Coronavirus outbreak won't peak in every state at once - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-states-peak-hospitals-53274e0e-69b8-4dc7-b069-fb27955c559a.html <comment><USER2> The primary point isn't wrong, but I am deeply deeply deeply skeptical of this, since the underlying data is of such varying and often miserable quality. A friend of mine in Oregon exhibited all the C19 symptoms, and went to get tested. It took _15 DAYS_ for her sample to be tested. The test came back negative, but the lab said they had no confidence in this result, given the age of the sample. This is apparently the default testing situation in Oregon.

Given those kind of inputs, how can one say with any confidence when Oregon will peak, and how large that peak will be?

Other states have much better testing and thus can be more confident in their predictions. Some have worse. For most, however, I get the impression that this kind of modelling is somewhere between a wild-assed guess and a crapshoot.

<comment><USER3> They should be using death rates to estimate the peak, not confirmed cases. Death counts are very accurate if not perfect representation of the situation.

<comment><USER4> They're not. For a variety of reasons, many deaths are not being reported as caused by Covid-19, but rather other preexisting conditions which may have been complicated by Covid-19. Additionally, as I understand it, some number of deaths require post-mortem testing to confirm that the victim was indeed infected. Given the varied backlog of testing, the morgue backlog (or soon-to- be) and the lack of testing kits, I'd conservatively expect death counts to be lower than actual by anywhere from 10% to 150%. I wouldn't be surprised if a year from now we realize we were off by a factor of 2 or more.

<comment><USER5> You can compare normal death rates from previous years to determine if you are having excess deaths. Here is data from a town in Italy for example:

[https://www.corriere.it/politica/20_marzo_26/the-real- death-...](https://www.corriere.it/politica/20_marzo_26/the-real-death-toll- for-covid-19-is-at-least-4-times-the-official- numbers-b5af0edc-6eeb-11ea-925b-a0c3cdbe1130.shtml)

"Nembro, one of the municipalities most affected by Covid-19, should have had - under normal conditions - about 35 deaths. 158 people were registered dead this year by the municipal offices. But the number of deaths officially attributed to Covid-19 is 31"

There are some caveats with the data of course - I.e. the town might not have any more deaths for the rest of the year since it's burned through all the people that would have expired anyway, but it's interesting reading.

<comment><USER6> The Corriere article has a major flaw that it's looking at deaths from Jan onwards only.

This year is unusual in that there was no flu season, really. Deaths up until the start of COVID-19 were way lower than normal all winter.

[https://swprs.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/italia- mortalita-m...](https://swprs.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/italia-mortalita- marzo-14.png?w=1200&h=686)

So even a disease no worse than flu, you'd expect would cause a much higher death rate than normal for this time of year, simply by shifting the curve forward six months. And COVID-19 is likely to be worse than flu.

(I say likely because the data quality here is so poor we really have no idea how dangerous it is)

<comment><USER5> Can you tell me what your graph is supposed to show?

Bear in mind that Nembro has a population of 11,616 according to google. That would mean an excess death rate of approx 1000 out of 100,000 if we use the 123 excess deaths from the article. Compare that to 40.2 from here: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31401203/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31401203/)

Now I'm not saying that Nembro is typical or even that all my data is apples to apples, it's just the only data I've found where we can compare death rates in any way. The crude death rate for the whole of Italy here: [https://knoema.com/atlas/Italy/Death- rate](https://knoema.com/atlas/Italy/Death-rate)

It's interesting that you call the data poor - this is exactly the data we should be looking for. I'd love to see this kind of data for the whole of Italy for the last 10 years to compare to the last few months.

The other data coming in is the dangerous stuff to me. We can't tell if someone died of covid, or simply had it when they died. Every country has different testing regimes. Ultimately the death stats will give us the full picture.

Differing perspectives welcome.

<comment><USER6> The graph is supposed to show mortality vs the 'baseline' (good question how exactly that's calculated, looks like it's probably this one: [https://www.euromomo.eu/methods/methods.html](https://www.euromomo.eu/methods/methods.html)).

It shows the impact of prior flu seasons. Winter of 2016 was very bad. 2017 not quite as bad. 2018 about the same. 2019 .... gone. Trend line is _below_ baseline and very significantly so up until the start of COVID-19. There was practically no flu season this year, which means a LOT of people survived the winter who in prior years wouldn't have done.

The problem is Corriere is ignoring that in their analysis. Deaths may be higher than expected now, but how much of that is because it was much lower than expected before?

I suspect in the next week or so you'll start seeing people doing integration on the graphs to try and figure out what the excess 'vulnerable population' was at the start of the epidemic; i.e. people who would in other years have been taken out by flu but survived this year.

The red trend line will shoot up of course. You can see the latest data point all the way at the top right, it's nearly falling off the image.

<comment><USER5> Lol, I didn't even see that last point until you mentioned it.

It's interesting data - where did it come from? I'd like to monitor it too.

<comment><USER6> Italian Ministry of Health

[http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/caldo/SISMG_sintesi_ULTIMO....](http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/caldo/SISMG_sintesi_ULTIMO.pdf)

via [https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/](https://swprs.org/a-swiss- doctor-on-covid-19/) which has many links

<comment><USER6> NB: They've since updated the graph in the PDF with a slightly different one. Oddly, the wildly high data point at the end is now _gone_ (wtf) and the COVID-19 period is shaded blue.

Italian death statistics show nothing out of the ordinary at this time. If it's true their infection levels are now stable I don't see how these figures can take the absolutely massive acceleration required to justify current measures. It's still less bad than the flu of 2017.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Something that surprises me is that while family infection has been identified as an important factor to viral transmission to the elderly, we haven't converted hotels into isolation units and given people hotel credits to spend.

<comment><USER8> how is a hotel an isolation unit? there are little to no cooking and food storage facilities or others washing facilities in hotel rooms. so your hotel credit now also has to cover 3 meals a day if it is to effectively work as an isolation unit. these must be delivered to residents by someone who could then transmit the disease to lots of elderly at once. these would become defacto old people's homes/care homes but with untrained staff.

<comment><USER7> Young people would be isolated from their families if sick, and they'd be brought food without contact from staff. Having people cook for themselves is very dubious, so any place that would serve for isolation must also have a kitchen and staff. Staff, boarding, and food -- where would these places be across different cities?

Singapore and other nations are doing the same for foreign travelers and citizens.

Where are you getting this information that this strategy would turn hotels into untrained elderly care facilities?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The differences between some neighboring states is really interesting. Ohio and Michigan have similar population sizes and demographics, but Ohio is projected to be in good shape at peak, while Michigan is trending towards disaster already.

I'd like to see this data alongside a timeline of when governors and mayors made the decisions to close schools and businesses. Would be interesting if even a delay of a few days made a difference in flattening the curve.

<comment> tuna-piano This is all just a matter of timing. Doubling time for the spread seems to be around 5 days.

To demonstrate the numbers:

Time 0 - 5,000 peak cases needing ICU

5 days later - 10,000

10 days - 20,000

15 days - 40,000

In an area that has let's say 5,000 ICU beds, those 15 days are the difference between having just enough beds+ventilators, or having only enough beds+ventilators for 1 in 8 critically ill patients.

Imagine a photo of a hospital dealing with situation 0 vs situation 15 days later. Yikes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Original source:

[https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.27.20043752v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.27.20043752v1)

Actual detailed predictions by state:

[https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections](https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections)

</comment><comment><USER11> It seems like the most critical time to shelter in place is one or two weeks before the date predicted, considering the lag time between peak number of infections and peak medical resources used.

<comment><USER8> the peak occurs because transmission has been stopped. the reason you come to that conclusion is because the incubation period is 14 days, so once you get widespread isolation/quarantine/shelter in place of the population, then the peak will occur 14 days later. if you dont isolate then your peak is only reached when there are no more hosts, either through killing them off or herd immunity preventing further transmission. of course there would be a considerable difference in the size of the peak between these 2 methods.

so I guess I'm saying you can't say "the peak is in 2 weeks, isolate now" rather it is "if we isolate on $DATE then we will see a peak in $DATE+2 weeks"

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> For its population, Houston and Texas for the most part has fared well so far, but I'm careful not to be too optimistic over the long term.

</comment><comment><USER13> Not only that but some states will probably see multiple peaks if they relax restrictions too early.

</comment><comment><USER14> States should close their borders.

<comment><USER15> I hate to say it but I agree. RI had the right idea. NYC is a mess right now: we are still not taking this seriously. Trains are crowded, grocery stores are crowded, the Staten Island ferry is crowded, parks are crowded. In an especially hilarious twist people were crowding the piers yesterday to watch the USNS Comfort come in.

We need drastic action.

<comment><USER16> I don't think it's something that could really be done in the US. We have a constitutional right to move freely between and among the states.

<comment><USER17> You'd have to go to the courts to get a transportation ban overthrown, and they'd be reluctant to intervene. By the time you were successful, the crisis would (please, hopefully) be over.

<comment><USER18> Getting 5 people on the Supreme Court to say "no let the pandemic run its course, even if it costs 10s or 100s of thousands of deaths" would be difficult.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How many entrepreneurs are also atheists? - <AUTHOR>

Is there a connection between non-belief and innovative ideas? For example, having an open mind means you can possibly be more creative (not limited by one thought)? <comment><USER2> I've seen atheists who were logical and open-minded. Then there were others who completely mis-interpreted the concept of God as a bearded dictator. In atheism, you get all kinds of people. Just like in religion, business, politics, etc.

I would say, a much bigger factor is economics. In the 1980s, the Soviet Union government could not make a TV better than the tiny island of Japan. (Akio Morita observed it in his auto-biography, Made in Japan.) You would have more competition in Japan than in the Soviet Union. So companies would have an incentive in advancing science through investment, regardless of faith. The payoff would be bigger and their would be more capital and investment. Religion, language, family, etc. all would be a minor factor in relative terms to economic environment.

You can also see the difference between Malaysia and Indonesia. Located next to each other, various religions that overlap, yet different economic growth.

Any science conference would have people of different faiths, including atheists. Many religions seem to even promote business and science. More examples:

1) The ancient Greeks would still visit oracles despite advancing mathematics.

2) The best observatories were once at monasteries.

3) Gregor Mendel was a Augustinian friar.

4) Bicameral Kingdoms (Incas, ancient Egyptians) had similar religions, but stayed stagnant for thousands of years compared to the Muslims and Christians: <http://saturniancosmology.org/sun.php#a10>

5) If you watch the NOVA episode on Gothic Cathedrals, you see how religion led to architecture innovation: <http://video.pbs.org/video/1619317222/>

6) This book has more examples. (It is not limited to the Catholic Church): [http://www.tomwoods.com/books/how-the-catholic-church- built-...](http://www.tomwoods.com/books/how-the-catholic-church-built- western-civilization/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I think people are very good at compartmentalising conflicting beliefs.

There are plenty of people who are pleasant, productive members of society who believe things that are absolutely ridiculous ( religious and non-religious alike )

<comment><USER4> Well, intellectually I think that religions are like languages, and what is communicated is more important than which language is spoken. In terms of practice, I am a polytheist who looks to Norse myth as my primary path. I don't know how to get to an ontology of what a god is and whether or in what sense they can be said to exist though.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you charge your webdesign clients for ongoing hosting and support? - <AUTHOR> Is it a good retainer model? How much are you making from it? Does it require a lot of ongoing work? <comment><USER2> I had been doing the hosting with 3rd party providers but I realised that I could actually do it better myself if I built a multi tenant platform. For the support, I was doing a lot of the support anyway so I realised I might as well do it in my own platform.

For these reasons, I've deployed my app on a Vultr server, have a couple of clients on it for my beta and so far so good.

I'm still working on the billing system for my clients so that when they renew their hosting the next time round it will be on my platform.

A couple of things I didn't want to touch include domain selling and email hosting. My platform has turn key ecommerce tools that are good enough for customers to want to pay for. Domains are still done by a 3rd party (but they're mostly cheap) and as for email, I would rather provide integration with Zoho or google apps. I don't like the headache of email deliverability; it's not worth the effort at this stage in my startup - heck, even Shopify don't touch it.

Once I'm done with billing, my next big problem to solve is logistics. I need to find a way to help my merchants ship to their customers easily as it is still a very big problem for them. It will mean partnering with a myriad of logistics providers and creating an ecosystem for just this.

<comment><USER2> Don't get why the downvotes. Still gonna kick ass.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm generally surprised when people _don 't_. The few people I know who don't justify it with "I don't want to have to deal with all that support" (can't quite figure out what "all that support" covers).

"When people have an issue, who do they call?" "Me" "So... they're already calling you. Why not have some $ for that to cover it". "I just tell them to call the hosting company".

It baffles me how those folks stay in business.

I do think in some cases, it's the email support they don't want to deal with, not so much 'hosting'. A couple of folks I know just send everyone to fastmail or google for mail hosting (not something I recommend, but they again claim they don't want the 'headache').

<comment><USER4> Absolutely. As a general rule, never work for free, period. Not only will you not get income, but your business clients won't respect you or your product.

I mean it's ok to include a week or two to fix bugs that you might have missed, but be up front about that window and make sure that you differentiate bugs with features. Clients might blur that line.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> We use it to subsidise our hosting fees and time to keep things up to date. It's often more convenient to control the website when doing online marketing work.

Changes may be a flat monthly fee, free as part of a larger retainer (if simple) or ad-hoc pay as you go based on amount of work.

It's not a lot and doesn't form a big part of the business but helps provide an all-in-one solution for clients who typically have no idea where to go next.

One thing we are winding down and I urge you to avoid is email support. It's simple to set up but you can quickly get overwhelmed by the amount of support involved. Email is often a fundamental to business, depending on industry, and it should be treated as such. We suggest clients use Gsuite. This leads to my final point.

You are not a hosting company, unless you pivot that way. You are not an email provider. You are a web design business and you should not let hosting overwhelm the core of what you do. Be ready to cut it off if it distracts too much from your core.

<comment><USER6> > _You are a web design business…_

Another way to look at this is that you're not a web design business (your perspective), you're a "solve my online problem" business (customer perspective). Yes, you're designing a web site, but in the service of increasing sales, improving discoverability for their potential customers, etc.

It seems like you intuitively know this, in which case the "extras" are _potentially_ a distraction, but also an opportunity to bundle services into an ongoing "subscription".

<comment><USER5> Yes. The thing with hosting and email is that it adds overhead in an area that may not be a core competence.

You could spend a few hours fixing someone's email because they decided to bulk mail using your servers. That or they get hit by malware that does the same.

Those few hours would be better spent building websites.

It's a good complementary service but my warning was about drawing the line when it starts to encroach on what you do best. We have learned this the hard way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You can purchase a managed VPS that runs cPanel and run dozens of marketing sites on it. My server cost $120ish and I collected $300ish - it was an extra $2500 a year in my pocket. I rarely had issues, and if I did, I contacted support to assist me.

However, I started another business and no longer wanted to be in the web hosting game. Migrating clients to new hosting was a nightmare and it ate into my profits. It's very hard to charge for a migration when you initiate it. Getting them to sign up for new hosting, handling DNS switchovers, etc.

YMMV. Another option is become an affiliate of a couple of your favorite providers. Learn their set up really well and refer businesses to them.

As for ongoing maintenance (security updates, content tweaks, form testing), HELL YES. Small recurring contracts are awesome. They make for better websites since they're being tended to, and it's a nice little stream for you once you have several of them going.

</comment><comment><USER8> Yes, I charge for hosting and support, especially for smaller clients who don't want to know or care about hosting. It means I can do quick fixes and answer questions without either if us having to worry about billing.

I don't make a lot from it, but enough to be worth the trouble. For example, there's a couple of local businesses that I set up single-page sites on github pages. They pay me $25/month, mostly to answer their questions. (Most recent question: "How do I embed a YouTube video into a PowerPoint?")

A lot of my larger clients use AWS or similar and pay their own hosting bills. Support is more if a mixed bag there, but I do try to get a support contract set up.

<comment><USER9> What's your hourly rate? $25/month doesn't give you much room for it to be profitable.

<comment><USER8> Well, yea, I charge $165/hr for random folks on the internet, but for locals I charge more like $60/hr. 20-30 mins/month tweaking or answering questions is a fairly realistic average for the local single-page sites.

I look at the local sites as a bit of local pride/civic duty - if I didn't do it then they'd either have crappier, more expensive sites or else no websites at all.

(I also have a full-time salaried position now that effectively pays about $60/hr. So I don't really have to worry about income at this point.)

My town is only about 2000 people, and most of them dont need a website. I figure I'd be getting the same questions either way, so I might as well get paid a bit ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yes. It would be unmanageable otherwise with multiple clients.

Why would I give up my time + work for free?

Hosting is an easy up sell because it becomes one less thing a client would have to worry about.

</comment><comment><USER11> When i dabbled in this area, most of the lower end work was surprised there was an ongoing need for hosting. Either directly or their own provider... They thought that once it was bought, it just 'ran' on the internet.

<comment><USER12> To this I say educate them.

<comment><USER13> The danger with that is you educate yourself out of a job.

<comment><USER12> I meant educate them about running a technical product. By explaining the landscape, you can also tell them how you can provide that service. Without educating them, they don't know it exists. But since you allude to educating them on how to run it themselves, I agree with the other reply to you that an educated client is a better client. At least they will be happy you took some time to educate them (within a scope of what's reasonable for a nontechnical person), and they will possibly be disinterested/not up to the challenge and hire you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think that it's good to be on retainer, but I didn't find that providing hosting was worth the effort. A few hundred dollars here and there was not enough. If clients needed technical assistance, then they could pay a retainer or an hourly rate.

Example scenario to consider: if you're providing hosting, and the site gets hacked, and you're the webmaster, you have to clean it up without pay. If you manage a lot of sites, and they all get hacked because you put them on one server, then you get to clean up a lot of sites without pay. It's better to get paid hourly for those kinds of things.

<comment><USER15> What you say is true; I learned, and am still reminded of it, the hard way from time to time.

But it's nothing more than a problem waiting to be solved.

In my case I'm solving this problem by using static sites and managed web hosting.

Put simplicity where simplicity is due and segregate the more complex requirements. Static sites are going a very long way now, and a lot can be done with JavaScript on the client-side with modern browsers.

In many cases no back-end services are needed, but when they are, it can make a lot of sense to segregate them in a way they can power multiple sites with the same functionality requirements.

It's really up to the needs you have but in the end I feel it can really be worth it.

Heck, latest web standards let us componentize elements, we might all be better off with a global database that contains all of them in JSON or YAML format which we can load/dump from and that contains some kind of ACL (ala Firebase can do that).

Have a good day.

<comment><USER14> Static sites are different. That sounds like a much better model for hosting. It doesn't matter if the servers get destroyed if there is little to clean up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> We just charge hosting and a small support fee for the small sites. For startups or companies with bigger needs, we have tailor made contracts.

Imho, support has to be a significant part of a company's or freelancer's income. Otherwise, you have to constantly create new websites to avoid bankruptcy :P

</comment><comment><USER17> Yes. Definitively yes. If you're a typical web developer or agency, you're going to have a lot of one-off engagements, project and campaign websites. Those cost money to support, and your customer should supply that money. We never host without both a modest hosting fee, and a SLA for fixes, updates and perfective maintenance.

<comment><USER2> > SLA for fixes

Very curious how you price this...per fix or standard monthly fee? If it's a fee, how do you deal with absurd feature requests whose development costs far outstrip what you've quoted?

<comment><USER18> > If it's a fee, how do you deal with absurd feature requests whose > development costs far outstrip what you've quoted?

You make it painfully clear in the original contract that all changes and features requests require additional cost quotes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Yes, and i'm not cheap. I have 2 HA clusters with 2 different providers, with sync and failover between the 2 sites. I also have DO as an emergency fallback / overflow. I manage and maintain everything for our clients. My cost is about $500 per month for 6 machines in total, 16CPU/64GB RAM/25TB SDD per machine.

My minimum monthly charge for hosting a site is $150 for a simple site, $300 for something more complex, and most of my clients are at $500. This includes 1/2/3 hours support/site changes respectively, and dealing with security, patching, speed, uptime etc.

If you can build something like above and keep it running, it is a nice money- maker.

<comment><USER20> What kind of websites are they?

<comment><USER2> Feels like a question I should have asked as well. $150 p/m per site seems exorbitant.

<comment><USER21> Not for a managed hosting with 1-3h of allocated maintenance work plus HA guarantee. It's cheap, for that level of service.

Either you want cheap mass hosting, then you have to live with support that can only assist you with basic stuff (and most don't have any support other than FAQ pages), or you pay more and get support that can actually help you. For example, a hoster I know, when you go to them even with the most hipster tech stack imaginable, they'll educate themselves on said technology and will help you until the app is set up successfully.

<comment><USER19> Indeed, it is guaranteed HA and autoscaling, no hassles on peak traffic, and dedicated maintenance work. It isn't cheap as such, but it is very price competitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A fairly sizable percentage of our product line is web hosting. Of course to note we started out as a hosting company and people focused on infrastructure.

I'd say hosting is a good way to retain clients and to continue to work with them. It's great for clients as well since we do host their website and if problems happen then we can help them fix it. The hosting fees are actually packaged "for free" to our maintenance fees which includes very small changes (text changes and minor updating). Major changes would be considered a new project.

Regarding time investment, our maintenance is almost none as most of our infrastructure code has been developed and put on autopilot including monitoring. There are minor blips we do have to worry about and handle, but overall everything works. We also have a person on-premise (inside the datacenter) who helps us with quick turnaround to hardware or physical problems.

Biggest time investment is working with the client directly on their projects.

</comment><comment><USER23> Yes, I have. Not currently doing this work.

As a client, I won't actually do business with anyone who doesn't understand the need to fund those activities.

They will get swamped and fail, or the work will degrade and potentially fail as almost nothing works in a vacuum.

At a minimum, funding staying current, dealing with changes, dependent system changes, and the communication needed to make it all work will generally exceed the margins made on new projects.

If the goal is to make money and keep some of it, a retainer, or maintenance plan is needed.

Or, the expectation of paying time and materials on all post project work needs to be there, and it needs to be lean, no hassle.

My current arrangement is like this. Not quite enough to warrant a retainer, but enough that it needs to be paid for, unless I want my partner to starve or be unavailable to me when I need them.

Bundling hosting into this is a no brainer. They know that host well, you can always move, and it's efficient.

</comment><comment><USER24> I only ever delivered static pages, so my solution was to throw it on S3 and charge them 1.5x whatever the Amazon bill was. (Slightly fancier formula; that's the basic idea.)

(Okay, I actually usually went CloudFlare -> S3, because it wasn't much more set-up, but really drops the bills on static content delivery with a lot of caching.)

Automatic security by experts, minimal configuration on my part, and easy to hand-off when clients wanted someone else to take over. (Also, since it was in an AWS account I controlled, it meant I retained control of the website until they paid me -- never came up, but it never hurts to have leverage.)

I never made much off of it, but it wasn't a negative on my cashflow and kept a lot of clients in contact with me -- "Well, we wanted this new page and since you're the one running our website, let's just use you!"

</comment><comment><USER25> Yes.

I was part of a larger marketing / design agency where they charged standard vendor markup (15%) on hosting (which was a reseller account with cpanel), which was cheap for the clients but did not cover the costs of passing along support requests to the actual hosting company.

That agency went out of business 5 years ago and I absorbed the hosting business. All of the sites are WordPress and I had built an optimized stack along with automation for backups, updates, security scans, etc. For the changeover I set 3 levels of hosting power and rolled in the automated maintenance, domain name renewal and storage of backups. Email and SSL are add-ons provided by 3rd parties and marked up at least 100%.

Prices are $50, $150 and $500/mo.

The stack has changed over the years from a shared VPS to individual VPSs to docker containers. Everything is behind a load balancer / caching proxy so changing out the platform as needed was/is pretty painless when we find new ways of doing things.

All clients were required to enter into a new contract with monthly recurring CC billing or they were provided with their files and thank you for your past business letter. Every new site proposal includes the first year of hosting and maintenance, and is a hard requirement. I won't support a site that's on some $5/mo hosting plan running PHP 5.3 or who knows what. I can tell horror stories for hours, which just reminds me how much I don't want to live through them again.

We lost 1/3 of the customers, but I think we only needed 3 clients to equal the revenue of the previous system. For example, there's one client that we're charging $650/mo (with emails and multiple SSL domains) that was NEVER charged for hosting by the previous company. I was sure they were going to bail, but their support load previously was so large that we needed SOMETHING to justify keeping them on. Amazingly now that they know that when they break things there is an actual cost to picking up the phone to call us. They do have X hours per month of "free" support but then they have to start paying $100/hr. The new stack almost guarantees that breaks don't occur from our end and if we do, it's 30 seconds to flip over to a previous backup.

We've also gotten a few redesign jobs simply because they see our name on their credit card statements every month. I've personally never worked with these clients during the time of the previous company, but they came along way back when and would've gone with someone else if we weren't already in a relationship, no matter how loose.

</comment><comment><USER26> Absolutely. Most clients (in my experience anyways) is actually happy that you can provide hosting so they don't have to spend time in an area they're usually unfamiliar with.

</comment><comment><USER27> I was thinking about doing that multiple times, but I always figured I didn't want to be liable if anything goes wrong with their stuff. Especially business e-mail is an area I would avoid at all cost, you don't want to be involved when the suits can't write e-mails anymore. All support I provided was billed hourly, and that was lucrative enough for me.

</comment><comment><USER28> For those that do, where are you hosting the site? Are you using a reseller package or just put the url onto whatever host you're using now?

</comment><comment><USER29> Have someone guard the WordPress instance and run security patches on it is certainly worth money. Nobody wants to keep tabs on that.</comment>


Old discussion on Viaweb, Lisp, and maintainability - <AUTHOR> http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=31402

<comment><AUTHOR> Are Lisp programs inherently hard to maintain? If macros allow a Lisp program to become its own programming language, does coming on as a new maintainer have a much steeper learning curve than for programs written without macros? What about after that learning curve is surmounted, does it become easy to maintain after that?</comment>


Learning to prove theorems via interacting with proof assistants - <AUTHOR> https://blog.acolyer.org/2019/08/23/learning-to-prove-theorems-via-interacting-with-proof-assistants/ <comment><USER2> There has been a lot of work like this popping up in the past year. I think it's somewhat promising, but for ML for ITPs to really become useful, I think the models need to better take into account semantic information about terms and types and not just tactics. And this is not easy, because Coq's logic is higher-order and dependently typed, and most work in ML for PL deals with much simpler logics. Still, anything that helps with the tedium is welcome.

Another problem is that you will very rarely find examples of failing proofs, since users rarely commit them. I'm working on a joint UW-UCSD project on collecting and analyzing development data, and this is one of the goals. But our dataset is not very large, since it is hard to get users to agree to something so invasive, and there are still only 1000 or so active Coq users in total in the world right now.

Another big problem is that it is very, very difficult to define what it means for a proof to be "almost" correct. This makes it difficult to apply many existing techniques fruitfully.

Nonetheless, I think the general spirit is right. The biggest gains in proof automation in ITPs this decade are going to come from automation that makes use in some way of existing proofs, rather than starting from scratch and "blindly" (often very effectively or even decideably for certain fragments of the logic or certain domains if the user knows the right tactic to call) searching for some term with a given type.

<comment><USER3> Have you thought an interactive site where people could learn coq writing proofs? Something very similar to [https://projecteuler.net/](https://projecteuler.net/). You could get thousands of failed proofs very fast.

<comment><USER2> That's a neat idea. It would mostly help for gathering data from beginners, which would be very skewed, but I'm sure it could still be useful, especially for developing tools to help beginners.

<comment><USER3> Yeah skewing would be definitely problematic, it might be better if it would be similar to Kaggle where people would compete with each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh neat. I recently spent a good bit of time comparing different formal proof systems. The Mizar project [0] is pretty interesting since it's proofs look a lot like standard proofs in the literature.

However, at the moment I'm a bit enamored with Metamath [1]. It's basically a tiny system that just performs formal substitution. Everything else, including propositional calculus, predicate logic, and ZFC set theory is encoded within the language, rather than the implementation. I.e. it's a metalogic that only knows about simple substitution. That way one can easily investigate other logics and axiom systems, e.g. they have stuff for intuitionist logics, orthomodular lattice models, you name it.

Anyway, the project already has a pretty substantial collection of theorems, including a lot of analysis, topology, algebra and even QM. The cool thing is that you can easily dig up how the high level proofs trace back to the fundamental axioms, and there's no fancy math happening in the metalogic at all.

Super cool stuff.

[0]:[http://www.mizar.org](http://www.mizar.org) [1]:[http://metamath.org](http://metamath.org)

</comment><comment><USER5> From the article: "As an extra bonus, the generated proofs tend to be shorter than the ground truth proofs collected in CoqGym."

This feels a little misleading, the paper itself says that the phenomena "... suggests that theorems with longer proofs are much more challenging for the model." It'd be more interesting to see how the automated theorem proving length compares to the manual length for the same proofs (although I'd expect this to be biased downwards, for the same reason).

</comment><comment><USER6> Two more:

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.07794](https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.07794)

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.03241.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.03241.pdf)

<comment><USER7> And another

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.02644.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.02644.pdf)

I'd really love to see someone like Deepmind get a hold of this. They are perfectly placed to apply a lot of resources to it and it's right in their wheelhouse.

Don't know how to contact them about it though.

<comment><USER8> Related: [https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.01044](https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.01044)

"DeepAlgebra - an outline of a program"

> We outline a program in the area of formalization of mathematics to automate > theorem proving in algebra and algebraic geometry. We propose a construction > of a dictionary between automated theorem provers and (La)TeX exploiting > syntactic parsers. We describe its application to a repository of human- > written facts and definitions in algebraic geometry (The Stacks Project). We > use deep learning techniques.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Solving Symbolic Equations with PRESS"

[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82605343.pdf](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82605343.pdf)

> The PRESS program was originally developed, in 1974--75, as a vehicle to > explore some ideas about controlling search in automatic theorem proving by > using meta-level descriptions and strategies

[https://github.com/maths/PRESS](https://github.com/maths/PRESS)

A lot of this stuff was/is done/doable in Prolog. I've been looking at TLA+ recently and although I'm not to far into it yet, so far everything has been "Oh, I can do that in Prolog."

<comment><USER9> Can you explain what parts of the TLA+ stuff you can express in Prolog and why you think that might be better (or equally good)? It's true that modeling languages all have something in common with Prolog, but do you think that proofs about a similar Prolog version would be nicer than in TLA+?

<comment><USER8> I don't know if it's better or nicer. "I am but an egg."

Here is Lecture 4 of Lamport's course: [https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/video/video4.html](https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/video/video4.html)

TLA+ source code:

        EXTENDS Integers

        VARIABLES small, big

        TypeOK == /\ small \in 0..3
                /\ big   \in 0..5

        Init == /\ big   = 0
                /\ small = 0

        FillSmall == /\ small' = 3
                    /\ big'   = big

        FillBig == /\ big'   = 5
                /\ small' = small

        EmptySmall == /\ small' = 0
                    /\ big'   = big

        EmptyBig == /\ big'   = 0
                    /\ small' = small

        SmallToBig == IF big + small =< 5
                    THEN /\ big'   = big + small
                            /\ small' = 0
                    ELSE /\ big'   = 5
                            /\ small' = small - (5 - big)

        BigToSmall == IF big + small =< 3
                    THEN /\ big'   = 0
                            /\ small' = big + small
                    ELSE /\ big'   = small - (3 - big)
                            /\ small' = 3

        Next == \/ FillSmall
                \/ FillBig
                \/ EmptySmall
                \/ EmptyBig
                \/ SmallToBig
                \/ BigToSmall

This is what I came up with (SWI Prolog). Note that I made some constraints explicit to prune the search, like guarding the empty_FOO steps with constraints that the jugs must not already be empty:

        :- use_module(library(clpfd)).

        type_ok(Small, Big) :- Small in 0..3, Big in 0..5.

        next_dh(Moves) :- next_dh(0, 0, Moves).

        next_dh(Small, Big, [[Move, Si, Bi]|Moves]) :-
            type_ok(Small, Big),
            die_hard(Move, Small, Big, Si, Bi),
            (Bi = 4 -> Moves = [] ; next_dh(Si, Bi, Moves)).

        die_hard( fill_small, Small, Big, 3, Big) :- Small #< 3.
        die_hard(   fill_big, Small, Big, Small, 5) :- Big #< 5.
        die_hard(empty_small, Small, Big, 0, Big) :- Small #> 0.
        die_hard(  empty_big, Small, Big, Small, 0) :- Big #> 0.

        die_hard(small_to_big, Small, Big, S, B) :-
            Big #< 5, Small #> 0,
            small_to_big(Small, Big, S, B).

        die_hard(big_to_small, Small, Big, S, B) :-
            Small #< 3, Big #> 0,
            big_to_small(Small, Big, S, B).

        big_to_small(Small, Big, S, 0) :-
            Small + Big #=< 3,
            S #= Small + Big.

        big_to_small(Small, Big, 3, B) :-
            Small + Big #> 3,
            B #= Big - (3 - Small).

        small_to_big(Small, Big, 0, B) :-
            Small + Big #=< 5,
            B #= Small + Big.

        small_to_big(Small, Big, S, 5) :-
            Small + Big #> 5,
            S #= Small - (5 - Big).

And here's a query with depth limit and some manual reflow of the list for presentation...

        ?- call_with_depth_limit(next_dh(Moves), 11, _).
        Moves = [
            [fill_big, 0, 5],
            [big_to_small, 3, 2],
            [empty_small, 0, 2],
            [big_to_small, 2, 0],
            [fill_big, 2, 5],
            [big_to_small, 3, 4]
            ] ;
        true.

<comment><USER9> This is very neat. It shows that Prolog is very close to being the holy grail of an executable specification language. But my question was about verification: TLA+ is not just used for modeling but also for proving stuff about the models. Do you have anything similar for Prolog? If yes, I would love to use it :-)

If you're only interested in the specification part of TLA+ but in proofs, that's great. But then it's not fair to claim that you can do _everything_ in Prolog that TLA+ does.

<comment><USER8> > This is very neat.

Cheers!

> Do you have anything similar for Prolog?

Well, what you think of "Formal Methods: A First Introduction using Prolog to specify Programming Language Semantics"? [https://homepage.cs.uri.edu/faculty/hamel/pubs/fcs16.pdf](https://homepage.cs.uri.edu/faculty/hamel/pubs/fcs16.pdf)

Abstract

> An important fundamental idea in formal methods is that programs are > mathematical objects one can reason about. Here we introduce students and > developers to these ideas in the context of formal programming language > semantics. We use first-order Horn clause logic as implemented by Prolog > both as a specification and a proof scripting language. A module we have > written facilitates using Prolog as a proof assistant and insures that > Prolog implements a sound logic. In order to illustrate our approach we > specify the semantics of a small functional language and demonstrate various > proof approaches and styles.

I just found this the other day and it seems promising.

> it's not fair to claim that you can do everything in Prolog that TLA+ does.

A claim I didn't make. "So far", I said, and, "I'm not to far into it yet" (sic). :-)

(Although it's trivially true because of Turing completeness, eh?)

I have great respect for Lamport. I would hate to be unfair to him.

<comment><USER9> Oh, that paper is very interesting, thanks for that. It's not really comparable to a fully formal system, though: The user essentially chooses which trivial things to prove to convince themselves of something. For example, a real proof assistant would tell you what exactly to prove for the inductive proof in the factorial example. In this system you pick an induction principle yourself and hope it's correct.

Still, I'd like to see more work along these lines.

<comment><USER8> It's Prolog, so there is probably already more. I just found a bachelor thesis from 2011 "Implementation of a Proof Assistant in Prolog" [https://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6043/p...](https://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6043/pdf/imm6043.pdf) I haven't read it yet.

There's also PRESS, which seems relevant, "Solving symbolic equations with PRESS"

> We describe a program, PRESS, (PRolog Equation Solving System) for solving > symbolic, transcendental, non-differential equations in one or more > variables. PRESS solves autonomously, i.e. without guidance from the user. > The methods used for solving equations are described, together with the > service facilities. The principal technique, meta-level inference, appears > to be relevant to the broader field of symbolic and algebraic manipulation.

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074771718...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747717189800070)

[https://github.com/maths/press](https://github.com/maths/press)

I'm not trying to promote Prolog over TLA+ or anything, I've only just started with TLA+.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is really very cool, and makes me want to pick up Coq again. I know the set of formally verified proofs is very small as compared to traditional mathematics, but I think Coq and its cousins are vital for a future revolution in mathematics.

</comment><comment><USER11> I was hoping this was going to be about education;anyone have tips or links on using coq to get better at math proofs?

</comment><comment><USER12> Is anyone aware of a proof system that can do independence proofs over a set of axioms?

<comment><USER13> All of them? I don't understand why you think existing systems are not able to handle independence proofs. You embed your model in the logic of the system, and this approach works for all proof assistants.

<comment><USER12> Because embedding a model in the logic of the system is not practically achievable in many systems</comment></comment></comment>


Why don't we have auto-correct on desktop operating systems? - <AUTHOR> http://www.carrypad.com/2011/08/01/why-dont-we-have-auto-correct-on-desktop-operating-systems/

<comment><USER2> on OS X lion we have.</comment>


Rails ActiveRecord gotcha for newbies - <AUTHOR> http://codeclimber.blogspot.com/2008/03/activerecord-gotcha.html

<comment><USER2> No that's completely wrong. ActiveRecord will initialize getter/setter methods for all fields in your db table, and when you use those methods ruby knows they aren't local variables. So all three of the code snippets will produce the same output (although they're not equivalent)</comment>


Ask HN: What agenda do you have for 1:1 meetings with your supervisor? - <AUTHOR> I recently changed managers and I haven't been doing 1:1 meetings with the previous one. Since the new manager seems to prefer a more systematic approach, I figured I could ask you guys - do you have a plan before going into these kinds of meetings? What kind of talking points do you often have? <comment><USER2> I'm going to try and add a different angle to this because most people here have covered what I wanted to say (performance, compensation etc.)

I would use this time to find out how your manager is doing in his/her role. Find out how you can help them. Talk to them about their frustrations and how they are feeling. Just because they are your manager doesn't mean you need to treat them like a boss all the time. Show them some care and empathy. It can go a long way for your career.

<comment><USER3> I have pretty bad work-related anxiety and I recently started seeing a therapist who specializes in it. She recommended I start thinking of my role as solely "to make my manager look good". This changed my whole mindset from trying to be a better/more efficient developer to trying to look out for what's on my manager's plate and how my behavior would reflect on her and her team. It's really helped me and I know my manager appreciates it. I can expand on this more if anyone thinks it'd help them too.

<comment><USER4> This sounds good if your organisation is political. However if the coding work is below par it'll probably get found out sooner or later. Schmooze the boss but wax on wax off make sure the basic job function is being done well enough.

<comment><USER5> In fairness, schmoozing your manager arguably makes your manager look worse, as it makes them look like their team considers them _schmooz-able_ while producing good code automatically helps your boss look better, as it shows they, at least in part, are managing their team effectively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If I am joining a new team or company and therefore getting a new manager, my 1:1 meetings generally support my onboarding. I would ask about the team's current processes, how they got there, who to ask about learning the system architecture, etc. I also try to get a feel about what the new manager's style is. How does the manager want to stay apprised on my work, what is his/her approach to career development, etc. And very importantly, I ask how often we should have 1:1s.

If the new manager is joining my existing team as my manager, 1:1 meetings now support my manager's onboarding. The topics are very similar, but I have to be a little more tactful to avoid appearing arrogant or patronizing. I will ask what he/she thinks of the product we work on, or about the system architecture. Once again, I will try to get a feel for the manager's management style, and I will ask about the approach to career development and future 1:1s.

In either case, my number one goal early on in 1:1s is to build rapport. I don't intend this as a "winning favor" type of thing, but rather I need to do my best to build the relationship from my side so that I feel comfortable raising concerns and I can understand where my manager is coming from when inevitably he/she starts making new requests.

I don't like to share a 1:1 agenda until it's clear that the manager respects 1:1s. Otherwise there's a risk that the manager preemptively invites other people to help answer the topics in the agenda.

I try not to rant or complain in 1:1s anymore. I found that my managers' reactions were rarely predictable. Some managers try to solve the problem immediately, and some managers do nothing. Some managers would move me onto another project. Now that I have more experience, if I have a complaint, then I also try to propose a solution.

Finally, I try to avoid using 1:1s for status updates or escalating blockers to my manager. In my mind, these are best done as needed or as soon as possible.

<comment><USER7> This is really good advice ^

Measured, and with good variation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> * Performance (e.g. challenges, obstacles, short/long term goals, feedback, productivity)

* Professional development & engagement (e.g. professional goals, training, engagement, coaching)

* Contribution to company growth (e.g. process improvement, supporting colleagues, training pilot/ buddy programs, any other activities)

* Things done / achievements since last 1on1

* Feedback for the manager (e.g. what he/she could have done better/differently since last 1:1, what you/the team is missing)

In summary: What can be done for you, the team and company aside from just "correct individual contribution".

Try to avoid discussing things related to lifecycle of ongoing projects. Those should be handled within your team's standard execution flow. If there's need to talk more on a 1:1 then probably you have a gap there.

Of course in an ideal world in a company that supports ongoing feedback and people are not afraid to raise any issues on a daily basis it should be just: "Hey, do you have anything to talk about? - Nope, everything we discussed on a daily basis. - Ok, same here".

In the real world, there are always things which "there's never a good time for" and periodical check-up is useful for that just like a team retrospective.

<comment><USER9> Good point about feedback for the manager, I forgot to mention it. Depends on how well you get along with your manager, but I went as far as to say "you were joking about thing X (usually hiring/firing/PTO/performance etc. topics) which I didn't like".

<comment><USER8> Yes, I realize not all of us have the luxury of being part of organization where direct, open, constructive feedback whether it's positive or negative is just a thing people do. (Many organizations will boast about values but not live them. If you live them there's no need to even talk about them.)

1:1 or not, good manager should not only make everyone safe with giving him/her and everyone feedback but also ask for it if he/she takes the responsibility of taking care of the people seriously.

Even if that's not a part of the culture then it seems to me it makes sense to try to be the leading example (with a clear, expressed explicitly if needed intent of doing this to make everyone's life and cooperation better) if it doesn't put your job at jeopardy.

However, if it is, maybe it's worth considering what future lies ahead for you in the company? This of course depends on personal goals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Reading a lot of comments here people have a very wide range of what they try to cover and I think it's unnecessary on an every week basis.

Let's start with the basics. Your manager's number one job is to unblock your success. Whatever the fuck you need to do your job, the 1:1 is when you discuss it (assuming it can wait until 1:1, sometimes things are more urgent and you just need to grab manager right then).

Be sure to bring proposed solutions not just problems

-bringing a problem: "billy the director from marketing keeps direct messaging me asking for help. I want to help but it's taking too time" -bringing a solution: same as above, plus "...given the xyz support process, I'm going to send billy an email and cc you, reminding them to follow the process and to reach out to so and so with these issues. If there's any pushback can you back me up?"

You can also share accomplishments / progress but usually there are other channels for that.

Then as needed the other stuff here makes sense eg build rapport, ask about them, career dev etc

</comment><comment><USER11> Various commenters have interpreted this in two different ways:

a) this is a performance/compensation review meeting

b) this is a weekly/biweekly/whatever infinitely repeating meeting

I think most managers who ask for 1:1 meetings are talking about case (b). I do.

I don't schedule 1:1 meetings for local employees unless they ask; I do schedule 1:1 meetings for remote employees. My feeling (which I have mentioned to everyone) is that people I see most days have the opportunity to ask questions and bring up concerns any time they feel like it, but a person I can't bump into in the corridor deserves extra time for that.

My 1:1 agenda is loose: tell me if anything isn't going the way you want. Concerns about your work, other employees, the strategic direction of the company... this is an excellent time to bring it up. I can help with technical problems, or discuss the issue and refer you to the right person. Want to go to a conference? Want to tell me about the conference you want to? Anything vaguely company-related in on-topic, and I don't mind diverting off-topic much, because we'll have another meeting next week.

<comment><USER12> I think you would miss a lot of important things with this approach. You're basically asking other people to take the entire initiative to raise problems, which will only work for things they are 100% comfortable bringing up with you, and which they feel is in their interest for you to know about.

<comment><USER13> Exactly; my current manager works this way (no 1:1) and is surprised how in 3 years nobody has ever come willingly to talk about this stuff.

Nobody wants to be the one coming to his boss with problems; nobody wants to be the only team member to go talk about things that probably bother him given that he never asked about them.

Then obviously he has no idea about the day-to-day work that most of us do, the difficulties we're facing, the lack of motivation of some members, the career or personal aspirations of them, the growing idea of leaving the team of others…

If you never ask, there's a lot you'll never know. It doesn't need to be weekly, but you need to reserve some time at least every few months at the bare minimum.

<comment><USER7> From Creativity Inc, by Pixar cofounder Ed Catmull:

"My door had always been open! I'd assumed that that would guarantee me a place in the loop, at least when it came to major sources of tension like this.

Not a single production manager had dropped by to express frustration or make a suggestion in the five years we worked on Toy Story.

…Being on the lookout for problems was not the same as seeing problems."

Source: [https://getlighthouse.com/blog/ed-catmull-quotes- leadership-...](https://getlighthouse.com/blog/ed-catmull-quotes-leadership- creativity-inc/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> #1- calling out anything co-worker related. I try to always bring up some good things. Ie: this new guy is getting up to speed really fast and I'm super impressed, here's some quick examples. Or negative: the guy in the remote team and I keep having conflicts, not sure what to do about it, any thoughts?

#2- my career. I'm working towards promotion X, I've made these steps lately, what do you see that I can be doing?

#3- ask for feedback. Has anyone given you any feedback that I need to hear? I can't grow without it.

And then give half the 1:1 time to the manager for things they've brought. Their time is often even more limited than mine.

<comment><USER6> Good stuff. I think this is a good general template once you've established a relationship with your manager. If the manager is new, I don't expect direct answers to #2 and #3, so I would ask more meta questions-- how they approach career development and feedback, etc. and get them thinking about those topics for future 1:1s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I prepare the agenda on my own, it's usually 2 to 5 points. My issues, worries, what I struggle with, what I plan to do in the long run, I ask for general feedback every few months.

Sample agenda:

* I did X in situation Y; could I have handled this better?

* I have too many things to do, so which is the priority: A or B?

* I'll do this big thing over the next month, wdyt? etc

<comment><USER15> Wdyt = what do you think

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Whatever bullshit comes up to justify the meeting.

I've seriously never had 1:1s go anywhere useful. But that's also because I believe that 75% or more of people are bad managers (it is hard to be a really good one).

<comment><USER7> That's really unfortunate. They can be incredible meetings to fix problems, work on your career, grow skills, give and receive feedback, and a lot more.

Unfortunately though a lot of managers don't know what to do as you suggest, but some of them can be shown a better way.

Putting some things you want on the agenda is a great way to make that change. Then you can take the temperature to what they will be open to.

Working backwards though, this is why you should interview your future manager really hard before signing on to the job...to make sure you have one of those 25% that are good (based on your number)

<comment><USER16> I definitely agree with everything you said. I have had _some_ productive 1:1s where they led to interesting changes to my work.

But those enlightened managers are rare.

And then the flaw with interviewing your manager is that you often can't control your manager once you're hired. I'm currently on manager number four, just one year in to my current role. The other ones all quit or were interim managers.

So for me, it just seems so much more likely to fail than succeed that it's hard not to take it as a probable waste of time. I wish I could just say no thanks, I don't want to have 1:1s.

<comment><USER17> Sounds like you're not in the greatest work environment if so many managers have quit. Curious why you think that is? Also, if you have such strong feelings about management, maybe try it out? Based on what you're saying, managers are dropping like flies and it might be helpful to promote from within.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's pretty much just talk about whatever is going on in the week. Some weeks are busier than others.

We usually talk about what's going on around the office, how the current project is going, what's going on with coworkers and what the plans in the future are. I will bring up blockers/promotion talks/holidays anything that I need his help with. We're pretty informal about it.

It all depends on the manager and their personality. I find it's better to be casual and not have a strict agenda though.

</comment><comment><USER19> From a manager's perspective, what I think is a great 1:1 is two things:

1\. Delegate up. If you have blockers that we haven't talked about already out of 1:1 cycle, bring that first so that we can figure out how to knock it down.

2\. The MOST valuable thing is for you to educate me. When I was a manager, it was impossible to stay current on every technical topic I needed to know. The IC working with the tech every day learns that all naturally -- boil it down to the most important and tell me that. That is the information that I crave, and will also use to educate the next level up. (Oh, BTW, if your organization seems to be allergic to this kind of upward-flowing education flow, that is a Bad Sign(TM).)

</comment><comment><USER20> I wrote something internally a couple of years ago, and it is precisely a thought piece on why 1:1s exist, for whom, and how to get the best from them.

As it's too long for a HN comment I hope you don't mind my "publishing" it on Google Docs: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4j84c7gHRn1Q3xmwg5h18La...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4j84c7gHRn1Q3xmwg5h18LaupLv2EcfzU1sQQdSLm4/edit?usp=sharing)

Feel free to give this to your manager to help them consider how to use the 1:1 and make it better for the both of you.

<comment><USER21> I am in the middle of planning my first 1:1 with my first direct report and this is incredibly helpful. My bosses never did this. Thank you!

<comment><USER7> You may find this helpful too then for you to get started on them and see where you may want to learn more deeply: [https://getlighthouse.com/blog/one- on-one-meetings-template-...](https://getlighthouse.com/blog/one-on-one- meetings-template-great-leaders/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> jerome-jh Every company has its own template, but basically:

\- the most important: prepare in advance! Summarize all what you have done during the year.

\- if the template has graded items, think of a realistic grade, then add one, everywhere. Usually in my copy of the template I also answer some of the questions that were for my manager :) I do that completely naively. Sometimes your manager had no time time to prepare, so you are actually helping.

\- during the interview be positive: you are fine, work is fine, ... prepare a few points where improvement is needed, but nothing really serious.

\- usually your manager has limited freedom when it comes to your salary (contrary to HR), so do not annoy him with this. In my company I do not even talk about money with my manager. Keep your discontent for HR and your manager on your side.

With that method in my current company I got good raises.

The golden rule is: say positive things about yourself and your work. If you do not, nobody will.

</comment><comment><USER22> My manager and I usually go over my production real quick then talk about shows we both used to go to back in the day and upcoming shows our old butts are thinking about going to. This time of year we'll probably talk about looking forward to going out and getting some morels in the woods soon.

She's not the typical manager though. I feel like if I ever get another company interested in me I'll have no idea how the real world really reacts because the opco of my company moves to the beat of its own drum and my office even more so.

Our 1:1 meeting are just monthly "here's your production from the last month we've completed the data on" which we get weekly via email from the team leads anyway, we sign it and never get a copy and it gets filed away to never be seen again as per standard bureaucratic make-work. Mangers just use it as a chance to point out any errors you are making repetitively and see if you have any questions or concerns.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've had a few roles with regularly scheduled 1 on 1s, the best were with bosses I worked extremely closely with, and those sessions were generally like, tech heavy heart to hearts, I still years go to a few of those bosses I no longer work with for advice. With the bosses I wasn't as close to or did not have a mutually respectful relationship with, it was usually a waste of time. Empty promises, mindless chit chat, casual gossip. The absolute worst was a role where we got scored on these chats as part of an attempt to quantify every aspect of the job. With that being said, when I want to meet one on one with a boss now, I ask them out to lunch and discuss whatever matter at hand.

</comment><comment><USER24> I try to use the one from the Manager Tools podcast but we have a hard time sticking to it. [https://www.manager-tools.com/manager-tools- basics#](https://www.manager-tools.com/manager-tools-basics#)

<comment><USER7> Why do you have a hard time sticking to it? What do you end up doing instead?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Your 1 on 1s are going to evolve over time with them.

At the start you want to simply build some rapport and get a feel for their work style. Ask them about how they prefer certain things like project updates and how to handle problems that arise.

Then, as you get comfortable, your 1 on 1s can and should cover a wide variety of topics: \- Your Career Growth / areas of interest you have \- Suggestions for improving you/your team's work \- Problems you want their help with / what they think of the solution you came up with \- Personal issues that could affect your work (babies, funerals, long term sickness of loved ones, divorces, etc) \- Praise things your manager did you like so they do more of it (They're human too...let em know) \- If they're open to it, feedback you have for them \- FYIs that you may know about that they may not have visibility to and will want to monitor (see Andy Grove's "Black box of management" [https://medium.com/@iantien/top-takeaways-from-andy- grove-s-...](https://medium.com/@iantien/top-takeaways-from-andy-grove-s-high- output-management-2e0ecfb1ea63)) \- Things you want to lobby for (changes, class you want to take, a project, a certain assignment, etc)

More detail on how to approach your 1 on 1s that I've sent to employees here: [https://getlighthouse.com/blog/effective-1-on-1-meetings/](https://getlighthouse.com/blog/effective-1-on-1-meetings/)

</comment><comment><USER25> I have had many managers and no two conducted 1:1 meetings the same.

In my experience it depends greatly on what sort of rapport you have with this manager. Can you read his personality? If you barely know the person and think he might be a stickler for detail and protocol, then keep your agenda to positive topics. Focus on your accomplishments and anything you plan that has a direct contribution to the company. Avoid anything negative, it might come back to haunt you. This is the safest path.

If you have reasonable rapport then I would suggest to still stick to being positive, but you could very diplomatically raise any issues that might be negatively impacting the company. What I mean is that instead of saying something like "This open plan office is too noisy and I can't concentrate" say: "Sometimes the office gets quite noisy. Perhaps these conditions could be distracting for some of the staff and impact upon productivity." If you get asked how it affects you then you could say: "I use noise cancelling headphones to minimise the impact and maintain my workflow." Of course that presumes you have such headphones. The above is merely an example of how to recast comments so that you don't look like a complainer. If in doubt, don't.

The next 1:1 will be much easier because you have the experiences from the first one to guide you.

<comment><USER26> In most teams, the manager's raison d'être is simply to make you more productive. This means unblocking problems when you are stuck, aligning vision (to avoid wasted work), to motivate and prioritise work when overloaded.

The advice of avoiding bringing "negative" things and using the session as almost a celebration of your success is massively missing the potential usefulness of these sessions!

If your boss doesn't know about impedance to your productivity, how can they possibly help you?

<comment><USER27> The OP has a point, though. Perpetual complainers are such a drain. I hate being around them. They drag everything down.

Everything doesn't suck all the time.

There are pockets of good and bad. Be pragmatic. Don't nucleate a culture of defeatism and make everyone think you only care about your paycheck and not your coworkers and their own struggles.

Not everyone is like this. But I can point to a number of examples of this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What in your opinion is the intent for such meetings? It's not the review kind, is it?

I understand the initiative is from the boss's side. Is it just a formal way to align with policies, or a way to keep everyone on their toes, or a genuine two-way communication channel?

If it's a formal thing, then just play along, whatever style this boss is expecting.

There're even ridiculous cases, when a boss decided to project 'openness' by putting a jar of candies in his office... with the expectations that people would have this as a reason to come in. Not a bad idea in general (taught in trainings) ... except the candies were mostly subpar, halloween kind, the boss won't eat these either. Still, the game was clear, and his employees were showing up for 'a candy', those that did made the boss happy.

If it's 'I'm the boss' kind, then it's kinda formal too. So either come up with a question that would highlight his expertise or you own humblness.

The easiest part is when it's two-way. Almost no pretense needed. His time is as much or more valuable to him as yours. So the meetings will have some practical reason to them. Either assign, solve, retro, or 'address' something. Make sure you're aware of the reasons to meet, if needed probe in advance.

Also use this to your advantage - _ask_ sometimes to meet. There're should be plenty of ways to find a practical topic to discuss. As an example, with a new boss a possible topic could be 'aligning priorities'. If possible, find ways to establish such a two-way channel.

</comment><comment><USER29> I never have them with my manager. I actually just learned yesterday that he has them every two weeks with other members of my team, though

</comment><comment><USER30> My goals for such meetings are simple.

1) Determine if I am still meeting expectations

2) Figure out what I should be working on. This sounds dumb, but if you work on a varied set of projects/tasks that change all the time like I do, then figuring out priority isn't always obvious. I like to use these sessions to help refocus me to make sure I'm on whatever path my manager feels adds the most value to the business. Because everyone can drift into things over time that are interesting, but not necessarily what is needed by the business.

3) What new stuff can I do? Are there any new projects coming up? Any new skills I should be trying to get or things I should be studying up on?

Essentially, these three things are making sure my career goals are at least somewhat where I want them to be and they are in line with what the company needs/wants from me. Those items are how I get there. It may vary depending on the specific position a person has.

</comment><comment><USER31> My boss and I create a Slack thread each week for 1:1 topics.

One thing to remember is that 1:1 time is YOUR time, not your boss's time. They can schedule a meeting with you any time for their topics, but 1:1s are always your chance to have face time alone with them.

It's up to you what to talk about, but as a manager, I don't need status updates. If I'm a good manager, then I already know what you're up to, so let's talk about something _you_ want to talk about. You don't need to inform me of your day-to-day work, unless that's what you want to talk about.

My boss and I talk about a lot of things, but rarely status updates on projects. The topics tend to revolve around organizational changes, obstacles that my team and I are running into, personnel issues, or company strategic/tactical considerations.

My 1:1 is also a great time to talk about career development. Every other 1:1 I ask my boss how I'm doing, and if he says "You're great", I push a little bit more on something I can improve. He usually comes up with _something_.

I know a lot of ICs feel it's rude or inappropriate to bring up raises or career direction, so I try to bring it up for them every other month or so. Things like "How do you like the direction of your role? Is there something else you'd like to work on? Have your career goals changed? Do you want to talk about that?"

I also take the time in 1:1s to get to know them on a personal level. One of my team members is having a baby in a few weeks, another one is competing in an Ironman in a few months, and a third is going through a divorce. These kinds of things don't directly apply to the job at hand, but it does have several benefits, such as letting them know that I care about them personally and giving me context that might explain aberrant behavior. Plus, it's just nice when someone asks about how you're doing, right?

Like I said at the beginning, I'll make a Slack thread with my boss. This week's looks something like this:

\- <employee> performance plan

\- <project> pivot

\- <employee>'s annual review is coming up, compensation adj?

\- <project> budget exploded, what happened?

\- <another manager> seems to struggle with <project>. How can I help?

etc, etc.

Hope that helps. Good luck.

<comment><USER7> This is awesome. I bet your team really loves working with you.

<comment><USER31> Hope so...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I keep a little private git repo with markdown files for each meeting I've had with my supervisor (academic setting), and one file for the one in the future where I write down agenda items as they come up. I always have "Project Progress Summary" as a line item, where I give a short summary of what I'm working on.

Sometimes I've nothing but that "Project Progress Summary", sometimes I've got some road blocks I'd like to share, other times I've got a bundle of miscellany or brainstorming items on it.

I take notes on a pad of paper during the meeting, take photos with my phone, and if anything of substance happened in the meeting, I might transcribe them so that I can find them with a quick grep of the meetings folder.

</comment><comment><USER33> I like this blog post's framing of partnering with your maanger and using the 1:1 to maintain that.

[https://lethain.com/partnering-with-your- manager/](https://lethain.com/partnering-with-your-manager/)

</comment><comment><USER34> shouldn't a 1:1 be more free-flowing than agenda-based? Let the chat go where the conversation takes you. I find structuring such conversations, confines and probably counter-productive.

<comment><USER35> It's easy to forget what's on your mind if you don't have at least some points you want to want to discuss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> We faced a similar problem. We've got a strong 1-on-1 culture in our startup but often struggle with what to talk so we created an ultimate list of one-on- one questions (500+) with a social flavour [https://www.peoplebox.ai/t/one-on- one-meeting-template-manag...](https://www.peoplebox.ai/t/one-on-one-meeting- template-manager-questions-list)

These are for managers but can be flipped to find agenda/ questions for direct reports.

</comment><comment><USER37> 5 sections.

1\. Personal chit-chat. 2\. Review of your work commitments and what your boss can do to help you. 3\. Review of personal development commitments and what your boss can do to help you. 4\. What questions do you have for your boss about your business, department, or team. 5\. Share specific feedback for your manager, ask for specific feedback.

It's very important to have those commitments set quarterly or at worst annually. You should set double-length 1:1s for those sessions.

</comment><comment><USER38> I keep a running list and discuss whatever I've added to it since our last meeting (1:1s are weekly). I do this for my manager and for my reports.

Most of the list will be about whatever the issues of the week are.

In terms of recurring items, the only thing that stands out is that I try to have a career conversation with my reports at least once a quarter.

(I also time-stamp the list so I can see when we had conversations historically, which is occasionally useful)

</comment><comment><USER39> One of the better managers I have had in the past, when he setup weekly 1:1s, said that the agenda for our weekly 1:1s would be "about whatever you want to discuss".

Key word: you. Key point: the agenda was employee-led, and it encouraged open and honest feedback.

Many managers focus on what 'they' want to discuss in 1:1 meetings, but the best people managers, in my experience, also ensure that the employee's views are represented.

</comment><comment><USER40> I do weekly 1:1s with all my reports. We have a google doc that we maintain that has notes from every one of our 1:1s. We use the same format every week, asking the same 4 questions of each other.

\- How are you feeling?

\- What are you excited about?

\- What do you have the most anxiety about?

\- What could we do better?

Then we discuss any administrative things, blockers, and there's a "What else" section at the end.

</comment><comment><USER41> I always have a plan. If you don't, you will just be chatting randomly. These meetings should be for your benefit and address workplace issues that your manager can solve somehow. You should beforehand have a good idea of what a successful resolution should be to the issues you bring up.

</comment><comment><USER42> Every meeting should start with:

1\. What am I doing that I should continue?

2\. What am I doing that I should stop doing?

3\. What should I start doing

If manager is open, you can say same things about her.

More succinctly:

1\. Start

2\. Stop

3\. Continue

</comment><comment><USER43> I cannot see the benefit of this meeting in a typical large or similar to governments-owned company

<comment><USER27> Then you haven't had a successful one.

The manager's job is to unblock and empower as much as anything.

Managers need insight into the health of their teams and how their reports think, feel, and operate. 1:1s are a fantastic sounding board for this.

<comment><USER44> This is the same 'no true scotsman' argument used with scrum. Over 15 years I've very rarely had anything productive come out of 1:1s. I think some people just require more support than others. I personally find them to be an enormous waste of time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I prefer 1:1 when there is something relevant to discuss (merit increases, onboarding, significant problems). Personally I believe this is the best way the manager/employee relationship should function. Email and daily interaction should be more than enough to maintain communication on projects, work, etc. The clear sign of a good manager is the less 1:1's the better. That means the manager is respected enough by his subordinates to know what is going on with his team and the team can collaborate enough to solve problems without constant involvement from the manager.

When a manager has weekly 1:1 meetings, time to find a new job...and fast. That is a major red flag if the manager unable to keep track of the team OR upper management is getting ready for layoffs.

In fact, when go through the interview process once question I ask is are their views on 1:1 meeting, how often are they, are they mandated by upper management or just the manager's preference.

<comment><USER46> How do you feel about monthly 1:1's? This was my approach though the topic was less about keeping up to date with what the team/person has been doing, and more about how they are feeling, if there any roadblocks I could help them with, if they are interested in the work they are doing, etc etc...

I think of my job as a manager as supporting and empowering my team to be productive and making sure they are happy with their work, this was just one way for me to do so.

Given your preference for less 1:1's, I would be interested to hear your take.

<comment><USER45> I was not expecting that downvote. That must be a manager ;)

Anyway, I think monthly would be fine as long as it focused on career growth, goals, etc. I am a tad bit of biased since I have had bosses who use 1:1's to stay up to date with projects and work while ignoring the entire team and was on the golf course the rest of the week.

Of course I am not talking about deliberately keeping your boss in the dark, that is a problem for another thread. I am not for 1:1s being used for "phoning it in" from a lazy manager.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Usually as much as we have the time to discuss:

\- status of current projects and resources that I manage (I am a manager myself)

\- priorities and direction changes

\- help needed, in any kind: escalations, resources, etc

From time to time, about every 3 months:

\- feedback and intermediate performance review

\- work plan updates

\- strategy updates

<comment><USER7> Can't you give most of those status update-y things another way? Seems like most of that would be covered in a standup, or email.

Your 1 on 1 could be so much more: your career growth, situations you want help with, feedback and ideas for them, things you want coaching on, any issues they should know about (like say a sick/dying family member), etc

<comment><USER47> Most of the status update is somewhere in the 200+ emails each of us get daily; the weekly 30 minutes are to talk the most important points, not to inform, that is done upfront.

The last time we spent 15 minutes to discuss my idea of re-engineering the technical platform I own; my manager does not have the deep technical knowledge to understand the details and implications of the change, but I need his support to make it happen (to convince others, to allocate resource, etc) so I had to explain and convince him it is the right thing to do. The discussion was based on the 10 slides with diagrams that I sent a week before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I don't have regular reports but my 1-1s are with my technical team.

For a standard 1 hour 1:1

15 minutes for anything from the previous meeting that needed my action.

15 minutes for them to speak

15 minutes for me to speak

15 minutes for any sort of HR action or performance feedback

</comment><comment><USER49> Used to have a structured one: \- what have I done; \- what I am going to do \- misc/additional information/personal development

</comment><comment><USER50> Despite intentions by my two previous managers, I try to minimize and avoid '1-1' meetings. Why? Because I want a relationship with the manager where we can talk whenever we need to, instead of having a weekly 'meeting' with an 'agenda', etc. in my long work life, the best experiences have _always_ been where I had no 1-1.

The common argument I hear (from managers and others) is 'but we just want a time that's guaranteed reserved, in case you need it'. But that's a calendar problem, not a 1-1 problem. If a manager needs to put me on the 'calendar' to be sure that they can talk to me, they've failed as a manager.

TL;DR: '1-1' meetings are unnecessary when you have a manager who understands communication and realizes their job is to help you succeed, not 'supervise' you.

</comment><comment><USER51> I love these meetings. When I am in one of these, we are both at the same level for me. We (or at least I) talk as if I'm talking to a friend about the good stuff and bad stuff in my experience of the last 2 weeks. Mostly related to work, but even stuff outside. I used to have these at my previous company, and when I moved to another one I asked to do this again, because it was something they were not doing already. I will ask in every company I work with if this is not already something that is done.

I'll just paste here my notes for the meetings I've had with my manager/CTO for the last few months. It's a running note so start from the bottom. Some items are more clear than others but it's my own notes. You will see some items like asking for access to something, asking their/company's opinion about things, suggesting ideas for better workflows, complaining with no solution yet, asking to clear up genuine confusion, comments about certain recent events, etc.

\---

Involved in Machine learning, with employee Y

What raise will I get?

\--

how Can we use our product as a client

Dubai 3 weeks remote

holidays minus. not paid or next year

standing desk for sharing

working less hours or days

okrs

—

[https://twitter.com/notbrent/status/1159935844888637440?s=21](https://twitter.com/notbrent/status/1159935844888637440?s=21)

Bandung. progress as user story lead

yeh cheez

—

external therapists for devs

how do you handle time and requests and work

\---

talk RN EU

still under a lot of work with travis

Friday off for a month?

month open source

Friday morning open source

\--

sentry access

demo?

\-----

I Became gql head somehow?

proud of purge

react native pr for crashes

review cool

\</comment><comment>-

slack repo, we can archive it for slack questions, check the numbers doc.

budget for react Amsterdam?

————

Prs for small things lead to small things not being changed. Maybe I need a better way to work. Maybe we all need one. I find things to fix while working. I can't create an issue, wait, create a pr, wait, then keep going.

Too many slack channels, everyone talks privately. Delete old.

Too many branches. Delete old.

strange. what does employee X do? not complaint, just curious.

</comment><comment><USER52> First of all, if you want to talk about something, you don't need to wait for the next scheduled meeting, you can just talk. Therefore the system of scheduled one on one meetings is nothing but bureaucracy. Therefore the question is "is there anything you discuss with the manager, ever?" And the answer to that depends on the manager's competence. If you can delegate your task to the manager and they are actually able to solve it, then you can use it to keep the progress rolling. If they aren't able to do anything meaningful, there's nothing to talk about, really. Which is usually the latter case and it comes down to "want something done, do it yourself".

<comment><USER53> > If you can delegate your task to the manager and they are actually able to > solve it, then you can use it to keep the progress rolling

Managers are supposed to delegate tasks to you, not the other way around.

If you are delegating tasks to your manager, (as opposed to your manager saying something like, "I'm going to assign this task to XXX," or "I'm going to go try and get team YYY to do ZZZ,") then your manager isn't really managing.

<comment><USER52> > Managers are supposed to delegate tasks to you, not the other way around.

In software engineering? Not really. They aren't engineers, they can't delegate anything because they have no idea what to do or how to do it.

In SE, the best managers can do is be helpers in non-technical tasks, like manage the attendance system for you or talk to other departments when your issue tracker goes down or if there's an internet connection problem in the office, and so on. Make sure nothing distrupts your work, in other words.

> If you are delegating tasks to your manager, (as opposed to your manager > saying something like, "I'm going to assign this task to XXX,"

Managers cannot, without any input from the engineers, assign tasks, because they have no idea what the task affects, the impacts, the risks, difficulties etc. Their so-called decisions that touch on the technical side are 99% based on the engineers' input. The engineers say this is critical and explain why and the manager says "oh well, then you and you should fix it asap!".

Sometimes a manager is useful for aggregating the data flowing in and out of the team, as the team's single point of entry for various people, kind of like a reception or secretary in a sense. Again, to let the engineers work on their stuff.

Or, the manager could present some business requirements, although for that you should have a PO, but suppose it's the manager. Even then, they're not delegating as in commanding the people to do something, they're just asking the engineers to work on a solution, something which the manager has no idea how to do. It's like, if I call a plumber to fix something, I'm not delegating the work to the plumber because I have no idea how to do it myself, I'm simply asking the plumber to provide a service. I'm not the plumber's "boss", the plumber is the expert, I'm simply asking their expert opinion on how to proceed.

> then your manager isn't really managing

They are never managing anything, at least from my oh I don't know, about 16 years of experience working at companies big and small.

<comment><USER54> > Managers cannot, without any input from the engineers, assign tasks, because > they have no idea what the task affects, the impacts, the risks, > difficulties etc. Their so-called decisions that touch on the technical side > are 99% based on the engineers' input.

Which makes it very easy for the engineers to BS the managers. If the manager doesn't understand technical details and gets all the information from the engineers, how does the manager tell who is actually getting the difficult work done so he can promote the right people? I guess that explains another reason why promo/review systems and the "career ladder" are almost always dominated by corruption.</comment></comment></comment></comment>