Bruno Latour - Scientific Humanities MOOC - <AUTHOR> https://www.france-universite-numerique-mooc.fr/courses/SciencesPo/05004/Trimestre_1_2014/about

<comment><USER2> Anyone thinking about taking this course should be aware that Bruno Latour is not, and has never been, a scientist. He is in the same camp as Derrida, Lacan and Foucault, in that he has a great deal to say about science but very little experience of it.

He is the creator of 'Actor-Network Theory'. I summarize the introductory paragraphs from Wikipedia, to give you a flavor.

      Actor–network theory is an approach to social theory and
      research, originating in the field of science studies, which treats
      objects as part of social networks. It can technically be described
      as a "material-semiotic" method. This means that it maps relations
      that are simultaneously material (between things) and semiotic
      (between concepts). It assumes that many relations are both
      material and semiotic.

      Broadly speaking, ANT is a constructivist approach in that it
      avoids essentialist explanations of events or innovations (e.g.
      explaining a successful theory by understanding the combinations
      and interactions of elements that make it successful, rather than
      saying it is "true" and the others are "false"). However, it is
      distinguished from many other STS and sociological network theories
      for its distinct material-semiotic approach.</comment>


Neural Network Knows When Cat Wants to Go Outside - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2018/12/21/neural-network-knows-when-cat-wants-to-go-outside/ <comment><USER2> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18733799](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18733799)

(that submission was originally this submission before the URL changed)

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool trick :) This is also the current level of so badly named AI (IF/ELSE)

</comment><comment><USER4> Impossible. The cat doesn't even know if it wants to go outside.

</comment><comment><USER5> well, the NN knows the cat is there, a simple `if` then 'knows' what the cat wants.

nonetheless, nice hack!

<comment><USER6> Yeah I thought this was a NN that could predict cat's behavior, but it's simply "is the cat there or not" which is pretty trivial by comparison. Even humans don't know if the cat actually wants to go out or just wants the human to open the door for no reason.

<comment><USER7> There's always a reason...</comment></comment></comment>


Charles Proxy Automation - <AUTHOR> https://mmazzarolo.com/2019/09/01/charles-proxy-automation/ <comment><USER2> In recent times I've been using mitmproxy ( [https://mitmproxy.org/](https://mitmproxy.org/) ) for almost everything I used to do with charles / fiddler back in 2011.

I use this in conjunction with hostapd to run a wifi network off of the back of a raspberry pi bridged to the main router, which lets me decrypt HTTPS traffic transparently when I need to do some serious app debugging. Of course there's still some setup required on the device to trust custom CA but I find it to be easier to configure than Charles.

<comment><AUTHOR> I played a bit with mitmproxy last weekend (for the first time). I liked it but to me Charles still seems way more accessible. I'm genuinely curious, what did you find easier to configure?

<comment><USER2> I really like the hijacking of the mitm.it domain to redirect you to a setup page with the certs and instructions for every platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Would it be possible to extend this and run Charles Proxy on a server? I have used Charles to capture mobile traffic and always felt that having a machine running Charles on the same Wifi network as the mobile device was a hassle.

<comment><USER4> Charles is available on iOS (and I think Android) and lets you intercept both Wi-Fi and cellular traffic without another machine required.</comment></comment>


NYT: How Expensive It Is to Be Poor - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charles-blow-how-expensive-it-is-to-be-poor.html?_r=1 <comment><USER2> >According to the study, in 2015 the poorest fifth of Americans will pay on average 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes

This is purposely misleading. Yes, the poor do get hit with state/local taxes (this may or may not include sales tax, gas tax, etc) but often will not pay federal tax. That's on top of various aid programs like food stamps, section 8 rent assistance, etc. These articles are really disingenuous statistics, often used to push an agenda.

A less politicized article here on who does and doesn't pay taxes:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/w...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who- doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/)

<comment><USER3> While I agree that this article is frustratingly light on information, I don't think that one is any better, and it's certainly no less political. The article you linked isn't even attempting to quantify how much of their income people pay in taxes. Its primary goal is just to show that some comments by a particular politician reflected real statistics, not to analyze the actual lot of the poor in society.

The only part that even goes near the issue just seems to be summing tax rates, not considering how much of their money they actually have to pay (e.g. I keep more of my income than summing tax rates would lead you to believe because I have a 401k plan).

<comment><USER4> The WP article is really just a response to the uproar over Romney's comment in the 2012 election at a fundraiser about how ~"47% of the country doesn't pay tax", probably why they are focusing on "who pays" and not "how much"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The referenced Pew study is even more interesting: [http://www.people- press.org/2015/01/08/the-politics-of-finan...](http://www.people- press.org/2015/01/08/the-politics-of-financial-insecurity-a-democratic-tilt- undercut-by-low-participation).

Some correlations I haven't seen before. The most secure voters were 3x as likely to vote as the least secure. Preference for democrats was about the same for every category of security, but preference for republicans was 3x higher among the most secure (with the difference coming at the expense of other/not sure).

</comment><comment><USER6> What exactly is preventing poor people from getting basic checking accounts? They give those out to 12-year-olds with no assets and no credit history.

<comment><USER7> If you owe tax debt the IRS can seize your bank account. So can a few other parties, most notably state tax authorities and child support enforcement agencies.</comment></comment>


Improving HN's Voting System - your-nanny a request for ideas, criticisms, and praise. <comment><AUTHOR> Sometime I get upvotes from old post, I can not tell which one because there is no notifications.

</comment><comment><USER2> Downvotes exist to merely silence those you disagree with. They don't serve much of a purpose in reality. Perhaps another scoring metric to weight off topicness or spam would be more appropriate.</comment>


Show HN: Income Reporters – Tracking bloggers who post their income reports - <AUTHOR> http://www.incomereporters.com <comment><AUTHOR> I've also been addicted to reading bloggers monthly income reports but could never find a central location for me to store any of them. I know last year a fellow Redditor developed a similar website but it seems to be down ... so I thought I'd take a couple weeks to put this together.

What are your thoughts on this project so far?</comment>


WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook Down in the UK for Millions of Usere - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48855823 <comment><USER2> Currently in London with a group of four colleagues - issues are affecting all of us. Especially Instagram, where photos are not loading nor are stories. This has remained for hours.</comment>


Nvidia submits patches to open source driver - <AUTHOR> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2014-January/053028.html <comment><USER2> On a somewhat related (non-mobile) note, I really regret buying my AMD 5870 three years ago. Things have changed quite a bit in that nvidia has done some serious work on their Linux binary drivers, while AMD's has been utterly unimpressive, if not embarrassingly bad.

I understand that Linux has been a lesser priority for both companies, which is understandable. It's not going to make them the truckloads of money that the rest of their market segments will. But to do silly things like release official Linux binary drivers without so much as a changelog just reeks. They got enough bad blood from that to start releasing drivers with changelogs again, but support for kernels/xorg server versions still typically lags far behind nvidia's. And I can't do something as simple as run multiple monitors without seeing all kinds of weird graphical artifacts with high frequency.

My next card with be an nvidia if things continue on their current trajectory. I know that their binary drivers aren't perfect, but compared to AMD...

Edit: Also, I can't use the OSS drivers, so they don't weigh into my buying decision at all. Good on AMD for doing better there, but the binary drivers are the only ones that can run my setup.

<comment><USER3> It has been interesting to watch the effect of Linus telling Nvidia to f*ck off.

<comment><USER4> You misspelled "fuck".

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ)

<comment><USER5> We post Louis CK videos in HN, too? I thought I'd left that stuff in Redditland.

He spelt it the way he wants to spell it, who cares?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Note that this is Tegra related, which might explain their new-found eagerness to help (unlike desktop, they don't fully "own" the mobile high performance chips market yet, and it moves very fast)

Still, a great news

<comment><USER7> As far as I understand it, this set of patches allows you to (or at least aims in the longer term to) run Nouveau user space on top of Nvidia Tegra Kernel drivers (did anyone read the code, does this use nvidia kernel drivers or nouveau kernel drivers?), which are already mostly open source.

This would mean that you could run a full open source graphics stack on an ARM System on Chip (SoC). I don't know if this is possible on any current SoC out there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Linus approves [https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/TQDXxxr6ixm](https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/TQDXxxr6ixm)

<comment><USER9> Linus: > Hey, this time I'm raising a thumb for nvidia.

Commentor in G+ thread: > They aren't there yet, more middle finger recommended.

A little chuckle to start the day ;-)

Nvidia's Linux support is generally pretty decent these days; however, the one issue that gets the middle digit moving in their direction is power management in a multi-head laptop setup. Ouch, max power = heat = fan noise.

I had to flash the VBIOS in order to force the chip into low power mode (not a gamer, just need to drive multiple displays).

Doesn't help that they remove PM features from anything but their high end chips; have a K2000M here, nvidia-smi shows a bunch of N/A, can't do diddly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It seems to be the same discussion year after year. I really hope that SteamOS pushes these companies to get their shit together.

</comment><comment><USER11> "Let me also stress that although very exciting, this effort is still experimental, so I would like to make sure that nobody makes excessive expectations based on these few patches. The scope of this work is strictly limited to Tegra (although given the similarities desktop GPU support will certainly benefit from it indirectly), and we do not have any plan to work on user-space support. So do not uninstall that proprietary driver just yet. ;)"

</comment><comment><USER12> This is just the same basic enablement work they used to do with the "nv" driver. This will just make it possible to use an unaccelerated framebuffer and they go out of their way to mention they aren't going to do any open source userspace (aka GL) work.

</comment><comment><USER13> Getting themselves involved in linux in the run up to SteamOS?

</comment><comment><USER14> Will this also benefit other Kepler users?

</comment><comment><USER15> Arghhh, all mobile! Ah well least its progress!</comment>


The Making of Gyroscope Running, a React Native App - <AUTHOR> https://blog.gyrosco.pe/the-making-of-gyroscope-running-a4ad10acc0d0?x <comment><USER2> I really like how you got to the idea of making the route overlay on the picture. It kinda reminds me of forza's ui. Real classy work over there.

I can totally picture some people running in a specific pattern and sharing the generated photo on instagram.

<comment><USER3> Claire Wyckoff has made this her artform:

[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/06/runner- nik...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/06/runner-nike-san- francisco-penis)

<comment><USER4> Hah nice. I tried to do a heart for Valentines day, but took a wrong turn towards the end. [https://www.instagram.com/p/zGjaXjxTL4/](https://www.instagram.com/p/zGjaXjxTL4/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If anyone has questions about starting app from react native I would me more than willing to chat! Ask away.

<comment><USER6> Starting a React Native app project has been quite easy, but what resources do you use when you need to go deeper to solve difficult problems? I find that a lot of the documentation makes everything look easy, but I don't understand what's going on underneath the hood.

Do you just read the React Native source code to learn how it actually works?

<comment><USER5> You will just have to start trying. There is still a lot objective c that you will need to write for various kits that haven't been ported over.

So learning how to write bridges and view managers are pretty much essential.

Very active issues tab and community though, so you can work through most thing, but definitely room for improvement though. But the biggest struggle was keeping with it and buying into React way of doing things.

hit me up on twitter if you have more specific questions @myusuf3.

<comment><USER6> Thank you! I've asked this same question before, but your answer is the most actionable one I've received so far. I'm going to dive in and get a better understanding of bridges and view managers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been using Gyroscope since launch -- amazingly beautiful, and well-done service. Can't wait to use the new app (when is the Android release coming? =)). I really hope you guys keep iterating! It's one of my favorite services to share with people :D

</comment><comment><USER5> We also have a new gyroscope app in the works.

check it out here [https://gyrosco.pe/app](https://gyrosco.pe/app) you too can share cards like this.

[https://twitter.com/myusuf3/status/663884012734308352](https://twitter.com/myusuf3/status/663884012734308352)

<comment><USER8> Do you have any more details on the "pro" version?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Looks really good , is there going to be a cycling version at some point? Most cycling apps are road centric so a MTB version would be even better!

</comment><comment><USER10> Holy crap, that "equivalent to 3 donuts" is so depressing.

<comment><USER11> It shows how efficient our bodies are..

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is really cool. Gonna use this tomorrow & report back!

<comment><USER8> Is there any non-facebook login feature though? That'd be really useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Great write up!</comment>


Functional Reactive Programming in ELM - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoq.com/presentations/elm-reactive-programming

<comment><USER2> This is actually really interesting. Thank you for sharing!</comment>


Ask HN: Do kids drag your career down? - <AUTHOR> It seems that since I had a kid my career is in decline. I am currently working from home, but prior to this I would need to be home at a specific time to watch the kid. This obviously means I have less time to spend at work. Less hours means less dedication in the eyes of management.
On a side note, I took parental leave last year and was basically told by a manager friend that it means a lower rating.
What is your experience? <comment><USER2> Kids—I have 3—reinforce attributes that should be valuable in the workforce.

* I ruthlessly prioritize — you have to when you're balancing a family.

* I don't dwell on mistakes – milk, quite literally, is spilled on a daily basis.

* I'm a better manager – kids teach you to be clear and immediate in your feedback, not to mention more empathetic

* I speak better – reading bedtime stories means you practice public speaking every night

A company that measures performance in hours or dedication will not reward those attributes. But the good ones will happily give you flexibility in exchange for good work.

If you're struggling to find a balance, know first that you're not alone. But recognize quickly that your employment environment may be incompatible with family life, and so what's "slowing your career down" is your management... not your kids or your own performance.

<comment><USER3> If you have all of these attributes and have kids, you will not progress as fast as someone who has all of these attributes and no kids: they have more time, more energy, more sleep, and more money. They can afford to take more risks. Finally, they probably have an aching void in their personal life which they will try to fill with career ambition. This is all reflected in women's pay statistics: those who wait to have kids earn more over their lifetimes.

<comment><USER2> My point is that having kids _massively strengthened_ those attributes in me—and others I've spoken with. I wouldn't have been in the same position otherwise.

All this is to say... it's not about fast or slow. It's about _different_ and finding what works.

And there are counter-examples, too. I worked with a guy who ran a global business unit—a couple billion dollars, probably—and had 5 kids. Might he have been _even more successful_ had he remained childless? Maybe... who knows. He was good either way.

I volunteered with a woman who is now the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. She brought her daughter with her, and doing social good as a family was an important part of her personal _and_. professional life.

If you're good and driven, it doesn't matter.

<comment><USER4> >If you're good and driven, it doesn't matter.

So I don't mean to be a pedantic ass here, but the "I'm a CEO and I have a wonderful home life" is probably the exception, not the rule. The reality is that you can't be a CEO on a 9-5 schedule. You probably have a lot of help for all those times you have to travel, stay late, leave early, etc. Something is going to be scarified.

That being said, you can have a successful career without becoming a CEO or running a global business unit. So it's not 100% career or 100% family.

<comment><USER2> Absolutely true. You have to decide where your priorities are, and what you're willing to sacrifice.

My point was the simpler one that having kids in of itself doesn't hold you back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm over 50 and don't have kids. It is incredibly unlikely that I ever will have kids ;-) Has it helped my career significantly? I don't think so. I know lots of people who are more successful than me in objective terms that do have kids.

Not having kids means that you get to be selfish. That's pretty much it. If you _want_ to devote yourself completely to your job, you can. I did that for some time. It was fun for some time :-) If you want you can travel a lot. I did that too. If you want you can quit your job and live in a shack by the ocean and teach English. I did that too.

Having children is always going to be a tradeoff. It requires time, energy, focus, and huge amounts of money. It requires you to be responsible, to prioritise and above all to be selfless.

On the other hand, based on virtually everybody I know who has kids (and doesn't have other significant problems in their life), there is a pretty significant payback. If you have a child, I assume you understand that payback.

I realise that it's tempting to want it all. It seems unfair that people who prioritised other things got advantages that you don't have. Trust me, I understand that. I've lived all around the world. I've worked in many super interesting jobs. I've been able to literally say "Fuck it" and forget about money and just do what I want. But I'm _never_ going to be able to go home and give my child a hug. Trade offs.

<comment><USER6> As someone who will probably be in your shoes in some years let me congratulate you on your comment. It is honest, real, matches perfectly with my experience and it strikes a good balance between the pros and cons of having children. Many many people with or without kids have their identity too entangled to that condition and fail to recognize the delights and sorrows of the other condition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7>
      Ever since i have had a kid, I have started asking the reverse question; Is my career dragging my parenting down?

I always wanted be a good dad, whatever that means to each one of us, my career choices started showing up in conflict. I had to make choices. Overall, over the past few years having a kid really made me think about my priorities. It made me focus and plan more and improved my ability to do more in less time. The first few years are hard and you will not be able to give as much time to your career if you want to spend that time with your child and spouse in constructive ways. Which is fine because the career is 40 yrs long. My conclusion is that I chose to have kids and now I will work on maintaining that relationship because at end of the day you can change jobs, go to a place that recognises people have lives, do something else in your life apart from your current career (you never know), but your kid is your kid and not someone else's and the early years will not come back again. As for my experience with my manager - As long as i get the work done, my place of work doesn't care about being seated in office. With Work From Home now taking off there are plans of making this semi permanent even if things go back to normal. Edit: formatting

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. I definitely try to strike a balance. As the primary earner, I feel there is a lot of pressure on me to deliver. It is definitely a difficult balancing act to balance being there for my family and providing for them. I look forward to this being only a few difficult years like you said.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Honestly that's the worst way to look at it. In the grand scheme of things kids are way more important than any career. Obviously kids drag your career down but ask yourself: what are you going to leave behind after you die? Will you be yet another inheritance the government gets after you die? Yet another dead SSN? Or will you leave behind something far more valuable than a mere product like 2+ living beings continuing your bloodline and thus making the world better,safer and one step closer to the future? You are a mere spec a mere nothing compared to earth... 1 out of 8 billion... You can't live forever, you can't bribe death, you can't even delay the inevitable by a lot - the best you could do is on average 10 years in pain and misery... When you are old and sick who will be there to hand you a glass of water? Who will wipe your __* when you can 't... Who will defend you against bad people when you are too old? Your money devalues with each day, the clock is ticking, every second passes never to be seen again you are one second closer to death and you can't bring your money to the afterlife... Kids will outlast you... Money is worth as much as people say it does.

<comment><USER9> > In the grand scheme of things kids are way more important than any career.

So, you're not a utilitarian?

> far more valuable than a mere product like 2+ living beings continuing your > bloodline and thus making the world better,safer and one step closer to the > future

I'm not seeing how leaving more people in the world is necessarily making it a better place. Why should it be better that way? Why should OP's offsprings be making the world a safer place? What does "one step closer to the future" even mean in this context?

The concrete negative impact of producing more humans: more consumption (even if they're non-consumptionist), more global warming, more destabilized ecosystem.

> When you are old and sick who will be there to hand you a glass of water? > [...] Who will defend you against bad people when you are too old?

People often worry about securing help for their old age. Can't raise a glass of water and can't defend against bad people? Perhaps one led a good life - what issue is there with just letting go? Alan Watts said the second half of life was all about preparing to die.

Fwiw, I'm planning to have children, for my own selfish reasons. The reasons you cited don't speak to me much.

<comment><USER10> Having children is probably the most selfish thing we do as humans, but most people who have children spend a lot of time convincing themselves otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yes, 100% completely. Once I had my kids, I was never as productive as I was pre-kids.

But it was completely worth it.

<comment><USER12> Likewise.

My perspective on life completely changed.

I am not even sure i was more productive. I certainly had more me time, coding, reading, working out. But time with my kids is beyond rewarding. I still need an income, but my image, ego, and self worth is not attached to my job or validation from my peers....now its attached to my 2 year olds whims and my ability to change a dirty diaper in 30 seconds. Flat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "watch the kid" \-- I think you spelled "be a parent" wrong.

I don't know where you are in your career, or what your expectation is of a career, but there are lots of companies out there where you can do interesting things, be well paid, and have time to balance your work and family life. You just need to look for it just like you were looking for a higher salary, more responsibility, or even use of a particular technology.

Asking about it at an interview may get you an answer, or rather, anything but an emphatic "yes" with some examples may be a strong negative sign. But I think the key thing is to decide what you want out of both a career and a family, and to find the job that puts you on that path.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've thought about moving to a different company. My current company is in the top 20 best places to work in IT (computer world), although I don't know how much i trust that rating. They talk a lot about work-life balance. Do you have an example company to recommend?

I don't seek a high salary - just enough to live without fear and to someday retire. I hope to do interesting things, but I would be fine with boring tasks if I have a good work culture. It would be difficult to switch since my experience is in Neoxam and Filenet.

Thank you for your input.

<comment> Fire-Dragon-DoL If what you said it's true, that rating is worthless. How can be a top 20 if you get a lower rating just for taking parental leave?

That's awful. Whoever had a kid can tell you how hard is the first month. And if all goes well, the first month is hard. If you have even a little hiccup, the first month is SLEEPLESS.

<comment><AUTHOR> They get the rating because overall it's a pretty good place and they won't tell you the real reason behind your rating - they always have a cover story. I have friends who are managers. They've told me things they shouldn't tell an employee. For example, if a manager picks someone for the highest rating, some departments require the manager to give someone a below average rating to "balance it out", even if they don't deserve it.

<comment> Fire-Dragon-DoL That's a terrible company you are describing...

<comment><AUTHOR> They are good on paper. So unless you're one of the 3-5% getting screwed (and realize it)... They offer 6 weeks paid parental leave, upto 14% 401k, $100 extra per month for 5 years to pay off student loans, profit sharing, 100% grad school tuition, 1 VTO day, outcomes based evaluations (so they say), and pay for performance (so they say).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Having kids (3 so far, 3, 5, and 7) helps me prioritize my time better. Before getting married and having kids, I was all over the place, had poor routines and probably some unhealthy habits in terms of diet and sleep. Having other people depend on you changes your priorities quickly.

Also, it's very difficult at times, but incredibly rewarding, more so than even the best programming highs I've had, when you can see a new thing one of your kids learned, and realize you were part of that.

Their imagination also keeps my brain a bit more flexible, especially as I try to join in their own crazy fun. And being able to act more like a kid with them also keeps me loose and a little crazy, which helps me to be more positive and, maybe, 'chipper', in my interactions with workmates. At least I think so.

Again, there are very difficult times as a parent. But the highs are so much higher when they come, and I would not trade it for being back in the bachelor mentality and spending more of my live donating overtime to a corporation (though there are some very positive things from that part of my life too, and I have some friends who would probably not thrive as parents!).

</comment><comment><USER15> Your career isn't necessarily your job. If you work somewhere where they judge you for having kids then it might be best to move on. Do they judge people with hobbies, pets or drinking habits a similar way? The only time that is an issue is in industries where you genuinely need to work a lot of hours, which are few. Trading desk, pilot or surgeon springs to mind.

Also if a company requires you to do 60 hours of coding instead of 40 and it's just JIRA tasks adding feature X Y Z then those extra 20 hours don't help your career at all, but if you did a 40 hour job and spent 10 hours learning carefully selected skills in your spare time that would help your career a lot over time.

<comment><USER16> >"If you work somewhere where they judge you for having kids then it might be best to move on."

For many, this may be viewed as a fairly privileged statement. Particularly with Great Depression-level unemployment, simply "moving on" isn't really an option for many (most?).

<comment><USER15> True. I don't mean it to come out that way. However even if it is privileged, it is sage advice to keep yourself as employable as possible at all times, keep an eye on the market, what skills and interview questions you need to nail, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not for me. It's turbocharged my career. It helps that I'm at the level where management isn't seeing my contribution as hours in a chair. Having kids gave me something in common with all of our senior management. Anecdotally, that improved relationship has been a hell of a boost for my career success.

It certainly will depend on your individual situation. If your management is all childless workaholics, I can see how it would totally count against you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Having something in common is good. Managers are expected to work 9.5 hours per day and be available 24/7 to recieve calls/texts/emails on their phones. So even if they have kids, they need to put in 50 hours a week, which isn't too bad I guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> In my experience, once I moved in with someone that had kids and I started talking about family at work, it seamed like I got bigger raises and better promotions. Whereas pre-family, I was seen as "just a kid, a smart one, but still just a kid". After I was treated as an adult.

<comment><USER19> I partially felt the same, but you also go into negotiations with a lot more knowledge about life cost. Kids cost money. Daycare costs money. A car costs money. And you suddenly realize that your paycheck needs to cover a lot more than what it had to before. I felt much more comfortable asking for a higher salary, just because I knew I had a family to feed and not just me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What's interesting is that I have observed the opposite in my career. I have often seen that employees who have children are afforded more flexibility, shorter hours, and less work than those who do not have children. While I understand these are necessary if you have children, a disproportionate amount of work and higher expectations are given to those without children in my office. For example, if you have a child, that is a perfectly acceptable reason to work from home, but simply wanting to work remotely is not accepted. Do I need to have a child to work from home (especially because I can't have children...lol)? Anyway, this is obviously not a universal experience across companies (and trust me I'm happy that parents have these perks at my company), but I do find it frustrating when someone is expected to stay at the office until midnight because "what else would they do" if they don't have children lol. Basically, everyone should have less work, more flexible schedules, and realistic expectations given to them regardless of their personal life.

<comment><USER4> I suspect one big difference is that when you have young children is that you can't bend on "No, I can't work." When you don't have young children you can bend (even if you don't want to), and you say "No" but do "Maybe."

I've seen this with people before they have kids and after the kids are a little older. They occasionally bend and work a bit extra, check emails after hours, etc, and then before you know the it the manager expects this person is available since they did it before.

Sadly, at one company where I worked the young single person had to lie and say they were heavily involved with educational activities at their church and they couldn't work extended hours because of that. I know they were not 100% honest about the hours required for that, but management needed some mental excuse to say it's okay for them to just work normal hours. It's stupid, but sometimes that's the only way to do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I used to get really worked up early in my career trying to win the ratings game. When I got older I began to question the concept of the career, ironically when I finally started 'winning' at it.

1\. Ratings and promotions within a job/company are boss personality and politically dependent and typically very unfair. Lots of hard work goes unrewarded.

2\. Even if you do get lucky and get a promotion, your prize is 5-10% salary bump (maybe) and more work, stress and meetings (I don't much enjoy meetings myself). Look closely at most big company executives and think if you really want the job for more than the social prestige/ego. They travel a ton and are always in meetings, it gets old.

3\. So if the executive jobs are undesirable, then climb the ladder for money? It takes allot of money to make a difference, I.e you need $500k in the bank to ek out approx $1500 a month in cash flow at 4%. If you making $100k annually or $150k annually, $200k, or even $250 its still going to take over a decade to save a decent amount of money. The 5-10% salary bump doesn't make much difference.

So why a career? There are likely more efficient ways to make money if that's your goal. Starting a business, blogging, consulting, etc may have more risk but the ceiling is uncapped unlike a 'career'. So why sacrifice something wonderful like time with your child? Money? Ego? You want a great LinkedIn profile one day? If given the option tomorrow, I would max my parental leave unless it impacted teammates in a negative way.

I would genuinely be interested if this is a minority sentiment?

<comment><USER22> I don't plan on having kids, but as someone early in my career, I can agree with the sentiment.

I haven't even experienced the unfairness mentioned in many comments, but I just don't see the need to focus on climbing a work ladder at the cost of things socially or personally. As long as I do my work and enjoy it, a promotion is nice (I'm not giving up or being complacent necessarily) but it's simply not a big motivating factor in my life. I would/will happily slow my career trajectory if it means getting more time with close friends, romantic considerations, etc.

I think I'm in this boat because my career and interests are pretty orthogonal, where I think the HN community self selects for people who define some or much of their personality from technological pursuits that can often tie back heavily to work. When your work is more than your work, I think this question almost rephrases itself to be self vs kid, which I can understand struggling with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> > Less hours means less dedication in the eyes of management.

You need to change jobs. I work for a fortune 100 company that is extremely supportive of kids and families. They don't just talk the talk, but they actually walk the walk.

<comment><AUTHOR> I work at a company in the top 20 IT best places to work. Your statement sounds almost like their's. I feel like I can't switch due to lack of experience, and of course the current market downturn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Yes, kids take time. Lots of time. So if you believe that more time at a work is better, and that it's a zero-sum game (i.e., time with children will take away from time at work), then yes, having children will be bad for your career.

But there's a ton wrong with that thinking.

First: Exercise takes time away from work. Vacations take time away from work. Sleeping takes time away from work. And yet, even the most die-hard workers realize that they have to exercise, take vacations, and sleep. And that doing so makes them better people, healthier and more well-adjusted. And even better able to do their jobs.

I can't speak for everyone, but I've found that my children -- now 19, 17, and 14 -- have not been distractions from work, but complements to it. They have helped me to find insights, to understand myself and the world, and to generally be a better person.

Second: It's possible to make lots of money and have a great career with children. It's also possible to do so without children. So it's not an either/or situation. Yes, you'll have to prioritize. Yes, you'll be frustrated sometimes that you can't finish a work project because the kids need you. But it also gives you some perspective, understanding that even if your project is delayed by a day, that's OK.

Third: There's no doubt that children can be maddening, frustrating, and time consuming. Especially when they're young, they demand lots of attention. But in my case, all of that frustration was easily counterbalanced by the joy, excitement, and fulfillment that comes from having children, speaking with them, and learning from them.

Finally: If your job means that you have to dedicate yourself to it, to the exclusion of everything else, is that really a job you want? If your company doesn't encourage you to take time with your family, or for yourself, what sorts of people are working there, and do you really want to be working there?

I don't know if I would be a _worse_ consultant, trainer, and developer without my children. I would be a different one, though. And given how happy and successful I am now in my personal and work lives, I wouldn't want to be that other person.

<comment><USER4> >Yes, kids take time. Lots of time. So if you believe that more time at a work is better, and that it's a zero-sum game (i.e., time with children will take away from time at work), then yes, having children will be bad for your career.

>There's no doubt that children can be maddening, frustrating, and time consuming. Especially when they're young, they demand lots of attention. But in my case, all of that frustration was easily counterbalanced by the joy, excitement, and fulfillment that comes from having children, speaking with them, and learning from them.

All of the above!

One way I try to think about this is by looking at all the people I've worked with who are at the top of the ladder. CxO, EVPx, GM, etc. The vast majority of them work crazy hours, travel all the time, are constantly attached to their email, etc. They only way for them to do that is to sacrifice time with their families and have a partner who basically does all the family stuff.

If that's what you want AND you want to spend lots of time with your kids, then kids are going to be an impediment to that. If that's not what you want, then I think it's question of finding a balance between what you want out of your career and life. Most certainly if your kids are very young and you want to spend time with them, your career might move a little slower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> No. Well... no. My first kid was born in 2006. I left a big 4 accounting firm after an acquisition in '10\. Tried to do a start up with a friend... Health food delivery in Oakland in 2010, without any connection to any of the big VCs. Failed. Second kid was born the fall of '10, third in Winter '13.

Looking at raw income numbers, I was making 85k in '06, 75k in '10 (had to find a job quickly after the startup failed - insurance needed for the child birth!) and around 95k in '13\. I'm making around 280k right now, so I think I'm on track regardless of having kids or not. A key to my income is that once I stopped working in an office and got rid of my ~75 minute one way commute, I started a part time job, remote software development. That was project based, not raw hours, and since then my primary job has also changed to project based, not raw hours. I'm not killing myself each week like a lot of stories I hear. On a real busy week I'll do about 50 to 55 hours.

Now, another measure to consider, I have coached little league for about 5 years, travel softball for 2.5. My busiest season was fall '19 where I coached little league, ran the LL skill building clinic, head coached a travel team (10u) and assistant coached my older daughters 14u team.

I'm starting jiu-jitsu next week with my son. I've reduced the amount of coaching down to just two teams total. No head coaching.

My advice: prolab caffeine pills!

<comment><USER26> This may be a silly question, but what benefits do you find in caffeine pills over just having a cup of coffee?

<comment><USER25> Efficiency. Cost if you are buying coffee. 200mg each. Split them as needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It seems like a kid should be more important than being the best worker imo. Seems like sensible priorities. I don't have a kid though.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just want to support my kid. It would also be nice to someday retire from the job I hate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm the CTO of a small company (about a dozen people), and I don't know that my career has been hurt, but I've certainly had to reprioritize. Doing dev work, where the occasional task can take 30m to 30h, and you have to be focused for hours on end, is less practical when you have to rush out for daycare pickup, have a toddler jumping on you, or try to work during nap time which often ends earlier than you'd like. Consequently I find myself doing a lot more business development, product planning and people management. I still write some code, even if it's often more efficient to delegate. I like to keep my skills up to date and to not become slowly ignorant of my own company (a problem I've seen plenty of times before).

One way it's helped, is it's a really easy topic to bring up with clients or on sales calls. It makes me more relatable, and gives a good first impression since people assume I'm at least competent enough to provide basic care to a child.

<comment><USER9> > gives a good first impression since people assume I'm at least competent > enough to provide basic care to a child.

This made me laugh. Impostor syndrome much?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Being a parent helps build a skill set that can help you level up your career - if your employer values them. It can also make you less interested in that advancement. My own anecdote:

I have two kids (3 and 1). I've experienced a bit of a leap in soft skills; empathy, mentorship, and patience, to name a few. This has corresponded with me taking on many more leadership responsibilities in my team, and being recognized as a go-to thought partner and interestingly as an authority on technical matters.

I took 6 months of parental leave for the second child (I know, incredibly generous). I came back and received an "exceeds expectations rating".

I have colleagues who are also parents. Several of them are "staff engineers", the highest level of recognition at our company.

On the other hand, I turned down a promotion as I felt I'm already giving all I have time for/didn't have bandwidth for the extra responsibilities. I'm happy with my current compensation and responsibility set, especially as it allows me to spend time with my family.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, they offer you promotions? My company makes you apply for all except the entry level to mid level jump.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> But for kids, what is the point of a career?

Perhaps my POV is old-fashioned, but real honestly, the only reason I went to school, obtained a professional degree, and made fat stacks of Benjamins was to get a good wife (and then kids, etc.)

If that was not my plan, I would have lived in a shack on the beach and smoked dope all day.

</comment><comment><USER31> who gives a fuck about making the man money. Enjoy your life, nobody who matters gives a shit about your job title.

I think too many people are obsessed with making "all of the money", when just "some of the money" leads to a better lifestyle.

That being said: People with kids get fired much more rarely, tend to get the promotions, have much more understanding around missing work, and parents tend to watch out for eachother.

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm still somewhat early in my career. I have 2 toddlers.

I don't know how others perceive me but I know I'm not able to give nearly as much to work as I would without kids. When I last interviewed for jobs, I was asked about my side projects. I made the joke, "I have kids, they are my side project, haha," and I think he understood.

This is in the short-term though. I suspect that long-term my career will be better than it would've been without kids b/c I think I will be overall happier with kids than without, and I'll be forced to make better life choices like go to bed on time, etc. To be clear I didn't have children so my career would be better :D

</comment><comment><USER33> I have a 1yr old and a 2yr old. I definitely struggle to find a balance some days because the kids are super needy and I always want to go heads down at my job. Perhaps if I worked out of the house I may be writing something different now.

</comment><comment><USER34> When you start the actual construction of a structure you may begin to fret that the amount of time you are able to devote to erecting the scaffolding around it is now in decline.

This is by design. The structure was always the goal.

</comment><comment> Fire-Dragon-DoL If a manager told you that parental leave means lower rating, that's a clear signal the company doesn't value families.

With everything that is involved in growing a kid (teaching, empathy, learn to talk in the most simple and direct way), I would be surprised if you are not actually improving. All those interpersonal skills are growing, they might not match directly to your job (e.g. Coding), but will make you a lot more valuable. I am father of a 2 years old and my mentoring skills increased dramatically since I got her.

<comment><USER35> Actually of OP can get it in writing that parental leave = lower rating, and parental leave was taken under FMLA...that's illegal.

[https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/77b-fmla- protec...](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/77b-fmla-protections)

"An employer is prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against an employee or prospective employee for having exercised or attempted to exercise any FMLA right. "

I know of a manager at my company dumb enough to put it in an annual review...needless to say, there's a lawsuit and said manager is no longer w/ the company.

<comment><AUTHOR> I got that information from a friend who wasn't even supposed to tell me. I wouldn't jeopardize them. They didn't say it necessarily means a lower rating. It's that they will compare you apples to apples with the output of your colleagues who did not take leave. If you took 6 weeks of paid parental leave, then your story point count will be about 15% lower than theirs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The greatest joys, rewards, and challenges in life (growth opportunities) come from family (including extended family where possible). (Plus that it simply doesn't look like a good prospect to rely only on government strangers to take care of us when we are old! We can be good to our nieces/nephews too, and others of course.)

In my belief system, these important, challenging, and joyful relationships can extend into eternity as well, if we choose to make the necessary commitments (specific covenants with God) and keep them, learning and improving throughout our lifetimes. Money is like nothing, in comparison.

[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the- family-...](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-family-a- proclamation-to-the-world)

[https://www.comeuntochrist.org/beliefs/family](https://www.comeuntochrist.org/beliefs/family)

(more at my own web site, linked from my profile, or [http://lukecall.net](http://lukecall.net) )

</comment><comment><USER37> I would not obsess about your employer's rating too much. Look at the economic perspective. I did this as an economic analysis some time ago for myself. (It was not kids, but another commitment in my case.) Your employer is a just a customer for your services. A lot of people forget that not only has the employment relationship to be beneficial to your employer, it has to be profitable to you as well. And profitability in your case, is not just the net money you make from the job. It is also the hedonic value you derive from NOT working, but instead spending that time with your kids. And the value of that you will find is very large. Not only will you derive enjoyment from the hours actually spent with them, you will be setting up the kids to have a happy healthy and productive life in the future and a having a great relationship with you. The economic value of helping raise a successful, well-adjusted adult is very very large. Compare that with the economic value of a slightly better rating. Even in economic terms, paying attention to your kids should be a no brainer.

</comment><comment><USER38> It seems that half your question is about experience, and half is indirectly asking for advice. So, experience:

My experience is the opposite. Since having kids, I have been ruthless about changing jobs as needed, standing up for what I need, and getting a lot more money on each career move. I was much more lax on these matters before, and would spend countless hours on pointless drivel. I still spend hours on drivel, but I count every hour! As others have noted, having kids makes you question the value of your time and forces you to be much more efficient.

Advice: Value yourself more than your managers value you, present yourself with confidence backed by experience and knowledge, and your career prospects are wide open.

Also, I mean this in all seriousness, read "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In" by Roger Fisher and William Ury. Its advice contributed the most money directly to my bank account of any book I have ever read, followed by "The Richest Man in Babylon," another good book. (Getting to Yes to increase my income, Babylon to decrease my spending and increase my savings.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I read that book and "Exactly What to Say". I found them both interesting but the individual managers at my company have little power. The rating and compensation is done at a meeting of all the managers in a the department. So I can make my case to my manager, but I have no real representation at that meeting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is totally anecdotal, but I've seen coworkers have kids with a partner who stayed home and their careers seemed to take off but people who coparent and both work it seems to take some of the wind of their sails. I feel like me not being a parent, especially during this pandemic, comes with the expectation that i will work more, which i honestly have zero interest in doing.

</comment><comment><USER40> One thing I haven't seen in the comments just yet : YMMV largely depending on which country (and company) you're in.

I used to live in France (and my brother still lives there) and long hours are kind of expected. I now live in the Netherlands and we actually _almost_ got in trouble with the daycare for bringing our kid there 5 times a week because we were both working full time. Most people I know (agreed, as engineers we are privileged) work 4 days a week and won't do over time.

If you ask me, that makes a lot of sense. I get done in 8 hours what I used to do in 10. And next to that I have a life.

In any case, don't let anyone make you feel bad for having kids. They're much better than any career you can dream and don't let 'management' take that away from you.

</comment><comment><USER41> I was a long time soldier with many kids and it ended up my wife (sort of) asking me to choose between work and family. My opinion: if Your work is anything dependable, You have to neglect family to be good at work. If Your job is anything regular, "family and career" can be done really nice.

</comment><comment><USER42> Doing more stuff means you have less time for work. If you really like work and want to spend all your time doing it why have kids, pets, relationships, hobbies..?

In my case having children has made me more interested in my career. I need to provide for them and set a good example to an extent. Previously my focus was on whitewater kayaking, spending time with friends and travelling. I can't really do those things now anyway so it makes sense to spend more time on my career, but while the children are awake and I'm there I prioritize them.

You may want to think about the kind of companies you work for. If everyone else in your company has kids and family responsibility their priorities will be more aligned to yours. I found this out to my cost and would be unlikely to work with a small focused start up in the near future.

</comment><comment><USER43> > Less hours means less dedication in the eyes of management.

In the eyes of bad management, yes. In the eyes of good management, quite the opposite. If you are spending more time working then what's expected to get your job done, my concern is what happens when you 1) leave or 2) burn out. I'd rather have you spend your time doing what your job and then relaxing and not burning out then burning out or leaving. Reliability is key here.

This is also a problem if they leave, because it sets a false perception of what can be done in a normal work week.

Not to mention the actual quality of the work long term. Basically, everything I've ever seen of excessive hours per week results in long term losses.

</comment><comment><USER44> Yes. Without question.

It's worth it. It forces you to shift what you care about, and career path is one of those things you have to think differently about. That's also worthy of having kids.

To get where you want to go you often have to go where you don't want to go.

</comment><comment><USER45> I would recommend using this period to create a good bond with your kid. While taking parental leave and having absence have negative impact on your management, you can switch jobs and all is forgotten.

</comment><comment><USER46> The short answer is no, they don't drag your career down. But they give you a reason to re-prioritize how you invest your time in a way you've probably never had to before.

It can take a couple of years as a new parent to adjust. Every person and every family will have different needs and approach the transition in a different way.

If the management at your company doesn't value your family then the question is really whether or not you agree with them. Is your family worth it?

</comment><comment><USER47> I work at Google and usually taking parental leave or even simple paid time- off are not supposed to be penalized. Come performance review season, if you've been absent for 4 out of 6 months in that review cycle, you are usually prorated and evaluated for the 2 months you've been around as if that work has sustained for the whole cycle. How much of this we can prove (that it doesn't impact ratings or promotions)? Probably not a lot. You'll find that no company is willing to share that data to save their bacon.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, that's awesome if they follow it. I know my company doesn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Most people waste so much time on the internet that you can simply channel this time into parenting, which is much more rewarding, and on net not lose any real work or focus time.

<comment><AUTHOR> My kid is asleep :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> At the places where I worked, the people who pushed and shoved to get into the higher paying jobs, or changed jobs for more money, without exception, all had kids. So there's a tradeoff. You will have less spare time, but possibly more economic motivation and career focus. But you might have to find a job where you are not measured by hours in front of a screen. That might ultimately be a good thing anyway.

I have been promoted regularly since becoming a parent.

</comment><comment><USER50> In my experience, you have to be more proactive in marketing yourself and your work. I have worked from home for seven years, picking up my three kids every day at 3pm.

It feels like you are always falling behind. But overall, I have found myself doing okay relative to my peers, while cultivating a solid family schedule and focus. Everyone is different, but the times I have lost out in office politics are far outweighed by the other things in my life.

</comment><comment><USER51> If your productivity is measured by the hours you put in and not your output, you have a bigger issue than the question if your kid drags down your internal rating or not.

Doesn't matter if your employer managed to get a bunch of your fellow employees to vote for them in one "great place to irk" survey or other.

Find out what the job you want is, work to get the skills and start looking.

</comment><comment><USER52> There are many ways and reasons why having kids can slow your career, but the flip side has been more important to me. Kids made me more focused (there's no putzing around when balancing kids and work) and caretaking allowed my personal responsibility to more fully develop. The experience has made me a better and more effective person.

</comment><comment><USER53> I think it depends on your priorities. I was heavily career focused, then had kids and focus my time on family now. If i really wanted to i could pick them up from daycare late, i could get baby sitters, i could do what's required to be more dedicated to work, but i wouldn't get that time with the kids back ever.

</comment><comment><USER54> Children are your career, your job pays for it.

Spend quality time with them, don't wait until they don't need you anymore.

</comment><comment><USER55> Thé weight of your family on your career dépends a lot of thé behaviour with the second parent. If thère are fights (even silent), kids will also be more difficult. Try to have a good split of the tasks and to be thankful and respectful.

</comment><comment><USER56> in my case being a parent has made me waste less time and prioritize with more responsibility. Also remember having lots of time doesn't equal productivity all the time (think about parkinsons law, work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion"). You can have shorter periods of "available" time throughout the day but if they're well used you can be very productive. I have a couple of friends who have 3 and 4 kids and they're more productive than I am. How does that happen?, I think the important trick is how you use your time

</comment><comment><USER57> If you're a woman, almost certainly. If you're a man and don't have a homemaker as a spouse, probably. If you're a man and have a homemaker as a spouse, then only as much as you choose.

</comment><comment><USER58> My career has soared since I've had kids. I don't think it's because of that (and who knows, maybe it would have soared even more had I not had kids) but it also didn't drag me down in any way.

</comment><comment><USER59> I wish responses would specify their gender and if they are in a heterosexual or same sex relationship. It would be easier to frame where these answers are coming from.

</comment><comment><USER60>
        Do kids drag your career down?

Yes. If you're a good parent.

A lower rating probably indicates you should find a better job that fits your life realities better.

</comment><comment><USER61> The worst thing for a career is not being able to relocate for a better job. Families make this way harder.

</comment><comment><USER62> kids are important not money / career. If you need more money to support family then live a simple life where you wouldn't do unwanted expenses. Food cloth shelter, other than these everything else is unwanted for your life and your family.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. I try to live pretty simply, but housing is not cheap in our area. We haven't taken a vacation since our honeymoon and have no plans to. Most of my hobbies are low time and net positive for food or money. For example, vegetable gardening, beekeeping, and growing shiitake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Eh, having children is kind of your literal biologic imperative. Pushing my blood on for another generation, having some sort of legacy and living on in people's memories postmortem are all things I value. Any random company that would drop me like a sack of potatoes if they needed to for whatever reason comes second to family for me, and I don't even have kids.

That being said, the engineers I know who have kids use it in one of two ways. They either try to use it as leverage for a better WLB to spend more time with their families (or, if they're not the world's best parent, to take a vacation under the guise of caring deeply for their kid), OR they go full on cut-throat sociopath career mode to enable the best life (financially) that they can for their family. Then there's the wildcard option: company doesn't care at all about your new priorities and nothing changes. That's when you brush up your resume and try to find somewhere with a management team made of human beings instead of lizard people (or the aforementioned career sociopaths).

</comment><comment><USER64> For those that had kids and said it was completely worth it, could you elaborate?

<comment><USER65> I'm not sure what 'worth it' means, as to me there's no trade off that would make it 'not worth it'. But to answer why do I enjoy having kids and why do I enjoy being a parent (2yo and 4yo, third on the way):

\- I've never felt this much purpose before. It's hard to remember what drive I had four years ago, or what motivated many aspects of my life. Now I live to be a dad and I go to work to provide for my family.

\- I've learned heaps. Kids growing up is not a one-way street when it comes to education, you learn too. You learn how to communicate, deal with frustrations, be content and be patient. You learn how to do a lot more, too, but those are the main ones that come to mind.

\- I understand what love is, to me. I love my wife - often I refer to it as 'love at first sight' over ten years ago, and nothing has changed. But the love I have for my kids is different, it feels entirely unconditional and raw. It's a feeling I never had before kids, and it sure is sweet.

\- My kids are so much fun. Yeah, it's hard work, but there's not a day that goes by where I don't have lots of fun, and lots of smiles. I wake up next to my kids every day and it's an absolute joy.

\- Getting context is easy. I look at my kids and i instantly know what life is. I have a hard choice, and kids make it easier, because I've learned what it is to be less selfish.

\- Getting more out of life. Life was fun and filling before I had kids, sure - but now, daily, I get more out of my life. Often I'll give a mate a buzz at 7:30am on a Saturday morning and find out I've woken them up - not because I'm rude, but because I'm already 1 - 1.5hrs into my day and I forget what 'early' is. And then I get perspective, and think 'damn, I would have hated to sleep those hours away and not of experienced banana pancakes with the kids'.

That's entirely subjective and not exhaustive, but yeah, it's rad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> as a Man, no.

If I was a woman, yes, without a doubt. I've seen it in other women, I've seen it in my own wife. Shit is just not fair.

</comment><comment><USER67> Of course they do! You want to spend every minute you can with them and start cutting whatever corners you can with everything else.</comment>


Ask HN: What od you think of Pay to Bid Auction Sites such as Swoopo.com - <AUTHOR>

Do you think the pay to bid sites like Swoopo are a growth market for a new company? Do you think they are scams? What are your overall thoughts? <comment><USER2> Scam? Not exactly, but shady. Growth, I guess. There are ads on TV for another site just like them.

Simple concept though, sell bids. When you have reached your profit line, have the robot on your server (that spends no money) stop bidding on an item and let someone win. Then you just find a low price on amazon.com and dropship it to the winner.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yea, scam. Do the math and you realize its a scam. Theres been posts on this over a year ago. Think about it. At 1 cent increments if bidding itself costs 1 cent. By the time the price reaches 100 bucks you already made 100 dollars in bids along. But bidding usually costs 5 cents per 1 cent bid so you already made 500 dollars on a 100 dollar auction + 100 dollars for sale.

</comment><comment><USER4> From what I've heard/read about them, they take a lot of manual maintenance and oversite to make sure things run smoothly.

As far as scam, they aren't really tricking people, it's just that people are dumb and don't spend enough time to realize they could spend a shit ton of money on something if they don't pay attention.

</comment><comment><USER5> Thieves, milking the naive for all they're worth as fast as they can, before they're inevitably outlawed.</comment>


Extreme biohacking: the tech guru who spent $250,000 trying to live for ever - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/21/extreme-biohacking-tech-guru-who-spent-250000-trying-to-live-for-ever-serge-faguet <comment> loa-in-backup Just as having any goal and means to achieve it including time didn't make people more happy, healthy and outspoken already.</comment>


Introducing BackType Alerts - <AUTHOR> http://blog.backtype.com/2008/09/introducing-backtype-alerts/

<comment><USER2> Nicely done...I still prefer my RSS tracking to Google Alerts, but this is definitely going in the arsenal.

</comment><comment><USER3> Another essential tool in the arsenal of a startup founder... monitoring and responding directly to feedback is critical.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think a lot of people forget the responding part. Sometimes it's hard to know when to respond and when to let things go -- but it's amazing how quickly a pissed off user turns into a loyal one if you take the time to communicate with them.

<comment><USER4> I so agree to that - we respond to the smallest of small bloggers for a good or bad post. No discrimination! Experiencing Backtype with this too.....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's pretty confusing, it looks like a service I might use so I went to the home page and set up an alert for "fizzbuzz", I then got a prompt asking my to register (do I have to register for the alert to work ? is it optional ?). After registering I ended up at a page which confused the hell out of me.

"we haven't found any of your comments yet" left me thinking - have they not found any comments that match my search term or does it mean something else.

The options given were: # Claim Comments – help us find your comments # Edit Account – review your account details # Edit Profile – so people can find you # Search – for people to follow

The "Search" option kinda sounds like what I want to do, but the "for people to follow" makes me think it isn't. It's completely unclear what I need to do in order to track some keywords.

<comment><USER6> Sorry -- Alerts require you to be a registered user so we can deliver them to a verified e-mail address. If you don't want to sign-up, you can perform searches and subscribe to results via RSS.

We thought it would be cool if we carried an alert through the sign-up process and added it afterwards. I guess we didn't realize how confusing it would be when the registration was complete. We'll be making this a lot more clear; thanks for the feedback.

The page you're viewing (the Dashboard) allows you to:

\- View comments by people you're following (/home)

\- View alerts you've subscribed to (/home/alerts)

\- View comments shared by people you're following (/home/shared)

We're going to revisit that welcome msg; for now, you should visit <http://www.backtype.com/home/alerts> to find your alert and subscribe to more. Alternatively, you can perform searches on <http://www.backtype.com/comments> and subscribe to them from the results page.

Thanks again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The twitter integration doesn't seem to work.

I was talking to a friend about creating a "daily tweet" a daily summary of tweets of a search term. If they get this working then I don't have to build it.

<comment><USER6> We haven't done any Twitter integration yet. We are going to add a button to tweet a comment, but we aren't doing digests. If you want to push a digest to twitter, you can link your comments feed from BackType to: <http://twitterfeed.com/>

We'll be releasing an API soon so that the apps/tools/etc we don't build can still be built.

<comment><USER7> Ahh, I read too quickly:

"Following comments by a particular author a la Twitter was a core feature when we launched"

I thought you guys used search.twitter.com and included tweets with my alert term. Please do add twitter as a source of comments for the alerts :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm already a google alerts fiend, so I've been looking forward to these for a while.

Great work guys.

<comment><USER9> I had some Google alerts set up to keep track of an industry I am entering but they cluttered up my RSS reader and became a chore. I'm thinking about using something like Rivalmap instead.

Backtype alerts would be good for comments which is almost as important as blog posts.

<comment><USER8> I don't use RSS...I just have Google Alerts email me a summary depending on the importance (i.e. as it happens for important stuff, daily/weekly for not so important stuff).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> what is really unfortunate here is that by being obstinate and combative with briansmith and plagiarismtoday, konsi is missing a solid business opportunity here.

As far as I can tell the mechanism to identify users is based on name and URL which is probably the best you can do. What this does create is a centralized ID for blog commentators.

By registring as a blog _commentator_ with backtype, commentators could have a mechanism to control the distribution of their comments: control over copyright issues like the size of their excerpt or the ability to opt out.

At the same time, backtype ends up as the repository of record for comments and has an alias database of commentators, which I can anticipate being monetizable.

Every opportunity starts out looking like a snake.

<comment><USER11> " By registring as a blog commentator with backtype, commentators could have a mechanism to control the distribution of their comments: control over copyright issues like the size of their excerpt or the ability to opt out.

At the same time, backtype ends up as the repository of record for comments and has an alias database of commentators, which I can anticipate being monetizable."

So the burden of opt-out falls on the those writing comments, while backtype gets the monetizable data so provided?

No thanks.

What could be interesting is if bloggers arranged their software so that every posted comment included a copyright notice declaring that the comment was copyrighted by the commenter and that it may not be reproduced in full, only excerpted (for example).

I would hate, though, for people to start thinking that, absent such explicit claim on content , it's fair game for poaching.

<comment><USER10> microformats to the rescue!

Or perhaps a commentator.txt file on ID urls.

My larger point is that this is an _opportunity_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> how is this different from google alerts?

<comment><USER8> Google alerts doesn't pick up comments. At least it never does for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly! We will be publishing a blog post soon that shows the difference between BackType search results and other services.

I think businesses should be using every tool that is available to them to track their brand. That includes BackType Alerts, Google Alerts, Twitter/Summize search, Technorati search, FriendFeed search, etc.

<comment><USER13> What is your position on the copyright of comments? I've tried to contact your company to get you to stop re-publishing my comments on your website and you didn't even respond to my message. What can copyright holders do to ensure that you do not re-publish their content?

<comment><USER6> Hi Brian,

We try to respond to every single e-mail we get; not sure how yours was missed. I apologize.

We've talked about our policy on re-publishing comments in a few places:

\- [http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/08/30/five-questions- withb...](http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/08/30/five-questions-withbacktype- co-founder-chris-golda/#more-3814)

\- <http://blog.backtype.com/2008/08/on-republishing-comments/>

\- etc

In summary: what BackType is doing is very similar to other search engines. We make every effort to provide content publishers with familiar methods to restrict BackType from indexing their site's content: <http://www.backtype.com/faq#q14>

We're trying to be as transparent as possible. We attribute comments to their authors so they can be rewarded for the thoughts and insights they share in comments across the web. Additionally, BackType is already becoming a recognized source of traffic for publishers and we want that to continue.

<comment><USER13> Please see the post on Plagiarism Today that was linked to from one of the pages you mentioned above: [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/11/backtype- republish...](http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/11/backtype-republishing- comments/)

When I comment on TechCrunch or 37signals, I don't give them the copyright to my comment. I (implicitly) give them a license to republish the comment on their own website. However, I've never given Backtype a license to republish my comments on its website. Even if TechCrunch or 37signals chooses not to opt out of your system, you still don't have any legal rights to republish the comments.

From the commenter's standpoint, does it make sense to let you republish my content? I think the answer is emphatically "no." If I republish my own comments myself then I can also monetize them myself. If I build a WordPress plug-in to assist others in doing this, and/or if I build an OpenID extension or robots.txt extension for making comment streams more discoverable, then I can help form a user expectation of "If I want to see all the comments by John Doe, I can find them on John Doe's website." Then all the John Does can decide on their own how they monetize their own content on their own website (e.g. AdSense).

Consequently, really you are in direct competition with the people whose content you are re-publishing. AFAICT, you are saying "we're going to profit from your content without compensating you, regardless of the copyright, and there's no way that you can opt out except by refusing to publish new content." That sucks.

In the posts you linked to, you are comparing yourself to search engines like Google. The difference between your company and Google is that your company republishes the content in full, but Google provides just a small clip of the content. Google has a fair claim that what they are doing is fair use. Their limited excerpting of content is also what allows them to use an opt-out model instead of an opt-in model. That is also what makes it is easy for content creators to profit from Google's indexing of their content--Google users have to click through to the original site to see the content. You are just re- publishing the content in aggregate form.

I'm also curious about whether you think the DCMA safe harbor provisions apply to you when you are republishing others' content. As far as I can tell, they cannot, since you've really just built an automated plagiarism system. That is, there is no user-submitted content on your site; all the content published on your site is published by you yourself.

Anyway, if you really didn't get the message I sent your company, it boils down to this: Please remove everything I've written from your website, or come up with a means of fairly compensating me. Thank you.

<comment><USER14> It seems to me that from a narrow legal stand point, you have a decent argument. From a more practical stand point, if you wish to monetize what you write, I'd suggest that posting it as comments isn't a good way to go about it. Why not just post to your own blog and have the comment be just one sentence and a link to the post? Then BackType would be sending you traffic instead of "stealing" your content.

So what are your goals here? Are you trying to monetize your writing, or are you trying to prevent others from doing so?

<comment><USER13> I prefer to comment on another person's weblog instead of commenting on my own because (a) it keeps the conversation in one place and (b) the author is almost sure to read the comment if I post it there. As a consumer of weblogs, I find the comment saying "I've blogged a response: <url>" to be extremely annoying. The lack of effective (spam-proof) trackback functionality is another reason I avoid doing that.

Right now I'd rather not have my comments aggregated at all, anywhere. But, if I change my mind, I want to be in control of the aggregation--who does it, what content is aggregated, what details are disclosed, and how much I am compensated for it.

I think eventually all search engines will have to do revenue sharing with content producers. Because, while search engines provide a useful service (even Backtype might be useful if it had a bigger index), they cannot exist without content to index. Plus, search engines are increasingly competing with content publishers (e.g. Google Knol, everything on Yahoo).

So, really what I am opposed to here is the opt-out (instead of opt-in) nature of the republication. I would be less opposed to it if there was an effective and convenient way to opt out of it. It seems right now the only ways to opt out are to file DMCA complaints and/or lobby websites to exclude the spam bloggers' robots in robots.txt.

<comment><USER15> So, ideally for you, SEs would have to be opt-in and do forceful revenue sharing with page creators?

You realize there is no way something like google could have been created in your proposed environment?

<comment><USER13> The internet in the 90's was so different from what it is now, it doesn't even make sense to compare them.

SEs are already becoming opt-in for some sites. Extranets are a great example. Some people are already building up robots.txt files that either exclude by default, or they have long lists of blacklists that they add to whenever they notice a new spider. For example, look at <http://news.ycombinator.com/robots.txt>. It disallows /reply? and /user?, which is basically all the content on the site. I expect that a large percentage websites will become more like opt-in instead of opt-out, especially as the number of robots increases--eventually, there will be so many robots spidering sites so frequently that bandwidth caps will be exhausted just from the robots.

I don't believe in "forceful" anything. But, I do believe that large, popular sites will make by making (exclusive) revenue sharing deals with search engines in the future. And, robots.txt can be used to advance some social policies too--for example, you could cut Yahoo off if you don't like its human rights record. Copyright is what will enable those kinds of things to happen.

I also think that Google's domination of search will come to an end and there will be more incentive for publishers to listen to offers that other search engines make. Google is probably not going to offer revenue sharing (from ads off SERPs) first, but I bet somebody else will. By this, I mean that the search engine will share revenue from clicks with the sites that appear on the SERPs that the clicked ad was on. It is the naturally evolution of SE advertising, and it is the only thing that will make SE's increasingly agressive use of publishers' and authors' content bearable for some people.

<comment><USER15> I think you're confused, here is the robots.txt from this site (linked by you)

User-Agent: * Disallow: /x? Disallow: /vote? Disallow: /reply?

user is not disallowed anywhere, vote? and reply? and x? are, but they are not content, they are actions, basically all of the content of this site is indexed.

Your idea of site owners being selective about SE makes no sense to me. Would users then have to use 5 or 6 different search engines to accommodate all possible webmaster preferences?

<comment><USER13> You are right, I thought the discussions had /reply? URLs but they are /item?.

I think that SE revenue sharing will happen. Only the SEs that share revenue will survive--a SE that doesn't share revenue will get locked out of the most valuable content and it will be forced out of business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "conversations that may require our participation"

Nobody shall be wrong on the internet ever again!!!

</comment><comment><USER17> backtype = searchyc.com re-incarnated as a start-up (rather than a completed side project)?</comment>


How to handle the first VC meeting - <AUTHOR> http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/12/how_to_handle_t.html <comment><USER2> Focus on the problem of a particular marketing niche Explain the causes of it Present your solution (1) the origins of it (2) the technical benefits (3) general benefits in terms of global marketplace and how do you and your solution fit into the big picture.</comment>


React Fiber – Is it just non blocking UI Redesign? - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crM1iRVGpGQ <comment><AUTHOR> What are the main goals for the rewrite and how is this going to impact existing - react-native and react projects?</comment>


Seagate Achieves 16TB Capacity on Internal HAMR Test Units - <AUTHOR> https://blog.seagate.com/craftsman-ship/hamr-milestone-seagate-achieves-16tb-capacity-on-internal-hamr-test-units/ <comment><USER2> Such an awesome animation [https://i.imgur.com/dRuFY9h.mp4](https://i.imgur.com/dRuFY9h.mp4)</comment>


Argentina, Brazil agree on cyber-defense alliance against US espionage - <AUTHOR> http://rt.com/news/brazil-argentina-cyber-defense-879/

<comment><USER2> Let's see what happens, but, as a brazilian, I think the encounter will result in absolutely nothing.

The current state of brazilian government's cyber security is a joke. Brazilian army actually made a phone with cryptography, which the president and her ministers just refused to use.

The response the telecom ministry gave to the wiretapping scandal of the e-mails was to ask for the brazilian mail to make a secure e-mail system, stating: "if they have been safely delivering mail for 350 years, they surely are to be trusted making a e-mail system".

As a sidenote, there is very few data security in the brazilian governemt, with a call to a friend who is a junior analyst in a bureau of statistics I can get a list of ALL brazilians sorted by the local equivalent of the Social Security Number. No access logs whatsoever.

I hear some departments actually implemented decent security, but the current state of affairs is a total mess.

<comment><USER3> Also, don't forget corruption.

<comment><USER2> You're completely right. I totally forgot adding corruption in the analysis. Sorry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Counter-balancing [1] sucks, doesn't it? It's a totally predictable consequence of plays for hegemony.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_%28international_rela...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_%28international_relations%29)

</comment><comment><USER5> Great news, gotta see what is going to happen after this announcement.

</comment><comment><USER6> The issue is: the top security experts work for non Argentinian companies and the government salaries can't compete with them.</comment>


10 Vertical Twitters With Potential To Win TC50 - <AUTHOR> http://www.technews.la/2008/09/10-vertical-twitters-with-potential-to-win-tc50/

<comment><USER2> Shitter: When did you last take the Browns to the SuperBowl?

</comment><comment><USER3> > 1\. Twatter

I remember back when twitter came out as twttr.com, there were tonnes of comments on how people thought it was pronounced twatter. I wonder if that's why they changed names.

</comment><comment><USER4> Yamm'er I don't even know'er!

No but seriously folks... [rimshot]</comment>


How to Wipe the Hard Drive of Your Own Mind–Work Less and Get More S*It Done - <AUTHOR> http://www.calmascent.com/blog2 <comment><USER2> > This is not a fluffy article about meditation

Proceeds to articulate how to meditate successfully and the benefits of doing so(albeit avoiding over-use of the word itself), then suggests you download an app ( by _an_ app I mean _their_ app) to facilitate this

Hm</comment>


How to Build Your Own Rogue GSM BTS for Fun and Profit - <AUTHOR> https://evilsocket.net/2016/03/31/how-to-build-your-own-rogue-gsm-bts-for-fun-and-profit/ <comment><USER2> I really want to get into SDR, but $400 is too much for a college student.

I wish my school would buy things like this for me so I could learn about modulation and demodulation of signals.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you wish you were better at? - <AUTHOR>

For me it's 3 things: regex, regex and regex.<p>EDIT: my social life <comment><USER2> Focusing my efforts, managing my time, and figuring out what my priorities in life are.

regex, on the big scheme of things, is a pretty easy problem to solve. If you think about them in terms of state machines, they become easier to grasp your mind around.

</comment><comment><USER3> Doing nice visual design stuff. I'm apparently not all that great at it, but frankly don't really notice (I like the look and feel of this site, for instance) so it's not like I have anything to benchmark against.

</comment><comment><USER4> My personal top 3 is:

\- getting into shape (it's needed, but I'm starting that tomorrow)

\- persisting (in everything, 2years ago I was getting in a better shape, but see #1)

\- live greener (we already use 1/2 of electricity a normal family uses, but I know we could do better)

That's it. And the best part is I can do all 3 things, it's not something I will never be able to do. Better start working on them!

</comment><comment><USER5> Making money, overcoming presentation anxiety, selling, art.

Edit: If you need help on the regular expressions you might want to pick up the mastering regular expressions book from o'reilly. It's a great book for that: <http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596528126/>

</comment><comment><USER6> Keeping money. I actually find it easier to make money than keep it in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER7> Writing. I'm not a bad writer but man it'd be great to be better.

</comment><comment><USER8> coding from scratch, not procrastinating, eating more

<comment><AUTHOR> eating more? Now, that's something I'm really good at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> now you've got six problems :) (<http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-15/247>)

<comment><AUTHOR> see I don't know why people hate on {perl,awk,sed}. To me, these are the best tools available for data munging and they're just too damn convenient. However, I always get the feeling that my efficiency takes a hit when I try to be too clever.

<comment><USER9> don't get me wrong. I love perl. and I use awk almost every day (mostly because I can't be bothered to remember the syntax for cut). I just find it a little weird to say regex regex regex is the only thing to improve about yourself. regexes are powerful things, but they aren't the answer to all problems. I cringe when people brandish a zero-width negative look-behind assertion when a simple index() will do. there is an interview problem I like to give that involves string prefixes and when perl people start off down the regex path, I know that they've been lured into a quagmire.

btw, if you haven't read it, the friedl book is great and I consider it the definitive text on at least the practical matters of regular expressions (and it even covers a good chunk of the CS theory behind them as well).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Being confidant in myself or my work.

</comment><comment><USER11> Making money.

<comment><USER12> Using my time wisely, as time is money.

<comment><USER11> I'm already good at using my time wisely. I have some specific things I need to work on in terms of translating that into increased income. I think it will all come, eventually. (However, I was born without a patient bone in my body so I'm not very content about my expectation that "it will come, eventually.")

<comment><AUTHOR> It will come, eventually. But probably not in the form you expect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Keeping fear and anxiety in their place -- not banished, but in perspective.</comment>


Measuring Entropy and its Applications to Encryption - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/measuring_entro.html <comment><USER2> "My guess is that there wasn't enough crypto expertise on the program committee to reject the paper." Oh, snap!

<comment><USER3> Actually, this is a problem that runs through all of academia, and is hardly confined to crypto. Program committee members (at least in computer science) seldom have the time to thoroughly review submissions, and computer science papers submitted elsewhere (say, PNAS or Science) are rarely given a thorough review by computer scientists.

As a particularly fun example, see this fun example of a computer vision paper that was published in Science in 2008, titled "100% Accuracy in Automatic Face Recognition", published by two psychologists:

[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5862/435.abstract](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5862/435.abstract)

The title should say enough to anyone who has the faintest idea about computer vision. Then read this very politely-worded response: [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5891/912.3.full](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5891/912.3.full)

<comment><USER2> That was a very patient and kindly-worded response. I'd think that a psychology background would teach exactly the wrong lessons about the use of statistics in hard technology problems. In psychology research, the function of statistics is to persuade other psychologists, and persuading other psychologists of the importance of your research is the sole measure of success or failure. They're not used to find flaws in one's own work.

As for poorly-reviewed papers, it must be embarrassing when they make headlines.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cool stuff. I'm using entropy (Kolmogorov entropy) to do multiphase (oil and gas) flow pattern recognition, and transition detection from a flow pattern to another.

</comment><comment><USER5> What is minimum entropy referred to here? Is it -log(max(p))?

<comment><USER6> Yes. As opposed to Shannon entropy -sum(p log p).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yeah, when I originally read about this I thought more or less the same thing. A low amount of entropy is already assumed in various attacks (like dictionary attacks), or even just guessing based on your knowledge of the person who created the password, it's the same deal. I don't see how you can assume the same thing for RSA keypairs though...

<comment><USER8> Slightly off topic, but low-entropy during RSA key generation is a serious problem:

[https://factorable.net/weakkeys12.extended.pdf](https://factorable.net/weakkeys12.extended.pdf)

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I meant that it's not exactly the same level. Certain implementations of RSA were using broken sources of entropy, but it's not the same as "Bob always uses his address as his password" which has no entropy.

<comment><USER8> OK, sure, but if you want something more to do with ciphertexts than with key generation, consider this: "textbook" RSA is not secure. The reason is that the "textbook" RSA algorithm is not randomized; that is also the reason why so much effort has gone into randomized padding schemes like this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAEP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAEP)</comment></comment></comment></comment>