Ask HN: Launched Startup Project, Simple Analytics Reports, Feedback? - <AUTHOR>

A month ago we posted about a project, Metric Mail, that was in development at the time (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1398876). Metric Mail is a service that generates simple Google Analytics reports as PDF and delivers them via email on a weekly basis. It is developed on Google App Engine in Python.
We just launched a first (hopefully) working version, which is exciting and scary at the same time.
What do you think? Any kind of feedback would be a great help for us, we'd love to hear from you.
http://getmetricmail.com
Thanks a lot in advance, Tim & Chris <comment><USER2> Interesting. How is this better than doing the following one time:

(1) Login to Google Analytics.

(2) Click 'View Reports' for the site of interest.

(3) In the lefthand menu under 'My Customizations', click 'email'.

(4) If you have one setup already, click its title to edit it. Otherwise, create one.

(5) Choose the report you want it to send you.

(6) From the Date Range/Schedule dropdown, select among Daily, Weekly, Monthly, or Quarterly.

In other words, it appears to me that that this can all be done from within Google Analytics. Perhaps I'm wrong though?

<comment><AUTHOR> You're absolutely right. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the setup procedure and style of Analytics' own report feature. Over the longer term, we will add other data sources to enrich the information that Analytics provides. At that point, the difference will become clearer. Also, we made the surprising experience that even the process outlined by you can be quite challenging for some website owners who try to avoid as much hassle as possible to get to their data, even if it means sacrificing a bit of depth. That's the situation we want to address by making the process as simple as possible, although (obviously) we have some work ahead of us.

<comment><USER2> As you or someone else mentioned, your service will probably not stop at just GA. If so, then this will be quite valuable - creating a unified interface to all major analytics systems. My vision was too limited when I first thought about what you were doing. Great work!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Clickable <http://getmetricmail.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> Cheers :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very easy to setup, I've signed up, so I'll be able to give you a bit more feedback once I get the first email... I do like how simple it is. Give me a list of profiles, I select the ones I wanna see.

Edit: Got my first email. I don't like the font, otherwise this is great. None of my sites are really so critical that I check analytics every day, so getting this once a week is perfect for me. I'll keep it for now.

</comment><comment><USER5> Is there any thought about expanding this to other analytics packages? We use Piwik instead of Google Analytics.

<comment><USER6> If there is enough demand for something like this, we would definitely implement it.

In general, every tool that provides an API can be integrated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like it. Very easy to sign up. Previously I would log in periodically but it's easy to start getting compulsive about it.

I really really want Feedburner integration. Those are the two metrics I check.

I would prefer to receive these every 2 weeks or every month instead of every week.</comment>


New Macbook rumoured to have no escape key - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/10/25/13409258/apple-new-macbook-pro-no-escape-key <comment><USER2> As a touch typist, I cannot tolerate slightest change in keyboard layout. Now this is unthinkable. As a Vim user too, I heavily rely on Esc keys and it will be perfect recipe for them to kill my work flow. So much arrogance in name of invention.

Why does not Apple create an app for it's user to teach them touch typing if it cares so much about its users. Why isn't there any comprehensive offline manual inbuilt into the OS? Now they are making Esc key a next mp3 jack. Enough of spoon feeding.</comment>


Dropbox introduces new API features - <AUTHOR> https://blog.dropbox.com/2013/07/dbx/

<comment><USER2> _" [...] over 175 million people using Dropbox and more than a billion files synced each day"_

Assuming that the "1 billion" refers to number of sync events, that statistic implies that on average, Dropbox users only make changes to ~6 files in their Dropbox per day.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Dropbox must have a _massive_ Power Law at work.

EDIT: I might be wrong with my interpretation of "files synced": it could mean _distinct_ numbers of files that receive a sync event atleast once per day or files _added_ per day to a Dropbox which are then synced. In both cases, I believe the ~6/day statistic and I apologize.

<comment><USER3> Does 6 seem high or low to you?

<comment><USER2> If a user is using Dropbox as backup/sync as opposed to free long-term storage, 6 seems unbelieveably low.

I store my IM logs in my Dropbox. Every time a message is sent, 2 files are changed (the message log and the overall database). One conversation alone can fire _100_ sync events.

And if you're like me and are a Ctrl+S addict when working on important papers or code, each Ctrl+S is a sync event.

<comment><USER4> I think you are definitely the outlier here. Most people I have seen using Dropbox store some documents there, not even all of them. Just those they want to have synced.

That's also more or less the default for Dropbox, that's how it's set up and guides its users. It's just some folder in your user folder, not even the documents folder. By default you have to actively think to put stuff in there.

I think you might just have a wrong picture of who uses Dropbox. Storing IM conversations or even _all_ of your documents on there is quite esoteric.

Also, if you think of a typical home computer of someone who has a job then there aren't going to be many files on that thing. A few letters to cancel something or other (but even that is done mostly by email these days), photos, videos and maybe some music (but many people don't put that in their Dropbox because there is just no space) … that's not much. You don't need to create files to go to Facebook or read the news or get weather info or watch the stocks (minus Facebook that's exactly the stuff my dad does on the family laptop and I installed Dropbox on both PCs in their house to keep their rarely changed documents folder in sync).

Yeah, students probably have more documents but I have even seen those only use Dropbox for collaborative stuff – not all the rest they do.

It's not that those people don't get value from Dropbox or don't use it, they just don't need it that often.

<comment><USER2> Fair enough. I admit I'm paranoid about my file integrity. :P

Although if the behavior that you describe is the typical user behavior, then that's not a good thing for Dropbox's attempts to convert free users to paying users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Man, I really don't want to come off as a hater at all, but I never got the dropbox hype. They seriously have a developer conference now? Yikes.

<comment><USER2> What about the Box and Twilio conferences?

<comment><USER6> it's become the hot thing for enterprise companies to host conferences. a good excuse to expense a weekend in california.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It seems strange to me that they are bragging about syncing between mobile and the web, but the only web SDK they provide is for JavaScript - I can't even find REST documentation for the Datastore API.

I love the idea of cloud apps that use user-provided datastores. It makes it both cheaper for a startup (because they can crowdsource their data storage) and easier for users to control what data services have about them. Google Drive already provides a service whereby I can store a user's data in his Drive account without cluttering his filesystem with my app's metadata. Dropbox Datastores sounds like a similar feature, but it's way less appealing to me if I can't talk to it from my backend.

<comment><USER8> I agree. The first thing I did when I saw this announcement was look for the REST API. Surely, those existing platform specific libraries are built on a REST API, so why not document and release them.

<comment><USER9> It's in beta; don't want to nail down the protocol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seems like this is in direct competition with Parse.

I look forward to kicking the tires, since I've been looking for a solid replacement for Parse ever since Facebook bought them.

</comment><comment><USER11> Can anyone who uses the Dropbox API tell me if these features are significant?

From my .Net developer's point of view, I am not seeing why these aren't just weak versions of the Azure storage capabilities or Amazon's S3. It's nice to be able to target DropBox as a storage location but that's a pretty rare use- case for me. Especially since their security store is incomplete.

<comment><USER12> I think fundamentally Dropbox's move away from the filesystem by exposing an API like this and through application acquisitions (music and mail) is about trying to become the Apple of personal data.

Dropbox has done a phenomenal job of taking a complex challenge (file sync) and making an incredibly simple user experience. Extending that strategy into other common tasks with new and purchased apps could be very successful. The big element missing is BaaS (back-end as a service) for data and events that aren't files. Given the poor track record of services like iCloud, you can imagine a lot of developers adopting the Dropbox API and in a few years most iOS devices might be running a combination of official Dropbox apps (replacements for itunes, mail, and maybe calendar) and many other essentially stateless apps that use the Dropbox API for sync and storage.

In the short term this could be very convenient for users and developers, but in the long run it creates another monolithic, centralized platform. This kind of functionality needs to be delivered as a protocol so users can choose service providers who compete on price, features, and privacy instead of being citizens of a particular platform (Facebook, Apple, Google, MSFT, or increasingly Dropbox).

<comment><USER13> > This kind of functionality needs to be delivered as a protocol so users can > choose service providers who compete on price, features, and privacy instead > of being citizens of a particular platform (Facebook, Apple, Google, MSFT, > or increasingly Dropbox).

How would this benefit dropbox?

<comment><USER12> Not sure which you mean:

\- Their proprietary BaaS benefits them by consolidating all user data on their service and creates a greater incentive for users to upgrade to paying (or higher priced) plans.

\- Alternatively, structuring this as a portocol (as we've tried to do with Tent [https://tent.io](https://tent.io)) benefits the entire ecosystem. It's a little like asking how the web would benefit AOL. Protocols can bust monopolies but increase the overall value of an ecosystem. You might go from controlling 50% of n to controlling 10% of 20*n. Open ecosystems can encourage innovation in ways that centralized services can't, often to the benefit of the centralized players.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/at-netflix-radical-transparency-and-blunt-firings-unsettle-the-ranks-1540497174 <comment><USER2> Netflix has tried to recruit me a couple of times, I interviewed on site both times (after having the recruiter send me the slide deck that they use to explain their culture so it wouldn't be a surprise). For one of the sessions I had the extraordinary opportunity to talk to the manager for the role, their manager, and two people who had previously been in the role (Netflix wasn't aware that I knew those people).

What I discovered, for this one group only, the manager and their supervisor had essentially created a system for hiring people that could be fired when the manager's effectiveness was under scrutiny. It was very Machiavellian but it was also pretty effective for them. I carefully backed out of the discussions to avoid any hurt feelings, and watched as two more people were hired into the role and then left later on. The manager and their supervisor will still there the last time I checked (about a year ago).

I suggested to their recruiter that it would be useful them to understand _all_ of the behaviors that would allow someone to be successful in their culture rather than just the one they were shooting for. This observation was not unlike Jeff Goldbloom's observation in Jurassic park to have the system count 'all' the dinosaurs, not just stop at the expected number. You can build a system to encourage excellence and that is good, but also check to see if it can be exploited by folks who can fool the sensors into thinking they are excellent. And then put in safeguards to detect those too. I'm sure if they did some data science on roles that turned over a lot it would identify bad managers that were avoiding scrutiny.

<comment><USER3> That's what you get when you have fixed quotas for firing people, e.g. bottom 10%. After a few rounds you have some very good people left and either you fire good people that are hard to replace or you hire people to fire them. I don't understand how the top guys don't see that dynamic.

<comment><USER4> That's only true if the population is static: if you fully replenish, and then discard the bottom 10%, on repeat, then your overall quality should be going up.

If you only make new bad hires, the 90% good population will stay the same, and the newly hired 10% will be fired.

If you make n good hires, such that that they're better than some peer in the previous 90% population, then the worst n peers will be shifted into the 10% firing population, and replaced with the better new hires in good 90% pop.

So, assuming your metric is solid, and replenishment occurs, the strategy should be successful.

<comment><USER5> Your statement would also only be true if people could genuinely identify low performers every single time without causing collateral damage, you are able to always ensure you hire people that are good and the company culture does not devolve into a empire building system and managers are not power hungry people looking out only for themselves. And this happens, it happened at many silicon valley companies (including one I worked for that is well known). Stack ranking does not work. It creates a culture that ends up embodying all of what I said above.

<comment><USER4> >if people could genuinely identify low performers every single time without causing collateral damage,

I'm not sure about collateral damage, but that's what I meant by a solid metric.

If the metric isn't worth shit, then you're probably not doing much better than random selection, and perhaps worse, selecting on a trait you didn't mean to, or didn't want. e.g. power-hungry.

But if you believe in the metric, the strategy is sensible (and its probably safe to assume such managers do indeed believe in their metric).

Probably the bigger problem is there's no strategy in place to test the metric

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _Many employees say they see the keeper test as a guise for ordinary > workplace politics while some managers say they feel pressure to fire people > or risk looking soft. Postmortem emails and meetings explaining why people > got fired are viewed by some employees as awkward and theatrical when the > audiences can be dozens or even hundreds of people._

So every employee gets to be badmouthed in front of as many as hundreds of former co-workers, as Netflix's special parting gift?

What a treat!

> _Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees > for performance reasons_

So Netflix is actively propagating the obvious myth that all terminations are due to poor performance. Not because the nature of the project / technology changed, not because the chemistry between the fired person and key players like his supervisor has unfortunately gone south... No, it is always poor performance.

Good luck getting your next job!

And to help you on your way out, we'll make sure every single one of your former co-worker hears your former supervisor talking trash about you in very blunt terms.

You know, just to make it easier for these same co-workers to provide references to your prospective next employers.

Have we said good luck already...?

(Netflix employees, why do you accept this?)

<comment><USER7> > Netflix employees, why do you accept this?

Money, of course. Plus, people working in tech and making very good money are not known for "spine-straightness".

<comment><USER6> > _Money, of course._

If they are such solid performers, they can get jobs in other FAANGs who pay just as well. Netflix pays well, but does it pay so much better that I should put up with this BS?

I doubt.

In fact, by keeping up this abusive charade, Netflix is guaranteeing that many of the best candidates will never apply. So my guess would be that their employees aren't the best, but perhaps the best candidates willing to accept this BS.

<comment><USER8> This is absolutely untrue.

The pay for Senior & Principal level positions at Netflix are $350k-$500k+ base compensation. The same shape of thing at Apple, Facebook, etc. would be about half that in many cases.

Netflix goes out of its way to pay top-of-market and often by a significant margin.

<comment><USER6> > _The pay for Senior & Principal level positions at Netflix are $350k-$500k+ > base compensation. The same shape of thing at Apple, Facebook, etc. would be > about half that in many cases._

A Principal Engineer at FB would make "half" of $350-500k in compensation?

Pure nonsense.

Moreover, it seems like Netflix pays more cash and less equity, so some folks on this thread love to talk about "base compensation", "salary", etc.

What really matters is total comp, and from what I know, Netflix is about on par with the rest of FAANG.

I don't know much about them directly, but I do know folks who work for FAANGs very close to Los Gatos, and would certainly be inteested in moving if Netflix paid more "by a significant margin".

<comment><USER7> They definitely pay more at Netflix for equal IC positions and very likely for Director roles. It is very rare to find ICs making 600-700 k total comp at Facebook or Google, not rare at all at Netflix.

<comment><USER9> Then it makes perfect sense. Not that hard to endure a little _wild wild waste_ ride for $700K per year.

<comment><USER7> I agree, they sometimes exchange dignity for money.

In fact, it is not-my-wild guess that the probability of stopping a homicide steeply decreases with the amount of money given to look the other way. For some, even their sister's. Go figure for a job in tech.

<comment><USER10> So if they were nicer would they reduce their employee costs then? They justify their culture with I'm guessing handy-wavy justifications of business success?

<comment><USER7> The matter is not being nicer for the sake of it, but more not being a bunch of cultish, indoctrinating, out-of-touch-with-the-world, fake-no-nonsense people. I also tend to judge very negatively people who are "nice" or "not nice" depending on the economic benefit they get from their conduct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > _Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees > for performance reasons, not because managers don't like them_

From what I've seen, managers give poor performance reviews or "metrics" when they don't like people. This feels like a distinction without a difference.

<comment><USER6> I've never seen an employee getting fired "because their manager didn't like them".

I've seen plenty of employees getting fired because their manager, who didn't like them, gave them a bad review.

In fact, across companies and even industries, being disliked by your manager is the single most reliable way to get fired.

Anyone claiming you can be disliked by your superior yet reliably keep your job - is BSing you.

Since this is, essentially, what the spokesman is stating, then I call typical PR BS.

<comment><USER12> OTOH your feelings for your reports correlates highly with the quality of work they're putting out

<comment><USER13> That assumes most managers are skilled / engaged enough to correctly judge the quality of work put out by the individuals working under them.

My personal experience puts that at about 2/4 as far as previous managers go.

<comment><USER12> Sometimes the disconnect is that your idea of quality work is different from your manager's. Although at the end of the day, that's your manager's fault anyway (because keeping that alignment is literally the manager's job).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> >Many employees say they see the keeper test as a guise for ordinary workplace politics while some managers say they feel pressure to fire people or risk looking soft.

I worked for a place like this. Regular firings, sometimes every month. The CEO (who also self-funded the company) believed that regularly letting people go was a way of eliminating bad apples and forcing people to work harder and smarter. Similar to Netflix philosopy, but on a smaller scale.

Firings happened for all the reasons you'd think--politics, cliques, not being a "cultural fit." "Not being a team player" was often code for not trying hard enough to make your lead look good.

It was toxic and led to massive tech debt accumulation, as a succession of engineering managers all made new and different decisions on frameworks and technologies as soon as they were hired. Very little institutional knowledge.

Implicit quotas for regularly letting people go is just an insane way to run a business.

(edit: clarity)

<comment><USER15> > _The CEO ... believed that regularly letting people go was a way of > eliminating bad apples and forcing people to work harder and smarter._

Microsoft called it Stack Ranking.

<comment><USER16> Also known as "Management by Bestseller".

Some CEO of a successful company writes a book claiming his management wisdom led to his company success and then a bunch of CEOs read the book and try to replicate the same success because they don't have any original ideas themselves. In this instance the CEO was GE's Jack Welch and his policy was 'rank and yank'

Similarly, some CEO will write that you must have a mission statement and distill your management philosophy into 3 or 4 words preferably starting with the same alphabet. Next thing every CEO has their own tag lines: 'Agility, Accountabilty, Ambition' or 'Passion, Persistance, Performance' or <insert words from thesarus>. My previous company CEO spent thousands of dollars on polished metal tangram squares with her three words embossed on them given to every-single-employee at the company.

<comment><USER17> Ah yes, the "Conjoined Triangles of Success" from Silicon Valley is a parody of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If anyone from Netflix is reading this and needs to hire someone for the purposes of firing them a year later, I'm your man. I am no ordinary sacrificial hire.

I will work with you to create the narrative you need to showcase your true, natural leadership and management abilities. You know you've got what it takes; you just haven't had the opportunity to demonstrate it. My job will be to make sure that you come out of it shining, with the enhanced respect of your superiors, subordinates and peers. People will nod sagely when they look at you, clearly seeing your senior management potential. If you need any of your peer competitors to come out of it looking bad, that's part of the service; hey, the very fact that you're using my services makes it clear that you _are_ smarter than them. You deserve this.

I won't name names (confidentiality of course is part of the service), but let me assure you that some of them are already doing this to you. There's no crime in levelling the playing field; making things even again is the right thing to do and the only way to ensure that your natural innate talents can be properly recognised to win you the promotions you deserve.

Obviously this is a premium service; we can work together to make sure that I appear to be worth every penny of the top flight salary you offer; part of the narrative will be how I appeared to be such a great applicant and a perfect hire but it was _your_ leadership skills, _your_ intuition, _your_ deep insights that uncovered this employee's true inadequacies where everyone else had seen an illusion.

<comment><USER19> Love it - reminds me of the famous letter by Da Vinci outlining his capabilities :-) [https://gizmodo.com/5460442/leonardo-da-vincis-resume- explai...](https://gizmodo.com/5460442/leonardo-da-vincis-resume-explains-why- hes-the-renaissance-man-for-the-job)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Wow. I can literally feel my neck and shoulders bunching up just _reading_ this. If I wanted to live in a fear-based culture every day, I'd join the armed forces--at least that way I could shoot back.

<comment><USER21> FWIW, "culture of fear" hasn't been my experience at all, and as far as I know it isn't the experience of the people I work with. I can't speak for other teams/orgs (I work in the ML org) but in the years I've been here I could count on one hand the number of folks (at least among those I knew) who were let go. I don't worry or think about my job security; I think about building better software (and from what I can tell, the same could be said for my colleagues).

The article really sensationalizes the culture deck for dramatic effect, IMHO. It's intimidating at first, but if you're good at your role and treat your colleagues with respect then (at least IME) you have nothing to worry about. The mood is collaborative, not confrontational – and I've never witnessed anyone being treated with anything but dignity and respect. Again, maybe different teams have their own "microclimates" – but that's been my experience.

So yeah, my two cents is that the article sensationalizes things and deliberately leaves context out of other things. I really wanted to keep my distance from this thread, but it makes me really sad to see how successful the WSJ was in getting people to buy in to the picture they set out to paint. I'll say one more thing (at the risk of sounding like a mouthpiece, which I'm not): Netflix has been hands-down the best workplace I've experienced in my career so far.

On the other hand, I've learned that I should view other "culture take-down" articles about tech companies with a degree of skepticism.

<comment><USER22> A few months ago, a good engineer who had left Netflix told someone I know that the reason was the work culture: specifically, she mentioned that there were team meetings where everyone was encouraged to say what they didn't like about others, in a public setting.

More recently, this person I know brought it up when interviewing at Netflix (not wanting to work in such a culture), and was reassured by the hiring manager that no, such things do not happen, that all feedback/criticism is 1:1 and never in a public setting.

Now, the article says

> At some team dinners and lunches there are rounds of "real-time 360," > executives say, where everyone goes around and gives feedback and criticism > about others at the table.

What has your experience been?

It seems likely to me this is actually true (as independently corroborated by both my friend's friend, and this article), and the manager denied it to a potential future employee, which seems not a very nice thing to do.

And surely there's a selection bias at play: anyone who has a problem with such a culture (e.g. someone who doesn't want to be criticized in public as a matter of course, or someone who doesn't want to be fired one day unexpectedly) would leave, so by definition those who remain are those who are fine with such a culture and don't see it as a problem.

<comment><USER21> Both the manager and the friend-of-friend could be correct – it depends on the team. Some teams encourage (but don't require) a group feedback session where everything is out in the open; others encourage private feedback.

But either way, the goal is the same – not to target you or make you feel inadequate, but for you to discover things that you might not have realized were negatively impacting the team.

Group feedback meetings do exist, but I can't imagine that anyone would be penalized (even in thought) for choosing not to participate.

The way I see it, people will talk about their coworkers at any workplace. At most places it's behind their back; here we have respect enough for one another to give each other _constructive_ feedback directly instead of gossiping. It makes a lot of sense to me, but I guess not everybody feels that way. If your manager doesn't make it clear that group feedback is optional, that would be a great piece of feedback for your manager!

So I think "criticized in public as a matter of course" is a mischaracterization. IME managers go to great lengths to ensure that people are treated respectfully and not made to feel pressured to participate in things they aren't comfortable with. And "fired one day unexpectedly" is certainly not the norm – I'm not aware of anyone who was let go without having been told weeks or months in advance about issues they needed to address. That's not to say it couldn't happen, because it could happen at any workplace. But it's not the norm.

Edit: Should also mention that the feedback cycle also includes positive feedback. It's not just a gripe fest. You identify things that your colleague is doing well/things you appreciate, and also things that they could improve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sure, they fire for performance reasons by setting up one of those kangaroos courts where your voice is nowhere to be heard. The build-up to the inevitable firing is something akin to an Ionesco play, one absurdity after the other. The higher-up gets some sidekicks onboard, people who would sell their grandmother for a half-chewed piece of chocolate, and the smearing campaign begins.

The apologist has the words ready: they pay you a lot, they are clear about firing liberally, and you get your severance package. What's to complain about? Unfortunately (for the apologist), there are people who still have some dignity and do not like to be on trial with the kangaroo court. It is better to be punched in a leg than in the face, we all agree on that, but some people – a dying breed, apparently – do not like to be punched at all.

The article is a good description of what happens at Netflix, including the creepiness trickling down from the top with the lemonade, although there was never an email from the CEO asking the leaker to expose herself.

<comment><USER3> I remember reading about this a while ago and I thought that it could work for a while but eventually you will attract and accumulate a bunch of cutthroat sociopaths. How do you even assess performance objectively without smart people gaming the system?

<comment><USER7> They don't, of course, people game the system. The trick is recognizing that a good fraction of people in tech at a company like Netflix could disappear tomorrow along with their work and the company would not even notice. So it is not that the fire someone and other people protest because they recognize they have lost "talent". Life goes on, paycheck comes and they are all ready to code again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees > for performance reasons, not because managers don't like them

Oh how I wish I could have had that. I've had an experience in the past where I was dismissed because my manager decided he just didn't like me anymore. Although I was the best performing, most senior developer on the team and was doing all the hiring and mentoring of others, it didn't save me.

Within two months I went from having a glowing performance review that recommended me for a management role to being summarily dismissed for "attitude."

<comment><USER24> I can't help but wonder why just about every company has terrible hiring/HR/management practices.

You would think that someone out there would fix those problems at their companies and reap the rewards: an effective, highly motivated workforce.

The fact that we haven't seen that means either that it's a hard problem to solve, that nobody pays attention to it, or that there is no economic value in working to have "good" practices when it comes to workforce management.

... Or maybe it's good to have your workers living in fear, worrying if they'll be next at the end of your Kafkaesque processes ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh, one last thing I remembered: a previous coworker of mine raved about how his company treated workers, but the company was later acquired by a bigger player, and the situation changed. Perhaps companies with good practices get absorbed by the "big bad wolves" that have established themselves in the market.

<comment><USER25> I think the reason is that HR is similar to IT and QA - if they do their job right, it's like they're doing nothing at all.

My guess is that "Thank God HR was on top of that problem" is not a common phrase in meetings. Neither is "Wow, HR did a fantastic job creating that job posting, and every single candidate that they've brought in has been at least plausible." If they aren't braindead, you just take them for granted.

Systems like that tend to get neglected.

<comment><USER26> The role of HR is to shield the company from liability.

<comment><USER27> The role of IT and QA is also to shield the company from all kinds of liability: legal, process, financial, failures, continuity, etc.

<comment><USER28> only incidentally. whereas it is literally HR's job.

<comment><USER29> Come on, be fair. There are tons of administrative tasks that HR takes care of that have nothing to do with liability.

<comment><USER28> sure. those are the incidental parts of _their_ job.

<comment><USER30> Deciding on compensation structure, recruiting/hiring, and handling things like leave, benefits etc. Can all, depending on the company, fall under the purview of HR. None are primarily to protect the company from liability.

There are certainly some parts of the job primarily about avoiding liability but, as go said, that's true for many swes too.

<comment><USER28> compensation structure is decided by the c suite, or can be. if decided by HR it's just a convenient delegation of research work.

recruiting is a separate function from HR. even in medium sized companies this is is visible in the reporting chain.

the other things are all outsourceable and these days they are except for large companies and older companies with inertia.

the one thing that isn't outsourceable or trivially reassigned is liability. That is HR's core competency, if you will.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I recently quit a job that had me burned out, and in the meantime I've decided to take a couple months off before my next job. My biggest fear in going back is that I feel like now that I have 0 tolerance for the corporate culture bullshit that permeates all large organizations. I don't really even fault Netflix for what they're doing (I've certainly seen much worse) but I've determined that to function that pretty much all large organizations have to do this weird theatrical dance that separates them from their humanity, and no one (or sometimes too many people I guess??) are willing to call them out on their bullshit.

Oh well, guess I could always be an Uber driver.

<comment><USER32> The good/bad thing about going back to corporate is that the initial euphoria of stability and lack of stress offsets the frustration at meetings and politics. As the first declines, your ability to deal with and ignore the second increases. Equilibrium ensues until you next get the startup itch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> _"Being part of Netflix is like being part of an Olympic team," the company said in a written statement_

Oh please. Get over yourselves.

<comment><USER34> Netflix is a fracking online video store for F^%k's sake - not Bell labs

<comment><USER35> Well, it's not like Olympic athletes are doing anything new and innovative. They are just the best at doing what millions of other people also do. That seems like a decent analogy for Netflix whose basic task isn't groundbreaking, but who has to manage doing it at a scale that rivals anyone else in the industry.

<comment><USER36> It's not a good analogy because it doesn't require individuals at the top of their field. The only reason Netflix is winning is because they have massive amounts of content and integration into many devices. Both of those are business arrangements and have no requirements for the best engineers in the world. Just competent ones.

<comment><USER37> That is not completely true, it would be very easy to start a company and acquire such a library and still fail.

It's also about the quality of the service, the apps and the rest of the experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> > Richard Siklos, a Netflix spokesman, said the company only fires employees > for performance reasons, not because managers don't like them

That's not true at all. The company fires people all the time because their skills just aren't necessary. I mean I guess technically it's a layoff, but a layoff and getting fired are functionally the same at Netflix as they both come with the same severance.

When we moved to AWS, there were plenty of folks who were let go because their expertise was in physical infrastructure and they had no desire to learn about the cloud.

They were stellar performers, their expertise just wasn't needed anymore.

I very much enjoyed working in a culture where both hiring and firing were easy to do, to make sure that the team was always the right people at the right time.

<comment><USER3> " and they had no desire to learn about the cloud."

Is that true? I have seen it quite a bit that people in similar situations were never asked if they would like to switch.

<comment><USER39> I don't think it works like that... The company doesn't ask you if you'd like to switch to the cloud, and then you give a yes/no answer.

In my experience, what happens is there is a technology shift -- the company leadership decides they want to use the cloud (or use containers, or start moving their codebase to ${LANG}, etc.) and there is a group of employees that will lead this effort by learning and working with the new technologies, and there is another group that will actively oppose taking responsibility to learn about the new technology, and may actively work to sabotage or slow down the process.

<comment><USER3> " and there is a group of employees that will lead this effort by learning and working with the new technologies, and there is another group that will actively oppose taking responsibility to learn about the new technology, and may actively work to sabotage or slow down the process. "

And I have seen groups that would like learn the new tech but never get involved by management.

<comment><USER39> What is stopping a group from learning a new tech, regardless of whether change is organic or imposed by management? Or are you saying you have seen people get replaced with zero warning that new technology was being introduced? That's definitely not been my experience.

<comment><USER3> This was mainly in large companies where departments are quite large and the regular workers don't really see what's going on. I have seen people in one department being told to keep working on their current stuff while new people were hired for the new tech. Once the new people were up to speed the old department was laid off. There was no effort to get current employees involved.

<comment><USER39> The entire department? No one saw the writing on the wall and studied up on the new tech to stay relevant?

<comment><USER40> When do you suggest that they find time to 'study up'? Most corporate environments in which I have worked have an assignment:time ratio greater than 1:1. Often there wasn't an opportunity to take the legal statutory lunch break nevermind study.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Outline link: [https://outline.com/PTGkER](https://outline.com/PTGkER)

<comment><USER42> First time seeing Outline. How in the heck is that legal/welcome in Chrome Web Store?

Hm, are you just violating their TOS and they're putting the onus on WSJ to ask them to take down your link:

[https://outline.com/dmca.html](https://outline.com/dmca.html)

<comment><USER41> I didn't use the Chrome Web Store (or Chrome), I used outline.com

I learned of its existence through other users pasting similar links with articles that involve paywalls.

Previous instances of posting outline links to get around client-side only paywalls have not been fussed at, so I interpreted that to mean acceptance of the practice.

Someone educate me?

<comment><USER43> The HN FAQ says that workarounds for paywalls are OK:

 _Are paywalls ok?

It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.

In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic._

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

Obviously, outline.com wouldn't work unless WSJ explicitly allows them to bypass its paywall. (I have no idea why WSJ does this.) If it's OK with WSJ, I don't see why people should have ethical problems with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Not to rationalize the environment there but I feel like Netflix is pretty transparent about being a difficult place to work and compensates for the potential stress with above average pay. I feel like most people who can get hired there are well aware of the work environment they will be entering.

<comment><USER45> The pay is extreme - top of market, but I think more than people realize (even people in silicon valley).

I've heard 400k cash is not that uncommon.

<comment><USER7> It is very common. Senior Software Engineers are commonly at 400+ up to 7-800. Director level for Software, Data Eng, Data Science are very rarely under 600+. VP in the same areas rarely (never?) under 800+.

<comment><USER46> That looks very high for senior devs and very low for directors/VPs.

<comment><USER24> Low for directors, yes. But the senior engineer figures are in line with what I have heard. The initial offer is never that high though.

<comment><USER7> The initial offers are often higher than 400 for Senior Software Eng, Senior Data Scientists, Senior Machine Learning Research Scientists and Engineers. 600 is actually pretty common for experienced people. On paper, there are no Juniors (there are associates in Marketing and Business and I think other teams). They pay top of the market according to their Excel sheets.

Netflix does not have "tech lead" or "Principal" roles for the Software or Science teams. It is Senior, then you have Managers (who can be paid less than Seniors), Directors (no senior Directors), VP (no Senior VPs), and C-suite (with comp that is publicly available).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> _Mr. Hastings had recently fired his chief communications officer for saying the "N-word" in full form. The executive, who is white..._

The race of the speaker shouldn't matter. Either make the word forbidden (a silly concept to begin with) or don't.

<comment><USER47> It's a reclaimed slur - it's meant to be used exclusively by the targeted group. Not respecting that requires you to ignore the painful cultural background of the term.

> In sociology and cultural studies, reappropriation (or reclamation) is the > cultural process by which a group reclaims terms [...] previously used in a > way disparaging of that group

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

<comment><USER48> I assume the GP, like me, is not American: in most cultures the very notion of made-up taboo words (i.e. words that are forbidden regardless of what context/sentence they're used in) is considered a decadent aberration. Whether you call it "taboo word" or "reclaimed slur" makes no difference.

<comment><USER49> Sorry I am not American, but in my (European) culture there are some taboo words that are _definitely_ not okay. The equivalent of the American "N-word" being one of those.

This is considered to be normal, and people that publicly use this kind of words are generally viewed with contempt. And it could be a reason to get fired from your job.

I believe this to be common across Western European countries (even with the current surge of far-right parties).

<comment><USER49> Damn, my knee-jerk reaction got the best of me and I missed the full context of that what discussed and replied without nuance.

Since I cannot edit anymore, let me correct it here:

In the country where I work, using such words in a professional context, even for illustrative purpose such as described in the article, would be rather uncommon, would definitely feels weird and at least raise a few eyebrows.

But I have to say I don't think it would usually result in immediate outrage and for the speaker to be fired (I can still see this happening, but it would definitely be the odd occurrence). It would probably be considered more of a well-intended-but-slightly-misguided attempt.

So we definitely have such taboo words outside the US, but maybe they are not as strong a taboo here...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> _"When life gives you lemons," he said, taking a swig on stage, "you make lemonade."_

Are you serious? What is it with the trite theatrics?

<comment><USER15> A problem with that old saying is it ignores the vast amount of sugar needed to make lemonade.

<comment><USER51> I was wondering if he just stood there and drank straight lemon juice while he talked about lemonade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Some of these companies are sounding more and more like the embodiment of _The Circle_ with Tom Hanks and Emma Watson. I've experienced it on a smaller scale years ago when it wasn't nearly this bad. Little things like feeling like an outsider for not using the cultural lingo.

And I'm all for constructive candor but to do so you have to remember to a) know your audience and, b) ease people into it. Otherwise you're just being a dick.

</comment><comment><USER53> After working in organizations where terrible performance is tolerated, this seems like a breath of fresh air. We've all worked with some asshole/fuck-off who we wish someone would fire. It starts to eat away at morale. I'd rather take my chances an not have to work with the problem children.

<comment><USER54> Unless that person is your boss, then good luck. How hard could management be at Netflix? You don't need to coach up people when you can just fire them. The more you delegate, the better you look. Sounds like tenured professors who tell you to just figure it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I know this is verging on the "non-substantive" type of comment we're discouraged from making here, but the word "Cult" springs to mind.

As someone who's now in mid-life (51), and self employed, I'm so glad I don't feel the need and aspiration to become employed by these goons (or any of these blue chip tech companies....Amazon, Facebook, Google). Life just sounds awful despite the generous salaries (which you'll piss away in crazy rents and mortgages).

<comment><USER28> and hookers and blow

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Reed thought he was creating a high performance culture without accounting for the very nature of humans. The Netflix culture deck became a blunt instrument for managers to fire people in the name of performance and radical candor. I can't wait for the lone Netflix engineer to write a great article tomorrow about the great Netflix culture he/she is personally experiencing. Kind of become a standard PR response these days.

<comment><USER7> Don't worry, the propaganda machine is already at work. Maybe they will send a CEO-hand-written letter with lemonade mixed with tears.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'd be shocked if there weren't at least a few assault arrests a year at Netflix HQ reading this. While on one hand having it be known that your time at a company is tenuous and can change quickly is helpful, because thats true at all companies, going the opposite direction to directly play into both imposter syndrome and general workplace anxiety sounds like they're selecting for only the most self-assured people.

In my experience, extremely self-assured people are wrong at probably the same rate as those who are unsure if they can cut it (but are still there). Having seen Netflix employees give tech talks at conferences, the thing I tended to take away is that every single thing they do must be marketed to be the end all be all and because they made it everybody else is wrong. In general, I've even agreed with much of the talks, but the rate at which they close off any/all ambiguity or side-considerations is bordering on an air of desperation.

<comment><USER7> Well, we are talking about back-stabbing nerds, they typically do not get physical, they prefer "politics". And it is the opposite, it is not self- assured people who stay there, but insecure people who team up to make the self-assured fired. A very strange environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> When your manager is a sh*tbag, two things can happen: You will either get sick of him/her and switch teams, or you'll keep taking it till the manager decides they really don't want you any more, and they give you a bad review, and a warning. Which basically means you're fired.

</comment><comment><USER59> I feel like tech needs to experiment with worker owned cooperatives and flat management more. I know, I know, the politics in flat structures can be worse. But I think tech should be innovative in management structure and eventually a standard for decision making, perhaps based on quaker principles, and management structure, maybe based on mondragon, can emerge.

<comment><USER60> >tech needs to experiment with worker owned cooperatives and flat management more

Reminds me of Buffer cofounders who just split because they ended up with différents visions for the company.

We just need company where C-Exexs are tech guys , not salesman.

<comment><USER59> I don't know about the Buffer example, but I would say that it also needs to be accompanied by a difference in perspective. Instead of chasing a unicorn valuation or big profit/revenue/marketshare numbers you're trying to build a sustainable business model that provides good quality jobs to people, is a good member of the local community and provides good products to consumers.

Also cooperatives and flat structures don't mean there isn't an executive management or facilitator role, it just means that they are equal to other workers. An executive or facilitator's role would be to help keep the company on track and keep a consistent vision and resolve disputes quickly but there would be a democratic process for hiring and firing rather than a hierarchical one. Take a look at the quaker way of "finding the sense of a meeting" for consensus decision making.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> "Mr. Hastings had recently fired his chief communications officer for saying the "N-word" in full form."

I sooo don't get US…

</comment><comment><USER62> What is weird that company allows managers to fire people without trying to move them first. Hiring is hard and firing left and right sounds like a dumb idea.

Managers should understand that they are not the center of the universe.

</comment><comment><USER63> Is this "here's an article talking about the corporate culture of company X" a recent thing (I can recall Netflix and Amazon recently at least), or is it a long-running trend? (has this happened to IBM, Oracle, GM, American Airlines, etc?) I suspect the latter, but honestly once I get the gist I stop reading, so I've likely forgotten many such articles.

If it's long-running, is there any common thread between them? Do they target companies that have extreme cultures...or do they just target big companies and describe the cultures in extreme ways?

</comment><comment><USER64> Careful now.

Taken at face value, this paints a pretty 'fun' portrait of Netflix. I'm NOT doubting the WSJ, especially after the Theranos articles, they do really good reporting and have the back-ups. The firewall between Mr. Murdoch and Ms. Ramachandran and Mr. Flint's reporting should be considered as good as it gets. At least, it was for Mr. Carryrou despite it costing Mr. Murdoch _literally_ millions of dollars.

However, follow the money on this article. Disney just bought 21st Century Fox in late August. Disney is purported to be setting up it's own streaming services as soon as the contracts with Netflix run out [0]. News Corp. owns the WSJ. Though 21st Century Fox and News Corp. are different companies after the split in 2013, this article sure isn't something Disney is going to object to.

Look, again, I'm NOT doubting that any of this is true. In fact, as it's coming out of the WSJ, I'm pretty certain it is true. All I'm saying is that this article really helps out Disney. Especially as it's trying to ramp up streaming services.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWkDZ51yrUg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWkDZ51yrUg)

<comment><USER6> > _Look, again, I 'm NOT doubting that any of this is true. In fact, as it's > coming out of the WSJ, I'm pretty certain it is true._

So you are "certain the article is true", then why does it matter that the companies used to have some tenuous corporate relation over 5 years ago?

With how consolidated media is nowadays, especially news media, this really is nothing to see here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I would really not like to work there, but out of the FAANG companies, Netflix is definitely the most all-in on its quirks. My sense is that the culture at Google, Apple, MS, and FB are all in a cluster compared with the culture at Netflix, which is a real outlier. It's also an outlier in my unwillingness to go there. But I think they and I are both happier that way.

<comment><USER66> "FAANG" seems like a bizarrely arbitrary grouping overall, with Netflix as a clear outlier; I understand that it might make superficial sense to an investment banker, but in terms of the businesses they are engaged in and the type of work their employees are doing, Netflix should be dropped from the list and replaced with Microsoft.

<comment><USER65> I think this was "the group of big tech companies with increasing fortunes," which at the time the acronym was coined did not include Microsoft. Anyway this is a popular thing to gripe about on HN recently, but the acronym seems fine to me.

<comment><USER66> Is Netflix really a tech company?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> At this point, is there a single FAANG company, or tech company of equivalent size or prestige, that _doesn 't_ have a toxic environment? I don't even mean contains pockets of toxicity because of the inherent size of the enterprise, but something rotten at the top or in the core, at the managerial level or in the culture.

<comment><USER68> Tech tends to attract both poorly socially adapted people who think they are smarter than they are, and those who excel at exploiting them. Combined with infinite money from being in the right place at the right time, it's a recipe for disaster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> After reading this article, I can say with a clear conscious that if I had Netflix, then it just failed my keeper test.

</comment><comment><USER70> It's a mercenary approach, interesting even just as a sociological experiment. Obviously a lot of people don't agree with the methodology, but Netflix isn't hiding anything; if you accept a job at Netflix then be prepared for a mercenary culture.

Ultimately, I'm most interested in seeing the results. Does having this mercenary culture increase or decrease the quality of the product? Hard to measure, of course, but if the ultimate answer is decrease or no significant change, we can probably all agree it's needless and potentially cruel.

<comment><USER71> You could answer this question. We have mlb.tv, amazon prime, hbo, Hulu... all different companies that produce a similar product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Stop allowing articles behind pay and tracking walls.

</comment><comment><USER68> I like the philosophy espoused by the Netflix culture deck, but it is obviously misapplied at Netflix. Totally stagnant company and product that hasn't innovated for years. "Producing the c grade Hollywood trash that even Hollywood rejected" is not innovation. So many tech companies drink their own koolaid on this stuff when really they just got lucky.

</comment><comment><USER73> So, what is a _good_ way to evaluate performance?

</comment><comment><USER74> I wonder if this model would work better with a little bit of gamification.

Let me explain it: You get fired for not performing. And the gamification part is you can get hired again in that same company, even same position, let's say, three or six months after you were fired.

You get your old salary, benefits everything. And the mental relief that being laid of is not permanent.

Then you work different this time, with the experience of having done this job before and the experience of being without a job too.

It would benefit Netflix a lot more than firing people in a permanent basis, IMO. And with these ultra high salaries, people would go back there.

</comment><comment><USER75> It's still a better culture than anywhere else I've worked.

<comment><USER76> It's the same culture as everywhere I've ever worked, with a lot higher pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> It's fascinating to me how the comments here mostly ignore the results Netflix has gotten with this approach. They are literally disrupting Hollywood, a 100-year-old monopoly, and have accomplished that after very few years and starting from scratch. It may be ugly, but it has been very effective so far. Maybe that's what it takes to take over an industry as ugly as the industrial entertainment complex.

</comment><comment><USER78> The ways of Netflix are strangely resemble 1940-1950 communism times when people could have been jailed or executed for seemingly innocent joke that some party member managed to interpret as an insult to the Beloved Leader (be that Stalin, Ceausescu or Bierut) or for violating a flavor-of-the-day interpretation of Stalinism-Leninism-Marxism absurdity.

Luckily they just fire people, not execute them.

</comment><comment><USER79> Archive.is paywall bypass:

[https://archive.is/ea78E](https://archive.is/ea78E)

</comment><comment><USER80> I think the headline misconstrues the issue. There's nothing wrong with transparency, but there are plenty of issues with airing dirty laundry and having, quite apparently, sociopathic upper management.

<comment><USER69> Isn't it actually selective transparency that's just passed off as transparency? Just because someone states reasons A, B, and C as the supporting evidence behind a decision doesn't necessarily mean that those three were the _only_ reasons.

<comment><USER80> Yea, you're definitely right. The direction I was going was more along the lines of "you're fired because x/y/z" instead of "hey everybody, this person was fired because x/y/z, they are now available as a blame dumping ground for all your problems."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Got an offer with Netflix, after the second round of negotiation they take back the offer because offer negotiation was not an option and they see a problem in culture fit. :)

</comment><comment><USER71> ""Good, because fear drives you..."

What a nightmare... Is the money worth it?

</comment><comment><USER82> If anything, that gives me the desire to apply there. This sounds exciting to me, not scary.

</comment><comment><USER83> I am glad I cancelled my subscription early this year and never bought its stocks.

<comment><USER84> Well, you'd have made a packet on the stock, and could've watched a lot too.

Does the value of the subscription really vary according to the company's HR practices? I'm not even sure that of the stock will.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> Voluntary departure rate at Netflix was 3% in 2017 compared to the US average of 18%. Sounds like this firing model people fear should actually be mass reproduced.

Kudos to Netflix for effective practices.</comment>


Anita Sarkeesian, Feminist Frequency – XOXO Festival (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah8mhDW6Shs

<comment><USER2> Seriously, what is this trash doing on HN?

From the guidelines:

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Please, you have Reddit and Tumblr for this crap, please just stay there.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand your attitude. Maybe you could explain how you believe this doesn't fit within the guidelines?

<comment><USER4> I think it's relevant and interesting.</comment></comment></comment>


Free Online Node-Based Programming (hackable by JavaScript and GLSL Shaders) - <AUTHOR> https://www.gsn-lib.org/ <comment><USER2> This looks interesting but you should add more explanation. Also, it's bad if your friends upvote and post booster comments; HN users have sharp instincts for this and don't like it.

If you email firstname.lastname@example.com I can give you a couple of tips for posting this again.

</comment><comment><USER3> Played a bit more with this. The wireless node connections are a great feature. But I found the UI less convincing than NoFlo UI [http://app.flowhub.io/](http://app.flowhub.io/) Why have they separated data from compute nodes?

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for the link. I like that it works without registering.</comment>


The Truth Wears Off (2010) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off <comment><USER2> By Jonah Lehrer, later fired for plagiarism and fabricating quotes. A Wired.com review of articles that he wrote for them said

"Lehrer has a cavalier attitude about truth and falsehood. This shows not only in his attitude toward quotations but in some of the other details of his writing. And a journalist who repeatedly fails to correct errors when they're pointed out is, in my opinion, exhibiting reckless disregard for the truth. It is thus my opinion that Lehrer plagiarized others' work, published inaccurate quotations, printed narrative details that were factually incorrect, and failed to address errors when they were pointed out."

<comment><USER3> It's fine to point out that a controversial piece was written by someone that might not be impartial or, in this case, has had some ethical issues.

However, other people contacted the scientists interviewed by Lehrer and asked for their opinions on what he wrote, and they generally agreed that it was accurate: [http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/11/05/jonah-lehrer- nat...](http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/11/05/jonah-lehrer-nature-of- truth/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Feynman mentions the Rhine example in his cargo cult science lecture ([http://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm](http://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm))

I think an even more interesting example, one that shows greater subtlety of these effects, is the trend in experimental measurements taken when performing the Millikan Oil drop experiment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment)).

This is also mentioned in Feynman's lecture. I had a plot I can't find now of the historical measures. It quite funny how the measurements trend slowly from Millikan's value to the true one over time.

</comment><comment><USER5> In my last year of business school, I took a class called Consumer behavior. It was easily one of my favorite courses and the professor was incredible.

But one day she wanted to prove a psychological insight about rating Coffee - namely that in blind taste tests, people can't distinguish between $5/lb coffee and $100/lb coffee (she literally bought all types). We set up a blind tasting line and all rated the drinks after a sip or two. Then we submitted an o line poll.

Her mistake came in actually showing the results real time - they showed that we COULD tell the difference, even if subtly. She went on to explain, without looking at the screen, that we had just proven the theory right.

Now, it's true that we could've been the "outlier" group that randomly aligned with the the ratings. But it shows that if our group had been the first to be tested all those year ago, the researcher may have stopped - who reports on what you expect?

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting that Jonah Lehrer is the author of this.

Here's a more recent New York Times article about him that might be title, "Does the Stigma Wear Off?":

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/books/a-fraud-jonah- lehre...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/books/a-fraud-jonah-lehrer-says- his-remorse-is-real.html)

I don't think this article was affected by his disgrace and I still like a lot of what he's written. Still, in light of Lehrer's own subsequent history, it's hard not to read a certain ironic biographical significance into the final paragraph.

<comment><USER2> A later Radiolab episode on the same topic that he contributed to was found to have errors, and WNYC issued two corrections.

[https://www.wnyc.org/people/jonah-lehrer/](https://www.wnyc.org/people/jonah- lehrer/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> All of the effects described in the article, despite the mystical tone, can be explained by regression to the mean, publication of outlying results, and confirmation bias in future publishings.

</comment><comment><USER8> It was more or less the basis of my PhD in epidemiology that I dropped out of: [https://joelkuiper.eu/academic-publishing](https://joelkuiper.eu/academic- publishing) (Most academic publishing isn't academic (and how to deal with it))

</comment><comment><USER9> Ignoring all the ad hominem about Jonah Lehrer here -- I recall a number of other discussions on HN about how the scientific method and science are different, how something is broken, about the irreproducibility of studies, about reversion to the mean, etc. Don't be distracted by who authored this piece.

<comment><USER10> If a particular person has been demonstrated in the past to be an unreliable source, it is not fallacious to say that they have been demonstrated in the past to be an unreliable source.

Not every comment about a person is an example of the _ad hominem_ fallacy.

<comment><USER7> Well, ad hominem is certainly a logical fallacy, and discrediting the article by discrediting the author is a clear example of it. However, logic is not the only basis in which to challenge an article.

I agree the information is relevant, and I think it's worth people understanding that logical arguments are not the only ones that carry water.

<comment><USER10> Casting doubt on an article by pointing out the documented, verifiable unreliability of its author or primary source is _not_ an example of the _ad hominem_ fallacy. HN has an unfortunate love of the fallacy fallacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> [https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/the_decline_effect_i...](https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/the_decline_effect_is_stupid.html)</comment>