"The news web is straight trash" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/timeserena/status/568839151409192961 <comment><USER3> What is the definition of clickbait here?

"Radical Statements about the Mobile Web" does, indeed, contain some radical statements about the mobile web, from a guy who works for Mozilla.

"Handling five billion sessions a day in real time" is... about handling five billion sessions a day in real time.

"The Unlikely AirBnB hosts of Japan" is... well, you get the idea.

Clickbait is when you give a story a title the actual content does not live up to. "You won't believe", when you absolutely will. "You'll be amazed" when you won't. The stories he's complaining about here are... just stories with titles.

</comment><comment><USER4> Eh, it could be worse. At least the clickbait is mostly "Look at this cool thing" and not "Look at these bad people doing these bad things. Outrage!"

</comment><comment><USER5> My usual response to this complaint of the "decline" of HN is that it is a tactic of older entrenched figures in a community marginalizing the viewpoints of newer members.

The second strain I see tends adheres to the timeless tradition of decrying the degradation of the youth in comparison with previous generations, which is as old as the ancient Athenians. "Times change, and men decay."

Normally I dismiss them, and for a while even kept a running tally of each time these silly arguments were advanced.

However, I can no longer in good conscience attribute the very recent behavior of the front page of HN (over the past ~3 months) with these two explanations: there has been an undeniable degradation of quality, new sources in primarily popular science publications with very click-bait titles, and even anecdotal evidence of undetected voting rings.

To me, the real question, is this some artifact of the evolving website leadership (unlikely given the managment of the transition,) has the fundamental purpose and audience undergone another shift (YC companies forum -> General Startup News -> General Technology News.)

Or has HN's Eternal September simply finally arrived, where new users are arriving too quickly, and thus cannot become acustomed to HN's norms, resulting in a lowering of quality. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September)

<comment><USER6> Thank you for enlightening me on the concept of "Eternal September"

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The author overlooks some clickbait:

* What's the deepest hole ever dug?

* The man who quit money

* The Incredible Degredation of Hacker News

etc.

The question is, was HN ever much better. Perhaps some front page listings from 1, 5, etc. years ago would help.

<comment><USER8> 1 year ago: [http://imgur.com/2TxgOhr](http://imgur.com/2TxgOhr)

5 years ago: [http://imgur.com/jliGkON](http://imgur.com/jliGkON)

<comment><USER7> Thanks. Of course we don't know if we're looking at representative samples, but I'd say the 5 year old front page was better.

I'd pay for a very well-curated site, with excellent discussion. I wonder if a paywall would increase quality of participation? Owners and members might be less tolerant of low-quality content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> More a commentary on the web in general than just HN?

</comment><comment><USER10> Pretty harsh definition of clickbait.

</comment><comment><USER11> What I find most mysterious are the article sources (okay, not that mysterious).

I've never visited smithsonianmag.com in my life. Yet, there are _four_ articles from that site on the front page right now.

Something isn't working...

<comment><USER10> Someone posts an interesting article from a source. 10,000 people visit that source. Some of them noodle around and find other interesting articles and submit links to them.

It's a problem if the submitted articles are low quality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "straight trash" <\--- clickbait

</comment><comment><USER13> _" Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."_ \-- Yogi Berra

When I first heard that quote from Yogi Berra is crystallized for me a concept that had been developing for a while in my sub-conscious. Popularity of social institutions are intimately tied with the participants in those institutions. That evolution happens "outside" our own internal definition of quality. So when you go to a restaurant over a long time, read a magazine over a long period of time, play a video game over a long period of time, pretty much _any_ evolving community, your internal standard of "goodness" is established in your head somewhat at the start of that experience, and "improvement" or "degradation" of that experience is measured against this internal metric which may not be changing at all.

I've most recently been dealing with this in neighbourhood meetings where "long term" residents are really upset at the city for approving the building of multi-story apartment buildings where previously single family detached homes stood. This change in urbanization is a "bad thing" for them (although its great for people moving here who need a place to live and cannot afford to rent a house!). And yet when you explain that the very house they live in was once an orchard, was it a "bad thing" that the farmers allowed the city to build homes on what had been orchard? And the answer (because this is government and governments are often good at keeping records) is Yes! people did complain about all the houses going in and how it was putting businesses that supplied those farms out of business. So when you ask someone in the present would they give up their house, and have razed to the ground and returned to orchard? They would not. But their internal standard of "goodness" was set when they moved in, and the city is evolving, as it must, and it is drifting away from their notion of what a "good" city is. So they advocate for keeping things the same, the young people advocate for affordable housing near mass transportation, and the city council has to weigh these against the long term health of the city and try to decide wisely.

Hacker News is very much like that. It changes based on the internal "goodness" metrics of its users. And as new users get added and their goodness metric is just slightly different then the incoming new users slowly migrates the notion of "good" toward their point of view.

A long time ago I proposed a compass star type voting system where the east and west points represented "less like this" (west), and "more like this" (east), with north and south continuing to represent "this is a good example of something I like" (north) or "this doesn't belong here" (south). The center button could represent "perfect".

The clever bit though, was not the voting system, rather it was to capture through vote analysis this particular user's preferences (their internal metric of "goodness") As defined as a point on an n-dimensional surface of other users, Then using something like k-means analysis to create a rank for a story given the particular user's preferences. In that way the front page would always have really great stories on it, _that you like_. But they might not be the front page stories that some other collection of members like.

Sadly it remains an idea I don't really have time to implement but if someone does I'd really like to participate especially in developing the system of algorithms that tune the various internal "nodes" in that n-space of likes/dislikes.

</comment><comment><USER14> So .. where to go next?

I've been returning to Slashdot more and more these days .. and lobste.rs is pretty good too, although a bit click-baity as well.

I think its time for a de-centralized approach to this whole problem again - <USER2> USENET 2.0 with smart agents would be nice. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that the aggregation isn't the problem - its the content creation in the first place. The communities that band together to create a content platform eventually self-implode into themselves, so there has to be some other way to get technology news and interesting articles out there. Perhaps there is no perfect answer, and that its all just a process rather than a product after all ..

<comment><USER15> >So .. where to go next?

Specialized subreddits with competent moderation. Ideally with post scores hidden.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> He needs to update the image quickly with a current one showing his own story.

</comment><comment><USER17> Shocking!

</comment><comment><USER18> [http://xkcd.com/33/](http://xkcd.com/33/)</comment>


EngineYard SHA1 contest begins - <AUTHOR> http://www.engineyard.com/blog/2009/engine-yard-contest-challenge-phrase-and-dictionary/ <comment><AUTHOR> And if you haven't been following, the contest is here:

[http://www.engineyard.com/blog/2009/programming-contest- win-...](http://www.engineyard.com/blog/2009/programming-contest-win- iphone-3gs-2k-cloud-credit/)

and an interesting thread on using NVidia's CUDA to crunch on it (with code) is here: <http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=102349>

</comment><comment><USER2> Why did they release the phrase and not just the SHA1?

ETA: I'm using 1249c4b7f578204f10798c0269f8488280fb9981

ETA2: Ok, I guess I need to be more clear - by releasing the phrase they remove the possibility (as remote as it is) of someone finding an exact match.

<comment><USER3> I would have preferred they released both, just so people could be sure nothing got lost in translation (e.g. they added a null accidentally or something).

<comment><USER4> they released an example in the original problem statement. calibrate with that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> just to be sure i'm measureing from the correct thing, did everone else get:

0001001001001001110001001011011111110101011110000010000001001111000100000111100110001100000000100110100111111000010010001000001010000000111110111001100110000001

<comment><USER6> Yes, that's what I got too for the binary equivalent of the sha1'd challenge phrase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> They host the document on AWS.

<comment><USER8> yup we host lots of stuff on aws, why is that an issue?

<comment><USER9> I think he was pointing out the cool factor of it

<comment><USER10> I think he was pointing out it's humorous that a cloud hosting company is using another cloud hosting company to host their materials.

<comment><USER8> except that amazon has invested in engine yard and we have a cloud service that runs on top of AWS(<http://www.engineyard.com/cloud-services>) so it's not so humorous.

<comment><USER10> I didn't make the joke, just pointed out what it was.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Your editor is not the bottleneck - <AUTHOR> http://lateral.netmanagers.com.ar/weblog/posts/your-editor-is-not-the-bottleneck.html

<comment><USER2> Ridiculous. The argument apparently assumes that the only time spent in the editor is writing code. Not writing tests, or documentation, or email, or for reading code, or searching code.

So sure: if you only use your editor for typing in code, it's "not the bottleneck" to getting your code typed in. The problem is that if you're using you're editor like this, _your editing skills are absolutely the bottleneck_ to doing productive development.

<comment><USER3> There's also the question how how that 100-200 LoC number is measured. They're looking at code that actually got checked in to the project they're looking at. I write less than that at work, but there's also an iceberg of code that wouldn't ever get counted. Iterating on multiple revisions before checking one in. Throwaway experiments. Side projects (the only reason I have them is that with fewer constraints they let me stretch my legs and code up a storm).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I don't necessarily agree with everything written here, but I think it is a good discussion starter. Personally, I think the editor has a huge part in the "code reading" and "thinking" phases. In the former I jump around a lot, and a code reader would end up looking like vim or eclipse or whatever with insertion disabled, and replaced with some sort of annotation mechanism (instead of just inserting comments). I understand that there are other cool things a reader could do, but they would be most useful as additions to an editor anyway, as they have uses in editing and maintaining as well. For the later, I do sometimes walk away from the problem to think, but other times I jump around and look at various bits to help remember the "shape" or imagine how the "shape" of bits would change with my latest ideas.

</comment><comment><USER4> I disagree with the author on a number of levels. First and foremost, he/she's treating the editor as if its sole purpose in life is the invention of new code. This seems like a somewhat stilted view of reality to me. Features like syntax highlighting, syntax aware block indentation, and project aware search are easy wins in terms of ROI.

Also, they bemoan the fact that for many people their editor is also their primary code reading environment, but it sounds very much to me like what they're asking for is amply provided for in a modern IDE.

While I agree that fixating on a particular tool can be a waste beyond a certain point, IMO a programmer investing in learning their editor seems like time well spent to me.

</comment><comment><USER5> I disagree with this for a few reasons. Having an editor or tools which feel cumbersome and don't get out of the way, in my anecdotal experience, may cause me to avoid it more often (visit sites like this for instance) etc.

In addition, often when learning new features of an editor or IDE, I enjoy applying it to actual code, which causes me to spend more time coding, which does impact SLOC.

Learning vim features such as autocomplete also save context switches where as previously I would have had to have a browser window open with the documentation. Just my two cents, I think it really does matter.

<comment><USER6> I don't believe he is saying to use _any_ editor. We could easily list ten of the best ones than meet your standards above. Someone proficient in one of those is probably going to do just fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would say solving the right problem is the bottleneck. _Who the fuck cares what editor you use?_ Generally, they all work. Startups don't fail because:

1) You can't search through code quickly enough.

2) You couldn't secure the next round of funding because no one was using Sublime Text, or TextMate, or IntelliJ, or Vim, or Emacs.

3) It didn't have all the fancy features that essentially boil down to developer masterbating.

Remember, all startups are supposed to solve a problem that is worth _money_. WE SERIOUSLY NEED TO STOP TALKING ABOUT EDITORS PEOPLE! Start ups fail because you are solving a problem that doesn't need to be solved, you can't find product-market fit, you have a shitty UI that no one can figure out, your applications are slow or have crazy down-time, or you fail to reach enough of your market to sustain a functioning business model, etc.

None of the problems are code. Code is a means to an end. I'd say code editors are sad not because they focus on the file instead of the class, module or function. I'd say code editors are sad because they focus on code in general that only exists because solving the _real_ problem another way isn't possible.

Let's focus on solving the right problems. Problems that need to be solved, and not problems that look like other problems.

Can we all agree to stop posting text and code editor reviews and editorials and focus on becoming a more integrated component of a larger business? Just for _one_ week, let's not talk about editors and instead think outside of our developer box.

Sorry for the rant but this sort of discussion is not productive, produces flame wars, pedantic quibbling and we never end up anywhere else than where we started. Code editors are like butt-holes, everyone has one and they all stink for one reason or another. Let's not forget that they exist to put poop in the toilet.

 __*Edit: Some have made extremely valid points that its not all about business, start-ups or money. I agree. My more broader statement is this: the editor one uses is largely a matter of preference and is not the determining factor of success for any project, professional or otherwise. Being able to solve the task at hand (whatever it may be) is largely a function of the focus, determination, experience, and skill of the person using it. At the end of the day which editor you use shouldn't make a damn bit of a difference of the actual bits you compile.

<comment><USER8> Equally, I'll bet that no startup has ever failed because the developers spent too long configuring their editors.

Why the hell does it matter so much to you that people enjoy being good at using a powerful tool? If you don't want to see editor articles, downvote them, or move to another website, or filter them out (either mentally, or programatically).

<comment><USER9> Actually, I think that a bunch of startups failed because of not configuring their editor, not writing tests, not doing code reviews and refactoring, not automating anything and generally by not taking the time to clean up things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Forget about the speed. Using the right tool for the right job makes you feel better while you work. This not only increases productivity and quality of the product, it also keeps your workers sane. The obsession with finding the right editor (and the right vimrc for it) goes way beyond producing code fast.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't know how most other people code, but I rarely write out a module, even from scratch, in a way that doesn't require editing and rearranging. I start with a skeleton which reflects my best understanding of the problem and then try my best to fill it in with code. Sometimes the organization is not quite right, or sometimes you realize you need an extra parameter somewhere that is out of scope; but whatever it is, there's always some kind of stumbling block that requires reorganization.

The overall shape is usually close enough, but it always requires refinement. That refinement happens in a loop; you move stuff around, do a little nip tuck, maybe attempt to fix some bugs, and then run the module (or the tests). Optimizing this loop is important (it's one of the major benefits of scripting languages); once you figure out what change you should make, or what experiment you should run, the faster you make it happen, the faster you get the results, and the faster you can get back to the important mental aspect of figuring out how to fix or create whatever you're working on.

</comment><comment><USER12> Of course the editor isn't the bottleneck. That doesn't mean that it isn't still the most important tool of the programmer. And there are editors and there are editors. We all have our favorites. Some people get along fine with editors that are nothing but less buggy versions of notepad. Others want their customized Vim or Emacs experience.

Ergonomics do matter.

</comment><comment><USER13> The problem with a bad editor is not that it wastes time, but that it generates many small interruptions, in the form of awkward editing tasks, which can break trains of thought. The cost of this is drastically higher than the time spend would indicate.

</comment><comment><USER14> Your editor is not the bottleneck, but reducing the distance between your thoughts and the code is still pretty important. You want to be able to move around, type something and change your mind in the most immediate way possible. Whenever I have to revert to an unfamiliar or inferior editor and can use no motions except from the mouse or arrow keys, I feel like everything becomes harder because I'm not "in" the code.

In the same way, having a compile time of 10 seconds instead of < 1 second is probably the main bottleneck when you code, but your productivity will suffer.

</comment><comment><USER8> Goodness, this is depressing. I wonder what on earth this guy would say about my breaks to play foosball?

Configuring an editor can be thought of as a similar thing: it can be a fun break from programming, and if it even slightly increases productivity, then that's a win.

I don't think any editor person would argue that using an a particular editor gives a really massive increase in their productivity, but why shouldn't we use specialist editors? It just feels good to write with them, and that can't be a bad thing.

</comment><comment><USER15> The first thing I thought of when I realized the author was seriously using SLoC as a performance metric was this story: [http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000_Lines_O...](http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000_Lines_Of_Code.txt)

<comment><USER16> the author says he isn't using SLoC as a performance metric (he is having trouble to post comments here)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> 200 lines of code is the average. What's the standard deviation? There may be some days I write 20 lines of code, and there may be some days I crank through 1000 links of code.

<comment><USER18> And, on average, you will write between 100 and 200 lines of code per day.

When you're talking percentages, the standard deviation doesn't matter.

<comment><USER3> If your editor limits the max it impacts the average. If the days when coding dominates were more productive you could have fewer of them and spend more time designing, testing, writing documentation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I share the sentiment. Are there any good code readers? Something that could show better what actually lies in your code better than highlighted text does?

</comment><comment><USER20> Is there a tool like the OP is describing? One that executes portions of test suites when you edit a line of code? That sounds really awesome!</comment>


Hey Google, tell me something good - <AUTHOR> https://www.blog.google/products/assistant/hey-google-tell-me-something-good/ <comment><USER2> When I was a teenager, I made a website with a friend called "I'm really sad" and the idea was that if people searched that, our site would pop up and show a picture of a kitten or a puppy or other cute animal. The site was really successful, hit a high of 750k visits in one day. I later sold it because money is fun, but I've seen that sort of site/service/forum pop up all time time (such as r/eyebleach or r/wholesomememes).

There's definite good in giving people tiny, inconsequential bites of happiness, even if it's just a distraction.

<comment><USER3> Would you be willing to share how much that sold for back then?

<comment><USER2> I think $3500? At it's peak it was making around $200/m, so that is a bit more than the 12x monthly rate that websites used to go for. It was making a fair bit less when I sold, though, I just didnt have the time to keep it updated.

In hindsight, there are some websites I used to run that I really wish I could tell my younger self to keep running. I had a little video site (pre-youtube) that was doing well, a few forums (although those were an absolute pain to keep active), a link shortener (that got my server shut down over, as spammers found it useful), a music video site for myspace.

When I was 15, I hired a programmer on scriptlance to build me a php script to run a site I had sketched up. The project never really materialized, but the programmer I hired was none other than a (then 15~ year old) Guillermo Rauch, who later went on to author socket.io, mongoose, and found Zeit. I like to think I did my small part to help him on his path to being such a prolific programmer :]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "Tell me something good" isn't meant to be a magic solution.

From a user aspect, I'd imagine the news that's curated to me would be arbitrary. A better phrase for Google to listen for is..."What a shitty day." Then Google could counter with "today may have rained shit for you without an umbrella, but these people are enjoying sunshine."

I'd laugh from the sarcasm, and who knows, it might drive up some sales for Google after I break my Google assistant and have to buy a new one.

Needless to say, I prefer laughter as my cure all over positive news that makes me look on the brighter things. On a positive note to my fellow HN readers.... _HAPPY FRIDAY!_

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm glad to hear that "good news" is getting some attention. A rule of thumb I was taught was "bad news spreads faster than good" \- People expect good things and will make you aware of bad things.

That being said, I am a little concerned this is just a band-aid on a bigger issue. We have too much information/news coming at us. Selective filtering the news (or "personalizing" it to sound like cynical) is the same issues with why one half of the US political system claims the other is "fake news". Not to mention Huxley's idea we shut ourselves further off from the world by consuming more of it [1].

Maybe its the working late on a Friday making me cynical today, but its a fun feature. So, good on them!

[1] [https://www.sanjuan.edu/cms/lib/CA01902727/Centricity/Domain...](https://www.sanjuan.edu/cms/lib/CA01902727/Centricity/Domain/3981/huxley- vs-orwell.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER6> Compelling though the cartoon is, I question the premise that people read the news because we evolved to do so as an extension of scuttlebutt about attacks, predators, and disease. Surely where there is communication, there are both intelligent minds and "news" (i.e. some kind of prioritization of information to be communicated). I don't know: this seems an overuse of evolutionary "just so" storytelling that far oversimplifies—and just isn't useful to explain—the nature of intelligence and information. Why not a cartoon explaining how people are intelligent and gain a sense of stimulation and control from information about the world around them, and yet this can result in a lot of negative news etc...? What does running from bears have to do with it?

</comment><comment><USER7> > These days we're consuming more news than ever

Who is 'we'? I feel like people now consume very few news, mostly about what they like.

My parents and grand-parents listened news at the radio, watched news at the TV, read news in several newspapers.

At breakfast, at lunch, at diner.

Every day.

Do you know a lot of 20-40 years old who consume as much news as our parents?

<comment><USER5> I think its more apt to say "more news is being generated than ever". Humans may be consuming the same amount of news are prior generations, but its been an accepted fact that we are producing more information than ever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> That's a nice spin on what is essentially another way of saying "filter bubble."

<comment><USER9> This only applies when you are specifically requesting good news. It's not really a filter bubble unless you exclusively access content by asking google for good news.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I suppose that this gives Google the opportunity to redefine what "good" means.

<comment><USER11> That's quite cynical. What makes you think that they would attempt something so Orwellian?

<comment><USER12> ... literally everything that's happened in the last 10 years?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is this personalized?

And isn't this just like the Facebook feed, except you only get one post?

</comment><comment><USER14> Why separate this from the regular news?

<comment><USER2> The regular news is often negative, stressful.

<comment><USER15> Yeah but if they mixed in some good news sometimes... that would fix that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Alexa, indoctrinate me!</comment>


Gorgeous Nokia N900 - <AUTHOR> http://tanu.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/gorgeous-nokia-n900/

<comment><USER2> _sigh_

"We kind of missed the iPhone, what was it like, was anyone interested? By the way, here's our latest high-paper-spec clunky-interface do-everything completely average premium phone, what do you think?"

:(

Look at the second video - see how the scrolling transitions are all jerky, how he has to make two attempts at "swiping from the left" to get a mouse cursor and after it works, he's dragging an annoying selection around the screen. Look how they give two options for zooming, the double tap which appears to zoom in on something he didn't tap on, and the spiral which is slow and wobbles the page around a lot. Look how he talks about it as if it was a list of features in a box - which is pretty much what it looks like.</comment>


We'd have more quantum computers if it weren't so hard to find cables - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612760/quantum-computers-component-shortage/ <comment><USER2> Do quantum computers actually need helium-3? The author doesn't say exactly that, but it's a depressing thought. There's too little of it on Earth to go around.

</comment><comment><USER3> Would be nice to read but after 2 'paragraphs' of text:

"SIGN UP TO CONTINUE READING"

"To continue reading, enter your email address"

"If you have an account, we'll get you logged in. If not, we'll help you set one up. No credit card required."

Nah, I'm good.

<comment><USER2> Not one of your down-voters. I didn't get this message. My adblocking, maybe? But I respect MIT Technology Review for its solid tech journalism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like a market opportunity.

<comment><USER5> Making niche products by hand which require enormous expertise for a market that may not go anywhere or be disrupted by some solid state lucky discovery?

There is a good reason why there are so few scientific equipment manufacturers in the world.</comment></comment>


Air Force grounds F-35 operations after pilots suffered hypoxia - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/air-force-grounds-f-35a-operations-at-training-base-after-pilots-suffered-hypoxia/ <comment><USER2> Mentioned later in the article: F-22 and F/A-18 also had similar problems. My guess is this has more to do with the life support system rather than the jet as a whole.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, in that respect it's an unfortunate title - the F-35's a boondoggle that's easy to beat on but this is probably one of the (few) common parts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is one hell of an aircraft system. Huge amounts of money, still not operational, but lots of money made by defense contractor companies.

<comment><USER4> It's like the Itanium of aircraft.</comment></comment>


NSA To Lay Off 90 Percent Of Its System Administrators - <AUTHOR> http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/nsa-to-lay-off-90-percent-of-its-system-administrators-124357

<comment><USER2> Dear worthless drone. In order to improve our national security, you have the honor being sacrificed for a greater cause. Remember that your experience with us is secret, and due to the necessities of the state we expect you will continue to do your protective duty in silence. As protocol dictates, we gratefully extend your $1432.67 severance for your 12 years, 5 months, and 3 days of effort. Thank you for your service. Goodbye.

<comment><USER3> Enough hyperbole. These people aren't being killed, they're being released back into the labor pool to either find new jobs, or make new jobs. Maybe some of these admins will start their own datacenters or consulting firms instead of working for someone else's.

<comment><USER4> I, for one, would be hesitant to hire a former NSA admin. There's a lot of things to consider:

Will they be approached at a later date by past acquaintances to circumvent normal mechanisms and allow access data?

Can they be coerced to circumvent normal mechanisms and allow access to data?

How much were they aware of about what the NSA was doing, and were they aware it may have/definitely did break the law? Should that even be considered?

I'm not saying it would _prevent_ hiring, but it would sure be on my mind.

<comment><USER5> Why have such a narrow view? Have you considered that 99% of NSA employees might be just like you and me, have absolutely no malicious intent, and have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the programs the NSA is reported to practice?

Look at the converse - these employees have already been through a thorough background investigation and have been entrusted with highly secure data. These employees probably also have a higher (or at least average) tolerance against "being coerced" as you say into circumventing security mechanisms enforced by their employer - I can only imagine the counterintelligence nightmare that would exist if the clearance vetting process didn't try to weed out easily coerced individuals.

My point being: try not to focus on the negatives of the news, and remember that these are real people, many incredibly talented and trustworthy.

<comment><USER6> I don't know about you, but someone who works at the NSA and isn't at least aware of _some_ of the crap they're doing (which has been reported from the mainstream media, mind, this isn't exactly suppressed news) is someone who I wouldn't consider aware of their surroundings, and therefore unsuited to the task.

So, these real people. One of them comes to you for a sysadmin job. NSA and a high-ish security clearance is on their resumé.

Are they ignorant, apathetic, or malicious? It's one of the three. They either don't know what their government is perpetrating (and aren't paying attention), they know and don't care (because the dollar overrides all morals), or they know, care, and are playing for the other team.

"They're real people" is just an emotional appeal that ignores a very real ethical dilemma. Real people actually suck sometimes.

<comment><USER7> > Are they ignorant, apathetic, or malicious?

Nice use of the 'false choice' rhetorical device.

I'm not sure why you think that every employee of a large organization is somehow ideologically synchronized, operationally involved, and morally responsible for every policy decision made by the organization.

That isn't even true in small organizations, never mind large need-to-know organizations.

<comment><USER6> It's not a false choice. This is the _government_ , not a random factory somewhere making random widgets where the biggest ethical problem a person may face is whether to report their boss for embezzling. This is a lot bigger.

You needn't be ideologically synchronized or operationally involved to be complicit in oiling the machine responsible for the crimes that keep coming out recently.

Moral responsibility comes in when you decide to take money from these people instead of deciding to yourself "You know, maybe I _don 't_ want to be part, however small, of crimes against the public".

And that takes it right back to ignorance, apathy, or malice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This should be read as: "Government agency has been wasting taxpayer money by employing 900 people that they didn't need but didn't bother care to fix because the extra people justified their ballooning budget that they could use to spy more on said taxpayers."

<comment><USER9> That only applies if you're spying on the taxpayers, though, or possibly threatening to kick their doors in looking for drugs.

If you're teaching taxpayers or helping them in any other way then most of your department got the axe a decade ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Tomorrow's news today: "Chinese NSA break-in was caused by unpatched code, overwork and corner-cutting after staffing was reduced in the name of limiting access to secure data, sources say."

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder how much of this is related to virtualization -- one of my previous positions was obviated due to this.

Instead of having system admins maintain the software state and hardware state on a forest of servers, it's a lot simpler to have VMs that delete and reprovision themselves whenever they have a software issue.

When you add in virtual HDDs or UNC paths for data locations, then the system is completely abstracted from the underlying hardware. If one of these physical hypervisor host systems has a hardware problem, the virtual servers on it can usually be live-migrated to other hosts, and the hardware can be repaired/replaced by a low-level hardware-only tech. When the hypervisor OS has an issue, it can be automatically reimaged as well.

Changes like this have made Office365 much more efficient than BPOS, and are likely at play in AWS and other datacenters as well as the NSA's.

<comment><USER11> Virtualization solves a lot of these problems, but a lot of my milspec friends have been expressing concerns about APTs that jailbreak the virtual environment to attack the underlying physical host.

It will be interesting to see how the human element of networks evolves over time.

<comment><USER3> (APT = advanced persistent threat?)

I'm thinking back to the HDD firmware hack[1] that was on HN earlier this week -- if a HDD was exposed directly to a VM, that would definitely be a plausible attack vector.

[1] [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6148347](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6148347)

<comment><USER11> Yes, you're correct on the definition. I don't wanna go look it up but there's a good one about an embedded attack hidden in an internal PCI board's on board memory.

If someone with $100M wants to get you, they're probably gonna find a way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "I've been feeling guilty about my job at tricking the people as a systems admin for the NSA, but the money is great, so i keep my mouth shut... wait... i'm fired?... ctrl+a, ctrl+c.. ctrl+v.... send"

<comment><USER13> "ctrl+a, ctrl+c.. ctrl+v.... send myself to prison for 90 years"

<comment><USER14> People take disproportionate risks out of anger all the time.

Furthermore, a lot of people in these types of positions (sysadmin work etc; and I say that as someone who does this type of work myself, though not at a three letter agency) get a feeling that they're good enough to get away with it - whether or not it's actually true.

Making an announcement like that just seems exceptionally stupid.

<comment><USER15> Indeed they do. And not all of them have the benefit of being able to justify themselves with "I leaked this for the good of the country".

It's not all that rare to see sysadmins that get fired or even just perceive mistreatment by coworkers or employers to jump the shark and mess up the systems they're meant to take care of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Originally reported and published by Reuters: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/us-usa-security- ns...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/us-usa-security-nsa-leaks- idUSBRE97801020130809)

</comment><comment><USER17> Whose bright idea was this? Piss off 90% of your sys admins? This is a hilariously bad move.

<comment><USER18> Well on the bright side, at least they don't have to worry about their ex- sysadmins becoming whistleblowers.

<comment><USER17> I don't get it. Their newly ex-sysadmins might well be motivated to blow whistles. There's still a 'Snowden is overstating the case' contingent out there.

<comment><USER19> that's the joke

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have to wonder what they had the sysadmins doing. One of the primary functions of the job is usually automating common tasks. Had they already done this and they just never downsized the department? If not, I doubt they can cut 90% quickly, that's a lot of automation that needs to be put in place. Guess whose job that is?

</comment><comment><USER20> It's never good when so many people lose their jobs but I can't stop thinking that if so many people can be replaced by automation, something must have gone awfully, awfully wrong in the process of wisely spending taxpayers money. Why were they using people in the first place to perform tasks best left to machines?

<comment><USER21> If you had unlimited budget, and disgruntled ex-employees were a greater risk than current employees, what is your short term strategy?

<comment><USER20> I don't see how disgruntled ex-employees would be a risk if the correct policies are put into place like, you know, the whole confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements.

<comment><USER21> You just did describe a new problem and process. If you have someone on staff you can watch him closely. On the other hand "exit day" brings complications ... especially for sys-admins.

Edit: and so it wouldn't surprise me if a government department with huge budget tended to accrue employees over time. The "easy" path is retention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The title of the article seems to imply immediacy. the article itself though says that they plan on automating 90% of the employees out of a job. So I suspect a lot of people will work really hard in hopes that they remain part of the 10% and the smart ones are working on their resumes. Though the whole layoff itself is probably at least a year away.

</comment><comment><USER23> Honestly what is going on in America any more you guys are all crazy?

<comment><USER24> A good portion of the populace is indeed crazy. And unfortunately they are the ones that get all the press.

However, there are a lot of people that are normal and decent but they don't get much play in the media.

<comment><USER25> So it is the same as everywhere ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Huh... I figured they'd need twice as many sysadmins with the new "two-man rule."

[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57594486/officials- say-n...](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57594486/officials-say-new-anti- leak-measures-set-at-nsa/)

</comment><comment><USER27> If these sysadmins are a security risk, giving them notice of redundancy can hardly improve security (in the short term). Especially for an organisation with such recent history of trouble with disgruntled ex-employees.

<comment><USER28> nah the work is getting outsourced to booze allen and of course outsourcing national security work always works

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I wonder how many are agents to help further NSA penetration of civilian systems and networks. That's a lot of talent going on the labour market but I don't think I'd be prepared to knowingly hire anyone with this kind of experience and connections.

<comment><USER30> These people could be seen as Trojan horses secretly collecting some extra dough while working at some big cloud service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> In the short term, they'll probably be replaced by a legion of contractors who will be tasked with automating the work formerly performed by the sysadmins. It's not like a NSA contractor has ever leaked sensitive material before though...

</comment><comment><USER32> Well, we know that a lot of the work has been automated, as they have on- demand access to the likes of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc.

Once this setup work has been done, they can make do with fewer admins.

</comment><comment><USER33> For all of those who are commenting about sysadmins grabbing as much data as they go out, I highly suspect that all of the newly unemployed sysadmins were or have been escorted by armed guards.

</comment><comment><USER34> So close! Try for 100% next time!

</comment><comment><USER35> The primary qualification is now ideological purity.

<comment><USER36> Do you have any evidence for this?

<comment><USER37> They've built a data centre in Salt lake city, Utah. A city with a large population of mormons...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> "To be replaced with simple bash script"

</comment><comment><USER39> This could be great news - I'd imagine there are a whole bunch of sysadmins at the NSA right now thinking about what variety of backdoors and "I accidentally the data" bugs they can work in before they're kicked out.

<comment><USER20> I highly doubt the NSA has such loose policies regarding code reviews so as to make that even possible. Give the guys some credit.

<comment><USER40> This is a place where all the windows are embedded with a very fine copper mesh to block unwanted RF (coming or going).

<comment><USER41> Have you ever worked for a government in IT? If it's anything like the government job I used to have, they have all the equipment and policies in place to prevent breaches and data leaks, but it's poorly maintained or implemented... if it's even implemented at all. Yet, for the right people, it passes audit every year. It's all about looking good and following procedure, not being good.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pinterest to price IPO below last valuation - <AUTHOR> https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/CntmhxoqW9jHjBsVK7aYpw2 <comment><USER2> Ah Pinterest, strip-mining the incredible library of images across all of the Internet, then converting them all into 200px thumbnails, and replacing the original search results with your own, all in the noble quest to serve more ads to more eyeballs.

This is increasingly what passes for a billion dollar company in SV today. Aggregating other peoples stuff and putting yourself in the middle to skim a bit off the top.

<comment><USER3> It's amazing that since HN's main interaction with Pinterest seems to be Google Images (from all the complaining comments that _always_ show under any mention of Pinterest), commenters here assume they don't actually have a product people love (aka the source of success)

<comment><USER4> The fact that HN's (or most people's, really) main interaction with Pinterest is Google Images spam should be concerning.

They are basically pissing off a _huge_ chunk of people (anyone who searches for images on Google) for their own benefit.

This shouldn't be considered acceptable. I am not sure why anyone is defending that nasty company. You usually wouldn't defend someone in the physical world who does something similar (simple example: littering), why should it be considered OK just because it's on the Internet?

<comment><USER5> Because not all products need to cater to the HN demographic to be successful.

<comment><USER6> This is not a problem specific to HN demographic, but to anyone using image search. They've successfully managed to destroy its utility.

<comment><USER3> I use Google Image search fine :) utility still kicking!

seriously I'm googling common items surrounding me and not getting ruined by Pinterest results. I even searched "wedding ring" (a common Pinterest topic) and got like 2 Pinterest results among my many non-Pinterest results.

<comment><USER7> But how many of them are not garbage results from garbage sites?

Sites like keyword-suggestions and such? I can't think of anymore off the top of my head, but they exist and they suck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The website that made Google image search suck does an IPO?

<comment><USER9> Do people really use Pinterest? I never found their website useful.

<comment><USER10> I think that just shows how narrow your group of acquaintances is and how out of touch you are with a large part of the world.

250 million people use Pinterest every month. That's (approximately, though lower than) the same ballpark as Snapchat and Twitter.

I assume you are capable of Googling their monthly user numbers, just like I did. So I assume your post is just virtue signalling and not actually asking in the spirit of trying to understand others, since it is obvious that yes, people do use Pinterest.

<comment><USER9> 250 million people may be using Pinterest currently, but I don't think Pinterest can maintain this position with just one product. It's outdated and most of the content is just copied from elsewhere. More and more people are shifting to Instagram/Reddit.

I personally know people who were using Pinterest back in 2015-2016 but have since then shifted to Instagram.

<comment><USER11> How do you make vision boards / collections on instagram/reddit? How do you share them selectively? What do you even think Pinterest is?

<comment><USER9> Boards/collections are just glorified marketing terms used to convey that Pinterest has something new to offer. Alternatively, I can create a group chat on Insta or I can create a private subreddit and share the interesting links with the people I want to share. I can create multiple Insta chats and subreddits each for different topics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Visual note taking has so much potential, I'm really not sure how Evernote and Pinterest cornered the market and ruined it at the same time. Same with LinkedIn, these players somehow break their whole spaces.

<comment><USER13> Lack of competition...

I'm trying to revamp things on the Evernote side but in a different way.

[https://getpolarized.io/](https://getpolarized.io/)

We're making good progress and have a GREAT hacker user base but working to take it to the masses.

The next goal is to launch it on product hunt in 1-2 weeks.

We're also adding sharing and improving our web and mobile apps which is super important to getting adoption.

It's also Open Source and we're going to raise money soon with a 'kickstarter' style campaign to ask the community to fund continued development.

I want to build a platform that respect user rights and isn't trying to lock up the users data in a proprietary platform.

The reason it's called "Polar" is that it's designed to 'freeze' your knowledge in a safe place.

Safe being that it's Open Source and based on web standards.

I'm going to have it based on a .org style non-profit sort of like Wikimedia / Wordpress.org but also a for-profit company which has commitments to the non- profit which funds it in perpetuity.

<comment><USER12> Less salesy and better design aesthetics would be my advice...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why couldn't Instagram build a feature that lets you build boards of pinned posts from other users?

<comment><USER15> You can save posts on Instagram, so you're technically allowed a single "board". I could see this feature being expanded in the future, though.

<comment><USER16> I believe Instagram now lets you save them in arbitrarily titled collections. I think the only missing functionality is sharing them with other users.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This isn't actually the title of the article. Should this be renamed?

<comment><AUTHOR> It was the original title when I submitted it. It appears it was updated after submission.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Get out at any price?

</comment><comment><USER19> Exactly no one is surprised.</comment>


Ask HN: Ideas on how to change the Culture at a big Corporate Bank - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys,
I work for a large bank and work in the technology part of that bank. I am trying to put a presentation together with the aim of trying to highlight ways of changing the culture within the technology part of the bank.
Currently I work in a sterile, dreary office. We have to wear suits. We are bogged down by process and the people I work with have ideas, good ideas, but have not got the time or inclination to do anything with those ideas.
I want to change this. I know that is an almost impossible task but I have read various articles across the web on why people enjoy working where they do and how they promote a culture that promotes collaboration, idea generation, a culture that is non corporate.
Do any of you work for corporate companies and witnessed a changing culture? Do any of you work for non corporates and are able to explain why you enjoy working where you do?
In my mind there is no reason why just because I work for a bank that the technology part of the bank can't operate a similiar culture to web startups and leading tech companies like Google, Apple etc.
Any help you can give would be great!
Thanks in advance.. <comment><USER2> Read <http://www.ribbonfarm.com/>, <http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/>, and anything else you get your hands on about strategy. Seriously, the things that are holding you back are corporate, office and national politics. These aren't insurmountable obstacles, just impressions of them. It's a bank for goodness sake, it's not meant to be interesting.

Suits and a sterile office are not the problem. They are the symptom; and more than that, they are the signal and the filter for the type of people that work there (so I can see you having just as much problem getting your comrades-in- arms to agree to "collaboration, idea generation and non-corporatism" as your managers.)

(I've written this assuming you're not a manager. If you are, great, it'll be easier to do either of these options and you can probably shave a couple of years of the timeline!)

The best advice I can think of (other than give up, obviously) is to first prove technical competence, in the form a high-level executive understands (I saved us X million dollars on Y different occasions) and then get them to support you in setting up a team (which you will lead and will almost certainly need to recruit from outside to fill — quick, who's the first person you phone?) that will do the projects you want to do (quick, what can you do that might add a billion the bank's bottom line?) and provide the political cover to do what you want. It'll take 5-10 years, it's risky and it requires political skill.

An alternative tactic would be to think of the best technical practice that your office doesn't use that you could introduce via your co-workers, without threatening your manager, and start trying to do that. It's low key but if its an effective practice you could see payoffs quicker than the above plan. It won't get rid of the suits on its own though.

Anyway, good luck! I just really hope you weren't thinking of standing up and saying "I wish we had more foosball, fewer suits and daily pushes to our online banking app (which we are gonna rewrite in Ruby)."

(edit to add: The "How to Manage Geeks" current on the front page is also quite good, but doesn't really help you. <http://www.wikihow.com/Manage- Geeks>. I also recommend: <http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/management> [http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/08/managing_older_managers_a_gu...](http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/08/managing_older_managers_a_guid.html) <http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/cat_management.html>)

<comment><USER3> > prove technical competence, in the form a high-level executive understands > (I saved us X million dollars on Y different occasions)

Wouldn't this imply that their current process works since it allows saving huge amounts already?

<comment><USER2> Saying I can achieve 10X on the back of X is more credible than saying I would be able to do 10X, but the current process is holding us back. It's rare for the current process to be so broken you can't achieve anything; although I accept you may need to break some rules to even get the X.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I once thought like this however things changed once I realized at least a few interesting insights (read: NOT rules!). And this is strictly my opinion, which the OP has asked for.

* Not only must change absolutely come from the top, but so must the attitude. This may require getting new management, takes __money__, and time, and full support from your board. I really want to point to this one article by FC [1] but it's half link bait. None the less this list has characteristics (most of them, not all) of desired change (when you read it, remove 'social'). Sometimes, you may need to get rid of board members. The ones that say "If it ain't broke why fix it?" (because you found out it was never fixed in the first place, or it's broke cause customers don't exist anymore).

* Attitude must be filtered down from the top to the _lowest_ of ranks. This takes time, and may require getting rid of dead weight _just like Silicon valley companies_. [2][3]

* Moving fast means just that. A large amount of people grew up with 'process', love to feel important, is all they know, and firmly believe there is nothing better. (Wish I could site some psychology papers on this with related research in 'process engineering'/'re-engineering' but I don't follow the field anymore and can't remember off the top of my head any...). Even for getting rid of people there is a huge, long process. Microsoft is also seen as NOT moving fast enough [4] (well, in comparison to some banks and health insurance corps MS moves at light speed).

* Get rid of people rather than 're-education'. Sometimes your teams need to be reborn and you _can't_ teach everyone to be at the same level and expect them to have new enthusiasm. Especially so when you have a huge honking boat of people at your Big Corp. People are different, and most likely they were hired for different reasons from when you 'started change'. Many older people (40+) at big corps today surprisingly don't have degrees (which Doesn't matter) nor want to learn anything new (what really matters). If they can't get excited over new tools (read: programming languages, platforms) how they heck will you get them excited with what your going to build (you need passionate people, impossible to have 100% on board with your passion. It's like finding co-founders for a startup).

* Applications and process are entrenched deep so that Big Corp must rely on them. This is really FEAR. Fear of change! See my first point, and if fear still exists keep firing.

* Once you eliminate dead wood, got rid of fear, have board approval, have great teams, you'll need to engrain in to the new culture some form of 'iterative process'. Customers are always moving targets and you should always be ready - to move and catch new ones. Well, unless your a Monopoly (in which case it doesn't matter and any change means less profit on the CEOs quarterly).

* Last bit of insight, sometimes you just can't change people. You can only assemble people, so assemble the ones you need.

[1] [http://www.fastcompany.com/1761924/top-ten-ways-ceo-s- must-c...](http://www.fastcompany.com/1761924/top-ten-ways-ceo-s-must-change- to-lead-in-the-social-business-marketplace)

[2] [http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/03/17/whom-should- yo...](http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/03/17/whom-should-you-hire-at- a-startup-attitude-over-aptitude/)

[3] [http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/05/23-insights-from-the- netfl...](http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/05/23-insights-from-the-netflix- culture-deck/)

[4] [http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952001....](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952001.htm)

</comment><comment><USER5> _In my mind there is no reason why just because I work for a bank that the technology part of the bank can't operate a similiar culture to web startups and leading tech companies like Google, Apple etc._

The issue with working in FInancial Services is Corporate governance & compliance. Every single detail in a bank is monitored & regulated to the point where there are unbelievably strict rules covering every element of the business. I appreciate culture can't be controlled by rules & regulations but it does tend to cripple creativity & freedom quite significantly.

Good luck.

<comment><USER6> I agree - it seems like any regulated environment tends to evolve into a dreary office culture. That being said it's likely the OP could create a _group_ that supports innovation or has a radically different culture, however, it'll be a target for internal politics. Best bet is cherry-picking best practices and then adopting them in phases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been in your shoes. I used to work at Banco Itaú in Brazil and spent 6 months trying to get them to let in Apple or Linux machines in a company with like 28,000 windows machines. I also got away with having large plants on my desk even though it was against the rules.

How did I get away with even that much and was it worth it?

To get a new technology introduced, I had to escalate my issue all the way to the CEO of the Bank. This was only possible because I was not an IT employee. I was one of the well paid financial analysts with a fair amount of clout in our area of the bank. I would not have been able to convince the bank of any change had I not worked for a profit center of the bank. As you are in IT, you are part of a cost center (accept this as a fact of life). The only way you are going to make any changes in any reasonable time frame is if someone in a profit center champions your cause. Cost center areas of the bank rarely will be able to raise their issue high enough to make any difference. Banks make money hand over fist so as long as a cost center like IT doesn't get in the way of making money, the top brass just won't care. They won't and no amount of believing that they will will make them think otherwise. Banks are large rent-seeking institutions run by people who just want to make as much money as possible to retire early or keep up with the joneses. I promise you that few if any of these people will care about your plight. They certainly don't see suits and dull dreary offices as part of the problem. Watch American Psycho. Many like the suits (because they are probably wearing Armani and Gucci suits and then spend their evenings in restaurants and bars where women notice that kind of thing). The fact that you are wearing suits will not be seen as problem for them. They may even wonder why you wouldn't want to wear a suit. I was the only financial analyst that didn't leave the bank for lunch without my suit jacket when it was 100 degrees outside and humid. They like the suits. They command power and respect.

Was it worth wasting my time on trying to change the culture at the bank? NO. NO. NO. NO. Don't bother. You'll fight tooth and nail for a year for a tiny concession if you are lucky and you'll always wish things were better. Well they can be better, but not in the bank. Go elsewhere. Go work with real engineers and tech people in a business where tech is a profit center. You will only ever be happy in a company where the job you do is part of a profit center.

Leave. Trust me. Leave.

I've been out of the bank for 3 years now and after working at two tech companies in the meantime, I'm now building my own startup with some friends and learning so much more about tech and business than a lifetime of working at a bank would have taught me. If I had stayed at the bank, I probably would be making a half million to a million dollars per year with bonus by now. I'm currently near broke and bootstrapping and could not be happier. I can't afford vacations or nice cars, but I also don't work a shit job where those are the only things in my life that I have to look forward to.

If you still decide to give it a shot, check out the links from Robin_Message's answer and the book Fearless Change, which is a pattern language book with culture change patterns to help you solve the problems you encounter. I wish I had had that book when I was trying to change things at the bank.

</comment><comment><USER8> Believe it or not, Zed Shaw once gave a great talk on doing quality work in the stifling corporate culture of large financial institutions: <http://vimeo.com/2723800>

It's not directly related to _reforming_ that corporate culture, but it'll probably give you some good tips if you decided that your particular ocean is taking too long to boil.

<comment><USER9> Great link - thanks for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> 1) Figure out your motives - what are you looking for? Are you trying to satisfy a personal craving, do your job better, fulfill the goals of your employer better? Accept that it is possible your motives may not be able to be satisfied where you are now; accepting that, you may need to find something that is a better fit for you.

2) Start where you are. What can you do personally or within your team to make things better. Are there processes that you follow but don't really need to follow because they don't serve real goals (i.e. they're done because that's how it's done)? Are there things in your immediate reach that can be improved and how do those improvements serve the larger goals (e.g. do they save money, time, reduce tedium)?

3) It can be better to ask forgiveness than ask permission (sometimes). Are there ways you can change things that can be justified after the fact? What if you started using a different approach because the team decided it was the right thing to do and knew from experience that it would work and be an improvement. Once it was working, then present it as a 'better way' with the proof already laid out. Realize too that there's a time and a place for this and only you can know when that might be (e.g. the time to try something new might not be during a frantic push to release a new feature).

4) Find a sponsor. Is there someone higher up who you can show successes to and who would support you? Technology is not just about clean code and good technical architectures, there is also a cultural architecture that must be considered. We don't develop software or create systems in a vacuum of ideal decisions; we work with the constraints of time/demands of the larger organization. Having someone to help navigate the political ground can help accomplish your goals while also improving things. A sponsor can help build trust within the organization.

5) Be patient. Cultural change can take years. Maybe that's not what you want to be doing with your time. That's fine too. Maybe it will never happen. That's also fine. The question is are you finding satisfaction in your job and remaining flexible and vibrant while doing what needs to be done?

</comment><comment><USER3> Please, please keep us updated about how it goes for you, whether you succeeded or failed. I generally don't believe in change in culture and thinking, unless it comes from a leader or authority figure, so I always kind of work around these things, but I would be so glad to know that it is possible and that you succeeded.

From my experience, it's even hard from a leader to change an existing culture, the most effective way that has worked for me is to make up a set of clever rules that reward the "correct" thinking and punishes the "wrong" thinking, instead of trying to talk people into doing things in a new way.

</comment><comment><USER11> Sorry if this is slightly off-topic (as it doesn't really necessarily improve "culture"), but it sounds like your bank could do with something like a password protected version of My Starbucks Idea: [http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/apex/idealist?lsi=0&cat...](http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/apex/idealist?lsi=0&cat=Coffee+%26+Espresso+Drinks) (but for employees, instead - or maybe just your tech team).

I mention it because of the fact that you have people coming up with ideas that then get ignored. Having somewhere were ideas can go, and get voted up could be a small shift towards making those ideas actually happen.

Incidentally, Does anyone know if there's a commercially available version of that that isn't outrageously expensive? Starbucks' seems to be custom-built with Salesforce, I could be wrong.

To answer your question about working for non-corporates - I've spent a lot of time working at marketing agencies, the jobs I enjoyed the most didn't have a dress code and allowed me the time & freedom to actually implement the ideas I came up with.

</comment><comment><USER12> Good luck. This is one of the main reasons why I just left a company with a very similar culture. It wasn't going to change.

Our "achilles heel" was security. Simple deployments were a nightmare, because of approvals and need to wait for someone with top secret credentials to actually execute them.

Collaboration and idea generation only existed, if someone scheduled a meeting to do it. Really?

</comment><comment><USER13> In the same boat myself right now, currently putting together slides on open source for senior management, showing them how it could save them a fortune. Always try to make a business case when trying to push through changes, as most managers (even outside of the financial services area) will not be won over by technical arguements, no matter how strong they are.

</comment><comment><USER14> Changing culture (or changing anything for that matter) is a REALLY DIFFICULT job and it takes a long time.

There's an excellent substantial podcast/interview on this subject on "software engineering radio": [http://www.se- radio.net/2009/06/episode-139-fearless-change-...](http://www.se- radio.net/2009/06/episode-139-fearless-change-with-linda-rising/)

Linda Rising wrote a great book about changing culture, "Fearless Change". She actually approaches this topic pragmatically using the concept of "patterns" as the tool. ([http://www.amazon.com/Fearless-Change-Patterns- Introducing-I...](http://www.amazon.com/Fearless-Change-Patterns-Introducing- Ideas/dp/0201741571))

IMHO, you're in for a long ride if you want to make substantial changes in culture. I think you really have to love the place and people you're working with to be able to tolerate the amount of highly cooperative effort and "politics" it will take.

</comment><comment><USER15> What are your motivations for wanting to do this? Do you think this undertaking is easier than finding a job that would make you happier? Do you care deeply about the mission of the ... bank? Is this your first job out of college?

</comment><comment><USER16> An organization such as a bank is a self-consistent entity. And the culture _is_ the organization. Organization === culture. If you don't believe it, look at Microsoft - they cannot change for the life of them. You want to try to change part of the organism and what that will do is to make you foreign to the rest of it. Bad news.

People think that "saving money" will justify changes. It is not true, an organism will not destroy itself in order to become more efficient.

</comment><comment><USER17> Driving Technical Change sounds like an appropriate book. I have not read it, but it has been on my tech books wish-list for a while now:

<http://pragprog.com/book/trevan/driving-technical-change>

<comment><USER18> I was about to suggest that book, too. Also, check out this blog post: <http://agilitrix.com/2011/03/how-to-make-your-culture-work/> which outlines some of the ideas presented in the book "The Reengineering Alternative: A plan for making your current culture work" by William Schneider.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> the best way: start a more successful competing company - yeah, that's hard in the corporate bank sectors, but much easier than changing a behemoth that does not see the need for change - and behemoths only see the need for change when their survival is seriously threatened.

if that is not a strategy you want to pursue - then first change yourself! do you wear a suit? get rid of it. do you were shoes? get rid of them! so you work in a cubicle? buy a mac air and sit on the floor or at the cafeteria instead? to many meetings - for the next one wear a dress (oh, the good old times...).

first change yourself, then change the company.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is great - thanks for all your comments guys. I will read through all these links and build them into the presentation. I will also share the presentation with you all if any of you are interested.

</comment><comment><USER20> Promote [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Intrapreneurs...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Intrapreneurship) in your Bank. Google does the same.

</comment><comment><USER21> The first question: what power do you have to affect change? Are you senior management? Or "protege" of someone high up in the company? If not, your odds of bringing in sweeping cultural change are low. Very low.

Second question: how much reach do you need? Do you want to work in: (a) an environment where no one wears a suit, (b) an environment where no one has to wear a suit, (c) an environment where tech people don't have to wear suits, (d) an environment where suits aren't required but everyone seeking promotion still wears one? The more people who will have to change to suit your vision, the lower your chances of success.

Third: the problems with your work aren't abstract cultural issues. They're concrete. So focus on those, because some are very easy to fix and some are get-another-job-now intractible. What's the _real_ problem? If you enjoy the work but hate the "sterile, dreary" office decorum, suck it up because that's a small issue. If the problem is bad management and you're a grunt, best to leave on your own terms because raising the issue could have you leaving not on your own terms. If the problem is bureaucracy, ask your manager if it's possible to hire another person to manage the bureaucracy so technology people can be more productive. Abstract cultural problems are vague and hard to specify, much less solve. Concrete problems have solutions (but the solution may be that you need to get another job.)

</comment><comment><USER22> Stop playing a losing battle. if you want change, change your surroundings, change your job, and change yourself. Start your own business, and make your own rules. Show others how management and culture is supposed to be done. Start a real revolution. Don't start a revolution inside prison walls. It's hard, most people probably will resist (they just wanna get a paycheck and go home to drink a cold beer/play with kids), and you probably won't get credit for it.</comment>


Ask YC: I am going to kill my HN account, can I give my karma to someone else? - <AUTHOR>

I'm assuming no, but maybe distributing karma after you leave might be an interesting thing to think about. <comment><USER2> I'd imagine that people who'd arguably "deserve" it more don't care about it since they already have a ton of it.

Just point news.ycombinator.com to 127.0.0.1 on your hosts or something.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why are you deleting your account?

<comment><AUTHOR> Because of the latest internet addiction article, and the one about what's on the top of your mind. Too many times I've found myself thinking about hacker news discussions when I'm away from my computer. And, I've been using Hacker News too much when I should be doing something more productive.

<comment><USER4> That's very melodramatic of you. Just don't visit as often, get some discipline to work on your own things and thoughts and you'll be fine. No account deletion necessary.</comment></comment></comment>


Fez soundtrack contains hidden data - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/games/fez-soundtrack-contains-hidden-information-20120420/

<comment><USER2> It's become somewhat of a tradition among electronic musicians to embed graphics into spectrograms, the most widely known example being Aphex Twin's "Windowlicker" (1999). A few examples, including that one:

<http://www.bastwood.com/?page_id=10>

There must be precursors of the practice before the advent of computer music, or even digital/electronic music production altogether, but I can't recall any; I'd love to be pointed to them.

<comment><USER3> Oh, absolutely. Earliest one I'm aware of is Bach's "Art of the fugue", where he embedded his name as a third voice.

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BACH_motif>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The game itself also has some crazy puzzles: [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/04/why-it-took- almos...](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/04/why-it-took-almost-a- week-for-the-world-to-completely-finish-fez.ars)

</comment><comment><USER5> "The QR code returns a string of dates:

        1955 1958 1960 1961 1967 1969 1971 1977 2003 2005

Which might mean something, or it might just be the birth dates of the development team, I'm really not sure yet."

57 year olds working alongside 7 year olds. Nice to know they don't discriminate based on age.

<comment><USER6> I would guess that the >2000 ones are propably birth dates of some of the developer's children

Edit : someone asked this question on stackexchange : [http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/63374/what-does- th...](http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/63374/what-does-this-qr-code- hidden-in-the-soundtrack-mean)

<comment><USER7> As far as I know the only developer on the core team with a kid is Adam Saltsman, and his kid was born in 2011. I think all of the team members are young enough that they would have been teen parents (12-16) if they had kids born in 2003 or 2005 :).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The musician, @disasterpeace, is a bit of a mad genius. Just play his game if you require proof: <http://colorcave.com/>

</comment><comment><USER9> This one on the left looks like the center includes three channels of something- whether it is audio or not, I can't tell, but these should be isolated to look at in more detail: [http://www.geek.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/04/Adobe-Soundbo...](http://www.geek.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/04/Adobe-Soundbooth-CS5-Disasterpeace-FEZ-02-Puzzle.png)

The bit to the right looks a little like a set of DNA sequences, but I bet it isn't.

</comment><comment><USER10> I saw "Indie Game The Movie" last night (<http://www.indiegamethemovie.com/>). They followed the ups and downs of developing fez and super meat boy (and some braid).

If you're racing to develop something before you run out of money, take a break and go see this movie. You'll love it.

</comment><comment><USER11> First off, how did the person who found this come about this? They must have been tipped off.

Second, this could be (is?) a great way to covertly transmit information. Wow!

Finally, where are the patents on this? :)

<comment><USER12> Some audio players have a spectrogram visualisation, iirc Winamp has one included by default.</comment></comment>


Building a Simple Static Site with Parcel and Stimulus - <AUTHOR> https://happyvalley.dev/building-a-simple-static-site-with-parcel-and-stimulus/ <comment><AUTHOR> I've written a walkthrough of building a very simple static site using Parcel as the build tool and Stimulus as a scripting library. I'm really enjoying using these tools and figured that a walkthrough was a good way to show off what I like about them.</comment>


Ask HN: Why does only 18% of China believe climate change is a problem? - <AUTHOR> Percentage of each country polled who agree with statement (in 2015) [1]
Country Climate change is a very serious problem
Brazil 86% Burkina Faso 79% Chile 77% India 76% Uganda 76% Peru 75% Philippines 72% Venezuela 72% Vietnam 69% Ghana 68% Lebanon 67% Mexico 66% Kenya 62% Nigeria 61% Argentina 59% Senegal 58% Tanzania 57% France 56% Italy 55% Germany 55% Spain 53% Canada 51% South Korea 48% U.S. 45% Japan 45% South Africa 45% Jordan 44% Malaysia 44% Australia 43% UK 41% Indonesia 41% Ethiopia 40% Palestine 38% Turkey 37% Russia 33% Ukraine 29% Pakistan 29% Israel 24% Poland 19% China 18%
[1] Source: Pew Research Center's Spring 2015 Global Attitudes Survey - <USER2> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country <comment><USER3> Access to information. Economics growth is more important than the environment for many Chinese people. And also the government doesn't like to bring it up because its one of those things that really pisses off the population. Google Beijing pollution a few years back and you will see how many people were angry about the air they are breathing.

</comment><comment><USER4> Probably lies in education and narrative</comment>


Plastic-eating caterpillars: An escape from a shopping bag triggers an idea - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21721328-escape-shopping-bag-triggers-idea-plastic-eating-caterpillars-could?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/ <comment><USER2> This actually sounds a bit scary, and I hope doesn't become reality, since it might turn out to be like termites --- given how much we rely on plastics, the damage caused by an inadvertent release or application could be severe.

Also, polyethylene is one of the simplest plastics and can be recycled quite effectively; so the real problem is getting people to reuse and recycle, and not disposal. Much of it comes from petroleum sources so a nontrivial amount of energy was already spent in its production too.

<comment><USER3> Reduce comes before reuse and recycle. There are several countries with 0 landfill rates and high recycling rates in Europe, but that doesn't solve the problem. We actually need to re-evaluate our use of plastic.

<comment><USER4> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYDQcBQUDpw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYDQcBQUDpw)

For some ideas about how to cut waste. A different approach, with emphasis on recycling:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eym10GGidQU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eym10GGidQU)

As much as the internet likes to make fun of people like this, I honestly don't see anything wrong with what they're doing. And they look happy and healthy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This was in April 2017. A more recent report questions the previous publication:

"Although the biochemical decomposition has not yet been disproven, the sensational report of plastic eating caterpillars at least appears highly doubtful in the light of these results." [1]

[1] [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170915144156.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170915144156.htm)

<comment><USER6> what about this? "To confirm it wasn't just the chewing mechanism of the caterpillars degrading the plastic, the team mashed up some of the worms and smeared them on polyethylene bags, with similar results.

Read more at: [https://phys.org/news/2017-04-caterpillar-bags- biodegradable...](https://phys.org/news/2017-04-caterpillar-bags- biodegradable-solution-plastic.html#jCp")

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The waxworms in the article eat polyethylene. Common meal worms are capable of eating another plastic, polystyrene -- you can observe this yourself by just grabbing some from a pet store and putting them in a styrofoam container for a few days.

In the case of the mealworms, the digestion is coming from gut bacteria, but it remains unclear how waxworms are able to do it with polyethylene.

</comment><comment><USER8> >Another question is the composition of their faeces. If these turn out to be toxic, then there will be little point in pursuing the matter.

In other words, we don't even know if they _digest_ the plastic, or just eat it. If they don't digest it, there's no utility....

<comment><USER9> No, they digest them. Here's another article with more information.

[https://phys.org/news/2017-04-caterpillar-bags- biodegradable...](https://phys.org/news/2017-04-caterpillar-bags- biodegradable-solution-plastic.html)

>To confirm it wasn't just the chewing mechanism of the caterpillars degrading the plastic, the team mashed up some of the worms and smeared them on polyethylene bags, with similar results

<comment><USER10> Thats one hell of a test..

<comment><USER11> Scientist 1: it may be an enzyme in the caterpillars, how we can we test for that

Scientist 2: well how about we anaestetise the caterpillar and use a microfilament to extract the gut contents, then we can ...

Scientist 1: <splat>

<comment><USER12> I'd just put them in the centrifuge that they use to liquefy mice.

<comment><USER13> Oh God. There is a centrifuge to liquify mice?!

<comment><USER12> Yep. The animals are euthanized with CO2, placed in the device, and reduced to liquid in seconds. Obviously, this is not done when specific organs need to remain intact, but if you can do your measurements from homogenized whole animal, it saves a lot of time on rapid perfusion and dissection.

Specialty devices exist, but a standard high-speed desktop centrifuge can also be used, as a mouse will generally fit into a 50 mL centrifuge tube.

Generally best not to think about it too much if you like animals, but also like biochemical sciences. But if you're after a specific enzyme that would not be destroyed by rupture of the cell wall, whole-animal sacrifice by centrifuge is the cheap and easy way to get at it.

<comment><USER13> I like the humorous way in which you put it, but oh, can't help but imagine some higher creature talking about experimenting on us in a similar way /shudder

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Looks like instead of worms, they should focus on the enzymes that can break down the plastics. Apply gratuitously during waste processing and add them to landfills.

</comment><comment><USER15> Potential downsides to consider:

1\. What happens when we remove the "negative" side of using plastic products? Why use less if the worms can eat it all? I'm guessing production and consumption of single use polyethylene products will increase.

2\. What if the worms escape control, (like the possums in New Zealand, the farmed salmon in the pacific etc etc) then what sort of new disaster do we have on our hands?

<comment><USER16> To your first point, I don't think we currently reduce plastic at all. There are some people who want to reuse and switch to alternatives but in general, plastic usage is not limited by environmental factors currently. So I doubt we'd use more plastics if we can safely recycle it all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> See also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14185891](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14185891)

</comment><comment><USER18> There is also nylonase, or the nylon eating bacteria

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon- eating_bacteria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria)

</comment><comment><USER19> >Article title: Plastic-eating caterpillars could save the planet

Wait, since when is plastic the main menace to our planet?

>Another question is the composition of their faeces.

Yeah, it would suck if it produced even more CO2 and methane. Even if we can catch the methane to make energy, that's more CO2 that would have been otherwise sequestered.

</comment><comment><USER9> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14185891](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14185891)

</comment><comment><USER20> Non-paywalled article: [http://archive.is/0Ja6H](http://archive.is/0Ja6H)

</comment><comment><USER21> What could possibly go wrong?

</comment><comment><USER22> This is pointless.

Once you have collected it bury it, burn it or recycle.

If anything this will just release CO2? or Methane?

<comment><USER16> Harvesting methane in a controlled environment could be used to generate electricity. And even if it's pure CO2 it would be cleaner than current methods.</comment></comment>


The man who made lists to fend off depression - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN2628269520080328?sp=true

<comment><USER2> There are all sorts of ways to keep depression at arm's length. Participating in dangerous hobbies, taking drugs (prescribed or otherwise), working all the time, psychotherapy/good friends, creating disturbing art, etc.

I don't think these issues are ever pretty to the ones who experience them, but perhaps coping in any way is better than death.

I sure hope science comes up with a way to fix psychiatric illnesses.

<comment><USER3> > I sure hope science comes up with a way to fix psychiatric illnesses.

I actually don't think it will happen. If it ever does, that would not necessarily be a good thing. Many forms of creativity are strongly correlated with "abnormal" brain wiring. If you are bipolar, for example, your lows are below average, but your highs are also above average. One day you might be absolutely useless, but another you're capable of thinking things literally impossible for those who don't share your condition.

<comment><USER4> I think that at least some bipolar people would gladly trade the increased creativity during the highs for greater stability, and I think it would be a good thing if they had the ability to do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 16 points, no comments and this is up near the top? what is wrong?

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought this was interesting from several angles, but don't really have anything to add. Apparently, I'm not the only one.

What's your complaint, that people don't comment enough or that this got voted up too much? You never say, so how can we answer "what is wrong"?

Not every thread has to be about starting a software business. Also, weekends tend to be kind of slow, so they're a good chance to look at other interesting stuff.

<comment><USER6> I would add that if a submission has a high score but very few comments, that is a decent indicator of a good story. As PG said, much discussion begins with disagreement, so if a story is liked but not discussed much, it has probably covered its bases rather well.

<comment><USER5> I thought you were leaving ?? ;) HN isn't that bad yet !</comment></comment></comment></comment>