Heavy Metal - Metal - HardRock - Soft Rock

<comment><USER4> Can somebody explain this word juggling for a non-native speaker? Wikipedia in my mother tongue explains "firm" coming from "solid/tight/strong" ([https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware)).

<comment><USER5> "Firm" describes a mattress. Sleeping on the ground is hard. Sleeping on a pillow is soft. Sleeping on a mattress is firm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> D-Coder This quote from Niquette's web site, "proving" that English has about 38,000 words, does not impress me:

> I took down from my shelf The American Heritage Dictionary of the English > Language, which is not the OED but one I happen to like a whole lot. Now, > there are 1,491 pages with definitions on them. I did a quick count of the > words defined on a couple of randomly selected pages and got an estimate of > 25.5 words. You can do the indicated arithmetic, of course, but I'll save > you the trouble: 1,491 times 25.5 equals 38,020 words.

<comment><USER6> Did he claim it was a _proof_ , or an order-of-magnitude _estimate_ — in the same category as the job-interview question "how many gas stations are there in the United States?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I use hard/soft naming for persistent/transient (disk/RAM) data in my database, I find that analogy works there too.

</comment><comment><USER8> We have hardware, firmware, software, wetware, what other *wares are there?

<comment><USER9> Sub-types of software: shareware, trialware, freeware, payware, bloatware

<comment><USER10> ..vaporware

<comment><USER11> malware

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What about 'hardware'?</comment>


The Future of Analytics.js - <AUTHOR> https://segment.io/blog/the-future-of-analyticsjs/ <comment><USER2> Awesome stuff! I've been using segment.io for about a week on a side project and can say for sure it's the easiest way to add plugins to your site

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks cool, though what's the difference between this and a normal tag management system? Just curious.

<comment><AUTHOR> It definitely competes with a tag management system. We're much more focused on analytics though, and about not just providing tag management, but also a clean API that doesn't just apply to the browser. We'll be building out more API goodness soon too, so stay tuned!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Statsd support would be awesome

</comment><comment><USER5> Will the hosted system be a paid service? Is there a pricing table anywhere?

<comment><AUTHOR> The client-side portion of the hosted service will always be free. Server-side and mobile will be paid monthly, we haven't solidified the pricing quite yet though!</comment></comment>


Less programming, more skill? - <AUTHOR> http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2007/01/less-programming-more-skill.html <comment><USER2> Odd that Bill seems to measure the quality of a hacker by his ability to optimize. For me the test of a good hacker is inventing new kinds of software. Bill's test is probably an artifact of Microsoft's circumstances. Presumably hackers there rarely get to initiate new projects.

<comment><USER3> It was explained to me at a Microsoft recuriting session that I attended a couple years ago that if you work for engineering at Microsoft your job title is either Designer, Programmer, or Tester. People who do one don't do either of the other two. (Although, surely there must be some niches like their research department where cirumstances are otherwise). So, since all Programmers are confined to the straight-jacket given to them by the Designers, the ability to optimize is probably the best way to differentiate the good ones from the mediocre ones.

Needless to say, I wasn't impressed by the recruiter's pitch. Then again, the recruiter probably wasn't impressed by the Tux polo shirt and EFF cap that I arrived wearing :-)

<comment><USER4> '... So, since all Programmers are confined to the straight-jacket given to them by the Designers ...'

Not so. At MS, programmers are king.

A Program Manager comes up with the spec. It's up to the programmer(s) to implement it. So anything the programmer wants to ditch, goes.

Read more at JOS, 'Painless Functional Specifications - Part 3: But... How?' ~ http://tinyurl.com/3asbrp & in this excellent book, 'MICROSOFT SECRETS' (978-0028740485) ~ http://tinyurl.com/2ke4hf

<comment><USER3> Fair enough, but my point remains that the programmers are implementing a spec designed by someone else. When your hackers are completely in control, you can judge them simply by their ability to get things done. If they're implementing someone else's spec, then measurement isn't that simple because their performance will be heavily influenced by the quality of the spec, no matter how much veto power you give them. So, judging by skill at optimizing might well be the next-best alternative.

Then again, maybe we're all being ridiculously overanalytical and Gates just meant "improving" when he said "optimizing".

<comment><USER5> '...Gates just meant "improving" when he said "optimizing".'

I think that's the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great article. I'm personally starting to burn out on programming myself. I've always shunned the cloud around programming, but I'm finding that embracing the teamwork part a little bit more is helping me to recharge a little bit. Would love to quit and go hiking though.. that sounds rreally nice

Also loved how when I voted it up, but I wasn't logged in, my vote registered after I logged in. I'm guessing that's a continuation?

</comment><comment><USER7> I get that it's saying in order to be successful in the field of programming, there's a lot more to get good at other than programming.

But can a person really not get better at programming with more practice? Or is it diminishing returns? It makes it sound like how good you'll ever be is limited by innate talent, and can't be overcome with hard work. Others' take on this?

</comment><comment><USER8> The skill begins by defining the core points of the problem. Then delineating the critical path to the core center of the problem. Problem solving and trouble shooting are two skills many ppl lack.

</comment><comment><USER9> So hang on, how about the old adage "Repetition is the mother of all skill?" How do we apply that in our situation? As a programmer I found that this is one way of increasing your actual skill.

</comment><comment><USER10> I liked this article and I think it's applicable to many other things besides programming.</comment>


The Price 20-Somethings Pay to Live in the City - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/14/realestate/20101114_twentysomethings.html?ref=realestate

<comment><USER2>
      Open link.
      "Click to listen"
      sigh
      Close tab.

You would hope that nytimes, of all places, would be free of audio content.

<comment><USER3> Too bad for you. Hearing the actual voices and what they enunciate actually ads a ton to the story.

<comment><USER2> Yes, if you:

1.) Have the time to spend listening to them (five minutes or longer, rather than just skimming an article)

2.) Are not using a mobile device.

3.) Are using a machine that has flash installed.

4.) Are not at work, and thus can listen to an audio file.

<comment><USER4> Having a good Saturday?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The non-audio link: <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/realestate/14cov.html>

</comment><comment><USER4> Eh, it works for them. If you don't have a desire for much stuff then it works fine.

I'm in a relatively spacious ~550sqft 1BR and I don't really know what I'd do with more space than that. However, unlike some of the people interviewed, I do get lots of light and it's in a nice area.

<comment><USER6> >I don't really know what I'd do with more space than that

Have higher heating/cooling costs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This was on here a couple of months back.

</comment><comment><USER8> Dup: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1903833> (which also, conveniently, is the printed word and not audio or video, which is just plain annoying).

But I guess the difference between then and now was then I lived in Australia. Now I pay through the nose to live in Manhattan. But hey, I'm not 20-something. :P</comment>


Memory inside Linux containers - <AUTHOR> http://fabiokung.com/2014/03/13/memory-inside-linux-containers/# <comment><USER2> Stéphane Graber's ([1] one of the LXC maintainers) comment [2] highlights just how complex the issue is because cgroups are process based. You could potentially be in a state where "top, free, etc" has a different resource allocation than the process you are monitoring (from within the container). Although, this is most likely a configuration issue i.e. classify at the container level, rather than within a container.

Personally, I think we need container aware tools baked in from the start, rather then a fork of existing ones. I guess this is where CoreOS [3] come into play. Since CoreOS is a dedicated distribution geared towards containers. I guess the idea being, that CoreOS will be fast moving, and add support for this type of thing before the mainstream distribution can (ubuntu, rhel, etc).

btw, if you do not know how cgroups work, check out my screencast on them [4].

[1] [https://linuxcontainers.org/](https://linuxcontainers.org/)

[2] [http://fabiokung.com/2014/03/13/memory-inside-linux- containe...](http://fabiokung.com/2014/03/13/memory-inside-linux- containers/#comment-3582)

[3] [https://coreos.com/](https://coreos.com/)

[4] [http://sysadmincasts.com/episodes/14-introduction-to- linux-c...](http://sysadmincasts.com/episodes/14-introduction-to-linux- control-groups-cgroups)

<comment><USER3> It's not clear that CoreOS helps since it does not provide the userspace that runs inside the container. It looks like most people are building Docker images based on Ubuntu or busybox.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, you are totally right! I did not think that through enough. It is all dependent upon the tools _inside_ the container. Should be interesting to see how this one plays out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What is infeasible about providing a fork of the userspace tools (free, top, atop, etc.) that reads from the right cgroup filesystem instead?

<comment><USER5> It's possible, but only part of a possible solution. Those tools still would need a (standard) place to read cgroup specific data from inside the container.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This issue (and many other resource measurement issues) are solved in OpenVZ but not yet in lxc. In supplying the user a whole virtual image, they are able to shortcut many of the things that don't make sense if you are only sand boxing a single process.

If you are managing a single process then you shouldn't expect to be able to sideline anything in successfully. If you do want to do that, then the single process model isn't the one you ought to use.

I think it's reasonable for lxc to say that an exiting model doesn't fit but it feels very wasteful to throw away a whole raft of user land stuff.

</comment><comment><USER7> So aliases don't work?</comment>


I would like to share 400+ data structure and algorithms problems - <AUTHOR> You can find around 400+ data structure and algorithms problems here http://www.techiedelight.com/list-of-problems/ in C/C++ that are helpful to improve your algorithmic skills and also to crack coding interview of top tech companies.
Below's another link that filters problems that are solved using STL.
http://www.techiedelight.com/data-structures-and-algorithms-interview-questions-stl/
Hope this helps. <comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.techiedelight.com/list-of- problems/](http://www.techiedelight.com/list-of-problems/)

[http://www.techiedelight.com/data-structures-and- algorithms-...](http://www.techiedelight.com/data-structures-and-algorithms- interview-questions-stl/)</comment>


Santa's Village Interactive Christmas Calendar - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com.au/santatracker/#/village

<comment><AUTHOR> I have a sneaking suspicion that this would have been built with Google's recently released Web Designer toolkit [1].

[1] [https://www.google.com/webdesigner/](https://www.google.com/webdesigner/)</comment>


Update on Pocket and Firefox Integration - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2018/01/24/update-on-pocket-and-firefox-integration/ <comment><USER2> I know there have been a lot of people who were quite angry about the Pocket integration (and more so about some of Mozilla's more recent experiments with Mr. Robot), but I don't think this is a bad thing (what is mentioned in the post).

> While advertising is the business model of the web, it has evolved into one > that doesn't put the user first. We believe the current model of web > advertising is broken because it doesn't respect user privacy, isn't > transparent, lacks control, all the while trending towards click-bait and > low-quality content.

Well, they're right there. The problem is that things don't function without money (and I don't know that relying on Google paying a huge amount for being the default search provider is a good business model). If Mozilla _really can_ do this while protecting the privacy of the user (and avoiding clickbait), then I think it might be a worthwhile experiment.

For my part, I'm going to see how it works, but will disable if it's not satisfactory.

Of course, someone will probably have to audit their code to ensure they really are protecting our privacy...

> It's important to us to get this right.

Especially these days ;)

<comment><USER3> > Of course, someone will probably have to audit their code to ensure they > really are protecting our privacy

Not doable, because despite declaring (at the time that Mozilla merged with them) that Pocket would become open source, that never happened. To put it another way, we're a month away from the one year anniversary of the date that Mozilla decided to begin operating a closed source, for-profit service.

PS: This is your periodic reminder that the thing you're probably thinking of when you hear the name "Mozilla" actually went away years ago and doesn't exist anymore.[1] It's got the same name and looks kind of the same, like an alien in a human suit, but it's silly to give this any more weight than it deserves. If it helps, think of Mozilla as having undergone a reverse takeover. (It's more complicated than that, and most of it actually predates the Pocket stuff, but if it helps, it helps.)

1\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940727](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940727)

<comment><USER4> > despite declaring (at the time that Mozilla merged with them) that Pocket > would become open source

[https://github.com/Pocket](https://github.com/Pocket)

<comment><USER2> Pocket itself isn't open source, they just have an org on GH which has some tools inside.

<comment><USER4> They started this some weeks ago, and it's supposed to retrieve the missing parts over time. I assume they are just busy checking which parts are legal to open source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Anger abound regarding advertising etc but question: what's the alternative for Mozilla to be a viable company without depending on money from advertising either in the form of Pocket and new tab or via search engines paying for default?

We can all pay a subscription to use Firefox instead. But of course Firefox is open source so...

I mean I'd love for something like Facebook to cost $10 a year, I think that could work. But I don't see any other business model for Mozilla besides charitable donations.

<comment><USER3> Someone tries to make this plea in every thread, but it's bunk and shows an ignorance of history, an ignorance of the concrete figures actually at play, and it helps perpetuate the image of a frail non-profit that Mozilla really rides hard, piggybacking on the circumstances and accumulated goodwill from an era that no longer matches reality today.

Mozilla in 2018 brings in 10 times as much revenue as it did in 2008, but is 1/10th as effective and doing 1/10th as much good work.

0307ea7a0f89f4c893e89e6a4992b82b1a812c22e9510410f9e4279a52368d04

<comment><USER6> What's "0307ea7a0f89f4c893e89e6a4992b82b1a812c22e9510410f9e4279a52368d04"..? A checksum of your comment?

<comment><USER7> It's a commitment hash. He wants to be noted as saying something without saying it right now. When he does say it, you can verify that he had the comment ready now by checking the hash. Its for predictions you only want to reveal after they happen.

<comment><USER6> No way, that is so cool..!

Thanks for explaining.

<comment><USER7> No problem!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I had a glimmer of hope when I saw this headline.

"Oooh, I hope, they're going to move Pocket out to an optional extension!"

If only.

<comment><USER9> What difference would that make, compared to if it's there and you never click on it?

<comment><USER10> What difference made the search bars in IE if you never clicked on them?

Mozilla should never have added Pocket by default, and should remove it. But they won't, just like they set a default search engine for you: they need money. They might be a non-profit, but they do pay wages and have other costs and therefore they need a business model. They choose cooperating with advertisment companies.

Sometimes I think Mozilla's FireFox acts as an supposedly user-focused advertisement for the web whereas the web is abhorrent. When thinking along these lines, it is beneficial for Google to give Mozilla money so there is atleast someone that pretends to make the web work only for the user. After all, Google wants the web in its current state to appear like a good thing.

We really need new browsers that do not play along with advertizers. But I think with the hype train that FireFox has it is difficult to get people to stop and think if things are really going well with it.

<comment><USER9> > "What difference made the search bars in IE if you never clicked on them?"

The Pocket button is tiny. I often forget it's there. Furthermore, other browsers have similar "Read It Later" features, do you have a problem with those too?

"Read It Later" type services are useful in browsers as alternative to bookmarks. Are you going to complain that bookmarks should be an optional browser feature as well? Are you really that bothered by a couple of small buttons in the corner of your browser UI?

<comment><USER11> Ah, so unilateral install of unwanted commercial applications are fine for you as long as each one defaults to a standard icon.

You'll be happy when they add the Nike, Netflix, Tesla, or Chanel logos then so long as each is only a standard icon?

"It's just one icon ..." well two that I know of so far.

<comment><USER9> > "You'll be happy when they add the Nike, Netflix, Tesla, or Chanel logos > then so long as each is only a standard icon?"

Quoting myself...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16233707](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16233707)

"If most detractors were honest with themselves the reason that Pocket had the backlash is because people saw it as a move towards the commercialisation of Firefox. The fact that Mozilla now owns Pocket outright seems to be largely ignored."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > we were excited to find that people used New Tab more when this feature was > enabled.

They say it like it's necessarily a good thing. When you add functionality to the page, it will most likely increase engagement time, but that does not mean that new feature is good(or bad), all it means that users spend more time on that page.

<comment><USER13> Absolutely! And more, it may be that the users are getting more distracted and less productive, although it seems they don't recognize this possibility.

I have tried to use the new tab with everything integrated (another search bar? most visited/pin without reordering, pocket articles) and Mozilla snarks and tips (which I like and find elegant) the feeling each time I open a new tab is the same as when I open my phone with the intent of doing something and, after being bombarded with icons and notifications, completely forget what I wanted to solve in the first place.

It is horrible UX to me. At least I can disable it as I did and I love my empty new tab without any suggestions whatsoever.

Just to dig a bit deeper, I believe browsers chrome should be removed (or greatly reduced) and we should try something new. I don't want to see an endless list of open tabs or your shiny buttons, I want to absorb content. Using Vimperator/Pentadactyl/qutebrowser,etc in the past without system borders opened my eyes to how websites can be beautiful when they are not in a cage and I can't unsee the bloat.

The best Mozilla product of the past couple years, to me, wasn't FF Quantum, but Firefox Focus. I want Focus for the desktop. Amnesic, secure, fast, unbloatable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have become convinced that advertisers are a huge problem and not fixable. Helping to destroy the advertising industry might become my primary activistic ambition.

<comment><USER15> You can probably buy ads to get the word out.

<comment><USER14> ads against ads (like ads for installing ad blockers) is actually something I'm considering doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I actually liked the Pocket on the New Tab page. I've found genuinely interesting articles that I wouldn't have come across otherwise.

As long as they keep it non-political and simply informative, I am checking it out.

</comment><comment><USER10> > While advertising is the business model of the web

Come on Mozilla, stop spreading this bull __ __! Is LWN.net not part of the web? Is tagesschau.de not part of the web? Are my personal pages not part of web? None of them have advertising as their business model. This statement really shows how derailed Mozilla is thinking.

Mozilla should just make themselves honest, turn into a pure for-profit cooperation and do their business at least a little bit more honestly.

<comment><USER17> I'm unconvinced by your loud assertions. What is the business model of LWN etc. and how could that apply to Mozilla's revenue needs?

<comment><USER10> Mozilla is spreading garbage completely independent of how their business model relates to the economics of other sites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Scary. They'll need to be very careful to get this right.

But _if_ they manage to get it right it might be a better deal than relying on revenue from Google?

<comment><USER19> They've bundled advertising software into a critical piece of software that should do only what its user wants it to do. They've already gotten it very wrong.

<comment><USER20> It's a very fine line between content and chrome. Most people can't tell you where their browser ends and their OS begins, nor where a web page ends and their browser begins.

It's all just "the computer is showing this to me". This is why people put up with "Upgrade AVG!" notifications and click "Fix your computer now!" adverts.

Most people see a computer as a service, not a tool: most services are annoying, but you have to put up with them if you want the service; all PCs are the same anyway (unless you can afford a Mac, which is somehow something other than a PC), so there's no better service you can get.

My point is: unfortunately, most people don't care. We're very much in the minority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Firefox has absolutely lost it's mind. This is EA-level corporate double- speak.

</comment><comment><USER22> Mozilla's integration with Pocket is at direct conflict with their values: "Internet for people, not profit". I expected better of them.

</comment><comment><USER23> Wow. Much altruism. Such revolution.

TLDR; "First we enabled DRM, then we sideloaded an advertising extension, now we're an advertising platform, but don't worry because we're changing the world."

<comment><USER24> What Windows browser would you suggest instead? Chrome is made by a literal advertising company and Edge seems nice but relatively feature-poor.

<comment><USER25> Yep. We're down to Safari, Edge, FF and Chrome. Everything else is just a fork of one of those.

<comment><USER26> Part of the problem is how complex the web stanards are these days.

Try building a browser from the ground up today. Part of the issue is the stanards committees keep adding onto what was supposed to be a document format. We have added onto the spec so much that its a mess. Ironically, it was netscape that probably screwed up the web the most by adding javascript. That boat has sailed, but we keep adding more and more features to the specs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've been using Pocket's recommended articles a lot lately. They have solid article picks.

</comment><comment><USER28> What's the current state for the release of the Pocket server-side and mobile app code?

</comment><comment><USER29> So just gonna go through their list of bullet points about how this is Different™ (tl;dr: not very):

* Privacy "Delivers personalization without needing to vacuum up all of your personal data or sharing it with others."

But...

> Your Firefox browser compares your browsing history with the list of related > websites to sort and filter through each day's stories and recommend the > ones that are most likely to interest you... The entire process of sorting > and filtering which stories you should see happens locally in your copy of > Firefox. When Recommendations from Pocket are displayed on your new tab, we > collect information about how many times they appear and whether or not you > interact with them [1]

So that's the exact same model the Brave browser was (is still?) pushing: FF _will_ use your browser history to decide which ads (and "personalized stories") to show you; but will do it locally rather than serverside. This is good if your only concern was the collected private data leaking to third parties; it is less good if your concern is with the use of that private data in the first place.

* Quality. "Rewards valuable content, worthy of your time. Not driven by clicks."

I see literally nothing that supports this statement. They're selling native advertising slots in a push-model content stream, and tracking clicks on those ads just like the rest of the industry. The incentive is towards the highest bidder whose ads won't actively repel too much of the userbase too quickly.

* Control. "If you see a story you're not a fan of, you can hide it. Or you can disable sponsored content altogether."

No snark on this one; this is good. The entire feature can be disabled, or the advertising slots can be disabled within the feature; the controls for this are clear and unobfuscated.

* Transparency. "Sponsored stories will be clearly marked."

Because that's the law, pardner

* Openness. "As an open organization, all code in Firefox is open source"

Shades of Brave, again, but fair enough.

[1][https://help.getpocket.com/article/1142-firefox-new-tab- reco...](https://help.getpocket.com/article/1142-firefox-new-tab- recommendations)

<comment><USER30> > This is good if your only concern was the collected private data leaking to > third parties; it is less good if your concern is with the use of that > private data in the first place.

Can you go into more detail on this?

Firefox uses private data locally every time you start typing in the address bar. What leads someone to object to this particular use (specifically for privacy reasons), but to leaving history on in the first place?

<comment><USER31> Imagine if your browser history was local but every time you use the history feature to revisit a page that URL was sent to Mozilla. How private is that really?

The Pocket code tells Mozilla what ads are being shown and which are clicked on. Since they know that the criteria for ad X is that phrase Y or Z is in the history, then they are gathering data on the type of content you are looking at on the web. This is only one step removed from the actual URLs.

<comment><USER30> > The Pocket code tells Mozilla what ads are being shown

Really? It definitely shouldn't do that.

> and which are clicked on

That's pretty hard to avoid, though. How much of a problem it is depends on how precise the targeting is. But since you're showing interest by clicking the ad, there's not _necessarily_ much of a privacy issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> i may hold a minority opinion here but i love pocket and use the new tab suggestions a lot when reading on my commute for example. I am a bit worried about these personal recommendations tough - i rather liked that the suggestions weren't personalised and gave me articles i would never have found or searched myself, now it may become just another filter-bubble around me...

</comment><comment><USER33> If you don't want these "features", then the easiest option is to delete .xpi files under "/usr/lib/firefox/browser/features/" directory. That's much easier than patching Chromium source code.

</comment><comment><USER34> Where is the source code for Pocket service? Announcement says everything is open source but I cannot find it...</comment>


Ask HN: Casually enquired about a job, mixed feelings about the response - <AUTHOR>

Greetings! This is a throwaway, just to protect all parties.
I'm relatively happy in my current job (great people) but I'm looking around for other opportunities for later in the year when my living situation may change. A friend said that it would be worth shooting his boss an email to enquire about the open positions they have there, so I sent a casual email asking for any more information just to open up a conversation with them and I've got mixed feelings about the response.
It was forwarded on to their HR department (which I didn't know they had) and replied to by them. It was a simple enough response in that it offered a 'telephone interview' in the middle of the day during office hours, and asked me to send a copy of my C.V.
I'm actually feeling quite annoyed by it and I guess I'm looking for other peoples' opinions on how I'm reacting. I've never worked for a company with more than 10 employees and I've thus never run into a HR department before. I think I'm irritated by the person (who is in charge of development there) not responding personally and instead shovelling it off onto someone else, when all I was really looking for was a 5 minute reply to initiate a conversation. That, and asking for a C.V. straight away, already makes me feel like this wouldn't be a place I'd enjoy working. However, I realise that I may be an ass and I could be totally misjudging the situation.
Is it worth me actually putting together a C.V. (haven't needed one in ~4 years) and take them up on their phone interview offer? I already approached another company in the same way a month or two ago and got a response much more along the lines I was expecting (short friendly responses to get the conversation rolling), so it's far from my only opportunity; I just don't have much experience with larger companies and their communication process.
I'd be grateful for any replies; I hope it's not as much of a rambling mess to read as it looks as I type this now. <comment><USER2> Large companies have processes and procedures - if you are not comfortable with that (and thats certainly fine from my perspective) then just back away - its no big deal.

Me - I will never ever work for a company with an HR department - I can get along with a "personnel dept" and if you think that is just a name thing and not something fundamental when it comes to a business and its relationship with the employees then you have something yet to learn.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes - you should submit a CV and talk to them via phone interview: what's the worst that can happen? They don't like you? If so, then you would've found out in 6-12 months anyways.

And maybe they do like you, and want you - now. For more than you're making, or doing something more interesting. Why not take them up on the chance?</comment>


From Attic To Prestigious, $100 Mil A Year Brand - <AUTHOR> http://mixergy.com/adam-strum-wine-enthusiast-interview/

<comment><USER2> I thought I ruined this interview with a bad title. Glad it's getting attention despite the headline.

</comment><comment><USER3> Andrew - I really enjoy your interviews but video content during a busy weekday is a tough proposition.

I imagine that's true of most of your core audience.

I realize you're building your model on video the associated CPMs but I would come to your site for EVERY interview if you had a summary and takeaways posted in conjunction with the original video release.

Maybe do it "slide show" style like business insider / forbes etc with a key sponsor for each point to recover some of the premium CPM value?

The transcripts are helpful, the Jimmy Wales "edited excerpts" much more so.</comment>


Show HN: Implementation of Methods for Power-Law Distribution Analysis - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/shagunsodhani/powerlaw <comment><USER2> Why did you bother implementing the linear regressor considering all the problems it has?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes it is not the ideal solution but I implemented it for the sake of completeness.</comment></comment>


Ethereum from Scratch – Part 4: Finding Neighbors - <AUTHOR> https://ocalog.com/post/21/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi again. I'm the author of the post and also the creator of the website. I'm writing this series of posts to demonstrate the site. My goal is to have people "get" the site by the end of this series. Is the purpose of the site clear?

Hope you enjoy the post. If you have any constructive criticism you'd like to give regarding either the post or the website, let me know!</comment>


Show HN: Extreme Crypto FOMO (how much you could've made investing in crypto) - <AUTHOR> https://www.extremecryptofomo.com/ <comment><USER2> SSL error.

Edit: seems to be working fine on my phone, must be something with corporate network

<comment><AUTHOR> Damn, what browser did you use? Do you still get it?</comment></comment>


The War Against Spam: A report from the front line - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/buzz/goog.research.buzz/DvRkTRUBSys/This-paper-is-short-but-sweet-and-quite-accessible

<comment><USER2> Wow - I think I underestimated the complexity of what Google is working on here. I had always assumed it was a pretty normal (perhaps distributed) well trained Bayesian algorithm. The article does a good job of highlighting some of the other issues they are facing. Makes me more tolerant of the few spam that do get through....

<comment><USER3> I understand the difficulty of the problem, but I still have trouble not getting irritated. Between 5 and 10 affiliate marketing messages make it through to my gmail inbox every day since I moved over in September, despite diligently marking them as spam each time. Are these guys really that smart? I don't read the contents of the body, but it's easy enough for a human to tell just from the sender, subject, and first line that it's spam...

<comment><USER4> The problem of spam is that you do not want many false rejections (much better getting some spam through than losing some valid emails).

In your example, you say it is easy to see from sender/subject/first line it is a spam, but only because you "know" it is a spam. Could you guarantee the email cannot be spam with 100 % confidence ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "the rarity with which users feel the need to check their spam box for false positives demonstrates a high precision of classification"

I find this a curious claim. How does people not checking their spam boxes demonstrate that there are, in fact, few false positives?

<comment> mike-cardwell If there were lots of false positives, people would check their spam folder a lot more. They'd expect to see non-spam email in there.

<comment><USER5> No. Missing emails from friends and acquaintances would get noticed (and therefore people would look in their spam boxes). Missing emails from strangers could be disappearing regularly without anyone noticing.

<comment> mike-cardwell People look in their spam folder. They see an email which shouldn't have been in there. They thus increase their frequency of checking.

That is what Google is claiming, and what I am agreeing with them about.

<comment><USER6> _People look in their spam folder._

Are you sure? I'd be willing to bet that the majority of users either don't know the spam folder exists or trust it to be a one-way black hole dustbin they never feel compelled to dig around in.

False positives are more likely to be discovered when reported by the sender directly to the recipient via other means than email. Even then, I'd be surprised if half of them followed up by trying to locate the message in the spam folder. Frequency of checking seems like an unreliable metric when most users live in the INBOX, especially when Google virtually organizes the messages into "conversations" for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have a simple technique gmail could use that would cut the email delivered to my inbox by over 90%. Observe that I don't correspond with anyone in Spanish, French, Russian, Italian, Chinese, or any other of a long list of languages, and put those message in the spam folder.

<comment><USER8> This case is already covered by Bayesian analysis, no need to make special rules for it.

Also, learn languages! :-)

<comment><USER7> If 5 years and tens of thousands of messages have failed to convince gmail that messages to me in chinese are 100% spam, I have little faith more training is going to fix the problem.

<comment><USER9> Filter on 了 or 的 in the body of the message. That should catch most natural Chinese of non-trivial lengths. (You'll lose most Japanese ham, too, but I'm guessing not a problem for you.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Spam tip: Have your personal domain redirect all emails to gmail. Then when signing up on a website, enter "firstname.lastname@example.com" as your email. Helps to see which websites sell your email address to spammers. Also provides protection against websites stealing your email password.

<comment><USER11> You do not need gmail for that. Just set up "catch-all" mail for your domain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Great $self->patOnBack() but web spam is a huge unsolved problem that hurts Google's core business and is possibly the biggest threat to their revenue and market share. It's also the biggest opportunity for innovators in the search space right now.

<comment><USER13> _Great $self- >patOnBack() but web spam is a huge unsolved problem_

And if you'd read the linked papers (or even the summary page for that matter) you'd have read that this has nothing to do with web spam - only the traditional, meaty email kind.</comment></comment>