Ask HN: How do I explain "startup went bankrupt" to family and future employer? - <AUTHOR> The founder and co-founders lied about raising capital. They burned too much money scaling the team before owning the product market fit. The founder went full retard and psycho last week. He spent the last few thousand dollars on weed.
I noticed our burn rate was higher than normal eight months ago with the lack of capital to get us through this year and confronted them about it. I started a recon mission when they didn't give a clear answer.
One problem I've had so far is explaining why I'm leaving. I don't want to come off as bad mouthing a past employer. <comment> pickle-wizard I worked for a startup that went out of business. There is a whole of detail, but basically the last client canceled the project and they ran out of money. So I was laid off.

That is what I tell people. They understand that as companies run out of money all the time. The important thing is that in my experience people take it at face value.

What I don't do is air the dirty laundry about how the company got into that position in the first place.

Maybe a few years down the line I'll tell people about it over beers as we are exchanging war stories. However it is not some that you need to mention while looking for another job.

<comment><USER2> This is really the most important advice in the entire feed here. "Don't air the dirty laundry".

The founder might have gone "full retard and psycho", but that is something you can keep between you and your friends/family, not your future employer.

Employers hire people all the time who are on the job market because their previous employer went out of business or had layoffs. It doesn't make the employee bad. Companies go out of business all the time, it is life.

The interviewer will want to know that you were not fired, and were in fact laid off (which is basically what happened to you, when a company goes belly up, all of its' employees are essentially laid off).

The interviewer might ask why the company went bankrupt if you are applying for a position where you were in a responsibility to generate revenue (CEO, COO, Salesman, etc). But will probably not dig any deeper if you are any other type of employee (like a software developer for example).

If they do dig deeper about the company, just be honest to a point. Tell them that your burn rate was too high for sales and the company couldn't land contracts needed before the money dried up. There is no value in adding that the founder was a dumbass, even if they were.

One valuable point you can throw in that will make you look good is that you were kept until the very end. I would mention that. You were so essential, important, good at your job, that your previous employer held onto you until the very end. Even as the burn rate was too high and the company could have fired you to save money, they didn't. They needed you until the company was literally gone. That shows lots of value to future employers in how indispensable you were at your previous job.

In fact for anyone who is interviewing, one important piece of advice is to never be critical about past employers during an interview. I have interviewed people who say their reason for leaving their last 5 jobs was all for "personal differences with their manager". Well if you haven't gotten along with your last 5 managers, what faith can I have that you can work with me or your new manager? Don't blame other people, it really makes you look bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think you can be honest without badmouthing anyone necessarily: "startup went bankrupt due to reasons beyond my control".

As for letting your startup founders know why you're leaving - it really depends on your relationship with them but i would got for a professional - "i'd like to expole other opportunities and i wish you all the very best!"

<comment><USER4> _" startup went bankrupt due to reasons beyond my control"_

Unless they had a position in the C suite, that can probably be shortened to "Company went bankrupt" with zero further explanation volunteered. Though it helps to think things through ahead of time and figure out how to address any questions that may come up.

The most PC thing to say would be along the lines of "Starting a new business is always a gamble and lots of new businesses simply don't succeed."

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just tell the truth. Maybe leave out a few details like "The founder went full retard and psycho and bought loads of drugs". How you say something is probably more important than the fact themselves.

I would say something like:

> They (the startup) had problems with raising capital and expanded too fast > and our founder seem to lack the dedication to run the the business and > things fell apart despite my best efforts.

That is perfectly acceptable.

<comment><USER6> Much better than that is simply:

> They (the startup) had problems with raising capital and expanded too fast. > Things fell apart, despite my best efforts.

That doesn't disparage anyone. Even if you want to, it can make you look bad, and petty. One of the first thoughts that enters many people's minds is "will they disparage me if/when I fuck up?"

<comment><USER7> I would also leave out "despite my best efforts". That makes OP sounds like they have a hero complex, as if they could have single-handedly saved the startup somehow. If the founders are driving it into the ground there's nothing the employees can do, and it's best not to come across as deluded about that.

<comment><USER6> Meh, I could see it both ways. There's a difference between "I saw it sinking and figured I'd ride it out collecting a paycheck" and "I tried my butt off to do whatever I could to save it, along with everyone else, but the effort just didn't work."

It's all about how you say it. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hard, dumb, blanket rules are hard and dumb. You can talk about your previous employers, if you do it right. More on that in a minute.

Plainly saying they went bankrupt is probably enough detail for most interviewers. It's blunt and direct, yet vague enough to be somewhat diplomatic. I certainly wouldn't feel ashamed about it. At the company level, bankruptcy of a startup is actually the expected outcome, statistically speaking. Shouldn't raise any eyebrows. And at the personal level, you even tried to confront them about the burn rate, so you shouldn't have any personal shame about it.

If somebody really presses you hard for why you thought the company failed, just tell them what you told us, and qualify it as your own opinion: "I think they probably burned too much money scaling the team before owning the product market fit." Sounds like a reasonably intelligent analysis of what happened (though personally I might question the use of the word "owning" just stylistically speaking... maybe "finding" instead?).

You can make yourself look good here, or bad. If you're capable of formulating a blame-free, diplomatic, equanimous (is that a word? I mean even- tempered/calm/composed/having equanimity), intelligent, big-picture analysis of why things went wrong, that makes you look good. If all you can manage are self-centered, immature, emotional hissy-fits about perceived slights that were of no particular consequence to anyone but you (small-picture), that makes you look bad. Getting into the character flaws, dishonesty and/or detailed mistakes of your management, is territory you want to avoid in an interview because it tends to torpedo your chances instantly. That's the reason the conventional wisdom is never to "badmouth" previous employers, PERIOD. I would obviously refine that somewhat, as detailed above. Analysis OK, gossipy shit-talk bad.

The person you're talking to is evaluating you, not your previous employer. If they see before them someone with complaints, they'll assume you're just a complainer, not someone with a legitimate complaint. Likewise if they see before them someone from a bankrupt company who has a calm analytical big- picture outlook, is a bit business-savvy, and has the company's best interests at heart, they'll see it as a great opportunity for them.

</comment><comment><USER9> First job?

Career advice: never bad mouth a former employer. Consider the perspective of the person sitting across the table from you. Would you want to hire someone who is negative?

Another piece of career advice: saying someone went 'retard' is not really appropriate.

</comment><comment><USER10> Startups fail all the time. Just say it didn't work out - you don't need to give all the details.

</comment><comment><USER11> I used the generic 'time to move on' response. You don't owe anybody an explanation for anything.

</comment><comment><USER12> "Don't speak ill of past employers" is mostly a myth for me. Shitty companies and shitty managers are not at all rare. Don't act salty or say they didn't appreciate your genius, but if you can very clearly articulate what you observed of their mismanagement and how they could have done better, that's actually a great interview talking point.

<comment><USER13> In general though, candidates running towards an opportunity stand out amongst candidates running away from a bad situation. When a candidate is focused on the bad work environment they're escaping, the interview is about the candidate and not what they can do for the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> As someone who employs developers, I don't really even care why it went South - well at least if you didn't wreck havvoc at the place. Startups are big bets, and they mostly go south because most ideas don't work out. I would be interested to hear what you learnt though - if you can reflect well on things going south. What I really do care about is your skills and your ways of working with colleagues. I care about technical know-how, clean code/defensive/architecture, testing your code, awareness of non-functional requirements and how you work to ensure your code doesn't suck or is even dangerous to my clients/citizens, the ability to be a mench that contribute to the team delivering. Those are my standard, and they have nothing to do with your startup going south. So don't worry. I don't think any other managers would care too much either.

</comment><comment><USER15> Are you leaving, or are has the company actually gone bankrupt and laid you off.

If it's the latter, telling prospective employers that the company went bankrupt and potentially mentioning that they couldn't secure another round of funding should be more than enough.

If it's the former, it's trickier, especially if the company actually pulls through.

Either way I'd tone down the analysis - as a sometimes hiring manager I might be interested in your analysis that the company burned too much money, but not so much in the "in-depth" analysis of the founder's behaviour.

BTW, I've had to close down a company before because it went bankrupt. I have the utmost sympathy for the founder who spent the last couple of grand on weed.

</comment><comment> git-pull Simply state it's a startup.

It implies there's a runway.

It's normal for startups to run out of capital.

Focus on technical aspects and cultural stuff that was functional. Like slack / github reviews / trips / etc.

It's okay to say if there were snacks / coffee machines you didn't like / local restaurants in delivery range weren't good. Those are fair game. Snacks imply you stay around and code :)

If interviewing for an employer not familiar with startups roles lasting <three years, let them know the experimental nature of the space. Founders move on/vc capital dries up because the market gets saturated (Imagine raising for a rideshare / delivery up in 2010 vs 2019)

</comment><comment><USER16> Startups failing is nothing new, if anything it would probably be seen as a positive by most reasonable employers. Definitely leave out explanations as to exactly why; "it just didn't grow fast enough" should be enough.

</comment><comment><USER17> Just use the buzzword you cited and you're good.

We failed to find a product-market fit.

I would literally say nothing else. Anything else you say _might_ be taken negatively. Wait for a question and respond to it, if it even comes up. It probably won't.

</comment><comment><USER18> Most startups fail and any reasonable employer will understand this. Usually, though, it's best to frame it as a pull from your prospective employer rather than a push from your current one.

</comment><comment><USER19> If the company is indeed dead, all the other answers that tell you to just say "my employer went bankrupt" are correct. If you're asking about how to talk about the reason for your job search before the company/your job is officially dead, (for this one or for future reference in case) you can still be pretty candid without telling unnecessary details.

"I've become concerned about the sustainability/prospects of the company" is fine.

</comment><comment><USER20> Talk about:

* what you learned about the needs of the market

* how you adjusted the product to match the market

* what technical challenges you overcame

* how you adapted the product to handle a pivot

* dealing with not enough resources

Everything _except_ the cofounders. Your opinion about what they did.

It is unhelpful to talk about the drama in this startup.

If anyone asks about why you are leaving - the short answer is the best one: product-market fit was not present. Do not be tempted to invite further questions. No matter what those questions are not positive for you.

</comment><comment><USER21> There is nothing to explain. Startups go out of business all the time. You simply tell them your last company ran out of money and you were laid off.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've interviewed and hired hundreds of talented technical people and would look favorably on a candidate that said they had concerns on the financial viability of the company, and that the viability concerns were not related to anything they could influence, such as product or service quality, and so leaving was the best option.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is very easy.

Q. Why did you leave?

"The startup ran out of money."

Q. Was that you fault?

"I had no financial responsibilities in the company."

Now, if you did, that gets tougher...

</comment><comment><USER24> My pithy summary in interviews is "i worked for a startup that didn't."

</comment><comment><USER25> How about:

I lost confidence in the businesses ability to succeed, despite all my efforts to help it grow. Further questions would hopefully allow you provide examples of what an excellent employee you were.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is normal. All you need to say is the startup experienced financial difficulty due to poor sales. You are concerned about job stability. No further explanation is needed.

</comment><comment><USER27> > He spent the last few thousand dollars on weed.

> I noticed our burn rate was higher than normal

Yeah I bet it was..

</comment><comment><USER28> All you need to say is in the title of the post. "Company went bankrupt."

</comment><comment> letsgo-gb Never complain. Just say that you wanted to move on to bigger and better projects.

</comment><comment><USER29> > The founder went full retard

This is not only unprofessional, but straight up offensive. If your demeanor is even close to similar in conversations with other peers or prospective employers, you will have a very difficult time being taken seriously.

<comment><USER30> Also I'm not even sure how this can be a real question.

Anybody who has the slightest understanding of startups knows the majority of them cease to exist within a few years of founding. There is no complex explanation needed beyond "the startup I was at closed its doors".

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> > using the terms "psycho" vs especially "retard"

I agree with your advice about how to behave in professional settings. It's worth pointing out though that 'full retard' is a decade-old meme from _Tropic Thunder_. It's widely used in Internet culture, and while mildly off-color for HN, isn't something to draw broad conclusions from. Here's the scene:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q)

<comment><USER32> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20429149](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20429149) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The easy answer to your actual question is "job ended because company went bankrupt". It happens all the time. It doesn't reflect poorly on employees.

The longer answer is the nature of your post makes me think you might have some self work to do, which could be more helpful to your future prospects than the fairly simple issue you're asking about. I don't know you, but using the terms "psycho" vs especially "retard" to describe people in public makes me think you should think hard about your communications patterns and your internal mindset. And while being inside a failing company is stressful, to the outside world, it's not a big deal. Don't bring that negativity with you when you leave the company.

<comment><USER34> Oh brother! This is kind of "concern-trolling" isn't it? "I'm concerned for you." Also see: "I'll pray for you," which passive-aggressive religious people say to simultaneously indicate that they disapprove of your (usually totally harmless) activities that are supposedly going to lead to retributive hellfire, and that they've got their act together more than you do.

language policing = religious righteousness

callouts = virtue signaling

"You might have some self work to do" = "I'll pray for you"

your future prospects = retributive hellfire

<comment><USER35> I disagree entirely. I feel like your parent comment was simply offering the _(hopefully)_ obvious advice to not bring that negativity with them. The parent comment was not preachy at all in my view, and the entire point of this thread is communicating the previous companies lack of existence. We're here to discuss communication. I don't think the parent comment was off this mark at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Failure isn't something to be ashamed of, unless you keep failing for the same reasons. Your startup's bankruptcy has taught you valuable lessons. If any of those lessons are applicable, discuss them.

Crap.... didn't read past the title.</comment>


Engineer invents Switch peripheral for one-handed gamers - <AUTHOR> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-08-16-engineer-invents-switch-controller-peripheral-for-one-handed-gamers <comment><USER2> Seems like a nice idea. It's simple sure, but in this case simple works fine and more people are able to play Nintendo Switch games as a result.</comment>


Show HN: On-demand servers using SSH ProxyCommand - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/andrewhamon/pcmd <comment><USER2> Looks useful and nice write up.</comment>


Free Google+ Badges Graphics for Your Use - <AUTHOR> http://www.sociableblog.com/2011/11/10/free-google-badges-graphics/ <comment><USER2> Gosh, they're awful. They reflect the new G+ favicon, which I really dislike. I'd hoped (even though I will not use them) something in style with the iOS G+ icon.

Edit: a 'd' too much after dislike.</comment>


Show HN: Nada – mobile first, up to 10 boxes temporary email - <AUTHOR> https://getnada.com <comment><AUTHOR> made this with nodejs, mongo and redis at the backend and React redux on the FE, looking for feedback on UX and UI.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you feel a need to save good engineering content? - <AUTHOR> Since the past few months, I've felt a need to save good engineering content I've come across the web. So that I'm able to come back to it later easily if required. Do you also feel a similar need?<p>If yes, how do you do it? What sort of tools do you use for this? EverNote Web Clipper? <comment><USER2> I use pinboard archival account -- [https://pinboard.in/](https://pinboard.in/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I send them to my kindle. Also I tend to save all links to interesting articles in a github repo, kind of awesome list, for the sake of collecting and archiving them for later reference.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for replying. Don't you also feel like saving the whole web page as well, in case the link gets broken in future?</comment></comment>


Lessons from the first 12 Euler problems in Rust (Spoiler warning!) - <AUTHOR> http://www.jonathanturner.org/2015/10/lessons-from-first-12-euler-problems-in.html <comment><AUTHOR> (Spoiler alert: The article itself is a spoiler, and so is my comment.)

In their solution for problem 10, the well-known algorithm "Sieve of Eratosthenes" is implemented, but without naming it.

Although explaining this algorithm is not the topic of the post, it would still be nice to at least mention the name. Apart from giving proper credit, this would also have the advantage that this article could be found by searching for "Rust" \+ "Sieve of Eratosthenes".</comment>


The queen does not rule - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/how-ant-societies-point-to-radical-possibilities-for-humans <comment><USER2> An interesting puzzle: how can evolution produce an organism like an ant where the vast majority of its exemplars are sterile? And the answer is: ants are not organisms, ant _colonies_ are organisms. They just happen to be made of parts that are not physically connected to each other.

The same thing turns out to be true of humans. A single human in isolation cannot reproduce. Even a single breeding pair in the wild will (almost certainly) not be able to reproduce. The minimal reproductive unit for homo sapiens is a village or a tribe. So you too are not really an orgnism but an organ, a component of a larger reproducing system that, just like an ant colony, is made of parts that are not physically connected to each other.

<comment><USER3> You don't have to look as far as ants to make the analogy you are making. Almost no animal, and even some plants cannot reproduce without some minimal number of "tribe" members. This is true for anything from chimps to probiotics.

This all depends on how you define "life" and "individuality": slippery concepts. And it's hard to not confuse those with emergent behavior once you do get millions/billions of individuals together. Sure you could treat NYC as its own autonomous living organism. Or you could treat it as millions of individuals. It certainly doesn't make sense to treat it as gazillions of cells.

The idea of having free will has been debated for centuries, but intuitively I think it's obvious that a human has more free will than an ant.

<comment><USER2> > you could treat NYC as its own autonomous living organism

The most accurate description is that NYC is part of the phenotype of the human genome.

BTW, this idea is not mine, it's from Richard Dawkins:

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _To envisage how an ant's task of the moment arises from a pulsing network > of brief, meaningless interactions might compel us instead to ponder what > really accounts for why each of us has a particular job._

It brought to my mind the economic calculation problem [1]. Markets distribute decision making, commanding resources through the transmission of meaningless price-discovery and transactional interactions. This has, so far, outperformed systems which centralize economic planning.

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

<comment><USER5> There are actually good counter examples where central planning wins. They are often contentious like Medicine, but the advantage markets bring is robustness not effecency. In a famine market economies have some people starve more and others starve less.

<comment><USER6> You can't just assume a famine starts and then look what happens. The whole point of pricing signals is that it changes what gets produced, making shortages less likely to occur in the first place.

<comment><USER5> We have thousands of years of history with a huge range of causes. But, there are a large number of famines across all economic systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know the article is about ants and not bees, but it reminds me of that Fight Club quote:

Worker bees can leave. Even drones can fly away. The Queen is their slave.

</comment><comment><USER8> This makes me think about Carla Scalletti's lecture on emergent systems:

[https://vimeopro.com/symbolicsound/kiss2016-presentations/vi...](https://vimeopro.com/symbolicsound/kiss2016-presentations/video/193469489)

</comment><comment><USER9> Well, I suppose it would be kinda hard to rule when your potential subjects don't have the necessary discretion to be capable of being ruled.

</comment><comment><USER10> The author is mischarachterizing how Adam Smith viewed the division of labour. While he viewed it as a gain in economic efficency, he also viewed it as regrettable, limiting, and damaging to people, especially when taken to an extreme.

         "The man whose whole life is spent in performing a
         few simple operations, of which the effects are
         perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same,
         has no occasion to exert his understanding or to
         exercise his invention in finding out expedients
         for removing difficulties which never occur. He
         naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such
         exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and
         ignorant as it is possible for a human creature
         to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not
         only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in
         any rational conversation, but of conceiving any
         generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and
         consequently of forming any just judgement
         concerning many even of the ordinary duties of
         private life... But in every improved and civilized
         society this is the state into which the labouring
         poor, that is, the great body of the people, must
         necessarily fall, unless government takes some
         pains to prevent it."

The moral side of Adam Smith's arguements is often entirely ignored in analysis of his philosophy. He strongly condems many aspects of a free market/capatialist economy. Why this is never focused on isnt very clear to me.

<comment><USER11> Adam Smith and the founding group of the United States were all philosophically opposed to inheritance, and very in favor of estate taxes, estate taxes being very very compatible with capitalism:

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers)

 _If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

Even stalwart members of the latter-day Republican Party, the representatives of business and inherited wealth, often emphatically embraced these tenets of economic equality in a democracy. I've mentioned Herbert Hoover's disdain for the "idle rich" and his strong support for breaking up large fortunes. Theodore Roosevelt, who was the first president to propose a steeply graduated tax on inheritances, was another: he declared that the transmission of large wealth to young men "does not do them any real service and is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large.''

In her debate in Delaware yesterday, the Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell asserted that the estate tax is a "tenet of Marxism." I'm not sure how much Marx she has read, but she might want to read the works of his fellow travelers Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Herbert Hoover, and Theodore Roosevelt before her next debate._

<comment><USER12> All wealth is inherited. Are you proposing each person is cast out and begins again in cave man form with nothing but the unowned land to start with? Everything you have, knowledge, money, inventions, cultivated land, food, your body etc, were created and passed down (inherited) from a prior generation.

Also this idea penalizes someone who's parents died when they were born, who would have paid for every opportunity until they were of age, now they have nothing. Meanwhile those who have parents or some other caretaker to pay for and facilitate all kinds of experiences thrive.

If you really think that's the case, then please stop using all the things you've inherited from prior generations (i.e. turn off your computer, electricity, plumbing, clothing you wear, food grown by others, streets built before you).

<comment><USER13> > _If you really think that 's the case, then please stop using all the > things_

Please don't use escalating rhetoric like that on Hacker News. We're trying for civil, substantive discussion here. Playing this sort of card is mildly uncivil in its own right and tends to lead to worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The author has an overly narrow view of what constitutes division of labor. Division labor doesn't mean that can't switch tasks or that you can only do a task you were specifically born with the special ability for. Indeed, any system of division of labor has to operate with the sort of adaptability she describes in ants.

<comment><USER15> I think what the author is trying to get at here is that there is no control system. There is no central brain coordinating things. Each individual ant brain evolved to do different things based on the signals it receives from others. Useful behaviours that lead to a higher fitness tend to survive and progress to future generations of ants.

When you look at the human analogy, the queen doesn't have all the resources and food she could ever need. In human society, we prise those people at the top who convince others to give them resources. Human societies are not equal. They never have been. In fact, equality is a completely human social construct that we must actively and consciously pursue:

[http://khanism.org/society/created- equal/](http://khanism.org/society/created-equal/)

<comment><USER12> Even our concept that the brain "controls" things is just our own projection of things. Think about it, you get hit hard in the leg, so the leg releases chemicals that trigger a bunch of repsonses, perhaps using the brain as the intermediary point of communication, but to say the brain "controls it", is just one way to look at it. The brain was really told what to do by the leg, or maybe the nerves, or the blood. There is no system in nature that has centralized control, all systems with "central authority" are really just a projection of human conditioning.

For example, even in government, how exactly is centralized control maintained? Its a bunch of distributed interactions that cause people to go out and take actions that result in overall changes, but there isn't a "government" per se that is like a giant telepathic mind controlling anyone's actions, its just millions of interactions of people choosing what to do (some soldiers, some merchants, some politicians), flowing in all directions.

<comment><USER16> See also: the only person Hitler ever killed was himself.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Please don't quit – every expert was once a beginner - <AUTHOR> https://medium.freecodecamp.com/please-dont-quit-every-expert-was-once-a-beginner-6d8f8933a338#.kfd9nfwxv <comment><USER2> This post is about how to learn, and touches on concepts that I felt were very well explained in the coursera course "Learning how to learn" ([https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to- learn](https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn))

<comment><USER3> That was a great course by the way.</comment></comment>


Cmail: easy-to-setup, easy-to-configure and secure mail server - <AUTHOR> http://cmail.rocks/ <comment><USER2> Seems the mailing list site is down - is this being actively maintained / updated?

Latest commits on github are a little old</comment>


The US Again Has the World's Most Powerful Supercomputer - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-again-has-worlds-most-powerful-supercomputer/ <comment><USER2> Pretty cool walking by this every day.

</comment><comment><USER3> IBM built some very nice plumbing for NVidia GPUs? :-)</comment>


Ask HN: What are the applications of a see-through display screen? - <AUTHOR>

In many Sci-Fi movies such as minority report, real steel etc, computer screen is see-through. Some vendors already have prototype of see-through LCD. Beside being "futuristic" looking, what are the advantages and applications of such panel? <comment><USER2> Collaboration. Augmented reality. Having a big monitor when you need it and a more apparently spacious work environment when you don't. What it's useful for really depends on the specs of the screen.

It can be faked to some degree with a webcam, but it's usually not worth the trouble. Some augmented reality applications use a "virtual lens" or "virtual mirror" through this sort of trick. (The mirror version, not so see-through.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Shop windows. HUD in anything that needs a HUD. AR Sunglasses. Invisible wall mounted televisions/displays.

That's a start I think.

</comment><comment><USER4> Aquariums, windows to contamination rooms, windows at observation decks, car windows /plane windows /boat windows, 1 way mirrors/windows in myriad situations</comment>


Microsoft Surface Laptops and Tablets Not Recommended by Consumer Reports - <AUTHOR> https://www.consumerreports.org/laptop-computers/microsoft-surface-laptops-and-tablets-not-recommended-by-consumer-reports/ <comment><USER3> I'm a long time Microsoft user, sure I dabbled with Linux in my youth, but I never quite got into the tinkering culture and having to spend a day per month in configuring to make things work the way I wanted just wasn't me.

Professionaly I'm now in management but the majority of my development experience had been with .Net. Sure I dabbled with all the open source hyped techs when I was younger, but ultimately settled for .Net and enterprise (which I'm happy is also open sourced now by the way, even if .net core isn't really production ready and takes up way too much devops time to deploy).

These days windows just feels wrong though. It's probably just me but I feel like my windows machines are basically iPads with keyboards that I can't really do anything with the way I want to.

Git sucks on windows, paints replacement sucks, almost anything that isn't .Net development sucks and Visual Studio has to live in a cage or it takes over everything from wanting to debug your steam library to howling at the moon.

And now you're telling me the life expediency of a surface is 2 years. Heh.

<comment><USER4> "These days windows just feels wrong though. It's probably just me but I feel like my windows machines are basically iPads with keyboards that I can't really do anything with the way I want to.

Git sucks on windows, paints replacement sucks, almost anything that isn't .Net development sucks and Visual Studio has to live in a cage or it takes over everything from wanting to debug your steam library to howling at the moon."

You are being far too polite :) It is not you: Windows is fine as a launcher for consumer applications, but for _setup_ of development tools, it is appallingly terrible, and outside .NET the user experience with developer tools can be pretty rough. For many things, it is now a third-class platform (Mac is first, then Linux).

I definitely agree with Git, specifically. This isn't Microsoft's fault: Git is so UNIX-y that you have to wrap it in a kind of miny-UNIX distribution to run it on a non-UNIX platform, but they are the only desktop vendor with a non-UNIX platform.

I am looking forward to having an opportunity to work with WSL, to see how much that helps.

<comment><USER5> What are your issues with git on Windows?

Not sure why you feel Windows is "appallingly terrible" for set up of development tools either? Care to expand on why this is the case?

Genuinely curious, if only becasue I don't have these problems...

<comment><USER6> Git isn't the problem, per se. It's a barebones tool that, on Unix systems, gets paired with a very powerful terminal. The command prompt on Windows is useless garbage by comparison. You pretty much need to use a GUI with Git on windows because command prompt is so bad.

Aside from that, window management is awful on Windows (ironic?). Alt tab is kinda stupid, you can't scroll windows behind the active window, the taskbar and start menu are generally a mess, and god help you if you have multiple monitors.

<comment><USER7> Why would you want to use archaic CLI commands instead of a modern GUI though? In my 8 or so years of using GIT on Windows, there's nothing that I couldn't do through my preferred GUI.

Anyway, window management is great on Windows. It's definitely more robust than the Mac OS and more stable than whatever minority Linux desktop you're using. And alt tab is definitely not stupid and if it were, it would certainly not be because of some lack of scrolling because nobody wants to scroll stuff while they're alt tabbing.

Also, the start screen is better than anything and not messy at all. I can't even organize the equivalent on my Mac the way that I want to. Windows handling of multiple monitors is better than any other OS too and way more stable.

<comment><USER6> >Why would you want to use archaic CLI commands instead of a modern GUI though?

Because on Unix systems, the CLI commands are not archaic and you can move way faster than a GUI using them.

> window management is great on Windows. It's definitely more robust than the > Mac OS and more stable than whatever minority Linux desktop you're using

I'm comparing it to Mac. The gestures a mac laptop provides make window management very smooth. The keyboard shortcuts and mouse movements required to replicate this on Windows aren't the same. MacOS remembers my multi-monitor window placement, yet every time I unplug and re-plug in my windows laptop from my monitors, I have to drag all the windows back to their monitors.

>Also, the start screen is better than anything and not messy at all. I can't even organize the equivalent on my Mac the way that I want to

It's a jumbled mess of colours and rectangles. The old school start menu is just as bad - nesting folders upon folders, hunting pixels so you click the right spot. It's just an old school way to manage computing that many people are used to and therefore think is better.

<comment><USER7> > Because on Unix systems, the CLI commands are not archaic and you can move > way faster than a GUI using them.

I use the keyboard to operate the Windows GUI though and Windows is definitely known for having better accessibility hooks than any other system. I am confident that I can operate my GUIs faster than a CLI user for a broad range of tasks. It's certainly faster than looking up commands.

> I'm comparing it to Mac.

Well I use Macs too. I think the touchpad is extremely overrated since you have to take your hands off the keyboard to use it. I'd rather operate the entire system with my keyboard, something that Macs don't let you do as easily as Windows where knowing a few simple principles let you do everything. I have a Mac Pro besides my Macbook Pro and I'd have to buy a separate trackpad to operate that and where would I put it? That's annoying.

Speaking of multiple monitors, I don't think even Sierra lets you soft-disable monitors yet. Windows has had this since forever. It's so annoying that I have to physically unplug my Mac from the monitor or else I can't use the monitors built-in KVM to share it with other computers because the Mac will still think the monitor is there and open windows on it. I won't buy a third party program for it either (for reasons).

> It's a jumbled mess of colours and rectangles.

No, it's not. Knolling [1,2] is a well known process for arranging objects and that's what the start screen/menu lets you do. (I use the full screen).

It's way better than Apple's launchpad that you can't even organize the way you want. It's launchpad and spotlight all in one.

Anyway, it just sounds like we have different problems - I don't plug either of my laptops into external monitors (unless mirroring on a projector), so I don't have your problem. You don't have my problem because you probably don't have a Mac desktop that you'd like to share monitors with your PCs. I could talk for hours about all of my problems an every OS. None of them are perfect and it really comes down to "what do you need it to do for you easily most of the time and can it do that without a problem?"

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knolling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knolling) [2] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-CTkbHnpNQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-CTkbHnpNQ)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yeah... this is a concern.

I bought a Surface book this year, and it embarrassingly cost $4000. It's great, but I'm convinced that in two years I'll be having a stern conversation with Microsoft support about the Australian Consumer Law guarantee of acceptable quality.

<comment><USER9> [https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights- guarantees...](https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights- guarantees/consumer-guarantees)

How is this enforced? If you have a file a lawsuit, the costs/time/effort might not be worth it.

<comment><USER10> The ACCC handles complaints on behalf of consumers, and is more than happy to fine or litigate [1]. Most companies comply well before this stage.

1: [https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-action- agai...](https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-action-against- apple-over-alleged-misleading-consumer-guarantee-representations)

<comment><USER11> Same in many European countries, there's a consumer ombudsman who can have a stern conversation with the dealer if they think the law is on your side.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Also, support is limited to the country that you purchased the device in - <USER2> comment by `nailer from 79 days ago HN [0].

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14400873](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14400873)

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm still running the original Surface Pro, unfortunately the magnetized grid for the pen died about two years ago leaving only touch or touch pad.

Besides that, it's going strong four years later.

</comment><comment><USER14> My company has well over 1000 "surface" devices (Pro's, Books, Screens) and they do ok....

They are not even slightly repairable.. so warranty is just a straight swap out.

I have had a Surface-book ($3k i7 Performance base model) for the last month or so... the only complaint I have is that that the bluetooth in it is pathetic. A set of headphones and a mouse connected and I get disconnections and drop outs and slow mouse behaviour constantly.

It is exquisitely engineered... I just love using it.

<comment><USER15> There are troubles with WLAN and paralle used USB though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Quite a contrast: [https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/4/15961740/best-laptop- micro...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/4/15961740/best-laptop-microsoft- windows-apple-macbook-hp-dell-lenovo)

</comment><comment><USER16> My SP3 was bent by the dock until the screen broke

Left one day with it docked, came back to a broken screen

</comment><comment><USER17> I've got a surface 2 and a surface 3. I had to stop using the surface 3 at around the 2 year mark as the fan was constantly on and I was noticing a lot of 'strange behaviour' even after a rebuild. Surface 2 is still going strong.

</comment><comment><USER18> Anecdotally, my almost four-year old Surface Pro 2 is still a perfect dev machine.

<comment><USER19> Everyone seem to love Surface Pro 2. I wish I had bought one when it was announced.</comment></comment>


The Accidental Bestseller (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/childrens/childrens-book-news/article/64933-the-accidental-bestseller.html <comment><USER2> I always think about A Confederacy of Dunces. It's a great book that had a hard and somewhat tragic road to getting published. Then it won a Pulitzer Prize.

<comment><USER3> That book is something else. Jones, Ms. Trixie, Gomez, Dorian... something about its cast of characters just perfectly captures the sheer absurdity of trying to make it through a day.

And part of me wonders if Toole might not have written Ignatius out a hyperbole of the worst parts of how he saw himself. I mean, it sounds like the guy was probably depressed and disillusioned with the structure of the world he lived in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Rinker sold Goodnight, Goodnight, Construction Site to Chronicle for a $4,000 advance. The title has been on the New York Times list for three years, with more than 850,000 copies in print and rights sold into 23 territories."

Seems like a lot of the writers got hosed

<comment><USER5> Just to elaborate on other comments: an "advance" is short for an "advance on royalties".

So if the total royalties are less than the advance (pretty common BTW), they are said to have not "eaten out the advance" \- and you don't get any more. If the royalties are greater, then you get them minus the advance (i.e. the royalties you already got).

source: am writer</comment></comment>


Show HN: U.S. Startups in India - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/khatribharat/us-startups-in-india <comment><USER2> A clear definition of what counts would be nice to have.

Do Indian companies registered in US count? (Razorpay)

Do US companies with a sales office in India count? (RedisLabs)

Do Indian companies registered in France to do an ICO count? (Astrome)

<comment><AUTHOR> Done. Basically startups headquartered[1] in the U.S. and having engineering office(s) in India.

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

<comment><AUTHOR> This includes U.S.-based startups running Sales Engineering[1] in India. So Redis Labs has been included.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> No way that any of these can compete with the amount of pay you're getting for Tier 1, Tier 2 companies in Bangalore.

</comment><comment><USER4> cool</comment>


Free Website Speed Insights – Optimise Your Website - <AUTHOR> https://loadfocus.com/website-speed-testing <comment><USER2> Found this really helpful, wondering if they have a desktop version.</comment>


[#es6 #class #proto] - <AUTHOR> Hi guys. I'm working on a node module and i would like to keep using es6 classes syntax for style consistency but i found this pattern that I can't reproduce:<p>``` const proto = module.exports = function(options) {
  man.opts = options || {};
  function cane(sentence) {
    man.say(sentence);
  }<p><pre><code>  man.__proto__ = proto;
  man.age = 29;
  man.say = function(sentence) {
    console.log(sentence);
  };
  return man;</code></pre> }; ```<p>The strange thing of this function is that I can call it as a standard constructor and get a man with his methods and props but I can also call man as a function and get the same result as calling his method "say". Basically man('text') produces the same effect of man.say('text'); How can I recreate this pattern using es6 classes syntax? <comment><USER2> Stack Overflow is a more appropriate place for this.

<comment><AUTHOR> yup</comment></comment>


What we didn't get - <AUTHOR> http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/09/what-we-didnt-get.html <comment><USER2> There is innovation bottleneck that is partly cultural and partly human resource constraint.

Advanced statistical techniques, data science and simulation resources available have increased the potential what is theoretically possible to discover and reason with, but it's hard to use them in full capacity.

We live in era where something like probabilistic programming has dramatically increased the complexity of models that can be used for reasoning, science is still struggling with the meaning of p-values and publishing the open data used for others. In many areas researchers cant use techniques that peer reviews are not very familiar with.

Scientific discoveries require increasing amount of resources and collaboration and methodological knowledge. Some biochemists spend 5 years developing computational package for Matlab and have to learn completely new fields atop of their PhD. The amount of combined knowledge and methodology to get totally new discovery and not just incremental advances stretches what small research groups can do on their own. You have to build whole frameworks from scratch.

Big money places like Cern have money and people to pull it off. They can employ 100 physicists to work 5 year for software package that analyzes some experiment and squeezes the science out of data.

TL:DR: method knowledge available >> method knowledge used.</comment>


Meteor Cluster - Introduction & How it works - <AUTHOR> http://meteorhacks.com/meteor-cluster-introduction-and-how-it-works.html

<comment><USER2> Cluster is down? I cannot access it: <http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/meteorhacks.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for notifying me. It is not the cluster! It's Github Pages gone down.

I don't wanna use meteor for a static web page :)</comment></comment>


Webpack 2, RC 4 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/webpack/webpack/releases/tag/v2.2.0-rc.4 <comment><USER2> I recently setup a typescript > webpack project and I was really disappointed with the dev-tools debugging experience.

Webpack renames imported bindings, so

            import {foo} from './bar';

becomes something like this

            let __webpack_require_foo_bar = _webpack_modules[5 /* foo */].bar;

So if you are paused in the debugger and want to use foo in a watch statement, or use it in a computation you'll have to reference the real source instead of the source maps.

I found questions on SO, and it seems like a known and accepted problem, but I know I won't be able to sell my team on Webpack because of this.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't this have more to do with Babel and less to do with Webpack? I think this originates with how Babel treats ES6 Modules differently from CommonJS, and if you were to instead do:

      const foo = require('./bar').foo

it would keep the name the same?

EDIT: [https://github.com/jamietre/babel-plugin-transform- es2015-mo...](https://github.com/jamietre/babel-plugin-transform- es2015-modules-commonjs-simple)

There is a better explanation with a _partial solution_.

<comment><USER4> Typescript doesn't need babel since the typescript compiler supports es6.

<comment><USER3> The 'let' should have made me re-think the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> According to sokra, this ought to be the final rc. From the release notes: "This is probably the last RC. We released it as final test. If no critial bugs are discovered, we release 2.2.0 in < 10 days."

</comment><comment><USER5> I tried the dynamic import/require once and it was really nice.

I could just write a normal SPA and require some stuff in every route, so the client only downloads the code that is used for the current page and things worked fine without extras needed.

<comment><USER6> That almost sounds like server-side rendering :)

<comment><USER7> But SSR means you send everything around the content again and again.

<comment><USER6> If each page has different dependencies, you're not sending much duplicate content. Also, SSR supports incremental rendering (due to HTTP streaming), something that is currently impossible to do with SPAs.

See this article for more detail: [https://jakearchibald.com/2016/fun-hacks- faster-content/](https://jakearchibald.com/2016/fun-hacks-faster-content/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Aaaand github unicorns..

<comment><USER9> "We are currently experiencing major service outages."

[https://twitter.com/githubstatus/status/819940738452615168](https://twitter.com/githubstatus/status/819940738452615168)

Hilarious replies on Twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looks like there is some connectivity issues in OVH as well.. not sure if related?</comment>


Twitter plans a TV competition series - <AUTHOR> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98D9VAG0&show_article=1

<comment><USER2> Reality tv about the lives of people following the virtual lives of celebrities?

More interestingly, there's a discussion going on here <http://ff.im/3eBQP> about whether this infringes of Leo Laporte's This Week In Tech TWiT trademark, and what he should do about it. So far the consensus seems to be that he should fight it, and expect to lose.</comment>


Designing Distributed Systems E-Book - <AUTHOR> https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/designing-distributed-systems/en-us/ <comment><USER2> A direct link[0] to the PDF in case someone doesn't want to fill out the form: [https://azure.microsoft.com/mediahandler/files/resourcefiles...](https://azure.microsoft.com/mediahandler/files/resourcefiles/baf44271-3870-454f-868c-23d48e7672cb/Designing_Distributed_Systems.pdf)

[0] - Always subject to change of course

<comment><USER3> Thank you. I hope more companies would abandon the form-then-download approach, and understand that if someone is interested in the products, people will eventually get in touch.

 _edit: typo_

<comment><USER4> But then how will they mine emails for sales leads?

<comment><USER2> Lead nurturing.. Or how Cal from the 40 Year Old Virgin puts it: You've gotta wait till the seed grows into a plant. Then you've gotta f __* the plant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can someone compare this to Martin Kleppman's awesome book "Designing Data Intensive Applications"? I'm wondering if this book is like the old IBM, etc. whitepapers which quietly tried to sell technologies from the writer's company?

<comment><USER6> The books are similar but very different at the same time.

Martin's book takes an application focused approach. How do I think about changes to my data in a distributed environment? You can see this thinking in the projects he's been involved with on Kafka and at LinkedIn.

Brendan, however take on distributed system is from the angle of heterogenous distributed workloads and the architectural blocks needed for running such systems reliably. Note that Burns worked at Google and was one of the founders of Kubernetes so you will find a bit of a container orchestration slant in the book too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Another short read I like that's more focused on theory is this: [http://book.mixu.net/distsys/](http://book.mixu.net/distsys/)

</comment><comment><USER8> This is surprisingly informative.

<comment><USER9> I still prefer classical scientific books. This book is too much tool driven. I need the actual concept.

<comment><USER8> Like which ones? And I do agree but going from theory to practice can be super tricky.

<comment><USER10> Designing Data Intensive applications seemed to me a like a good balance between too academic and too practical. It was at perfect level of abstraction for me.

<comment><USER11> Agreed, that is the best book O'Reilly ever put out. An example of how grown up Engineering books should be written.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cannot access...</comment>


What PostHog did to get into YC - <AUTHOR> https://posthog.com/blog/before-the-yc-application/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey, I'm James one of the founders of PostHog, a YC W20 company.

We noticed that lots of people blog about the application process, but few blog whilst they're actually going through the program.

We recently launched our company on HN as a current batch YC company. We decided to start blogging about our time here to give people a sense of what it's like.

If there's interest, we'll keep writing posts like this!</comment>


Preschoolers outsmart college students at figuring out gizmos - <AUTHOR> http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/03/06/figuring-out-how-gizmos/ <comment><USER2> I believe that this is the paper (or at least on earlier version) referenced.

 _Developmental differences in causal learning When children are better (or at least more open-minded) learners than adults: Developmental differences in learning the forms of causal relationships_

[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CFAQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alisongopnik.com%2Fpapers_alison%2FLucas%2520et%2520al.%2520final.doc&ei=JE0xU9G-LMaJogTttYFY&usg=AFQjCNEccj339aHksikeZ9jsEONPHlpvIA&sig2=7rv953XEeOYZgXezd_X0sg&bvm=bv.63587204,d.cGU&cad=rja)</comment>


Why Online Dating Sucks for Men (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.alternet.org/why-online-dating-sucks-men <comment><USER2> I'm a man and in my late 20's (currently mid-30's and been with my partner for a few years now) had a great time using OKCupid. I was able to average 2-3 dates per week and received replies to ~25% of my messages.

Before anyone asks, I am average appearance. I don't drive (bicycle only). Things I had going in my favor: I'm white, had a flexible job (could meet whenever) and vegan diet (probably the biggest help as vegan women way outnumber vegan men even here in Portland).

Here are my tips for men seeking women:

1\. Say as little as possible in your profile.

2\. Spend as close to no time as possible on the messages you send. Should be 3-5 sentences max and end in a relevant question that the recipient can answer.

3\. If you get a response, don't waste time with back and forth. Immediately ask to meet for coffee.

4\. Ask questions and listen. When someone tells a story, don't immediately tell one that's similar-- ask a question.

5\. Open your age range to include women who are older than you are (try as much as a decade, not just 1-2 years).

<comment><AUTHOR> This probably works if you're an average guy looking for an average woman. In that that case, you are most likely to be compatible.

It doesn't work so well if your interests, tastes, or personality are off the beaten track, however.

I have a lot of unusual interests and prefer to find women who share them. So my success rate at just randomly rolling the dice and having women just randomly roll the dice in return (such as with short profiles or speed dating) has been pretty low.

What has worked reasonably well for me has been having really detailed profiles. That way women really know what they're getting when they contact me, and I they're likely to be women who self-select to be relatively compatible with me by the time they reach out -- though there's always the chance that we just won't have much chemistry when we meet in person, and that tends to happen more often than not (though not as often as when I meet random women at bars, clubs, work, or wherever).

I've also never posted pictures of myself (though I have sent them upon request). That, along with my interests, helps to select women for whom looks aren't critically important, which is important for me (despite being above average in appearance myself.. I just don't want to be sought after primarily for my looks).

Another thing that's helped enormously is to find some way that immediately sets you apart from the crowd. My profiles/personals effectively scream "freak!" and that attracts freaks in return -- which is exactly what I want. That can be a huge turn off for the normals, but an attraction for people who share my tastes.

Not to get too philosophical, but I think it's important to somehow signal to others that you are like them. That's why dress codes for subcultures are still so important. They're systems of signaling that you share common tastes, world outlooks, interests. The same has to be done on dating sites, whether you do that through a pic of your biker tats or punk haircut, or (as in my case) by just detailing your interests.

Personality is, of course, also important, and that can come through your writing (or pics). I still have to work on that.. maybe take a creative writing course. My profiles are definitely way too dry.

<comment><USER3> I'm a woman and felt similar reading that response. I'd never pay much attention to a guy if he has nothing on his profile because, as you said, the interests and such are too far off the beaten track. It definitely works for a wide range of people, but really doesn't for a certain subset.

I wonder how a dating service focused on detailed profiles, later meeting, and customizable search range would do...

<comment><USER4> I think that's what OKCupid is focussed on and good at.

<comment><USER3> I recall OKCupid could ban you if you didn't provide a picture.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do they actually check to see if it's actually a person of you? Or could you provide, say, a picture of a fluffy bunny?

<comment><USER5> If it's flagged, actual people will review the primary profile picture and decide whether they believe it is a picture of the account holder that meets their (quite reasonable) guidelines. Jokes, nudity, too close, too far away, obvious fakes, etc. will get your account locked.

So no, a picture of your pet rabbit will NOT work as a primary profile picture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Eh, sure, I guess, kinda? However, the article presents the situation as being: 1) very positive for women and 2) very negative for men. In reality, neither is entirely true.

As many, many women will tell you, the unrelenting torrent of creepy messages and dick picks is by no means an unmitigated positive. Yes, you can just open your inbox and find it full, but mostly it's full of utter crap, which actively drowns out the actual good messages. The article glosses over this; just ignore the "addled idiots" and exchange an email with the good guys. For many women it's more a case of "find inbox 100% full of unsolicited pictures of genitals; close it and go watch Netflix alone".

Similarly, as many guys can attest (including me, and other guys in the comments here), not being massaged out of the blue is survivable (it's no different than real life, and I'm somehow survived the experience of never being accosted on the street and asked out on a date...), and response rates are not that low if you're smart about it. People talk about 50 messages to get a reply; my experience is more like 10 to get a date (and no, I'm not conventionally attractive).

In short, I'd say online dating sucks for everyone, in different ways, but it's not that bad for anyone. "Soul crushing"? Hardly. And if all of your messages are being ignored, maybe it says something about your messages.

(The real trick, I think, is empathy. Think about the person you're messaging. They have an inbox full of terrible messages. What can you write that will stand out? How can you make the reply interesting? What do they want to see? They have too many messages; they're looking for a reason to filter your out; what do you need to avoid saying? Your goal is to get them to read the message, then click on your profile, then reply to your message. It's not that hard a problem!)

<comment><USER6> Also the article makes some assumptions on what is a positive experience, based on her own feelings. Actually, having a brief exchange with someone you are attracted to that then fizzles out is not the worst thing in the world. It means they saw your profile and didn't think you were undateable. I'd take 1/10 for that amount of positive-reinforcement.

And the rejections don't hurt that much. As a man rejection from women is a part of life. To be rejected by a lack of response is about the best rejection I can think of. I mean, I still have vivid memories of being rejected by girls in high school and can't remember a single profile from a woman who didn't respond to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not sure where to take this discussion, on one hand I've went through the process an I'm engaged to a woman I met through online dating. On the other I remember how tiring it was trying to get responses and make a decent opening.

I spoke with my fiance about this she and she showed me how many messages are got. While a guy may get a few replies. She had so many new messages mine had dropped off the page. Message management was a paid feature, but sending was free as was searching and filtering.

If anything: Perhaps the problems with online dating aren't simply skewed ratios, but poor design with regards to how users used the Software vs expectations.

Why should a woman search through profiles when she can review 20+ already interested candidates in a day? Why should she reply to every message (I assume the average guy doesn't message every girl)?

<comment><USER8> _Why should a woman search through profiles when she can review 20+ already interested candidates in a day?_

I don't think you can equate a man sending a message with genuine interest in many cases. At the very least women on dating sites have to filter out the guys who cut and paste the same message to every woman. Even if that's only 1% of guys, that's still a lot of messages to read and reject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> when i was young, my female friends would say just be yourself, happy, etc and someone will just come along. i did that, failed, and i said why did it go so wrong? then i considered their world view, and i face palmed myself.

same thing happens, women say try online dating, its so easy! my response rate (let alone something that leads to a rl meeting) is about 1/50\. not worth it.

i wonder if online dating will become so bad for men, that it will be bad for women too, as the quality men realize its not a favorable arena.

<comment><USER10> Don't ask fish how to fish.

Check out theredpill on reddit and never look back.

<comment><USER11> Please dont. That subreddit is gross. Its like asking sociopaths how to make friends. The answer may make sense on some level, but to follow their advice is to discount a large range of human emotions. The red pill is the last place to go for real advice. Talk to your grandparents. Talk to women themelves. Listen. Ask questions. Stop trying to manipulate people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Someone needs to combine Vine with Tinder. A 2 second video of you saying hello, and you can only record via the app. This wouldn't change the general imbalance of dating, but it would help narrow down choices really quickly and maybe clear the backlog for women a bit.

<comment><USER13> Serious question: how do you solve the "oh, that's a penis" problem?

<comment><USER14> Deep learning with a crowdsourced dataset based on 'report penis' button (cross-referenced across a bunch of accounts and filtered to remove false positives from people who click 'that's a penis' on every profile out of spite.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Male here. I did online dating for a couple of years. Based on my narrow experience, it seems the odds are indeed dramatically stacked against men—I ended up generally not expecting a response from anyone.

When I changed my profile to "bisexual" (which I am), I saw one reason why—scads of creepy, low-effort messages from men, sometimes with their profile set to "female" to attract more responses. The imbalance leads to slimy game tactics and drives down the quality of experience for everybody.

The only _real_ women who ever messaged me first had qualities that I guess some people consider dealbreakers, such as being big, disabled, trans, non- white, or just not "conventionally pretty". Curiously, for me and most of my male friends, none of those things would even be a problem, as long as there were basic chemistry and lifestyle compatibility.

In the end, I made a few good friends, and I think that's actually a very good use case—OkCupid's "match percentage" for example is a pretty good metric of how much you agree on basic politics, demeanour, and so on. It just falls short of predicting a "spark" in real life—I went on dates with "99% match" women who turned out to share many of what I consider my _worst_ qualities.

Ironically, soon after I gave up on online dating, I met my lovely partner at an internet meetup—so you really never know!

<comment><USER16> OKCupid's match percentage is highly gameable. You've got two kinds of people - those that might work out, and the "oh hell no". Answer anything that has an obvious answer for the first kind as highly important, decline to answer questions with high variance, repeat until enough people have high enough percentages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Reading up on market design made me realize:

A) Tinder et al should probably be some sort of "sort the people you're interested in and run Gale-Shapley to figure out who you're meeting with on Friday Night"

B) The actual design of the app hardly matters for success, only your ability to market it and get people to adopt it. Oh, and I don't have any advantage here, so the entire thing is a mess not worth fixing.

I miiight have an out by making the Gale-Shapley version of Tinder, writing a bunch of content marketing aimed at programmers/nerds, aggressively promoting it at meetups. That only really gets the male side of the matching market, which means I'd want funding and a marketing position for women-who-are-into- nerds.

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't understand some of this advice like "keep your profile short. You'll offend someone and miss out on a date."

Unless you're just looking for hookups, the goal isn't dating, it's long term matching. I probably have gone on dates with 1 in 20 matches and aside from my ego, I'd be better off being more selective.

</comment><comment><USER18> I was on OKCupid for something like 10 years. 5 years ago a girl messaged me first. Probably the 3rd time that happened in the ten years. I am now happily married to that girl. She's on the couch a few feet from me.

</comment><comment> charles-salvia How is this different from the default state of Western culture for the past century? Despite many positive social changes towards more equal opportunities for women, socially speaking, Western culture is still very traditional in terms of the common expectations surrounding the "courtship" dynamic between a man and a woman. The man is still expected to initiate and drive the interaction, while the woman is expected to be more passive about it. This is how it is off the Internet as well - women are routinely approached by men at bars/nightclubs etc., but it rarely happens the other way around. So why would online dating be any different?

<comment><USER19> _How is this different from the default state of Western culture for the past century?_

It's not, but the author is considering how her actions have hitherto been perpetuating this state.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I found my wife in a chat that was mostly used for dating. I won her because I was the only guy in the virtual room that did not start the conversation in the line "nice shoes, wanna fuck?".

Yes, online dating may be a bad experience for average-looking guys, but sometimes it is so easy to stand out.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's a total sausage fest, your competition is extreme, and the quality of possible mates is usually very low. Avoid if at all possible.

Find something offline and social instead, do that and meet likeminded people. You will almost certainly have better luck.

</comment><comment><USER22> I haven't read the article, but around 5 years ago I had a great experience with OkCupid. I've never had trouble meeting girls in real life though, and I guess that carried over to the internet. I almost never initiated the conversation with girls but just responded when they sent me a message. I met lots of terrific women (and some not-so-terrific women), including my girlfriend who I'm still with. I had a lot more fun meeting girls with OkCupid than I did at bars/parties/etc.

</comment><comment><USER23> The short version is that there are significantly more men than women and the women receive many messages, so they can just pick the best looking/most wealthy/stable-seeming men to reply to and almost have to ignore the rest as spam.

The problem for me has been that most years I haven't made a lot of money and I am somewhat unattractive. There are some issues with facial asymmetry that I was actually unaware of until recently -- and the funny thing is that when I went on a dating forums site and asked about it, they were quite rude in dismissing my concern, suggesting I was average or above average.

But after years of real-life attempts and online messaging never receiving replies from attractive women and rarely receiving replies at all, I have slowly realized over the years that I am a little bit ugly, and not having the good solid job or good height, means that attractive women do not have time for me. Which makes sense for them, its just hard for me to deal with since just because one is unattractive does not mean that they are attracted to _other_ unattractive people. I am attracted to attractive women and repelled by unattractive women. Which the same is probably happening the other way too.

So I have stopped trying to meet women and my new plan is to become independently wealthy and improve my face with surgery.

<comment><USER24> > and the funny thing is that when I went on a dating forums site and asked > about it, they were quite rude in dismissing my concern, suggesting I was > average or above average.

I think you should open your mind and understand why they think or believe that. If you do, you'll probably save yourself an incredible amount of pain, suffering, and frustration.

<comment><USER23> I wanted to believe them and acted on those assertions, but after another 4 or 5 years of the same situation and then finally doing some analysis of my face in photos, I realized they were wrong. So after about 3 decades of believing I was normal and either having relationships only occasionally with very few unattractive women or none (almost entirely alone), I now have accepted an explanation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I definitely fall in the less than average response rate category. Probably closer to 30/1 for a message response and worse for getting a date.

30 well crafted messages takes a lot of effort. The women that respond to me and progress towards a date are usually the ones that I am least interested in. In cold terms, the effort to result ratio makes online dating practically useless for me.

I don't blame the women as I expect that the ones I would most like to date get a lot of messages. The ones that are willing to progress with me I expect get less, to put it politely. At a certain point I make the cut and I just don't like that point.

I suggest everyone reading the advice of people here that says "Here's how I get ~25% of my messages read and end up with 2-3 dates per week" ignore the well-meaning advice and instead read Malcom Gladwell's article "The New-Boy Network" [0]. What applies to jobs in the essay applies to women in online dating.

[0] [http://gladwell.com/the-new-boy-network/](http://gladwell.com/the-new- boy-network/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Happily married to a girl I met on a dating site. It's not always futile but acknowledge I'm probably the 1%

</comment><comment><USER27> I met my GF on Adopt a Guy (I think it operates in few european countries). Women have to start conversations so SNR there is slightly higher than on traditional dating sites.

</comment><comment><USER28> Relevant [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13867590](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13867590)

</comment><comment><USER29> Top 5% of men crush it online.

Better start lifting more weights boys! (and girls!)

 _speaking as someone who is crushing it (100 dates in past year alone)_

It would be impolite to say anything more than that

</comment><comment><USER30> In a single picture: [http://i.imgur.com/G9sr4Cl.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/G9sr4Cl.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't really agree with this article.

I gave up on online dating a few years back, but as a guy I don't think it was all that bad. Someone said 1/50... I think it was closer to 1/5 women would respond. And look... if they don't respond, that's fine... it's nothing personal at that point. Women have to sift through the messages very quickly.

Anyway my advice for making it not suck so much for guys:

1) Find a girl friend who has some style, have her pick out your clothes (you can have her go through your closet and throw out everything that sucks if you want -- every 5 years or so it's probably not a bad idea to let a woman do this for you). I'm not the best looking guy... compensating by dressing right helps.

2) Make sure your pics aren't shirtless selfies, or drunk frat-boy poses, or just you standing in front of a boring ass wall; photos where you are out doing interesting things... hiking, at a cooking class... whatever. No selfies. Outdoor pics in good lighting taken by someone else. Make sure your pics are current.

3) Put some time into your profile, but make sure it's not a wall of text. A few tweet-like sentences that are funny or summarize yourself... that's what you need to go for. I think you want to be a more-fun version of yourself. Be a little goofy, don't take yourself too seriously. And be honest... you'll get what you're looking for.

4) When you write to girls... actually write to them. Not a book... but something individual. Copy and pasting the same message won't get you anywhere. Tweet-like comments about something on her profile... ask her a question, share a funny story... Avoid diving right into compliments. Give her something to respond to, something to play off of.

5) When you go out to dinner, have her pay half the first date. It's not cheap, it's fair. And you own't feel taken advantage of. Be friendly, be courteous, but don't be some white knight waiting to be a victim. Look, if you really had a great time and you don't care... pick up the check, but only if you really want to. You aren't paying for her time... she's not an escort. Splitting the check is fine.

6) Have things ready to talk about on the dates. Ask stupid questions. Bring up things you know about her from her profile... have fun with it. Reading just one book a month will give you an incredibly leg up here.

And be realistic. You aren't perfect... she won't be perfect. The goal is to find someone you enjoy being with. No reason you can't have a lot of fun along the way.

<comment><USER9> "Someone said 1/50... I think it was closer to 1/5 women would respond."

thats me,

I'm pretty sure if a plague wiped out all men on earth but me, I still wouldn't get 1/5\. 1/50 isn't an exaggeration for me. most websites make it hard to track such things, but the coffee meets baggle app made it easy. out of 100 i had 2 reciprocation, 1 saying it was an accident. out of the next 65 had 1 more before I deleted the app. on traditional dating sites like match, pof, etc I had similar though un-quantified results.

<comment><USER31> It sucks, but so much of what we see online is the photos. Can you put on some nice clothes and have a friend shoot some pics of you out around town? Will probably help improve response rates more than anything else. Good luck!

<comment><USER24> I don't know why you're being downvoted. You gave actually helpful, accurate, and actionable advice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Note that this title has a queer reading, which is almost the opposite of the straight one. I find it about equally funny and true.

</comment><comment><USER33> Should say [2013]. I tried to go to the author's blog (rosiesays.com), and I get redirected to some domain auction site.

</comment><comment><USER34> Can machine learning help?

<comment><USER13> My blockchain-based dating app solves all of these problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> It sucks for everyone. For women, it sucks because they're being bombarded and spammed. For men, it sucks because it can be nearly impossible to break through the noise.

I'm a guy. I'm extraordinarily serious about relationships. I never spam women because I'd hate to have it done to me, and I hate anything that makes humans dread talking to each other, anything that degrades the glue that allows humans to get along with empathy. Before I write to anyone, I've read everything they provided, and genuinely think we could get along.

But writing to women is an absolute tightrope. Do too much to demonstrate literacy and general quality as a human being, and the message may come off as weird or boring. The vast majority of the time, you won't receive feedback of any kind, so you tend to start trying to anticipate their reservations -- but if you write anything about your guesses as to why they might not be interested, you start sounding weird. And you get one chance per person. Writing again would be weird.

Get nothing back ten times? Twenty? Fifty? You can never ever let it get to you. You can never get a chip on your shoulder or allow any resentment to show through.

I accept a lot of this as just The Way It Is. The one thing I would hope to change in the minds of women, the one memo to women I would send, if I could, is: we have the internet and airplanes. Please don't write me off because I don't happen to be in the same city right now! A lot of women seem to want to cripple OKCupid to be, e.g., OKCupid NYC.

In my last successful relationship, we met on OKC, talked there, and then on another online chatting thing, and then in calls and texts and emails, and then I drove several hundred miles to see her. We knew we loved each other before I left. We were together for a few years. We have internet and airplanes! This could be a good thing for women.

Every time I disable my OKC account, I feel like it's for the last time, and the amount of time before I try again gets longer and longer. I feel like I'm being trained in a bad way.

I'm OK with how things are, but I wish things were better, because the world would be better if it were filled with people in healthy relationships that allow them to love and be loved.

<comment><USER3> > I accept a lot of this as just The Way It Is. The one thing I would hope to > change in the minds of women, the one memo to women I would send, if I > could, is: we have the internet and airplanes. Please don't write me off > because I don't happen to be in the same city right now! A lot of women seem > to want to cripple OKCupid to be, e.g., OKCupid NYC.

I dunno if this is a women specific thing. Location-based matching seems to just be a "feature" of pretty much every dating website out there, so people get used to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Dating fits a common dyad in which a power imbalance exists. Women vs. men (in heterosexual dating), men vs. women (in many male-dominated careers), police vs. civilians, whites vs. non-whites, and so on. In such cases, these points of view are expressed:

More Power:

\- Cooperate in order to reach a successful outcome

\- Lay out your intents explicitly, attempt nothing verging on deception

\- Be yourself, we just want to help you

\- Work hard to better yourself, we haven't done anything wrong. In the vast majority of cases, you have.

(Overall assertion is that of equality, and denial of a power/privilege imbalance, and that you should take responsibility for yourself.)

Less Power:

\- Compete with the other party to reach an outcome desirable to you

\- Strategically reveal information in order to effect the above

\- Be yourself, but realize that the other party may not have your best interests in mind. They prioritize _their_ best interests.

\- Work hard to better yourself, but understand that the other side makes mistakes, misjudgments and may just as well be as error prone as you.

In any relationship where an imbalance exists we should be aware that both sides will have sharply differing views. But dating in particular, the concept of female privilege is a huge minefield. OP article's ideas have been tacitly admitted to me in person by women, but the large audience online suppresses women from admitting anything that might not reflect well upon themselves. I think she's speaking for a large amount of women who deny their privilege via silence. The general idea might be that privileged deny their privilege, whether it's through physical attributes, wealth, legislated authority, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> Ugh, well, if the roles were reversed here and the author were a man speaking for women this article would be derided. I think there's even a word for this, "mansplaining", no? Isn't that exactly what is happening here?

I'm just one man and don't pretend to speak for every man in the world but my experience with online dating was much better than what she describes. I don't recall what my "success" rate was but it had to of been at least 33%? Maybe more?

Maybe the author should talk to men about their experiences rather than assuming that her own behavior is the norm.

</comment><comment><USER37> Didn't even realize this article was 4 years old until I started reading the comments.

Dating apps are the ultimate hunting ground for individuals with borderline personality disorder. They provide an endless supply of one-night-stands and no-strings-attached sex, as well as playthings and victims when short-term and long-term relationships are desired.

<comment><USER13> Wait, it's impossible to enjoy one-night-stands and short-term relationships without having BPD?

<comment><USER37> I don't see how you inferred that from my post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I am an Indian man with distasteful dating experience. I am 31, above average by American means and very much in shape. I weigh 150 lbs having height of 5'7".

I think premature baldness killed it for me in my 20s. I had low confidence for a long time. I have been shaving my head for 2 yrs now. But, 9 out 10 women here in SF/Seattle/Portland prefer either white or black men.

I haven't been on a date for 2 yrs now. I think TINDER and alike hookup apps pretty much killed it for men like me. Women used to depend on men for resources. We have reverse situation now with women outnumering men in terms of employment rate and graduation rate.

What's worst, Indian women prefer white men if they are in US and master's degree and 100k or more salary is must for Indian/Asian women. I have first hand experience of Indian/Asian women telling me that if I don't have masters then don't bother talking to us.

I deleted tinder profile 3 months back. Nowadays, I spend time just by myself. I felt bad for a long time, but then I realized nobody cares. Like it or not, women care about looks, status and resources most. Miss 2 out 3 and you are done.

I used to blame myself but now I don't. I know I am a competent man, i contribute to the society in my capacity and this is only life I have. I now spend Fridays and Saturdays being very relaxed and doing nothing virtually.

Hookup culture is real. That's all I can say.</comment>