Justice.exe: Bias in Algorithmic sentencing - <AUTHOR> http://justiceexe.com/ <comment><USER2> Forgive my ignorance since I don't have a CS degree, but don't all algorithms used for selecting have a human behind the logic. So wouldn't an algorithm always have some bias based on the weights given by a human. Kind of like OKCupid saying you are a 75% match with someone. You may not be compatible with that person, but whoever designed the algorithm declared it to be true with their design.

So wouldn't any algorithm always have some biased in it?

Sorry if this comes off as a stupid question or is unclear.

<comment><USER3> It's not a stupid question at all, and it cuts to the core of a lot of problems with AI and algorithmic-based anything.

Any sufficiently complex programming project will end up reflecting _some_ assumptions and biases on the behalf of the programmer. As more programmers contribute to a project, it won't reflect an individual's biases, but will still reflect those programmers as a group.

<comment><USER4> > Any sufficiently complex programming project will end up reflecting some > assumptions and biases on the behalf of the programmer. As more programmers > contribute to a project, it won't reflect an individual's biases, but will > still reflect those programmers as a group.

Can you break this down more? It doesn't make sense to me. If you're writing a machine learning application to take a dataset and match future inputs to past results I don't see how these biases can sneak into the program.

Unless the programmers are changing the datasets then I don't see how this makes sense.

<comment><USER5> In the case you presented, the biases are in the dataset itself.

Arrest statistics in the US are heavily skewed by race. If you were to take a dataset of all US arrests between 1900 and 2000 and ask which populations are most likely to "commit crimes" (i.e., be arrested), you'd get racially biased model without recording _why_ it's biased (discrimination, enduring poverty, minimum sentencing, &c).

<comment><USER6> Dead sibling comment asks a common questions I hear: why can't we just not tell the algorithm race? And the answer is that, with enough data points, if there is a statistical bias in the dataset, the algorithm will likely learn a substitute for race in the other features. For the sake of argument, perhaps an interaction between home address, annual income and model of car driven is predictive of race, and race is predictive of recidivism in the dataset- then the algorithm will learn this cross of features is predictive of recividism, even though we would like all of them to ideally be irrelevant to sentencing.

<comment><USER4> > home address, annual income and model of car driven is predictive

Why the hell would _those_ be factors? The factors of the case should be things that actually matter in the case.

A rich person who murders someone should get the same sentence as a poor person who murders someone.

A black person who murders someone should get the same sentence as a white person who murders someone.

Adding those factors would be insane in the first place. If you're adding crazy things like that you might as well add factors like "Can Juggle" and "Can Burp the Alphabet" because things like that should have just as much to do with sentencing as what kind of car you drive or where you live.

<comment><USER7> One example that's going to come up is "Has the person previously been convicted of a crime?" That question is strongly correlated with race, and yet is strongly arguable to be relevant.

Model of car is hard to say that it's useful for predictive value, but home address (=which neighborhood did you grow up in, e.g., are you in Cabrini- Green or are you Gold Coast?) and annual income (poor people are more likely to commit crimes than rich people) definitely are going to be queried inputs. Particularly if the question is things like "what should I set bail at?"

<comment><USER4> > "Has the person previously been convicted of a crime?" That question is > strongly correlated with race, and yet is strongly arguable to be relevant.

Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior in my experience. That's more than doubled when it's recurring behavior.

> home address (=which neighborhood did you grow up in, e.g., are you in > Cabrini-Green or are you Gold Coast?) and annual income (poor people are > more likely to commit crimes than rich people) definitely are going to be > queried inputs

Why?

> Particularly if the question is things like "what should I set bail at?"

That's still the job of the judge and there is law at hand for how those values are calculated. The computers won't be involved with that (I'd assume) just sentencing based on previous case decisions.

<comment><USER8> > Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior in my experience.

That question includes the past behavior of a lot more people than just the person with a criminal conviction.

> recurring behavior

Institutional racism has recurred a lot in the justice system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Humans are a thousand times worse than algorithms. Unattractive defendants get prison sentences twice as long as attractive ones. Judges give significantly harsher sentences just before lunch, when they are hungry. And of course the classic biases against race and gender and other protected classes. I bet there are many other biases that we haven't even discovered yet. Some studies have shown that job interviews are worse than just looking at resumes.

Humans should never ever be in charge of sentencing decisions, or anything else you want to be "fair". There's nothing remotely fair about human judgement.

One particularly weird bias humans have, is we strongly distrust machines. Psychologists have studied this and named it "Algorithm Aversion": [http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WPAF201410-Algort...](http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WPAF201410-AlgorthimAversion- Dietvorst-Simmons-Massey.pdf) Even when we know machines do better than humans, we are much more distrustful of them. We can watch humans make mistakes and an algorithm make many fewer mistakes, and still end up trusting the human far more.

And it's weird, because in almost every domain that's been studied, algorithms do vastly better than humans. For any statistical problem where there are a few features available to predict the outcome, even simple linear regression typically beats human experts. We suck at probabilistic and statistical problems. Often the predictions of experts are barely better than chance. And this has been known for a long time. The earliest reference I found was from 1928! Where an incredibly crude statistical model (hand trained!) beat a group of prison psychologists, at predicting recidivism of convicts.

Even the sources that inspired this game have been shown to be fraudulent. That is the propublica study they cite. See [https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/propublica_is_lying....](https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/propublica_is_lying.html) Propublica claimed their results were "almost statistically significant." I.e., they not statistically significant. And why would it be so? Algorithms have no particular reason to hate a minority group. They try to make the most accurate predictions possible given the data.

<comment><USER10> _> They try to make the most accurate predictions possible given the data._

So what you're saying is that a bias in the data could result in a biased outcome.

<comment><USER11> There will be bias in the data, but that can be looked at in one place, and corrected once. At which point everyone gets the benefit. This means errors are found fixed and "released" broadly and quickly. This is much better than trying to disseminate training and information to judges who may or may not actually absorb it. For example new information on bias could be encoded in an algo but is possibly not teachable...because people are biased.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Small bit of feedback on the game: not being a law student, it took me a minute to figure out what I was supposed to do. From the mention of "Risk Assessment Program", I infer that I'm supposed to assume that everyone was found guilty, and guesstimate whether they are likely to commit more offenses in the future (and choose a sentence based on that). Is that correct?

</comment><comment><USER13> There has been some interesting discussion on this thread already.

However, what most seems to fail to see is that an algorithm compared to a human justice system, could inherently be less biased.

Having no bias at all is hard but only having less bias is totally fine IMO.

When writing the algorithm it is of course impossible to not instill some bias into the datasets, the code itself should be bias-free if written correctly. The end result is a bias-free judgement algorithm based on biased data.

Is this worse than what we have now?

</comment><comment><USER11> How about the danger of HUMAN sentencing, talk about lack of training, transparency and consistency.

</comment><comment><USER14> One of the things that computers really have going for in the case of "algorithmic sentencing" is that they are NOT biased; they are just machines that repeatedly and reliably run an ordered set of instructions X, their program, free of any human emotions that can override such logic.

Algorithmic sentencing, when implemented correctly (i.e. the X that it runs is not biased), have the potential to be vastly more "fair" and "just" than any human jury could be.

For example, from a widely circulated online video of a joint talk given by a lawyer and a cop at a law school:

"the [Jury's] perception is that if you're sitting next to a defense attorney, YOU have to prove you're innocent" [1]

Juries are comprised of people off the street who have no expertise in determining things like innocence. The average person is subject to all sorts of biases, most of which they aren't even consciously aware they have.

Knowing this, if I ever had to stand for trial in front of a jury of my peers as a defendant, I'd be scared shitless, _especially_ if I was innocent.

As you can see from the linked video, machines actually have a pretty low bar to live up to in order to outperform humans.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=youtu.be&t=16m46s)

<comment><USER15> People will write that software, select which software to purchase, write the rules for its use, and implement them. Powerful people aren't going to sit back and let those things happen in ways that they don't like, which are threats to them, or which reduce their influence.

<comment><USER14> Then we need the software to be implemented as a decentralized smart contract.

<comment><USER16> How would that help?

More specifically, how would implementing this as a smart contract prevent bias from making its way into the algorithms or the learning datasets?

Remember that bias can be inserted accidentally, by well-meaning programmers who don't realize that the data they are using is biased or has other methodological problems.

<comment><USER14> To me, it just seems like the problem is solvable by having really clean data (Maybe single data point has to be verified by a DNA test? There's plenty of ideas here) -- much more solvable than taking a random group of (probably) unqualified people off the street, calling them a "jury", and then having them make potentially life-or-death decisions regarding the fate of their peers. Right now, the existing system we have is so stacked in favor towards the wealthy and Caucasian that I can't possibly see a well-intentioned algorithm doing any _worse_ than what we have now (a study even successfully correlated good looks with less-strict judicial outcomes; it's pretty easy to design an algorithm that doesn't give an extremely lenient sentence to a Stanford swimmer), but at least, it has a fighting chance of doing _better_.

Try reading anything at all about the jury selection process, and you'll be shocked at how abysmal our existing system is.

People tend to dismiss machines as being cold, calculated, and emotionless, but that's exactly what we WANT if we're aiming for equal, fair justice for all.

<comment><USER16> Clean data is basically impossible to get. You won't find very many experts who agree what it would even mean for data about these topics to be clean. There are tons of methodological disagreements, not to mention the fact that even if we started collecting new "clean" data, the historical data could never be used.

The law is a human construct, not a computer program. It is precisely because of issues of bias, fairness, methodology, etc. that the law is complicated and needs to be administered by people who can understand the complexities and use their education and initiative to ensure fair outcomes.

It's not perfect, and it never will be. But the legal system was designed with the assumption that judges and lawyers would be able to use discretion. To apply rigid computer logic on top of a system that was intentionally designed to be subject to human discretion would be a disaster.

<comment><USER14> I'm a bit more optimistic. For example, for all intents and purposes, I would consider a positive DNA test result to be overwhelmingly damning proof of guilt.

Indeed, although unpopular, technological advances in things like data logging and DNA testing are able to establish both guilt and innocence in a much more scientific manner than a judge crippled by such things as their current mood (maybe they had an argument with their spouse before hearing the case and now they're feeling particularly vindictive) and whether they "like" the defendant as a person (maybe the defendant looks like their high school bully).

The Innocence Project has successfully exonerated many convicted "criminals" solely on the basis of DNA evidence, some of whom have been behind bars for many years. If that doesn't point to an extremely biased and flawed existing judicial system, I don't know what does.

When I think of bias in the judicial system, I don't immediately point the finger at machine learning algorithms and say "if we implemented these types of systems, then we'd be biased" \-- instead, I look at peer juries and law enforcement officers as the source of bias, things like "Stop and Frisk" or "driving while black." You have very faulty systems in place like plea bargaining which effectively nullify due process and encourage false confessions in order to obtain a guaranteed lighter sentence. You have prosecutors with their own illicit motives like appearing in public to be "tough on crime" resulting in such atrocities as Aaron Swartz -- this very concept of "making an example out of somebody" is a biased one.

Someone brought up the point that "bias can be inserted accidentally, by well- meaning programmers" in an unintentional matter. On the other hand, right now, instead of employing some well-meaning programmer who is trying their very best to make sure things are fair, you have policies in place like racial profiling which are INTENTIONALLY biased. Which is worse?

In my mind, ML has the potential of creating a bias-free judicial system more than we could ever hope for by continuing to rely on fickle, highly error- prone, and even outright malicious humans. People just need to get past the fact that a "cold-hearted," emotionless computer is in the judge's chair because that's EXACTLY what we want.

<comment><USER16> > People just need to get past the fact that a "cold-hearted," emotionless > computer is in the judge's chair because that's EXACTLY what we want.

That is not what I want. You should not want that either. If our current laws were implemented strictly and impartially, without reference to mitigating circumstances, the results would often be unfair, unjust, and morally wrong.

An emotionless computer would not consider any mitigating or unusual circumstances unless it was programmed to do so in advance -- but not all of the the circumstances that might come up in court are going to be obvious to the programmers.

Even foreseeable mitigating circumstances would be very difficult to program correctly, e.g. the difference between valid self-defense and manslaughter depends heavily on the state of mind of the defendant. Good luck teaching a computer how to deal with such a problem in a fair and just way, unless you can manage to develop the first artificial general intelligence.

<comment><USER14> "Good luck teaching a computer how to deal with such a problem in a fair and just way"

Good luck getting a HUMAN to deal with such a problem in a fair and just way!

<comment><USER16> Humans do just that on a regular basis.

<comment><USER14> I don't know if I can believe that, given they also say that obviously-guilty people with "affluenza" should get off scot-free from murder charges.

<comment><USER16> So, for you, one bad outcome negates a preponderance of correct outcomes?

Even in the best legal system in the world, you'll be able to find a rapist or murderer who got away with it. That's not a valid counterargument.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Boy, 9, writes iPhone app - <AUTHOR> http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_334521.html <comment><USER2> > Lim, who is _fluent in six programming languages_ , started using the > computer at the age of 2. He has since completed about 20 programming > projects.

</comment><comment><USER3> "The programming isn't child's play" - no good anymore!</comment>


Why do Russians use ")" as a smiley instead of ":)"? - <AUTHOR> https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Russians-use-as-a-smiley-instead-of?share=1 <comment><USER2> Quora still requires you to sign up after reading one question. Why do people still link there?

</comment><comment><USER3> i liked this article )

</comment><comment><USER4> so basically because it is the most practical. who would have guessed coming from the russians? )

<comment><USER5> When I see a stray ) like that, I certainly don't think smiley.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> LOL</comment>


Show HN: Tweet A Stranger, my little web experiment - <AUTHOR> http://alexgerber.com/post/2900815675/my-first-social-experiment-tweetastranger-com

<comment><USER2> Warning: If you use this, you will also tweet "I just tweeted something on <http://TweetAStranger.com>

I don't mind apps that do this as long as they _tell me_ they're going to. This doesn't.

<comment><AUTHOR> I added a line saying it would post to your timeline. Thanks for the suggestion, I'm new at this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Neat idea, but please be careful and obtain permission before using Ollie the Twitterrific bird (<http://twitterrific.com>).

</comment><comment><USER4> You really ought to employ some method to monetize this, such as advertising, and then post it on a more "general interest" site like Reddit.

<comment><USER4> I didn't realize mentioning reddit was so verboten on HN, but it seems some folks here are missing the point. Look at it this way, ChatRoulette is very similar in concept and it took off wildly. Given a mainstream audience, this has the same potential. If this goes viral like its predecessor, then the author may be looking at some very hefty server fees.

Sure, there's also a potential to profit from the work, but if it gets popular and doesn't support itself, then it won't last for long.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> thanks everyone for the comments, do you have any suggestions on how to get the word out?</comment>


Brogrammer scraped and sold 40,000 Tinder pics of 'hoes' online - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/apps/2017/05/01/tinder-photo-dataset-40000-scraped-pics/#.tnw_cMVkCqJv <comment><USER2> The HN is wrong, he didn't sold the images, the images were available for free.

I think it was a creepy stupid illegal [1] idea, but I think he was not motivated by money.

[1] He scraped the images from the site, that is probably illegal. And then he distributed them with a CC0 license that is also illegal if you don't have the copyright of the images.

Recent HN discussion of the TC report: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14228128](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14228128) (65 points, 1 day ago, 77 comments)</comment>


Connection Machine - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine <comment><USER2> Just saw one today at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View. Kind of wish it was up and running though ...</comment>


Hamburg is burying the Autobahn and putting parks on top - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7520805/hamburg-highway <comment><USER2> Artist/architect Friedensreich Hundertwasser had some similar ideas about burying highways and using parkland to absorb some of their emissions, both chemical and auditory - his "invisible, inaudible Green Motorway":

* [http://www.pithandvigor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/under...](http://www.pithandvigor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/underground_tunnel_hundertwasser.jpg) (linked as part of this blog post: [http://www.pithandvigor.com/diy-projects/materials/friedensr...](http://www.pithandvigor.com/diy-projects/materials/friedensreich-hundertwasser/))

* [http://www.hundertwasser.com/arch/view-25slashXIII](http://www.hundertwasser.com/arch/view-25slashXIII)

* [http://www.hundertwasser.com/arch/view-25slashXII](http://www.hundertwasser.com/arch/view-25slashXII)

* [http://www.hundertwasser.com/arch/view-25slashV](http://www.hundertwasser.com/arch/view-25slashV)

<comment><USER3> In Linz (Austria) there is a similar highway with a park above it (more than one kilometer long). Built in 2005, water leaks into the tunnel and there are high costs to fix it (including removing the park to fix the problems).

[http://derstandard.at/1310511908137/Undicht-seit- Eroeffnung-...](http://derstandard.at/1310511908137/Undicht-seit-Eroeffnung- Sanierung-des-Linzer-A7-Tunnels-Park-soll-abgetragen-werden) (German)

<comment><USER4> Water leaks into _all_ tunnels. Some have this issue in a more problematic way that others, admittedly ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seattle area has another, much more similar highway concealment project that's already built - the I90 on the Mercer Island is partially underground, with the "roof" being used for things like parks. Unfortunately, not the whole length of it is buried, so there is still plenty of highway noise throughout the island.

Mercer Island made me think all auto roads should be built like this, and surface should be entirely reserved for pedestrians, bikes and the like.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think lids do three things: they cut down on noise, they reclaim some open space, and they piece back together the neighborhoods that get cut in half by big freeway projects. The Mercer Island lids may not do much for noise, but they do the last two of those things nicely. I think that last item, putting broken neighborhoods back together again, is really important and it can be accomplished pretty well even by fragmentary lids.

<comment><USER6> There are ways to keep from cleaving neighborhoods with freeways or roads. Big cities in Japan have tons of rail lines and expressways winding through downtowns without really disconnecting neighborhoods. They use lots of overhead walkways and tunnels and also buildings stand right next to the expressways they become intricate with the fabric of the cities --not so much an afterthought-like an add on. So it may depend on a few things --for one people being okay with having a freeway outside the window and also being okay with walkways above ground level connecting buildings and destinations. Now usually the railways and roadways are elevated and not at grade

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hope this is a trend. Highways are ugly and smelly and noisy and dangerous. Parks are pretty, safe, and quiet. I wish that all urban highways could be underground, with parks and residences and bike/walking paths above ground.

</comment><comment><USER8> Sounds like the "big dig" in Boston.

<comment><USER9> And Seattle's I 5 Colonnade, Freeway Park, and Aubrey Davis Park

<comment><USER10> The homeless have moved back into the I-5 Colonnade and the proximity of Duthie Hill leads most people away from the city for their rides.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've started to wonder if some of the land shortage in San Francisco could be mitigated by either burying some roads or probably more realistically, just constructing buildings over the roads. I'd love to see a series of 1-unit deep apartments running down the middle of California or Gough. Hell, build a few skyscrapers over 80 in SOMA.

It'll never happen, but one can dream.

<comment><USER12> I think allowing for bigger buildings with more population density would free up more land than burying roads.

<comment><USER6> And importantly, it would be cheaper. There are always ideas about getting high density along Geary, Third, etc. combined with BRT (bus rapid transit) or light rail. It just never takes off --like razing JapanTown and renovating it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've always wondered if something like this was possible. chicago is a prime candidate; lake shore drive produces an insane amount of noise and ruins an incredible stretch of beach.

<comment><USER14> Better to eliminate the highway and replace it with a boulevard, with good protected sidewalks and bike lanes and transit facilities, maybe a bus lane or rail. That highway is neither inevitable nor immortal. See for instance [http://gizmodo.com/6-freeway-demolitions-that-changed- their-...](http://gizmodo.com/6-freeway-demolitions-that-changed-their-cities- forever-1548314937)

<comment><USER15> Here's one way to get from an eighth-story office to the nearest Post Office: Jump out the window, then walk to the nearest Post Office.

If you were going to do that, you'd want a hell of a cushion to land on, right?

My point is, destroying Lake Shore Drive is a _huge_ freaking leap, and unless the people who live and work in Chicago have something to land on the moment they need it, the immediate dislocation will cost more than Chicagoans can pay.

These kinds of massive multi-phase synchronized plans are something _nobody_ is really good at yet, with NASA and the ESA probably coming closest. I don't really want to bet Chicago on one of them coming together just right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A bit like Teralta Park over I-15 in City Heights, San Diego. CalTrans was supposed to have 3 - 4 covers over the freeway, with parks, shopping and housing over it, but only one cover was completed. [http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/08/i-15-in-city-heights- ho...](http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/08/i-15-in-city-heights-how-a- freeway-that-divided-the-community-became-an-urban-monument-to-citizen- activism/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Zürich, Switzerland is trying to do the same since 30 years. [http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/zuerich/stadt/Schwamendingen- mus...](http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/zuerich/stadt/Schwamendingen-muss-weiter- auf-die-Einhausung-warten/story/17599823)

</comment><comment><USER18> > The project is projected to cost $800 million

What a steal. The Big Dig buried less road and cost 20-30 times more.

I wonder why infrastructure costs are so out of control in the U.S. We should ask Germany or Japan to build California's high speed rail for us.

<comment><USER19> Let's see what it costs them in the end. Big projects like this always go over budget.

<comment><USER20> Yes, one prominent example from Hamburg is the "Elphilharmonie": [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Detailed link: [http://streetswithoutcars.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/the- hambu...](http://streetswithoutcars.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/the-hamburger- deckel/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Berlin has something like this, on the Sat view you can see that there is a park on top:

[https://www.google.de/maps/dir/52.4606291,13.4151826/52.4630...](https://www.google.de/maps/dir/52.4606291,13.4151826/52.4630419,email@example.com,13.4292444,1399m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d13.4462406!2d52.4630015!3s0x47a84f77449b9a3d:0x76492ebca2963b0d!1m0!3e0)

</comment><comment><USER23> Funny, this tunnel is in the 100-200 million euro range. Could have a positive social impact. Yet they make compromises and ruin it's value. Raising it 3,5m into the air to save some money? Can it really be called underground then?

The elbphilharmonie is at 800 million now. It will mostly make money for private hands (public private partnership) and will leave hamburg in dept for decades. Welcome to a CDU town.

</comment><comment><USER24> Similar is planned for Nürnberg with an 1.8km tunnel with green roof:

[http://www.nuernberg.de/internet/soer/frankenschnellwegplaen...](http://www.nuernberg.de/internet/soer/frankenschnellwegplaene.html)

The plans are currently lying at court because of some opponents.

</comment><comment><USER25> They should bury the long stretch that leads into the Holland Tunnel in NYC. Then create one continuous residential area.

[http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/149186.jpg](http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/149186.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER26> Little OT: The list of blocked resources for this page is impressive (ScriptSafe, µBlock).

<comment><USER27> Ha! I noticed the same thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The pricing seems way off for such an ambitious project.

</comment><comment><USER29> Vienna has this ("Platte") and build a new district and recreational erea besides the Danube on top of it.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm curious how Seattle was supposed to replace an elevated freeway that is falling aprt with a park? I guess they could replace the parking lot that is currently under the freeway.</comment>


Japanese billionaire's $9M 'social experiment' giveaway on Twitter - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-billionaire-maezawa/japanese-billionaire-maezawa-in-9-million-social-experiment-giveaway-idUSKBN1Z70YR <comment><USER2> Yes, people will be happy to get free money. Once its gone, they wont be as happy depending what they bought. For example a new car would make them happier longer. Money does not equal happiness. That is my hypothesis.</comment>


Nokia's flexible user interface prototype demo (in Gadgets) - <AUTHOR> http://www.mesmira.com/post/nokia-s-flexible-user-interface-prototype-demo <comment><USER2> This looks interesting, something innovative from Nokia. That device didn't look that usable, but it does open many possibilities for new features for future phones.</comment>


Do Your Homework on Open Source - <AUTHOR> http://www.quartzmo.com/blog/do-your-homework-on-open-source/

<comment><USER2> A third might be a bit high right now (I think the ideal amount is currently about a quarter or fifth of your time), but the necessary proportion is certainly rising, and will likely reach a third in only a few more years.</comment>


Gabor Cselle, Xobni: The Xobni Office, and Thoughts on Startup Office Space - <AUTHOR> http://www.gaborcselle.com/blog/2007/11/xobni-office-thoughts-on-startup-office.html

<comment><USER2> Very nice approach to your office. One note though - in the last picture I noticed a smiling Xobniite with three monitors with his back to the window. I've found that the ideal is to face the windows for a couple reasons. The first one is that the glare from the windows on the monitor can be very annoying . Secondly, in having the back of the monitor along the window wall, and the user facing the windows, you can then look up and out the window when you're thinking about something. This helps you avoid destroying your eyes by exercising alternate focal lengths and for me, at least, it seems to help with creativity.

(I also found my office through Craig's List - $1 per sf believe it or not! :)

<comment><USER3> I've heard the proper feng shui setup is to have the desks face the door so you can see people as they enter.

<comment><USER2> feng shui is only useful to the extent that it makes sense, which would eliminate all the many mystical aspects of it.

For facing the door, if you are in a business where you get many visitors coming in the door to face, then that becomes an issue to deal with. In that case, you can slide your desk back to the door wall with monitor backs facing the window so that you can see people coming in on your side. For coders, I think being along the window wall makes the most sense as visitors are not a big part of coding (hopefully)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You're forgetting one thing that every software company office needs:

 _whiteboards_

Don't bother with _real_ whiteboards, they're expensive... just get 4' x 8' sheets of white tileboard from Home Depot for $13. Huge and cheap. I even got one for my room at home.

Credit goes to this page: <http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/000679.php>

<comment><USER5> $13 is an unbeatable price for a 4x8 sheet of whiteboard... do you have any complaints with it so far? Does it write and erase OK?

<comment><USER4> It writes fine, and erases pretty well. It does leave a faint "ghosting", but an occasional wipe with some whiteboard cleaner makes it go away.

It's hard to complain for $13. I mean, we covered a whole wall for about $40.

<comment><USER6> The trick is to prep the surface before use.

That means a good solid cleaning with WIndex, and then go over it with that toxic Expo spray cleaner (DO THIS OUTDOORS!) until you dislocate a shoulder.

We've got 'em up all over the offices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think you guys chose the wrong space... PR/advertising can be can be a very interesting field to learn about :-)

</comment><comment><USER8> I've always felt that having childcare nearby is important. Employees age. They have kids (yay!). And having something nearby can keep everyone motivated and employed longer.</comment>


On Nerds and Measurement - <AUTHOR>

Paul Graham has pointed out, numerous times, that the way you make a lot of money is to a). have very high performance, and then b). go into an industry where your performance can be measured. He is quite correct in this supposition; if the top performer does ten times better than the average performer, it doesn't matter unless someone can measure it. However, it is interesting that he ignores the fact that this particular class of the economy- making a lot of money by measuring very high performance- is utterly dominated, not by nerds, but by salespeople.
What are the highest paying jobs in the United States? Some might say "corporate lawyer". But what is the job of a top corporate lawyer, really? It's to sell stuff- the legal services of his firm- to corporate clients. All the lower-paid people, the associates, are the people doing the real work. The higher-paid people, the partners, mostly do sales and manage their corporate clients. If you want to make a lot of money as an attorney, selling ability is the key skill to have. Working hard is also important, but it's your sales skill that will really stand out.
Some other people might say "financier". But what, exactly, is the job of a financier? Wall Street is divided into two "sides", the "sell side" and the "buy side". What the "sell side" does should be obvious: you sell stock to people, or whole companies, like investment bankers do. But what the "buy side" does is also really about sales; in order to get money to make investments, a hedge fund or private equity firm needs to sell their company to institutional investors. The way you succeed in the business, with a very few exceptions (like Renaissance Technologies), is by being a good salesman, not by achieving good returns. (It's the same for venture capital, hence the cluelessness of most investors.) This is readily demonstrated by how these funds perform: Warren Buffett has bet that the S&P 500 will outperform hedge funds over the next ten years (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/04/news/newsmakers/buffett_bet.fortune/index.htm), and it looks like he's going to be right. Yet, people (until the finance crash) continued to invest trillions in them, because they were such good salesmen.
What about startups, the main topic of this website? It appears that, even in startups, programming has become a much less important skill relative to sales. Bill Gates couldn't sell anything to save his life. Yet, when PG and many others talk about the most successful YC founder so far (out of more than a hundred), Sam Altman, the key thing that gets mentioned is his ability to talk to people and do deals. Sam is smart, driven, technically capable, and hard-working, to be sure, but then, there are dozens of founders that fit that description. What really sets Sam apart are his superior social and people skills, which allowed him to get Loopt off the ground, even though he had to partner with some of the largest companies in America.
So, if anyone here doesn't really have a passion for technology, but just wants to make a lot of money in the startup industry: my recommendation is to go quit your job as a programmer right now, and get an entry-level sales job to help hone your people skills, because nothing will help get you there faster. <comment><USER2> The way you 'succeed in business' is by creating value. Being closer to large changes in value (e.g., in sales) helps you individually make more money on average perhaps. And if making money is your idea of success in business, then that makes sense.

But creating value also involves not paying attention to what everyone else is doing. Imho, the difference between buy side and sell side is very crucial. You can say there are 'very few exceptions' -- but those exceptions are the beginnings of all new businesses since the idea of business began. The 'buy' in buy side is about taking risk, acquiring risk. It's true that the markets can't afford for everyone to do this. Otherwise we'd be in a topsy-turvy merry-go-round of a place.

But if you have something new and important to say or do: why would you want to be anywhere else?

> So, if anyone here doesn't really have a passion for technology, but just > wants to make a lot of money in the startup industry: my recommendation is > to go quit your job as a programmer right now, and get an entry-level sales > job to help hone your people skills, because nothing will help get you there > faster.

Agreed. And also if you do have a real passion for technology, and not just making a lot of money in the startup industry, I take your recommendation as keep on programming.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do agree with most of what you said, but re: buy side and sell side:

"1. The "math" involved in corporate finance is A JOKE. As in, it's addition / subtraction and maybe multiplication sometimes if things get really fancy.

Finance is 99% about social skills, networking, and making people like you… and 1% about technical skills." - Ex-investment banker, [http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/getting-a-finance- job-...](http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/getting-a-finance-job-from- engineering/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Sales is and will always be important, but you forget that:

a) Entry level sales jobs can be soul destroying.

b) Selling something you have trouble believing in is really hard.

c) Sales isn't a monolithic field. For instance, compare, selling new cars and high-end legal services; they are fundamentally different tasks requiring different skillsets.

Hence, you could quit programming and go and get an entry level sales job, stuff it up and end up hating sales and being in a worse position to start a business and make reasonable money.

On the other hand, if you build something that you believe in and think is fantastic it will be much easier for you to sell it. This has two additional advantages:

a) Believing in what you're selling will make it easier for you to get over rejection, and

b) If what you've built isn't what the marketplace wants then you have the advantage of both direct contact with your market and the ability to directly alter your product so that it's something they'd like.

Finally it's easier to hire good sales people as a programmer than vice versa because sales performance is easily measured.

</comment><comment><USER4> _my recommendation is to go quit your job as a programmer right now_

Programmers can do stuff which is measurable, too, particularly when they're building systems that scale at startups which are smart enough to measure the effects of them. See IMVU for this taken to a truly impressive degree.

I think the party is just getting started on this, too. Ten years ago you had to be a quant will a billion dollar bankroll advanced by your favorite hedge fund to demonstrate that your individual programming prowess was causing measurable financial results. Both the leverage and the measuring are now empirically within the capabilities of one-man firms with essentially no capital.

It is a great time to be alive. Salesmanship helps, too, but it doesn't hurt to be selling "My my, look at this graph which shows how I made a previous client tens of thousands of dollars in a week."

<comment><AUTHOR> Uhhh... you know that ten years ago was the height of the tech bubble, when anyone could sell a completely worthless startup for $100M, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find there are plenty of people with extraoridnary natural talent at this kind of thing, looking for equally talented programmers to team up with. You don't even really need to find them because part of their talent is finding you. The trick is choosing one grounded enough that you can work with them and who isn't swept up in their own schtick.

</comment><comment><USER6> "There's one thing I don't understand. The thing I don't understand is: every motherfuckin' word you're saying."

[<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BaXPg_2FJ4>]

</comment><comment><USER7> Ditto!

Or, if you like, start pushing value out yourself, which again puts you in the "sales" department. The difference being, you get to say who gets how much.

</comment><comment><USER8> A difference that makes no difference isn't really a difference.</comment>


What to do with processing power to get some money with little hassle? - <AUTHOR>

I've recently win some processing power , more than i need for my project. So i'am searching a way to earn even a little from the processing power that i don't need. Bitcoin mining seems to be not efficient now. So any idea , suggestion ?<p>Regards and thanks <comment><USER2> I couldn't get the client to connect, but you may have better luck, MetaTrader seems a more reputable company as opposed to gomez peer. [https://cloud.mql5.com/en](https://cloud.mql5.com/en)

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Are there startups or individuals looking for HPC or technical computing resources on an occasional basis? I'm thinking along the lines of high memory, FPGAs, Phi cards, IB networks and the like.

<comment><AUTHOR> could you please be more specific ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are you thinking of something like [http://folding.stanford.edu/client](http://folding.stanford.edu/client) , but with money?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes ... or mining or anything else ...</comment></comment>


Emotions of tweeter feeds #tweetEMO - <AUTHOR> http://twemoapp.appspot.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I am the creator of this project, Please provide me your feedback also post your feedback on <https://twitter.com/#!/dpakrk> , thanks</comment>


Using Your Terminal From The DevTools - <AUTHOR> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/developertools/devtools-terminal/ <comment><USER2> Insta-downloaded. Where has this been all my life?

However, how safe is this? Are Chrome extensions sandboxed pretty well? The browser being able to control my terminal seems kinda scary to me.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Access all data on your computer and the websites you visit."

Well, it is a dev tool after all, but darned if that isn't scaring me, somehow. vagrant up it is, then ..

<comment><USER4> It's an open source project. [https://github.com/petethepig/devtools- terminal](https://github.com/petethepig/devtools-terminal) You can check out the source code and even build the whole thing yourself )

<comment><USER2> Are Chrome extensions sandboxed pretty well? My browser having control of my terminal seems kinda scary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Perfect for when I run Node.js apps locally and need to test the results very quickly. Saves a lot of context-switching.

</comment><comment><USER6> Can you use Vim-Fireplace with this Terminal ~ for ClojureScript ?

</comment><comment><USER7> Downloading this ASAP.</comment>


Ask HN: I'm a WeWork employee about to be laid off - <AUTHOR> I've been at WeWork for about 2 years as a data scientist
Can I negotiate severance? What leverage do I have? What is a reasonable ask? Does anyone have examples of doing this successfully? Should I retain a lawyer?
Very lost right now, thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> I am very sorry to hear about the layoffs that you and thousands of your colleagues now face, especially considering the outrageous bonuses extended to the former CEO who is responsible for the dire situation WeWork finds itself in now.

This Vox article ([https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/11/7/20953930/wework-adam- ne...](https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/11/7/20953930/wework-adam-neumann- severance-laid-off-employees-layoffs-buyout-unicorn-ipo)) from two weeks ago included the following:

 _The severance offer Recode reviewed (which may not apply to all terminated employees) provides three months of "garden leave" — in which an employee remains on the payroll with benefits but stops working — as well as one month of severance pay._

This is not confirmed. Further, amounts may change depending on a number of factors, including the funds WeWork has available as well as the state you reside in.

Nondisclosure agreements are standard conditions of receiving benefits.

Good luck on the next stage of your career. I really do believe in the maxim, "As one door closes, another opens."

</comment><comment><USER3> In a mass layoff, you have zero leverage therefore there's nothing to negotiate. You only have leverage if there's a a reason to keep you on the payroll or there's something you have that they want and, in a mass layoff, neither of those are probably true. If you have special extenuating circumstances (e.g. being on disability), you might try pleading for additional severance but it seems like a long shot.

Regarding hiring a lawyer, read the documents you receive and then decide whether you need to hire a lawyer. Assuming their HR and lawyers were competent and no special circumstances apply to you (e.g. you're an executive or you have iron-clad proof of being discriminated against when being selected for the layoff), most likely all hiring a lawyer will get you is an explanation of what the documents mean and a large bill.

</comment><comment><USER4> What leverage DO you have? When I was a member at WeWork, their security practices were atrocious.

Knowledge like that == leverage.

</comment><comment><USER5> The leverage you have is to expose some of their bad practices if they have.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm sorry about your situation, but I have to ask: why does an office rental company have data scientists on the payroll?

In general severance is governed by your contract and local labour laws. In this situation employees have no leverage to negotiate if the company has already decided to pay the minimum they have to, especially when your service is quite short.

You're probably best served by putting your energy into finding a new employer rather than fighting your soon-to-be former employer.</comment>


Will Netflix Destroy the Internet? - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2273314/

<comment><USER2> No. Can we stop asking stupid questions?

Here's why it's stupid: If all the excess bandwidth actually gets used, ISPs will have to actually charge what it's worth.

The system will sort itself out.

</comment><comment><USER3> Are one-line 'shock' titles ending in a question mark actual journalism? I'm guessing the answer is the same for both.

The article does much to drum up fear and then fizzles itself out near the end with a "The outcome might actually not be that dire." Well, okay then, good thing you didn't lead with /that/.</comment>


Autonomous-Machinery Economics Weighed - <AUTHOR> https://www.agupdate.com/agriview/news/business/autonomous-machinery-economics-weighed/article_28502fc9-edd7-5def-b3ad-9053074fe3c6.html <comment><AUTHOR> One of the challenges I had as a farmer wanting more automation is that I had trouble convincing people that we need to go towards small-medium sized autonomous field equipment because economies of scale will evaporate with large equipment/massive operations and maintainability/repairs need to be manageable.

This study somewhat validates what I had been saying all along. The future is smaller farms(sub 500 in the USA on medium size and sub 100 for small size equipment)supported by fleets of automated machinery.

I see automation in farming happening only if we switch to small/medium sized operations patchworked as a network with fleets/swarms of Ag bots.</comment>


Autodesk Shifts R&D Budget Toward the Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-01/autodesk-shifts-industry-leading-r-d-budget-toward-the-cloud.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Discusses changes over the past few years in several large corporate R&D budgets.</comment>


HS journalists investigated a principal's credentials. Days later, she resigned - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/05/these-high-school-journalists-investigated-a-new-principals-credentials-days-later-she-resigned/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.1c034d93426d <comment><USER2> "The kids are treated as professionals,"

"Everybody kept telling them, 'stop poking your nose where it doesn't belong,'"

<comment><USER3> You think professional journalists don't get told that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> When do they start their investigation of the committee that hired the principal?

</comment><comment><USER4> This gives me such hope for journalism!</comment>


Declassified Documents Prove NSA Is Tapping the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/nsa-tapping-internet/ <comment><USER2> Two things are bothering me immensely:

1\. Each time something increasingly worse about the NSA surveillance gets revealed, or confirmed, Sens. Wyden and Udall release a statement saying something like: "This is only the tip of the iceberg: if Americans only knew how bad it was, they'd be very angry." They're on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and so are in a position to know at least more than their colleagues, and much more than their employers (the American people). This is extremely disconcerting. What we know and now see confirmed officially about the surveillance is pretty stunning. Exactly how bad is this? Is all of congress tapped? All the governors? Snowden hinted at this. What the fuck is going on in my country?

2\. So, if it's so bad, why won't the honorable Sens. Udall and Wyden take a stand and reveal the wrongdoings on the Senate floor? As I understand the law, they cannot be charged for anything revealed on the Senate floor. And even if there were a way to charge them, I'd like to think it would be political suicide for any president to try.

These two gentleman swore an oath to the U.S. constitution. Why won't they uphold it? They are in a unique position to do so. The fact that they keep making these ominous statements is starting to seem more like a cover-your-ass strategy than an honest attempt to stop the illegal activities.

<comment><USER3> > Is all of congress tapped? All the governors? Snowden hinted at this. What > the fuck is going on in my country?

I'm going to assume the worst, which would be that the NSA is used as a tool of blackmail by nefarious parties whom the NSA relies on. Key House and Senate members put in a good word for the NSA and then they get some "free" information on their opponents, at which point they convince their opponents to "trade" wins with the opposing party's leadership.

Those in on the game get to continue their political career because the party leaderships are coordinating wins between each-other through bipartisan- orchestrated gerrymandering, and "suicide" elections where elected officials intentionally lose their elections in order to boost the profile of their friendly opponents.

Those whom are bucking the chain of command are ostracised and relegated to the fringes (eg: the Pauls).

<comment><USER4> They are blackmailing and targeting anyone that is in the way to their goal of total surveillance.

This hasn't gotten enough attention:

US targets lie-detector coaches following Edward Snowden affair

[http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1297622/us-targets- li...](http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1297622/us-targets-lie-detector- coaches-following-edward-snowden-affair)

<comment><USER3> That's hilariously bad. Polygraph examinations are awful, they're little else than measurements of how people deal with stress and there's no difference between "passing" the examination and "beating" it.

Personally I think it's appalling that they're still regarded as "lie detectors."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Where this is going is a clear showdown on a large number of levels. I wish I could be optimistic about this being resolved decisively for the good guys but I think most likely we are likely to see a codification of the same stalemate.

The NSA has created a large market for services like Silent Circle and this means that a larger number of wiretaps and the like are likely to "go dark" as a result of encryption. We need fully open source and federated versions of things like Silent Circle has and those will come about.

But this will lead to new battles about encryption and government access to encryption. As the people start realizing that everything is tapped by default, they will start protecting themselves.

Wiretaps were tolerated when we could trust in processes that would guarantee that they would not be abused. Now that we know that this trust has been broken there is no way to go back.

We will see two battles in the near future. The first will be a battle over the size and scope of the surveillance state. I fear the NSA will win that one hands down.

But the second is over government access to encryption backdoors. We have more reason to be optimistic here.

Things are shaping up to create a huge showdown. I, for one, am relatively afraid of the consequences even if we win the second battle.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I think many of the same things.

How are we supposed to challenge a secret program that even the overseers say they are overreaching, and yet wont acknowledge it exists, or that anyone has any right to sue because they cant prove the secret program targeted them.

Its a complete farce as far as I can tell, and the dog and pony show will eventually calm and then we will basically be in the same position as we ever were.

I will definitely be voting against those that support this buffoonery, but I don't know that most will.

<comment><USER5> What's worse, the NSA can pass on what the DEA will claim are anonymous tips that lead to evidence that lead to searches, etc. We become a society of "find me the man and I'll show you the crime" but with a stronger illusion to the rule of law than Stalin was able to muster.

<comment><USER7> They are already doing this. The NSA gives the DEA information, which the DEA then hides from everyone, including judges, and uses it to build a parallel case against the people the NSA spied on.

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team- intel...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence- laundering)

<comment><USER5> Just for the record, I chose that example because I was aware of the fact it was happening.

The scary thing though is that this means that people the NSA doesn't like can find themselves at the center of whatever scrutiny _they_ think is most appropriate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This also proves that General Alexander lied to the public. Unsurprising, but worth saying it.

Did Obama denied PRISM too or did he just let others deny it? If the former, isn't this a reason for impeachment?

</comment><comment><USER8> Cue praise from the majority of the main stream media that only tens of thousands of communications are improperly monitored since there are roughly 150 billion emails sent per day (globally). The surveillance program will be declared a stunning success and most people will agree since they are impressed by small percentages. The error rate being so low will imply, to most people, that the NSA is painstakingly concerned with only monitoring pertinent communications.

Out of curiosity, what is a good argument against this perspective that Average Joe can grok?

<comment><USER9> Why are you less impressed by small percentages than by numbers that are large only in the absence of a reference scale? It's generally not possible to design flawless systems, and failure rate a much more meaningful number.

<comment><USER8> I was looking for intelligent discussion about why even a small percentage failure rate is worth being alarmed at and how this can be communicated to Average Joe effectively. Instead, I get this inane straw man reply.

Obviously a very small failure rate is impressive in the abstract. We're not talking about the abstract here, we're talking about foundational concerns about whether there can be an expectation of privacy in any online communication.

<comment><USER10> No. As long as people keep using the same online communications to plan inflicting harm on society as society does to exchange pictures of grandkids and recipes, those communications will keep being monitored, and thus we can have no expectation of privacy. Liberties have always been compromised for the sake of security, Benjamin Frankliin quotes notwithstanding.

But! Taking these numbers at face value, the low error rate tells us that, yes, we _can_ have privacy with pretty high probability. As with all things in life, it is not guaranteed, but these are much better chances than what we can expect in other aspects of life. I mean, tens of thousands erroneously picked up over many months out of the _billions_ of emails exchanged daily? Why, you're more likely to die in a terrorist attack than be snooped on [1]!

[1] No, I haven't run the numbers, just saying so for dramatic effect :-P

<comment><USER11> Where does it end? If the surveillance state effectively trumps terror, why not murders, rapes and child porn? If those, then why not embezzlement and tax fraud? If those, then why not speeding tickets and MP3 torrenting? And through it all, who watches the watchers (and who watches the watcher-watchers)? If this is all so effective, why have due process at all?

You'll never convince me that any jihadist has the capacity to inflict harm on society more than a government with unchecked power to know all secrets. Knowledge is power, and complete knowledge corrupts completely.

<comment><USER10> You went wrong the moment you used the term "surveillance state". Before, we had no numbers, so that phrase might have been justified. But now we do: The declassified court document seems to say there were about a dozen million "transactions" collected over a year. Hundreds of billions of emails are sent _everyday_. A very small fraction of a percent is snooped on. Is that a "surveillance state"? At what level of watchfulness does a society go from "vigilant" to "surveillance state"? There is no such measure, and the term is bandied about to generate an emotional response.

You'll never be convinced because you are, presumptively, ensconced in the safe, protective shell of a (western?) country that does not experience terrorist attacks on a regular basis. The terrorist threat is real. People die everyday in terror attacks. The "power-mad" government scenario? Lets just say in all this noise I've seen very few instances of actual abuse of power, if any.

<comment><USER11> People die every day in car accidents too. Safety is mostly an illusion. (I'll admit that not having children probably makes my sanguine attitude easier.)

I don't care what the percentage is. The right to snoop arbitrarily is too much power, and if we accept it _will_ be abused, it will get worse, and it will be very hard to undo. Safety is not worth the permanent eradication of human dignity and liberty. I'd rather die than live like a chickenshit.

<comment><USER10> "People die everyday in car accidents and safety is an illusion, so let's stop wearing seatbelts. Safety is not worth the indignity of driving around trussed up like a turkey."

BTW, the government and the courts agree that warrantless snooping is dangerous, which is why there are checks and balances in place. The recent leaks raised doubts that those were not effective. But if the numbers in the declassified documents are accurate, it's nowhere nearly as bad as people here are imagining.

<comment><USER11> But we can't really know, can we? The trust is completely eroded. Fool me once...

Put simply, databases change the equation. Never in human history has it been possible to store and mine such a massive quantity of data in perpetuity. If the infrastructure exists to capture and process that much data, included via algorithm rather than by human, that represents such a radical shift in power that its abuse is inevitable, regardless of whatever restraints may or may not exist today. What happens if the next Snowden is a profiteer? What happens if China finds a backdoor, and can suddenly tap _all data_ on every American citizen.

Capturing and storing all data is really really fucking dangerous, no matter who's doing it or why. (I'm not thrilled about Google or Facebook either, but at least it's voluntary, and they never throw anyone into a cage.)

> People die everyday in car accidents and safety is an illusion, so let's > stop wearing seatbelts.

I think a better analogy would be a seatbelt that you can't take off, "for your own good". And if you're trapped by your seatbelt in a crashed and burning car, well, too bad, we meant well!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> We should shove our NSA rejection letters (mine was signed LOL) in their faces and make them give us our box loads of data along with out analytics scores.

</comment><comment><USER13> As a new immigrant to the USA, I am simply appalled at the infringement of privacy that is being carried out by the NSA and the government. In Australia, we learned that the 1st amendment protected the Freedom of Speech of every American. How can you have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press when every private communication of citizens and reporters alike are being scrutinized by secret agencies in the government??

<comment><USER10> Hasn't "Freedom of Speech" always been about _public_ speech? You alluded to it yourself when you said "freedom or the press". I don't see what invasion of privacy has to do with freedom of speech as the constitution means it.

<comment><USER14> And this is the crux of the matter. Technology today allows intrusions into our privacy that do not harm our ability to speak publicly.

In the 1700s, the only way for the government to read your papers was to take them away from you--harming your use of them.

Today they can extract the entire contents without disturbing your use at all. Reading and restriction have been separated.

It's a new situation and there will be big fights as the law catches up. This is not historically unprecedented though; technology has frequently caused disruptions in the law. That's how copyright came about, for instance--the printing press meant that original content was no longer protected by the need to hire 100 monks to make a copy.

<comment><USER13> I completely disagree. Please see my response below, and failing that, search Wikipedia for "Freedom of Speech", and then search the page (Cmd + F) for "privacy".

<comment><USER14> We don't disagree, I think you are reacting to my post without actually reading it.

I'm not advocating that what's happening is ok. I'm talking about the physical act of speech, not the cultural or psychological aspects. I agree with you on those.

It's just that in the 1700s, if you were working on a newsletter or pamphlet (like, say, a Federalist Paper), your draft would be on paper in your home. If the government wanted to read it, they had to come to your home and seize it, in which case you don't have it anymore. Your speech is directly prevented in a physical way.

Today, your draft might be stored a server that is owned and operated by a 3rd party. The government does not need to come to your home to read it. In fact you would have no clue that it was accessed at all. You could go on with your life and publish as though the access never happened.

Am I saying this is OK or right? No. It just is.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you overcome fear of failure? - <AUTHOR> Over the years I've failed to launch numerous things. Some I built and was ready to launch, some I just planned until I psyched myself out.<p>How have you overcome your fear of failure to finish and launch something? <comment><USER3> Some people have irrational fears. But let's assume that your fear is rational. Failure in itself is not a bad thing. It's the only way to improve. Someone told me there is a saying in the game of go (and I bet in other games too ;-) ) When you first start learning, your strategy should be to lose your first 50 games as quickly as possible.

Even still, in the game of go (and many other games), some people are afraid to lose. They never play people who are better than them. Why do you suppose that is? It is a self defeating strategy because by never losing, they never improve. What could possibly be so important about a game of go that stops these people from allowing themselves to lose?

I think if you answer that question, you will be well on your way to answering your original question.

P.S. When I was teaching English as a foreign language, I often taught adults. The biggest impediment I found for adults learning a foreign language was the fear to appear childish. With such a fear, learning a new language is almost impossible.

<comment> moraya-re Thanks for this, will definitely try. - When you first start learning, your strategy should be to lose your first 50 games as quickly as possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This passage from raptitude post always sticks in my head, comparing 2 mental approaches to a disgusting part of a cleaning job he was squeamish about, basically practice to feel & observe the fear but do not resist or react to it:

[http://www.raptitude.com/2010/08/how-to-make-life- agreeable/](http://www.raptitude.com/2010/08/how-to-make-life-agreeable/)

>...It usually involved holding your breath and averting your eyes as you scoop out the food-slime and hurriedly direct it toward the garbage bin, bracing yourself throughout, as if you're jumping into icy water.

It's the same strategy a wide-eyed Fear Factor contestant uses as he chomps frantically on the June bug in his mouth — he doesn't want to confront it, he wants to escape it.

That method didn't work for me, it just made me more aware of how awful it was. As soon as I tackled one sink, I began dreading the next room.

I don't remember when it clicked, but after not too many kitchens, I learned the secret:

Let it feel like whatever it feels like.

Just do it and let it have its way with you. Turn toward it, not away.

Whenever I came to a gunked-up drain, I just scooped it out without rushing. I reached into the drain with no more reluctance than I would have reaching into a cookie jar. I looked at the mess with a stoic curiosity, allowing the swollen noodles and bread-mush to rest freely in my fingers for the two or three unhurried seconds it took to transfer them to the garbage can.

As long as I wasn't rushing or trying not to touch it, it was painless. It wasn't worth trying to escape.

</comment><comment><USER5> Anyone who tries, fails at some point.

Realize that you can't learn and grow unless you try. The only real failure is not trying.

I like this short little commercial... sums up "failure" just right.

* Failure: The Secret to Success - A Honda Documentary - YouTube || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOVig5H7UbM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOVig5H7UbM)

You win or you learn. Stop thinking about it like a bad thing.

Specifics?

* Do team reviews after every release. Do more formal reviews every quarter. If you aren't writing and reading pages of opinions on what is going well or what isn't... how would you learn? Blindly following orders is a great way to not win and not learn. Engage. Don't keep people on the team who aren't opinionated and engaged.

* Keep a journal. Review it every so often. Be clear with your goals, take stock of what went right and what didn't. You'll get some right, you'll get some wrong... keep trying. Every week you get some wins... and some losses... acknowledge the small things that build up to make larger things.

* Talk with other people doing similar work. (Don't bitch to friends or coworkers about personal issues... Talk with a shrink for that.) Strive to learn and master all you can about what you set out to do. If you're doing it alone in your basement... not going to conferences, not going to meet-ups, ... it's going to take you longer to optimize. Look for opportunities to "fail" where it won't matter... small side projects, lectures, meet-ups etc. Learn from others, strive to teach others what you learned. Talking it out is a great way to "test" ideas to prevent failure.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for this. Especially the video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Me personally? I never had that fear. I launched many things, and like with everybody else who launches things, most of them failed.

If you find yourself unable to launch stuff because of that specific fear, then I would say it has some extremely personal reasoning behind it, and maybe introspection would be helpful. Things that deeply ingrained are usually related to childhood and or family.

Ironically, I'd probably suggest some psychedelics as the fastest way to get to the bottom of it.

</comment><comment><USER7> If your thing is successful, would the world be a better place? If so, launch it. There's nothing to be embarrassed about if it doesn't get traction.

If not, don't launch it. Getting traction in that scenario wouldn't constitute a success or benefit anyone.

Also, the idea of products blowing up overnight is basically a myth. No matter how good your thing is, expect no one to use it for quite a while.

</comment><comment><USER8> What kind of failure are you afraid of? What's the worst that could happen? Either people won't notice your product at all or they will notice and not like or perhaps ridicule it (if they're particularly nasty)

Even if the latter is the case: What's so bad about that? If people laugh about you and your efforts they're ultimately the ones who failed not you.

Putting something out there is a bit like getting on stage. Stage fright is a very common fear but it's also very irrational. Derek Sivers of CD Baby fame, who had his first on-stage experience as a circus clown, once said something like this about stage fright: "The thing to remember is that once you go on stage you're not doing this for yourself, you're doing it for your audience."

Focussing on others instead of yourself is a way to overcome stage fright, and fear of rejection in general. Moreover, don't judge yourself so hard. Don't take yourself so seriously. Keep your identity small. You're not your product or your performance in a given moment.

</comment><comment><USER9> Just keep reminding yourself that if you never try, you've already failed.

<comment><AUTHOR> If I never show my work nobody can call me a fraud.

<comment><USER9> That's the flip side, yeah. It's why you meet so many aspiring musicians but you almost never meet a failed musician. Much safer to never take that next step of actually trying.

Of course, that's what 'fail early' is all about. As soon as you fail, you can move on to something new.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the only way is to actually embrace failure. Most things that are worth doing have a gigantic chance of failure statistically, and I don't just mean startups. Marriages fail at astonishing rates, most friendships aren't life long friendships.

I think it's important to just say "I want to do this, even if I fail," and really believe that it'll have been worth doing even if you fail.

Right now, my team and I are building a startup that sells fertilizer and seed in rural sub-saharan Africa. On credit. What we're doing is crazy and has all of the challenges of any other startup, but we're also doing it with all of the challenges that operating in Kenya has.

Just believe it's worth doing.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are very few things to me worth doing if it means people would see me as a fraud or a huckster. Thus I set the bar impossibly high.

<comment><USER11> Forgive me if I'm off base, but I am getting a vibe that you are very concerned about what others think of you.

My advice (which is free internet advice, so take that for all it's worth) is that this is holding you back. As long as you don't see yourself as a fraud, it doesn't matter if someone else calls you one.

And, now I've done diagnosing you, I'll now assume you're in the exact same situation as I was (which is even _worse_ internet advice, so prepare to pile up some massive grains of salt)

Because it wasn't that long ago, I remember the first time a project of mine got the focused attention of the HN front page. I was very nearly physically ill, because I was sure I was going to be judged harshly by some internet rando.

And yes, eventually someone did claim that my project was lame / worthless / something else equally stinging, and yes, it did hurt my feelings for a while.

But then I realised that I didn't care what they thought. I'd finished my project to (generally) good acclaim and they were just some bitter armchair expert who felt they had to chip in.

The good news is that it's easily solved, you need a tougher skin. The bad news is the only way you can do that is by putting stuff out there, failing, and then doing it all again :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for taking the time to respond and with your own story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> You might benefit from changing your perception of your work. Rather than think about the result, think about the 'duty' of each day's work. This is what I do. Most people think of the word 'duty' similar to a 'chore', but duty is a very honourable word. It means doing the things that need to be done at that time. Don't worry about the result, think about the work itself in a very unemotional way. Just plant yourself down in a chair and do it. And you do it because it's your duty; your duty to yourself and the people that are important to you.

I would suggest that, if you haven't, you should read the Bhagavad Rita.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't subscribe to the notion that you should make it easy to fail, because that's not the same thing. In the real world there is no safety net, there's just you and your dogged determination to succeed.

I also don't subscribe in the idea of redefining failure to make it less than what it is. In the real world, things fail, and often fail spectacularly, often hurting the people we love.

And frankly, some things are supposed to make you fear failure. Like jumping out of a plane with a poorly packed parachute. (Or just jumping out of a plane, say).

So let's be honest here: fear of failure is a generally a good thing. Irrational fear of failure is not. And the trick is to know which is which.

And for some people it's often the case that fear of failure is worse than actually failing. If you grow up in life succeeding at everything you're doing, then it's also possibly true, you've not taken a lot of risks. Or you only take the risks where success was guaranteed. And then if it got too hard you could always drop out.

But for some people fear of failing is what drives them to succeed. They've jumped both feet first into a business and need the business to succeed so they can feed their family. The fear of failure is helping them to work harder, and to make better business decisions.

The problem for you is that your fear is immobilizing. When you jump head first into something, you'll most likely find it an asset, because you'll never work harder in your life.

</comment><comment><USER14> Two Christmas ago, we got a gift from a family friend – a white giant chicken.

We left it untied outside but the chicken didn't move for hours.

When it finally started exploring, I walked towards it. Instead of running, it crouched low. And I picked it up and dropped it back.

The next day, it ran when it saw me and I chased it. The chase was short because it ran towards the corner of the fence, leaving itself no place to run. And crouched low. I picked it and dropped it. The next day I ran after it and this time, it has me running around the house until it slipped and fell.

After that day, I couldn't catch it alone.

Morale

People out of school are like the chicken fresh out of farm. Maximum fear, too much unknowns.

We can back ourselves into a corner by not having a back up plan, trying to become Facebook on first try, putting our hope of livelihood on the project.

Reduce the pressure by trying plenty small projects. Make friends who are also working on stuff. You help them, they'll help you too. Get a small job, so time is not a pressure...

Try a lot of small projects. You'll learn a lot. And one of them might surprise you. No one can say with certainty that a project will succeed. Good.

</comment><comment><USER15> Simple.

Make it safe to fail. Then you can do it over and over and call it "iterating". Measure your metrics and improve them.

That's how you get repeatable success.

<comment><USER14> >Make it safe to fail

That's the best advice on this thread here. So how do you make it safe to fail?

Examples:

If you have a day job, a failed side project isn't the end of the world.

Scale down your ambitions drastically. There's something we big dreamers do. We have an idea and instantly envision the idea making thousands of dollars. For some people, it motivates them, for others, it makes it feel like waking on a thin rope accross two skyscrapers.

So beware when this happens, and aim low "mentally."

Seek small projects that would cost you little time and money. And would earn a few dollars or hundreds of dollars. If it works, you'll have beer money. If it doesn't, you'll shrug.

Have at least two concurrent project so your fate doesn't feel tied to a project.

Send me a message and I'll help give more specific / tailored advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Realize that your fear is rational. You're going to fail, because you suck... for now. So when you feel afraid it's just your brain working correctly.

Figure out your missing skills (have someone successful diagnose you) and then improve incrementally. Why don't you post about some of your projects in a new thread and ask for help?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> To clarify, this is about launching. I imagine many other people on HN have their own things they'd like to launch but are afraid to. This isn't about motivation to create but rather to show your work and ask for money.

</comment><comment><USER17> You never learn faster or better than through making mistakes. Factor the mistakes in, expect to make them and be prepared for them.

Mistakes/failures are just opportunities to learn a poignant point about how to do it better.

</comment><comment><USER18> For me it's all about how you frame the question of why you're building things.

The first tune I built something it wasn't with a big vision to be the next Facebook (Facebook didn't exist then actually :)) but it was something I needed, and I figured I'd just see if other people needed it too.

Other times, I've built things purely as a learning exercise, so you can't fail if you launch, you've actually succeeded just because you launch, what comes later doesn't matter.

Once I'd launched a couple of times, the fear factor didn't really come into mind anymore.

</comment><comment><USER19> I used to have massive fear of failure. Now I treat everything as an experiment. The point of the exercise is not to "make a million bucks" or "create a business" or even "get some customers".

The point of the exercise is to learn. I will try doing this thing in this way. If that doesn't work, I haven't failed, I've just learned that doing that thing in that way at that time doesn't work.

Hopefully I've also learned some other stuff that will make my next experiment more financially productive ;)

</comment><comment><USER20> I recognize that it might fail and ensure that failing is not the end of the world. If the project does fail then I make sure I learn from it for future projects. I wrote a blog post on a failed project a while back that covers some of this. Recognizing why you failed and learning from it is all that matters: [https://hungryadmin.com/a-failed-projects- postmortem.html](https://hungryadmin.com/a-failed-projects-postmortem.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> One approach I've taken is to commit to launching irrespective of outcome. I was inspired by Pieter Levels launching 12 startups in 12 months: [https://levels.io/12-startups-12-months/](https://levels.io/12-startups-12-months/)

Like anything, it gets easier the more you do it. Try to launch things which you _aren 't_ passionate about so have less invested—with less pressure, you can start to build your launch muscles.

</comment><comment><USER22> I would not even call it a failure, some things are infeasible, economically non-viable, etc. Try to de-risk projects to see if they fall into those categories. Figure out the major barriers and try to de-risk them one by one. If you run into a real barrier, also don't hesitate to end the project. Sometimes "failure" is the best option.

</comment><comment><USER23> First, cost/benefit analysis to see if it's worth the effort (mental, financial, time).

If so, I commit to the project publicly and preferably make other people dependent on its success, because:

 _Fear of failing others > fear of my own failure._

I like lighting fires under my ass. Being chill and "whatever, it's a learning curve" doesn't help me get things done.

<comment><USER24> > I like lighting fires under my ass.

This is probably the best advice OP could get. By doing so, you're basically forcing your fearful/lazy self into action.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not lazy in any sense. All I do is work. I'm afraid to show my work.

<comment><USER24> I didn't mean to say you're lazy. I just think that the same advice holds for general procrastination, which is itself, often related to fear of failure, but could be mistakenly interpreted as laziness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Just jump right into it. If it fails then look and think what failed, then fix it and try again. Look how many space missions started up with explosions. We wouldn't be where we are if someone decide to stop trying after first failure.

<comment><USER26> The problem with this is that most startups don't have the runway to recover from a mistake. This is why you _have_ to try things as early as possible - <USER2> you wait you won't have enough cash left to try something else.

<comment><USER25> Then it's a management/planning problem. Applying too much workforce on something that does not payoff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> * Not demanding much from yourself. * Accepting yourself. * Doing something for enjoyment rather than to prove to someone else. * And finally, no one knows your answer, you got to find out yourself by trying different things.

</comment><comment><USER28> I have an additional question - does any of you thinking or not thinking about failure, ever consider or fear retirement (and the effect of failure(s) on the quality of retirement) ? If yes, how do you cope with it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Very good question. No. Very provocative. If I look at this from retirement I can see that upsetting a few people would just be some bumps in the road that I could get over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Fear of failure got nothing Fear of regret.

I can learn far more from failure than regret. Regrets is fills of what ifs. Where as failure is I'm one step closer to my goal.

</comment><comment><USER30> Just jump into the task. Less thinking, more action.

Remember after every failure you are richer - experience is gold and no1 can take it away from you.

</comment><comment><USER31> the one trick I have done was to read more and come to know the Failure stories ....avoid what happened and try taking chances.

the other one...remembering " Fear Fear itself"

Lastly, just get the price of failure ready (save the failure coins) and delve into the risk...

</comment><comment><USER32> You can't fail if you don't try at all. But you can't either succeed.

</comment><comment><USER33> Realise that by not risking failure, you fail automatically.

</comment><comment><USER34> Fail enough, and you'll no longer be afraid of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha. I've failed a ton. I think it's made me more fearful of it.

<comment><USER34> What happened after each of those failures?

<comment><AUTHOR> Shame, self doubt, apologies.

<comment><USER34> So nothing major then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> There is no life without struggle

<comment><AUTHOR> I have no problem with struggle. I've done some incredibly hard things and persevered through terrible personal struggle. I'm just afraid to show my work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Fail.</comment>