Software Raises Bar for Hiring - <AUTHOR> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pghpLbngybIJ:online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304821304577436172660988042.html <comment><USER2> I'd like to see software engineers who are part of the hiring process in their company apply for their own position anonymously. Go through the whole enchilada: the phone interview, the code tests, the puzzles, the questions regarding optimization and performance, etc. Let's see if they can pass all the hurdles.

I have $100 here that says most won't (if any).

 __* If we can't hire people due to a broken system, how do we expect to succeed?

<comment><USER3> I've been on the hiring manager's side and the employee's side, more the former than the latter.

I don't get your beef.

The phone interviews are there to screen the 80% of the applicants who don't merit the time of my team to interview them. The puzzles are there to watch people think on their feet. The detailed questions are to see if you're looking at someone superficial or someone with deep knowledge of the subject matter. The programming challenges are to see if the applicant wants the job badly enough to spend a couple of hours working on a programming problem that can then be used as a showcase for how they write some software.

Earlier in my career, I didn't have all those interview techniques in place. When I started, hiring people was a complete crap shoot and I ended up with some total lemons. Like the warning labels on products you buy, each interview technique I added to the process was the result of a lame hire that in hindsight, I could have avoided had I used that technique.

The last job I had to interview for used all the techniques above. I found the interview process to be thorough and challenging. I appreciated the rigor of the interview process since it meant that the people hiring really gave a shit about the quality of the people joining their small team. I got the job. In point of fact, if they hadn't had a thorough interview process, I probably would have passed on the job offer since that would have been an indication to me that they were naive and didn't have their crap together.

Do you want to send me your $100 via Paypal?

<comment><USER2> I don't have a beef with it. I also think that of you apply to the jobs posted on HN, you will get my point.

Sadly, I don't use Paypal. You can make a donation to your local hackerspace with the $100 that you will soon lose.

Good luck.

PS. Have you ever asked the people you have interviewed what they think about the process?

<comment><USER4> "Have you ever asked the people you have interviewed what they think about the process?", especially, perhaps, the people you didn't hire?

Almost without exception, people who don't get hired never hear back from a company as to why. Yes, I know all about "everyone's afraid to get sued for saying something wrong". So... develop a neutral feedback form to candidates as to why they were passed over, skills the interviewer(s) thought were lacking, etc. This will mean that people can get better, perhaps get another job (yes, maybe at a competitor, but also maybe somewhere else entirely), and continue to earn income, pay taxes, and contribute to society in a productive way. Some people can contribute without a job, sure, but right now most people need jobs.

Telling someone "we're sorry - we had 8 candidates apply for this position, and we ended up taking on someone with more experience in X, Y and Z compared to your experience level. We wish you the best of luck in your job search". This would be courteous, professional and helpful all at the same time. Between my own experience and that of several colleagues, fewer than 5% of employers ever provide something even remotely useful in terms of feedback.

How do we expect the job seeking population to get better without providing feedback mechanisms for them to learn from?

<comment><USER5> _Telling someone "we're sorry - we had 8 candidates apply for this position, and we ended up taking on someone with more experience in X, Y and Z compared to your experience level._

And what about the cases where your reasons are not "more experience in X, Y, Z"? Cultural fit is a biggie - one might turn down a candidate who is more qualified because his banking attitudes would go over badly at a startup, for example.

<comment><USER4> That's true, and in those cases, a more generic "we had other qualified candidates" letter/email would be fine. but all too often corporate america just ignores people altogether - won't return emails/phone calls, and basically leaves the person out to dry. Working via a recruiter, you at least have a person at the agency who might be sympathetic.

Companies don't seem to realize that treating applicants bad is just as detrimental in many cases as poor customer service. I've had bad experiences with job application processes, and I've told many people chapter and verse about the companies involved. If they can't even treat people well who _want_ to work there, how will they treat customers after the money is received?

<comment><USER5> _That's true, and in those cases, a more generic "we had other qualified candidates" letter/email would be fine._

If unskilled candidate X gets "other candidates had more specific skillz" while uncultured candidate Y gets "sorry, you suck for unspecified reasons", it sounds like a lawsuit risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is spot on. I've been on both sides of the fence, and in multiple disciplines. The strange thing I found is that finding a job as a developer has been just as difficult, if not more so, than finding a non-technical job.

On the non-technical side, the basic requirements are exactly that - basic. Have some experience, a certification or two, and a specialized degree. That doesn't make it easy, but it makes the path somewhat concrete.

And on the technical side, there are very few companies willing to hire entry level developers. They all seem to want code ninjas, which is fine, but here's the thing...if I'm a code ninja, why would I work for someone else when I could build something of my own without the requirement of commuting to an office and clocking in/out.

On the employer side, I've found far less people applying for technical jobs than non-technical jobs. It has taken much longer to fill mid-level technical positions than entry-mid level non-technical positions.

Building a team is difficult. Joining a team is difficult.

It's a very strange time indeed.

<comment><USER3> > The strange thing I found is that finding a job as a developer has been just > as difficult, if not more so, than finding a non-technical job.

It's easier to bullshit when interviewing for non-technical jobs. Technical jobs have mostly-objective tests you can give to candidates where they have to program stuff, solve equations, etc. Non-technical jobs have squishy mostly- subjective tests that aren't very reliable at gauging anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The US should find ways to make employers less risk-averse. There are lots of ways worth exploring. For example: maybe if you fire someone in the first 6 months you are immune from wrongful termination lawsuits and don't have to pay higher unemployment insurance. A lot of resistance to firing is also caused by moral concerns -- we could fix that by making sure these fired workers are still eligible for unemployment.

This would be extra beneficial for young people, who really just need to get a foot in the door to prove themselves -- they need someone to take a risk. Well, maybe we should reduce the risk.

<comment><USER8> Most US states are at-will states, meaning they're already immune from wrongful termination, except for discriminatory reasons. No matter how long the employee has been there.

<comment><USER9> While "At-Will" in theory means that they're immune from wrongful termination, there's some major exceptions in most of those states.

See "Covenant of good faith and fair dealing" (which in some states mean you have to be fired for 'just cause') and "Implied contract exceptions".

I say these not to indicate you're wrong, mostly to make sure the entrepreneurs around here understand that even in a lot of "At-Will" states they might not be able fire completely with impunity.

w/r/t the GP as long as the rules around a trial period are set via an employee handbook or in the contract, generally in the US we're fairly free to try people out and let them go, the US is actually more liberal in this then a lot of European countries.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's a failure of logic in this article that no one is pointing out.

If employers are so picky that they can't find anyone to hire, then they will have to lower their standards if they want to hire anyone.

There might be a delay--like the guy that waits for the supermodel to come along, but eventually settling for the pretty girl next door. Ultimately the problem is self-correcting.

<comment><USER11> And employers are not that picky either. Most of the things they ask, at least in Europe, are pretty basic. For a finance is usually a bachelor, English skills, some prove you are not a lazy ass. Of course, requirements go up with better positions, but this article deceives into thinking that employers are looking for stars even in entry level jobs, it doesn't look like that to me.

I am still convinced the problem is on the employee side...

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> He makes good points about the software filtering out qualified applicants, but I don't think that is the underlying problem.

The underlying problem is that there is a lot of unemployment and therefore too many people applying for too few jobs.

We just don't need that many people to order around anymore now that we have so much hardware and software automation. The public education system is designed to create wage slaves, and is effectively doing that, but we don't need that many anymore.

Another part of it of course is just that we are in an 'economic' down period and therefore have to be extremely selective when hiring since no one can afford any dead weight or even to do much training.

The entire 'economic' model has been invalidated by technology.

<comment><USER13> _The public education system is designed to create wage slaves, and is effectively doing that, but we don't need that many anymore._

The other half of the problem is that our economy creates very few sources of income for the supposed "creative class", the newest Class of the New. If we say that our economy has evolved beyond the need for factory workers and we now need artists, writers, and hackers, we need to actually work on creating jobs for artists, writers and hackers (as distinct from mediocre programmers).

<comment><USER12> Well.. I actually think that anything that qualifies as a job is more or less going in the category of wage slave.

I just think that the extreme hierarchies and subservience are unnecessary and detrimental. I think we need to examine our basic assumptions and have a realistic perspective about the actual level of suffering that is currently going on in the world.

We need to see the extreme inequality as being unacceptable and move away from the Social Darwinian rationalizations.

<comment><USER13> I agree with you, but then we have to overthrow capitalism completely. Unfortunately, socialism is considered impolite on HN.

<comment><USER12> Well, just to clarify further, whenever I talk like this, people think I mean to completely do away with money and/or move towards a traditional socialist or techno-communist model.

I don't want to do that. I think that almost all anti-capitalists are missing a very important lesson that we can take as a major success of capitalism: diversity and distribution is very important for robustness and ease of system evolution. Technocrats, techno-communists, social democrats, almost all seem to be aiming for centralization which has been proven to be extremely inadequate.

So I think the way forward is to create a system that while encouraging a great diversity of distributed, localized solutions to problems, at the same time the local solutions are developed and evaluated holistically over a comprehensive common global scientific information schema and database.

<comment><USER13> You'd be surprised at the variability and diversity of the approaches that fall under the term "socialism".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "His son, now 25 years old, graduated in 2010 with a degree in classics from St. John's College and couldn't find a job."

This is the problem right here. Gee I wonder why you couldn't find a job in "Classics"? Because there aren't any, at least with an undergraduate degree. People pay you to work because you can perform a given task with a level of quality and consistency. We tell kids that they should study whatever makes them happy in college, but then when they graduate and can't find a job it's not their fault. Fine you study your BS degree, but don't expect to be handed a job when you graduate. Expect to work some menial job, or do what this kid did, go back to school and learn a trade. You'll have to prove to someone that you have some employable skill if you want to earn money. Having a job isn't a right.

</comment><comment><USER15> The underlying problem is that most companies rely on hiring procedures that are empirically demonstrated to be suboptimal. Companies rely on industry tradition or the gut feelings of the boss rather than on research to decide hiring practices. The review article "The Validity and Utility of Selection Models in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings"

[http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...](http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%20Validity%20and%20Utility%20Psychological%20Bulletin.pdf)

sums up, current to 1998, much of the HUGE peer-reviewed professional literature on the industrial and organizational psychology devoted to business hiring practices. There are many kinds of hiring screens, such as resume reviews for job experience, telephone interviews, in-person interviews, checks for academic credentials, and so on. Most of the most commonly used means for screening job applicants, such as those mentioned in the submitted (like matching job titles in previous positions) are basically useless. There is much published study research on how job applicants perform after they are hired in a wide variety of occupations.

The overall summary of the industrial psychology research in reliable secondary sources is that two kinds of job screening procedures work reasonably well (but only about at the 0.5 level, standing alone). One is a general cognitive ability test (an IQ-like test, such as the Wonderlic personnel screening test). Another is a work-sample test, where the applicant does an actual task or group of tasks like what the applicant will do on the job if hired. Each of these kinds of tests has about the same validity in screening applicants for jobs, with the general cognitive ability test better predicting success for applicants who will be trained into a new job. Neither is perfect (both miss some good performers on the job, and select some bad performers on the job), but both are better than anything else that has been tested in rigorous research, across a wide variety of occupations. So if you are hiring for your company, it's a good idea to think about how to build a work-sample test into all of your hiring processes.

For legal reasons in the United States (the same consideration does not apply in other countries), it is difficult to give job applicants a straight-up IQ test (as was commonplace in my parents' generation) as a routine part of a hiring process. The Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971) case in the United States Supreme Court

[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8655598674229196...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8655598674229196978&q=Griggs+Duke+Power&hl=en&as_sdt=2,24)

held that cognitive ability tests used in hiring that could have a "disparate impact" on applicants of some protected classes must "bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the jobs for which it was used." In other words, a company that wants to use a test like the Wonderlic, or like the SAT, or like the current WAIS or Stanford-Binet IQ tests, in a hiring process had best conduct a specific validation study of the test related to performance on the job in question. Some companies do the validation study, and use IQ-like tests in hiring. Other companies use IQ-like tests in hiring and hope that no one sues (which is not what I would advise any company). Note that a brain-teaser-type test used in a hiring process might be illegal if it can be shown to have disparate impact on some job applicants and is not supported by a validation study demonstrating that the test is related to successful performance on the job. Companies outside the United States are regulated by different laws. So don't set up stupid HR procedures like those described in the submitted article, even if those stupid procedures can be automated. Instead, figure out how to give applicants a work sample test, or figure out how to validate a general cognitive ability test for the applicants you desire to hire. Automating USEFUL processes can be helpful. There is no reason to automate a process that is not worth doing.

<comment><USER16> >like the SAT

I would love it if companies hired people like colleges select students.

I'm very good at interviews, but I still _hate_ doing them. If would love it if I could write an essay and send them my SAT scores without going through that awful process.

It would probably also weed out people who are just inordinately good at interviews.

I don't overtly try to exaggerate, but a few times I've been offered a job where I thought in the back of the mind that I might not really be qualified. To wit, I thought my interview skills, not my coding skills got me the offer.

<comment><USER17> I get what you mean, but colleges are probably the worst analogue for successful hiring practices given selection based on legacy status, wealth, minority status, athletic ability, etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Most companies will put a litany of skill sets on the requirements list, however what they are really looking for is what crusso pointed out, someone with critical thinking skills.

Be it a customer service rep, or a software engineer, when the employer says "Do X" if you don't know how to do it, figure it out. So many people will just sit there and stare into their screen or at a wall. That is the type of person these tests are designed to weed out.

As others pointed out, if you are not willing to put in the effort and jump through the hoops, why bother, either you feel your too good for the job and won't apply yourself, or you lack the basic understanding of problem solving and troubleshooting.

<comment><USER19> Maybe in theory, but I read a couple of posts on HN in just the last few days of people complaining that potential hires they were interviewing couldn't even rhyme off things like basic data structures.

If critical thinking was the skill being sought, rote memorization seems like it shouldn't have any emphasis at all. You can always look up data structures, or whatever, but that is often not good enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This just smacks of big dumb companies trying to "automate away" HR and not really paying attention to the consequences. And, candidates not figuring out HR systems.

What I fear, however, is that this isn't really a problem for the executives for a public company. Their real compensation these days is all tied to stock prices; I don't see the incentive to really care about HR. How does adding people change the stock price? (Usually I only hear about it from the other way; cutting jobs to cut costs.)

Have you ever heard of investor pressure to hire candidates?

<comment><USER21> It becomes an issue when there are too many vacancies and revenues begin to fall. Most c-level executives don't have their comp tied to stock prices, but to revenue growth (which is as bad as having it tied stock prices.) That being said, this definitely a heavy case of big & dumb.

<comment><USER22> Every C-level exec with share-based (RSU or option) compensation quite clearly has their comp tied to share prices. I doubt very many C-level execs at public companies have no share-based comp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> While I agree that this indeed sounds like a problem, and a genuine one at that, for the HN community this should also sound like an opportunity, to create a resume sorting systems that is much much better than the ones out there.

Are there startups already looking at this problem? If not, why not? And, who's up for a challenge?

<comment><USER2> The problem is not the software. The problem are the employers. Everyone wants the perfect candidate. But no candidate is perfect. Everyone has good skills and bad baggage to carry from job to job. The aim should be to find people who will add to the team rather than building a perfect team. You can't do that with software (yet).

<comment><USER23> Well you're agreeing with me when you say "yet", and hence my comment about opportunity.

The problem is the software and the software is not going to go away. The opportunity is to make the software more intelligent so that the output is more in line with what would work.

<comment><USER24> Why haven't DICE or Indeed.com or whoever seem to have done any work on that front? I'm thinking the ROI isn't there.

<comment><USER25> Considering that it costs 20% for a match by a recruitment company, there is enourmous ROI for a program like that. It would almost be as good as the ability to print money.

Not to mention the cost you could get for the unemployed to sign up ("It costs you on average 2k/month not to use our service").

<comment><USER24> Enormous ROI for the company, not so much the recruiter, who enjoys the moral hazard of getting paid either way, whether their filtering sucks or not.

<comment><USER25> Sure, if the company hires the applicant.

<comment><USER24> Which leaves the question of why no work appears to be done in this direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think it is strange to rely on HR and recruiters as a filter. I would prefer someone to introduce themselves to the entire company: tell me what you can do and what you want to do, send me a reference to any relevant portfolio, and I'll take it from there. Hopefully this approach will discourage overly tailored cover letters, who knows. The article talks about this specifically, "the trick is parroting all the words in the job description but not just copying and pasting the text"

This is pretty much why I started building They Meet You (theymeetyou.com) during my spare time. The way the site works right now is pretty simple. You can write a message that is meant for anyone at a company (@customink.com), anyone that proves they have an email address there can read it and exchange their contact info.

<comment><USER21> While I think the problems discussed in the article need some resolution there is another issue that they do not discuss and which you allude to. Too many people are leading with their resumes and, more or less, blindly applying to jobs. Getting to know people in the industry you want to work in and the companies you would like to work at is a significantly better approach.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> One thing I hope to be able to do in my career is, as I come into points where I am hiring, I can look at everything in my resume queue without having some software or some unqualified individual tell me who is qualified and who isn't.

I hope to be able to spread a wide net to find the best... not a fine net to find a unicorn.

</comment><comment><USER28> Software that discards applicants based on simple keyword mismatch doesn't "raise the bar."</comment>


Jster Javascript Catalog - <AUTHOR> http://jster.net/ <comment><USER2> This is extremely well done ! kudos to the site creators. I've always wanted something similar for Java. Any tips ?

<comment><USER3> I don't have much java stuff yet unfortunately but check back regularly at <http://pineapple.io>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A great catalog, will definitely be using in the future.</comment>


We're All Guinea Pigs in a Failed Decades-Long Diet Experiment - <AUTHOR> https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/were-all-guinea-pigs-in-a-failed-decades-long-diet-experiment <comment><USER2> Data does not lie. So many people remain uneducated and their health is seriously affected because, it seems, the government doesn't really care. For anyone that cares to give it a read, I wrote about living a lifestyle on the ketosis diet, and it involves me going from 260 pounds to 178 pounds. I wrote this guide to help those struggling to lose weight like I did for so many years. Once you figure out the puzzle and are able to solve it, than the knowledge is best shared. Unfortunately, it is always up to the individual and their choice of what they eat.

[https://mypost.io/post/no-bullshit-diet](https://mypost.io/post/no-bullshit- diet)

</comment><comment><USER3> A while ago my wife and I decided to slowly, where we could, get away from any processed foods. We've done pretty well, but there are days where the kids want chicken nuggets...

After moving away from processed food, I cut my food intake by 2/3, but still ate real butter, real ice cream, and whole milk. I've lost 60 lbs, or about 30% of my original body weight. It's amazing, the American diet. I hope science prevails soon and the "rules" change quickly.

<comment><USER4> You could make your own... are your kids sated with battered/breaded chicken strips? I would stick with cooking oils that are either cold-pressed or derived from meat though (no "vegetable", corn, safflower, soybean oils). And using an unbleached flour option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's really sad how much marketing has influenced our eating habits, and even how much it has affected relayed opinions through medical professionals. Of course, one of the least healthy things you can have in higher quantities is refined sugars and fruit juices. Jamba juice and coffee flavored milk-shakes are _NOT_ healthy.</comment>


White House defends right to keep cybersecurity vulnerabilities secret - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailydot.com/politics/white-house-nsa-cyber-security-vulnerability-disclosure-secret-heartbleed/

<comment><USER2> US has the most to _lose_ , not gain, by not fixing vulnerabilities as soon as possible, since most of the "Internet" happens in US and through US companies. But the administration has been negatively influenced by intelligence/cyberoffense advisers ("Yes, Minister" [1] style) in thinking that the Internet is a war zone, and _must_ be controlled by the military - rather than a platform for commerce and many other things, from which US stands to gain (or lose) the most.

I highly recommend Schneier's latest talk on this. He makes it more clear why NSA is so wrong in thinking the way they do about vulnerabilities:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v9t_IoOgyI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v9t_IoOgyI)

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister)</comment>


Ask HN: Rate my site - FirstDrafter community library of contract forms - <AUTHOR> http://www.firstdrafter.com

<comment><USER2> It's a good idea, but how do you expect to compete with scribd/docstoc and perhaps even legalzoom?

Some things to point out:

You spend too much time on the home page explaining what your site is. To be honest, it could be done in one sentence. The buttons at the bottom right make me feel like I'm pressing 'next' or moving on to step 2 of some process. The home page, ideally, should have a one-liner of what the site does, and then perhaps some links to example contracts/forms and a search bar up top so that the user can get to accessing documents as quickly as possible. Also, I'd clean up the site design a bit. Maybe make it wider, as something about such a narrow site makes me uncomfortable. Also, you might want to look into making a logo. It's not absolutely necessary, though.

You want me, as a user, to click on FirstDrafter, and start looking for documents within seconds. Don't make me read that whole pitch.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks kyro.

Scribd/docstoc, as near as I can tell, as essentially document dumps (in the sense of supply dumps) -- you have to dig through them and figure out what you might want.

What FirstDrafter does, in contrast, is --

* atomize various clauses into user-selectable Lego blocks, so to speak;

* offer pre-configured forms with specific Lego blocks already selected (overridable by the user).

LegalZoom does not seem to do business contracts.

I'll give some thought to your design comments.

Thanks again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why is "about" on its own line below the "menu bar"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question, swolchok - what browser are you using? I've tested in FF, Safari, IE7 / 8, Chrome.

<comment><USER4> the buttons do an annoying wiggle on hover (css issue webkit)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's the best way to give early employees ownership? - <AUTHOR> Question: What's the best way to give early employees ownership in a private tech company?
And by best, I mean best for the employees, not the company. There's options, RSU's, straight up equity (tax issues for receiver), and probably more...
With public companies, I get the value of issuing stock, because it has liquid value. But with private companies, without a definite IPO on the horizon, I'm truly interested at what talented engineers believe is the fairest instrument to share ownership/reward.
I own a private tech company that makes $30m rev, is profitable, and has big potential. We currently have no shared ownership and I want to roll out a plan that has real value for employees, not perceived hype.
Your thoughts/feedback would help me a ton! <comment><USER2> For truly early companies I would recommend getting a 409a valuation. This value will be extremely low and have the employees buy the stock outright(or with a note from the company) and have an expiring repurchase agreement for the vesting part.

The fact that you are doing $30m in rev is a big hurdle to gettin a low valuation.

What are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to transfer value to the few people that helped you get to $30m in rev or are you looking to incentivize current employees going forward?

</comment><comment><USER3> Have you considered profit sharing instead of equity ownership?</comment>


A Cure for Cancer? Israeli Scientists Say They Think They Found One - <AUTHOR> https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/A-cure-for-cancer-Israeli-scientists-say-they-think-they-found-one-578939 <comment><AUTHOR> "But Dr. Ben Neel, director of Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health, told The Post that 'cancer is multiple diseases, and it is highly unlikely that this company has found a 'cure' for cancer any more than there is a single cure for infections.'

He said that 'more likely, this claim is yet another in a long line of spurious, irresponsible and ultimately cruel false promises for cancer patients.'"

[https://nypost.com/2019/01/29/cancer-experts-react-to- claim-...](https://nypost.com/2019/01/29/cancer-experts-react-to-claim-about- finding-a-cure-within-a-year/)

<comment><USER2> To be accurate, the guys discussing the process they've been working on did not claim they had a "single cure".

What they said is "treatment will eventually be personalized" which is exactly the opposite of a single cure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> The science is out of my grasp but the overview given is impressive and sounds promising. I hope it pans out.

<comment><USER3> Scientists release press releases claiming to solve cancer (and Alzheimer's, etc) every day, sadly. It's spam. We should not only ignore a single study's press release, but even a single study's paper.

<comment><USER2> I didn't submit this link and I didn't jump to any kind of conclusion here.

It may well be bullshit, but I can think of quite a few instances where claims were made that were cast as bullshit by many so called "experts" that turned out to be true ("Sunscreen" comes to mind) so I won't jump to that conclusion with all of those who love to make those leaps to crap on something or someone without knowing anymore than I do about it.

On the other hand, I've seen claims made that everyone "in the know" stood behind that turned out to be complete bullshit (see anyone zooming to work on Segway today?).

I think it's pretty telling though that I was down voted for expressing "hope" here even while stating I didn't know enough to substantiate the claim as fact.

<comment><USER3> I think the downvote is reasonable: by expressing credulity you are providing the capital that keeps these spammers in business. The world would be a much better place if the people who write these press releases knew that they were ineffective.

<comment><USER2> "by expressing credulity"

I began my very brief comment with "The science is out of my grasp".

It's a stretcher to characterize anything after that as "expressing credulity".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who needs Twitter? - <AUTHOR>

Twitter. A platform that, in essence, enables its users to exchange 140-word long messages. No more, no less.
There is no denying Twitter's popularity. Users do use it.
But time and again the question arises - Why do we even need such a platform? What is the added value that users get from Twitter? Has Twitter become yet another tool to satisfy our very basic narcissistic desires?
What's your take on Twitter's success? Specifically, what is the need for such a platform? <comment><USER2> >> Specifically, what is the need for such a platform?

>> Has Twitter become yet another tool to satisfy our very basic narcissistic desires?

I think you just answered your own question there.

Seriously though, just getting a 140-char blurb out there is a good way to get a conversation going with whoever happens to be interested. My co-worker has this set of food-themed icebreaker cards that pretty much look like a bunch of tweets in flashcards and there's definitely some value there.

</comment><comment><USER3> Twitter has value when you look at its content as a whole.

While I'm of the opinion that Twitter is over-hyped to a point, I would say that I've met a large number of people in real-life as a result of using Twitter. Going to meetups and other tech events in NYC take on a new dimension when you already 'know' people there, and its an immediate ice-breaker.

Likewise I've been able to solicit feedback on projects from people I could not otherwise reach, peoples who's opinions I respect. I could not do this in Facebook, email, or in a forum.

So while we do not 'need' the Twitter platform, it is very useful to have.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's good for getting live news updates. For example, right now there's a bomb scare in central London.

You can get updates and pics at; <http://twitter.com/#search?q=holborn>

Nothing in "normal" media yet, as far as I can tell.

It was also quite nice to follow during G20 demonstrations in London. Of course you see a _lot_ of dupes, but filtering that out you get instant updates and pics from the front line.

</comment><comment><USER5> Who needs ice cream? Who needs pets? Who needs love and companionship? Are they all just tools to satisfy our very basic desires?

Yes.

</comment><comment><USER6> In my case specifically, and in a wider scope too (IMHO), the limit is removing the barrier of having to explain in any detail. Forcing me to post the TLDR version of what I want to say encourages me to make the effort much more often.</comment>


Results of the Debian systemd survey - <AUTHOR> http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2013/05/27/systemd-survey-results.html <comment><AUTHOR> If you haven't done so I recommend reading 'systemd - The Biggest Myths' <http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html>

<comment><USER2> That's a good list of 30 or so myths and a pro-systemd explanation. It would be interesting to have an anti-systemd rebuttal. The explanation that systemd is non-monolithic "in design" because each binary can be separately packaged "in packaging phase" was pretty lame because it confuses the topic to "win", although also completely irrelevant (A better answer would have been, ok, assume inductively for the sake of this discussion that it's monolithic... given that inductive assumption, so what?).

1) Are there any significant/serious myths not listed?

2) Does it matter? What I mean by that is the systemd wars remind me a lot of the sound wars from years ago. $user installs a sound system (alsa, pulse, oss, doesn't really matter). It'll probably either work perfectly or miserably fail. If it works, $user will blindly love that sound system and brag about it. If it doesn't work, $user will trash talk it all over the internet. The facts don't seem to matter, just the results of one anecdotal experience. In an environment like that its nearly impossible to learn anything from the community about systemd.

It reminds me a lot of those geniuses who post on world wide forums how no one in the world should sign up for $cellphone_provider because their local tower has poor coverage. That's just great, as if the other 99.9999% of the population should care.

<comment><USER3> Of course its a "pro-systemd explanation", it's Lennart Poettering's blog. Not that it takes anything away from his explanations, it's a good post. One can at least assume he knows what he's talking about...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is one of many reasons why I love Debian. Very agnostic, very reasonable approaches to issues like this, and above all, whether or not systemd ends up as the default, I can almost guarantee people will still have the option to very easily switch to (or from) it in Debian.

That being said, I can definitely second many of the top concerns listed, chief among them: non-greppable logs (binary formatted) and too much complexity/trying to do too much.

<comment><USER5> I had no problems with systemd when I was using Fedora on my laptops (I never had to interact with it at all), though right now I'm using Debian without systemd and have no problems either. I don't really have a dog in this fight; it seems either solution is going to stay out of my hair and do what it needs to.

Nevertheless, the concept of binary logs really annoys me and I have yet to see a satisfying explanation of why it should be necessary. The best I've seen is _"well windows uses binary logging too"_ and _"the syslog text format sucks"_ , but neither of those satisfies. Windows does plenty of shit that should not be mimicked, and the benefits of text logging are severely dampened on Windows anyway (on account of Windows not being Unix.) Furthermore, the syslog text format sucking is not an argument for not using text logs in general, only an argument for not using the syslog text format specifically.

Why can't we have a reasonable non-syslog text format for logs?

<comment><USER6> > _Why can't we have a reasonable non-syslog text format for logs?_

I think the real question is: why is systemd defining a logging format at all?

<comment><USER5> Well, technically I suppose systemd doesn't, journald does (and systemd requires journald, and journald is made and shipped by the same people....).

I'm not opposed to a "next-gen syslog", but yeah, that isn't a push that should be done in such close connection with systemd. A better approach would be to make rsyslog more than just a syslog daemon and build up a new protocol and storage format with it, with the full intention of standardizing it. (the syslog protocol _is_ a pain in the ass, particularly that hard limit on facility numbers... Fix that first, then roll from there. Make rsyslog treat syslog like Vim treats vi: capable of falling back to compat mode, but better by default.)

<comment><USER6> > _Well, technically I suppose systemd doesn't, journald does (and systemd > requires journald, and journald is made and shipped by the same > people....)._

 _Technically_ indeed. If you try to forcibly disable journald, it causes causes dependency failures that result in you dropping to an emergency prompt.

Of course this doesn't stop Lennart Poettering from using the existence of separate but interdependent daemons as 'proof' that systemd isn't a monolithic ball of mud.

> _I'm not opposed to a "next-gen syslog", but yeah, that isn't a push that > should be done in such close connection with systemd. A better approach > would be to make rsyslog more than just a syslog daemon and build up a new > protocol and storage format with it, with the full intention of > standardizing it. (the syslog protocol is a pain in the ass, particularly > that hard limit on facility numbers... Fix that first, then roll from there. > Make rsyslog treat syslog like Vim treats vi: capable of falling back to > compat mode, but better by default.)_

Agreed. This is what Apple did with asl(3); it's a modern syslog replacement that happens to still support the syslog protocol and syslog(3) APIs.

There's no reason a modern logging daemon can't be portable to other systems, too; it shouldn't be doing anything so crazy as to be impossible to run elsewhere, whereas since systemd is an intentionally non-portable kitchen sink, no other UNIX is going to run with journald.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If Debian manages to actually use systemd by default, that may have interesting implications for Ubuntu which I think is the only major distro using upstart. All depends on how deeply would systemd be integrated of course, since Ubuntu already rewrites most of the system startup scripts for use with upstart anyway. I'd like to see some comment from Canonical people about how that would affect them.

<comment><USER8> Well, i hope this way Canonical learns the difference between open source community projects and going your own lonely path.

<comment><USER9> So, "open source" now means "Do everything Red Hat's way."? Interesting change in definitions.

<comment><USER8> In my own definition open source means "work together, be open about your intentions, contribute".

<comment><USER9> Lennart works almost alone, his "open intentions" are to explicitly _not_ support the wider open source community (like non-Linux kernels and non-GNOME desktops), and he "contributes" to virtually nothing but his own inventions of questionable technical merit.

Why you think Canonical is any worse eludes me.

<comment><USER8> I don't see anything wrong with a single developer concentrating on a few projects? How many developers do you know that make significant contributions to many different projects?!

Do you have a source for you claim that lennarts explicitely not supports non- Gnome? I think it is pretty clear that he doesn't support non-Linux, but why is that wrong?

Looking into the git contributions he is not even the one who contributed most! <http://pastebin.com/bkUs3jXa>

On the other hand: What i don't like about Canonical is their latest move to first pretend to support Wayland and then mysteriously presenting Mir all the while spreading bullshit about how Wayland is not good enough.

<comment><USER9> > _I don't see anything wrong with a single developer concentrating on a few > projects?_

Neither would I, if they were projects worth concentrating on or of any meaningful long-term value to the community.

> _I think it is pretty clear that he doesn't support non-Linux, but why is > that wrong?_

systemd invites/demands dependencies on its own, unique interfaces that do not and will not exist outside Linux. This retards progress of other projects in supporting non-Linux systems.

Lennart has actively encouraged this: [https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel- list/2011-May/...](https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel- list/2011-May/msg00427.html)

> _What i don't like about Canonical is their latest move to first pretend to > support Wayland and then mysteriously presenting Mir all the while spreading > bullshit about how Wayland is not good enough._

Red Hat began to support Upstart before switching to their in-house systemd and spreading bullshit about how Upstart is not good enough.

Why is it OK when Red Hat tries to come up with new things but not Canonical? Do you work for one of these companies?

> _Looking into the git contributions he is not even the one who contributed > most!_

See my other post downthread. You are incorrect.

<comment><USER8> No, not working for any of them. See my comment that it's still incorrect saying Lennart does all the work. You can easily check the git yourself, go ahead.

<comment><USER10> Was there something wron with the methodology used in <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/05/msg01365.html> which showed a 78% contribution from Pottering?

Personally I do not see anything wrong with that, but 78% is basically doing all the coding.

<comment><USER8> Well, i did the same and came to vastly different numbers. It's easy to do: Do a git checkout and run

git ls-files | grep -v udev | xargs -n1 -d'\n' -i git blame {} | perl -n -e '/\s\\((.*?)\s[0-9]{4}/ && print "$1\n"' | sort -f | uniq -c -w3 | sort -n

Even taking out udev shows Kay Sievers contributing nearly as much as Lennart. It also shows many other people contributing. That there is a main developer that does a lot of work is not something negative about a project, isn't it?!

<comment><USER9> > _i did the same_

No, you didn't. Your command line is not limited to source code, but includes, for starters, the massive hardware database checked in by Kay:

       66888 hwdb/20-pci-vendor-model.hwdb
       66185 hwdb/20-OUI.hwdb
       49014 hwdb/20-usb-vendor-model.hwdb
        6596 hwdb/20-acpi-vendor.hwdb

You performed a fundamentally different and flawed test.

> _That there is a main developer that does a lot of work is not something > negative about a project, isn't it?!_

You were the one who complained about Canonical not "working together", not me. I'm just holding you to your own standard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder why no distributions have adopted launchd as their SysV init replacement. Not only does it combine cron, at, and other daemons into init itself, but it's also licensed liberally and would serve as a quite decent replacement for init. It's also cross-compatible with BSD and Linux systems.

Is it perhaps the stigma that comes with using a product developed by Apple?

<comment><USER12> > Not only does it combine cron, at, and other daemons into init itself

I think I found the reason.

<comment><USER11> When is that last time you used cron to schedule jobs?

Be honest.

<comment><USER13> Earlier this morning?

It might be because I'm an ops guy, but I use Cron to schedule things on a regular basis, even in my personal work.

It's pretty crazy good at what it does. Being able to say "Filter my email every 5 minutes", is awesome.

      */5 * * * /usr/local/bin/filter-email.sh

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does anyone know if the GSoC last year attempting to write a systemd -> sysvinit converter got anywhere? To me that sounded like a very ambitious project given the socket activation in systemd.

<https://github.com/akhilvij/systemd-to-sysvinit-converter>

<comment><USER14> It got to a state where it is somewhat working, but it doesn't handle a lot of cases. When I tried to use it for a simple real-world daemon, it didn't work. AFAICT, nobody actually cares enough to continue development (though some people want to see it succeed).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sounds great.. i'm using Debian on my Desktop and i would welcome such a move! Let the good old sys-v init system die, it has served long enough. I understand that most old init scripts would even work in systemd, so i imagine the migration not being as painful as it may seem..

<comment><USER7> I've got mixed feelings about this. I really like the idea behind systemd/upstart (they're quite similar in practice) and was glad to migrate to systemd when Arch sorted out most of its integration issues.

But to be honest, I prefer upstart much more. It's simple, it does one thing, it's clear about what happens (most of the time). With systemd I find myself quite often with no idea where to even look for information about something not starting. I still have a service in the system that I don't know how to remove (it's failing to start apparently, not even sure where does it get created). I spent hours debugging issues and trying to get it all-green on my system... and failed. In my opinion it's just too big and complex for it's own good. For my deployments upstart provides the equivalent behaviour in the part that matters (actually running the software) in a simpler way and does not try anything else.

<comment><USER15> "With systemd I find myself quite often with no idea where to even look for information about something not starting"

You could read the (currently) 20-part sysadmin guide.

[http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/socket-activated- containers...](http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/socket-activated- containers.html)

/sbin/init and its simple shell scripts never required this much explanation.

<comment><USER7> I read (most of) it, but there's a big difference between "I know how this works" and "I can debug why things don't work as I expect them to work after reading documentation" with systemd. This gap doesn't exist with sysv style init scripts and I couldn't find much information addressing the issue.

<comment><USER16> You're confusing existing knowledge you already have with how easy another system is. Obviously if you already know one system, the other system will seem more difficult.

I have had my fair share of daemons not starting due to various problems. E.g. openldap (terribly confusing debug messages). Give me systemd any day over the complexity of a lot of those scripts.

<comment><USER17> Had not seen your comment before adding mine but I think you're spot on. And having had to fight with openladp last week I can only agree with you. I used to know the "old" standard text file config and the new slap.d config style is confusing.

But I think it's comparable to systemd in that if you manage an LDAP directory day to day, the new system probably makes more sens once you're used to it.

We have to relearn the config and, man, sometimes we can be a lazy whiny bunch when we should try to evaluate systemd more objectively ;-)

As an aside, the survey pleased me as I expected more conservatism from Debian

<comment><USER16> I didn't mean the openldap config. Sometimes the daemon just plainly does not start. You basically have to resort to using strace to figure out what is wrong with the thing. Systemd redirects stderr and stdout, highly useful IMO.

Openldap gives difficult to debug starting problems in loads of cases. E.g. problem in a certificate, config problem, etc. Then you might want to increase the debugging level. Really not fun to look into some script and figure out what actually eventually is passed to the openldap daemon as arguments.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you provide SSH access to developers in your infrastructure - <AUTHOR> I am curious about how do you do it, keeping in mind<p>- different teams having access to only those boxes which belong to that team<p>- providing ssh access without hand smashing the server.<p>- revoking ssh access for someone as and when required.<p>Would also be interested to know of possible ways to do the above. <comment><USER2> Use aws identities and policies to control ssh access to ec2 instances [https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats- new/2019/06/introduci...](https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats- new/2019/06/introducing-amazon-ec2-instance-connect/)

Has some quirks but might be useful for companies using ec2 instances.

</comment><comment><USER3> "gcloud compute ssh instance-name" and "kubectl exec ..." with IAM

I am still surprised that AWS has not created the same experience as GCP. the instance connect from the co-comment is an improvement, but requires install on each server and client, plus an extra step when you want to connect.

</comment><comment><USER4> Use ldap as your centralised auth, add a schema extension for ssh public keys, configure sshd/pam/nss to use ldap (and the keys contained therein) for users/auth.

Use groups or a host attribute in ldap to manage access to specific servers or groups of servers.

Bonus: you can manage sudo access from ldap too.

</comment><comment><USER5> Have you looked at Netflix's BLESS: [https://github.com/Netflix/bless](https://github.com/Netflix/bless)</comment>


Product Hunt for Apple Music Playlists - <AUTHOR> https://www.playlisthunt.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Playlist Hunt is a curation of the best new playlists for Apple Music. Discover the latest playlists, songs, and albums, that everyone's talking about.

Everybody can share their own playlists and vote for your favourite!</comment>


Facebook and Google Are Actually Net States. And They Rule the World - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/net-states-rule-the-world-we-need-to-recognize-their-power/?mbid=social_fb <comment><USER2> The submitted title is: _" Facebook and Google Are Actually Net States. And They Rule the World "_.

The actual article title is: _" Net States Rule The World; We Need To Recognize Their Power"_

That 2nd clause after the semicolon is not a throwaway line -- it's the essence of her essay.

(EDIT: I originally thought the submitter editorialized the title but I now notice that the html meta tags have the same misleading title: _" <title data- react-helmet="true">Facebook and Google Are Actually 'Net States.' And They Rule the World | WIRED</title>"_)

The editorialized title makes it sound like the author _criticizes_ Google and Facebook like a million previous articles have already done.

However, if one actually reads the article, her main thesis is for governments to use Google/Facebook's influence as a force for positive change. She says a hearts & minds type of campaign by _spreading ideas_ is more effective than military drones and missiles. Since Google/Facebook are the current rulers of information, governmenments should explicitly recognize their power and use them for winning the new battle of ideas. (E.g. she wrote: _" The world needs net-states in order to defeat the non-states."_)

(I also appreciate the sibling comment from _adventured_ but author Alexis Wichowski's background[1] makes it looks like she's aware of the history of transnationals. Her essay is about proactively _harnessing internet giants ' power to spread ideas_ as opposed to overstating their power compared to historical transnationals.)

[1] [https://sipa.columbia.edu/faculty-research/faculty- directory...](https://sipa.columbia.edu/faculty-research/faculty- directory/alexis-wichowski-0)

<comment><USER3> In my opinion the scarcest human resource is _nuance_. So many heated breaths of online guff would evaporate in the afternoon sunlight if every netizen took a little more care when editorialising.

A genuine follow-up question is, "What is statehood?" By any accepted definition transnational corporations are not states. Even if you modify the moniker with the prefix net- it still feels wrong to me.

There are very few senses in which the "citizens" of Facebook share a common identity purely because they inhabit Facebooklandia. If anything, the citizens of Facebook are its shareholders, bosses, and employees. We can see this because corporate decisions most often intersect the desires and intentions of those three stakeholders rather than the desires of the customers. Also, even though it is a cliché beaten to death, unless you are paying for a service you are not the customer, you are at best a "user", at worst a productised entity.

Advertisers hold much sway in what content gets shown and produced.

Having said that, I agree with the author's thesis. If you want to reach hearts and minds go to where their eyeballs are – go to where they are plugged into the information streams.

I think we should reserve the term net-state for online/virtual sovereign groups of individuals and potentially bots that have some form of self- governance.

<comment><USER4> Facebook is not a _democratic_ net-state. Its users are nevertheless its _netizens_. Comparing it to a traditional state, you might say the shareholders are the nobility, employees are the privileged trade and crafts guilds, and users are the taxed serfs.

<comment><USER3> I like how you think but to my mind it is still a bit of a stretch.

Facebook can't raise taxes, monopolise the use of force, grant children of its netizens Facebook netizenship, and so forth.

I'm not saying that there never could exist a state that exists purely in the online realm – in fact, technologies like Ethereum makes me think we're not far off from net-states existing.

<comment><USER4> Facebook can in fact do most of the things you mention.

Their 'taxing' of netizens takes several forms, mainly displaying ads and collecting and selling information about them. Both of these are profitable to Facebook (or they wouldn't do them), and injurious to users (in lost privacy and attention). Facebook can choose how much of it they do; they balance taxation (profits) with user retention (emigration).

Facebook have a monopoly on many kinds of force on their platform. They and only they can remove or block content and ban accounts. And unlike other states, there are no courts, no constitution, and no way for rebels to gain these powers for themselves by force.

The question of granting netizenship is less important, because Facebook encourages immigration: they'd love all the world to be their netizens! But they can exile people they don't like, or block them from joining.

Facebook also have partial control of the presses in their country and of the commerce at its borders (in- and out-going links).

<comment><USER5> There may be an analogy here but I think you are just introducing confusion by trying to equate ad revenues with "taxes" and customer churn with "emigration".

Facebook's business practices aren't a "monopoly" in any usual sense of the word and so once again it is just making it difficult to discuss the associated concerns/problems by expanding the meaning of "monopoly".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> No, they aren't, and no, they don't. Evidence: Facebook and Google cannot summon actual governments with compulsory process and subject them to inquiry, OTOH, the reverse can and does occur.

The EU doesn't submit to decisions of Google regulators, the reverse can and does happen.

Facebook and Google are multinational corporations with considerable influence, and moreover through which other (including state) actors exert considerable influence. But they aren't anything like states, and they don't do anything like ruling the world.

Also, the source headline doesbt mention Facebook and Google, and both the HN and source headline are clickbait because the actual article doesn't support the conclusion that what it identifies as "net states" rule the world. It mostly argues that they are a new significant kind of actor, by doesn't really provide a meaningful differentiation between them and international non-state actors of the past, nor a meaningful way in which Anonymous and Google are similar to each other. They've invented a nonsense category, attributed false attributes to it in the article, and overstated even that in the headline.

<comment><USER7> This article argues how many people's lives are now depending on and living in these virtual online platforms such that we are forming a society there.

It doesn't rule the world in the same sense as a government on earth. But every move FB and Google make can impact millions' lives. They don't invade your home and arrest you, but they can shut down your account. Google can disable your entire Google Account and then you lose years worth of data (this happened recently a few months ago).

Instead of marching on the street to protest, users are now sharing stories and their opinions through hashtags and sharing posts with their friends. They own your data now. They own your lives. They learn enough about you they can lure you into buying products. Instead of shaming another human being with a physical sign like Da Zi Bao (Big-character poster in the 50's in China), we can gang up on an individual in the comment section. Keyboard warrior, huh? Their powerful algorithms can regulate and determine what we get to see and when we get to see. So many people are "being educated" on the Internet; there are the good stuff like Cousera and edX, and there are fake news outlets). We are grooming a whole new society in the cloud. Instead of taxing your money on a regular basis, they tax your time and then gets revenue back every time you are online and whenever you shop. Instead of sightseeing a new building, people are excited about new features rolling out.

How are the above not evidence of forming a new kind of civilization? Every organization is itself a "government". Someone at the top is making decisions for you.

</comment></comment><comment> aaron-lebo Interesting. Net-states is a useful term, but it might be useful to not make too strong a separation between them and all of the multinational corporations that came before. The Dutch East India Company, for example. Multinational corporations have always been little non-democratic kingdoms. It's my understanding that our modern view of sovereign states is due to the Peace of Westphalia, so maybe in some sense we are just reverting to the norm where states don't have all the power. Also, even with separate states, families like the Hapsburgs did really rule the world in ways Facebook never can.

Finally, the US (and other superpowers) have historically struggled in places where they don't have boots on the ground. It's too hard to uproot local traditions and you don't really have a base of support. These net-states have an even weaker claim to power. If ISIS can wage a guerrilla war with limited physical resources (and a much greater power differential vs the US), anyone can take down Facebook or Google. They are a massive, slow-moving target that is already under attack.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- state_actor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-state_actor)

<comment><USER8> Agreed. The history of power is church->liberal democracies and republics->corporations.

The net-state is a great term! but it refers to the _medium_ through which the corporate state is projecting power, akin to the social contracts and armies of the papal and liberal states.

We definitely need a bill of rights and constitution under the net-states. One that our liberal institutions can defend.

<comment><USER4> > We definitely need a bill of rights and constitution under the net-states. > One that our liberal institutions can defend.

A constitution, and institutions that may uphold it, would be internal and specific to a particular net-state. Just like with real states, they can't be enforced on a net-state from outside except by extreme use of force.

This is a good thing: I don't want a single Net-wide constitution for all present and future net-states, because I don't trust any single body to write or enforce it! Variation between net-states is broadly good, as long as emigration is easy.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "our liberal institutions", but if you mean "our US non-net liberal institutions", then as someone who's not a US citizen I don't want them to have power over me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> They are corporations and we need to look at how corporations have too much influence on the world, and are increasingly concentrated centres of power, essentially unaccountable to the public.

<comment><USER10> Definitely. And it would also help "real" states if they started to play nice, by paying their taxes where they're due.

But I think the over-the-top tax optimisation is actually what will ultimately cause them to lose their power (aka boycott by users, huge financial penalties from "real" states, or break-into-pieces scenario a-la-Standard-Oil) someday.

<comment><USER11> I'll tell you why such a breakup will probably never happen. Break those companies up and the individual services they offer will probably end up being worse than what the combined entity could offer. Couple that with large companies who effectively do the same thing in protected markets (China) who'll use the opportunity expand into the rest of the world and you'll end up in a situation where you neutered the companies you have some control over in order to open the playing field to companies you don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> These "net-states" are looking less and less like independent actors in the political sphere and more like arms by which nation-states can reach into the cultural sphere and influence conduct and opinion as well as put their finger on the pulse of the public sentiment, even targeting the communications of individual people regardless of whose citizens they happen to be. Net-states are unique compared to traditional media companies in that they have a far easier time crossing national boundaries. Where before Hollywood or the BBC needed a dominant share in the market of foreign countries to spread the ideals of their host countries, net-states act more like portals to any region with an internet connection with little holding it back.

</comment><comment><USER13> It is much easier to opt out of the Facebook "Net State" than the Google one, IMO. I have never been on Facebook, family members email me, I still get invited to things, etc. I really don't see what I'm missing by not being on it aside from some centralization of communication services that would hardly be much of an improvement for me.

Almost everyone I know feels the same way. The common refrain I hear from most people is, "I only use it for photos and to keep up with X distant relative(s)/friend(s)." This also seems to me, to be the general cultural attitude towards it.

It seems to me there is a subset of the population that are very active users and a further subset who are negatively influenced by its advertising reach. However, are we really to believe that a product that so many people claim holds so little away over their lives is really all that influential?

Conversely I have almost never heard anyone do anything, but admit the power Google products hold on their lives (myself included). Even of the odd tech people I know who have, with great dedication used something like DuckDuckGo, disavowed Google products in their lives at some point only a handful have ever really stuck with it.

Google's reach seems far more ubiquitous and forceful then Facebook's, IMO.

<comment><USER14> It's a lot easier to use Google search without creating an account. It might be interesting to see how many people use it but don't have accounts?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _because nation-states need a wake-up call: The world needs net-states in > order to defeat the non-states._

Wait, what? Was this article written by a government, corporation, or other informational organism that has finally managed to achieve language? Why would an _individual_ (ie a _homo sapien_ ) be interested in snuffing out the space of their own existence?

</comment><comment><USER16> Facebook doesn't rule anything. Nonsense hyperbole.

I do think that Google's search results provide a potent lense. Primarily, if a result isn't on the first page of Google's search result, then it essentially doesn't exist. That said, Google also doesn't rule the world.

</comment><comment><USER17> If you don't like the power these companies have, leave their "services".

[https://diasporafoundation.org](https://diasporafoundation.org)

[https://kolabnow.com](https://kolabnow.com)

</comment><comment><USER18> If Facebook or Google were that powerful, they would be nationalized.

<comment><USER19> They may well be heading this route. Having so much power without an effective voting mechanism through which users (a.k.a. netizens) can influence decision- making is a known path of development that leads to nothing good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions have Facebook and Google?

</comment><comment><USER21> The article attempts to pretend what's going on is new.

It's not at all. The article is just another emotional, absurd, fear mongering trial balloon.

Let's use logic and examine the facts.

Facebook and Google are not more powerful globally than Standard Oil, US Steel, or JP Morgan were at their zenith. Aramco is more powerful than Google by a dramatic margin. Much less The British East India Company (which had a lot more direct muscle behind it than other commercial giants). Norway's sovereign fund probably has more real power than Google or Facebook.

JP Morgan had incredible power at its peak. The man, JP Morgan, was _the_ director of America's financial markets at a time when the US was the world's largest economy.

Standard Oil was so big vs the US Government, JD Rockefeller bailed out the government by pledging his assets as a stabilizing factor during one of the largest panics. Today that's so far away from feasible as to be comical to even consider. Google could bail out the US Government's operations for about a week, and would instantly vaporize in a small wave of a financial tsunami like 2009 (Google couldn't have even saved one tiny little corner of that mess such as AIG).

Now the power in all regards of the US Government is at least 10x what it was during the industrial revolution. It has a vast standing military capable of destroying nations at will. It has vast regulatory power that didn't exist 100 years ago. It has vastly increased taxing power that didn't exist 100 years ago. It has an extremely powerful central bank that has a financial strangle- hold over most things financial in the US (and partially globally). Just the SEC working with a few dozen FBI agents alone could destroy Facebook if unleashed with just a few new laws (not an exaggeration).

1) Facebook has no physical capabilities. Facebook is easily destroyed by the government. They can raid Facebook's offices any day of the week with guns and end the corporation forever. That's not an exaggeration, any day of the week - Facebook has no physical defense, it will never have that capability. It will always be subservient to the extreme might of the US Government. Any domestic challenge to the physical power of the US Government will be met with obvious consequences, see: all of US history.

2) Facebook has no meaningful power over global or domestic financial markets. It has $30b in cash and $16b in 2017 profit. A _joke_ (x100+) compared to the power of the central bank of China; it's a joke (x30) compared to the Norway sovereign fund.

3) Facebook has no taxing authority (placing ads on your own web site that people use voluntarily is not a taxing authority; taxing authority is being able to _force_ people to pay, being able to _take_ their wages against their will, backed up by threat of force), no serious ability to issue currency, and it has no independent financial capability not directly tied to a nation's central bank. (yet, maybe crypto-currencies change this in 20 years). That is, it's hostage to where it operates, and inherently subservient to large nations. The EU broadly can end Facebook's ability to operate within most of Europe any time it decided to do so (with likely consequences on trade, but non-the-less). Facebook's recourse? Cry in the corner, similar to Google's recourse when it gets massively fined by the EU.

4) Facebook has no ability to dictate domestic terms to the people or government in a nation in which it operates (several European & Asian nations are actively demonstrating this). What I mean by that, is: any given nation can turn off Facebook at any given time, plenty of nations have demonstrated that type of ability and willingness over the years (China being the ultimate example, but others such as Turkey or Brazil have done similar things). The mere fact that it can't even manage to control this vector, reveals how weak it actually is compared to nations (why? because it has neither the financial power of a small nation nor any physical might at all (no physical might means even weak small nations can ignore you at will with few consequences)).

This article is pathetic.

<comment><USER12> Your argument presupposes that the sole purveyor of power is money, with a secondary vehicle of physical domination. It's true that money makes the world go round but there are many subtler ways to influence markets and public discourse. These also constitute power and if we are to support free expression we should recognize its threats now and be proactive about countering the actions that lead to negative consequences.</comment></comment>


How I went from Google intern to the head of Google Maps - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90241372/how-i-went-from-google-intern-to-the-head-of-google-maps <comment><USER2> More of a dive into Google and the Google Maps product than a look at how she climbed the ladder. The latter would be more interesting.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you do if your boss wants to check your screen all the time? - <AUTHOR> Recently my boss has installed a program (www.netcontrol2.com) on all computers which gives him the power of watching my screen and reading my keyboard and everything! What would you do if you were me?! <comment><USER4> Quit as soon as you can find a better job, and don't take your time either. I consider that an unacceptably low level of trust on the part of your boss, and if he wants to frame your employment relationship that way, he can find another employee.

</comment><comment><USER5> Face the facts, my friend - you work for a micromanager who does not trust you. In this situation, you have two options. You can ask him why he feels the need to watch you for your entire shift. Or you can quit as fast as humanly possible.

If I were in your shoes, I would quit. Working for people like your boss is not only draining, but it will damage your career/kill your confidence.

</comment><comment><USER6> Open up a word document and change the font size to 64px. Type the words "I QUIT".

The next time he fires up netcontrol2, he'll get the message.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's not your screen, it's his screen which you are using for his purposes as an employee. The change clarifies the way you need to think about it - <USER2> but an expression of low trust. At least you know he's doing it, right? It could have been completely secret.

Do you like the work/people? Would you mind being unemployed? Are you irreplacable? Skilled enough to get a job quickly? In a good area for jobs? Do you have to keep the job? Are you assertive? Have you any savings? has he picked up on anything he's seen yet? Is he otherwise a jerk? Is it targeted at you or for everyone?

Have you been timewasting too much? If not then you can bring up your good conduct, express regret that he doesn't trust you much, act like you feel it a slur on your professional character and that micromanaging makes it a more hostile workplace. Reassure him that your conduct will still be good and ask that he remove it.

If so, less wiggle room, maybe have a meeting to clear the air and offer him something else, another way to show improvement that he can verify like a voluntary daily report of tasks progressed or whatever you think of, in exchange for removing it.

Lots of people have to perform their job under constant scrutiny - <USER3> assistants, screen and theatre actors, taxi and bus drivers, receptionists and front of house staff, etc. that suggests it is possible to work like that, so is it worth the trade off of staying?

It might be an indicator of a paranoid boss who won't be fun to work for, but then lots if people work for unpleasant people and survive.

Can you use it as a learning experience to raise your game to meet it as a challenge to meet and exceed his expectations? Is he likely to acknowledge that you are behaving fine and relax his policy? Does this extend to other things at work too?

Do nothing, or do something, but first think what you want to happen in your near future, and second what things you are willing to trade to get there.

</comment><comment><USER8> Honestly,I would be offended. Good work is demonstrated by output. Having the feeling of someone looking over your shoulder is a statement of a lack of trust and confidence. I can't speak for you or your situation, but I would openly communicate this and try to find a solution that is mutually beneficial. Maybe your manager is concerned about the level of output, which can be measured in different less intrusive ways. Try to identify his motivation and find a solution that works for both parties.

</comment><comment><USER9> I try to avoid working for paranoid gits.

</comment><comment><USER10> Switch to Linux, use a tiling WM, download the first four seasons of IT Crowd. Watch them in a 1 inch floating screen while doing your job. Wait for the laugh from boss's office. Or is it only sound... yeah just quit and work somewhere awesomer.

<comment><USER11> A true hacker would subvert the screencast to feed a pre-made stream back to the boss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just quit and let him know.

</comment><comment><USER13> Develop your own alternate english alphabet and change all system fonts to a custom font that has that alphabet, it is a brutal learning curve to be reading fluently again... but I did this in highschool... can freely open news articles and read them, he can't tell the difference

<comment><USER11> There's pre-made fonts for Klingon and Elvish which wouldn't take too long to use as a substitution.</comment></comment>


Reduced Dominance Is Predicted for U.S. - Analyst Previews Report to Next President - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903302_pf.html <comment><USER2> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_>(nominal)

Much needed perspective: America's GDP is about equal to that of the TOTAL of rest of the 5 top countries in the world.

Plus the article is talking about it military dominance. Because no one would dare attack the US directly so our huge military is not as much of an asset.

It's like saying Michael Phelps has no where to go but down b/c he one all the medals. It's true but it also means you're the best and brightest RIGHT NOW.

<comment><USER3> I guess you're not counting the European Union? Because functionally, it's one economic block.

There are other measures other than GDP. US National Debt and the current account balance is getting out of control: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_ac...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance)

(As an Australian I can't judge, in relative terms we're not doing so well by this measure either).

The current market downturn is a case in point. Whilst it's hurting globally, it's not hurting nearly as much as it would have in the past.

In modern history a recession in the US would have usually == recession worldwide. As it stands, you can't deny a slowdown in many key areas, but there are still parts of the global economy that are going strong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Even after the loss of its empire, England is still a nice place.

<comment><USER3> Italy is pretty nice too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The fact that this story isn't even worth voting up is kind of sad. (And in case you're reading that the wrong way, no, I didn't vote for it either.)

</comment><comment> patrickg-zill "Malaise" ... we have been hearing this spiel in one form or another for 30 years now and the US is still a hyperpower.

Eventually though, they will be right.

Remember that "trees do not grow to the sky" as Baron Rothschild famously said - and there are real limits to growth, limits that China and the other BRIC countries will be facing now, or if not now, then soon.

<comment><USER6> _there are real limits to growth_

These?:

<http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Good thing we have Diebold which knows who the next president will be, even before the actual election.

Seriously though: With debt to about every major country in the world, with the values contained in the stock-market and real-estate which backed most of the debt diminishing like smoke signals, and a currency which is no longer the world exclusive currency for dollar-exchange, I hardly find this surprising.

The US might have to prove its worth from now on, instead of just chanting "USA! USA! USA!". But you all believe in free market and such, so you should have no problems with that, right? ;)

<comment><USER8> How come no-one came up with parody of Die Hard - called Die Bold!

that would be awesome!</comment></comment>