Doctors participated in torture of suspects after 9/11, taskforce finds - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/cia-doctors-torture-suspected-terrorists-9-11 <comment><USER2> It is a war crime.

Does your superior officer make a direct order to do it? That's no excuse whatsoever, you're still guilty.

Is it required for national security? Still no excuse, the ends don't justify the means. If 'terrorists would win' otherwise, well, then they'd 'win' but not indemnify you.

Has your nation passed laws making it explicitly legal? Still no excuse, it's still illegal and you can and should be prosecuted for that.

If the current world order is unwilling to pursue it in practice, then our children and grandchildren will do it - there's no statute of limitations, and people involved in these USA actions can expect the same "retirement" as the elderly Nazis who were prosecuted in recent years.

<comment><USER3> War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for victors to humiliate the vanquished.

Victors don't have war crimes leveled against them.

<comment><USER4> > War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for > victors to humiliate the vanquished.

That's not true; for instance, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Fomer Yugoslavia (ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side of the various wars in the breakup of Yugoslavia.

That's actually rather the _point_ of international war crimes tribunals not exclusively associated with the victors of a particular conflict or their allies, both conflict-specific ones like ICTY and standing ones like the International Criminal Court.

Its true that the development of institutions which allow war crimes to be prosecuted, in at least some cases, as something other than victor's justice is a development of the last couple of decades.

<comment><USER5> You're wrong re: "(ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side" read for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm)

Croatia had military support from US: "In March 1994, the Washington Agreement was signed,[39] ending the Croat–Bosniak War, and providing Croatia with US military advisors from Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI).[40]"

and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012."

Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks, for which Al Quaeda warriors fought in Bosnia:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen#Terrorist_li...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen#Terrorist_links)

"There were over 1,000 people in the country who belonged to what we then called Mujahideen freedom fighters. We now know that that was al-Qaida."

Knowing how such links started in Afghanistan before, it's actually not so surprising: US support whoever they like, if that's in accord with US goals. If they support somebody, then they are called "freedom fighters." They are "terrorists" when they fight directly against US. Are you surprised that almost 20 years ago media were biased just like they are now, and if you weren't an expert you probably got very distorted picture, including the picture of ICTY work?

In short, I'm with the skeptical view of mhurron.

<comment><USER4> > You're wrong re: "(ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side"

No, I'm not.

> Croatia had military support from US:

And several Croats (29, including Bosnian Croats) were indicted by ICTY.

> and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012."

Yes, and so? They had charges against them. That they were acquitted on appeal is not evidence that the ICTY did not indict them (they also weren't the only Croats indicted by the ICTY.)

> Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks

And the ICTY indicted and convicted several Bosniaks.

You'd probably also point out that the US and NATO intervened on behalf of the Kosovo Albanians, but the ICTY _also_ prosecuted, and in some cases convicted, Kosovo Albanians.

And ICTY wasn't set up or consituted solely by the US and US allies.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia)

<comment><USER5> If you believe such courts aren't biased, do tell me if anybody from the US chain of command was ever prosecuted in any international court for anything? It will never happen as long as the US remain what it is.

Now that you also mention Albanians at the same court, I checked [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia)

"The list contains 161 names. 94 of them are Serbs, 29 are Croats, 9 are Albanians, 9 are Bosniaks, 2 are Macedonians and 2 are Montenegrins."

I can count only one Albanian sentenced of mentioned 9, others are acquitted or withdrawn. You should also check the list for other acquitted (e.g. of the Croats you mention), it was easiest for me to check Albanians as there are only 9 of them.

<comment><USER4> > If you believe such courts aren't biased

I don't recall arguing that such courts aren't biased. All courts are biased, because all courts are made up of people, and all people are biased.

That being said, more Serbs being indicted and convicted by the ICTY doesn't mean the court is biased. It could be a result of more Serbian war crimes.

<comment><USER5> We started from "War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for victors to humiliate the vanquished." Your counterargument was ICTY. I claim that it's a disputable argument.

And that moreover, it's U.S. that's effectively victorious and untouchable since very long ago.

<comment><USER4> At most you can claim that the US was one of the of several participants on the winning side of several of those conflicts (and, in each conflict, a fairly late joiner.)

And in each of the consituent conflicts, members of the same side the US was one were prosecuted by the court, and several of those were convicted.

The "way for the victors to humiliate the vanquished" argument really doesn't hold up in the case of the ICTY.

It holds up even _less_ well with with the ICC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> These really qualify as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions, and the United States is obligated under the treaty to pursue charges against the torturers, along with everyone up the chain of command. Other countries are also obligated to pursue these torturers. It will be interesting to see if any of them are ever brought to justice.

<comment><USER7> "Required." Unfortunately, pieces of paper can't project physical power.

<comment><USER8> Money would like to have a word with you.

<comment><USER7> Money can't project physical power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is truly outrageous, in at least 2 ways: (1) that a modern government would ask its citizens to do this and (2) that the citizens who are doctors would go along.

Name names: get the state boards to pull their licenses, because that's what these torturers deserve.

This is also a punishment worse than the crime, by the way.

<comment><USER7> > that a modern government would ask its citizens to do this

Why do you think that a "modern" government would be any better in this department than "old" governments? Is there any evidence to support this, or do people just like to think that _these days_ things are better?

<comment><USER10> I read 'old' as 'middle ages old'. There was a time when torture was openly acknowledged as acceptable practice. At least nowadays it's widely recognized as a Bad Thing, even if governments are willing to engage in it under the radar.

<comment><USER7> I question whether torture is widely recognized as a bad thing. I'm pretty sure I have seen US politicians openly acknowledge that we should torture for national security matters. But even if we assume that, the question remains: why should people believe that torture is less widespread than it was in the Middle Ages?

<comment><USER4> The Convention Against Torture exists, and most extent countries (including the US) have ratified it, which seems to represent a fairly wide recognition that torture is a bad thing, even if politicians often will assert exceptions of convenience as to why the general rule should not apply to specific situations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> These kind of news are so embarrassing for anyone living in the United States. It's a tragedy that there's not a bigger outrage about torturing people.

I'm getting closer and closer to expatriating because of the policies of the US government. And please don't tell me that all developed countries are participating in torture as this is just not true.

<comment><USER12> Please, don't leave this mess behind! At least as a citizen you have some little power, I think you should use it instead of throwing it away.

<comment><USER11> I'm not a citizen but a greencard holder, so I have very little power to change anything (not allowed to vote in elections).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Medical professionals were in effect told that their ethical mantra "first do no harm" did not apply, because they were not treating people who were ill."

Who among adult reasoning men or women would believe this premise? Are we all turned to geese?

 _Snowden for President_ would be a fine thing.

<comment><USER7> Snowden is not old enough to be a US President.

<comment><USER14> Also, he's not a US citizen.

(Edit: error on my part. His passport was revoked, which is what I was citing, but apparently he remains a citizen.)

<comment><USER15> Born in North Carolina. His passport has been revoked, but he is still a citizen.

<comment><USER14> Oh, I thought his citizenship was revoked, not just his passport.

<comment><USER16> That cannot happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The story doesn't actually deliver what the headline promises; I saw "present when waterboarding was taking place" and "force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strike" but neither is a case of a doctor actually torturing someone.

I'm sure someone will jump down my throat for playing semantics, but most of the comments to date are reacting to the headline claiming torture-by-doctor rather than the actual findings.

<comment><USER18> No. You are wrong. The doctors are present to oversee the torturing. They aren't there to take care of the tortured ones. They are there to tell how much someone can be tortured and not die. They are there to allow the maximum physical pain in the tortured ones. They are torturers too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If an administration can get away with launching illegal wars that are also based on plain lies, then this is will most probably be treated as a non- event.

</comment><comment><USER20> If true, could doctors loose their medical license for participating in something like this?

<comment><USER21> More than that, they could be tried as war criminals.

<comment><USER22> No, you have to be on the losing side of a war to be a war criminal.

<comment><USER14> Your comment may be intended ironically, but it's more or less true.

Some lower-level staff may get hung out to dry (e.g. Abu Ghraib) but if you were a senior-level commander or official, why would you finger one of your peers, when he probably has similar dirt on you? Better that everyone keeps his mouth shut.

<comment><USER23> As another example: Henry Wirz was tried, convicted, and executed for running Camp Sumter (the POW camp near Andersonville, Georgia). As far as I know, nobody was ever tried for what happened at Elmira Prison. Elmira Prison had a 25% mortality rate, Camp Sumter had a mortality rate of 29%. Guess which one was run by the victors.

However merely being on the losing side isn't sufficient; you have to be on the _conquered_ side. The US was by _reasonable_ accounts on the losing side of the Vietnam War, but war crime trials were never held for the people that really deserved it because although the US lost, they were no conquered. Saddam was on the losing side of the Gulf War, but he did not see trial for his crimes until he was well and truly conquered many years later.

<comment><USER14> Good distinction between _losing_ and _conquered_.

The Vietnam war was not a war of survival for the US, nor did it take place in US territory. Psychologically, it was certainly a blow, but in the chess game of geopolitical strategy, it was more on the level of losing a knight or bishop, certainly not losing a queen or the entire game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It always happens. For torture to be effective, doctors must be present. Brazil had a lot of doctors participating of the torture during its militar dictadorship. The most famous was Almicar Lobo: [http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Lobo](http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Lobo)

</comment><comment><USER24> I wonder how clicking this article, and others like it, gets you tagged with the relevant authorities.</comment>


Inspiration for startup ideas - <AUTHOR>

Have you checked this website? I just found it last week. People are sharing what they miss on the market so anyone can get inspired for their business: http://www.ideaswatch.com/ <comment><USER2> I don't agree with the solution. What you are looking for is a business opportunity, not another widget idea. Opportunities must be found, measured, studied, then a SOLUTION, or idea, can serve it.

Also, an idea without a profit model is less than worthless. As Mark Cuban said "Ideas are like a-holes - everyone has one".

</comment><comment><USER3> Ha, I was thinking of creating something pretty similar as my next project. Or the next after that.

Thanks, you saved me a bunch of work! :)

By the way, gotta love the "Exclude sci-fi" checkbox.

</comment><comment><USER4> Clickable <http://www.ideaswatch.com/>

</comment><comment><USER5> Never heard about it. But it looks pretty cool. Thanks for sharing.</comment>


Jonah Lehrer's Journalistic Misdeeds at Wired.com   - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/jonah_lehrer_plagiarism_in_wired_com_an_investigation_into_plagiarism_quotes_and_factual_inaccuracies_.html

<comment><USER2> This one nails Lehrer to the wall:

"In a third post from mid-2011 titled "Basketball and Jazz," one of Lehrer's paragraphs closely paralleled one written by Newsweek science writer Sharon Begley some three years earlier.

"Lehrer:

"The rebounding experiment went like this: 10 basketball players, 10 coaches and 10 sportswriters, plus a group of complete basketball novices, watched video clips of a player attempting a free throw. (You can watch the videos here.) Not surprisingly, the professional athletes were far better at predicting whether or not the shot would go in. While they got it right more than two-thirds of the time, the non-playing experts (i.e., the coaches and writers) only got it right about 40 percent of the time.

"Newsweek:

"In the experiment, 10 basketball players, 10 coaches and 10 sportswriters (considered non-playing experts), and novices all watched a video clip of someone attempting a free throw. The players were better at predicting whether the shot would go in: they got it right in two-thirds of the shots they saw, compared to 40 percent right for novices and 44 percent for coaches and writers.

"Tellingly, Begley misstated the number of participants in the study. (There were only 5 coaches and 5 sportswriters, not 10 of each. In addition, there were also 10 people in the novice group who were neither coaches nor sportswriters.) Lehrer made the exact same mistake in precisely the same manner."

When Lehrer reproduces someone else's mistake, you know he isn't looking up or verifying the facts himself. The honorable thing to do in a blog would be simply to link to Begley's piece and say, "Sharon Begley wrote an interesting article a few years ago about a study on this issue."

P.S. I posted an article to HN earlier about the initial discovery of Lehrer making up quotations in articles in other publications.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4370417>

I had also seen him "recycle" earlier writings of his in paid publications, because once one of his articles was submitted here to HN, and I thought, "Hey, I've read this before." Indeed I had, in the previous publication where he had first written on the same subject a couple years earlier.

<comment><USER3> I've mentioned this here before, but similarly I caught Chris Hedges plagiarizing in one of his articles, in a very similar situation where he had blatantly copied someone else's mistakes. But when I emailed his editors to tell them about it, they basically told me to go fuck myself. I'm pretty sure that most journalistic organizations these days know what's going on and just don't want any of it to come to light unless some other organization forces the issue, in which case they then do everything they can to throw the person under the bus.

<comment><USER4> I think part of this is also that no one really wants to admit that a lot of content that goes out under a given columnist's name is not actually written by them. The byline is more about branding than authorship these days.

<comment><USER3> That's definitely true for newspaper editorials and for columnists, but not usually for regular articles and blog posts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So ... this is the result of close analysis of a single author.

As medical types will tell you, one of the problems of running imaging and diagnostics on ill / injured / diseased patients is that you'll find anomolies -- not because they're relevant to the illness in question, but because individuals differ.

What is the prevalence of the cited behaviors -- recycling, press-release plagiarism, plagiarism, quotation issues, and factual issues -- in an unbiased sample of other authors / reporters / columnists / essayists?

What, specifically, is wrong with some of the behaviors in question? I haven't followed the Lehrer situation particularly closely, I'm aware that he's admitted to fabricating quotes from Bob Dylan specifically (not good).

I'm a bit puzzled as to what he's being faulted for in "recycling" -- essentially reusing his own material.

The press-release plagiarism cited appears to involve taking quotes from press releases, rather than interviews (which Lehrer shaded to sound like it had been told him directly). The looser view would be that, well, the pres release "told Lehrer" ... and anyone else reading it. Not great, but a modestly pale shade of gray.

Direct quotations of the published, non-press-release works of others is getting rather darker. Though I wouldn't mind knowing what specific rulebook(s) Seife is playing from when he states: "Journalistic rules about press releases are murky. Rules about taking credit for other journalists' prose are not." I mean, I really hope we're not making shit up as we go along (and frankly have no way of knowing if Seife is or isn't -- he's, erm, not citing sources, merely his own authority as a professor of journalism).

Seife admits as much later in his piece: "There isn't a canonical code of conduct for journalists; perfectly reasonable reporters and editors can have fundamental disagreements about what appear to be basic ethical questions, such as whether it's kosher to recycle one's own work." He also notes that recycling can be considered common and acceptable practice, though he feels "may violate the reader's trust". My own experience, especially in persuasive writing that's repeated as an author attempts to argue for a position, is that there is _considerable_ recycling of material, though often an author will refine and strengthen arguments over time. That's what I myself practice.

Handling quotations also allows for some leeway. It's not uncommon to tidy up tics of speech and grammar particularly from spoken conversational passages. It can, in fact, be a _negative_ shading to quote someone with complete faithfulness and accuracy, including all "ers", "ums", "ahs", and syntactical tangents and fragments. That said, changing meaning in as fundamental a manner as to equate memorizing a few stanzas of an epic work with memorizing the whole thing, _and_ failing to correct it, is pretty bad.

At different points in time, attitudes toward what would currently be considered plagiarism in news were radically different. It's very, very helpful to recognize that outside a relatively few fairly stable rules (murder, real property theft), much of ethics and morals is temporally, culturally, and situationally relative. Today we suffer witches to live. In Revolutionary America, plagiarism was common practice ([http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-andrlik/how-plagiarism- ma...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-andrlik/how-plagiarism-made- ameri_b_1772782.html)). My feeling is that too strict an insistence on slavishly faithful accuracy can be as much a liability as confabulation. We know now that war photographers since Brady have staged and arranged subjects in photographs to more effectively tell stories. That NASA image processing often involves significant Photoshop enhancement and visible-range representations of invisible spectra from radio, infra-red, ultra-violet, and X-ray ranges. That NPR extensively edits interview audio, and will even modify "live" host comments over the course of repeats of their anchor news programs Morning Edition and All Things Considered to correct for flubs. That Campbells put marbles in its soup, that clothing catalog models wear heavily pinned garments, and that HN moderators will re-edit headlines and censor meta articles.

Who ya gonna shoot?

If we're going to hang Lehrer, let's hang him for what he's been doing deliberately and in clear exception to both norms and hard-written rules. Not based on either fast-and-loose definitions of correctness or normal deviations.

<comment><AUTHOR> Taking a published statement from someone and attributing it as if it were an interview, with the words "this person said to me", is not "tidying up". It's lying.

<comment><USER5> Claiming that that's what I said ... would also be lying.

<comment><AUTHOR> No; the word "lie" implies an intent to deceive. If I misunderstood your comment, that was a "mistake".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is the sunburst background behind Lehrer's head in the table necessary? I thought this was about being 'professional.'

That being said, I'm glad the journalism community is cracking down on people who are recycling, plagiarizing, and not fact checking.

</comment><comment><USER3> Meh. There were some of Lehrer's articles that I genuinely liked, but as often as not I got the feeling that he didn't really know what he was talking about. Although that's not unlike most other popular Internet science writers.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm sorry, none of what I read seemed very egregious to me. In many cases, I couldn't even decipher whether something had been really plagiarized or not. You DO use lots of material from other people when writing a story-- some of these phrases, especially under tight deadlines and late nights, likely jumble into a mish-mash of words and phrases that might spill out while writing.

Even the case of copying someone else's mistake (in the "10 sportswriters" example) also seems forgivable to me... and- forgive me if I'm too generous- just another mistake, albeit this time on Lehrer's part.

<comment><AUTHOR> * Lehrer takes copy from previous pieces, sometimes whole paragraphs, and uses them in future pieces. The author is ambivalent about how big a transgression this is, but in 18 pieces he looked at, it was easier to count the ones where Lehrer hadn't obviously recycled copy.

* Lehrer copied multiple paragraphs from a press release directly into his piece. More egregiously, he attributed text from one press release as if it had come from an interview.

* Lehrer plagiariased at least 3 journalists, one of them at pretty extreme length, and another so obviously that he copied mistakes the original journalist had made in the underlying facts.

* When Lehrer was working with actual quotations from sources, he changed them, effectively altering what those people had said.

* Lehrer made numerous factual mistakes, like any pop science writer, but when those mistakes were pointed out to him (including by other journalists), rather than issuing a correction, he ignored the mistakes _and then repeated them in future articles_.

I found this pretty damning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Lehrer himself (@4:50) on the Colbert Report explained why "creatively borrowing" others work is fundamental to innovative thinking. I would preface this with "ironically", but he actually believes his argument.

[http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- videos/41274...](http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- videos/412742/april-17-2012/jonah-lehrer)

</comment><comment><USER8> Somebody should tell these guys about Engadget, The Verge, Gizmodo, Geek and all the other sites that do this crap for a living.

</comment><comment><USER9> Here's Lehrer's barely-used Twitter account. His most recent Tweet called Samsung plagiarists: <https://twitter.com/jjonahlehrer>

<comment><USER10> Wrong twitter account: <https://twitter.com/jonahlehrer>

I used to follow him. Since I last looked he seems to have been on a deleting spree. Sucks because I really enjoyed his writing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems like generating this sort of plagiarised output is something we could train a machine to do. No need to put someone on the payroll to do it.

</comment><comment><USER12> It's not been a good year for This American Life.

First their story about abuse at Apple factories in China turned out to be piece of fiction. Now all this with their contributor Jonah Lehrer.

<comment><USER13> Hunh? I'm a bit confused why you've singled This American Life out here.

Mike Daisey is an interesting case, and someone who published a lot on the story he fabricated in a lot of different outlets. This American Life were the ones were simply the ones who confronted Daisey directly and publicly. Jonah Lehrer, the extent to which he was a contributor to TAL, was certainly not a frequent contributor (in fact I don't remember which of their episodes he's been on at all), but he is much more associated with his magazine work.

Actually i checked This American Life's site. They don't have Jonah Lehrer listed at all (although they do have a colleague of mine listed twice under misspellings of her name): <http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/contributor>

<comment><USER14> Prior to confronting Daisey, they presented his work as if they had fact checked it. They say as much in their retraction:

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/460/r...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/460/retraction)

My opinion is that they handled it well, but 'simply the ones who confronted Daisey directly and publicly' throws away quite a bit of the story.

<comment><USER13> That's true, but they were not the only ones who fell prey to that either. My point about why TAL _stands out_ is that they were the ones to confront him on it. Not that they were unique in having asserted that his story was true.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What is the point of "I am feeling lucky" button, with the redirect? - <AUTHOR>

The button on the home page in practically pointless. <comment><USER2> With instant search that button is practically unusable because it disappears as soon as you type anything in the search box.

It's currently redirecting to <http://www.google.com/logos/>

So, yeah.. pointless.

Is Google being superstitious here?

<comment><USER3> The button is pointless, but the feature isn't.

Whenever I type something into the search box and see that the result I was looking for is the first one in the auto-suggest (and on the results page), I just have to hit the right-arrow key and use the "I'm feeling lucky" feature to go there directly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a quick bit of discussion about this already here on HN[1]

1: <http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=2819709>

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that is interesting. Abt the same time :). Reminds of the Malcolm Gladwell cartoon of people thinking the same thing while walking down the road.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Because big top keywords are proper direct matches. Search for 'putty', and bam, you are there without having to click the first entry. Same with most software.

<comment><AUTHOR> is it? I tried. But, it still renders results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Google might have kept it for nostalgia/fun.

</comment><comment><USER7> Because sometimes I like to be surprised</comment>


How Cash4Gold Works - From a Former Employee - <AUTHOR> http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/cash4gold-c117648.html

<comment><USER2> I hate to say this -- but who didnt know this was a scam? This is like many late night tv infomercials on a variety of topics. Clearly, the issue is that you GIVE them your stuff before they tell you the value. Its part of their system, but its also the key part in the scam.

F- To Cash4Gold, but its no worse than all the other scam companies out there. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

<comment><USER3> It's a lot harder to believe that a company with a Superbowl ad is an out-and -out scam. At least in my mind, I tend to assume that if they make it to that level, they're legit.

<comment><USER4> Like if you're as rich as Bernie Madoff you must be legit?

You do realize that the "con" in "con man" comes from the word confidence, right? The most important thing for any scam to work is building confidence.

What better way than with celebrity-ish pitch men and a Superbowl ad?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "I guess this guy has posted this a few other places around the internet but I thought it was pretty good info that should be passed on."

Really? Why not just link to one of the many exact duplicates of what you posted, then? Trying to get some Google love? I'm tempted to flag this except that some Hackers may be interested in the story itself.

<comment><USER6> My sentiments exactly, but its shoemoney just doing his thang!

I read his site regularly and there is usually good/great info regarding ad networks/SEO in general, but there is the occasional 'trying to get some google love' post.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just want to clarify, I am not in any way related to shoemoney. I just read his blog everyday and thought these are some good info to share.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm so glad that $40 million went into this company essentially the second before the backlash hit a fever pitch. Problem is that the local news stations that would ordinarily have a field day with this story aren't going to report it because the C4G ads are highly lucrative in this economy.

</comment><comment><USER8> Blogspam? Earliest copy of this I could find was [http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/cash4gold-c117648....](http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/cash4gold-c117648.html)

From there it was picked up by The Consumerist... after that I lose track.

</comment><comment><USER9> Turning gold into cash should be the last thing people do.

Unlike the US dollars, gold can't simply be mined fast enough to reduce its values. Whereas with the US dollar, the US federal reserve can just print it, literally.

Gold is the money of the future, especially when the economic system finally collapse. Gold has been money for thousand of years for good reason.

Unless there are better form of money in a free market, gold is the best choice. Horde some of it.(Of course, don't convert your entire saving into gold, that's stupid.) It may leave you one of the last guy with real wealth after an economic collapse. It is the cork that float in an ocean of economic uncertainly.

This is of course, assuming that the government managed to outrun our economic productive capacity.

<comment><USER10> >> Gold has been money for thousand of years for good reason

Only if you consider "because it's shiny" to be a good reason. That's the historical basis for gold being valuable - it looks good (according to the tastes of medieval royalty) when made into a crown/necklace, is easy to form into a nice shape, and is relatively scarce based on our current technology. There's noting innate in gold that makes it more or less valuable as a currency than any other resource that exhibits scarcity.

What we consider valuable changes with the times - go back two thousand years and change and you'll see that the most valuable items tended to be exotic rocks, salt, and certain types of dye.

<comment><USER9> Gold doesn't corrode, easily divisible, is portable are just many reasons why gold has been the money of choice.

In the desert, salt is worth more than gold.

Other part of the world, they use cows.

Like you say, it all depend on the circumstances, how much gold there is. However, gold has continued to be the money of choice for civilizations for thousand of years. It withstood the test of time and to this day continued to be regarded as a valuable commodity.

Ultimately, the value of gold is a subjective one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> how is this allowed to continue?

<comment><USER12> What law are they breaking? The only way they get stopped is because it's mostly used for fencing. People with legitimate assets go ahead and get a better price at local pawn shops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This just in -- TV infomercials routinely exaggerate the benefits of their products and services.

I hate to sound flip, but -- so what? This (in my book) does not count as interesting or new.

</comment><comment><USER14> Hahaha, gotta love the cash4gold banner ad below the flame!</comment>


College considers basing president's salary off that of cleaning staff - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/02/20/st-marys-college-considers-basing-presidents-salary-off-that-of-cleaning-staff/

<comment><USER2> This sounds like a discussion of pirates I heard on the radio the other morning. It was about how pirates of a few hundred years ago had a very good idea of democracy, and how to ensure that the captain didn't become too far removed from the crew (though like all such systems, it was far from perfect).

It went something like this:

Captains get elected, and they get elected on cycles. At any point, if people are dissatisfied with the captain, they can overthrow them and reelect a new one (though not during chases or battles).

The bit that rings home with this article though, is that the captain generally had to eat with the crew members. If any one of the crew members decided they liked the captains meal better then theirs, the captain would have to swap.

Apparently, this helped to ensure some humbleness in the captain. Even though they called the shots, they were not this mystical being that nobody saw, interacted with, or felt out of touch with.

I think the tying of the presidents salary to that of his cleaners is a good example of this. He still gets to be the boss man, but can do it without being too far removed from the rest of the population of workers.

<comment><USER3> The economist Peter Leeson did a whole book around that, called _The Invisible Hook_ [1]. I haven't read it, but the Econtalk podcast with the author[2] was interesting.

That said, I don't think this measure will be nearly as successful as the pirates'. I'd rather see the executive body be elected by the workers, as in the Mondragon corporation[3].

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Hook](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Hook)

[2] [http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/leeson_on_pirat.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/leeson_on_pirat.html)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Cooperative_Corporat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Cooperative_Corporation)

<comment><USER2> Well there you go. Now that you've mentioned The Invisible Hook, it occurs to me that this is what they were talking about on the radio. Thanks for the link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Funny, I never thought I would see my alma mater on the front page of Hacker News.

A few things about the current situation. For various reasons, including mistakes made by the last president, the college was severely under-enrolled in this years freshman class. This is the cause of the major financial problems the college is facing and caused the previous president to ask the Board of Trustees not to renew his contract. The current president is an interim president and the college is currently conducting a search for a permanent replacement.

From what I have heard the current search is not going well. They are having a heard time finding suitable candidates that want to face the challenges the college is currently facing, which includes an underpaid faculty. I can't help but think that this will make it even harder to recruit a suitable candidate. I know several of the professors involved with this (I still live near the campus) and I know their hearts are in the right place and they want what is best for the college. I also know many of them disdain administrators and people with money. Especially people with money.

I will be following this with interest to see how this plays out.

</comment><comment><USER5> The thing that would make sense would be to base it off the academic staff's salaries. But I suppose the idea of a college with decent working conditions for the faculty would be too utopian.

<comment><USER6> Or perhaps the average salary of non-administrative and non-exec workers.

And 10x seems like an arbitrary (and large) multiplier. What justifies it? What does the president of a University do that adds that much value to a University? I remember ours made over $300k and all he did was go to parties thrown by wealthy Alums, give public speeches, and otherwise be a politician at council meetings.

By comparison, entry level IT there was $30k, "programming" was $40-50k, and senior in either was capped at $55k essentially. And IIRC, the professor salaries were similarly pathetic. I never understood how a public University justifies paying an administrator (something like a glorified answering machine that can make Excel spreadsheets) double what it pays someone who builds and maintains the infrastructure the school needs to function. Especially when the latter often must wear 10+ hats and train themselves on their own time just so they can do the job adequately.

<comment><USER7> > What does the president of a University do that adds that much value to a > University?

He's the chief fundraiser for it, and head salesman.

<comment><USER6> For a small arm of a large federated public University?

The vast majority of income to the University was from public funding, tuition, and sales on campus. He was never involved in working with state legislation to try to get us more funding -- that happened at a higher level in the University system. The large independent contributions happen regardless, and had mostly happened before his time (you know, buying a new building for the University and having it named after you).

The President was so far divorced from students that almost nobody could actually recognize him. He wasn't the reason anyone attended the school. Every alum I know has never heard of him outside of public speaking engagements. Every faculty member and staff member on campus I talked to (and I worked there for 3 years, it was a small University) had almost 0 interaction with him.

How is he fundraising, and who is he selling what to?

I saw absolutely 0 justification that he was earning the salary of 1 sanitary worker, let alone 5x the highest amount they paid any skilled worker on campus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Next up:

Lowest paid employees promptly fired. Those next in line will take up the responsibilities of fired ones.

<comment><USER9> Or just contract the work out.

<comment><USER10> Firing and contracting out are the type of actions someone at many companies would take faced with equity requirements. The type of organizations that actually put equity requirements in place by choice are not going to do those things (any sensible auditor would not allow "contractors" to fake follow the rules).

When rules on equity are put in place for political reasons (say to pretend bailout for too-big-to-fail banking executives) then all sorts of not actually following the rules will be done. Those organizations normally have no interest in equity they are run by kleptocrats and the kleptocrats will just do things you suggest and act like those things matter (pretend that if the job is done by a contractor that means the job doesn't count...).

I don't actually think 10 times the lowest pay makes much sense. But the choice of this of being run by the kleptocrats in control of most treasuries today I would accept this 10 times rule. It isn't that I think it is a good rule, I just feel it would be less horrible than the kleptocracy mentality in place now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ben & Jerry's used to have a similar policy, except it was "no more than 5x". Lasted until they picked up a CEO that wanted more than $150k/yr.

</comment><comment><USER12> Doesn't really make sense to me, what do cleaners have to do with the president?

Shouldn't you just be paying market value.

Lets say you have a really good president, why wouldn't they just leave to a higher paying position somewhere else?

<comment><USER13> It is not about basing his salary on that of the cleaners. It is about having a limit on the range of salaries in the organization and the cleaners happen to have the lowest there. The idea is that the extra profits should be shared by all the employees and not collected by the top executives.

As to why they wouldn't just leave, well let them. You could hire better faculty members and you will have a sparkly clean university that can attract better students. Your research/teaching statistics go up and you can pick more funding. At some point other universities will follow your example and administrator salaries will normalize.

Not going to happen though .... more likely they will outsource the cleaning so that the president can earn 10x the salary of the IT stuff. Then they will probably outsource IT as well ...

</comment></comment><comment> loup-vaillant At the last French presidential elections, one candidate proposed a similar measure at a national level:

First, no one shall earn more than 20 times the median revenue. Everything above it is taxed 100%.

Second, no salary shall be more than 20 times the revenue of the lowest paid people in the same company.

Of course, he didn't get elected.

</comment><comment><USER14> cue outsourcing all the low wage jobs to subcontractors in 3...2...1

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a good way to get a mediocre president. If I'm the best at what I do, I'm going to go where I am valued the most (and it is reflected in my paycheck).

<comment><USER16> Alternatively, the cleaning staff will become very well paid. Unfortunately, something like this is very specific, so it is likely that, while the cleaning staff will get a bump in pay, any increases in cost will be offset by decreases elsewhere. Like to food staff. Or professors. Or to scholarships.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sounds like a terrific way to show leadership.

<comment><USER18> It's a terrific institution. I'm really glad St. Mary's exists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Now do this for the coaches.

<comment><USER20> Generally the highly paid coaches are at schools where the athletic departments fund themselves (Texas, Ohio State, etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So stupid.

What has the salary of the president got to do with the salary of the cleaners? It is only coincidence that the cleaners are employees on the books. What about the people who make the textbooks they read, or the iPhones they use?

Inequality is important, but it is a society-wide issue. Reducing inequality _within a company_ is a meaningless goal.

There is already a very effective way of reducing inequality, which has the advantage of being completely even handed. It's called income tax.

Controlling costs is also good in itself, but that is a separate issue. Running an entire university is a position of great importance, and the salaries mentioned seem in line with this level of responsibility. (Not that people deserve more money because they have more responsibility. The point is that these position require the best people, who will demand higher salaries).

</comment><comment><USER22> In other news - there is a new job opening at St. Marys...

</comment><comment><USER23> Another income inequality article. Get off hacker news and stay off.

<comment><USER24> Why?

<comment><USER25> Because elitism is harder to maintain if people protest inequality?

<comment><USER24> Being combative and sneering about people worse off from him is stefan_kendall's schtick (both here and on Twitter), so I was sort of hoping to actually get an answer.

Not _expecting_ to, but hoping.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: 1tinynote.com – simple text notes in localstorage - <AUTHOR> https://1tinynote.com <comment><AUTHOR> This is a github pages site, with HTTPS via CloudFlare.

Repository: [https://github.com/dosyago- coder-0/1tinynote.com](https://github.com/dosyago-coder-0/1tinynote.com)

Just very simple wanted a way to save text while using browser without opening notepad.

There's probably a bunch of sites like this, I searched but couldn't find any so just made this very simple.

</comment><comment><USER2> for the "I want to keep it in the cloud" guys: [https://eddtor.com/](https://eddtor.com/)</comment>


Show HN: BuildEngine – Build and compile games faster on a remote server - <AUTHOR> https://buildengine.dev <comment><AUTHOR> Hey folks!

I'm the developer behind BuildEngine ([https://buildengine.dev/](https://buildengine.dev/)), a tool that build games on a remote server.

BuildEngine lets you run builds faster, run multiple builds in parallel, and maintain consistent architecture across builds. BuildEngine is also compatible with all major game engines and can be easily integrated into your existing CI / CD pipeline (e.g. GitLab, TeamCity, etc.)

We want to give indie game devs and their teams the same tools as larger AAA studios without the overhead of managing their own servers. Game development is hard enough as it is already and so we want to do our part to make it a little easier :)

Would love to hear your honest feedback! Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks all!</comment>


Thinkers and Drinkers - <AUTHOR> https://literaryreview.co.uk/thinkers-drinkers <comment><USER3> I've recently moved back to Ann Arbor and one of the goals I set was to create some type of social club that is in a similar vein as the one described in this article. Essentially I hope to create a chill 'third-spot' for the mingling of smart minds from different disciplines and age groups. Somewhere to openly argue or perhaps share the wealth of their obtained knowledge. Has anyone on HN attempted anything similar? Any advice on what worked well and what failed?

<comment><USER4> The key seems to be the same with these as everywhere else: you have to recruit and hold onto smart people, and be able to tell actually smart ones from people who love to talk.

In the setting described here, joining such clubs conferred considerable status and status was a desirable commodity. That made both attracting and retaining people who by and large had a lot to do much easier. On the other hand, it sounds like they struggled to keep the talkers from talking.

Today I think the situation is reversed. You have essentially no way to generate anything valuable for your members outside of the direct value they get from the club, which is necessarily inversely proportional to their contribution to it. And because specialist knowledge is so much more valuable now, your focus probably has to be on keeping the people who don't want to talk talking rather than shutting up those who would talk to an empty room.

The closest I can name to something like this is toastmasters, which has an aspect of self-improvement that seems to keep it going, or the Rotary Club which provides business connections. Neither (AFAIK) is in a growth period.

<comment><USER5> You'd think that a highly educated benevolent dictator could solve the problem of picking the right people for the club.

They must be aiming for the discourse, rather than their own power though - <USER2> that they could pick people hated by themselves or the other members of the club, if those people are bringing something new to the table.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "I drink and I know things" -- _Tyrion Lannister_

Sometimes you need to step outside yourself and let your guard down on your normal routine to see things more clearly.

Humans and sedation have always been a part of one another, it can lead to realizations. A good place or group of friends/debaters can help understanding, analysis and lead to quality of life improvements.

Sometimes you need to take the scenic route and just take it in to see things from a new perspective more open than closed.

<comment><USER7> Scenic route is definitely enjoyed especially in todays society. Even better if you are a little bit fucked up on drugs and traveling safely (train, passenger etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm lucky to be a part of something like this. I get together every Tuesday with a group for a whiskey tasting. We talk about the drink of course, but we also end up talking about politics, social issues, day to day nonsense, etc.

I'm significantly more left leaning that anyone else in the group, and most of them are also 30 years older than me, with the other two still being a few years my senior.

We bicker a lot, but it's gotten me to see things from a ton of different perspectives. And even if we don't agree, it gives me a chance to better argue against those points later or at least better understand why someone might think that way.

Obviously I don't think we're the brightest minds in town or anything like that, but I think there's something to be said about this sort of social gathering. It's almost like sparring with people I just disagree with but (mostly) like so that I'm better equipped against the real thing.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sometimes I feel I really need something like that.</comment>


Nootrobox Launches Smart Drugs Subscription Service - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/22/nootrobox-launches-its-smart-drugs-subscription-service/

<comment><USER2> The ingredients can be purchased on Amazon (Prime too)

[http://www.amazon.com/Nutrigold-Bacopa-Clinically-proven- Bac...](http://www.amazon.com/Nutrigold-Bacopa-Clinically-proven-BacoMind- capsules/dp/B004S5SN66/) [http://www.amazon.com/Now-Foods-L-Theanine-Veg- Capsules-60-C...](http://www.amazon.com/Now-Foods-L-Theanine-Veg- Capsules-60-Count/dp/B000H7P9M0/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Bought a dabbler pack on launch a few weeks ago. This stuff is awesome! Glad they are getting some publicity. They deserve it for sure. Check it out

<comment><USER4> Thanks jmondo! Appreciate it!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Someone please make this app - Universal dashboard - <AUTHOR>

Everyday on my iPhone and/or laptop, I check:
* Email, Stocks, Weather, Google Analytics, News, Facebook, Twitter, etc
I wish there was an app for the iPhone or a program for the laptop that I just open, it automatically logs in to all the services, and then shows the latest updates from each service in a separate page, which I swipe (on the iPhone) or click (on the laptop) to get to the next page.
Having to open one app, see the updates, close/minimize it, open the next app, see the updates, close/minimize it, etc, is annoying.
Are there any apps/programs out there that do this?
How do you guys handle this problem? <comment><USER2> Get an android phone instead, it has stocks, news, weather etc. widgets right on the home screen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you have to open each of them in turn, or can you see results scrolling in real time?

<comment><USER2> They update themselves in real time, if you have several you would have them on different pages of the home screen and would need to swipe accross them to see them all. (not sure if that's the right terminology, I mostly use an iPhone too)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can't 'Consume' do most of this kind of stuff with its recipes?</comment>


Black Hat Recruiter Tactics - <AUTHOR> http://blog.nahurst.com/black-hat-recruiter-tactics

<comment><USER2>
         - Posting misleading job descriptions
         - Posting bait-and-switch job descriptions

Tactics once used to recruit for porn. Still used to recruit for prostitution.

<comment><USER3> Citation needed.

<comment><USER2> I got that from the last one I hired. (The last one I'm ever going to. I've reformed for my SO.)

<comment><USER4> Pimp or John?

<comment><USER2> The probable answer is obvious if you think about it for a moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Has anyone here ever had a _good_ experience hiring with a recruiter? This is a recurring topic where I am, and it always seems like a debacle waiting to happen.

<comment><USER3> I have been on both sides of a recruiter, and don't really see the point. On the employee side, a recruiter placed me at a job that I already knew about and would have applied for myself if it were allowed. All this achieved was costing my employer a ton of money -- I probably cost them about 2x as much as I would have if they didn't have to pay the recruiting agency. Everyone seems happy, and it's not _my_ money, so whatever.

On the other side, the thing about recruiters editing your resume is true. We have interviewed candidates that claim they have some buzzword we are looking for, like TDD, but can't write a simple unit test on the whiteboard. It's nice that you know what TDD is, but not so nice that you don't actually know it. No hire.

(FWIW, my resume was similarly embellished. I intentionally omit things I know so that nobody expects me to do them; TDD is one of those. Lying is in the recruiter's best interest, since they get a lot of money if their candidate is hired. If the candidate's reputation is damaged by their lies, well, oh well, they can just get another candidate.)

<comment><USER6> recruiters are a filter, if you are a company hiring, you'll get hundreds of resumes most of which don't even apply to the position being listed. By using a recruiter, you only have to deal with the cream of the crop.

Sure some people can bypass a recruiter with bullshit, but you'd still have to deal with those if you were doing the recruiting yourself.

There are also some benefits as an employee. If you have a good recruiter, you can tell them exactly what you are looking for, and they'll be on the lookout for those types of jobs for you.

But as it is with all things, for every good recruiter, there are thousands of shitty ones, who'll send to companies anyone who is stupid enough to give them a resume, and who'll tell you to apply to jobs that aren't even on the same level as what you can actually do.

Every good recruiter experience that people have told me about...involved them finding the recruiter through word of mouth...I don't remember a single positive recruiter story that involved being cold called out of the blue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I suspect recruiters are comforting when companies don't know enough about the technology to judge qualification. Of course, rarely do recruiters know much more.

Does anyone know if there are services for performing due diligence on candidates? I know at a CTO level they exist, but what about hiring that one guy who knows iPhone development when the rest of your shop is Java?

</comment><comment><USER8> _Nothing's worse than getting to an interview and finding out that you know COBOL from the hiring manager reading it off your resume._

The rest of the tips seem to be really sleazy, but are pretty surreptitious. However, wouldn't this be extremely obvious to both parties and be so blatantly unethical to end the recruiter's career?</comment>


Ask HN: Should I hire a new CEO or sell my business? - <AUTHOR> I'm the founder of a bootstrapped B2B SaaS company that's been growing at a decent clip for the past two years.
Context:

  C-Corp
  Revenue is ~$100k/year
  ACV is ~$5k/year
  I'm the only employee
  60% Outbound/40% Inbound
  Profit margins ~75%
  TAM is any B2B company in North America, possibly worldwide with ACV >$20k/yr.
 Problem: I'm currently running another business which is growing like mad and can't put any time into this business which means that it's in zombie-mode. Existing customers will get full support, I'm not releasing any new features and I've ceased any outbound effort.
Options:

  1) Hire a CEO or
  2) Sell it
 Questions:

  What's the best path here? Sell or find a replacement and give them a stake?
  What's the best way to go about finding a potential CEO?
  If I were to sell the company, where should I start this process?
 Thanks in advance <comment><USER2> Nice spot to be in. I'm not an expert but based on what I've heard about selling small software businesses I think you'll have a tough time getting an attractive price on a sale.

On the other hand, finding someone with the right skill set to step in as a replacement CEO/founder - and incentivizing them properly - will be tough. But given that the business seems capable of running on autopilot currently, I think this option is still best. The question just becomes how do you find the right person and structure a deal to align everyone's incentives. Happy to offer further input if you ping me. (Email in profile.)

</comment><comment><USER3> The answer depends on if you need the money generated from the sale of the business.

For example, if you had someone who would pay you non-negotiable cash up front of 200k (after taxes) with no strings attached, I imagine that would be meaningful to your financial goals in life.

However if you can afford to wait and believe that there is significant upside in your business that a new CEO can unlock for you while you work on the other business, then you should consider hiring an extremely sharp and self- motivated person who can grow the business to a multimillion dollar opportunity instead of what it currently is.

Such a person would be me! You can email me at email@example.com.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'll shoot you a note shortly.

To answer your question, a few hundred k is definitely meaningful but I'm open to taking a shot with a savvy CEO.

talk soon!

<comment><USER3> Looking forward to it, and I hope some others will give you some guidance too.

If you go down the sale route, you will definitely need to proactively reach out to other businesses (or private investors) who would want to own those contracts and revenue streams. And you would need a lawyer to facilitate the legal transfer of ownership of the entities.

see you!</comment></comment></comment>


The need for tooling and the need for mastering your tools - <AUTHOR> http://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/2018/03/master-your-tools.html <comment><USER2> The tool for me that I have spent a lot of time learning and improving is my Emacs environment.

It wasn't easy but as soon as I got the hang of things I was able to improve a lot in terms of overall productivity. Knowing how to debug when things go wrong and where to look to solve it was the first step in my learning journey. I eventually started heavily customizing by making scripts and packages to further suit my needs.

> After you master a tool, you internalize it and go minimalist, and reduce it > to first principles. This line made me feel like I'm on the right track. > Just recently I've cleared up the fluff in my emacs config leaving only > simple but effective and essential tools. I realized that I've made a lot of > edits to my config and that each one taught me something that eventually led > to where i am now. In a way, clearing things out was a learning experience > in itself.

I still have a lot to learn though. Just recently I've made a jump to reading the enacs source and even took the time to contribute to Remacs, a Rust port of Emacs. I'll admit that this one is a bit overwhelming and may even seem overdoing it, but it is still a fun learning experience.

I sure do love my tool.

<comment><USER3> Same with vim (and other text editors), at first I started customizing heavily. Now I can get going with just 3 settings.

        syntax on
        set number
        set relativenumber

<comment><USER4> As a long time vim user and lover of the idea of vim. emacs is better at being a vim than vim is. (org, magit, helm, swoop, and all the other great packages are a bonus and work as well as they do because of the way emacs was created.) vim modal editing is life but vim's implementation is really bad comparatively.

<comment><USER5> I have to disagree. Evil mode in emacs is (on the scale of vim clones) pretty good, but it is still an emulation of vim within emacs, and there are a lot of hard stops throughout the experience for a long time vim user. The biggest hard stop for me was the implementation of C-[, which interpreted word boundaries differently than vim - differently than emacs even.

Of course, if all you're looking for is modal editing in emacs and don't mind falling back to emacs keybinds, then evil mode will do just fine for you.

<comment><USER4> You can change word boundaries pretty easily though. There is a little bit of friction in some things like that but nothing that is insurmountable. Every single keystroke is a function that can be changed and even wrapped with "advice" to leave the function alone but change the before, after, or both before and after the function is called.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is the main reason I am ambivalent about the typical school (even the best ones I know about, and from first grade up through the undergraduate level). Compared to the amount of time spent, relatively little is focused on mastering all of the metacognitive skills required for expert problem solving in any domain. Almost all work is done at the shallowest surface level with shallow delayed feedback and an overemphasis on punishing minor errors or non- standard output formatting, and on judging/ranking the students. There is a parade of 'content' to get through, but little chance for students to work on problems which are truly difficult (for the student at their current level, e.g. taking more than a few hours to figure out a single problem) or larger- scale projects of personal interest. Very seldom is the work revisited or iterated. Ideas and methods from one discipline are seldom applied to another. Students are systematically discouraged from taking any kind of risk. (This is not primarily the fault of individual educators: scaling close personal attention from experts is just uneconomical given current societal resources available for education, and schools have many difficult constraints on pedagogy.)

<comment><USER7> >There is a parade of 'content' to get through

Did you know that the content is also shallow? According to E.D. Hirsch [1], one of the reasons low-income and other marginalized groups do bad in schools after elementary school is because they lack the exposure to "cultural vocabulary" and end up feeling like a fish out of water when any more challenging material comes up.

So in line with the spirit of the OP, some of the "tooling" that we need in education is simply a deeper understanding of the national culture that all well-educated people have naturally adopted.

For instance, you could help low income students by simply having them watch shows like _The Big Bang Theory_ and then maybe have a discussion about it in class. (And I say this as someone who doesn't like that show. But I know it speaks a very strong cultural language used by well-educated Americans.)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_literacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_literacy)

<comment><USER6> I don't think watching TV sitcoms is going to cut it. If you look at the density of ideas, richness of references, complexity of sentences, etc., pretty much any written material (novels, nonfiction aimed at teenagers, magazines, newspapers, ...) blows those out of the water. The teacher would do better to just read to the students for 30m every day, instead of having them watch a show for that time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I like tools. I like building them, and I like using good ones. I love the feeling of leverage from using my tools together to accomplish in days things that would have taken weeks or months without.

As a tools author though I struggle to produce things that are both _powerful_ yet also easy to use. I tend to build things that are too "UNIX-y" - and I end up with blank stares from co-workers (users) when I ask them, "did you read the —-help output?" Or likewise when I suggest that perhaps they can wrap tools in bash scripts or aliases and bolt things together...

<comment><USER9> About 20 years ago a friend and I were doing some contract work for a company. I was an undergrad (Comp Sci) and she was a graduate student (also Comp Sci--- same college). Our task was to add links to a glossary in about 100 pages of HTML and my friend just started doing it all by hand (well, editing each file one at a time). I had to fight with her to stop and just think about the problem. We were both familiar with Unix, and we were working on a Unix system (SCO, but the company had blown thousands of dollars for the entire SCO works) and I realized we had access to lex.

Normally, one uses lex in conjunction with compilers, but it would work for this job---as each word was found, generate the output with a link to the glossary; otherwise just copy the input to the output. Half an hour later we were done with the entire task.

I just now realized that there may have been more to the approaches than I realized. I was looking at this very tedious task and _not_ wanting to do it. Why not have the computer do the boring grunt work of finding and editing? But we were being paid hourly and it could have been that my friend was looking forward to doing this very tedious job for _hours_ and making that much more money. I am reminded of the Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

It could also have been that I think differently and realized the application of a standard Unix tool normally used for one task was appropriate for this task and my friend just couldn't see it. Either could be possible.

I have to wonder how much of this is due to "not understanding that the computer can be instructed to do the boring stuff" versus the "I don't want to code myself out of a job."

<comment><USER6> Finding and deploying tools you know about (but wouldn't immediately think of) in non-standard ways is a meta-cognitive skill which can be practiced. It's possible you had some relevant past problem-solving experience which your friend did not. It is also possible that you had systematically been socialized to pursue different high-level strategies toward work – I have many friends who were children of working professionals and were taught to value 'working hard' above looking for shortcuts.

Aside: It's not only the explicit prospect of hours of work that might have stymied your friend... research suggests that when working for a reward people are typically less creative and less thoughtful than when intrinsically motivated (see Alfie Kohn's book _Punished by Rewards_ ).

<comment><USER9> Well, I had helped her with her compiler project a year earlier, but given that we _both_ had experience with lex I'm not sure if we both saw the relevence or not. Your other point makes sense.

And your point about hard work _really_ makes since given her background and personality.

<comment><USER6> You might enjoy Alan Schoenfeld's book _Mathematical Problem Solving_ , which tries to analyze the way that novice problem solvers make a hash of relatively easy 'non-standard' problems, while expert problem solvers prevail, even when the novices have more immediate and direct experience with the required background knowledge for the problem. The biggest difference is that the experts do a lot more planning, introspection, and strategic adjustment along the way, while the novices immediately start down one wrong track and get stuck in the weeds, forgetting what they were trying to do or why.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Mastery of tooling is easily the most successful nerdsnipe you can do in an org. It abounds with metaphors to sharp physical tools that are ironically required to perform tasks safely. And, to an extent, it is obvious to see that people with more mastery over their toolchest will be able to outperform those of lesser mastery.

However, it is also easy to find evidence that quality of tooling does _not_ translate to quality products in software. Not the least piece of evidence is Linux and the rise of free as in beer tooling.

I think it can easily diverge into navel gazing. It isn't that tooling is unimportant. But that it should not become the focus. If you want to make quality products, obsess over the quality of your product. Don't get distracted by what you know about what went into it. Focus on the product. Period.

Yes, you will at times have to settle for a proxy measure. No, they will not be perfect. Nor can they be. Don't fixate on a single metric, but collect many and constantly ask yourself what the metric is telling you about the product. Not about itself.

<comment><USER6> This is mostly talking about a different type of tooling and a different type of mastery. 'Tools' here might be something like 'immutable data structures', 'formal analysis of algorithms', 'linear algebra', 'debugging', 'usability studies', or 'project management', rather than some specific piece of software.

The examples given (paxos and map-reduce) are very high level concepts, which open the door to products which would be impossible or qualitatively very different without them.

<comment><USER10> To an extent, sure. But, I could replace "experience" with every usage of "tool" in the article and find that it makes more sense to me.

When you lack experience building anything, it seems natural to think that the tools used by practitioners enable them to do what they do. After gaining experience, lots of it, you find that the tools can help build a scaffolding, but what you are really building can often be obscured by the scaffolding. Which is why it is not uncommon to see some experts that can work with minimal tooling. They have built their ability to see the product and end goal, without the need of some tooling.

Which is not to say you can always get by without tooling. No amount of internalizing the instrument and idea of flying will help a pilot fly without a plane, after all.

<comment><USER6> Again, the experts have a whole bag of conceptual tools to pull out and apply at moment's notice, collected and honed over a lifetime, which the novices don't even know exist. That's what makes them experts.

In e.g. painting those tools might include knowledge of anatomy, lighting, human color vision, paint chemistry, composition, perspective, art history, specific stroke techniques, ..., plus time management, working with live models, managing client expectations, a collection of unused ideas to try, previsualization, judging and adjusting preliminary sketches, ..., none of which has anything to do with the specific canvas or brushes or subject. The expert will get better results from inferior paints and brushes and studio, because of all their other hidden tools. What seems from outside like 'minimal tooling' is actually a cornucopia of tools.

<comment><USER10> My assertion is still that this is a great nerd snipe.

There are two aspects here. First, metaphorical tools are stretching the usefulness of the term tool to an extent. We already have a term for that, knowledge. It serves a different purpose than tooling. Specifically, tools act as great methods to let someone without the knowledge benefit from it.

So, the standard library of most languages helps give tools to developers such that they don't have to know the details of the data structures. Just as paints let a painter not have to know the details of the pigments or other components of their supplies.

Then there is the aspect that the knowledge doesn't necessarily translate to results. It is easy to see how many critics are far more knowledgeable of their fields than many of the practitioners. Yet, your average practitioner is probably accomplishing more than your average critic.

I want to stress again, though, that it is not that tooling is unimportant. It is just an easy nerd snipe and is an easy way to divert from your actual task at hand and get very little accomplished.

<comment><USER6> If you prefer substitute 'principles, concepts, methods, and metacognitive skills' for 'tools'. Try not to get hung up on the precise labels. Factual knowledge is only a small part of what we are talking about here.

The 'critics' have an entirely different toolset from 'practitioners'. Even their factual knowledge is of a different type, grounded in a different context, and not easily comparable. Likewise it doesn't make much sense to compare their 'accomplishments': criticism is its own valuable discipline with different goals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Speaking of tooling and differential mathematics (mentioned in the article itself,) I also basically flunked "Analisi II" (and quite probably never fully understood Analisi I,) the Italian equivalents of Calculus.

Only when I changed Università and retook Analisi II, taught by a different prof, who demonstrated everything using more powerful and meaningful tools did I get it all.

Same thing with electromagnetism; couldn't ever _not_ make a mistake with those pesky Maxwell equations until I bumped into some lecture notes treating them with Diadic Calculus (a kind of tensor) and voila, I passed.

My brain is pretty average, particularly when referring to working memory. Give me a strong abstraction and I get it, ask me to wade through the minutiae and I lose it.

<comment> castle-bravo I don't think you're alone in this. A lot of my coursework is presented as a series of exercises in memorizing solutions to special cases and applying those solutions in a treadmill of quizzes, assignments, and exams. I find myself craving better, more powerful abstractions that subsume the special cases; complex numbers are a great source of satisfaction to me for this reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I like software tools which is handy. I needed to do mindmapping in my way and I built MindVisualizer ([http://innovationgear.com/mind-mapping- software/);](http://innovationgear.com/mind-mapping-software/\);) I needed to edit my web pages in my way and I built LIVEditor ([http://liveditor.com/index.php](http://liveditor.com/index.php)).

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't like tuning my tools.

You spend a few hours tinkering with settings, then two years pass like a breeze, you have reinstalled your system / on another employer's laptop, and you have to re-configure everything. From memory. That's frustrating.

Yes, I carry around a .zshrc from the times when I still made the effort.

Otherwise I would prefer convention over configuration. Just provide sane defaults. Please.

Moreover, when you're an infrequent programmer, you would want to invest the least into tuning tools. E.g. I won't waste time setting up configs on a zillion servers that I visit. I'll use bash. It's better today than it was 15 years ago.

<comment><USER14> > You spend a few hours tinkering with settings, then two years pass like a > breeze, you have reinstalled your system / on another employer's laptop, and > you have to re-configure everything. From memory. That's frustrating.

That's why we treat configuration as code these days. Put _all_ configuration files that matter in a repo.

And if a tool does not take a plain-text config file, or at least allow you to export settings to a plain-text file for later re-import, it's frankly not worth your time.

<comment><USER13> I am not a DevOps so I won't be able to _deploy_ that repo contents for the fear of my life.

<comment><USER14> What's particularly hard (or particularly DevOps) about a simple shell script that creates a bunch of symlinks? This is what I use: [https://github.com/majewsky/devenv/blob/master/install.sh](https://github.com/majewsky/devenv/blob/master/install.sh)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wrote a blog post on tool mastery a few days ago, mostly in response to an egregious article named "You are not your tools"[0], but also to write down some of my recent thoughts on this topic[1].

I agree with the OP that internalizing a tool changes your brain for the better. Everyone knows that learning a new language (human language) expands your brain and improves your ability to learn _more_ languages. Let's continue this example, just to make things clearer. Mastering foreign languages is not a cakewalk, despite scattered marketing claims that you can do it in a year or even three months. From the OP:

> Just having a passing familiarity with the tool doesn't empower you.

You can't learn Korean just by visiting Korea and waiting for osmosis to take effect. Even people who live in foreign countries for decades fail to learn the language if they don't put in the appropriate effort -- I've seen it happen. But "You are not your tools" makes the following dim-witted assertion:

> Spend your time listening and learning from everyone, whatever tools they > use: most skills will transfer just fine.

That's exactly the opposite of what you should do. You will internalize nothing with this plan, nothing will "transfer" (if anything you will have interference[2]), and you will just end up like so many other mediocre programmers I see. Anyone who's learned a foreign language knows this -- you need skillful Practice and Concentration. Trying to learn two languages at once takes more than twice as much effort than if you focused on one, if you don't do it with great skill.

Quote from my blog post:

> There is a huge gap between the average programmer and the real hacker. On > one side of the gap is the doe-eyed little boy who goes into every project > clueless about how to start, searching for a relevant tutorial on Google > while frantically asking questions on StackOverflow. On the other side is > the man who plunges into the project with an air of mastery, controlling his > environment with a fluid ease which is rare and somewhat dangerous – a man > who's already finishing the task by the time the boy has gotten his first > response on StackOverflow. Which side of that gap do you want to be on all > your life?

Now returning to the OP.

> What qualifies as a tool? Does critical reading qualify? How about writing > well?

These absolutely qualify. These are fundamental tools -- mastering them will improve many other areas of your life. But you would not believe how few programmers take the time to improve these skills, or even care. Sometimes I get the feeling that the average programmer hasn't read a single book in his life (apart from maybe some programming or self-improvement books, which are generally poorly written and unimaginative). It shows.

> What are the tools that benefited you the most?

Emacs, without question. I took the time to learn it during a spell of happy unemployment as I was living abroad. This one decision has paid enormous dividends in my life, but only because I took the time to truly master this tool. It not only has made me more productive at pretty much everything I do on computers (which in itself is valuable -- the more prolific you are, the better you become), but it made me _smarter_ and _more confident_ on account of having mastered something. Men are supposed to be experts. Mastering something silences your inner critic and cues your brain in to your innate self-worth -- it's how male brains seem to function.

You can learn Vim instead, but please avoid IDEs. Easy-to-use, lowest-common- demoninator, "thoughtless" tools actually seem to be making people dumber. It's the path of least resistance versus the path of blood, sweat and tears -- and they go in opposite directions.

A question the OP should have asked, but didn't:

> How do you know when you've mastered a tool?

You will know. It changes the way you see the world. New possibilities arise, the horizon broadens, and you begin to see with lucidity how powerful you are and how far your potential truly goes.

As J. Peterson says,

> People create their worlds with the tools they have directly at hand. Faulty > tools produce faulty results. Repeated use of the same faulty tools produces > the same faulty results.

A quote from Kafka on the Shore:

> Pointless thinking is worse than no thinking at all.

[0]: [https://codewithoutrules.com/2018/03/23/you-are-not-your- too...](https://codewithoutrules.com/2018/03/23/you-are-not-your-tools/). These kinds of articles are not just idiotic, but harmful to society -- the attitude expressed here will make people worse at their jobs and at life, and we should speak out against this pernicious mindset.

[1]: I won't post my article here, as my blog can be found on my user page. I posted it on Reddit and received a hostile and, well, juvenile response. A lot of people took issue with the idea that certain tools are better than others (seems like Vim/Emacs are not liked there) and the idea of someone taking mastery seriously ("You must be fun at parties" was, I kid you not, an upvoted response). It's not just about mastering your tools, but mastering your environment by extension. It's about power -- the power to change our world -- for the better. Many people embody a mediocrity mindset and go through life without skill or strategy -- they unconsciously know their own inadequacy, and you can see this on their faces.

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_theory)

<comment><USER16> > You can learn Vim instead, but please avoid IDEs. Easy-to-use, lowest- > common-demoninator, "thoughtless" tools actually seem to be making people > dumber.

I would argue that you should learn both. It really depends on the context. Vim/emacs are nice, but for certain tasks, IDEs are more suitable. I would also recommend to master your OS shortcuts, we edit a lot of text outside vim/emacs.

<comment><USER17> I would argue that learning both is important, but its always better to learn the dumb tools first (IDE). Dumb tools were made for a reason because they are the lowest common denominator and therefore easier to get things done. Your time spent on tooling could have been used elsewhere.

VIM / emacs are great if you work in a unix environment, but as a windows user Id rather have nice GUI tools. Requires less memorization to do the same tasks.

I would also argue against memorizing shortcuts as well, and if you do, only a select few that you often use. Rather have a quick reference file on hand for these shortcuts to memorize.

<comment><USER18> If you subscribe to the view that Emacs is an OS disguised as an editor, you can get pretty far with it on Windows too. I do recommend that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The book The Art of Learning explains these concepts in depth very well.

</comment><comment><USER20> Almost every software tool decision I make is one of garbage quality with features vs ok quality with no features. I can choose a text editor that does the basics but nothing else I need or an ide that does everything poorly. From browsers to package managers to debuggers to operations tools, the quality of software tools is absolutely atrocious. Why master any of this garbage when more garbage tools will be required later? It's hard to stay sane just using them. Yes, non software tools like reading and writing comprehension are useful, but for the most part, investing heavily in a tool that's bound to fail over and over again seems like a terrible idea. Then again, there simply isn't enough time to write proper versions of these tools. But amazing things have been built with much less tooling than we use today which leads me to think that the proliferation of software tools partly exists only to make the tool developers happy as they create useless rube Goldberg machines (especially in js land).</comment>


Stop Launching Shitty MVPs in Competitive Markets - <AUTHOR> http://blog.groovehq.com/post/13829640150/stop-launching-shitty-mvps-in-competitive-markets

<comment><USER2> I use Assistly for one of our CS portals and due to sporadic downtime was interested to see what Groove had to offer after reading this post. In terms of marketing, this is exactly what you want to have happen. And after all the talk of meeting the feature set of your competition, I expected to see just that - feature for feature parity or better.

Instead what I saw was an emphasis on the social media SCRM features at the expense of having a functioning Knowledge Base, which really surprised. KBes (done well) are the real win for support since they are self serve. Moreover, this is a key feature of Assistly which they can't match.

I'd say Groove hasn't yet met the bar, which is slightly ironic given the tone of the article.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wait...so are you saying we don't have a Knowledge Base? Because that's inaccurate...we do have a KB...get your facts right my man.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Fascinating article. The difference between a minimum viable product and a minimum product is a complex one. I've been involved in many software companies that thought that they couldn't launch until things are pixel perfect and suffer from the exact opposite problem though.

Balance is clearly the key.

</comment><comment><USER4> The key is _competitive_ markets. In competitive markets, such as another email tools like ConsntantContact, you already know there is significant demand. The game is played on finding your niche and/or building at least a marginally better product to get your feet in.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think the author makes some important points. So I visited Groove and tried to sign-up. This is what I got on Chrome in Mac OS X.

<http://i.imgur.com/fBnYl.png>

<comment><USER6> I couldn't reproduce...looks fine over here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Me either...anyone else experiencing this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dang. Preach!</comment>


Ask HN: How to check if URL is posted to HN (without actually posting it) - <AUTHOR>

Is it possible to check if a URL has been posted to HN without actually posting it? <comment><AUTHOR> One way, although inelegant, would be to post a URL and see if I can delete it right away. If I can, that means it hasn't been posted prior to me posting. I'll have to detect the "0 minutes ago" and the delete link

If I cannot delete, that means it already exists

</comment><comment><USER2> slightly off-topic, I guess but... I think that checking if the same 'topic' (page title, main keywords, etc) has been posted may be more important. After all, even if nobody posted yet the URL I'm looking at... but if that URL is a brief blog post linking to another blog that passes through to the actual story... and if that story has been posted to HN... then I might as well add the URL I was looking at in a comment. No?

<comment><AUTHOR> good point, but that's gonna be hard for recurring popular topics. It's gonna be difficult to tell the difference between "iPhone kills Android" vs "Android kills iPhone"

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There's a Chrome extension that adds a tab with an URL's HN comments on the side. It will show up for any URL on HN (I think).

<comment><AUTHOR> This one? <http://github.com/adamalbrecht/hacker-news-for-chrome>

Just tried it, there doesn't appear to be a way to check if a URL is already posted or not</comment></comment>