Mechanical Turk Market, Ethics and Milton Friedman - <AUTHOR> http://openresearch.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/mechanical-turk-market-ethics-and-milton-friedman/ <comment><USER2> From the article: "If business owners could hire people in the US to clean up their messy databases for $3.00 they wouldn't need to go on mechanical turk to hire the same person for $1.50 an hour."

That's completely against the very pure form of economic rationalisation Friedman epitomises. A self-interested, economically rational business would hire the worker for $1.50 an hour. They get the same result for half the cost - it's a no brainer. In the absence of a minimum wage, the income of folks in developed countries are depressed towards the levels of income of folks in developing countries - without a corresponding shift of the cost of living. Minimum wages protect the poorer members of society in a developed nation from falling even further behind economically.

As to the point that "minimum wages cause unemployment" - I think this article misrepresents the nature of Friedman's argument in this respect, and completely skips the depth of his position. It also begins to take on the view that low unemployment is the end itself rather than a means to improve underlying social conditions. 0% unemployment with an average low-income wage of $0.50 is not 'better' than 5% unemployment with an average low-income wage of $7.

A final note - the minimum wage in Australia is currently nearly double that of the United States. Our current unemployment rate is about half that of the United States. Unemployment is far more dependent on broader economic factors than just the minimum wage.

<comment><USER3> _A self-interested, economically rational business would hire the worker for $1.50 an hour._

This assumes that MTurk is an exact substitute. It isn't even close.

I know of a person who made this exact choice - instead of going lean and using MTurk at $1.50/hour, he is paying close to $5/hour (loaded cost, wage is probably about $2.50) for live humans and suffering with monthly contracts and renting office space. (I'm helping him with the data analysis.)

Among other things, with a single turk at $1.5/hour, you need to hire 2 more turks each at $1.5/hour and get a majority vote on their work. You also need to hope you didn't hire two colluding spammers. You don't get to give them live, in-person training, and checking work is more difficult.

Then there are statistical issues. If you have 10,000 HITs produced by 100 turks, you need to check 100 x 15=1500 HITs and you have a low confidence that any individual turk did a good job. If you have 10,000 HITs produced by a single employee, you can check 200 HITs and get a much higher confidence rate. Do this for a few rounds, you now have a set of employees who you can trust. Additionally, you can control when the work is done. If something is important, it will be done in precisely #HITs / (employees x HIT rate) hours. On MTurk, you hope it will eventually be done one day.

 _0% unemployment with an average low-income wage of $0.50 is not 'better' than 5% unemployment with an average low-income wage of $7._

The average low income wage in the US is far lower than $7. Most poor adults (about 70%) have a wage of $0 due to having no job.

<http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Even the central planners recognize that minimum wages are inappropriate in certain contexts, and are conditionally exempted for interns, family workers, wait staff, farm workers, soldiers (in the past anyway), etc.

You guys maybe don't know this, but there's a huge ongoing scam generally advertised as "work from home" or "make 4000/month working on your computer", etc, etc, which is basically aimed at housewives and old people and shut-ins who can't work shifts, but want to make money. Amazon is providing a non- fraudulent, though badly-paid, alternative to this scam. Feel free to outlaw it, though.

</comment><comment><USER5> This seems like bogus reasoning. When a minimum wage was introduced in the UK unemployment went down, at least for a while. The article contains assertions, but no experimental results. An experimental economist would experiment with different minimum wage levels and observe the results.

I think the bottom line is that economies are complex systems, and simplistic "just so" narratives which don't take multiple interdependencies (themselves adaptive systems) into account are typically insufficient to describe the dynamics of these systems.

<comment><USER3> _When a minimum wage was introduced in the UK unemployment went down, at least for a while._

This is because politicians are (usually) smart enough to introduce minimum wages only during growth periods and to keep the minimum wage well below market rates.

I won't speak about the UK, but in the US, less than 4.5% of the poor earned minimum wage [1].

<http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2007.htm>

When the minimum wage is raised significantly higher than market rates, the results can be devastating.

<http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/127791>

[1] I'm dividing 1.7M min wage earners / 37.3M poor people to get an upper bound. The real number is less since many min wage earners are teenagers or spouses from non-poor households.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's stupid. Economy doesn't exists in a vacuum. It' very influenced by politic. And saying politic I mean the way a society decide to use its finite resources AND the rules a society define for his citizens. And an Economy simply lives there, in circle of rules.

So if minimum wage let some people out, the same happens not letting children work. And why taking care of people with physical problems (no hands? no legs? why the State, using public money should care? You are a problem just let you take care of yourself)?

You set the rules of your society. It doesn't exists something called free market. The market is defined by the rules of the society AND the society change in time AND space. So the market change in time AND space.

And these Friedman bullshit are the same you hear over and over and over.

And I'm a bit tired.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm not sure what an optimal minimum wage would be, but surely there should be _some_ minimum wage. Simple thought experiment: if one person or corporation controlled all the world's resources, should they be able to pay everyone some vanishingly small delta above zero? In that case a minimum wage would only increase everyone's wages and make the marketplace fairer.

Obviously on the other hand, minimum wage increases can certainly reduce jobs.

</comment><comment><USER8> This Milton Friedman..just wow. He is still bringen the world so much good.

<comment><USER9> Agreed.

If you want, here is a list [[http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/2006/08/pbs- tv-series-fre...](http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/2006/08/pbs-tv-series- free-to-choose-by.html)] of videos of his free to choose tv series.</comment></comment>


YouTube enlists volunteers to moderate its site via "YouTube Heroes" - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/21/youtube-enlists-volunteers-to-moderate-its-site-via-a-new-youtube-heroes-program/ <comment><USER2> so youtube is going to start to have thought police... unfortunately there are no other viable alternatives

on the actual video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh_1966vaIA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh_1966vaIA)

> _Comments are disabled for this video._

hmm I wonder why</comment>


Why you should write every day - <AUTHOR> http://zenhabits.net/write-daily/

<comment><USER2> I agree that writing is helpful. It also brings original content, solutions to problems, and creates an audience for/to an online persona.

I've read about four to five of these 'start writing' or 'start mentoring' posts in the past two weeks. There is truth behind it.

The analytics, the keyword matching, and view counts drown my intention. I start off sharing thoughts, ideas, and drawings. Once the analytics start piling up, I obsess and it becomes a burden. I do not know how to step beyond addiction and write just to write. Monetization also creeps in at some point and usually places the nail in the coffin.

</comment><comment><USER3> Does this writing requires that you publish it somewhere or can it be really private?

<comment><USER4> From the article:

>Blog. You can write in a journal or text document just for yourself, but I highly recommend blogging. Get a free account at WordPress.com or Tumblr, and just start. Why blog? Because it really helps you to write regularly, and forces you to think in different ways, when you have an audience. Even if the audience is small. It's scary, I know, but just do it. You'll grow comfortable with it over time, and you should never let fear stop you from doing something amazing.</comment></comment>


Dropbox Chief to Join Elite Ranks of Idea-To-I.P.O. Founders - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/technology/dropbox-chief-poster-child-tech-founder-making-it-big.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news <comment><USER2> FYI, There is another discussion going on around the same post here, currently trending higher than this. Can someone remove this or merge them together?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16562197](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16562197)</comment>


Equifax's stock is plummeting after it reported a massive security breach - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/08/equifaxs-stock-is-plummeting-after-it-reported-a-massive-security-breach/ <comment><USER2> And half the C-suite sold their shares in the intervening MONTHS between discovering the breach and disclosing it.

I'm sure Jeff Sessions will be all over that one. /s

</comment><comment><USER3> What's even scarier is that's the backup info most systems use to recover your accounts.</comment>


JavaFX 11 is released - <AUTHOR> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-September/022475.html <comment><USER2> Does anyone know if font rendering on Linux respects the OS hinting settings? I've long wanted to create GUI apps in Java, but stayed away because the font rendering was what I consider _ugly_.

EDIT: Why on earth would someone downvote this?

<comment><USER3> I don't use Netbeans and to some extent IDEA just because the fonts don't look right. _Tons_ of work went into the font rendering of Windows and OSX/macOS. Java apps that use the Java font rendering bypass all that work look like horse-shit.

True Type Fonts need a little VM in them for processing hints that was patented by Apple. FreeType got around this issue by implementing automatic hinting instead of executing the manual hints.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueType#Linux_and_other_platf...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueType#Linux_and_other_platforms)

Windows simply acquired a proper license for TTF rendering. I think these patents caused issues for Swing. The Java font rendering in Swing components was 100% Java and did not use any of the OS font rendering. IIRC these patents have long expired so I don't see why the fonts couldn't look better. I only do Java on the backend so I have no idea how Java guis look these days.

<comment><USER4> This was only an issue for those that are ideologically against installing Sun/Oracle's JDK versions or any other commercial JDK like IBM's, as the rendering code was never part of OpenJDK, hence why InteliJ started bundling their own variant of OpenJDK.

Meanwhile with the transition to OpenJDK as official JDK the code has been merged into OpenJDK.

[http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2017-November...](http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2017-November/004630.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I highly recommend checking out Gerrit Grunwald's work in JavaFX he has made some very nice JavaFX based controls which you an checkout on github[0], there are also demos on his youtube channel[1].

[0] [https://github.com/HanSolo](https://github.com/HanSolo) [1] [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCPbe_sGZuimJUyd2rdR7kA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCPbe_sGZuimJUyd2rdR7kA)

</comment><comment><USER6> Now that Oracle has withdrawn resources from the project, I wonder what its future is going to be.

I was really hoping it would become a Swing replacement, but so far there are still too many unfilled gaps for it to replace our (fairly extensive) production usage of Swing.

<comment><USER7> What are the gaps, in your case?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > The recommended workaround is to use the Xorg server instead of the Wayland > server when running JavaFX applications. Note that Wayland is not supported > by JDK 10 or JDK 11.

Even with the switch to GTK 3, there's no native Wayland support? WTF

</comment><comment><USER9> Are there any examples of _great_ desktop apps done in recent-ish JavaFX? Something comparable to native MacOS apps like Pixelmator or Sketch?

<comment><USER10> > Pixelmator or Sketch

These apps have had a lot of time put into their design–it's not just "we slapped Cocoa on this and now it's beautiful". Native apps being better is selection bias, since people who spend time on design aren't going to settle for Java messing up the UI or UX–so they just all use AppKit.

<comment><USER9> That's not exactly true or those people won't settle for Electron either. Obviously that's not the case and I wonder why. Is it just that Electron apps are easier to do, native apps look and feel better, so JavaFX is a sort of no man's land?

<comment><USER11> The point of Java on the desktop was cross-platform compatibility, but electron now occupies that same space — and decent JS developers are cheaper and easier to find than decent Java-desktop developers.

If cross-platform support is not a requirement, desktop Java is not even in the running.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If I want to build fully custom GUI is it better to start at Swing(Learning from book: Filthy Rich Client)? or JavaFX has made it easier to build custom GUI components.

</comment><comment><USER13> Wait, wasn't JavaFX dead? Or maybe that was just webstart? I just seem to recall looking.. A year ? Back and not finding any recommended, "this will continue to work" gui for Java?

<comment><USER11> If i remember correctly, webstart has been deprecated together with pretty much anything that had anything to do with browsers and plugins. JavaFX is a bit more generic in its applications, I believe (not really my field of expertise).

<comment><USER14> Note that webstart is plugin less for quite a long time. The java installer registers a mime type. This way the browser simply offers to open (or save) the startup file, using the default save dialog, with the webstart executable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> With lots of nice fixes.

</comment><comment><USER15> > JavaFX 11

Is that the version number, or how many people are using it?

<comment><USER16> thats cold man

<comment><USER17> Harsh but fair. I've been doing java for about 25 years and consider myself an expert in that language. I know absolutely nobody that does desktop applications in Java these days (swing or javafx) at this point and that has been true for well over a decade. I get approached by recruiters for lots of shit I would never do but Java desktop aint one of those things. The last time I did anything swing related must have been 15 years ago and it was a questionable choice then already. The only popular swing applications I know of are developer tools like intellij. I've never encountered anything javafx in the wild.

<comment><USER5> Hi, there are a few things I have wanted to ask from someone who is working with Java professionally as it is the programming language I know best (for context: I am a student who will be graduating in a year).

What is Java still being used for? is it mostly Spring work and Android apps or are there still other use cases?

What do you use Java for? or What is the nature of work that you do which makes use of Java?

It would be very helpful if you could answer these.

<comment><USER18> As someone else who uses java professionally a lot, let me weigh in.

Most large services are backed by web servers in the backend. What do you imagine most people use for web/http servers? Java. What other language can you use? C++? Large scale services are too error prone, especially if not maintained by experienced devs and besides, no one codes restful services in C++. NodeJS? It's weakly typed and is javascript. I know it's really popular but rarely used in large backends not fronting a UI.

Java is still king almost everywhere.

<comment><USER4> > What other language can you use?

On my line of work, .NET is the only alternative, when customer is not up to using Java for whatever reasons.

On both cases, C++ just has a tiny integration role to some libraries or OS APIs than we might eventually need to access to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's perverse that after Flash/Flex are 'dead' that Sun's mutant attempt to compete in the space is still going.

<comment><USER20> Flash/Flex need a browser to run, don't they?

<comment><USER21> No. AIR was a runtime for desktop environments. You could implement standalone applications (and mobile apps) with it. I also worked on a few embedded systems which utilized a user-interface on top of Flash/Flex/AIR.

As far as I can recall it was pretty good, and mostly fun to work with. The framework was quite powerful, and allowed us to write lots of highly interactive code in a short timeframe. At that point of time (maybe 2011?), it was far ahead of anything based on Javascript/HTML, and I think only more recently the more powerful web frameworks might have caught up.

<comment><USER22> I really enjoyed Flex and look back at it fondly, when I tried Angular 1 it felt like the first thing on the JS/HTML side that could come close to matching the productivity of Flex (albeit with no helpful IDE). It was good enough to whip out a MVP demo in 48 hours. I've mostly been out of UI development since, occasionally extending stuff written in a NIH corporate framework or some Backbone things. Occasional experiments with the ClojureScript tooling (Reagent-based) seem like the next way forward that maybe the rest of the world can use in another 5+ years.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Seattle Bar That Banned Google Glasses Admits It Was a PR Stunt - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/03/10/seattle-bar-that-banned-google-glasses-admits-it-was-a-pr-stunt/

<comment><USER2> It's a sign of the times: "(name anyone) admits it was a hoax -- film at 11."</comment>


Ask HN: What good software computing books to buy - <AUTHOR>

A lot of Book publishers are offering discounts on the books today. What are the books that you recommend to a Geek/Programmer? <comment><USER2> I don't read much computer related books but I recently started 'Ghost in the wires' from Kevin Mitnick and it is awesome so far.</comment>


This live stream plays endless death metal produced by an AI - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/27/18518170/algorithm-ai-death-metal-dadabots-live-stream-youtube-cj-carr-zack-zukowski <comment><USER2> I just listened to a 5 minute lull of odd droning, punctuated by 3 minutes of a death metal onslaught, and back to droning. Its fun listening to what a net is interpreting as music we make and listen to...

Does this take its own feedback, as in, could it detect when its not really making 'music'?</comment>


Auth0 Service Outage (Dec. 19th 2019) - <AUTHOR> https://status.auth0.com/incidents/rpctnc6jd1kl <comment><AUTHOR> Currently Monitoring @ 19:04 UTC. The service is working again for us.</comment>


Treat Facebook like something between a telco and a newspaper, says Zuckerberg - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-facebook/treat-us-like-something-between-a-telco-and-a-newspaper-says-facebooks-zuckerberg-idUSKBN2090MA <comment><USER2> So he wants all the benefits of being a monopolistic platform without any of the responsibilities and he wants all the benefits of being a publisher without any of the responsibilities. Zuckerburg wants to eat his cake and have it too.

Letting facebook be part telco and part newspaper would make it the greatest propaganda machine in human history - one that is controlled by one person. Hopefully countries will start banning facebook outright soon.

<comment><USER3> Is he wrong?

Like a telco, Facebook allows people to communicate with one another without going through another intermediary. However, it's not one-to-one like your phone, it's one-to-many.

Like a newspaper the messages are broadcast out to everyone that's subscribed to receive them. However, there's limited editorial control by Facebook (except for content breaching their policies).

If we thought of Facebook as a glorified listserv with a pretty UI (and a bunch of tracking cookies and injected ads) would it still seem like it should be treated as a publisher?

<comment><USER4> I'd say Facebook does much more than have limited editorial control. They dictate what you see, malicious Intent or not

<comment><USER3> What do you mean by dictate what you see? Aside from the sponsored content/ads, isn't it just a prioritized queue of what your Facebook friends posted?

<comment><USER5> Prioritized by Facebook

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Treat Facebook like cigarettes, says me.

Suggesting they're a near necessary part of life, like a utility, is laughable. But since he brought it up, replacing them with a proper newspaper would be much more useful.

<comment><USER7> Facebook serves many important roles especially with the groups feature. I know many reddit/tech headasses will jerk off to the fact they abhor facebook but facebook is integral to many local communities helping facilitate an online flea market of sorts and almost being the most important network for students (used textbooks, study groups, entrepreneurship etc.)

dont like it but its much more useful than the local news website

<comment><USER8> Yeah, but I don't see how that's a good thing. Many groups near me have moved exclusively to Facebook meaning I'm essentially locked out from participating in them.

Previously stuff like this would have been organized through a mailing list or maybe a BBS. Facebook taking this over means that you have to allow them spying on you to take part in basic social activities.

<comment><USER9> The BBS and mailing list were vulnerable to spying too. I certainly remember the weird signatures people used on their emails to "confuse echelon".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> We might disagree with Zuckerberg about the specific consequences, but as far as the headline goes he's mostly right. Social media is a new thing, and trying to use existing regulatory frameworks for it, like those for telcos and newspapers, will lead to us all having a bad time.

Where I disagree, or at least am uncertain, is that the right regulatory framework for social media lies on some kind of straight line between the two others mentioned. In particular, those are both pretty heavyweight, and I don't want any real obstacles for new competitors or people just running a phpBB.

<comment><USER11> Can you elaborate a bit on how anyone "but" Facebook has a bad time by applying the existing regulatory frameworks? You mention itsy-bitsy start-up boards, but really none of the concerns being address in courts world wide have anything to do with minor boards and everything to do with Facebook's lack of control over their advertisers, the amount of information being shared out to said advertisers, their position as a news platform (upon Facebook's own insistence) plus their lack of vetting (keep in mind, this isn't about them generating content or user posted content, it's about Facebook's algorithms purposefully promoting this content; this is much different than some nutcase spinning up a site on a VM somewhere an trying to SEO as much as they can to get some attention from random google searches on hot-topic subjects).

Social media walks a strange line where it seems that its proponents both want to be treated as legitimate news, but not held to the same standards of veracity and validation of the claims that traditional news sources purport to follow*. Such scrutiny of Facebook isn't a concern for a start up unless they're already engaging in bad-faith practices and/or problematic practices per stringent Privacy Law (i.e., EU law).

Simply put, Facebook can see that their ability to expand past the US strongly (more than it already has) is gated by the public perception of what Facebook is/does. I'm no in the EU proper but close enough and get various Warnings/messages about Facebook from facebook itself...and for me it's empty.

But make no mistake, Facebook really is trying to muddy the waters by pretending that existing legislation targets or directly affects persons who are not engaged in the non-sense which was required before.

<comment><USER10> I feel that I should not have to justify the idea that applying laws designed around a certain set of assumptions, in a situation that violates those assumptions, is likely to produce bad outcomes. I feel that this should be the default belief. But since you asked so nicely...

The case of treating FB as a telco is obvious: no accountability. I think we're agreed that this is no good.

A news outlet (a) explicitly has their credibility on the line with regard to their output and (b) is very selective in what they publish (for better or worse). Neither of these is really the case for Facebook. For a given link, only the poster's and linkee's credibility is on the line. Facebook defaults to allowing posts, and is only somewhat selective in what it allows and promotes. If this means Facebook is legally equivalent to the New York Times, then so are HN, reddit, Pinterest, etc. Treating FB as a new agency requires all of these sites to take responsibility for the opinions of all of their users. This will discourage medium-sized sites where hand-moderation (doable for small forums) is just becoming infeasible, and more importantly have a chilling effect on people's online activity, because you'll never quite know when the admins of the site you're posting on, or their robotic minions, will panic about your controversial link. Better for them to delete your post just in case they get in trouble with the law, and maybe better for you to not bother and stay silent. This is also no good.

Of course that's just one scenario. Details may differ across the multiverse. But one thing that doesn't change is that basing policy on something other than reality always finds a way to go wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Isn't that the very _problem_ with Facebook, that it wants to impartially serve content like a telco, but partially control the content like a newspaper?

<comment><USER13> I don't think Facebook wants to control content, it's hard, expensive, and hurts their reputation. It's users and governments complaining that forces them into that game.

<comment><USER14> Of course FB wants to control content. It helps them increase engagement and also monetise.

<comment><USER10> There are couple different kinds of "controlling the content". Facebook does want to promote certain things, i.e. make them easier to find, but it doesn't really want to delete or block things entirely, which is what I think GP was talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So, treat them as a mash-up between one of the best known monopolies in US history and an industry known for equal parts educating and confusing people? That's both very forthcoming of him and completely terrifying.

The National Enquirer is a newspaper too, and probably the closer analogy to Facebook in reality than more reputable news organizations.

<comment><USER16> My first thought:

Imagine if William Randolph Heart and Ma Bell had a love child.

<comment><USER17> My first thought:

shall I burn it or wipe my arse with it.

<comment><USER6> Probably both, just be sure the wipe is first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Of course Zuck wants you to think he's a utility, essential and ubiquitous like electricity and running water. Absolutely not a predatory and amoral monopolist, no sir.

<comment><USER10> Those aren't actually contradictory. But anyway, the point of this article is that he's distancing Facebook from the "utility" category, not trying to join it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm still not sure why we don't regulate companies like facebook like we did the rail industry. Force facebook and other social media companies to develop an open API and standard and guarantee interoparibility, akin to other federalized networks that already exist.

This takes the biggest anti-competitive aspect of facebook out, the network and walled garden effect they have due to their sheer size.

It will mean that companies like Signal have much greater chance to compete with whatsapp, it will reward whoever provides the best service to their users, and it is relatively light and uncomplicated regulation.

<comment><USER20> Because you could show a politician a set of incompatible railroad tracks and they would understand the problem. No such luck here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I feel like Zuckerberg doesn't get enough credit. I never heard anyone describe Facebook that way, but immediately when I read "something between a telco and a newspaper" I felt like "oh yeah, that makes sense." They clearly offer services that are very telecom-like, and others that are more newspaper- like. They probably also have planned out how being viewed this way would effect them favorably, but it also just makes sense.

<comment><USER22> But the thing is absolutely no one should be using Facebook for their news source.

<comment><USER23> Absolutely. But, this is Zuckerberg's full statement:

>I do think that there should be regulation on harmful content ... there's a question about which framework you use for this.

>Right now there are two frameworks that I think people have for existing industries - there's like newspapers and existing media, and then there's the telco-type model, which is 'the data just flows through you', but you're not going to hold a telco responsible if someone says something harmful on a phone line.

>I actually think where we should be is somewhere in between.

Here is a charitable interpretation: he's considering how it should be regulated, not what the company exactly is or should be. And I think his statement there is correct. In practice, many people _do_ treat Facebook like a sort of newspaper. I definitely think they shouldn't, but it's a fact.

He seems to be saying that, as a result, some kind of regulation similar to newspaper-targeted regulation is necessary. But, at the same time, it's certainly not exactly like a newspaper, where content is produced and published exclusively by the source. Facebook doesn't even explicitly curate content (or so they claim), let alone create it; they try to let curation occur automatically through algorithms.

This absolutely may be a duplicitous attempt at humility on his part, but, regardless of the underlying intent, I think his public message is that Facebook is in a unique position where it can influence a lot of people to believe certain claims and ostensible facts like a newspaper would, and yet is not an author of content in the way a newspaper is. I think he's trying to allude to the additional responsibility they have and the risk they pose which telcos don't share, and that there's a need to regulate them more strictly than telcos as a result. He's saying they're a telco that should be treated with some of the regulatory gravity of a newspaper, rather than that they're a newspaper that should be treated like a telco.

So I think people are kind of interpreting it in reverse. He's trying to sound humble and accountable - perhaps to misleadingly deflect from his probable true personal belief that they should have as minimal regulation as humanly possible - rather than arrogantly proclaiming they should be immune from regulation. (One can't rule out the possibility that he's being sincere, but of course that's not exactly his reputation.)

tl;dr I think he's likely being sneaky rather than shameless.

<comment><USER22> Thanks for the write up. I agree with everything you've posted. Bottom line is to never trust what Zuckerberg says. I am sure his days are filled with lawyers hired solely to coach him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So long as certain content (that is not restricted by external forces, i.e. the law) is prohibited from the platform, I fail to see why they should be considered anything other than a publisher. If the platform can only be used for content they approve of, they can't be defined as anything else.

<comment><USER10> I think the "default allow" of a social media platform is materially different from the "default deny" of a typical publisher. That's kind of tricky to build a sharp distinction on, but it's where I would start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Shall we go and ask the head of Exxon Mobil what level of regulation he thinks we should enforce for sub-standard engineering practices on oil tankers and oil rigs?

How about next time the policeman stops a drunk driver we ask the drunk driver what BAC would be reasonable for him to be driving with?

</comment><comment><USER26> I'll admit, I just don't think the way we've been regulating social media has been bad. I think perceiving it as a source of news or truth instead of just a place where people talk to each other is weird. I understand that people don't like what some social media sites have become, but outside of removing content that isn't protected by the first amendment, I really don't see why we would want to create regulations surrounding it.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A brilliant suggestion by Mark Zuckerberg. Rules, regulations and compliance are a burden and a barrier to entry for startups and competition. In most countries there are only a couple of regulated telcos.

Imagine with the tech landscape and how many fewer companies there will be if it is regulated like telcos.

Governments and regulators will have a bigger say in picking winners and losers.

<comment><USER27> "Hero myths like the ones surrounding Musk and Jobs are damaging in other ways, too. If tech leaders are seen primarily as singular, lone achievers, it is easier for them to extract disproportionate wealth. It is also harder to get their companies to accept that they should return some of their profits to agencies like NASA and the National Science Foundation through higher taxes or simply less tax dodging.

And finally, technology hero worship tends to distort our visions of the future. Why should governments do the hard work of fixing and expanding California's mass transit system when Musk says we could zip people across the state at 760 miles per hour in a "hyperloop"? Is trying to colonize Mars, at a cost in the billions of dollars, actually the right direction for future space exploration and scientific research? We should be able to determine long-term technology priorities without giving excessive weight to the particular visions of a few tech celebrities.

Rather than placing tech leaders on a pedestal, we should put their successes in context, acknowledging the role of government not only as a supporter of basic science but as a partner for new ventures. Otherwise, it is all too easy to denigrate public-sector investment, eroding support for government agencies and training programs and ultimately putting future innovation at risk. As Mazzucato puts it, "It's precisely because we admire Musk and think his contributions are important that we need to get real about where his success actually comes from.""

Source: [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/539861/techs-enduring- gre...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/539861/techs-enduring-great-man- myth/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> How about treating Facebook like an unapologetic monomaniacal psychopath fixated on provoking polarization and undermining communication?

</comment><comment><USER29> Its more like a huge building with cameras everywhere watching what you do, with you walking around with a huge sign with your real name on it, your likes and what you have shared. People in far away lands are paid to watch the cameras to make sure what is posted does not violate the building's terms of services.

The building's walls have boards everywhere, some of them move upwards in a continuous loop on a conveyor so you can stare at them, then stop them once you see something interesting, open the ducket contained. They make money by gluing sponsored ads in-between, that you must pay for.

You can see a copy of any other person's board in a small envelope next to each person's name.

There are also rooms called "groups" you can go into but some of them are private and you must answer 3 questions to get in.

Would make an interesting art exhibit recreating Facebook into a physical form, well.. er. The closest thing i can think of is a library..

Its a bit dystopian when you think about the first line i wrote, about the cameras watching everyone. But, its needed to stop horrible things getting posted.

</comment><comment><USER30> So IOW he's ok with the government breaking Facebook into a bunch of smaller Regional Holding Companies, as it did with the Bell System?

<comment><USER20> Don't worry, in 30 years they'll just coalesce back into the same blob. Maybe sometimes they'll make a big show out of it, but enough time will have got by for everyone to forget why it happened in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Of course Facebook wants to have its cake and eat it too.

It would certainly be nice for them if they can claim editorial discretion, without editorial responsibility or transparency. The perfect legal shield. Power without responsibility.

It would be insane to grant them this. This might well be the most important legal question this century.

</comment><comment><USER32> Treat Facebook like a website. It's just a website. It's not so important that it needs a special designation. I think it makes sense to come up with data and privacy laws that apply to all companies, not just Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER33> I've been reading "Zucked", by McNamee, a VC who was involved with Facebook in the early days and is now one of its harshest critics. Read the book.

</comment><comment><USER34> Break them up like Ma Bell.

Hold them accountable like News of the World.

Give them the highest scrutiny afforded both platforms. Not the greatest freedoms.

</comment><comment><USER35> Just think of how many lawyer and PR dollars came up with this PR / regulatory relations strategy.

</comment><comment><USER36> Facebook is really big so lets treat it as such, and look at things piece by piece. Start with treating Facebook's NEWS FEED as a newspaper perhaps, then move on to other problems like hate groups using facebook to organize, marketplace fraud, etc.

</comment><comment><USER37> Zuckerberg is a safe pair of hands. We can trust him with our data.

</comment><comment><USER38> A phone company doesn't suggest other phone numbers or people you should be calling, or try and optimize for your engagement on making the most phone calls. A telco company also traditionally does not directly market to users, or sell ads based on the content of their data (voice calls and text messages). So by this test, no, Facebook is nothing like a telco.

<comment><USER39> That seems to be the point in the article, it's not like a telco. Another thread here points out that it's not like a newspaper either.

In reality it's an entirely new category and applying regulations from the 20th century isn't going to work as well as coming up with entirely new ones to address entirely new problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Rephrased: Let us have the power of a telco, but with the regulation of a newspaper.

</comment><comment><USER41> I see it a mix of Big Brother, the Galactic Empire, and the Eye of Zuckron.

</comment><comment><USER42> Newspapers have now accountability.

</comment><comment><USER43> wondering if this could pave the road for treating internet service as a utility too

</comment><comment><USER44> Let me guess, he should have the discretion of a newspaper and the freedom from liability of a telco?

</comment><comment><USER45> Im going to treat them like the yellow pages, i.e. never use one again and explain what it was to my kids.

</comment><comment><USER46> Let's treat Facebook like something between a mental health threat and a propoganda site, said ex-User.

</comment><comment><USER47> Do whatever the hell you want with FB, Zuck!

Stop worrying about trying to please the PC police and just run the most addictive and profitable BBS you can. Promote whatever you want and shadow ban whatever.

The Europeons may object, but ultimately in the US the political will doesn't exist to make you do more. A few politicians like Hawley on the right and AOC on the left may have an issue that works for them, but the American majority is going to look pretty skeptically at any significant regulation.</comment>


New Facebook messanger has only one star on the app store - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/messenger/id454638411

<comment><USER2> There's been a campaign aimed at the new permissions they ask for, especially recording audio without asking. People protest by installing the app, leaving a 1-star review, then uninstalling it.

<comment><AUTHOR> How do they ask for that permission? With a popup like the one asking for sending you notices? I thought apps are allowed to do anything on ios. Can't remember skype asking me for recording permissions.

<comment><USER2> That might be more of an Android thing, but it does get permission to access the microphone on iOS. Maybe a bigger reason for iOS users is the recent change that removes messaging from the main app. That means you have to have two separate apps if you want to browse and do messaging. [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/facebook- messenger-...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/facebook-messenger- switch-controversy-is-part-misunderstanding-part- mistrust/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0)</comment></comment></comment>


How to obtain a full 12-lead electrocardiogram with the Apple Watch - <AUTHOR> https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2756147/standard-precordial-leads-obtained-apple-watch <comment><AUTHOR> Copy and discussion of paywalled article: [https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1199088326633914368?s=2...](https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1199088326633914368?s=21)</comment>


Amazon offers two-factor authentication for your account - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/amazon-offers-stronger-protection-for-your-account/ <comment><AUTHOR> I was happy to see they offered the 'Authenticator App' (HOTP) as an alternative method, but they still asked for a backup phone number in the next step. Pretty much every other service I've used 2FA with simply offered backup recovery codes that you had to save somewhere, which I believe is the better method.</comment>


Microsoft Announces a $5B Investment in IoT - <AUTHOR> https://www.thurrott.com/hardware/155799/microsoft-announces-5-billion-investment-iot <comment><USER2> I thought they were getting out of IoT because of how bad they did with the Raspberry Pi.

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/21/first_look_windows_...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/21/first_look_windows_10_iot_core_on_raspberry_pi_2/)

<comment><USER3> I feel like they missed the boat in not supporting ARMv6 (Pi Zero) in .NET Core and Windows 10 IoT.</comment></comment>


More on the NSA Commandeering the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/more_on_the_nsa.html <comment><USER2> I know nothing of Lavabit, but let's say he did comply with the order and then months or years later the company simply isn't profitable and he needs to shut it down. Could he shut it down then? Or would he suddenly find himself hosting lots of paid government accounts - enough to make it financially viable? (But define viable... Does "I'm not pocketing $1m/year from this business, so I don't care any more. Turn it off!" count?)

Could he sell the business? If so, at what point does the new owner get to find out they have extra non-negotiable obligations to the government?

<comment><USER3> That's why the government is paying the companies to access the data. So it's much easier for companies to just comply with the order. The carrot and the stick.

<comment><USER4> Well, the government is paying for some degree of predigestion of the data. The alternative for the company is having a government black box installed in their machine room doing who knows what....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Once they do that, you no longer control that part of your business. You can't shut it down. You can't terminate part of your service. In a very real sense, it is not your business anymore."

Totalitarianism.

</comment><comment><USER6> I feel like we've identified this problem to death.

I think now the real question is, as an internet community, what are we going to do about it?

Are we going to build something that 'routes around' this? Are we going to protest? Or are we just going to keep identifying the problem and complaining about it on Twitter?

I'm not saying that I'm not one of those people too - I'm just saying we need to start thinking about action and not identification.

I'm hoping that's the next article Bruce writes.

<comment><USER7> It seems to me that the only way to bring about real policy change in the US is to organize politically. If you can deliver votes in November, then you can get things done.

Part of the problem is that other than the EFF and ACLU, there isn't really a "privacy lobby" in the US. And neither of these organizations are effective in shaping election outcomes.

What is needed is something like the 2nd-ammendment lobby or the "Family Values" lobby--one that not only talks about policy, but one which also rewards allies and penalizes enemies at the ballot box. The way that the NRA and the Christian Coalition do it is through grass-roots organizing, and a massive donor base that they basically direct in a centralized manner, which puts them in an unassailable negotiating position on Capital Hill.

<comment><USER4> Don't look at the "Family Values" lobby, they get lip service but no serious favorable actions in return for their votes. One reason they're fading away (the main other one is that Carter's attacks on their schools are a distant memory).

The concept of the applying the lessons of the 2nd Amendment lobby was extensively discussed here: [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6185138](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6185138)

Here's the contents of my top comment, which I think frames the concept well:

"Until we have _specific_ , actual, real privacy _atrocities_ I can't see this effort getting the traction of any of the groups you've specified. Labor had company towns and less but still specifically abusive employers, with plenty of specific people maimed or killed in unsafe workplaces or labor actions. Environmentalists had deformed children from Japanese industrial mercury dumping, and, oh, the Cuyahoga River _catching on fire_. Gun grabbers have killed, maimed, or otherwise grossly abused thousands of people _and that continues to this day_.

"What _specific_ incidents, with victims most will empathize with, can the privacy effort point to?"

<comment><USER8> Martin Luther King was spied on and blackmailed by the FBI. It's a bit dated, but a good place to start.

[http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/01/21/the-fbi-wrote-a- lette...](http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/01/21/the-fbi-wrote-a-letter-to- martin-luther-king-telling-him-to-commit-suicide/)

<comment><USER4> Oh, there's a whole bunch of pre-Church Committee, especially J. Edgar Hoover (died a few years before the former) ... incidents, but the current authorities can and will say they aren't like those abusive folks 4 decades ago.

And in e.g. the case of MLK they were famously unsuccessful. I claim you need _atrocities_ committed upon "victims most will empathize with"; the latter excludes "rioting hippies" and the like, especially after the Weather Underground and company started bombing and killing people.

E.g. I was _just_ past the threshold of becoming politically aware when this happened: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Hall_bombing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Hall_bombing) and it shocked and appalled the nation.

<comment><USER9> It's interesting what external events are formative. For me, it was the SSC being cancelled (thus, wanting to be in private business and then funding science vs. government-funded big science at risk always to Congress), the MOVE bombing in a nearby city (learning that even a black mayor can be racist, as well as incompetent), and Challenger ("perfect systems aren't", kind of the Rumsfeld thing).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wow, I didn't realize that the lavabit guy had been threatened with prosecution for opting out of continuing his business. That makes me incredibly angry. The sheer audacity of it is baffling.

<comment><USER11> Many people do not realize how bad things have gotten. (They have gotten very, very bad.) That is a big part of the problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The idea of a National Security Letter, a device which strips the recipient of several basic human rights, is so blatantly unconstitutional that it should have never been allowed to exist at all, let alone persist as long as it has. It's a device straight out of the Cold War east bloc.

</comment><comment><USER13> Several months ago that tone would have sounded conspiracy crazed nutty. But post-Snowden and given that it's schneier, it's sad to realize we've come to realize how bad the situation is. I'm still inclined to not change any actions on my part because I'm not worried about being under surveillance. I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting. However, I would like it if the spying were reduced to remove the bulk tapping of the internet.

<comment><USER14> "I'm neither interesting, nor engaged in anything interesting"

You are missing a word: _yet_. You are not interesting _yet_. You might become interesting some time in the future, and discover that what you thought were uninteresting conversations today can be used against you. Here is a famous example:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fisher_%28lawyer%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fisher_%28lawyer%29)

<comment><USER4> The problem is the National Lawyers Guild _was_ a notorious Communist front. If you have _any_ doubt, this line in their Wikipedia entry is utterly damning:

" _Following the Nazis ' invasion of the Soviet Union, the Guild gave its support to President Roosevelt's wartime policies, including that of Japanese American internment._"

Would people say the same if Ficher's "youthful indiscretion" if he'd worked for a Nazi front after, say, _Kristallnacht_? (See the above quote, they wouldn't have between 23 August 1939 and 22 June 1941.) Was it _that_ difficult for Ficher avoid working for a cause dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government and the liquidation of its "capitalist" classes including the wealthier farmers?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's too bad the NSA didn't want to spy on Google Reader...

<comment><USER16> Maybe they did...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "That was before the Patriot Act and National Security Letters. Now, presumably, Nacchio would just comply. Protection rackets are easier when you have the law backing you up."

Reminds me of this old chestnut:

Q: Why does the government prosecute the Mafia?

A: They don't want any competition.

</comment><comment><USER18> I still cannot see any solution, other than total loss of privacy for all. If the NSA records were made publically accessible, then its a new Nash Equilibrium, but one where no-one has power by dint of secrecy.

But other than that, regulation? Even if it worked in the US would the Chinese or Russians agree?

I think perhaps its all or nothing.

</comment><comment><USER19> > To be fair, we don't know if the government can actually convict someone of > closing a business.

The Thirteenth Amendment makes it pretty clear you can't force a person to work, unless they've been convicted of a crime. There may be an argument that he violated the NSL, but that's not the same thing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

<comment><USER4> I really wonder if that would directly apply. The most relevant case law I'm familiar with didn't use it, although that was complicated by the Feds requiring state government agents to do things: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> You read where companies cannot divulge that fact that they have received a NSL? What if they all started reporting that they did NOT receive a NSL? Then when the reporting stopped, you could draw your own conclusions. Wouldn't work for large companies that might get them frequently, but would be an option for the smaller ones like Lavabit.

<comment><USER21> By stopping reporting that, they have divulged that they received a letter. So once you receive one, in order to avoid prosecution, you need to keep your notification up as a continuous lie.

<comment><USER22> No way. You can be compelled by the courts to actively perpetuate a lie? I don't think so.

The deal with the warrant canary is the guy signs a new message every (day?), actively affirming that he hasn't been served with any such secret warrants.

What if he gets tired of it? Same with running the business? You can't be compelled to work forever, neither for free or otherwise.

<comment><USER23> > _No way. You can be compelled by the courts to actively perpetuate a lie? I > don 't think so._

Sure you can. For one, what about people pleading guilty, when they are not, just because their case looks bad and they want to avoid a trial that can put then in jail for decades and get a plea bargain?

That's actually encouraged by the DAs.

<comment><USER22> I hadn't considered that at all. You are right, I have heard of this before. That one is even under oath.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think everyone is missing the most important point, the one that history teaches. The enormous power surveillance brings (not the least being the fact that a little "creative editing", ala the Nazis, will allow <anyone> to become both interesting and guilty of <something>). With that much power, even if <bad stuff> is not happening now, it will happen sooner or later; and then it will be too late!

</comment><comment><USER25> I agree that it's ultimately a policy issue that needs to be mended by congress, what I disagree with is the needless "dig" at companies that store and analyze large amounts of data, as if that somehow is invalid conduct. The problem is the government demanding access to that data, not that the data is there in the first place.

<comment><USER26> _...what I disagree with is the needless "dig" at companies that store and analyze large amounts of data, as if that somehow is invalid conduct._

The argument against building systems to amass huge databases of personal information has always been that the very existence of such systems would almost inevitably lead to abuse, through inappropriate expansion of the collection activity and through inappropriate uses of the resulting database. It's simply too tempting a target to leave unmolested.

From that point of view, storing and analyzing large amounts of data _is_ "invalid conduct."

Current events are just history proving this out yet again.

<comment><USER27> Arguably the collection of large amounts of private data is a fundamental property of the internet and impossible to avoid. In a world of government back doors into hardware and software the difference between cloud and local is an increasingly mute point for most people; making privacy a technical improbability. If any connected device can be accessed how can invalid conduct ever be avoided?

<comment><USER28> The fundamental property of the internet is connection. Everything else is in how we use it.

The fundamental property of land is spatial relation. Using that, you can build a town of little houses, where everybody has a modest and equal helping of privacy. You can build a giant open agora, where everybody can see everybody's business. Or you can build a panoptic prison: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Batch Shipping Labels - <AUTHOR> http://blog.easypost.com/post/55613442801/batch-shipping-labels

<comment><USER2> As someone who's going to be buying a ton of shipping services, I really want something like this, the problem is that your website really doesn't give me an instant view of what I can actually do without diving right into the docs.

I bounced instead of doing all of that. The meat of your pitch is under the fold, and if I press "get started" \- I have to sign-up to see anything. Let people see shit before!

"See how it works" should just scroll down below the fold (not to the docs!), and below this fold it should say what I can do in real terms. "Integrate faster" is too generic to be useful and all the tests are too developer- centric with curl calls being the "Try it now" option - instead of something I can play with as a non-dev, and you better believe the person actually looking for this service isn't a developer either.

I deal with sales / manufacturing engineering - not web work, but I'm the economic buyer trying to get this for our production line - I don't want to sift through your docs to see what calls / functionality I can get. A use case would be nice.

Just some unsolicited feedback.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! We'll incorporate this feedback into the site

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Actually doing something similar for multiple package shipments on our site. Cool!

</comment><comment><USER4> @jstreebin FYI most footer links on blog.easypost.com go nowhere

e.g. [http://blog.easypost.com/pricing](http://blog.easypost.com/pricing)

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, was just updating those and missed that. fixed!</comment></comment>


Energizer USB Battery Charger Taken Off Market For Security Vulnerability  - <AUTHOR> http://hothardware.com/News/Energizer%2DUSB%2DBattery%2DCharger%2DTaken%2DOff%2DMarket%2DFor%2DSecurity%2DVulnerability/ <comment><USER2> Interesting that this isn't an "accidental" vulnerability like most other vulnerabilities. From the article it looks like it's malware which presumably Energizer didn't know about.</comment>


Ask HN: How to properly ask for a raise during my upcoming review? - <AUTHOR>

I have a review coming up. Been working for this current company for about a year, been making 70K for about 2 years (lack of healthy negotiation on my part).
They hired me as a junior and very much act in a senior role. Leading development effort on multiple projects, unofficial manager roles, etc.
Data Engineer by trade, average salary with my experience in my current area is between 90K - 100K.
Couple questions:
Should I try and justify that salary amount even though the raise would be significant? Either way I plan to bring supporting documentation for salary average and past/present contributions.
I have to fill out a self review form, does it make sense to put something about proposing a raise in that document, or just wait until the actual review?
Anything else I should do that might not be obvious?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> There was a great read on HN from yesterday actually covering just this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9807877](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9807877)

I'm in a very similar situation at my job and attempted to negotiate from 80 to 100 but was unsuccessful. (This was about 4 weeks ago.) Despite bringing data to support my claims, some companies won't give in until you turn in your two weeks notice. My recommendation, read this article and then amp up your BATNA by interviewing with other companies first. You have nothing to lose, so why not shoot for 120? They may counter with 80/90 but regardless if you decide to take the job, this makes for great leverage if you ultimately decide to stay with your current employer.

<comment><USER3> If you work at a large corporation, your manager might not be able to swing a large raise for you, even if it's totally justified.

At my current place, our manager gets a pool of roughly 2% per developer to allocate for raises. An 80k to 100k raise would be literally impossible because even if you ate up the entire pot by yourself, it still wouldn't be enough.

On top of this, the more senior developers are probably consistently given slightly larger raises than the previous year - giving you more would require them to get less, which poses a large risk for your manager. It's a tough situation to be in.

By giving your two week notice, managers are immediately given room to negotiate with HR to produce a counter offer. This does not count towards the yearly raise-pool and can sometimes be the only way to actually get a sizable raise.

My suggestion to the parent poster is to dust off the resume and start looking for another job if you feel unappreciated.

<comment><USER4> This is a tangent, and not a slight on your or the OPs manager, but important and advice to other: The more important /senior /influential person you report to, the more room you have (for interesting work - better stuff gets delegated, growth, someone to learn from, salary, promotion, other stuff). And often, because of a larger and larger gap, they'd often be more appreciative of the freshness and perspective you could bring.

"Your grade is less important than the person you report to" I've heard said, and I've seen it work out in every aspect of the above (even in larger, 200000+ people organisations).

My advice, for getting a job in large corps: Report to someone at least 3 levels above you, preferably 5. The gap is hugely fulfilling, and at that level, they can carry you where they go / provide awesome recommendations to their also senior network if your direction is different.

<comment><AUTHOR> In a fairly OK position then. Contract for another agency, but mostly just work with the agency and see company manager rarely. I report directly to the team supervisor, other sub teams have separate leads but developers report direct to the supervisor with no lead

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you have time, suggest reading Stuart Diamond's book Getting More.

Make the conversation about them, be sure to understand the 'pictures-in- their-heads', help lead them to making a decision.

Compensation is best discussed during an face-to-face meeting with the boss. No need to mention it on your self-evaluation form.

Here's a short article with some of his recommendations on negotiating a raise> [http://fortune.com/2013/04/25/time-to-negotiate-for-a- raise-...](http://fortune.com/2013/04/25/time-to-negotiate-for-a-raise-heres- how/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Here's how you want to do it: "I love my job here, but I keep getting calls from people offering me 90-100K. I don't want to leave, can you help?"

The important points:

\- make sure the amounts you quote are realistic.

\- do not hint that you are thinking of leaving. You are not.

This is the clearest way I know to point out what _your market value_ is, without burning any bridges.

Ideally, you'd want this to be a true story: have anyone hinted to you that they'd like to hire you for more?

<comment><AUTHOR> That is an interesting tactic I would not have thought about, and not necessarily untrue. I love my co-workers and the work, so hoping the raise thing works out. Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You're in a better position if you resign first, although you'll probably just lose your job. Obviously it's time to change companies.</comment>


A sneak peek at the new Android Studio  - <AUTHOR> http://www.jeremymorgan.com/blog/programming/android-studio-sneak-peek/

<comment><USER2> > One thing I noticed right away is this is clearly based off Eclipse, as many > IDE's are these days. That's not really a bad thing, as Eclipse works really > well in many ways and there isn't any reason to reinvent the wheel. But if > you don't like Eclipse, you may not like Android Studio.

Actually, Android Studio is based off IntelliJ, not Eclipse.

If you're looking for a quick overview of some of the new features, this devbytes video by one of the developers behind the new IDE is pretty good: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0fXuyL0xVU></comment>


Ask HN: Language/project for teenager beginning programming? - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to help a computer literate 13 year old but with no programming knowledge to start learning how to write code.<p>What do you think is a good programming language to start with? I'm concerned that if there are no immediate "results" for him then he won't be motivated to learn more so I'm trying to come up with a project that would be ideal for him. <comment><USER3> One method I have been using to teach my son is Project Euler. The language he uses has switched a few times (he keeps picking different languages, you'll see why in a minute).

Project Euler isn't a programming tutorial, it's a math problem site. This works out well because it has interesting and challenging problems which pay off quickly. I generally read over the problem with my son and then he starts to work it out. At first he would show me what he wanted to do on paper ("I want to be able to take a number and add another number to it over and over again, quickly because I have to do it like 1000 times", he would say, for example). We would then sit down with a language and I would tell him how to make the language handle that ("Try creating a variable, which is like a box to put something in, put in your first number. Now lets loop and add things to it. See how that works?") He would type it out and get the logic rather quickly and solve the problem and feel great about getting the right answer.

Here's the fun part about Project Euler. When you answer the question you are given access to a question specific forum where others post how they solved the answer. He would then read through the other answers and see if he could assess whether his method was better or worth than others (he's competitive). This gave him exposure to a lot of languages and techniques. He asks me millions of questions about this language or that. Then he tries them. Then he moves to the next problem.

Over all, for an 11 year old, it has been a great experience. He's learned a lot about both math and programming. We also get to spend some good time together.

</comment><comment><USER4> Languages:

Either Python or Rails would be a good start, since (I believe) they are most widely-used languages/frameworks for web development, and there are a lot of really good introductions out there. I'd suggest either Codecademy or Treehouse, both of which I have used and have really accessible introductions to both languages.

Another option might be to start with Swift, which is the language used to create iPhone and iPad apps. It might be a bit 'cooler' to show someone an app you have made rather than a website you have built, which may help with motivation?

Projects:

Most tutorial sites come with in-built projects, as it's probably the best way to get your head round concepts. On Treehouse, for exmaple, after learning some basic Swift, your first 'project' is to build a one-page 'FunFacts' app, where you press a button and it cycles through ten 'fun facts'. Other sites will have you recreate Tinder, though that may be a bit inappropriate for a thirteen year old!

The reason I started with Rails was because of Michael Hartl's tutorial, which has you create Twitter from scratch. Looking back at it now, Twitter is actually a relatively straightforward app. At the time, however, I thought it was amazing that you could go from nothing to 'creating' Twitter in no time at all.

Disclaimer: This is all just my opinion based on having decided to learn some of this three years ago. There are no doubt plenty of 'proper' programmers here who might tell you something different!

</comment><comment><USER5> Processing:

1\. The subject matter is inherently interesting.

2\. Running on the JVM means it works on Windows/OSX/Android.

3\. Compiling to JavaScript easily means that programs can be made accessible via the web for iOS.

4\. It's easy to write simple expressive programs where "expressive" is not some technical term bandied about by programmers.

5\. It provides fast visual feedback.

Good luck and have fun.

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

</comment><comment><USER6> What does interest a computer literate 13 year old? You want to pick something that interest the kid and quick to learn and see results.

Games - I don't have any interest in Games so can't recommend one. Coursera's Interactive Python might be of interest.

Writing - Blog. PHP and WordPress.

Arts, design - UI/UX based language. Javascript.

Numbers and Data - Python, MySQL.

Old stuff - <USER2>

</comment><comment><USER7> Golang is small enough to learn easily and it's geared towards usability. But also try c# and visual studio there's the xna framework for writing games and the debugger is the best.

</comment><comment><USER8> Ruby on Rails is a good place to start. Ruby is a very human readable language and you can do some pretty cool things quickly using Rails.

</comment><comment><USER9> php is a good starter and jquery</comment>


The magic of generating new ideas - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-myth-and-magic-of-generating-new-ideas <comment><USER2> Coming up with something truly new is much, much harder than people give it credit for. We take the sun being the center of the universe for granted today, but it was an extremely non-obvious fact for the smartest people in the world for millenia. One of my math professors had a great take on the difficulty of injecting a new idea into the world: he said that the greatest mathematical achievement that anyone had ever made was not anything like calculus - it was the realization that there was something similar between five stones and five fish.

<comment> dawg- Nietzsche describes the problem beautifully in _Beyond Good and Evil_ :

"However independent of each other [philosophers] might feel themselves to be, with their critical or systematic wills, something inside of them drives them on, something leads them into a particular order, one after the other, and this something is precisely the innate systematicity and relationship of concepts. In fact, their thinking is not nearly as much a discovery as it is a recognition, remembrance, a returning and homecoming into a distant, primordial, total economy of the soul, from which each concept once grew: – to this extent, philosophizing is a type of atavism of the highest order."

..."Where there are linguistic affinities, then because of the common philosophy of grammar (I mean: due to the unconscious domination and direction through similar grammatical functions), it is obvious that everything lies ready from the very start for a similar development and sequence of philosophical systems..."

<comment><USER3> I know religion probably doesn't play well around here, but your quote brought a memory rushing back that I feel like sharing.

My very Christian mother once asked me to help her come up with a slogan for the church. I know her pastor well, and know him to be an avid student of history and the literature.

After much thought, I told them this, with the warning that if they used it they'd better be willing to face the consequences of what it means: "The purpose of the church is to remind people who they are. As children, they know. Over time, the world makes them forget."

In my estimation, Jesus' goal, and the Church's job should be guiding people back to what they once knew. Unbridled love and trust in others. Non- judgement. Absolute acceptance, before we learn there's such thing as a stranger.

Thank you for sharing this passage.

"Their thinking is not nearly as much a discovery as it is a recognition, remembrance, a returning and homecoming into a distant, primordial, total economy of the soul, from which each concept once grew"

Later, my Mom sent me the link to the sermon where the pastor quoted my statement and my warning, and followed it with, "My friend might be onto something, because in thinking on the text with his proposal in mind, I recalled one of Jesus' declarations, 'Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.'"

<comment><USER4> > back to what they once knew. Unbridled love and trust in others. Non- > judgement...

That's quite an optimistic assessment of little children.

<comment><USER5> > That's quite an optimistic assessment of little children.

I'm not sure if it is. Little children lack preconceived ideas, and, often, inhibition. That combination is a good recipe for accepting the unknown and coming up with new ideas. That is not to say they can't be cruel at times.

<comment><USER6> Little children are also easily led and controlled by other people like their parents. And no doubt that is what Mr. Preacher-man also wants: Followers. Thank the Lord and pass the bucket. Become dependent on me telling you what is the truth, you believing that if you just believe what I tell you you are granted the ticket to heaven, if not you go to Hell.

Very conveniently it is very easy to make little children believe all that, and now you tell us we should be like them little children too.

We should blindly trust the preacher-man, like little children, that's what he is telling us.

<comment><USER5> > Very conveniently it is very easy to make little children believe all that

My counter-intuitive opinion is that children are quite skeptical of religion. They may enjoy the make-believe part of it. Pretending, after all, is child play, but they will never take it for granted just because an adult tells them so. On the contrary, kids will know when something is made up. An adult seriously resorting to magic to answer a child's question will raise doubts. That kid is likely to question authority and religion ever after.

<comment><USER6> > kids will know when something is made up.

I think if adults SEEM to be believing it then kids will believe it too. Maybe you can say that then is not misleading them since you believe it to be true, but I don't think that proves that kids really have a critical thinking ability. That is why I think they are easily mislead. Of course there is much good to be said about having an "open mind", but having an "open mind" basically means anything can enter it. Kids' brains have their doors wide open. Is that good or bad? I don't think we can say it is just plain good. They need to learn critical thinking, all humans do, that is the skill to acquire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> These two different ways your brain works on ideas, focused and diffused, were my biggest takeaways from Barbara Oakley's _Learning How To Learn_ class. I've found that actively going between them, say by studying hard for 90 minutes and then going for a long walk, has been tremendous for learning.

Highly recommend the course (or the book form, _A Mind for Numbers_ ).

</comment><comment><USER8> " These stories suggest that an initial period of concentration—conscious, directed attention—needs to be followed by some amount of unconscious processing."

<comment><USER9> These (unconscious processing) moments for me almost always happen in the shower. I'd love to find another ritual that gets me in a similar mindspace.

<comment><USER10> I usually find it in the bed at night time. Like I am going to bed and my brain starts to dig deeper for the problem and finds a solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There's plenty of new ideas around, you don't have to generate them yourself. If you ask in forums or search the web you can get a big list. The problem is culling the list for practical and successful ideas. Somebody has to invest the time and/or money do actually _do_ it, and accept the high risk of failure typical of startups and new open-source projects. That's probably the bottleneck.

Ideas are cheap, execution is not.

Here's a free sample tip: Dynamic Relational. It's the new "plastic" (a movie reference). The NoSql movement has shown a market/desire for dynamic databases. But with Dynamic Relational you get dynamism AND sql; you don't have to choose one or the other. And you can set constraints/rules to gradually make it more "static" like traditional RDBMS.

<comment><USER12> I feel, in my opinion, getting an idea and generating something _comparatively easier_ part compared to actually educating the market / users about what the idea is and what is the solution we have generated, we all see / are a part of so many good products which just had a steep learning curve and hence failed / didnt get accepted.

<comment><USER11> I'm curious of specific examples. Functional programming is possibly an example. It takes a good long time for many to become productive with it, and with some it will never click. It's hard to actually know if its a personal preference or something inherently better. After all, code is more for humans to read than it is for computers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> James Altucher, who's posts used to appear frequently on HN maybe 6 or so years ago and had a few good ones about how he would write down every idea (10-20 a day) and his methods for validating them. I haven't read anything of his for a while, but he still seems to write a lot about ideas.

[https://jamesaltucher.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-for- becomi...](https://jamesaltucher.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-for-becoming-an- idea-machine/)

</comment><comment><USER14> This feels appropriate: Hammock-driven development by Rich Hickey [https://youtu.be/f84n5oFoZBc](https://youtu.be/f84n5oFoZBc)

</comment><comment><USER15> I can relate to that feeling. When you just figure it out, not even thinking about your problem, just doing something mundane and unrelated. But that stage of concentration and struggle is crucial. You need to care about the problem, have some investment in it.

And it's so satisfying seeing the solution work, especially if you don't know the correctness 100%.

</comment><comment><USER16> As DeBono says "Good ideas are obvious in hindsight".

I have no shortage of ideas, most pretty ordinary, some very small number good.

It's a very long journey though from good idea to release of a successful software product. Takes time, money, motivation, technical skill, not making big mistakes and that absolutely required ingredient, luck.

</comment><comment><USER17> The article is about maths, but could equally apply to debugging or software design. The overworking a problem phenomenon described earlier in the article sounds like "analysis paralysis".

</comment><comment><USER18> >In this view of creative momentum, the key to solving a problem is to take a break from worrying, to move the problem to the back burner, to let the unwatched pot boil.

I noticed the same thing about my poker game back when I used to play religiously.

Taking a week or two long break from playing invariably improved my game.

None of my poker buddies understood the phenomena, but every single one of us experienced it.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm curious if anyone has run into situation where being an "idea" person has been a negative at work. Sometimes there is the perception of ideation as a waste of time, or that the ideator (is that a word?) is one of those "whacky ideas" people. "Why are you going for walks, don't you have work to do?"

<comment><USER20> It can be frustrating if the _idea person_ is constantly talking about them, but doesn't act on any.

It's easy to have ideas... validating/building them, that's the hard part

<comment><USER21> Talking about them may be to see which ones resonate with people and are perhaps more valuable to do. Ideas people can be full of ideas and so they don't hold them too dearly because they'll have more ideas tomorrow. Sharing them's a way of testing and dismissing the majority that won't get traction.</comment></comment></comment>


Transporter: Sync Your Mongo Data to Elasticsearch, Influx and Rethink - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/compose/transporter?compose

<comment><USER2> full disclosure, I'm one of the authors of this

I'm not sure if it's clear in the docs that we've written, we have plans to include other databases as a source other then mongo. i.e. Using rethink Change feeds ( [http://rethinkdb.com/docs/changefeeds/ruby/](http://rethinkdb.com/docs/changefeeds/ruby/) ) would be an interesting way to get data out of rethink and into other databases, we can likely leverage redis replication in order to take data from redis and then push it to other data stores. We plan to make as many sources as possible able to function as both a data 'source' and 'sink.'

We use the otto javascript interpreter to embed a js runtime into the go app, so that it's reasonably easy to manipulate documents, I'm wondering what the community things about the way the application.js is laid out.

There are some rough edges here, but we're actively developing it, and excited to see people using it

also see our blog post: [https://blog.compose.io/weve-open-sourced-the-new- compose-tr...](https://blog.compose.io/weve-open-sourced-the-new-compose- transporter/)</comment>