Lets Use ML for Insights - <AUTHOR> https://ehudreiter.com/2020/03/20/lets-use-ml-for-insights/ <comment><USER2> This feels like the end of the arc beginning with the nonsensical article "The End of Theory"[1] in 2008. The language game of working with models and concepts is far richer than just "input in, output out."

[1]: [https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb- theory/](https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Knowledge discovery used to be a big part of ML, and the KDD conference included papers on association rules, clustering, rule learning, interpretable classifiers, etc. In my experience, even with predictive analytics the knowledge discovered along the way was often as valuable as the final application --- although it's easier to sell a predictive capability than "we're going to find something interesting in your data."

</comment><comment><USER4> I had assumed that this was a solved problem, am I wrong? Isn't this what quants are doing with the markets? Watching x number of inputs to predict the probability of y output?

Can somebody clarify what I'm missing? I'd love to find out more about this area of ML, is there a name for it?

<comment><USER5> I view it as:

Explainable models = statistical models (regression / multilevel models).

Black box models = machine learning (tree based models).

AI = black box models for computer vision / NLP.

<comment><USER6> hmm Black box models - refers to NeuralNets that build iteratively "unsupervised" .. confusion reading this because, tree-based models sounds similar to other, non-NN models such as RandomForest.. a RandomForest model is reproducible and may be very explainable, depending on the way the setup was done "and other factors"

AI = long history of multiple meanings of this term, but a common one is "get computers to solve a question that used to be only solveable by a human".. not at all specific to vision 'slash' natural language processing</comment></comment></comment>


Popular Web Developer Chrome extension compromised - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/chrispederick/status/892768218162487300 <comment><AUTHOR> The popular (> 1 million installs) Chrome extension "Web Developer" was compromised this morning. The hacked version of the extension has already been removed from the Chrome Web Store.

If you have the extension installed you should disable it and reset passwords for any sites you visited this morning.

[https://chrispederick.com/work/web- developer/](https://chrispederick.com/work/web-developer/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Is there any way to have Chrome default to an alternate profile when accessing certain sites, or disable all extensions on certain sites? Ideally I'd like to use one profile with no extensions for financial sites, and a separate profile for e-commerce sites, but it requires that I remember to switch to that profile prior to logging-in. Maybe I could block the sites in the profile I use for development to force me to isolate those activities in a "clean" profile.</comment>


The Deadly Boredom of 'A Meaningless Life' - <AUTHOR> https://quillette.com/2019/08/07/the-deadly-boredom-of-a-meaningless-life/ <comment><USER2> "Tradition is a set of solutions for which we have forgotten the problems. Throw away the solution and you get the problem back"

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. In many ways tradition is disappearing, at least where I'm from, and I can't yet tell if it is for better or worse.

<comment><USER3> It's easy to destroy things buts very hard to come up with something to replace them. Religion is a good example, borders also comes to mind.

Not saying it's all black vs white but some traditions emerged for a reason and should be fully understood before being destroyed. Again religion is a good example, life meaning was a solved problem for most believers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been a dark place recently (dark enough where I forced myself to find a doctor)- and one thing that came to me is "Why am I still here? What is worth living for?"

And the only reason I could come up is that there are a few people who would miss me. Nothing in my life really provides meaning. My job provides meaning to the world, but me.

Life has become Meaningless, and there are groups out there that provide a sense of community and meaning. How do you fix that- when communities are becoming more exclusionary.

<comment><USER5> > And the only reason I could come up is that there are a few people who would > miss me. Nothing in my life really provides meaning. My job provides meaning > to the world, but me.

Do you ever wish that nobody would miss you? Or wish to plan a secret getaway and disappear into a new place where nobody knows you so you can live out your life alone?

<comment><USER6> Disappearing somewhere is my goal. When I grow old and learn that I have this xyz incurable action, I will say just disappear and die a John Doe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Life never has a meaning. Whatever you do, will be washed away with death. As death is inevitable, you don't have to worry about it. Until it comes, try to enjoy things. Practical way to do this is - stop thinking. if-else won't work. get some physical activity or some creative work. chck book - wisdom in insecurity by alan watts. initial pages may not sound good, but after that it is gem. once you start enjoying each moment without worry (even worry of meaning) of future and past, death is also just another moment.

For boredom, stop using cellphone, facebook, HN and everything for few days. And invest in building, creating or watever work you like, with focus. If you don't like anything, just start with something, after few days you will see difference. key here is patience.

Above both statements seem contradictory. But that is how life works. Get away from instant pleasures. Devote to process without thinking about fruits. See nature. Gist is start doing something, stop worrying outcome and focus on finishing it but don't get obsessed with fruits. This is also meaningless but it will give some involvement in life and take a away from thoughts.

Remember always, life is all about journey not destination. Make your ride enjoyable. Either you enjoy or not, destination is fixed. Your ride is your responsibility, not others. If you keep thinking, you will miss beautiful scenery of life.

if you're spiritual person, look into indian advaita philosophy and stoicism.

[http://theory.stanford.edu/~sbansal/geeta_saar/geeta_saar.ht...](http://theory.stanford.edu/~sbansal/geeta_saar/geeta_saar.html)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8MeqJxs4iM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8MeqJxs4iM)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi#Self- enquiry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi#Self-enquiry)

</comment><comment><USER8> I found reading the bhagvad Gita gave me a lot of direction when I get into that state

</comment><comment><USER9> American society, led by its rich, capitalist elites, divides people into winners and losers, from the time children are born through their whole lives. People are buried in a system of hierarchy and dominance. If you want people to feel like they belong you have to put an end to that system. There can be no more winners. Get rid of the private schools, the prom kings, machine guns, homelessness, "good" neighborhoods, private planes, the whole damn system. Build compassion and equality and accountability into everything. Deprive the winners of the satisfaction of dominating the losers.

<comment><USER10> Hierarchy and dominance are built into our DNA. If you believe in evolution, then you might believe that we have evolved this way.

Winners choose the outcome because they have won. There's nothing American about this.

What you're asking for is: you won using methodology A, so now provide an environment so that methodology B might thrive.

This doesn't change the fact that methodology A is the route that got us here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can we really look at the past for direction? It was more or less full of conflict. We need modern solutions to modern problems (or not so modern problems), not regress towards old points of view.

<comment><AUTHOR> Progress is getting closer to achieving a goal. Just because something is newer or 'modern' does not mean that it is progress. Look at the regress of the 20th century with the modern regimes that were going to usher in utopia.

Progress may also mean avoiding dead ends. If you goal is to get to the moon, climbing the nearest tree is not progress. It's regress.

So, no, we don't need modern solutions. We need effective solutions. If the solution happens to be modern, that is besides the point.</comment></comment>


Global Public Holiday API for 230 Countries - <AUTHOR> https://calendarific.com/?r5 <comment><USER2> Hi from Argentina! [https://calendarific.com/holidays/2019/AR](https://calendarific.com/holidays/2019/AR)

* March Equinox Wednesday March 20: As far as I know, it is not a holiday here. The other equinoxes neither.

* Memorial Day Sunday March 24: It's a bad translation of the name [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Remembrance_for_Truth_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Remembrance_for_Truth_and_Justice)

* Bridge Public Holiday Monday October 14: It's ordered in the wrong place

* September Equinox Monday September 23: As I said, it's not a holiday. But on September 21 we have the "Student Day" or "Spring Day". It's not an official holiday (perhaps only in some states?) but nobody goes to the secondary school or university. Sometimes there is a convenient "building disinfection/debugging" that day :). I'm not sure how you consider unofficial holidays.

* (somewhat missing) September 11, "Teacher Day" or "Sarmiento Day" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domingo_Faustino_Sarmiento#Leg...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domingo_Faustino_Sarmiento#Legacy) Not a holiday, but IIRC no class in the primary schools.

* (somewhat missing) December 24 "Day before Christmas" We usually work only until 12 noon (or less :) ).</comment>


Kids May Be Using Laptops Made with Forced Labor This Fall - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2020/08/21/school-laptops-lenovo-chromebooks-china-uyghur/ <comment><USER2> It will pair well with their clothes and accessories made with forced labor

</comment><comment><USER3> Would "slave labor" be more correct? Do the people get paid? Is it enough to have disposable income? Should we call it an alternative phrase anyway? Would this idea evoke more emotions and empathy for change?

I do not know the answers. Hoping someone else knows more than I and can inform a discussion.

<comment><USER4> According to the ASPI report on the subject, "Receiving factories across China are also compensated by the Xinjiang government, receiving a Ұ1,000 (US$144.16) cash inducement for each worker they contract for a year, and Ұ5,000 (US$720.80) for a three-year contract." [https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs- sale](https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale)

If those Uyghurs were unpaid labor, I don't think that would be necessary. On the other hand, it's unlikely that factories pay their Uyghur workers more than market rate, so most likely the owners are just pocketing the subsidy.

The article seems to suggest a boycott on products made by Uyghurs, which sounds like a way to maintain ideological purity while making the problem worse (usually boycotts are intended to _harm_ the boycotted...) I think it would be a better idea to use unannounced factory inspections to ensure a minimum standard for working conditions.

<comment><USER5> Reminder that ASPI are not an independent think tank, they are funded by the US State Dept, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and a whole host of weapons manufacturers.

I would really prefer to wait for the UN Human Rights commissioner to visit the region, but she still hasn't gone despite having an open invitation for over a year now.

June 2019: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un- idUSKCN1T...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un- idUSKCN1TE12Q)

Feb 2020: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-xinjiang-rights- idU...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-xinjiang-rights- idUSKCN20K1ZE)

Still no visit.

Prominent Australians On ASPI:

> Former NSW premier Bob Carr has accused it of pumping out a "one-sided, pro- > American view of the world". Veteran foreign editor Tony Walker has slammed > its "dystopian worldview" which "leaves little room for viewing China as a > potential partner". "It lacks integrity and brings shame to Australia," says > retired former DFAT chief and ex-Qantas CEO John Menadue.

[https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/the-think-tank- be...](https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/the-think-tank-behind- australia-s-changing-view-of-china-20200131-p53wgp)

<comment><USER4> I'm well aware that ASPI isn't an unbiased source... which is why I picked that quote, since it runs counter to their biases. (It also contradict the title of the report "Uyghurs for sale", since in a sale you'd expect the money to flow the other direction.) If two opposing propaganda machines agree on something, that doesn't necessarily make it true, but it's better than when only one of them says so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, I didn't know that they were giving kids Apple laptops.</comment>


Postmark Inbound with Node & CouchDB (screencast & code) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.postmarkapp.com/post/16179766662/learn-to-use-postmark-inbound-with-node-js-couchdb

<comment><AUTHOR> We'd love more contributions like this! There's free Postmark credits in it for open source libs we can share, just email me: firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


The Wallet Paradox - <AUTHOR> http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2011/02/08/the-wallet-paradox/

<comment><USER2> Interestingly, Warren Buffett _has_ actually tried to win money off Bill Gates using an intransitive game:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontransitive_dice#Warren_Buffe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontransitive_dice#Warren_Buffett)</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best article about entrepreneurship that you have ever read? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Watch a VC use my name to sell a con. [http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch- a-vc-use-my-name-to-se...](http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my- name-to-sell-a-con/)

</comment><comment><USER3> There were lots of great articles in the the book Getting Real by 37Signals (now Basecamp). Here are two of my favorites.

What's Your Problem? [https://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch02_Whats_Your_Problem.ph...](https://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch02_Whats_Your_Problem.php)

It Shouldn't be Chore. [https://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch02_It_Shouldnt_be_a_Chor...](https://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch02_It_Shouldnt_be_a_Chore.php)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How to Get Startup Ideas by Paul Graham: [http://www.paulgraham.com/startupideas.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/startupideas.html)

It literally changed my life, after reading it I've decided to quit Computer Graphics and become a hacker and entrepreneur, and to create my own startup =)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. What one idea hit you home from it? How would you sum it up?</comment></comment>


Google Begins Practically Begging You to Use Your Real Name on YouTube - <AUTHOR> http://betabeat.com/2012/07/start-using-your-full-name-begs-desperate-youtube-message/ <comment><USER2> I got that prompt recently and I want to emphasize just how obnoxious it is. I'm still really angry about this.

I wanted to quickly fire off a comment, something I almost never do. Instead, and completely unexpectedly, I get a scary modal dialog "Start using your full name on YouTube". Really, that's bad enough as it is. I didn't interact in a way that'd make me expect any kind of dialog (e.g. logging in/out or a major account modification). And there is no easy way to dismiss the dialog without making a decision, no X in a corner, clicking the background does nothing. Also really, really bad. Opening another YouTube window doesn't help, either, you just get another copy of the dialog.

But the reaction to declining the request -- which is the non-default, non- highlighted option -- is just outrageous. Instead of simply going away silently, or maybe telling me where to activate the feature if I change my mind, it tells me _it'll show my real name anyway_ , but just in a preview mode that's only visible to me, if I just click the default, highlighted button. That's not exactly the opposite of what I wanted it to do when I declined their unprovoked offer, but it's pretty damn close. And again, there is no easy way out, you have to chose a reason why you dare refuse them, with none of the options being "I decline to answer" or "Go to hell"; the closest thing being "I'm not sure, I'll decide later", which I chose and which I expect will just mean I'll be assaulted again in the near future.

This is the kind of hostile user experience I expect on cheap travel websites and other scummy parts of the net, but not on a Google property and certainly not on a website I visit a lot.

<comment><USER3> You comment on YouTube?

Are you a social worker? If so, you are aiming too high. There is absolutely nothing you can do for those people in those comments.

<comment><USER4> The less popular videos with smaller audiences (coding tutorials, science, academics, etc) have very civil discussions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This isn't about Youtube, this is simply use of a property with a massive userbase owned by Google to promote its strategic priority du jour, which is getting traction for Google+. This is hardly the first time Google has done this -- for example, they'll often bootstrap key products with "Oh yeah, we have a mortal lock on navigation on the Internet." That's why Google Video (and later Youtube) got such prominent billing in the search results, why Chrome has a front-page-of-the-Internet banner ad on the homepage of the company that doesn't do banner ads, etc.

\+ Edit to add: A quick check of a few diverse searches show that Youtube is substantially less prominent than I remember it being.

<comment><USER6> Not necessarily just to get traction for Google+ but I believe that Google is also competing directly with Facebook to control your "Identity on the internet". Once one of these monolithic companies controls your identity they can then directly target you no matter where you are on the internet. It's kind of scary, and I believe that it's a fight that Google is destined to win.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What is the rationale of such demand ?

This reminds me Schneir's objection to biometric identification. What do we do if it's compromized ? There is no way we could change it.

One should obviously be able to publish a video that we made without disclosing our identity. Supose I film my cat in my living room showing also the nice HiFi installation behind it. If it is published under my name, it would be like publishing my address on the HiFi.

If as a teenager I film and publish a party where I wouldn't be at my advantage, I don't want that my name is associate to it forever.

I must be able to reset my Internet image and reputation. Especially for young people. Google is already very reluctant to remove references on demand.

At least this now gives something competitors can differentiate with.

We need a place where we can create a virtual identity we can throw away. An identity that we can use as signature for publishing comments, articles and videos.

<comment><USER8> (disclaimer: I work for Google, and dislike the Google+ names policy)

In this case, it's not a demand; the user has already entered a Google+ name, and Google is offering to show that name on the user's YouTube account.

      > Supose I film my cat in my living room showing also the nice
      > HiFi installation behind it. If it is published under my
      > name, it would be like publishing my address on the HiFi.

That's ridiculous. Unless you're also posting your address in the video description, it's practically impossible for a viewer to match a name (even your legal name) to your physical location.

The concern here is about privacy, not physical security. Thinking up unrealistic danger scenarios is not productive.

      > If as a teenager I film and publish a party where I wouldn't
      > be at my advantage, I don't want that my name is associate
      > to it forever.
      >
      > I must be able to reset my Internet image and reputation.
      > Especially for young people. Google is already very
      > reluctant to remove references on demand.

Currently, the idea of interacting with the web through multiple disposable identities is constrained to nerds. I believe that as time goes on, and the privacy implications of a single identity become widely apparent, the majority of users (especially younger users) will learn to use multiple identities.

You ask for the ability to "reset" an identity, but this is impossible. You can't un-break an egg. Everything posted to the internet is public and potentially eternal.

In twenty years, the idea of posting something risqué under one's legal name will be considered as foolish as stapling bank statements and tax returns to a telephone pole.

      > We need a place where we can create a virtual identity we
      > can throw away. An identity that we can use as signature
      > for publishing comments, articles and videos.

You mean, like a Google account? There's no restriction on the number of accounts a single person can create, and the censors won't blink twice as long as the name sounds caucasian (citation: [http://infotrope.net/2011/08/04/google-plus-names-policy- exp...](http://infotrope.net/2011/08/04/google-plus-names-policy- explained/#govtid) ). Accounts at any major internet site, including Google, are inherently ephemeral and disposable.

<comment><USER9>
      > it's practically impossible for a viewer to match a name
      > (even your legal name) to your physical location.

You could count on one hand the number of people in the world who share my first and last name. Of those active online, there is myself and one other. Historically, my address has been available online and until I move that will not change. Even if I move, I have no doubt my new address is only a few dollars away for anyone who wants to find it.

Your premise is fine for single videos from someone named Mike Jones, but surely you're familiar with the concept of "bits of information" needed to uniquely identify someone online?

<comment><USER10> Agreed. The book "how to be invisible" makes a good case for how easy it is to match a persons name to their address and why this is a bad thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Am I the only person who really enjoys YouTube comments? It's obviously not the place to go for high-brow discussion.

But the fact that it's a no-holds-barred space means that occasionally some genuinely hilarious and unexpected stuff pops up. I really wouldn't want that to change...

<comment><USER12> What kills YouTube comments is the same thing that kills Ars comments, along with pretty much every blog ever; there's no threading and no peer moderation or ranking. No one wants to sort through a river of random comments.

<comment><USER13> Yet for some reason this model works well on Fark (and, I agree, nowhere else.)

<comment><USER14> The entire _point_ of Fark is to make off-topic, off-color remarks. So yes, for that, it works well :)

<comment><USER15> This also explains how Reddit works so well

<comment><USER16> reddit has peer moderation and ranking. Which is why it works well, it's nothing like flat fark or youtube comments

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > UPDATE: A YouTube representative got back to us and said: YouTube users with > existing Google+ profiles see this option when they comment or upload a > video.

I am glad that I decided to delete my G+ account when news started to float that Google was forcing everyone to use real name in G+ and was closing accounts in cases of un-cooperation, which unintentionally affected someone's gmail account.

<comment><USER8>
      > I am glad that I decided to delete my G+ account when
      > news started to float that Google was forcing everyone
      > to use real name in G+ and was closing accounts in cases
      > of un-cooperation, which unintentionally affected
      > someone's gmail account.

To my knowledge, nobody has had their gmail account suspended because they didn't enter an approved name. You are probably thinking of the guy who had his account suspended for uploading illegal porn to his Picassa account.

<comment><USER17> I clearly remember closing my G+ account to protect my gmail account.

Did a quick google search for the news articles of that time, and these were the first links. Spending a few more minutes would have given even better results.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated- equilibrium/201...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated- equilibrium/2011/jul/25/1)

[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-deleting- ac...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-deleting-accounts-en- masse-no-clear-answers/567)

[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much- un...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-unnecessary- drama/652)

The Picassa incidence was a later happening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why does this keep coming up? Google seems to not learn.

1\. There is no such thing as a real name. You might have a legal name, but they'd need to validate it somehow if contested. Up until now, Google has just been suspending names that didn't look "real" to them.

2\. How do they validate this? Do they expect you to send a copy of an ID? What if you photoshop it? What is their data retention policy? Do they have procedures in place for handling sensitive data?

3\. Most important, using a legal name does not somehow make the conversation more valid, or more useful. I have yet to see a strong argument that using a name on a government issued ID somehow makes your discourse better. There are countless arguments against this.

I've had to deal with this before. Here's an idea of what happens to you if you run afoul of this policy: [https://plus.google.com/115896012705745653160/posts/Kdg2nPzM...](https://plus.google.com/115896012705745653160/posts/Kdg2nPzMB4M)

</comment><comment><USER19> What's the point of forcing "real names", when they're not forcing REAL names? Google will throw a fit if I use Red Ghost, but not if I use John Smith. What value does that actually bring? A weak perception of legitimacy?

<comment><USER20> Is there a "real name" that communicates "this is not my real name" but could just as easily be a really name?

Nathan Roberts (NR = Not Real)? Frank Nash (FN = Fake Name)?

Art Vandelay?

<comment><USER21> Some ideas here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe#Other_variants>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The real reason for this isn't to improve comment quality; it's so they can store information on you more effectively and then sell it to the government. Facebook has a leg up on this because of how it started, but Google wants to level the playing field more and more.

<comment><USER23> Sell it to the _government_? Using it to better target ads (which translates directly into more revenue for Google) seems a lot more likely them some secret government profiling conspiracy.

<comment><USER22> Certainly that's a motive too. And it's no secret that the government (in particular the NSA) has been amassing large swathes of data on what could be the entire population of the US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I gave up commenting on YouTube at that point where Google forced me to auto login with my Gmail account. It is already bad enough that they can trace my viewing behavior. But I can see their side of the story. YouTube is holding a massive marketshare in the online video segment and they might have no problem with a few percent less comments when at the same time the overall quality of the comments might rise.

</comment><comment><USER25> This reminds me of the time where Blizzard wanted to do something similar for their forums as people would troll often. From what I remember, there was a huge backlash. They seem to be trying to take a safer approach by suggesting you do it versus forcing you. I wonder if they had that incident in the back of their mind when taking this approach.

For those interested: [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101916-Blizzard- Fo...](http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101916-Blizzard-Forums-Make- Real-Names-Mandatory)

<comment><USER26> This is a little bit different because it's only giving users with pre- existing accounts an option to change their username to their real name. Anybody who registers a new account is forced to use their real name (or a fake real name).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Since when does real name equate to a better quality comment? Perhaps it is more about Big Brother tracking people's points-of-view on controversial issues? Or is it for better targeted ads?

I am uninclined to comment with my real name generally because my opinion changes, and I change over time.

I recently left a FB blog comment simply as "I like it" and felt almost uncomfortable with that. Does it matter what my real name is or what I look like? HN shows that anonymity works with just modding and the option to reveal one's identity. Why doesn't YouTube tally user comments and comment scores if they want to improve quality.. that's why I think this is a Big Brother or ad push.

Comments that self-destruct after a set period are another answer to comment quality, or ones that revert to a pseudonym, either fixed or random after a period of time.

</comment><comment><USER28> Without the real names -- or at least names that aren't 'basketballstar69' -- Google won't have the same perception of authenticity as facebook.

They should reward 'real names' (first, last) with more Drive space and an opt-out of the nickname option.

</comment><comment><USER29> The only thing stopping me from linking my channel to my G+ account is them changing my username to my real name. I've built an online brand around that username and changing it would mean i'm harder to find on Youtube. (funny enough that name is different from my HN name, since I can't change my HN username and don't want to lose my Karma.)

</comment><comment><USER30> Youtube has had many issues lately that should affect its popularity, from legitimate content disappearing because of some (non-)copyright holders having tools to "delete first, ask later", to issues with Google harrassing users to do things of no benefit to them. I am also getting "this video is currently not available" messages frequently because I don't have a browser with H.264 (which Google was supposed to drop in favour of free alternatives? Go convert uploaded video then...). Youtube has reached a dangerous annoyance level, seems like a good time for competitors to grow.

<comment><USER31> I surf using Chrome for the latest and most secure Flash. I like being up to date and secure. On YouTube Flash crashes in about 50% of trying to load the videos. Really annoying. And even more annoying is that if I disable Flash altogether there are quite a few videos on YouTube that can't be played.

I'm beginning to see the bundling of Flash as a negative thing, it only prolongs the life of that hell-hole called Flash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "Real" (heh) names don't improve comment quality. What improves comment quality is moderation (approve/decline/delete), enabled by default for every single user.

I moderate when I answer the door, who I answer the phone for, who I hang out with, and which mail I open. Who _wouldn't_ moderate their YouTube comments? Sheesh.

Yes, it can be abused. To prevent "damage to the community", users who misuse the moderation system by deleting too many comments, declining only specific users, or declining polite (negative) comments, can be flagged as moderation abusers.

</comment><comment><USER33> I don't feel they begged. They asked, I said no, they then asked why, and then I answered. Man that was simple.

I applaud Google. At least they don't do things without your permission. I'm looking at you Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER34> I never got the prompt, just a broken reply button that took no action. Searching for others with the problem revealed it's due to wanting my real name. I went through my settings looking for an option to use my real name, since I don't care, but couldn't find one. On a screen that was supposed to contain that option for other people, it was not there for my account. Solution? Delete all G+ data and log out and back in to Youtube.

</comment><comment><USER35> Youtube has problems lately. It has suddenly started to send me notification emails everyday non-stopped. The unsubscribe links had no effect. Even after I have unsubscribed a number of times, the spam kept coming. Finally I deleted my account but the spams kept coming in anyway. Of course marking the spamming emails as spam in GMail doesn't work. Worse there's no way to contact Youtube to report the problem.

</comment><comment><USER36> comments on youtube are a cesspool?

why not remove the comments feature?

</comment><comment><USER37> I use my real name online for professional work-related things.

I use a username for non-work related things like posting a videos of toy animals to youtube.

The way things are headed, I guess I need to invent a "real name" for my online personal persona, to replace my username.

</comment><comment><USER38> Related to this: <http://www.wired.com/business/2012/06/youtube-commenters/>

</comment><comment><USER39> YouTube comments may be the lowest common denominator of the internet, but at least they're a common denominator.

</comment><comment><USER40> Personally I am not for a real name policy, but I do prefer that people post under their real name if possible.

<comment><USER41> May I ask why? Personally I don't see any benefit whatsoever.

<comment><USER40> In the long term I want the problems with using real names to fixed properly if possible.

<comment><USER41> But what are these problems? What is it that requires fixing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Often the simplest solution is the best: don't comment on YouTube videos.

</comment><comment><USER43> I have a youtube account in my "real name".

I use only to satisfy my particular taste in videos. I have stale old accounts for other Google stuff but I never use them and don't care about any of it except to browse videos. Google still keeps demanding my cell phone number. constantly. I use my real with the youtube account but I actually don't want anyone to see anything I do there.

Google's opinion that it should be my world is quite obnoxious.

<comment><USER26> I really truly wish that there was an option for "No, I don't want to give you my cell phone number, and I NEVER want to give it to you."

Also, I used to love making throw-away Gmail accounts for various spam purposes. Now, my cell phone # is associated with 3 accounts so I can't make anymore.

<comment><USER44> Google Voice to the rescue

<comment><USER26> Nope, that doesn't work. I tried that too.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Chrome Dev Summit 2014: Web Components - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vcQlD-jadk

<comment><AUTHOR> Best talk on Web Components I've seen so far. Really helps to grasp what they are and where the web is going.</comment>


DIagrams Through Ascii Art - <AUTHOR> http://ditaa.org/ditaa/ <comment><USER2> What's best is that it can be used with asciio with a little tweaking. search.cpan.org/dist/App-Asciio/lib/App/Asciio.pm

<comment><USER3> For convenience:

<http://search.cpan.org/dist/App-Asciio/lib/App/Asciio.pm>

[http://perlbuzz.com/2008/04/asciio-lets-you-create-ascii- cha...](http://perlbuzz.com/2008/04/asciio-lets-you-create-ascii-charts- graphically.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://www.asciiflow.com/></comment>


AppSumo: $29 for 100 Die Cut Stickers from Sticker Mule - <AUTHOR> http://appsumo.com/sticker-mule/

<comment><USER2> No prices for international shipping..</comment>


3 Bugs in the Ultimate American Road Trip - <AUTHOR> http://www.optaplanner.org/blog/2015/03/20/3BugsInTheUltimateAmericanRoadTrip.html

<comment><USER2> Ge0ffrey, any plans to release the source code on this optimization? It'd be great to have a writeup on how to actually run the tsp tests for this. It's sort of buried in the test suite at the moment.

Optaplanner is an incredibly useful, often underrated framework. Keep up the good work!

<comment><AUTHOR> I used this TSP solver configuration: [https://github.com/droolsjbpm/optaplanner/blob/master/optapl...](https://github.com/droolsjbpm/optaplanner/blob/master/optaplanner- examples/src/main/resources/org/optaplanner/examples/tsp/solver/tspSolverConfig.xml)

but with incremental Java calculation instead of scoreDrl, to speed things up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hrm... something that bothered me in the initial posting was that it skipped Crater Lake, in Oregon, in favor of something in the Columbia Gorge.

It'd be cool to gather some data about the density of, say, instagram photos along the route or some other proxy for 'interesting' places, and modify accordingly.</comment>


New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary - <AUTHOR> http://m.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/New-law-bans-California-employers-from-asking-12274431.php <comment><USER3> > The goal is to narrow the gender wage gap. If a woman is paid less than a > man doing the same job and a new employer bases her pay on her prior salary, > gender discrimination can be perpetuated, the bill's backers say.

Hmm, I'd never thought about that angle,but I guess it makes sense.

No word on if they are allowed to use Equifax, etc to pull salary data from?

EDIT: looking at the bill it looks like querying Equifax is probably also prohibited

> (b) An employer shall not, orally or in writing, personally or through an > agent, seek salary history information, including compensation and benefits, > about an applicant for employment.

As a side note one of the biggest issues macro economists have is that its very hard to prove their theories as you often can't run huge macro economic experiments.....

> Delaware, Massachusetts and Oregon have passed similar laws that take effect > later this year or next, said attorney Ben Ebbink of Fisher & Phillips in > Sacramento. Philadelphia passed one that was supposed to take effect in May > but is being challenged in court. New York City and San Francisco have > similar ordinances that take effect Oct. 31 and July 1, respectively.

With the number of states introducing legislation like this it will be interesting to see if you can tease out any state or city based GDP growth/shrinking based on these laws.

<comment><USER4> Equifax has salary data? I hadn't heard that.

//edit: Well shit, TIL: [https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/10/equifax-breach- fallout-y...](https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/10/equifax-breach-fallout-your- salary-history/)

<comment><USER5> They do - I'm not sure how they licence it though or what data sources they use but I've seen that their data on high income households is the best in the business and shockingly accurate.

However, I can't imagine the compliance nightmare that would exist around a process that lets HR people look up people's equifax information. If they get a full report, it could contain information about disabilities, national origin, ethnicity, religion, and enough information to construct knowledge about sexual orientation.

However, all that information is pretty worthless for most decisions. Aside from it being illegal to use that information for hiring decisions (in most situations), the equifax stuff isn't super accurate. I've looked myself up and it gets a lot of information wrong, most other people I know who have looked themselves up in have also found major inaccuracies.

<comment><USER6> This makes me wonder. My employer has some customer data. We're very careful about not just letting any random employee access it without careful permission, auditing, logging, etc. Customer privacy is important to us.

At Equifax, though, information about random people isn't customer data. It's the product. They give it to anyone who asks for money. Do they have any motivation to say J random employee can't just look up everybody's data? Why? Letting you have free access to what they charge everyone else for would just be a perk, right?

<comment><USER7> I believe it's quid pro quo. Equifax sells analytics services to corporations, and presumably you get a nice discount if you enter into an agreement to give them your information.

Likewise for credit scores--why else would a lender report data to Equifax if Equifax wasn't purchasing that data, either directly or as part of a larger contractual arrangement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a ban on employers -- afaik, recruiters can still ask (and many probably will ask). But, IANAL. (Correction: It looks like recruiters fall under this prohibition too, if they are acting as agents of the employer.)

I personally never answer questions about my previous salary or my expected salary. When HR has given me forms to fill out that have questions about either I just leave them blank, and they've never made an issue out of it.

Some recruiters tend to be a lot more pushy about it, but I just stick to my guns, and refuse to budge on the issue, telling them that I cosider that information confidential. A couple recruiters have refused to work with me because of this, but most are much more understanding. There's certainly no shortage of recruiters out there, so I really don't feel deprived of many opportunities just because a couple have walked away.

I've had one recruiter insist on it because they said they were paid by employers to get that number. They're basically insisting that I participate in a free salary survey for them, for which they'll get paid. Maybe if they shared their cut of what they were getting for that information, I'd consider giving it to them, but otherwise naming a number first will put me in a weaker bargaining position, so I don't.

There's a flip side to this, however -- whether to share salary information together with other employees. In the US it's frowned upon, but I hear it's quite common in Europe. I've also heard it argued that employees knowing each other's salaries makes it harder for employees to get taken advantage of by their employers -- which is probably why some employers have tried to forbid their employees from talking about their salaries with other employees, and why I've considered doing so myself, though I haven't yet. It's just such a taboo subject at work. Nobody talks about what they make.

<comment><USER9> Kind of off topic but should one always hide their current salary, even if it's _above_ market rate (given their experience on paper)? It seems as though if an employer were only looking to spend so much on a hire, then if you're already likely above that number, wouldn't it save both you and the employer's time?

I can see the obvious downside of sharing a relatively low salary, but it seems like there could be benefit to sharing a high salary (again, relative to your on-paper experience and value).

<comment><USER10> No, there isn't, unless you're okay with short-selling yourself.

If you share and your amount is > the employers, you have no job. Bad situation. If you share and your amount is < the employers, you'll be underpaid. Bad situation. If you share and your amount = the employers, you may have a job, but you'll never know if you left money on the table because you offered first. Bad situation.

If you offer the number first, the employer becomes the customer - and the customer is always right. If you wait for them to make you an offer, they have to make an offer that is compelling, in the same way sales people go above- and-beyond to close their deal.

Literally the only way sharing your salary first is advantageous is if you need a job immediately. If you can wait, it's best to hold onto your number. If they cared so much about "saving time" they would have put the salary range in the posting - the reason they don't is because it's disadvantageous to do so!

<comment> benji-york I think that holds only if your time is worth nothing. I don't want to go through weeks of interviews just to find out that my salary demands are $50K more than they're willing to pay.

<comment><USER9> This is exactly why I made the comment. Recently went through 4 calls and a full day on site just to be met with an offer they wouldn't budge on that's 20% lower than what I currently make.

<comment><USER11> I've been through a similar situation: big mistake. They key is to validate you are in range on salary before committing to an interview process. Companies should have the same goal, but many will waste their own time—as you experienced.

This doesn't mean you should share current salary information, but _does_ mean you should be prepared to state your salary expectations. This can be a good thing, as you can anchor high.

If you're in demand and are taking phone screens on a whim, you can always ask the recruiter to share their range. Odds are good they won't, and you can have some "fun" by expressing concern that they don't know what they're hiring for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'd prefer to see this go in the other direction and make all salary information public.

Right now, employers have far more information than employees, and I don't think this law will do much to change that. To me, it's similar to real estate - imagine if only sellers had access to the database of exactly what every house sold for and when, but buyers had to go with unsubstantiated, scattered rumors. Or vise versa. The side with information would have a monumental advantage.

This law won't do much, if anything, to change the basic dynamic. For what it's worth, I work for a public institution and my salary, and the salary of all my coworkers, is public. The sky hasn't fallen.

If tech companies balk, one approach would be to say that any company using the H1B or other work visas must make all salary information public as a condition of using the visa. After all, if you're experiencing a desperate shortage of workers, it's reasonable for the public to know what salaries you're paying these desperately needed workers in short supply.

<comment><USER13> No thank you.

My salary is private. I do not want my family and friends to know how much I make.

I also have never told a potential employer my salary. I believe it stopped things from going on to the interview stage but the way they took my refusal made me assume they paid under market rate.

<comment><USER14> >No thank you.

>My salary is private. I do not want my family and friends to know how much I make.

But have you thought about why you feel this way? I assume you are American, as am I, and so I understand we've been socialized by our culture to feel this way, but it really makes no sense. It's just a way to harm workers by keeping us from seeing when we're being screwed. I'd even go so far as to wager that this entire concept of salary being private was fostered and encouraged by employers for that very reason, because it gives them enormous leverage.

<comment><USER15> >>But have you thought about why you feel this way?

Yes. I don't want to increase my attractiveness regarding a house robbery, as I live well below my means in a developing neighborhood, amongst other reasons.

I very much understand the concept of leverage and have no problems privately discussing my salary amongst groups that I trust. That doesn't include the entire Internet.

<comment><USER16> >> Yes. I don't want to increase my attractiveness regarding a house robbery, as I live well below my means in a developing neighborhood, amongst other reasons.

The entire point is that it's deeply screwed up for you to need to hide your wealth from your neighbors--or from some set of neighbors but not others--for fear of being robbed.

<comment><USER17> _> The entire point is that it's deeply screwed up for you to need to hide your wealth from your neighbors--or from some set of neighbors but not others --for fear of being robbed._

That's a normative statement, not a positive one. I don't consider it at all screwed up or intrinsically wrong to want to hide my income from my neighbors.

<comment><USER18> The positive statement is that transparent pricing is going to raise wages. There's little doubt about that. I dont know what magintude it could be, but it might end up being significant.

And if it is significant, it would probably be worth a lot more than the security cost. Its economically senseless to reject a better job position for the fear that someone might notice your increased income and rob you. For the vast majority of people that would be utterly ridicolous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is not going to be nearly as helpful as people think, as long as it's still legal for employers to verify salary once it's been revealed.

People who know or suspect that their salary is above the average applicant's will volunteer it to the prospective employer. Other people will choose not to disclose.

We will reach an equilibrium where non-disclosure will be an honest signal of lower current salary.

The main difference from the current state is that employers won't know the exactly salary of the lower non-disclosing applicants -- this helps people at the absolutely bottom of the 'non-disclosure' range, but hurts those who are just below the average salary. It should have no strong effect on people with above-average salaries who choose to disclose.

Of course, if employers aren't allowed to verify voluntarily disclosed salary, then many people will just lie.

<comment><USER20> Oh, I didn't know they verified it. I've never disclosed, but if I was pressed I figured I'd lie because it's none of their business anyway. I can't see why your current employer would verify that, though. Plus it's a dead giveaway that you're looking to leave... this just seems sort of crazy to me.

<comment><USER21> They can't really verify, because many have large non-salary compensation structures, comprising somewhere from 10% to 1000% (or even much more) of their base salary.

Repeat after me: "Well, taking into account my current schedule for divestiture and estimated market positions I would need X to match my total compensation package."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Really wish this would extend to apartment rent applications. I'm fine with a credit check, but they don't need to know how high they can increase my rent before I'll need to move.

 _edit_ I am referring to my experience renting apartments from Property Management run communities. (Think Essex or Prometheus) Rent increases every year with them.

<comment><USER23> They really do that in America? I rented a lot of apartments in my country and was never asked about my income, or had a credit check. The usual way of avoiding not paying renters is requiring first rent plus guarantee deposit (usually equal to the one month rent) in advance. No further proofs of financial credibility required.

<comment><USER24> There's strong landlord-tenant laws in most parts of the United States that make renting to a stranger a risky venture. You can't just show up and move all their stuff to the curb and change the locks if your tenant stops paying rent - you have to go through a court process which can take a while. Landlords are looking for tenants who are likely to pay rent, it makes sense they want to rent to people who actually have the means to pay rent. We are in the age of Big Data where background information is widely available for a small fee, it makes sense they want to get as much information as possible on prospective tenants.

I've never rented where I wasn't required to pay first month's rent and a security deposit as well.

Though it would have to be an insanely hot market for this practice to work - vacancy is extremely expensive for a landlord and the margins on being a landlord are fairly low (despite what the guy giving the "I'll teach you to be rich" presentation at the Holiday Inn will tell you). In fact, I've heard of landlords keeping rents to long term tenants a bit under market price just to keep them, I rented for six years without a single rent increase.

<comment><USER25> The money in renting is if you own a gazillion apartments and can easily weather losses in one or two properties. It's hard to see the appeal of being a small-time landlord.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> There is a simple solution to the salary problem... Make salaries public. "You can't make private firms publish salary data," you may say. True, but local, state, and the federal government can say that any business that does business with them must publish all salaries. The only way to make wages fair is to expose them to the light of day.

<comment><USER27> I suspect that any medium-large company would simply spin off a tiny firm that solely works with the government.

They could then contract out as much as possible, including some of the development, back to the parent company.

The net effect would be that you have a handful of project manager salaries in the public eye at the cost of an additional step in the procurement process.

<comment><USER26> Salaries are public in Finland. Fines are based on your salary, which is how it should be. Making a lot of money affords you many things. Getting out of feeling the pain of wrongdoing should not be one of them. Just one of the many benefits of public salary data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't think this is a right way to go about trying to narrow the gender wage gap.

Half of the reason we have one (a wage gap) is because it's taboo in America to reveal how much you get paid with your co-workers. It makes no sense to me why that is the case, all it does it allow the company to screw you over more.

The solutions should be to have each company come up with there own publicly available pay scale that says you make this much and every year it will go up by X as you gain experience. AKA how to government does things, I'm not saying it's the best system, but you know if they are a gs13 step 5 they get paid X dollars regardless of anything.

<comment><USER29> It is a good step towards that. Although top management in companies wants to bridge the gender gap but when it comes to hiring, the HR & recruiters get biased and tend to be biased towards candidates with lower salary expectations. They want to check how much the candidate was getting paid, which gives them more room to bargain with salary expectations.

IMHO, the salary of a job should be based on how much the company is willing to pay to get the job done. It should not be dependent on how much the candidate was getting paid by previous company. What if the previous employer was harassing or taking advantage? how does it matter if I was in my previous job working at McDonald's and getting paid peanuts? Selection of a candidate should be purely based on talent, skills & Merit.

<comment><USER28> why I suggested each company have there own pay scale, like google will pay 60k for a programer, microsoft 65k and maybe they scale different, but it should be searchable. (numbers made up)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Possibly a dumb question, but can any lawyers here speculate as to whether this law will pass constitutional muster? Is this a form of prior restraint that violates the first amendment? Comparing to things like protected categories (age, gender, religion, marital status, etc) my understanding is that it's not _illegal_ for employers to ask these things, but doing so potentially opens them up to discrimination lawsuits if the person is not hired.

</comment><comment><USER31> I've been confused about how this law (and/or similar laws in other states) applies when the applicant is not in the state. I'll be interviewing someone who currently lives in North Carolina, for a job in Washington, another interviewer is in South Carolina, and if hired the employee will report to someone in New York. Looks like none of these states have a law like this, but if any of them did, how does it work?

</comment><comment><USER32> I've never once answered such a question and never understood why anyone would. When they ask, you tell them you don't give out that information. I've never even had someone question that or ask twice.

<comment><USER33> I once had a recruiter (contracted) get angry and berate me when I refused to answer, then finally gave in and gave him my full compensation figure from when I worked at Google. He said I was lying and nobody would hire me at that rate. Needless to say I let him know what I thought of him and ended that contact, letting the HR department at the company for whom he was recruiting know what a jackass he was.

<comment><USER34> I also had a recruiter (in-house, working for the company) become difficult when I refused to provide current salary. She tried several times to suss it out of me and when it didn't work, discontinued the engagement, at which point the interviews stopped. I think I may have dodged a bullet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I doubt this will work as intended. Candidates who have been well paid and know it will volunteer this information. Candidates who do not, one could assume, have a lower salary history.

Not having salary history increases the risk of a bad hire. Hence, I expect offers in general to be lower under such a law to compensate for the extra risk.

</comment><comment><USER36> For comparison, in Finland all salaries are made public by the tax authority. Annual salaries are printed in the newspaper annually and traffic ticket fines are proportionate with your income.

<comment><USER26> Before the tax info was public, they still fined people based on their income; they just expected people to tell the truth. They have even gone back and re- fined rich people who they found to have lied (back before officers could look up the info in real-time).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Finally. I always wondered why wasn't it illegal in the first place.

<comment><USER37> Probably because it's always been legal for you to refuse to give that information.

<comment><USER38> And it was equally legal for companies to drop you from consideration for a job if you refused. :/

<comment><USER5> That's how price discovery can work in markets.

"How much is that tomato?"

"$5"

"Yikes. Too much for me. Thanks for your time"

<comment><USER38> And that's exactly how salary negotiations work _now_ \-- the applicant can name an expected salary, and the employer can respond accordingly. The only thing that's changed is that what you've been paid in the past doesn't have to be a part of that discussion.

<comment><USER39> It's a bit more like:

"What did you pay your previous supplier for those tomatoes?"

"$4"

"I will charge you $3.95 and nothing less."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'd be interested to see if this ends up playing out like ban the box (banning employers from asking about former convictions), where it ends up hurting the applicants the law intends to help.

ban the box source: [https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ban-the-box-does-more- har...](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ban-the-box-does-more-harm-than- good/)

<comment><USER41> Although banning the box unintentionally hurt those that it attempted to help, it may ultimately be the right move if the problem of the resultant discrimination can be tackled also. A one step back, two steps forward situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I don't think this will fix anything. Consider the following scenario.

Employer to (theoretically) underpaid/under-represented minority: I offer you x.

Underpaid minority: accepted.

Employer to market-rate perspective employee: I offer you x.

market-rate perspective employee: nope.

Employer to market-rate perspective employee: how about X+25K?

market-rate perspective employee: sounds good.

This bill tries to fix a symptom of the problem - but the underlying dynamics causing the pay disparity will remain.

<comment><USER23> So, the moral of your story is: minority employees are underpaid because they never say "no" to low salary they are offered? Or maybe you are saying that possessing some basic negotiation skills you don't have makes me evil? I don't follow your logic here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Every single state employee's salary in the state of California is public. Look it up yourself: sacbee.com/statepay (warning, horrible search mechanism).

The UC system alone has 250,000 people. Student salary data is the only data anonymized.

Making salary data public is the only way to go. Anything else is a poor half measure that will probably not solve the problem they are trying to address.

</comment><comment><USER43> I don't see this is a big deal. You don't have to answer this question, I regularly deflect the question and tell potential employers that I'll be happy to give feedback at the offer point.

The question is asked initially before interviews in most cases and therefore I tell them my expectation is to remain competitive based on what I bring to the table.

Why is it so hard to be a grown up?

</comment><comment><USER44> I always lie when they do that anyways. it's confidential information, it's not like they can go and verify with my previous employer.

if you do the sketchy thing of asking for unverifiable confidential information just to give yourself a negotiation leg-up, be ready to get lied to.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is a great move! Many a times, a company will set your salary by incrementing your current salary by 10% (say). This is demeaning. The future employer is basically saying that we want you to work for us at as low a wage as we can possibly pay, while not being stupid. Any negotiation comes back to why your existing salary is so low, implying that there must be something wrong with you.

The new law forces an open discussion where both sides can decide what they want to pay/earn and start the negotiation from there. The negotiation then follows the track of who has better opportunities. That is a better market dynamic. It will be interesting to see how this plays out when I look for my next job. :)

</comment><comment><USER46> > if applicants ask — must give them a pay range for the job they are seeking

I find this a much bigger deal. This gives applicants much more leverage and wastes less of their time. No non-competes in California, and now this.

<comment><USER47> Is it really? Couldn't company's just conceal the real range by giving an immense range (e.g. $20,000 to $300,000)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Not an American, couldn't you just tell them a made up number?

<comment><USER49> Better yet telling them what salary you want and not disclose your previous salary. Don't start you work relationship with a lie.

<comment><USER50> But then you lose the chance to negotiate up. Any number you state can be interpreted as the highest you will get offered. In salary negotiation, make it so the employer presents the first offer, and then negotiate up.

<comment><USER49> Give them some range and do due diligence, the market figures are usually known

<comment><USER51> I've never found a range to work. They will immediately go to the bottom of your range or even below. So, the range you give better start at the top of your ideal range. Or, more preferably, don't name a number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> NY has this in effect, but quite a few companies whose headquarters are based in NYC still ask applicants for their prior salary range on their applications. I hope this is just a lag, not ignoring the law deliberately.

Also, we should outlaw employers from asking applications their desired salary range; the negotiation should happen after interviews. Employers should either specify a range or give a figure in the job description to save time.

<comment><USER53> So as an employer, I should just waste mine and the applicant's time and then find out they want more than I can possibly pay them? No thanks.

<comment><USER54> No, you should be up front with your salary range.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> So how does this work for larger companies with multiple offices? Some cases I'm curious about (and have always been for laws like this):

My company's headquarters are registered in Texas, but we have an office in CA that is doing hiring for that office.

Same as above, but hiring someone residing in CA to move to Texas.

Same as above, but hiring someone residing in CA to remote work (in CA or wherever they please).

Then, all three cases, but with a company headquartered Int'l.

<comment><USER56> If you have a California office, you have to be incorporated in California, which means you're a California employer.

<comment><USER55> Ok cool, that makes sense. In that case, does CA law apply when you do a hire for your Texas office? Being both a Texan _and_ California employer?

<comment><USER56> State laws apply to that state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> As a relatively success California (SF) based software entrepreneur, I have to say that new companies would have to be crazy to move to California to start a business.

Raise money here, then leave if you know what's good for you. #protip

(These type of policies may be good for employees but are a nightmare for management..)

</comment><comment><USER18> Any economist can weigh in on this?

I understand that this would reduce the benefit on the employer on assymetry of information, but wouldn't it be the best to go the exact opposite direction and try to get all salaries to be public?

</comment><comment><USER58> I'd love a deeper analysis of how this law will help.

Someone's target salary is dependent on their current. Non-savvy negotiators will expose this number.. in which case they aren't going to end up any better.

If you are significantly underpaid, the solution today is just to get two offers to ensure your BATNA is based on an alternative offer, not your current situation.

I suppose this gives more negotiation leverage to the employee, but I don't see it helping Silicon Valley based devs much. It seems the beneficiaries are mainly lower earnings who lack time/ability to source multiple offers.

</comment><comment><USER59> Nobody seems to comment about this part of the law : "if applicants ask — must give them a pay range for the job they are seeking"

That's pretty interesting. I wonder how companies are gonna try to circumvent this.

<comment><USER60> By disclosing _really wide_ ranges (which, IME, companies with internal salary ranges that are not disclosed to employees often have to start with, because they want _some_ controls, but also to give management flexibility in recruiting and retention, so it's not even dishonest.)

</comment></comment><comment> benji-york > The goal is to narrow the gender wage gap. If a woman is paid less than a > man doing the same job and a new employer bases her pay on her prior salary, > gender discrimination can be perpetuated, the bill's backers say.

Is it also banned for an applicant to inform the employer of their prior salary? If not, it would appear advantageous for non-below-average-salaried employees to being doing so, negating the effects of this intervention.(And for employers to silently discard applicants which do not voluntarily reveal salary history.)

<comment><USER61> If only above-average-salaried employees reveal salary, and companies discard applicants that don't voluntarily reveal salary history, then that just means that companies end up paying more because they'll only hire people that got paid more than average in the past.

Which is to say, no, I don't think it'll work out that way.

<comment> benji-york That's a good point as far as the employer's behavior goes. It still seems beneficial to the above-average applicant to reveal their salary.

I guess that means employers will assume you're below average unless you reveal your salary. That would tend to lump all the below-average people into the same salary class as far as the potential employer is concerned.

<comment><USER61> It's still not really in the employee's interest to reveal their above-average salary history until they've gotten a salary range from the employer first. After they get that range, they can choose to reveal their salary history if they think it'll give them leverage in negotiations (e.g. if they want more than the high end of the range), but anyone who's happy with the offer they get won't have a reason to reveal their salary history even if it's above- average.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I was asked once at an interview for my current salary, since I barely wanted the new job I gave them a number $20k less than true.

The recruiter immediately said the job pays $10k less than that.

<comment><USER54> So wait, you said a number, and the recruiter said that the job paid less than what they believed you were currently making?

<comment><USER62> Yes she immediately came back with a number 10k lower. Which in reality was 30k lower than current for a very similar job

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> This is a bad law. This will perpetuate the wage gap between men and women employees. These kind of laws will continue the "don't ask, don't tell" aura around salary information. Instead of making this information secret, salary information needs to be pushed more public, so that when someone is paid less for equal work, there is absolutely no doubt about the salary that each employee receives.

<comment><USER64> I think it's just the opposite. Allowing employers to ask wage history helps maintain the wage gap. If women are underpaid at their first job, then that will propagate forward to future offers. If they can't ask, then they'll have a harder time knowing whether they can continue to underpay a woman. Having a stated salary range also makes it a little harder for them to play games.

<comment><USER65> What stops people lying about the wage? I suspect men do it more often and negotiate bigger salaries this way.

<comment><USER64> Ethics? Morals? Not knowing exactly what sort of lie they can get away with? Years of training and practice in not lying? Fear of getting caught and not getting the job? Fear of getting caught later and losing the job?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I think there is systematic bias in such rules because employees outnumber employers and corporations can't vote. For example:

1) In such scenarios, I wonder how is it okay for an applicant to use all tactics they want (note: there is minimal if not no regulation on applicants to a position. Okay, let's make this concrete, this new law bans Cali employers from asking applicants their prior salary. There are more laws which ban or force an employer to do something. BUT an applicant is NOT banned from asking any question. This next sentence I might be going out on a limb here, the applicant is NOT forced to do something either (as opposed to a ban on something). This is systematic bias.

2) It's NOT okay for a corporation to discriminate on race or sex, etc. But it IS OKAY for an applicant to discriminate on race or sex, i.e. if an employer is black, I can choose not to work for him just on that basis, or if it's a woman, I can choose not to work on that basis.

You might say the positions of power are asymmetric and in favor of the employer. I'd say you're correct about the former (asymmetricity) but not about the latter. The employer has power by having more money and applicant has power by having more skills. Employers usually respond to such laws as this by coming up with new ways to accomplish what they want, then govt responds with even more regulation. Compliance is a cost which takes away from the pie which any of the stakeholders could've benefited from.

A voluntary unregulated hiring market would benefit all parties involved.

</comment><comment><USER67> I've recently been on both ends of the table here. I don't share my previous salary but I'm always willing to share a pay range. The range being higher than I'd ever expect to get paid. I find this to be important when discussing salary with an employer because it gives me a baseline to continue discussions. If they can't meet my bottom line then I'm not interested. The reason I give a range is because salary is only a SMALL part of your compensation package. If there is a yearly bonus program, great medical, 401k matching, vacation, etc. Each of these things need to be considered when accepting a position. Hence the range.

I've also come to expect that I'm going to give a candidate a pay range as well. It is one of the first things I do when trying to on board because if they can't afford to live on the range I'm telling them then I don't want to waste either of our time on discussing a position they can't live on. I'm pretty upfront about this because the worst thing an employee working for me can do is have to start budgeting a lot and be resentful about it.

In my mind this law can really hinder that conversation. I like giving a range and asking a candidate if they can deal with that, but it's really nice when a candidate is secure enough to tell me what they are worth up front as well. I would also recommend against giving anyone a fixed value always always give a range.

<comment><USER68> "I don't share my previous salary but I'm always willing to share a pay range. The range being higher than I'd ever expect to get paid."

That sounds like you are actively exaggerating the amount you have been paid previously to establish a "baseline" of what you are willing to accept as a minimum salary in the job you're applying for. Anyways, from what I understand, the new law does not seem to prohibit you from asking for a salary (range) that the applicant would be willing to accept, just from asking for how much specifically they made in the past.

<comment><USER67> > Anyways, from what I understand, the new law does not seem to prohibit you > from asking for a salary (range) that the applicant would be willing to > accept, just from asking for how much specifically they made in the past.

This is a very good point. It's a fine line but I appreciate the input.

I do give a rather large range. It's typically a 20-40% range based on how much I want the job. And I tailor it to every employer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Next:

 _Employers should compensate interviewd candidates for their time at a rate equivalent to the position for which they are interviewing._

<comment><USER70> That's like a store charging you to try on the clothes you don't buy. I wouldn't like that.

<comment><USER69> Employers don't buy employees. That's already the law.

So...

No. It is toatally not like that and hopefully such a law will help clarify the point to any who miss it.

Such a law will also provide balances in an unbalanced power situation and enforce economic efficiencies on an inefficient process.

I'm not a lawmaker nor an employer, though, so I'll leave the suggestion for someone else to pick up.

<comment><USER70> Employers do buy the labor of employees. Think of the employee as the store and the labor as the clothes.

<comment><USER69> I've taken economics in university. I understand this line of thinking. It's wrong.

(twice, btw, once because the negative externalities of "the interview process" are not negligible, and second because the power dynamics of said process are just wrong)

<comment><USER70> I like my analogy; why not convince me it's wrong?

Are there no negative externalities of trying on clothes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> This seems like a big change. I am always curious about what the current state of the art is for modelling second order effects of such a big change. Would appreciate any insights from people who have an insight into decision making at this level (something that affects millions of people in a real and meaningful way).

</comment><comment><USER72> Most companies that I've worked at require an employee's signed consent before releasing any sort of salary details. Otherwise the only info provided is hire date, term date and position. I'm a Payroll Administrator in Oregon.

</comment><comment><USER73> I wonder if over time this leads to people making more getting lowballed, and wages actually dropping. The company could say well these people with these qualifications (on paper) took this amount, so you're asking for way over market rate.

</comment><comment><USER74> Previous title and company will probably become one of the proxy to get a good guesstimate of the candidate's salary. Writing this as the Senior Chief Executive Architect (of that 10 lines bug fix that i just pushed).

</comment><comment><USER75> Good.

The only reason to ask this question is to use it to determine a baseline of how low you can pay the applicant, and unfortunately a lot of young job seekers don't know that it is best to refuse to answer that question.

</comment><comment> michel-slm Also affecting those arriving on H-1B, I bet. If your previous job is in a non-Western, non-Middle-Eastern country (plus Japan, Singapore etc.) your previous salary is likely much lower.

</comment><comment><USER76> Good. There is no principled reason why a job's value depends on previous salary except insomuch as the previous salary was also a market-set price.

</comment><comment><USER77> At the same time, salary information for all California state employees, from the governor to university groundskeepers is publicly available online for anyone to use.

transparentcalifornia.com

<comment><USER55> That site has the most aggressive anti ad-blocker mechanism I have ever seen.

I understand why people do this but holy shit that is obnoxious.

EDIT: UC Coaches some of the highest paid people in the state... sigh.

<comment><USER78> College sports is some of the best way for such institutions to make money. Is it a corruptive influence?

<comment><USER55> I feel like it's disingenuous to the purpose of a "higher education" institution. Would rather they not need to make the money that way - <USER2> it is a corruptive influence in that it changes the "goal" of the institution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> d--b I've personally always lied about how much I was making... they think of you as an easy employee, and you can get a nice multiplier on your current salary.

</comment><comment><USER79> Why can't you just say "it's under NDA"?

<comment><USER80> There are external services that'll go through documents like rental credit check applications to figure out your salary even if you don't give an answer to the hiring company. This law forbids those services as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Just another reason for the list I give clients to avoid California when they are considering hiring California residents or having an office in California.

</comment><comment><USER82> So they'll buy it off Equifax. Or just get it free from whatever hacker stole it off Equifax and posted it to a Torrent.

</comment><comment><USER83> Does age have an effect on salary? I'm not getting paid as much as I should be getting paid for my tech profession..

</comment><comment><USER84> definitely a step in the right direction, but employees can still get this info from Equifax and other data providers :-(

<comment><USER85> "The new bill goes further by prohibiting employers, "orally or in writing, personally or through an agent," from asking about an applicant's previous pay."

according to the language in the bill, employers don't seem to be allowed to use those types of Equifax products anymore.

"However, if the applicant "voluntarily and without prompting" provides this information, the employer may use it "in determining the salary for that applicant.""

...as long as you don't give it out yourself.

<comment><USER86> How do you prove that employers did or didn't use Equifax or an equivalent service?

<comment><USER87> You sue them and use discovery to find out.

Any employer in California that does this will get taken to the cleaners.

It's possible Equifax would too now, so they probably won't give this information to CA employers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> Why ask when you can just find out during background check. If anything, they should ban background checks completely.

<comment><USER60> They are prohibited from seeking the information by any means (including background checks), except information which is legally public, such as when the prospective employee is a previous/current public employee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> Just to be a devil's advocate here : in a hypothetical scenario wouldn't this allow a candidate to give a fake inflated salary of his past job being well aware that it's illegal for recruiter or employer to investigate if this number is true?

Edit: I think I misunderstood the new law proposed here. It is not even legal for employer to ask the salary of past job. In that case this situation would not even occur.

<comment><USER90> The candidate wouldn't need to give a fake inflated salary... the company isn't allowed to ask about salary history at all.

Even if they weren't, I don't see any real trouble with your scenario (other than that I think establishing a pattern of lying in a relationship so early probably isn't great). But if my last job underpaid me, and now I want to earn market rate... I'd be grateful to not have to answer questions about my previous salary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> Why every small thing has to become a law?... Just say "no, thank you" to question about salary.

<comment><USER92> Lack of wage growth? Gender disparity?

</comment></comment><comment> oh-kumudo Isn't that you need to provide 3 recent paystubs prior to your joining?

</comment><comment><USER93> Can't wait to hear every right-winger I know say how this isn't fair capitalism and not free market, completely ignoring past-wage discrimination and any gender gap... Just like they're instructed to do from Fox News and their opulent pastors.

</comment><comment><USER94> Employers will just ask employees expectations.

</comment><comment><USER95> Now Washington state please.

<comment><USER96> We don't even have non-compete protection, good luck...

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> Employers still get the data via background checks.

</comment><comment><USER98> YAY!

</comment><comment><USER99> That's what CA needs... more laws.

Lawyers: what are the chances this goes to the Supreme Court? I suspect next to none, since it's just CA, and employers don't care enough about free speech to fight it.

Silver lining: Another straw in the pile to split CA.

</comment><comment><USER100> Well... there goes your expectation of an increased salary without negotiation.

And they did this to _improve_ the gender wage gap? People who don't negotiate will be stuck with their same salary year over year, while those that negotiate will have steadily increasing salaries.

<comment><USER101> Salary negotiation is a part of life. People need to learn to at least do the minimum amount of negotiation. If you're making $X and a new potential employer offers you $(0.9X), and you just accept it without countering, that's on you.

People need to get over the fear that they'll lose their offer if they negotiate. The potential employer has already put in a lot of time (and money) to get to the offer stage; they're not going to rescind the offer just because you ask for more ("That amount isn't going to work for me; I was looking for something more like $(1.1X)"). At worst they'll tell you that they can't go any higher than the original offer, and then the decision is entirely up to you.

<comment><USER34> Salary negotiation is like black magic, and simplistic advice of "oh, just negotiate" reminds me of the "Draw the rest of the fucking owl" meme [1]. Every job offer I've ever gotten has been Accept Or GTFO. Asking for more always results in "That's the offer--take it or leave it!" Whoever you captains of industry are who regularly negotiate your salary, let me subscribe to your newsletter, please!

1: [https://imgur.com/RadSf](https://imgur.com/RadSf)

<comment><USER101> That's somewhat ironic, as the "draw the rest of the fucking owl meme" is one of my employer's values (which I actually agree with, as long as it's not taken to a ridiculous extreme).

"Accept or GTFO" is a risk you run when negotiating. But it's better than just saying nothing and accepting whatever low-ball offer they give you first, and it costs you nothing to at least do a bare minimum of negotiating.

It really is as simple as saying "I don't think that amount will work for me; I was looking for something more like $X". I mean it: just that sentence alone. Don't demand or be a dick about it, and don't appear meek as if you're asking for a handout, and don't try to justify it with a "I have mouths to feed" or "I'm saving for a house" or whatever. Just state it, and see what happens. That, or something similar, has gotten me a better offer literally every time I've tried it, and I'm honestly probably an average negotiator, at best. It might not get you exactly $X, but that's what a compromise is: meeting somewhere in the middle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> California...doing it wrong again. You can refuse to give it. You can also get better at negotiating. Dumb law.

<comment><USER103> But most people don't. Tell me who this law is HURTING, and why it's a bad idea, rather than just why you think everyone should just act differently.</comment></comment>


I'm meeting Jeff Bezos tonight-- what should I ask him? - <AUTHOR>

Going to an event at NYU/Stern tonight, where Jeff Bezos will be speaking, as well as the private reception afterwards.<p>Anything that fellow HNers would like me to ask him? <comment><USER2> Bezos had gone on record many times as saying that Amazon tries out a lot of things on their site(s), and then gauges reaction to them based on usage. He talks about how inexpensive it is to test something new because you can just put it out there.

Over the years, I've found Amazon becoming more and more cluttered. I find myself becoming blind to _useful_ new features because they are hidden in amongst blogs, plogs, video testimonials, recommendation, lions and tigers and bears.

In aerospace, there's the notion of new displays "buying their way into the cockpit", which is not about money, but about being worthwhile enough to share the valuable real estate with other displays. There is an acknowledgement that the existing displays will either get smaller or viewed less or both.

I'd be interested in hearing how he thinks about the fracturing of attention that occurs when there is so stuff on Amazon's pages. There's a real cost associated with that, and it feels like Amazon is not paying attention to it at all.

<comment><USER3> I find that Amazon is getting better all the time. Eg. the recommendation system is like "magic" - the books it recommends are actually highly relevant to me.

<comment><USER2> I agree on recommendations.

But have you ever read a plog?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are they planning to provide a good portal/software management for all their offerings (S3/EC2 etc.). Why do most of the hard part, but just not care about the last touch; the way a user interacts with them?

Their offerings are awesome, but they need to improve the interface with them, and make them more user friendly.

<comment><USER5> Have you tried the Firefox extensions?

[http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/entry.jspa?ex...](http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/entry.jspa?externalID=609)

<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3247>

<comment><USER4> Yes. And there is scalr too, but it would have been much better if Amazon provided a very robust solution themselves, as they know their systems better than anybody else.

Then Google's app engine would really pale in comparison to Amazon's offering. Right now google is providing an engine that scales up, and which is very easy to get started (their main advantage), but the downside you have to be tied to a very cripled enviroment.

If Amazon provided the glue that sticks all their offerings into one comprehensive package that is easy to use that this would be the best of both worlds. Who would even use google's app engine where you can have great scalability, easy to use, and have your own linux systems running on Amazon?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ask him if Amazon intends to attack any other niche vertical markets. Recently they have gotten involved with footwear via endless.com [http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/05/amazoncom-launches- inde...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/05/amazoncom-launches-independent- endlesscom/)

Since I operate an ecommerce statup in a niche market (motorcycle gear - revzilla.com) , his answer to that is very interesting to me.

</comment><comment><USER7> What does he know now that he didn't know when he started Amazon? What would he now do differently?

<comment><USER8> But everyone asks this question, and the response is always the same. You can ask a question like this if you're getting a written response, but when you're asking someone to immediately think of things in person and then justify them on the spot, it doesn't work well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What is Amazon's strategy around an offering (EC2/S3) that wouldn't be subject to the PATRIOT act for those of us who aren't American? (ie the rest of the world)

One of the biggest gaps to me using AWS as a Canadian is that I would face a firestorm of crap for storing personal information that could be mined at the whims of US services.

Any plans to open/license S3 to someone in Canada or the EU?

</comment><comment><USER10> What is Amazon's strategy regarding digital media sales? Their MP3 store is built around open standards, but Unbox video is tightly DRMed and doesn't even run on Macs, and their Kindle books only work on a single, closed device. Is this all purely tactical based on the individual markets? Do they have a long- term vision for how digital media ought to work?

<comment><USER11> Not sure about Unbox, but Kindle is just doing what the iTunes did - start out locked so that media owners agree to get on board, then once they're addicted to your revenue stream, then you can pry some openness out of them if you want (or any other concession for that matter).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What counter intuitive things have they learned by analyzing all their user data?

</comment><comment><USER13> Who came up with the brilliant idea for EC2/S3?

<comment><USER14> In all honesty, if you have ever wondered what to do about the cycles and storage that went unused or underused in your datacenters (and the effect of said on operating profit and loss), I have to wonder who wouldn't have come up with it eventually.

Amazon came up with a way to rent supercomputing facilities to people outside of academia, and continue to refine the offerings. I'm a little surprised it took this long, but that could just be a reflection of Amazon being the first to get it mostly-right for a maturing market.

I'd be more interested in their thought process in terms of "OK, we can offer _this_ , but it's too risky to offer _that_ , and a waste of time to implement _that_..." That could be enlightening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> How many Kindles has Amazon sold :)

<comment><USER16> And does he have as much faith in Kindle as he did in "Ginger"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I usually do not ask celebrities about their work. it quickly puts you in the "eager follower category" and gives you little chance of getting outside of that. I think i would ask Jeff what his favorite beer was, and if you could take him out for one sometime. I suggest just talking to him like a friend. You will have time for work later.

</comment><comment><USER18> his values about software patents & why is he forcing the 1-click patent onto the EU

</comment><comment><USER19> Have you looked at buying Heroku?

</comment><comment><USER20> I would ask Jeff:

1) What would you attribute your success to?

2) What was the early days of Amazon like? When did you realize that you can change the way people buy books (and anything for that matter) for ever?

</comment><comment><USER21> Please ask him about his (all time favorite) reading list and report back ;)

</comment><comment><USER22> Probably not very interesting for most people, but I'd be curious if they're planning on opening an Italy office.

I'm curious because I worked for an Italian online bookseller for a few years.

</comment><comment><USER23> Who had the fantastic idea to hire Werner Vogels as the CTO of Amazon?

<comment><USER21> Fact that he was a student of Andrew S. Tanenbaum might have made this decision a lot easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'd love to know how he considers an investment when it is brought to him and if/how he seeks out his investments.

Also, where does he believe e-commerce is going? Mobile? Why?

</comment><comment><USER25> What was the most frequent mistake the company made?

<http://ben.casnocha.com/2007/08/what-was-your-m.html>

</comment><comment><USER26> Are they interested in adding features like global availability zone regions, private availability zones, various security compliance (PCI, CISP, etc...)?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Note: see followup here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=164849>

</comment><comment><USER27> Why not enter the search market again? A9 had some cool features... and it would be fun to access that type of data via EC2.

</comment><comment><USER18> and about the right to read. <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to- read.html> [http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/11/19/the-future-of- re...](http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/11/19/the-future-of-reading)

</comment><comment><USER28> Are you planning a free version of AWS to compete with Google App Engine?

<comment><USER29> In general, what does App Engine mean for AWS?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> What is minimum amount of money for a startup today?

</comment><comment><USER31> Can I get a free Kindle?

<comment><USER31> lol No one thought that was funny? Yeks!

<comment><USER32> No, funny would have been: Would you like to see the dessert menu, sir?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Why is six afraid of seven? :)</comment>


For all those who love to hear the word 'NO' - <AUTHOR> http://www.changethis.com/6.HowToBeCreative <comment><AUTHOR> I submitted this manifesto by Hugh MacLeod (gapingvoid.com) for one reason and one reason only... it's a brilliant caption of what to do when YCombinator gives your spot away or when your prototype doesn't hit the fan after 6 months. Seth Godin has preached the same concepts when referring to his Squidoo project.

I think it's important that we all keep things in perspective. If I was a betting man (and I am), I would say that the first thing that ever drove an entrepreneur to write down an idea was not his visions of acceptance or someone else's money... it was to hold onto that idea forever and someday make it real.</comment>


Ask HN: What Lesser Known Sites Need Preemptive Archiving? - <AUTHOR> With the recent demise of what.cd (which I had never heard of until after its closure, only now discovering it was a cultural treasure), I'm reminded of the ephemeral nature of online culture.<p>Which sites out there would you recommend being archived today in their entirety to prevent them from being lost in time? <comment><USER2> Various URL shorteners. For example [http://tinyurl.com/](http://tinyurl.com/) must have millions of URLs out there. Trouble is some URLs might point to intranets or contain authentication tokens (the "nobody can ever guess this long string" part of a URL).

[http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Main_Page](http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Main_Page) lists a couple of preemptive "warrior based projects" of services that currently still exist.

</comment><comment><USER3> Public Slack rooms.

Most teams don't archive their messages, and non-pro teams can only see the last 10k messages.</comment>