2017 State of Global Tech Salaries - <AUTHOR> https://hired.com/state-of-salaries-2017 <comment><USER2> Every article on salaries seems to really screw up two things. One is, salary is only a portion of total compensation. Which do they mean here? If you don't look at equity packages, my intuition is you're going to think SF sucks, since I think more companies there use stock incentives. I'm not sure anybody has good data on equity packages/total comp, and at the very least, it's not trivial even if you have that data, since for example you can't just treat an Uber RSU the same as a Google one. So comparing total comp, which is what matters, is a subtle issue with lots of methodological decisions to make that will alter the results, and when articles (including the original source at hired.com) don't even mention any of that, it's hard to take the results seriously.

Second is, you can't just scale up salaries by the COL adjustment when the comp is this high. If you do that, you'll think the following are equally good:

      - monthly income 10k, 3k on rent, 2k other expenses
      - monthly income 5k, 1.5k on rent, 1k on other

Not all expenses scale linearly with COL, and in particular, one of the most important imputed expenses, savings, doesn't scale that way, unless you plan to retire with the exact same lifestyle.

<comment><USER3> It is invalid to consider stocks, bonus, and other incentives in your calculations. Companies take them away all the time.

You have salary, and that is it. Fringe benefits (insurance, 401k match...) is a useful thing to get and part of the picture, but the company can change them to your negative when they feel like it.

stocks and bonus are nice, but you dare not count on them until after you get them. People who do otherwise find themselves broke when expected money doesn't come in.

<comment><USER4> Actually, a company can't take away granted RSU's that are still vesting. That's a signed agreement.

They can, however, reduce your salary at will.

<comment><USER3> True, but there is no reason to believe that those stocks will be worth anything when they vest.

<comment><USER4> Sure, but they can also reduce your salary at any time. So it's a bit unfair to consider salary any "more real" than vesting RSUs.

I just mean your claim "stocks and bonus are nice, but you dare not count on them until after you get them" is false because you can't "count on" salary coming either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This analysis may be reasonable as far as it goes, but it can still make financial sense for someone to live and work in the Bay Area. I recently took a new job near San Francisco paying ~$160k. Living cheaply, our actual consumption for my family of 3 is about ~50k a year. (Yes, this is possible -- and life can still be enjoyable if you like spending time in nature/other inexpensive activities.) After taxes, that leaves me $50-60k a year to invest/save for retirement.

Compare that with a salary of $105k in inexpensive Salt Lake City, which is where my second-choice offer was. After taxes and consumption for a similar lifestyle, I'd be saving somewhere around $30-40k/year, a substantial decrease. Not to mention the fact that if the startup that made that offer went under, it would be much harder to find another interesting job with similar compensation in Salt Lake than San Francisco.

I don't plan on living in the Bay Area long-term, but in the early stages of my career I can accumulate a lot more savings and also grow my skills faster by living here than probably anywhere else in the world.

<comment><USER6> That's a tough argument to make that SF beats SLC in net savings.

You should try living with your family in a house with a backyard, it's quite enjoyable and could be pretty cheap over time if you see any appreciation.

Secondly there are a lot more taxes on a lot more things in SF, are you factoring that in?

Also I'd bet you are worth more than 105k in SLC if you looked around longer.

I love SF and it's great to live there for many reasons, but I don't think "cheaper than utah" is one of them.

<comment><USER7> >You should try living with your family in a house with a backyard, it's quite enjoyable and could be pretty cheap over time if you see any appreciation.

You should try living in a cabin in the woods. Way cheaper plus you get fit from chopping up firewood for the winter. Obviously only a fool would live in a city in Utah when they could live in rural Alaska for cheaper!

<comment><USER8> "You should try living in a cabin in the woods."

This isn't even close to a reasonable retort.

<comment><USER9> It is if you have a preference for urban environments and your choice is between SF/NYC/London/etc and Salt Lake City, where it feels like every other street is as wide as the average block in another city.

To each their own of course.

<comment><USER10> Well, in SLC you are about an hour drive away from arguably the best skiing on the planet.

To each their own of course.:-)

<comment><USER11> To be fair, SF is far closer to and more practical for good skiing than London or NYC.

And yes, living in the Bay Area, I miss (from Switzerland) skiing being an hour's drive away. It's all relative...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The problem with straight-across cost-of-living adjustments is that they're only relevant when you're talking about a more-or-less zero savings rate.

Assuming you can save 10% of your annual salary a year, you're better off living in higher cost-of-living areas, assuming all other things being equal. Then you are growing wealth (retirement funds, etc.) instead of just getting a more expensive lease for your car or apartment.

So what you really want to measure is something closer to "savings rate" or "disposable income" or something like that.

I'm open to thoughts on how to practically do this math. It's very relevant when considering job offers in other cities.

<comment><USER13> I think the biggest problem with COL is the fact that COL is a very personal matter.

Here in NYC, most college graduates (programmers or not) share an apartment with flatmates. If you're a programmer, as long as at least one person in the apartment has a non-minimum wage "office" job ($40-50k+), you can live quite comfortably and save a lot unless you decide to live in a penthouse. An average apartment in many areas of Brooklyn split among 2-3 employed people is very affordable.

Even if you want to live alone it's not so bad, but my point is that before someone can decide if NYC is too expensive for them or someone else they should ask more than just their salary.

<comment><USER12> I've noticed this as well, but the flip side is that cities price out families and people with disabilities pretty quickly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> w0rd-driven As someone who's gone through hired's process last year with a close friend, I feel this does a disservice. Primarily because COL is never 1:1 in spite of the very best analysis available and I feel like this becomes a credible source those in hiring positions. The train of thought goes something like this, seemingly from anecdotal evidence from my close friend: "Oh you're making $70K in Atlanta as a PHP developer? That's like $150K in SF!" (the SF value was plucked out of thin air because I don't quite know the calculation). When the reality is in Atlanta that's well below market rate for a seasoned developer. This is also the state of their data compiled from last year but I suspect more than most will treat it as a projection or try to run the increase/decrease as one.

My understanding may be seriously flawed because I view salary negotiations as nowhere close to a zero sum game it should at least attempt to aspire to be. From the get go, everything is entirely skewed in the employer's favor and this just feels like more ammunition.

My close friend and I shared the train of thought that if a company based in SF has $x for developers, while they can likely get more remote developers for the total at their COL decrease, splitting some of the difference with those employees would go quite a long way. Employees likely wouldn't see that total compensation range anywhere else in their current location and that difference becomes its own motivator, at least for someone like me who has struggled to reach market rate. It becomes a double edged sword when that offer is vastly above market rate as finding another job in that range would be increasingly difficult. Employees would likely be way more tempted to stay well after burn out sets in because what should be closer to the norm becomes more of a golden ticket.

<comment><USER12> > I view salary negotiations as nowhere close to a zero sum game

I think you mean "level playing field" or something. "zero sum" implies that the employer wins when the employee loses.

But I agree with you on the above. I think the dirty little secret is that most employers have very little clue about how much a particular skill set (let alone a particular dev) is worth. So they tend to use previous salary as an anchor point to make sure they're not more than 20% more crazy than the last overpaying employer.

Cost of living adjustments is likewise a hack to help pick a number out of the air. I really doubt employers think "hey, you can't raise a family on $130k in downtown DC, so we'll have higher turnover when college hires reach 5-10 years of experience".

<comment> w0rd-driven > I think you mean "level playing field" or something. "zero sum" implies that > the employer wins when the employee loses.

I struggled with the right way to word it in a concise manner so "level playing field" seems more correct.

In being privy to hiring decisions for other developers, I believe your assessment is correct. I feel like everything becomes a stab in the dark to some degree. That my assessment of my worth and their assessment of what they're looking for rarely match up as developers by and large seem to never quite fit inside the job description box. I see that as a good thing but the pattern of seemingly properly understanding your worth as you're walking out the door becomes tiresome the third or seventh time it happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A lot of the cost of living calculations are wrong. I had moved from LA paying 1400$ a month rent to Austin and paid nearly the same rent in Austin for a one bedroom. The plus is no income tax in Washington and Texas but food costs are more and property taxes are double in Texas when compared to California.

<comment><USER15> Austin city is increasingly expensive to live in. Fortunately, the city is in the middle of land that is open on all sides for a considerable range, and there are very affordable options just outside the city. If planned properly, this can result in relatively easy commutes for little cost of living. The property tax lessens considerably in neighboring cities and counties, as well. The lack of state income tax is also a huge boon. I also disagree that food costs are higher in Austin.

<comment><USER14> you could say the same about SF and LA. but how far are you willing to go? problem is for austin these areas are included in cost living considerations.

<comment><USER15> That's true. You just don't have to go as far out in Austin or adjacent cities. Certainly housing is affordable to buy in Austin city and surrounding, on even one modest tech salary. I don't think the same is true in SF/bay area or LA. Austin is very expensive in a small central core, but drops off considerably only a small number of miles away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> SFBA is great for (at least) the following types of people:

1\. Those who are completely happy with small apartments or long commutes. Typically coming from populous city in a developing country, SFBA traffic was an improvement (if not for duration, then at least for discipline and stress levels). Also, apartments are decent sized compared to what one is used to back home. Cheap cars are still good enough compared to what you had back home. And savings are HUGE, especially if you carry on the frugal lifestyle.

2\. Those who are frugal. Because if you can save a higher percentage of your salary, then SFBA savings would outpace salaries in (most) other regions even accounting for high COL

3\. Those who seek tech opportunities to make big money - eg. getting within top 10-15% engineers in GooSoftFaceFlix, who can easily earn >400K per year including Salary, Bonus and RSUs. If you are decently smart (no need of Turing Award smarts), work hard and position yourself right for growth, its not rocket science to get promoted into top 10-15% ranks within 6-8 years. Such opportunities in tech are relatively fewer in (most) other places.

Source: been in all 3 buckets at various points in my life; observed tons of my friends who were in similar boats.

Edit: clarified wording

</comment><comment><USER17> ...and Vancouver, BC doesn't even show up on the radar because our average is roughly $53,000 USD / year.

Might wanna consider outsourcing here. Same time zone as SV, similar culture, speaks English, tight job market means loyal workers.

source: [https://www.glassdoor.ca/Salaries/vancouver-software- develop...](https://www.glassdoor.ca/Salaries/vancouver-software-developer- salary-SRCH_IL.0,9_IM972_KO10,28.htm)

USD/CAD as of today: 1.31

<comment><USER18> There are some good devs there too - maybe that is what made it an attractive choice for companies like Facebook before.

<comment><USER19> As brilliantcode mentioned, Facebook, Microsoft et al are using Vancouver as a visa staging ground for people outside of North America. Most Canadian software engineers can work in the US on the TN (which doesn't have a cap like the H-1B) so they don't have visa issues. They bring them over to Vancouver, basically training them there, and once they've worked there for a year, they're eligible to use the L-1 visa, because it's considered an intra-company transfer, so they can move them into the US.

The Vancouver offices are not an investment in the Canadian tech industry; they're just taking advantage of our more lenient immigration laws and the convenience of the city being geographically close to San Francisco. Waterloo and Toronto seem to be taken much more seriously as remote engineering offices for American companies (possibly because of the universities and amount of tech talent in the region).

It's kind of a shame though. Vancouver is a beautiful city, conveniently located, and there's no good reason why it couldn't be Silicon Valley of the north. If they could just figure out how to make it more economical to live there for software engineers (i.e. cheaper housing and higher salaries), it could quickly become a booming tech hub.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think there data on Cost of Living is outdated, specifically as it regards Seattle, which has recently seen a significant increase in COL. According to their calculations Seattle is cheaper than DC, however the data I can find online suggests the opposite.

[http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/seattle- wa/washingt...](http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/seattle- wa/washington-dc/50000)

<comment><USER21> They are using this data for Cost of Living according to the Hired article this article is summarizing.

hired article: [https://hired.com/state-of- salaries-2017](https://hired.com/state-of-salaries-2017)

cost of living data comes from here: [https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/)

<comment><USER20> That helps explain it, thank you. It looks like the root problem is they are using the (excl rent) number, and the recent increase in COL is Seattle has been driven by real estate, so the problem isn't there data, it's how they are applying it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have a much different cost of living equation supporting my decision to live in the bay.

The big expense is obviously rent, which I'm sure they have represented... The average 1 bedroom in Austin around $1,000 and in SF let's say $3,300. Difference of $2,300 * 12 = $27,600. After that, that other $40,000 cost of living difference seems a bit of a stretch.

In SF, my company buys breakfast, lunch, dinner and my transportation to/from work (like many others in this area) so I don't have to factor that into my cost of living. The difference between cost of living adjusted salary tilts toward the SF bay, especially with bay area equity options over what is competitive in Austin (I have no insight into that, I think that would be an interesting study though).

<comment><USER23> SF is bad but not "average $3300 for a 1BR" bad.

<comment><USER24> it's actually worse, sitting at ~$3,500 right now: [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-rent- cos...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-rent-cost-drop- rental-6690357.php)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Lived in Tokyo and realized it wasn't worth it after some time considering the amount of money to be made in the states. In the states, higher salary, lower cost of living, larger homes, more room. I miss Japan, but I don't want to work forever and living and working there just meant I was delaying the point at which I could stop working.

</comment><comment><USER26> London. The city with the highest cost of living in Europe [citation needed].

Look anywhere else in the UK and it's more like £25000-£35000.

<comment><USER27> I think that's too pessimistic. With less than 5 years experience, and having made some less-than-optimal career decisions, I've got about £45,000 total compensation. (Central Belt, Scotland)

<comment><USER28> Do you work in finance perchance? Most dev salaries in Scotland are not that good with just 5y experience, but finance sector jobs seem to generally come with higher salaries. I have 15y experience, working in Aberdeen (which has a much higher CoL than the central belt) and am on 55k - which is pretty much the top end

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What is interesting is looking at the actual growth rate of salaries in software engineering. For all the talk about not being able to find qualified people, the salary growth seems stagnant.

</comment><comment><USER30> I wonder what India would be like - not as high wages, but the most expensive apartments in bangalore are like $700 a month.

<comment><USER31> In first world rents are around 7-8% annually of the price of property. In India it is just ~2% pa. I think there is already high pressure on IT salaries in India so there would not be much upward trend there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm wondering why the entire southeast of the US was left out of the analysis? I'd have imagined ATL or Miami would have enough data to add to the report and cost of living is fairly low even in comparison to many of these other cities.

<comment> w0rd-driven I went through a round with hired.com and I'm based in Atlanta. While you can specify that you're not willing to relocate the selection of potential employers looking for someone here was seemingly low. It wouldn't surprise me if there was very little to no matches for whatever reason. I feel like Atlanta is a tech hub but some days it doesn't want to act like it. I would think Miami is somewhat similar with Nashville coming close behind but there aren't any concrete explanations. All I can really do is speculate from anecdotal evidence.

<comment><USER33> Anecdotally, Atlanta has a great tech scene. I'm earning SF salary and comp, and my cost of living is extremely cheap. The culture here feels much more heterogenous, too.

Atlanta has a lot of fintech and medical tech companies, and it sports a cottage startup scene at Georgia Tech and the ATDC. We've seen a number of local startups do really well: Airwatch, MailChimp, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm legitimately interested to see how much software engineers make if they're not White or Asian. Given the lack of women and minorities I'd say minorities are better off being an MD than a SE. In addition, I'm skeptical that an average SE can get offers at places that give them this kind of compensation.

\---

Take Google for an example. [1]

The earning "likelihood" (whether this is cultural, sociopolitical, socioeconomic, etc. is irrelevant. This is just observable fact, given Google's data) of Blacks is 1/17s of Whites and 1/5s of Asians (Google numbers scaled for Black representation in the US).

What I am getting with this? In this model I'm describing, you either work at Google, making $100 or you're unemployed, making 0. This means Whites and Asians will continue to make much more as Software Engineers, because the average wage as White or Asian person as a software engineer is higher, _because_ of the higher rates of them _being_ software engineers to begin with. This results in the average reported wage for software engineering being closer to $100 (the ceiling) even though it's more like $20 if you're a woman or minority.

Therefore, for an article like this to be useful for minorities and women, it would have to illustrate companies that have high (where high is equal to US demographics) rates of employment for software engineers. Otherwise, this might as well just read: "2017 State of Global Millionaires"

[1]

\- [http://time.com/4391031/google-diversity- statistics-2016/](http://time.com/4391031/google-diversity-statistics-2016/)

\- [https://www.google.com/diversity/](https://www.google.com/diversity/)

<comment><USER35> While I struggle generally to discern what you're trying to say, I'm particularly befuddled by what "MD" refers to here.

<comment><USER34> My point is basically this: the average is being extremely skewed by survivorship bias, namely, White and Asians who attended elite schools. I assert that getting the salaries noted in the article is especially unlikely if you're on the other end of the spectrum: Women and minorities from non- elite schools.

MD means medical doctor. Wages among doctors are far more predictable.

<comment><USER36> Nothing is keeping women and minorities out of tech, they're just choosing different careers.

<comment><USER34> I'd love to see your evidence for this. Namely, you'd need to prove that for a given educational level, geographical location and familial history, they're more likely to choose something other than tech than white males.

<comment><USER36> Given the fact that every college in the country enacts affirmative action, it's apparent that non-whites and women would have no problem getting into the IT field. And given the fact that over 60 percent of people graduating college today are women, that tells me that it's just not a field they're interested in. I don't see why that's a problem.

<comment><USER37> You don't understand why lack of diversity in an industry is a problem? A complaint that I often hear is that SV is full of start ups focused on "Uber for catnip" and other unimaginative useless things. Wouldn't diversity address this alleged homogeny of services(think Bevel)?

<comment><USER36> I see no merit in forced diversity. If they have the opportunity and incentive to choose this field, yet go elsewhere, that's fine by me.

<comment><USER34> You've yet to prove that they've had "the opportunity and incentive to choose this field, yet go elsewhere."

<comment><USER36> Affirmative action means women and minorities get preferential treatment during hiring. Given the fact that women and minorities are underrepresented in tech, it should be obvious that they would have an incentive to join the industry because they would have very little trouble getting hired wherever they want. And given the fact that over 60 percent of graduates are women, it's clear that lack of opportunity isn't a factor for women at least.

<comment><USER34> So you basically have no evidence to back up meaningless, unsubstantiated claims. You don't even support your statement: "affirmative action means women and minorities get preferential treatment during hiring." Guess the discussion is over since you refuse to provide any evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.

<comment><USER38> It's really easy to plug your ears and scream that an opponent's argument is "ridiculous" (what you are doing). It's more difficult to actually make a counterargument yourself (what you are not doing). Try harder, maybe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> It's crazy how much more you get paid in America than elsewhere. On the other hand, I can cycle to work, get actual holidays and actually work leave work at 5pm.

<comment><USER40> You can do these in San Francisco, though I prefer keeping the mornings and working the evenings. Wasting daytime sunshine is a terrible idea.

<comment><USER39> Really though? I thought you only something like get 10-15 holidays (including sick days?), are expected to work really long hours, and I can't imagine the rent within cycling distance of downtown San Francisco... Actually I don't need to - it's pretty insane - easily triple London prices which are already very high:

[https://www.zumper.com/blog/uploads/2016/03/SanFrancisco_Mon...](https://www.zumper.com/blog/uploads/2016/03/SanFrancisco_MonthlyPriceMedianMap_Winter20161.png)

<comment><USER40> I actually live in London right now so I can tell you that San Francisco can be much cheaper. I had a one bedroom for $1400 there for the last three years.

Anywhere inside the city is cyclable. And because the weather is great you can go do things in the daytime.

The vacation time thing is a problem for the rest of America. I had unlimited vacation and took seven weeks off last year in San Francisco.

Everyone in SF wants to live at the NEMA. The NEMA costs like a NEMA would. Don't live at the NEMA if you're price sensitive.

EDIT: Ah ha, I see. I lived in the Excelsior. On your map, I was right by the border with Glen Park. 8 mins to BART, which is 12 mins to Montgomery St.. And BART doesn't get anywhere near as packed as the Jubilee line does. You have to see that SF is not very much larger than Zone 1 in London is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> As a black software engineer this is disturbing. What could be the cause of the major discrepancies between black and white SWE salaries?

<comment><USER42> There could be a million things that would cause these discrepancies, like differences in education and/or family background of the relevant populations. It could even be something "positive" like if there's a perceived lack of black engineers relative to the number of high-skilled black engineers that are out there, companies may be more likely to hire marginal candidates or retrain promising candidates from other fields (IT, security) - this would skew the average salary down because they "padded" the distribution of black engineers by hiring outside their normal candidate pool.

<comment><USER43> This line supports your point.

> When we look at our two largest markets on Hired's platform, San Francisco > and New York, the average African-American candidate on the Hired platform > is 49 percent more likely to get hired than the average white person.

<comment><USER42> To be fair, you'd _also_ observe the exact same thing if black engineer salaries were artificially depressed relative to their skill level, since if you can get equivalent quality for less money, why not?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> And here I am making $72,000 in New Hampshire...45 minutes from Boston. I have a B.S. in computer engineering and now have 4-5 years of professional experience in software (specializing in DevOps). Am I severely underpaid?

<comment><USER45> These are the actual averages (not adjusted for SF cost of living): [https://hired.com/assets/reports/state_of_salaries/img1@2x-2...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com)

IMO if you're happy where you are, and the cost of living is really low (e.g. you can buy a decent house pretty easily for under 200k), no need to be worried. Otherwise I'd probably leave and work in a big but not overly expensive city. I've seen plenty of job listings in Chicago looking for people with like 2-4 years experience paying 100k+, and the good parts of Chicago are pretty damn nice plus it's a cheap city to live in for its size (e.g. Toronto is always compared to Chicago, but rent is much more affordable in Chicago and you get paid more)

EDIT: Just realized the 74k on Toronto is USD - these numbers seem pretty weird. I know plenty of people making starting salaries in the ballpark of $134k in SF, but you'd be hard pressed (maybe even impossible) to find somebody in Toronto who'd pay you 97k for you first job out of school. I don't know how SF salaries work though - maybe they start out higher, but they still have the same glass ceiling where very, very few people are making >200k as a developer?

<comment><USER46> He does not need to move anywhere to make a lot more money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's really hard to compare real world adjusted incomes because each government/country has varied outlooks on social benefits and safety nets. In the US salaries are high, but the government doesn't give you anything in terms of cheap educational, access to cheap healthcare etc.

I'd be curious to see if there's a way to factor in a global compensation number that includes all factors like stock, education cost and so on.

Completely anecdotal, but my experience with Hired wasn't great. Didn't have many good companies to choose from, the "hiring advocate" wasn't very helpful.

<comment> w0rd-driven I didn't want to comment on this but my friend and I went through a batch and we could pretty much say the exact same thing. I wouldn't say the advocate wasn't terribly helpful. I blame it on the selection. Though my friend and I had different advocates and I seemed to jump through more hoops likely because I set my asking salary higher.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Where's Detroit? We had a bit of an exodus back in 2008-2012 but finding people today is like pulling teeth. I'm sure it's a way better financial deal than the bay area.

<comment><USER49> I think the recent crime/safety reputation its gotten is keeping people (like me) away. I wouldn't move to Detroit even if they paid me $150k, I just don't feel like the risk is worth it.

<comment><USER50> I live in a Detroit suburb. Currently work there as well but know plenty of people that work downtown. Easy drive to downtown but there are plenty of jobs in very nice suburbs. The city is also nicer than you think. Still fairly rough but improving every day.

<comment><USER51> Can confirm. I moved from downtown Detroit to Austin. Austin is great but the core of Detroit is also pretty cool (except for the weather). A lot of the popular restaurants/venues have sort of an 'underground' vibe, and typically aren't as crowded as one might experience elsewhere. New, interesting businesses and groups are constantly popping up downtown. I think of Detroit when I see "keep Austin weird" signs, because Austin isn't weird, it's just gentrification and rich white people. Weird is plentiful and welcome in Detroit. Also, the city remains diverse, which doesn't seem to be the case in Austin. But yeah, still lots of dangerous areas outside of downtown Detroit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> How is this "global" tech salaries, when it just shows data from five different countries?

<comment><USER40> Everyone else is irrelevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Hired is trying to present meaningful statistics while conveniently leaving out the sample size? (although I understand for business reasons they don't reveal it)

</comment><comment><USER54> The salary in Sydney seems to be anemic relative to a CoL that approaches SF.

For fucks sake.

</comment><comment><USER55> The article is misleading. The average software engineer salary in Toronto is _not_ $197k CAD. It is closer to $80k, according to online sources like [https://www.quora.com/Whats-a-reasonable-salary-for-a- softwa...](https://www.quora.com/Whats-a-reasonable-salary-for-a-software- engineer-in-Toronto) .

<comment><USER56> Read the map title, the real salary according to their source is $74K (CAD$ 97K).

The adjustment for Cost of Living in SF is discussed in this thread, it might not be accurate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'm unfairly critical of reports like these once I realise many y-axes don't start at zero in their charts.

<comment><USER58> What's the purpose of such a chart? Why not simply display a sorted table if they can't be bothered to take advantage of the visualisation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Seattle average is 180k and Austin is 198k. That's insane. What companies are offering this crazy salaries?

<comment><USER60> That is salary adjusted for cost of living.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> There are so many large tech companies in the Bay Area that all include stock- based compensation as a meaningful portion of your salary.

Everybody on HN fixates on startup employment in the bay area. Sure, there are plenty of "starving" engineers here working for $90k at a startup. But that's a choice. Every large tech company you can think of, and many you can't, have been hiring here non-stop for years. Within a 2 blocks of where I write this is Yelp, Salesforce and Zillow/Trulia. These are not even the large tech companies.

This place is not meant for everybody, but it really has not been hard to get ahead here if you're an engineer aiming to make money.

</comment><comment><USER62> State of Global Tech Salaries Canada = Toronto

</comment><comment><USER63> We're getting screwed here in Canada.

<comment><USER64> How are we getting screwed? (and I agree that the salaries are pretty low compared to the other cities).

Also, the dollar being low doesn't help.

<comment><USER63> For the exact reason you said... our salaries are way lower. I should move to the states (although I wont because immigrants don't seem to be welcome there now).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Would like to see distributions of desired experience levels for jobs in each city. Unless they're fairly consistent, these numbers will all be skewed by the relative seniority of available roles. I'm not convinced they'd be vastly different but could imagine differences. For example, greater numbers of entry level positions in areas with higher concentrations of industry giants who can effectively train swarms of new grads.

</comment><comment><USER66> Interesting, I thought Toronto would be much lower. Does anyone have any data on cost of living expenses compared to other major US cities?

\- A Canadian who wants to go to the states but probably won't for the time being due to political/family/friends factors.

<comment><USER49> Here's a comparison between SF and TO: [https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Canada&country2=United+States&city1=Toronto&city2=San+Francisco%2C+CA&tracking=getDispatchComparison)

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Is there any sense of how corporate benefits effect the real cost of living?

Meaning, companies which offer free food, transportation, even limited housing, the net effect of cost of living increases could be somewhat offset?

<comment><USER68> Housing would make a difference in high cost-of-living areas, such as SF, but the others are probably rounding errors with what is, after all, fairly high salaries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I bet the percentage (and the distribution) of engineers using something like hired.com to find a job is way lower in the hyper-fast-paced Bay Area than anywhere else.

</comment><comment><USER69> Out of curiosity, where does biotech, or specifically bioinformatics fall on a scale like this?

</comment><comment><USER70> It would be interesting to compare this with fully remote position salaries

</comment><comment><USER71> 84k in London dam I am underpaid

<comment><USER72> The average salary is 73k£. 84k£ is adjusted to the cost of living in SF.

<comment><USER73> Actually I think it's only 56K in pounds - 73K is the dollar value. It's confusing because the order of those values is swapped between the two maps. On the first map they have $73K (£56K), i.e. the dollar value is first. On the second map (adjusted for cost of living) they have £84K ($104K), i.e. the pound value is first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Hah, I'm actually somewhat disappointed. I read "making" as "creating" \- as in what people are making app-wise around the world right now.

Free idea if anyone fancies it (I wish I had the time!) - a live update map that sources geo-tagged tweets with a specific hashtag (#ShowHN?)

<comment><USER75> Would be more clear with "earning" instead of "making," wouldn't it?

<comment><USER74> Aye, I'd have likely not clicked had it been "earning". Love to see what people are creating, not really fussed about what they're earning

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> What the fuck @ the section "North America", and then right under all there is is a map of the US...

<comment><USER77> You must have missed this morning's Executive Order from the White House...

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> It's utterly stupid that the link goes to TechCrunch instead of the actual study itself: [https://hired.com/state-of- salaries-2017](https://hired.com/state-of-salaries-2017)

The hired.com page gives a lot more information, including baseline numbers before cost of living adjustments, and doesn't have such a click bait title.

<comment><USER79> > _utterly stupid_

We appreciate your concern for the quality of HN (and frustration at linkbait etc.) but please don't do this. The HN guidelines do say to post original sources, but also say not to call names in comments ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)).

Users submit articles from various sources of varying quality. Moderators routinely change urls to better sources when we find them, and edit titles accordingly. No one would love it better than we if users would just follow the site guidelines and we didn't need to do those things, but to try to make it otherwise would be like Canute commanding the waves.

We changed the URL from [https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/09/what-software- engineers-ar...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/09/what-software-engineers- are-making-around-the-world-right-now/) to the original report it's cribbed from.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Money is a systematic lack of empathy.

<comment><USER81> Feel free to develop a flawless system to allocate resources among billions of organisms and implement it. I welcome your efforts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Austin and Seattle _average_ salaries of $190K for developers?

And yet SF and NYC are still stuck around $130K, which is only 20% higher than what it was 10 years ago, and these cities are far more expensive to live in?

What's the draw, why don't more developers move to Austin or Seattle?

<comment><USER83> This isn't the raw numbers. It's based on cost of living adjustment to give what the equivalent would be in SF (at least that's what I understood from the article).

It would have been useful to show the raw numbers next to the adjusted numbers in the image.

<comment><USER84> Yeah it makes it hard to compare how you personally are doing.</comment></comment></comment>


Airbnb reportedly built an internal hedge fund that makes $5M per month - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2018/02/07/airbnb-reportedly-built-an-internal-hedge-fund-that-makes-5-million-per-month/ <comment><USER2> > former CFO Laurence Tosi, who had previously worked Blackstone Group as CFO, > took Airbnb's cash flow and created an internal hedge fund.

> According to Bloomberg, Tosi "quietly built a hedge fund within the > company's finance department. He used a portion of capital from the balance > sheet to buy stocks, currencies, and fixed-income securities, mimicking the > treasury fund he ran at Blackstone. The side project represented 30 percent > of the company's cash flow last year and made about $5 million a month for > Airbnb, the people said."

For what its worth, its easy to make money in a low volatile, bull market. I'd be really interested to know how that fund does in the upcoming weeks.

</comment><comment><USER3> Original source is the bloomberg article which was discussed here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16322070](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16322070)

</comment><comment><USER4> Aside from the implication in the article (that this activity skewed the company's profits) is this normal for companies?

If so, if I am a investor in such a company (hypothetical, I'm not an investor) would I be concerned that the company is taking market risks with their money instead of investing in things like marketing and R&D?

I mean, clearly it works for them (so far) but any investment is risky. As an investor I would assume that if I wanted to invest in the market I would have put it in a full-time hedge fund or wealth management company.</comment>


The 'Chomskyan Era' (2000) - <AUTHOR> http://www.chomsky.info/books/architecture01.htm <comment><USER2> > _" Or, take the mathematical series called the 'Fibonacci series'. It shows > up all over the place in nature; nobody knows exactly why. If you take a > sunflower and you look at the flower, it has spirals that go in different > directions. The number of parts that appear in adjacent spirals are related > to one another as successive terms in the Fibonacci series. You find that > kind of thing all over nature; it is not well understood why. There is > something about the physical world that forces certain kinds of structures > to emerge under particular conditions."_

So this is why I find Chomsky's conclusions to be suspect when he speaks about topics of which I have no understanding: he's often casually incorrect about topics in other fields. We understand why the Golden Ratio shows up all over the place, especially in biology: it doesn't.

In reality, it's the logarithmic spiral that's common, and it's a due to logarithmic spirals being a necessary characteristic of certain structures that exhibit self-similarity.

This quality was well known to Renaissance and Enlightenment era mathematicians and physicists, as well as to the ancients as the "spira mirabilis", or "marvelous spiral." But it seems to have lost favor in the modern era to a mythos surrounding the Golden Ratio Phi and the Fibonacci sequence.

For example, Jacob Bernoulli, the famed mathematician and no stranger to the Golden Spiral and the Spira Mirabilis, requested the latter be placed above his headstone, with the inscription "Eadem mutata resurgo," meaning "Although changed, I shall arise again," a reference to the then well-understood ability of logarithmic spirals to change scale while preserving shape.

Living organisms likely exploit this property of self-similarity for easy scaling. It's likely helpful to sunflowers to maximize the area of solar exposure, and snails to maximize living space. Once an organism evolves a roughly spiral structure, logarithmic spiral patterns are easy local maxima for the evolutionary algorithm to find, because it gives organisms the ability to scale aspects of their biology without major structural changes. Non-living systems exhibiting logarithmic spirals, such as certain galaxies, are a result of various (different) physical forcing functions that cause self-similarity to arise.

One way to debunk the pseudo-mystical notions surrounding Phi is to very carefully measure the spirals themselves. What you'll actually find is not a series of systems all approximating the same Golden Spiral, but rather very different systems all exhibiting different logarithmic spirals, with the shared characteristic of self-similarity.

<comment><USER3> So far as I can tell your post is actually "casually wrong". The sunflower seed example given by Chomsky seems to be mathematically well supported as a representation of Phi/Fibonacci sequences [1][2]. There's no mystification going on here, Chomsky is simply saying we don't fully understand the morphogenetic systems that produce these results. You offered some speculation as to why this might be, but so far no formalized results. Rene Thom did some excellent early work in this area, and demonstrated that chaotic dynamics can help to model some of these issues, but the topic is far from fully explored [3].

[1]: [http://www.popmath.org.uk/rpamaths/rpampages/sunflower.html](http://www.popmath.org.uk/rpamaths/rpampages/sunflower.html)

[2]: [http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted- sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci...](http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted- sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat2.html)

[3]: [http://www.amazon.com/Structural-Stability-Morphogenesis- Adv...](http://www.amazon.com/Structural-Stability-Morphogenesis-Advanced- Classics/dp/0201406853)

<comment><USER4> Whoops, you must have written your response and submitted as I was typing mine. Thank you for saying this far more succinctly and intelligently than I could have (or tried to).</comment></comment></comment>


Avian: a lightweight alternative to Java that runs on iOS and Android - <AUTHOR> http://oss.readytalk.com/avian/ <comment><USER2> How does it JIT on iOS given that normal apps cannot write to executable memory ?

<comment><USER3> One of the core contributors here. The trick is that Avian doesn't do JIT compilation on iOS - instead, we run everything through the "JIT" compiler ahead of time, as we're building the app. This is the only possible technique, outside of interpretation (which Avian can also do, but slowly), and compiling to Javascript to run with JavascriptCore. It's also what I've seen most other VMs do for iOS (including, for instance, the Unity game engine, which used to embed Mono).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A java jitted VM built from scratch.. i wonder if we have a way to see how it performs, compared to other jits (specially the Android ART)?

By a very crude look at the source, looks very lightweight indeed

> Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation for fast method execution

> Generational, copying garbage collection ensures short pause times and good > spatial locality

> Thread-local heaps provide O(1) memory allocation with no synchronization > overhead

> Null pointer dereferences are handled via OS signals to avoid unecessary > branches

<comment><USER3> One of the core contributors here. I don't have any numbers, but I can reasonably guess it'll only beat the most naive JITs (i.e., JITs that only copy predefined templates that implement each instruction). Avian's JIT does no optimizations beyond a simple linear-time register allocator and a very basic instruction selector. Avian can run a simple Hello World somewhat faster than HotSpot, but that's about all. In any real-world scenarios, HotSpot and Dalvik/ART will kick the pants off it.

However, that's not what Avian is designed for. We (ReadyTalk) don't have the resources to compete in that sort of market, as fun as that might be. We designed Avian to run a relatively light-weight client application, so we can deploy the same code across all our platforms. We're not running a game or a server, so we don't care a lot frame rate or requests per second.

<comment><USER5> > However, that's not what Avian is designed for. We (ReadyTalk) don't have > the resources to compete in that sort of market, as fun as that might be. We > designed Avian to run a relatively light-weight client application, so we > can deploy the same code across all our platforms. We're not running a game > or a server, so we don't care a lot frame rate or requests per second.

I still don't see how it's better than Java in that scenario, which also runs on all platforms?

<comment><USER6> It really stems from the need to deliver commercial software to enterprise customers on a variety of platforms. At least some (if not many) enterprise customers don't want to roll out Java across all of their clients machines. Additionally, not all enterprise customers have the privileges required to install Java themselves. The bundling of the application into a single executable file is advantageous in this scenario.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Please change the title to something less misleading: as specified by a contributor below, this does NOT run on Android.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't understand what this is for. Could someone suggest some use cases?

Is the idea that you can write an app in a language which is a subset of Java, then deploy it onto multiple different platforms? Given that you can already do that with actual Java, what's the advantage? Is it just that you can deploy on iOS, where there's no JVM?

<comment><USER6> In general, one of the challenges of delivering commercial software is dealing with the various ecosystems of your customers. Customers may have different versions of Java installed or none at all. Avian allows one to bundle everything required to run a Java application into a single executable and simplifies the problem such that many of the unknowns related to delivering the Java application disappear.

Also, keep in mind that Avian predates at least some of the other solutions to this problem. You could use something like [https://github.com/libgdx/packr](https://github.com/libgdx/packr) as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is it possible for Avian to support the java.awt.Robot class? ([http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/awt/Robot.html](http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/awt/Robot.html)) Would be superb in terms of cross platform automation use, currently the only other cross OS compatible solutions are to use Lazarus/Free Pascal or full blown Java VM.

<comment><USER10> You can use Avian with the OpenJDK class library to produce a standalone executable, in which case java.awt.Robot should work. ProGuard could help to keep the size down.

It would also be possible to implement java.awt.Robot from scratch and add it to Avian's class library. That would give you a smaller executable but require significant effort and a lot of platform-specific code.

The best choice depends on what aspect(s) of a "full blown Java VM" you're trying to avoid: e.g. size, installation complexity, licensing issues, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How does this compare with RoboVM ([https://robovm.com/](https://robovm.com/))?

<comment><USER12> It runs on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, in addition to iOS and Android

<comment><USER10> Technically we don't support running the Avian VM on Android, although it should work with minimal porting. However, we support using the VM with any of three class libraries: Android's, OpenJDK's, or Avian's. So, ironically, you can use Android's class library with Avian on every platform you listed except Android :)

If there's interest in porting Avian on Android, we could do it, but since it already has Dalvik/ART, I'm not sure there's much of a point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As an interesting aside, Avian has native support for coroutines through stack de/re-hydration. I have yet to use it, but it looks quite interesting.

<comment><USER10> Specifically, it supports native first class continuations, including both call/cc-style and delimited (shift/reset-style), which can form the basis for coroutines, generators, and other fun stuff. It also supports full tail call optimization.

Both of those features work with Java, Clojure, Scala, etc. For example: [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/U4i4nVsYfi8/1GSGgNM8...](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/U4i4nVsYfi8/1GSGgNM8020J)

More info is available here: [http://oss.readytalk.com/avian- web/javadoc-1.2.0/avian/Conti...](http://oss.readytalk.com/avian- web/javadoc-1.2.0/avian/Continuations.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone have any examples? Only documentation is javadoc and the examples links are all 404.

<comment><USER6> I've messaged someone I know who works on this project. Here is an example: [https://github.com/ReadyTalk/hello-ios](https://github.com/ReadyTalk/hello- ios)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Does it support the full jdk?

<comment><USER10> As dkharrat pointed out, you can use the Avian VM with the OpenJDK class library instead of the much more limited default library. However, there's no support for JVMTI, and not everything in the OpenJDK library will work with every combination of platforms and build options.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> what are the advantages of this over Kotlin?

<comment><USER17> can't tell if troll

<comment><USER18> To be fair, I can't _really_ tell from the website what this is and why I would want it ("doesn't Android already have a JVM?"), and Kotlin could easily be defined as "a lightweight alternative to Java that runs on Android" as well!

<comment><USER19> In the first line of "About Avian" on the homepage:

 _> Avian is a lightweight virtual machine and class lbrary [sic] designed to provide a useful subset of Java's features_</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: As a freelancer what do you use for project management? - <AUTHOR>

Most project management apps/tools assumes you work with a team which is not the case for some people. So as a freelancer/solo developer what do you use to manage your projects? <comment><USER2> A file named TODO where I list modules/components/ideas, bugs and nice-to- haves (future version features that 99% of the time are not implemented). I tried PM tools but this trade is not linear nor predictable: I sometimes get stuck for a couple of days designing something or refactoring code, sometimes I just burnout and it takes a few days of limbo to get back on track. This trade is more like an art and constantly missing deadlines stresses me so I now try to just sit down, enjoy and finish as soon as possible. And judging for the number of SW projects that go over-budget and/or over-schedule I guess I am not alone here. I give my clients guesstimates and since I do periodic deliveries they feel we are moving forward so they are not so picky with PM deadlines anyway.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not a freelancer yet (will be soon). Maybe my answer will turn out to be wrong when I cross that bridge.

I'm working on a project management web application called Quartz (PHP + PostgreSQL) designed for independent freelancers and/or small agencies. My goal is to use internally and refine it until I believe it's viable, write up some documentation, and release it as a SaaS for everyone else.

So at the moment, that is the tool I plan on using. :)

A brief overview of its features and design decisions:

* Time is tracked based on days, not hours (h/t tptacek for his advice here) -- this reduces overhead and lets you get on with your day.

* Manages projects, tasks, tickets; has a Wiki-esque CMS for managing internal documentation (ReStructuredText)

* Clients can have multiple projects.

* Projects are broken down into tasks, which may have any number of tickets. Projects can be "owned" by an employee (the project manager, DevOps leader, or what have you).

* Assignments are related between calendar days, users, and tasks (not tickets or full projects).

* There is a particularly clever access control system in place, but I'll save you the wall of text and write a blog post on it later.

The idea behind the design is that you _can_ use it for teams, but it should work just as smoothly for solo work.

If there's any interest, I'll prioritize its development in my spare time ;)

</comment><comment><USER4> I use pivotal tracker to communicate with my team on what I do as we work. Also OmniFocus is quite good to just manage your personal todo list.

I think lots of folks use Trello as well with swim lanes that mimic the Backlog/Todo -> In Progress -> Ready for Review -> Done workflow for tasks.

<comment><USER5> +1 for Trello, good for personal use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It depends on how comfortable the client is with technical tools.

If they're a geek, then we stay almost entirely in Github (opening issues, chatting about features, etc).

If they're moderately comfortable with tech then I use Asana (I force them to watch the instructional videos first). I basically just paste my spec in line- by-line and check off each feature as I build it. When it comes to bug tracking, I usually integrate Bugherd and tell the client to report bugs using their interface.

If they're not comfortable at all (rare but it happens sometimes), I just email back and forth with them and track my time using Harvest or something like that.

</comment><comment><USER7> Trello for team overall tracking. Github for development, and slack for chat. But since slack announced its monetization, im looking for a new communication tool.

</comment><comment><USER8> I use Trello but its not the complete project management. its rather task management tool. BaseCamp is 2nd option of mine

</comment><comment><USER9> Github/Gitlab issues - even with non-programming team members, like customers and designers.

</comment><comment><USER10> Trello for project management Kato for chat Bitbucket for code base and issue tracking

</comment><comment><USER11> Emacs</comment>


The Design of LLVM - <AUTHOR> http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/the-design-of-llvm/240001128?itc=dobbs-callout-mostpop

<comment><AUTHOR> Single Page: [http://www.drdobbs.com/article/print?articleId=240001128&...](http://www.drdobbs.com/article/print?articleId=240001128&siteSectionName=architecture- and-design)</comment>


Response: Open Web Alliance Lobbies to Intercept Your Traffic - <AUTHOR> http://etherealmind.com/response-open-web-alliance-lobbies-intercept-traffic/

<comment><USER2> "Open Web Alliance". Sounds like a good thing, doesn't it? Open is great! Oh, wait, they want it to be open so that they can read all of your traffic. Wat.

<comment><USER3> There's a long history of abusing words or phrases with positive connotations in order to achieve something else (often the exact opposite).

It's basically Newspeak from Orwell's 1984.

One of the more recent ones is the "Internet Freedom Act" being proposed by Republicans and which aims to end Net Neutrality.

[http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/republicans- internet...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/republicans-internet- freedom-act-would-wipe-out-net-neutrality/)

<comment><USER4> Republicans have (at least in the last few decades) been the best at this practice. PATRIOT act is probably the most notorious example.

<comment><USER5> And the recent "Internet Freedom Act" [http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/republicans- internet...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/republicans-internet- freedom-act-would-wipe-out-net-neutrality/) with this choice quote from its author: "Once the federal government establishes a foothold into managing how Internet service providers run their networks they will essentially be deciding which content goes first, second, third, or not at all"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wish there was a website illustrating the political compass of companies. Showing their affiliate network, money flows, endorsements/statements, tax- haven parent companies and ivory collections of elephant hunting CEOs. Call me reactionary.

<comment><USER7> People occasionally build things like [https://opencorporates.com/](https://opencorporates.com/) , but generally you're talking about maintaining a lot of information whose maintainers need to be paid somehow.

<comment><USER6> Yeah i can see that it is a lot of work. I could be reduced to influential companies that are listed in the stockmarket or are somehow else classified as influential. Food-watch for apps and devices... I am just winging it now. Time to do some googling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > "The HTTP2 protocol is more efficient when running over a encrypted > connection"

Can someone explain this to me? How does the encryption make the procotol more efficient?

<comment><USER9> I think this is just an inaccurate statement. I think it is true that the performance gains of HTTP/2.0 relative to HTTP/1.1 are greater when both are running over encrypted connections rather than both running over unencrypted connections, but I don't think that HTTP/2.0 over encrypted connections is more efficient (using any normal understanding of that term) than HTTP/2.0 over an unencrypted connection.

<comment><USER8> That was also my impression. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I recently switched a forum that I run completely to HTTPS when my users started complaining. Broken proxies at their ISP were breaking the forum for them. Who knows what other kinds of meddling is going on...

</comment><comment><USER11> Always on asymmetric encrypted IP could solve all these interception issues.</comment>


Hiring as It Should Be - <AUTHOR> https://overseeapp.io/ <comment><USER2> What makes this different from the other solutions out there?

I'm very concerned about the "test." Coding tests are unprofessional IMO. They demand one sided value and reduce the candidate pool diversity to only those who are willing to tolerate unfair exchanges/relationships.

What I am gathering from this is that hiring as it should be involves removing the majority of human contact, test for skills, and blast into public digital channels.

There are so many other competitors out there that are actually innovating with DISCOVERY tools not TEST tools.

<comment><USER3> Still think that tests have a role, but there's room to improve them. While human contact is nice, it's also costly, so improving testing would still be a great way to innovate.

For example, I received a great coding test from Vertica, a database company. Their test was a 2-hour timed exercise involving improving a ~200 LoC data querying program. This is nicer for the following reasons:

\- It doesn't require me to bootcamp with LeetCode because you have a bunch of people out there who train and "overperform" on such coding Qs.

\- It's specific enough to the domain but still fairly generic. The test covers techniques covered in a standard intro sequence.

\- It's timed, so it doesn't waste time like most take-home assessments.

\- It's predictive power of t skiechnical ability is better (my opinion). People like to say that such tests don't test enough for problem solving. However, if you are missing 6 months-1 year worth of domain knowledge, you won't be able to contribute for a while no matter how good your problem solving ability is. An average candidate stays for <<10 years so you want the person who can start contributing sooner even if they have a lower "peak" potential. (Also, I believe generic problem solving is kinda BS. I was good at math and coding contests years ago, but now I would consider myself to be an average interviewer. Even though I'm an good problem-solver for certain systems problems, I don't consider myself one for ML ones or people-heavy problems.)

To summarize, I would love to see better tests than the ones we have now and think there's clear room to improve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"Any institution (employer, academic, etc) requiring candidates to submit a video recording as part of the application process, should provide the applicant with a reciprocal video of anyone watching their submission."_

<comment><USER5> How about at least a video of the company offices, as seen by a typical employee?

Those recruitment page photos of your ping-pong table and people laughing while eating salad are not helpful in telling me what the other 98% of my day will look like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interviews either by an automated system or by someone who doesn't understand the company is "how it should be"?

<comment><USER7> I think of it kind of like TripleByte which I see as an automated phone screen

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This takes some of things I dislike about the usual hiring process and amplifies them.

Unless I was desperate for work, I would refuse to participate in this type "interview" process as a candidate. Nor would I use it to hire people. There are some things that need a human touch. I want to get to know the people I will be spending a significant amount of my daily time with. I want to give them every possible opportunity to succeed at the interview and I actively try to help them at it.

I just recently finished an interview where the person interviewing me did just that.

He gave me a big hint at solving a problem he asked me to talk through as I was coding. Did I ever feel stupid because when he gave me that hint I realized that anyone at my level should have immediately reached for that method. But for whatever reason, perhaps nerves, it just didn't occur to me at the moment. It was good coding together like that and talking through the code. I got to know a little what it would be like working with him, and he got to understand a little bit about how I think while writing code. I got the job.

<comment><USER9> I think this app is meant to lessen the load on the hiring process in a way that will help a company get a list of people that have at least the base required knowledge for the job, before calling them up for traditional interviews. Imagine a company getting 300+ job applications, someone needs to go through the CVs and pick people to call on the interviews, and even then a good chunk of those people simply don't have even the base knowledge (at least in my experience, the CV can lie a lot), also some of the people that actually do show promise will be discarded simply because someone didn't want to bother with their CV (this happens a lot as well). I think this is meant to replace that "weeding out" process so that companies get people they can call for an in-person interview (lowering the time and cost for the first stage of the interview process ) while people that have the base required (required by the company) knowledge, do get a shot at the job.

<comment><USER8> That's not what their offering claims: "You won't waste your resources on time-consuming interviews, ever again."

Also, you don't need to carefully go through 300+ job applications to find a suitable candidate for a position. If that's part of your hiring process, fix that first.

And while this app might be meant to reduce the cost a company spends on the hiring process, they are doing it at the expense of the person applying for the job who now has to invest more time. Sorry, but I don't want to work for a company that sees me only as an expense and / or as a source of profit. Spend the money to meet me as a human. Want to do an initial phone call for a quick screening to make sure my CV isn't a lie? No problem. But if you want to automate that away to an app, some folks are going to take a pass. And I would suspect the ones taking a pass are the top talent who are in demand and can pick and choose who they get to work for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> doing coding and technical tasks is a broken hiring method. For instance an employed person with a family would need to invest an additional time to perform this technical tasks which is not fair since the stamina at the end of the day is depleted and the inspiration does not work the same.

<comment><USER8> What if the coding task is paid at the job's hourly rate? I'm fine with take home coding tasks if they are paid.

<comment><USER10> cannot agree more. But nowadays is someone paying the candidates to do this technical tasks?

<comment><USER8> Yes. I was paid for one in the past year. Unless I got pretty desperate for work, I would take a pass on any job that asked me to do it unpaid.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The A4 and the A8: secrets of the iPad's brain - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2010/02/meet-the-a4-the-ipads-brain.ars

<comment><USER2> Dup from 6 hours ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1158358>

<comment><USER3> Except that this one links to the actual article whereas the other one appears to have some kind of article-in-preparation link (with "not-quite-ready" in its URL) -- although it now redirects to the same place as this one.

<comment><USER2> When this one was submitted, that one was already changed, so this one has been a duplication for its entire existence.

If you claim that things are less simple than they might otherwise appear, I'd agree. I still think it's a waste and annoying to have the same items submitted multiple times, and especially annoying for people to change things unnecesarily.

And I've up-mud you for drawing my attention to the situation. Thank you.

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you mean by "already changed"? The URL I submitted is different (hence not getting caught by the dupe checker) and still is different from the other one.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Advice to the newish programmer - <AUTHOR> https://macwright.org/2018/02/08/advice-to-the-newish-programmer.html <comment><USER2> May be better retitled as "advice to the newish web developer", I don't think most of the arguments apply to programming as a craft in general.</comment>


Moments, the best of Twitter in an instant - <AUTHOR> https://blog.twitter.com/2015/moments-the-best-of-twitter-in-an-instant-0 <comment><AUTHOR> The "moments" tab on web and iOS is really engaging and pretty easy to peruse trending/relevant news by category. I like that this was released as part of the existing Twitter app and not a standalone product.</comment>


Gleam v0.9 Released - <AUTHOR> https://lpil.uk/blog/gleam-v0.9-released/ <comment><USER2> I'm the author of Gleam, thanks for sharing this here. If you have any questions please do ask!</comment>


What web frameworks are passing the REST litmus test? - <AUTHOR>

After reading the excellent REST Litmus Test for Web Frameworks[1] I was wondering what web frameworks are really passing it. I'd say it would be pretty helpful to have such a list, so if you know of any passing please share it with us. Including links to the documentation/code for each of the points in the post will definitely be even more helpful.<p>[1] http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/2010/07/rest_litmus_test_for_web_frame.html <comment><USER2> in link form:

[http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/2010/07/rest_litmus_test_for_we...](http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/2010/07/rest_litmus_test_for_web_frame.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> I find JAX-RS to be a good and comprehensive framework.</comment>


Open-Source Backers March on Washington - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/open-source-backers-march-on-washington/?hp

<comment><USER2> _Zealots_ , eh? Are people actually "marching"?

 _Regardless of their affiliation, open-source types have demonstrated a fondness for backing free software in a vocal, often argumentative manner._

Hmm . . . This is somewhat of an editorialized piece, lacking sources. I've had some journalism classes in my day, and using the word "zealot" is kind of not professional without at least an example to back up the claim . . . but wait, this is the _New York Times_, and a it's a blog piece, so it's okay.

A more neutral, truthful relay of the facts would be something like . . . OSS companies are usually small businesses, and since _small_ business is at the heart of the American capitalism system, it is feasible that many of them would like to obtain some of the of the government funds for doing those things that governments collect tax dollars to do. But more efficiently and without the bloat. After all, it seems logical that the stimulus would best be spent helping a greater number of people: the independents and other lean orgs. (Having studied accounting, I could actually probably give a presentation proving this issue).

But when money is doled out in such huge chunks, there are a lot of sharks in the water, and there are sure to be lots of big lobbyists.

Sometimes when you're small, you have to speak up a little to be heard. Doesn't make one a zealot or even necessarily "argumentative".

<comment><USER3> Anyone who promotes Open Source Software is a zealot, just like anyone who says something good about Apple is a fanboy.</comment></comment>


No Furnaces but Heat Aplenty In Innovative 'Passive Houses' - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html

<comment><USER2> I sent this article to my dad, who is an engineering and architecture consultant, and works extensively with the construction industry (New York area). He thinks this can't work in the US, because these houses will end up costing far more here than in Germany.

These houses will only be affordable to manufacture as factory-assembled models. Most people in the US have or want fairly customized houses, which fit their specific requirements. Factory-assembled cookie-cutter homes did not take off here, and it seems unlikely that passive houses' special properties will overcome the distaste.

Assembling custom passive houses on an individual basis, by hand, will require highly qualified construction labor, which costs a lot of money. Most contractors working on people's homes are woefully incompetent and cannot be trusted to put in a level floor, let alone a hermetic seal. This includes union workers. Contractors who know something about building typically charge huge sums for their work, and often make awful mistakes anyway. (Typical story: an elevator which, at the ground level, stops six inches above the level of the floor because the idiot construction foreman decided not to remove an extraneous beam his workers accidentally put into the foundation where it jutted into the elevator shaft.)

So, at the end of the day, a passive house in the US will probably cost two or three times as much to build as a conventional house. Considering that, in my dad's experience, it's hard to convince people to put in the bare minimum of insulation required by building codes ("what, this insulation will cost me an extra 20 thousand dollars?!"), a passive house will probably be a niche curiosity, bought only by wealthy environmentally-conscious consumers.

<comment><USER3> Have neither you nor your father heard or visited the mcmansion-filled exurbs around any large city? A friend of mine's parents recently brought one of those, and as I was looking through the booklet, I was awe-struck by the uniformity of it. There were 3 or 4 basic models, with 3 or 4 _facades_ available for each one.

They might not be factory-assembled in the literal sense, but they are very much cookie-cutter and highly uniform in both visual and structural design. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Markham-s...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Markham- suburbs.id.jpg.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is an interesting article, mainly because it shows up the differences between the European attitude and the American one.

1\. Europeans build smaller, but with higher quality. Americans are not so fussy about quality as long as it's big. Witness the spread of 3000+ sq ft homes across our exurbs.

2\. With cheap energy costs predominant, a large house can be built cheaply - thin walls, vinyl siding, asphalt roof, cheap windows - and even still, the costs of heating and cooling can be manageable, even though much more energy is used.

It would be interesting to compare point by point, the area, cost structure, including labor, of a European house and an American house.

I agree with gcv, and with the article, that the cost of building like this in the US is probably prohibitive for most homebuyers in the US.

The interesting question, in parallel with cars, is can the direction of US policy and custom be steered towards smaller and smarter without a failure of house builders and car companies alike?

</comment><comment><USER5> Should I worry that I immediately started thinking how this would combine with seasteading?

<comment><USER6> Yes, and you should read a little less Ayn Rand and broaden the thoughts you allow yourself to think =P.

<comment><USER7> This is the kind of pigeon-holing which prevents one from actually considering an idea on its merits.

For example, what did OP say that suggests they don't allow themselves to think broadly? It's a baseless assumption rooted in your own personal biases, and has nothing to do with the idea at hand.

Which is not to say that I'm particularly enthusiastic about sea-steading. Who's to say though, that its time won't come?

<comment><USER6> Certainly not Ayn Rand; she thought it would be here yesterday.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder how well this would work in Phoenix?

For us the problem isn't getting enough heat, its keeping the heat out. And our air conditioning bills in the summer are astronomical.

</comment><comment><USER9> you can get the idea for free from wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house>

</comment><comment><USER10> Excellent. A major interest of mine, thanks for the link!

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't like that article makes it all or nothing. You can use many of the elements and ideas of a passive house, and still include a furnace.

<comment> alan-crowe Indeed, the core idea is to use a contra-flow heat exchange so that you can still have some ventilation. They are talking about 90% heat recovery. What the technology buys you is ten times as much air flow for a fixed heat supply.

How do you want to use that? The article pushes the idea of small, stuffy house that uses the technology to push the heat requirement down towards what is given off by the occupants and their gadgets. More generally it lets you live in a better ventilated house in winter, because reduces the heating bills associated with air changes.</comment></comment>


One-electron universe - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe <comment><USER2> There's a related idea called the "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation)

The idea is that every event (eg. a particle collision) sends waves forwards and backwards in time, eg. if * is an event and </> are waves moving backwards/forwards in time:

        <- past   future ->
        <<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>

The waves from multiple events can overlap and interfere, eg.

        <<<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>
        <<<*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The interference depends on the phase of the waves, but let's simplify and say that similar arrows are destructive (represented as a space) and opposite arrows are constructive (represented as a dash). In which case, the interference pattern of the example above would be:

           *</comment><comment>--*

It _looks like_ there is something which is created at the first event, travels through time to the second event, and is then destroyed. That "thing" is what we'd call a particle. This idea is called "transactional" because it treats the existence of a particle as not just depending on the event which _creates_ it, but also on the event which eventually _destroys_ it, and the interference of these "waves through time" is like a 'negotiation' between the two events.

<comment><USER3> It'd be interesting to know how they deal with the phase requirements-- normally you have boundary conditions which set up these sorts of standing waves but it sounds like these "events" would not have that and thus would have to conspire their phases so that you wouldn't get something more like:

        ---*        *---

Probably it's something like, "each event must exist on at least two different fields; if you look at the other (~) field too then this event looks like

        ---*<comment><comment>~~*---

so that, for example, this electron clearly collided with a high-energy photon to become a muon for a time and then relaxed back to being an electron, emitting the photon back."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm with Feynman. One electron sounds like nonsense. (Where exactly does the "looping around" happen, where it changes directions? Outside of time?) However, the idea of positrons as electrons moving backward in time is cool, and does seem like a convenient sort of an explanation for their creation and annihilation.

<comment> one-more-minute The idea is that any time an electron-positron pair is created or destroyed is a change in direction.

Say a pair is created in space, they move around for five seconds, and annihilate each other. You could also explain that as a single electron in a loop – electron moves forwards in time for five seconds, changes direction (becomes a positron), moves back in time for five seconds, changes direction, the cycle repeats.

You can extend that to a set of two of electrons/positron pairs. Assuming each electron is created and destroyed with different positrons, you can again explain the system in terms of a single electron that changes direction four times. Add a few more in and you have a whole universe with one electron.

(That assumption may be a big one, which is where things fall down, but it's not nonsense. Also, bear in mind that the while idea of "moving" back in time is a helpful analogy, it's not very precise and shouldn't be taken too literally)

<comment><USER4> Of course, yes. Thank you. For some reason my mental picture was limited to creation and annihilation events being the exception, with most particles existing 'throughout time', but that's what's nonsense.

In fact, if you consider that a lot of particles would have presumably been created in the big bang, at which point they would conveniently be in the same location in our other three dimensions as well, it's certainly conceivable that you could have a single particle pinballing back and forth as you (and I guess Wheeler) describe.

Of course, still far from a certainty, but a neat idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love the direct quote: "I did not take the idea that all the electrons were the same one from [Wheeler] as seriously as I took the observation that positrons could simply be represented as electrons going from the future to the past in a back section of their world lines. That, I stole!"

I can absolutely hear it in Feynman's rapid, wry, dramatic voice.

<comment><USER3> You can read his whole Nobel speech online and it's well worth a read. My favorite part is:

"There was a gentleman, newly arrived from Europe (Herbert Jehle) who came and sat next to me. Europeans are much more serious than we are in America because they think that a good place to discuss intellectual matters is a beer party. So, he sat by me and asked, "what are you doing?" and I said, "I'm drinking beer!" Then I realized that he wanted to know what _work_ I was doing..."

link: [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/196...](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman- lecture.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> One-electron seems very problematic in light of the observed antimatter asymmetry. Why/how could the electron travel forwards in time more often than backwards?

<comment><USER7> Well, assume that time loops back onto itself. Then the electron goes forward most of the time and you see multiple copies. ( This is of course ridiculous, everybody knows that all electrons are just pointers to one _const particle_ structure. )

<comment> V-2 Obtaining multiple electrons by forcing a single one to bounce back and forth all the way across the time line a zillion times seems like a major design smell. That would be the worst hack ever, or at least the worst one before Facebook devs hacked Dalvik just to get their app to run on Android: [http://jaxenter.com/facebooks-completely-insane-dalvik- hack-...](http://jaxenter.com/facebooks-completely-insane-dalvik- hack-105776.html) ;)

Perhaps our universe is one created by a junior, or an intern, and this "creative" workaround got mocked on TheDailyWTF somewhere.

<comment><USER8> It's only a "major design smell" to "bounce back and forth" if it's computationally expensive. This theory makes it sound like electrons aren't firmly rooted in space and time to begin with.

Maybe it's computationally cheaper to define something as existing in all places and all times.

<comment> one-more-minute You can make it cheaper, but you have to accept a certain amount of uncertainty in your position and momentum data.

<comment><USER9> Don't forget the maximum speed, it'd be tough to simulate a universe where things could affect arbitrarily distant objects instantly!

[http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2535#comic](http://www.smbc- comics.com/?id=2535#comic)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> V-2 Let's hope nothing bad happens to that electron, then.

<comment><USER10> Are you blackmailing the universe?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Any given moment in time is represented by a slice across spacetime

Is this actually true when we take into account special relativity? I've always struggled with this.

I was taught that this sort of thing is not nearly so simple. For instance, if you fix a point in spacetime and have a timelike vector, representing the motion of an observer, then the set of events which that observer will perceive as simultaneous to the fixed point all lie in the plane orthogonal to that timelike vector. Even more bizarrely, because this is a non-Euclidean notion of orthogonal, this orthogonal complement rotates _towards_ the vector as it deviates from the centerline of the future line cone at that point.

Given all this, I don't see how one can just say that a slice across spacetime somehow represents a particular moment in time. I thought the whole point of relativity is that there are no absolute time slices in spacetime.

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's still true when we take special relativity into account. One good perspective on special relativity is that it sort of says, "everybody's right." That is, you abstract _your_ "present" moment to distant positions as a 3d plane in the 4d space; someone else at the same position with a different velocity will have _their_ present too, and those will not be 100% commensurate, but that's OK -- both of you have valid coordinate systems for any calculations you want to accomplish.

The family of all the "presents" of a point in spacetime is the set of all points which are spacelike-separated from that point -- i.e. if that point is at the origin of some coordinate system, the complete "relativistic present" is all of those points such that

        c² t² − x² − y² − z² < 0

Every observer passing through a point agrees upon these points exactly; the only difference is that my t=0 will not correspond to t' = 0 under a Lorentz transform, so that my "simultaneous" at space-separated points is not someone else's "simultaneous" at those points.

(Light bubble picture: imagine that the light which shines upon an event in spacetime expands outwards with speed c, forming an expanding bubble of light. Consider two events. They are both "simultaneous" in the sense that there is an observer who thinks that they are simultaneous, if their light bubbles start out topologically disconnected and overlap eventually. They are both "time-ordered" in the other case, if one bubble is inside the other. If two things are objectively time-ordered then they are not objectively space- separated, because the points in the larger bubble correspond to valid inertial trajectories of a spaceship going less than the speed of light -- there are some spaceships which visited both events inertially. Similarly if two things are objectively space-separated then they are not objectively time- ordered; consider someone on the intersection of the two light bubbles seeing both events happen "right now"; there is always a velocity vector such that they will trace the distances back to the origins of the events as equal -- and hence that observer thinks that both happened simultaneously at their different locations.)

<comment><USER12> Wow... that made my mind bend or something. This sounds pretty dense (or maybe the dense one is me...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not being a physicist (not even close), I find it amazing how within just ~100 years, "our" model of the universe has changed so drastically.

I once read that sometime in the late 1800s, people assumed that they had basically understood how the universe works, and that all that was left was to fill in some of the blanks.

And now look what an increasingly strange (and wonderful!) place we find ourselves in.

</comment><comment><USER14> I remember I already heard that, but is there a way to proof it? Annihilating electrons with positions obviously isn't enough.

<comment><USER15> Well I suppose there is a way to disprove this: create an electron-positron pair, then annihilate the pair. This way we would get a closed loop, which would obviously not be a part of a giant knot spanning through the universe.

<comment><USER16> Measure their mass first, too. If they don't match the mass of the ones that are part of the knot, then you know you've stumbled onto something _big_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> >"the eventual creation and annihilation of pairs that may occur now and then is no creation or annihilation, but only a change of direction of moving particles, from past to future, or from future to past."

Forgive my ignorance, but how does the fact that annihilation "produces" energy out of the two particles fit into this?

<comment> one-more-minute Since a photon is its own antiparticle, you might imagine that a photon and an electron "bounce" off of each other in time, and both reverse their directions. From our point of view it looks like two photons created and two electrons annihilated, or vice versa.

Interesting idea at any rate.

<comment><USER18> One electron and one positron, not two electrons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's really neat that electrons and positrons traveling in time just bounce of photons, that are timeless (because of the speed they have).

I wonder what cool observation might make by similarly rotating they intuition 90 degrees so that time becomes axis something can move on.

</comment><comment><USER20> I also arrived at the same conclusion during meditation

<comment><USER21> groovy, man!

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Different sources are saying the same:

[http://www.youaretrulyloved.com/bashar-explains-how- everythi...](http://www.youaretrulyloved.com/bashar-explains-how-everything- is-the-one-same-thing/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Every time some limit is reached in a physics equation, dilation, contraction or even moving in time is taken as a measure to rescue. It all sounds like a convenient method for explaining something we can not explain. It all comes from the fact that time is defined through speed and speed depends on space, thus time cannot describe dimensions not dependant of space.

<comment> one-more-minute In what sense is time defined by speed? Surely it's the other way around?

Currently the second is defined by a number of oscillations of a known wavelength of radiation, which explicitly avoids any dependence on space / measurement of spatial speed.

<comment><USER23> Isn't wavelength as such dependant on space? It all seems to come together as A is defined by B and B is defined by A.

<comment> one-more-minute Yes, but the standard second doesn't depend on wavelength (maybe I should have said "known energy"). You take a Caesium-133 atom, look at it's emission spectrum, isolate the ground state radiation and time a number of oscillations. Of course, the radiation _has_ a specific wavelength/energy, but the calculation doesn't depend on it.

Once you know about time, you can start talking about distance – a meter is defined as the distance light travels in a given time. Given that the meter is defined this way, defining time in terms of speed would be a bit circular.

<comment><USER23> Ok, the time dilation makes actually sense now. So like chemical reactions depend on temperature and pressure, physical reactions (if they can be called this way) are dependant on gravity and velocity (dependance on the last I can not quite get still). By physical reactions I mean the transitions between the ground states that time is defined by.

<comment> one-more-minute Sure, local velocity at any rate. If someone goes past you in a rocket, you'll notice that their Caesium radiation is oscillating slower than yours, so their second will appear to take longer than yours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron!"</comment>


Ask HN: Account randomly deleted a few hours after creating? - <AUTHOR> I'm a long-term HN user/lurker, and I finally decided to create an account to see what this voting stuff is all about. I created this account a few hours ago (htown) and then a few hours later - it seemed to be completely deleted. I know it had been created initially because the username and (1) was in the upper right corner. Does HN sometimes delete new accounts? Did someone think I was a spammer? Does this happen alot? <comment><USER2> How have you posted this question if your account is deleted?

HN has some protections to guard against unwanted behaviour from new accounts, so maybe your IP address triggered something, if you're seeing strange behaviour when you try to post/comment/vote.

But for questions like this you'll be better off to ask the moderators via email (email@example.com) as they can actually take actions like removing account restrictions :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the response! Oddly enough, I was able to re-create the same account after it was deleted. I'm starting to think I'm going crazy.</comment></comment>