Ask HN: A colleague is leaving. How to investigate what went wrong? - <AUTHOR> A colleague at work is leaving the company soon saying "I don't feel like I'm a fit for <xyz> company". I'll be speaking to them in unofficial capacity soon. What all should we talk about? A few things that came to mind:<p>- what all do you need to get a new job?<p>- why do they feel they are not a "fit"<p>- is there a systemic problem?<p>- when did this feeling arise since they joined with lots of enthusiasm?<p>- what could I have done personally / in official capacity that might have stopped this<p>- how do you think we missed this?<p>To the HN community: What other things can I ask them to prevent/improve this situation in the future? Is there even something to improve here? <comment><USER2> Your curiosity, professional or personal, probably has little bearing on what they tell you. The wording you use doesn't matter - exit interviews are always framed as "what we could have done better/could do better in the future?" but it is rarely so innocent in reality, and people know this. At best, companies use divulged complaints as a basis for negotiation retain the employee (what if we raised your salary to match your offer? What if we reassigned you to a different manager?) but often it is simply used get the employee to sign a waiver relieving to company of any legal blame. And a likely outcome is that their complaint about their boss gets passed along and it bites them in the ass when they need a referral down the road. So what advantage do they have for being honest? In what way could it possibly benefit THEM to tell you anything?

To be honest, a company should always know or be able to figure out the real answer to this question if it their own doing. Either the employee got a better job or the writing was on the wall. If you as a company have people leaving and no one knows why, you don't ask the leaving people you ask the people who are staying - Bob is leaving, is there anything we can do to improve YOUR experience? When they are out the door it is too late, so focus on the employees that are there.

<comment><USER3> The HR at my last job were so incompetent they tried reaching out to me (repeatedly) for a exit interview three weeks after I had already left.

<comment><USER4> I cannot argue their competence, but giving someone a 3 week cooling off time to reflect on why they left seems reasonable.

Although trying multiple times does not seem reasonable.

Many companies I have left, never cared about why.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Most of the time people leave bosses, not the job or the company. Almost all interactions are relatively close by, colleagues and their direct boss and if that isn't a comfortable environment with trust then usually that is what leads to resignation.

If you don't know this individual it is unlikely they will honestly tell you why and the boss or coworkers may very well give no honest insight either regardless of the questions. They want out and they don't want your organisation ruining their future prospects with a bad reference. Most people do try to fix the problem before they just leave so at this point they consider it not worth voicing the problems further.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm their coworker and this is what I'm afraid of. I am haunted by the question "what if it has been our work environment that caused the move?"

I don't suppose toxic people think/know that they are toxic, so how do I find out if we are?

<comment><USER6> Here's the thing. Your writing doesn't make it sound at all like this person trusts you, and you said you're doing this in a quasi-official capacity.

Those two things make me think your management either sucks, or fucked up and wants to know what your coworker will say.

If you had a good relationship w/ this person already, you could take them out to coffee and pretty much ask, "so, what happened?". Since you don't, and since your coworker is presumably not stupid, you're probably going to get the same answer that your management team would get.

Which brings me to my next point: your management team should know. If this person's boss isn't doing weekly 1-1s and closely monitoring this person's enthusiasm for the job and company, then they're an incompetent boss. That's table stakes for competent management.

Particularly when a coworker quits over an "I'm not a good fit", that means (1) there's a problem, and (2) I don't trust management. Acting as an agent of management isn't going to get the answer.

<comment><USER7> Totally agree with this, and I'll take it one step further - if they trusted you and were on friendly terms, they probably would have already told you or asked you for help on what is going wrong, long before they quit.

<comment><USER8> The leaving coworker can still be friendly and trust their colleagues but may not share details so as not to ruin their colleagues' perception of their employer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > what could I have done personally / in official capacity that might have > stopped this

Were you their supervisor/manager/lead? If so, the standard answer is to have regular 1:1s with your staff, so things like this do not come as a surprise.

And you cannot always keep everyone. Sometimes things really are not a fit. The last job I left was for reasons that had nothing to do with the team or product, or anything easily changeable. I simply wasn't OK with the commute to a new office. There are a myriad of personal reasons that someone might not want to work somewhere. That doesn't mean the company is flawed - it just means people are different, and have different preferences and needs.

I'd recommend spending less focus on why one person left, and more on ongoing discussions with the people who remain, as well as being sure new staff has every opportunity to learn about the company, so they can self-select out before they are hired if they see anything that would not work well for them.

<comment><USER10> Amen. I'll throw in a pitch for "High Output Management," which does a good job of describing how and why to do 1-on-1s. Everyone hates meetings, but they're the primary way for people to propagate information and vent feelings. If you don't have 1-on-1s, people will bottle up feelings that don't have an outlet in other standard meetings. And if you don't have an environment of trust, no one will talk to begin with. So focus on creating an atmosphere where people can talk and then formalize and consistently create occasions for them to share their feelings-about themselves, about their careers, about their projects. Anything that you want visibility into needs to have a channel. And then just accept that your organization will evolve and you can't keep everyone, or make every project successful, or always beat your competition. Life isn't perfect. Being a leader is about driving a strategy and culture while bound by the constraints of your particular situation and the world in general.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I left my corporate job for personal reasons largely unrelated to the job per se. I certainly had my criticisms of the company, but probably needed to leave regardless.

So while you try to gather information, keep in mind that "not a good fit" could be a polite way of saying "It's none of your business and kindly butt the hell out of my private life, thank you."

Not everything that happens around you is about "you"/the company. That's not how life works.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand. Maybe if the conversation takes that tone we'll just have a nice tea and go back to life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think it depends on your trust level with the colleague. Or rather, their trust in you.

When you leave sometimes you don't want to help improve things for people staying, you just want/need to get the heck out. It can feel petty to present a laundry list of things you wish your former employer would change.

I'd approach that head on and assure them that:

1\. You will keep anything they say confidential (unless there's anything illegal that surfaces)

2\. You are acting in an unofficial capacity, not as a company person

3\. You are having the conversation to help the other team members, not the company (because they will likely care more about them)

4\. You want to hear whatever they have to say, no matter how big or small

<comment><USER13> The time to listen for "what's wrong" would be before they are leaving.

But I generally find that people who are leaving are quite open about the reasons, when asked. Especially if they are more about the job rather than themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you search workplace.SE for this you will know that the consensus is to say _nothing_ in an exit interview

[https://workplace.stackexchange.com/search?q=exit+interview](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/search?q=exit+interview)

</comment><comment><USER15> If you google "exit interview" you will find tons of opinions and ideas (example [1]).

Timing is important -- if you want to get useful information, you need to time the exit interview 1-3 months after departure so there's (typically) no fear of repercussion so folks' views tend to be more candid.

[1] [https://hbr.org/2016/04/making-exit-interviews- count](https://hbr.org/2016/04/making-exit-interviews-count)

<comment><USER16> Not sure how many people would actually go to an exit interview after they have left and presumably started somewhere else.

<comment><USER17> I imagine you could offer an economic incentive to give the feedback

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> These conversations don't work in the same way that conversations about why you declined to hire someone don't work. They always push into negotiations between the decider and the person who didn't like the decision. They have decided to leave, that is that.

If you want to avoid these things in the future, a reasonable strategy is to be really clear in setting expectations of the people who work there and the metrics by which they are evaluated. Then check in with them regularly and talk about both of those things. That will keep the employee and the manager on the same page and it will be a surprise to neither of them when things change.

</comment><comment><USER19> "what went wrong"? I don't like the phrasing. People leaving and wanting to do something else is perfectly normal. There is nothing wrong about it. It's just a fact of life. The best way to deal with it (apart from offering a better compensation) is to wish them all the best and say they are always welcome back.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, perhaps I should have said "How to investigate if something went wrong?".

You're right that people leaving is normal. What I'd like to be sure of is that they are leaving because of the right reasons.

<comment><USER20> Just ask them about what they're doing next and what they're excited about. If they want to get into details it might give insight into what they've been missing, at least you'll get to know them better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This will all depend on what your role in the company is today and what your relationship with this person is.

If you are in a leadership role at the company he/she may not want to open up to you for fear of reprisal even if you two have been friendly. If you two are teammates and you do not have a leadership role they may still not feel comfortable opening up to you because likely they have made comments and if no one picked up on it to discuss with them then they will feel you are complicit or accepting of the situation and don't want to create tension.

There is no harm trying to learn why for sure, but also know sometimes (especially with more senior people) people recognize when their thought processes, methodologies just don't align well with a team or company so they will remove themselves. This doesn't actually mean there is anything wrong with the company/team or with that person, just they recognized the differences and know those would create conflict, tension or struggles for themselves on the team. This is a healthy thing to have happen. That said, it is a very small number of the people that leave usually, more common reasons of leaving are for a lack of recognition, money and/or progress.

If you and the person leaving are both IC's then ask them from a place of curiosity to better understand what they might have seen that you haven't. This is probably the best way to get data points and be non-threatening to the person. When I say non-threatening, I don't mean you literally threatening them, but if you come at them with 20 questions it can start to feel like an interrogation and the persons self defense mechanisms will go up and conversation will go no where.

If you are in any kind of leadership role at the company, come at them from the place of not wanting to lose a good person, but respecting that sometimes people move on for a whole host of reasons. From your perspective you are trying to confidentially understand what the company could do better or change that might make the difference for the next person. Approach it this way, once they tell you if the asks are reasonable say if we made these adjustments would you stay, but don't approach the entire conversation from a place of would you stay. Approach it from the point of view to make sure issues are resolved for the rest of the team and the next people coming in. This is the best way to get data points usually and do so in a way people feel more open to chat. If at the end you ask them if these changes were made would you stay and they say no, then ask why not? That sometimes will open up a more true reason.

*edit: changed a word for readability

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't understand what IC's means. Is it a standard term?

<comment><USER22> Individual contributor - people not on the managerial path, who can continue to grow and be rewarded in their career as do-ers (as developers or whatever else)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Are you their friend? "Hey, why are you leaving?"

Not their friend? Why on earth would you think they owe you an answer to any of the questions you listed?

</comment><comment><USER24> The zeroth order term in persons leaving is usually some sort of systemic insult to them. As a manager, identify the insult. Later, your organization will have to judge whether these conditions are "worth it" or localized to the individual.

</comment><comment> house9-2 > I'll be speaking to them in unofficial capacity soon. What all should we > talk about?

The weather.

You are talking in an unofficial capacity I don't think any of your proposed questions should be discussed; except maybe showing interest in their future, did they already get another job? If not let them know you can be used as a reference.

> What other things can I ask them to prevent/improve this situation in the > future?

Don't ask, if they trust you they will let you know. May have nothing to do with your company at all.

Honestly, I think you need to ask yourself the questions you are proposing, if you are paying attention then you already know the answers.

</comment><comment><USER25> To answer the last question, management needs to regularly have one-on-ones with engineers.

A lot of one-on-ones are done wrong. 80% of the talking should come from the employee not the manager. Ask them what they want, where they want their career to go, what anxieties/insecurities/discomfort they have with the company and what they're working on, what needs to be moved out of the way.

To answer the first question, this is what needs to happen. Just listen to them. Don't come in with a list of questions.

</comment><comment><USER26> >"I don't feel like I'm a fit for <xyz> company"

This is a really good general cop-out answer because it avoids creating hard- feelings or burning bridges if there was actually a more specific complaint (I hate working with that guy, my manager sucks, the work is super boring, product is stupid, pay sucks etc.)

First thing to check is, where the person is next going, are they going to be making more money? If so that is likely a reason. Another reason could be that they thought their potential for advancement at your company was low, at least in comparison to somewhere else. If the employee is an engineer, it could also be that they thought their learning had slowed or they were not working on the right kind of tech they wanted to for their career. For me, these career related reasons are the most likely reasons I would jump ship.

It's important to note that you shouldn't take a career-motivated jump personally. The only thing you can do is try to reorganize your company to make this less likely, by paying more, giving more opportunity for advancement, or working on/with sexier tech.

If it's not about career, it's probably either interpersonal or cultural. Maybe they feel socially excluded? Maybe their manager is too distant, an asshole, or a creep? Maybe they don't want to work as long / the same hours as everyone else?

Regardless, there is a very good chance you will never get a straight answer, or will get some fake, nice excuses. This type of thing requires introspection, not an exit interview.

</comment><comment><USER27> I would never tell the truth about why I leave a job. There's nothing in it for me.

</comment><comment><USER28> More often than not it's because their boss doesn't care about the answer to those questions, even if you their peer do.

</comment><comment><USER29> Personally I would not say anything of substance at an exit interview. And I know many people wouldn't either.

Maybe wait until 2 weeks after the person has left and invite him or her out for a beer or a coffee and then have an informal chat.

</comment><comment><USER30> Provided you've some relationship with this person / they feel free to speak I would try to get them to speak in a more open ended manner about the job and their experience.

Personally I find when folks ask me specific questions about my job ... we don't have a common language and I have no idea what they really mean by what they're asking.

Also be open to the idea that this was just bound to happen and it is nobody's fault. Some jobs just aren't for some people depending on any number of factors.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think I fully understand what you've said. I'm sorry for butchering this but, do you mean to say that when specific questions are asked the underlying assumptions are so out of sync that you cannot formulate an answer they would understand?

I think an example would help?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I don't think such a conversation would do any good. If you had had a good relationship you would probably already know what's going on. I don't like exit interviews where you get asked why you are leaving. These questions should have been asked much earlier.

Personally I don't think seeking such a conversation when somebody is leaving won't do good for anybody.

</comment><comment><USER32> Look into underlying reasons

1) employees leave mostly because of manager

2) Not being challenged enough at work

3) Got a job at another company with better pay

4) personal reason, burn out etc.

<comment><USER33> Just to break out 1/2 a bit more:

1a) Employee not being given clear guidance of what they're meant to achieve

1b) Employee being micromanaged intolerably

1c) Employee being told to take responsibility for something while not being given the power to fix it

1d) Employee not being allowed any autonomy or scope for creativity

1e/2a) Employee being forced to spend their entire working life cleaning up others' messes with no chance to work on anything new and interesting ("because you're good at fixing problems!") while those same others go on to trainwreck each new project

2b) Corporate goals limiting employee's ability to build the best product they can build (through some attempt to avoid competing with another product line, for instance)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Talking about the quality of a "fit" can be misleading. It presupposes that the factors which make people leave are actually beneficial to other people or the company.

That's certainly not the case with toxic coworkers. Probably there are more examples...

</comment><comment><USER34> I think in many ways it's too late at this point. Keep the conversation casual and if it happens to veer into productive territory in terms of figuring out motivations then fine, but I wouldn't be asking probing questions unprompted.

</comment><comment><USER35> What's your interest in this? Are you their peer or their superior?

</comment><comment><USER36> Small plug for anyone interested here:

My company "Thanks For Sharing" is a straightforward app to help organizations avoid situations like these.

It's designed to encourage employees to share feedback before issues reach an unsolvable state. Organizations can collect that feedback easily and built-in analytics will show trends to identify top issues.

We're soft-launching next month... if you're interested, shoot an email to the link in my profile and I'll hook you up.

<comment><USER37> How is this any better than Google Forms, or Glassdoor?

Are employees answers anonymous?

If yes: How do you deal with employees not trusting your word on this? Especially given that, since it's an app, people would presumably need to install it on their own devices?

If no: How do you incentivize employees to give honest (both truthful and complete) answers?

Do you have any answer to the scenario where management ignores any feedback?

Do you give provide any analytics to employees that anyone is actually reading and acting on the feedback, or is this another one-way street?

I'm skeptical - I don't think this is a problem that can be solved by an app -, but I wish you luck. In the unlikely case that you succeed it'll be great.

<comment><USER36> Good questions. Hopefully you'll be satisfied to know we've thought all them through.

It'll be more sophisticated than other survey options that aren't built for this purpose. It's solely for internal use and NOT a public reviews website (so that bad eggs can't use rage to infect others).

It will default on anonymous with the option to share your identity. Based off feedback, this seems to be the best route.

As for incentivizing honest answers, we believe, again based off research, that most people will be inclined to provide that on their own, especially if they have the shelter of anonymity. There are a lot of details I don't quite want to give away yet, but you'll see it soon.

We're excited and learned a lot with the feedback we've gotten so far and are excited for the soft launch to get more data and iterate quickly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> If you want an honest answer, perhaps _he_ or _she_ does not like the singular _they_.

If I read your question, I'd not be a fit for this company either. It creeps me out when people use _they_ for someone with a known gender.

<comment><USER39> Their gender is not "known"...by you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Not to be rude, but rather to provide some perspective, and totally guessing here, but perhaps the person is leaving because you are always getting up in his business and acting like a tight ass.

<comment><USER41> Prefacing your statement with "Not to be rude" does absolutely nothing here. This is an entirely rude and unnecessary comment.

<comment><USER42> "Not to be rude" is one of those statements that does the opposite of what people who use it seem to think it does. It basically announces that that's exactly their intention and they think it gives them a get-out-of-jail-free card for saying it. It's always followed by something totally unnecessary, it's never followed by something useful or insightful that the other person might inadvertently take the wrong way.

These types of phrases are common and obvious enough that I'm surprised there's not a word for them. See also:

"I hate to tell you, but" (they don't hate to tell you, in fact the delight they get from telling you is why they're telling you)

"NOW, this may NOT be a poe-lit-tic-cull-lee core-rect thing to say, BUT" (in practice, for some reason it's very important to linger on every single syllable of "politically correct" when playing this card, maybe even roll it out so slowly that there are extra syllables, because apparently this is still 1995 and political correctness is some hot button issue that exists in their world that they're always inadvertently stumbling into) (also they're about to say something totally shitty and stupid, guaranteed, and political correctness has nothing to do with it)

"I'm not a racist, but" (they're about to say something so totally racist, and if they weren't racists themselves they'd know not to prefix anything with this phrase- it's up there with "but I have black friends" as being an obvious and transparent tell)

"I'm just keeping it real" (they really want to say the quiet part out loud and think this gives them license to do so)

"I'm a straight shooter and don't pull punches, and I hope everyone treats me the same way" (only ever said by the thinnest skinned people you'll ever meet)

"I'm going to be brutally honest" (in practice, the people who preemptively declare themselves to be brutally honest are always in it for 100% of the brutality and 0% of the honesty.)

<comment><USER39> I feel like it is, or is adjacent to praeteritio, apophasis, and such things.

See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Sounds like this person is your employee or direct report. Are you underpaying them? Do you use toxic "agile" practices at work? It's very likely you can figure out why they left without asking.

</comment><comment><USER44> you're overthinking it</comment>


Pickadate.js - a lightweight (6.66kb) jQuery date picker - <AUTHOR> http://amsul.github.com/pickadate.js

<comment><USER2> No offense, but I'll quote Rebecca Murphey: do we really still live in a world where a jquery datepicker plugin can make it to #1 on hacker news?

</comment><comment><USER3> how do you change the year?

<comment><AUTHOR> Its in the works.. I should be able to push the update tonight</comment></comment>


FYI: LinkedIn API changes are rolling out slowly (over a week) - <AUTHOR> https://developer.linkedin.com/blog/posts/2015/todays-changes

<comment><AUTHOR> Those of us expecting the hammer to come down today _might_ have a small/temporary reprieve of sorts, it looks like they're going to take a week to roll out the API changes.

The bad news is: If you're waiting to see if your LinkedIn App breaks, you might need to wait a full week to confirm that.

</comment><comment><USER2> "We want to thank all the developers who have built on and continue to build on our platform. We look forward to working with you as our program evolves."

Yeah, fuck you.</comment>


Windows 10 could start bullying people into using a Microsoft account to install - <AUTHOR> https://www.techradar.com/news/windows-10-could-start-bullying-people-into-using-a-microsoft-account-to-install <comment><USER3> I use a mix of Windows 7 and *nix OSes both at home and work.

At work we do have some Win10 machines, and they are ALWAYS doing something completely off the wall bizarre and unexpected, also doing any sort of maintenance on them is a pain, the tablet-style interface shoehorned into some places just doesn't work well.

I know Win7 support is over, but we don't intend to leave it for Win10, we might leave it for Reactos or something else, but not Win10.

Some examples of Win10 issues:

sending tons of data to MS without permission.

Not allowing us to install with local account unless we disable network on the EFI.

Despite we trying everything to disable updates, the thing updates itself, reset several configurations, and reboot the machine.

One of the times it did that, it broke some ancient but mandatory software on our business (it was a PDF driver that was mandatory to be used by our bank that would issue the invoice for our clients, so when this happened we were forced to install all banking software on a Win7 machien so we could get paid...).

Showing ads out of the blue on Start menu and on the login screen.

Installed games without permission (not Microsoft ones, I mean stuff that is popular on mobile, from king.com and whatnot).

The list goes and goes on.

<comment><USER4> >Despite we trying everything to disable updates, the thing updates itself, reset several configurations, and reboot the machine.

I too had tried all the tricks, including using a remote Powershell into my own local machine as the System role to change ownership of the Update "Orchestrator" and disable it, etc., nothing worked and Windows finds a way to revert all the settings you make.

Then I discovered an open source utility written in C# that works with Windows' own internal Windows Update API to disable its shenanigans. Search for "wumgr". You can disable the automatic updates, block access to the WU servers, and even disable the WU page in the Settings app. You can also use it to manage the updates manually and selectively if you prefer. So far it has worked flawlessly on my machines and hopefully it will work for you as well.

There are many many reasons why not being in control of OS updates is a bad thing, but the absolute red line for me is having my laptop wake itself up inside of my bag while I'm traveling, potentially creating a fire hazard and certainly draining the battery life my career may be about to depend on during an important presentation, or create incompatibility issues.

<comment><USER5> My workplace hosts its own Windows update server, so they have total control of Windows updates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I feel like the tech in general is getting user-hostile... Everyone (websites, apps, cars, tvs, etc.) wants to track you and collect as much data as possible, websites nag you to install app on your phone, dark patterns everywhere, "smart" devices that won't work without an internet connection or become bricks after a while, smartphone manufacturers forcing you to buy new phone by making apps slower on older devices, more closed protocols and walled gardens - the list goes on and on...

<comment><USER7> It's not the tech that's user-hostile. It's just the usual rent-seekers have cottoned on to how to leverage it to, well, seek rent.

Unfortunately those people will always be with us because it's not completely ethical to weed them out at birth.

<comment><USER8> Would it be unethical to genetically engineer embryos to eliminate sociopathy? Or how about engineering an airborne virus which modifies victims' DNA to eliminate sociopathy? (Of course, these could have drastic unintended side- effects, especially the latter.)

<comment><USER9> The potential unintended consequences was covered in the movie Serenity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> They're already there. The ThinkPad I bought in December didn't have the local account option available.

It's currently in "trick the user" mode: it has you connect to wifi to download the latest security updates, then remembers the network and automatically tries to have you create an account a step or two later.

I avoided it by rebooting, going into the bios, disabling wifi, and then resuming setup - only when it couldn't connect would it allow a local account. Just rebooting to restart initial setup doesn't work, it remembers the network.

<comment><USER11> I bought two different laptops in January and installed Windows 10. I managed to reach the local account option by entering a Gmail address without a connected Microsoft account when it first asked me to log in during initial setup. At the failure page they added a local account button that wasn't on the previous screen so that I could set up a local offline account.

It still keeps nagging with a notification saying that my Windows installation is not fully secure since I haven't added a Microsoft account. I've disabled that notification, but it may have disabled all notifications from the settings part of Windows, I'm not sure.

<comment><USER12> This is odd, considering it's a Microsoft device, but the Surface Pro I bought in January had a local account option available, and I connected to the update servers before creating my local account. However, around the same time I accidentally converted the local account on my gaming desktop into a Msft account when signing into 365 to setup onedrive. I didn't realize I was doing that until my account photo on the login screen changed. I can still login to the PC with my old password (Msft account p/w is the typical 20 char random string from my password manager).

Tip- you can disable the security nag notifications in defender settings individually. There is a screen with different categories of 'threats', and you can turn on/off warnings individually. You probably don't want those notifications entirely disabled, since it is pretty useful as anti-virus, but the account and backup notifications are obnoxious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> FWIW, I don't see this set of steps in any of the comments here. And as of late I've been setting up tons of Dell Laptops, so I have this memorized.

Windows 10 Professional, freshly minted from Dell:

* "Set up for organization"

* "Local account or domain join" (it's in small print in the lower left)

* Create a local Admin account

* Do not setup a password at this time (it'll force you to set up recovery questions or some other nonsense.)

* set all the data sharing options to "no"

* skip entering data for the Dell registration

* On first login, hit ctrl-alt-del and set a password there.

Windows Home does not offer the choice to "Setup up for organization", so you are forced to make a windows account. There's no way easy way out of it.

Microsoft keeps saying "Windows is a service" and has that text somewhere in the install. I guess if you want an operating system, you have to turn to Linux.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm based in the UK. This has been going on for a good while outside the US. Back in mid November last year I struggled to get past the requirement to create an online account when rebuilding a friend's laptop after a hard disk failure.

I scratched my head for a good bit thinking that I'd missed the old pathway that let you skip the online account step, but it turned out that the installer's behaviour had actually been altered.

After some more dome scratching I eventually discovering that disabling the built-in wifi module (no wired LAN connection was made) caused the installer to let me create a local account instead.

Quite bloody annoying.

Footnote: this was an install from a bootable USB stick where I'd "burned" the full Windows 10 ISO image.

</comment><comment><USER15> Windows 10 is a total catastrophe for business and private use.

It established ads and spying as normal for an OS, it removed abilities to administrate the OS in a meaningful way and mostly ignored users in favor of nudging people to their products. Products that I would declare to be mostly in beta phase. The bi-annual untargeted channel version couldn't sort desktop symbols without bugs if you had multiple monitors attached till a few month ago.

And before anyone mentions that "normal people" like it and it is just the icky nerds that have reservations: Not in my experience. They hate MS spying on them too. It is just that there is often a lack of an alternative if they are caught up in the ecosystem.

I wonder how people even manage if they don't have some friends and family to help them get rid of the bad stuff.

There are underlying improvements, but what use is a safer system if the malware comes preinstalled.

<comment><USER16> For anyone looking at my HN history, apologies for being a broken record.

For the elderly variety of normal people this is a disaster: All the behind- the-scenes UX and setting flipping, the forced installs, and the performance dips that comes with all this means that low-confidence users feel like they're working on quicksand. The experience becomes unpredictable and scary and the iPad gets more and more use and the PC gathers dust.

I don't get why this all is worth the cost of squandering the good will MS has built up elsewhere.

<comment><USER7> > For the elderly variety of normal people this is a disaster

that's pretty wretchedly ageist. I know people up and down the age spectrum for whom this is an identical unmitigated disaster with the same effects. I also know a lot of greybeards who will just go in to some "registry" thing and rip out the cancer at its source.

<comment><USER17> Eh. It's not inaccurate.

For whatever reason, I've fallen into a kind of side job of helping various people with their computers (I have trouble saying no) and I have noticed that as people get older, their desire to deal with UI changes declines rather rapidly. Many operate purely on muscle memory rather than re-reading and re- parsing whatever new UI gets rolled out.

New things on the screen (or in menus) can induce a kind of paralytic panic and now with Windows 10, Microsoft feels rather free to just ... add stuff, wherever. My first Windows 10 tablet was baffling because stuff kept appearing when I know I didn't put it there. This prompted me to get ahold of and install Windows 10 LTSB. I could not be happier with the result. After a bit of wrestling, I was able to control when updates occurred (if at all) and the random UI changes vanished.

I, too, am getting older.

How much bunkum fluid versus crystallized intelligence is, I do not know, but this has seemed to be a trend I have picked up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Start?

You already have to disconnect form the network to be able to use the "offline account" option in the installer (last I checked, which was like a couple of months ago).

So this has been going on for a while.

Edit (merge the other comment I deleted):

To clarify, this was a Home Edition. I understand that the Pro edition doesn't behave this way.

<comment><USER19> No, you don't. Local installs are the smallest option on the screen, but they're still an option.

<comment><USER20> I last installed Win10 a few months ago and it was not, until I unplugged the Ethernet cable and went back a couple steps to get it to re-assess things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What makes it worse is when their account set up is broken. For an interview yesterday, I attempted to install and get an account for Skype. The back end broke, and when I tried to do create a general Microsoft account to confirm it was the back end, I was banned from using my email because of "suspicious activity".

To make it more fun, their "Technical Support" chat failed as well, so I was unable to get a human to even talk through this.

That would be even worse if that prevented me from installing or using Windows.

<comment><USER15> Still have the same problem with my private account. Exactly the same reasoning. Wanted to just delete the account after that, but I would need to login and they ask for my telephone number which they certainly will not get. Well, they already have it on my business account but that is beside the point. Tried contacting support, but you need an account... even wrote a fan mail to firstname.lastname@example.com (spoiler: no response).

They would be legally obliged to delete my account, but at some point I had the revelation that any minute spending thoughts on them is a wasted minute of life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> They do still have the option to force local accounts only. Fire up Group Policy Editor "GPedit" then Computer Config/ admin templates/ system/ user profiles/ and enable "Only allow local user profiles".

"If you enable this setting, the following occurs on the affected computer: At first logon, the user receives a new local profile, rather than the roaming profile. At logoff, changes are saved to the local profile. All subsequent logons use the local profile. "

This is on Windows 10 Pro. There's a surprising number of settings that can be configured here. As Microsoft continues to dumb down menus and the control panel they are normally tucked in here. Or you may rarely have to dig into Powershell and the registry, very rarely.

</comment><comment><USER23> Not going to lie... I setup win10 2 weeks ago and I didn't see (notice!) the local options.

As I use Outlook.com/Onedrive I didn't care until I opened up my terminal and noticed my username was the first 5 letters of my email. What the hell. I don't get why they would do that instead of just using your firstname or asking you at least. or at the very least use _everything_ up till @ instead of the first 5...

This irked me beyond belief and after googling a bunch of crazy ways to 'fix' this, the easiest turned out to be creating a local account 'chris', deleted my MS account, then attached the MS account to 'chris'

<comment><USER24> To get it now you often have to disable all networking, if you don't do that it doesn't show up. It is that hidden now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I mean people are bullied into hooking up Google Chrome with their gmail, and then their entire web history is "backed up" on Google's servers. At least Firefox's Sync features have been end to end encrypted, you lose your password, you lose your files / history. If you log into a gmail account it would force it on Chrome in the past, so I stopped using gmail on Chrome altogether.

</comment><comment><USER26> "Start"? It's been making it a struggle to do so for a while.

</comment><comment><USER27> Every day it seems more realistic to just install Windows 10 LTSC [0] instead of dealing with this crap.

0: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats- new/ltsc/](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/ltsc/)

<comment><USER28> AFAIK that's still not an option available to for home users or small businesses, though (unless you're willing to do illegal things to get it, I assume, but that's not a good solution to the underlying problem here).

<comment><USER27> I haven't paid for a windows license a single time in my life and kinda forgot that people (home users, anyway) actually did.

<comment><USER29> You indirectly pay for a Windows license every time you buy a laptop.

<comment><USER30> Unless you get a Clevo based laptop, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> That headline seems really bad. Windows has been in "bullying" mode for years now. Installing without a Microsoft account has been very difficult for a long time. The change now is to refuse to install at all without a Microsoft account, which is not "bullying" any more, it's something else.

</comment><comment><USER32> They've already started. We've been replacing Dell laptops at work these past couple months and it was nearly impossible to fully boot Windows without signing in via a Microsoft account. The whole process just felt ridiculous, especially on a computer clearly intended for a business.

<comment><USER33> When my work computer just used a MS account I had 0 issues, when i was forced to put it on the domain and have an AD account etc I have had nothing but issues. Intrusive sys-admins are more annoying these days trying to control and lock things down in a more connected world.

<comment><USER34> >Intrusive sys-admins are more annoying these days trying to control and lock things down in a more connected world.

How about trying to stop a raging forest-fire and the primary tool you are supposed to use is a squirt gun? The backend that we have to work with was designed around the concept of "1 network, X users" and the biggest threat was a boot-sector virus that formatted your hard-drive after silently replicating itself to every machine.

Now you need security in layers, because even if every god-damned employee was as smart as Tim Berners-Lee and didn't open every email attachment, drive-by downloads; 0-day browser exploits that give access to ring0 coupled with an OS that releases updates that are more likely to bjork your computer then actually solve the fucking problem these computers are sitting fucking ducks.

And because we are seen as "Intrusive" we can't even get the C-level assholes to listen to us, or to follow the rules that they see are necessary for everybody else.

The environment has grown so hostile that Becky in accounting doesn't need internet access, and you are lucky we don't limit the internet to 1 terminal in the lunch room with every port disabled and filled with a hot-glue gun.

Just because YOU are "smart with computers" doesn't mean your damn computer is safe.

We (SysAdmins) are fighting a desperately hard battle. We get shit on by the end-users, and Upper Management. If you have 1 frustration with your PC multiply it by thousand, and try to put yourself in our shoes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> It gets even more notorious with time. I bought a new laptop recently and with Windows 10 Home instead of my Pro norm with it, and was very shocked to see how much control did I lose if were I a normal user. The mandatory and force restarting updates, web results in searches, king games, nag-ful notifications, edge self promotion, telemetry etc. I can't imagine what [profanity] that normal users had to live on with in most recent Windows. I'm waiting for the last straw that is gaming and am ready to ditch Windows completely.

</comment><comment><USER36> For machines on Windows 10 Pro, click on the "Domain join instead" button during OOBE. AD joins cannot be completed during OOBE, so it falls back to asking you to create a local account.

</comment><comment><USER37> debian linux. feels twice as fast as windows and there is zero concern its going to do something insidious.

</comment><comment><USER38> Just as bad is forcing you to set up a pin number on top of your password in order to log in. It wouldn't let me not pick a pin during a recent installation so I had to set one up, finish installing and then remove it in the settings somewhere. Very odd. I don't even mind it being offered as an option, maybe some people prefer an alphanumeric pin...

</comment><comment><USER39> It's not explicitly mentioned in the article, but the fact that presumably installing from the _same_ disc will somehow produce different behaviour at different times (is it phoning home during the install, to decide what to do?) is rather disturbing.

</comment><comment><USER40> NVIDIA has also removed the possibility to set up an NVIDIA SHIELD TV without a Google account, there is no option to skip logging in during setup. The requirement for a Google account is not advertised on their site [1]. Other devices with the same Android TV version have a skip button on the Google account screen.

[1] [https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/shield- tv/](https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/shield-tv/)

</comment><comment><USER41> Bought a surface a few months ago, nice hardware, but windows 10 is horrifically spammy/scammy. Immediately replaced it with arch.

<comment><USER42> Can that be done safely? As I understood it, albeit years ago, you needed certain MS services/drivers for thermal & battery management unavailable in Win 7 or Linux. The hardware & build of the early Surface Tablets was solid(still?), but I would never considered using Win 8 or 10.

<comment><USER41> I have a Laptop 3, not tablet, seems fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The install experience is so much cleaner if you don't let it near a network.

</comment><comment><USER44> [https://xubuntu.org](https://xubuntu.org), you're welcome.

Or use Windows 7 if you have to. Windows 10 is just malware and bloatware built around Windows 7.

<comment><USER45> I've tried for the nth time 3 years ago to use Linux desktop (Ubuntu).

It just takes Soo much effort to get things to work. Netflix and deactivate mouse acceleration(which isn't perfect) to name a few.

I love ubuntu server, favorite os of all time. But Linux desktop just isn't anywhere near Windows quality.

<comment><USER46> Manjaro is better than Ubuntu as a workstation and for developers it's better than Windows in my opinion. I've been trying out Linux desktops for 20 years and it's the only one that got me to switch.

I've been on Manjaro now for almost 2 years, doing JavaScript/React/PHP/Ruby/Python work (and some .NET Core with SQL Server!). I use VS Code and Chrome. I listen to music with Spotify. We have Slack. I can remote desktop into Windows machines with FreeRDP.

Recently someone said that they thought they would prefer to try Xubuntu because it had more official support so I decided to compare it to Manjaro and try it out on a spare machine. There's really no comparison. Setting up software on Ubuntu is painful, having to find and add keys to various disconnected software repos for every package. After a week, the Ubuntu installation ate itself after an update and wouldn't boot.

Meanwhile I have 3 workstations running Manjaro (work desktop, home desktop and personal laptop) and they all run perfectly and installing software is as easy as opening Add/Remove Software utility and finding what I want. Everything is there, even my favorite diff util from Scooter Software - <USER2> Compare.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Which distribution of Windows 10? I'm thinking it's only the Home version.

I just setup Windows 10 Pro for my brother in-law yesterday and had no problem choosing a local account.

</comment><comment><USER47> Again? Some enterprises never learn.

Also, on one side they get points on the developers side, but they lose more on the consumer side with those practices.

<comment> saiya-jin I simply don't care what products they do, M$ is consistently a piece-of-shit amoral company, period.

An asshole kid who is kindly opening the doors to teachers and kicks smaller kids in the head just around the corner and tortures little animals after school is still a proper asshole.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Stupid requirement that does nothing but discourage the use of other related MS services --- the ones MS actually earns money from.

</comment><comment><USER49> Surely not the enterprise and server version?

</comment><comment><USER50> Most people here don't like having a MS account, but is it really so terrible? When I log in each day I'll use my AWS account, 2 or 3 google accounts, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Slack. You can't use a phone or a tablet without a Apple/Google account, surely having a MS account to use Windows isn't such a big deal.

<comment><USER51> All those things are required because they're online services. You can have a phone or computer always offline, why do you need a online account?

<comment><USER52> How useful is a _phone_ that is _offline_? What exactly do you do with it? Making phone calls is inherently an online activity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Windows 10: It's not your computer.

</comment><comment><USER54> Stop using Windows.

<comment><USER45> What's your desktop alternative?

<comment><USER55> I have been happily using Linux on my desktop for over twenty years. It hasn't always been easy, but it has worked quite well for me and it could for others too.

<comment><USER56> Not for everybody unfortunately. If you want a gaming PC playing most recent games you have no choices but to remain on Windows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> What a clickbait title. That's not what the word "bullying" means. Microsoft is nudging people, maybe forcing them. But definitely not bullying...

<comment><USER19> > Microsoft is nudging people, maybe forcing them.

Right, and the bigger student in the cafeteria was just nudging people, sometimes forcing them, to give up their lunch money.

<comment><USER57> Why do see a need to conflate both things? Microsoft forcing users to use an online account is already quite bad. No need to change the definition of what bullying is to communicate that message.

<comment><USER58> It's not a change. That's what bullying already meant.

What does "bullying" mean to you?

<comment><USER57> Some excerpts from Wikipedia definition, that I find accurate:

> Bullying is the use of force, coercion, or threat, to abuse, aggressively > dominate or intimidate. The behavior is often repeated and habitual.

> Bullying is the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt > another individual, physically, mentally, or emotionally.

Don't you see a difference between an actual abuse, and the use of a UX dark pattern to get users to create/use online accounts?

<comment><USER58> In the first place, I consider removing local accounts to be an actual abuse.

But in the second place, "bullying" is not restricted to "actual abuses", however defined. Bullying refers to an attitude, the attitude of shoving someone around because you can. The reverse of "bullying" is "caving in", not "being victimized". Here are some cites I pulled from COCA:

> _What are the keys to the match for Halep? It sounds trite, but Halep needs > to stay aggressive -- as she was in the semis -- and not let Serena bully > her around the court._

> _Can someone please explain to me why Magic Johnson and other executives > have been fined by the NBA for just a simple comment on another player, but > yet, Kawhi Leonard can actively and outwardly recruit an under-contract > player and persuade him to bully his way out of that contract?_

> _Just look at what China 's trying to do. They're trying to bully us, hold > our farmers hostage._

> _the Trump administration has proposed eliminating a lot of the legal > enforcement protections that are in the agreement that are particularly > important for Canada and Mexico especially because they 're smaller > economies, smaller countries, much more reliant on the U.S. market. They > can't really bully their way around to getting things that they want when > things don't go their way_

These four cites describe three different scenarios, but not one of them could be considered to match what you claim is the definition of bullying.

<comment><USER57> Thanks for the informative answer, I learned something today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> tldr; Among mainstream OSs I'm most happy with Windows today

For the last few years I've been using Windows 10 rather than macOS. In general Windows seems mid-to-long-term more stable than macOS. But maybe that's because I'm used to treating macOS like a nicer Linux while they've been locking down many Linux-like abilities (kernel modules, tracing/debugging, etc). But there's also been the macOS filesystem and permissions model changes that have made upgrading a pain.

I do have a Microsoft account but I don't do anything with it. I don't use any Microsoft products that are not included in the base install. I tried Hyper-V for a while but it was painful to configure so I've been using VMWare with more success.

Generally speaking, it seems like Microsoft is looking further than a year from now -- getting design and quality right compared to macOS which no longer seems to have any particular direction. It's not just in their software; I've been seriously impressed by build quality and pricing on the Surface line of tablets and laptops. I actually mistook a Surface book for a 2015 macbook pro. In contrast, I really don't want to gamble with post-2015 Apple hardware.

And although I do a lot of development on my laptop, I'm trying to move to developing in the cloud or a home-server because compiling kills my battery. Windows enables this use-case fine. To be fair, macOS would too.

I haven't had any issues with unwanted ads. The only ads I'm aware of are the lock-screen backgrounds that show different places around the world... I don't really consider them an ad though.

<comment><USER60> "In general Windows seems mid-to-long-term more stable than macOS" It really seems like you are talking a joke?

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Good luck to their marketing and sales team. It's gonna be a fun game to convince people to do so when you have perfectly equivalent and usable, totally free, and now cute open source OS/distros.

People started to sell TAILS on usb keys for $10, if someone packs Linux Mint, eOS or similar for $5 .. in a web app world, linux + firefox is probably invisible to the average user.</comment>


As Facebook Takes a Beating, a Brutal Movie Is Set to Make Things Much Worse - <AUTHOR> http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonicshifts/archive/2010/05/13/as-facebook-takes-a-beating-a-brutal-movie-is-set-to-make-things-much-worse.aspx

<comment><USER2> If you want to read it yourself: [http://wiscreenwritersforum.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/01/S...](http://wiscreenwritersforum.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/01/Social-Network-The-by-Aaron-Sorkin-May-28-2009.pdf)

All 162 pages.

edit: Ironic quote on page 62, which actually exists in the Harvard Crimson:

 _Zuckerberg said that he hoped the privacy options would help to restore his reputation following student outrage over facemash.com, a website he created in the fall semester._

[http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/2/9/hundreds- register...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/2/9/hundreds-register-for- new-facebook-website/)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing that old article. It had one interesting nugget:

>While Zuckerberg promised that thefacebook.com would boast new features by the end of the week, he said that he did not create the website with the intention of generating revenue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sorkin is a fantastic writer. Some of the best TV shows of the past 12 years (The West Wing, Studio 60, Sports Night) were written by Sorkin. When I first heard about Sorkin doing a Facebook movie I was dismayed. However, now, given all the things that are going on with Facebook, I think it shows he has an insight beyond most (this movie has been in the works for quite some time now).

<comment><USER5> (Also, the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" is definitely worth watching if you have not seen it.)

<comment><USER6> I did not like that movie. It felt like the movie was building the whole time and then abruptly ended. They were trying to start a war and then all of a sudden the war was over.

<comment><USER7> Should you add spoiler alert to this your post?

<comment><USER8> If that's a spoiler then the movie must be 'twist movie'. It may be more important to warn people about it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One thing that annoys me is how often someone is portrayed in the media as borderline autistic, or having Aspergers.

Borderline Personality disorder or Narcissism would be closer to the mark.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism>

When I worked around more therapists(I worked as a qEEG tech) it became apparent that some are the worst offenders when it comes to "inability to respect social norms"

<comment><USER10> Not that I disagree, but "inability to respect social norms" is basically part of the definition of Borderline Personality disorder or Narcissism, so saying as much is basically tautological.

<comment><USER11> Basically that's what he was saying: that Aspergers or borderline autistic are basically less accurate descriptions than BPD etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hey anyone get the feeling that we are being played by the media. There might be some legitimate privacy issues, but is it this bad or over hyped for an upcoming movie? Let's be critical.

I have posted a time-line of diaspora success: <http://chegra.posterous.com/time-line-for-diaspora>

What I want to do next is to investigate their dna. Who are the people that first got this going? What are the connections? Did readwriteweb have a connection with them. How about the nytimes?

I could be paranoid, but my intuition says dig deeper.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't trust Facebook but to be honest I trust sensationalist Hollywood dramatizations even less.

<comment><USER14> The general public, though, tends to be rather the opposite. Toward both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I love amid all of this uproar on HN and other tech sites approximately 0.00002% of facebooks user list have actually cared enough to cancel their accounts. This will blow over next week when Gizmodo steals new hardware from someone else.

<comment><USER16> Better still, every _hour_ there are probably more new signups to facebook than have cancelled in the last months because of this flap.

That doesn't mean it is wasted time though, facebook is a brand and brands are vulnerable to more than just absolute numbers of people leaving.

Advertisers will take note, for instance.

<comment><USER17> Rate of new signups is also important because that's in correlation with the number of active users and with projections of growth advertisers love so much.

I have lots of friends that aren't on Facebook, and I have friends that are inactive on Facebook, logging only when they get a direct message.

Contrary to popular belief, IMHO switching from Facebook to something else is not that hard. People that are active online do have multiple accounts on multiple social apps. And you can use Facebook to advertise your new favorite social app to your friends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Holy shit, this Facebook situation is turning into a full-on witch hunt.

Mostly the intense criticism is warranted, but I feel as though a lot of levelheadedness is starting to go out the window.

<comment><USER19> Maybe the public finally realizes all these titans of the tech scene (going back to Gates, Jobs, Ellison, etc) are deep deep down just another bunch of cash-driven assholes like the rest of the business world.

The media got swindled by putting them all on pedestals. (Wired, you're the latest guilty party by putting Zuck next to Gates on the cover).

Time to knock a few down.

<comment><USER20> Gates: made computing ubiquitous; I've seen Windows boxes in rural towns in 3rd world countries Goldman Sachs & Co: "bunch of cash-driven assholes"

I think Gates has done considerable more good for the world than the other assholes of the business world.

<comment><USER21> I have great respect for how Gates is spending his money now.

But, in all seriousness, Windows (including Office etc.) is morally questionable. Grant me two points:

First, it could be better without serious harm to its success. Over the last 15 years, Microsoft could have funded security and usability a bit more and saturation advertising a bit less, and it would have the same market share but save its users something like 10% of their use time.

Second, it hasn't competed ethically. Microsoft under Gates did things that were only slightly to its medium-term benefit and very much to the detriment of the market. Many products that were clearly better for the user never got a fair shake. Cutthroat capitalism has its place, but Gates went further.

Given these, the opportunity cost of Windows adds up to a _huge_ amount of inefficiency – time spent needlessly fighting computers – for which Gates is significantly responsible.

Some back-of-the-envelope math: If Windows has an install base of 1 billion, and the average install is used for 4 hours a day, that's about 150 million Windows-years per year. If Gates is personally responsible for 1% inefficiency there, that's about 1.5 million person-years of waste per year.

Would that particular time and effort have cured cancer? Or made the Linux kernel twice as good? No. But it's still a lot to waste.

I'm trying not to be glib. I know it's not original to say that Windows sucks. My point is that when something _really big_ sucks _preventably_ , we're talking about significant amounts of resources burning away, and that has a moral dimension. More power to Gates as he eradicates malaria, but as far as I'm concerned he started with a big debt to society.

<comment><USER17> > _Microsoft under Gates did things that were only slightly to its medium-term > benefit and very much to the detriment of the market._

If Microsoft would have delivered sexy / functional products, nobody would have noticed ... not only that, but they would have a legion of people defending them.

Unfortunately they preferred to make partnerships with companies like Intel, Compaq or HP, favoring IBM-compatible PCs, or hardware that was more open / accessible, putting a lot of control in the hands of hardware companies.

Maybe it was IBM breathing down their necks, maybe it made sense for their business, but if this didn't happen Windows NT would've been released as a consumer version instead of Win 9x ... which is the main culprit of almost all problems associated with Windows.

And I don't know what "big debt to society" you're talking about ... in '95 in my (arguably third world country) I live in schools in small towns had computer-labs with Microsoft software on it. If IBM-compatible PCs weren't so popular (with MS software contributing a lot to that) or free to clone, we wouldn't have had local companies producing cheap computers, and thus we wouldn't have had computers in school (and I wouldn't be a software developer for that matter).

IMHO, I see a lot of double-standards flying around.

<comment><USER21> This is why my first premise is important. I'm asking you to accept that Windows could have been better without serious harm to its success. I'm blaming Gates more for things like security and usability than for an approach to hardware platforms. If you disagree, I'd be interested to know why.

Basically, I recognize the huge benefit to society that Microsoft was _involved_ with. What I'm asking is whether they used the huge opportunities they got (by hook or by crook) as well as should be expected.

("Third world", incidentally, originally meant countries that were unaligned in the Cold War, and has no clear meaning when it comes to poverty or human development.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The article doesn't even mention that the director is David Fincher. That alone makes it a must-see.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> On IMDB: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/>

Starring Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg and Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker!

</comment><comment><USER23> So, an obscure movie is going to convince people to leave all their friends behind? Yeah, I bet...

If anything, Facebook should do something like this themselves, to maximize advertising revenue. If you place a product in the movie _and_ advertise on Facebook, you're getting every demographic :)

</comment><comment><USER24> Stinky implications: _it portrays Zuckerberg as a borderline autistic, entirely ruthless conniver_

Those dangerous autistics....bring your children inside!

<comment><USER25> Also, how many autistic sociopaths have you ever met? Those two traits just don't go together.

I'm autistic and can recognize autistics very quickly. I've met Zuck face-to- face and didn't get any of that vibe from him at all.

<comment><USER26> | how many autistic sociopaths have you ever met? Those two traits just don't go together.

Well more like, probably, that autism /neuters/ the sociopathy. You wouldn't have the skill to exploit people. Even more likely, they're both just rarities; someone with both would be rare^2.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The comment[s] section on that article is gold. These damn "chatlines" just make me want to run my sentences together in rage.</comment>


We dont need no education - <AUTHOR> http://sbb.com.np/education.php

<comment><USER2> No, not everybody is a genius, despite Einstein being said to have said so.

We do not need to be geniuses, we only need to be human beings, persons, people... Ordinary people.

If everybody is a genius, then nobody is.

What we need is less caring about 'outstanding' and more caring about virtue as the path to happiness.</comment>


Why it's important to find your "niche" in life - <AUTHOR> http://theydontteachyouthisinschool.com/it%E2%80%99s-important-to-find-your-niche/

<comment><USER2> Found this to be a 'fluff' article to be honest.

<comment><USER3> It seems to me that the entire site is made up of fluff articles and the the bulk of submitter's history is made up of links to this (and also its 16yo founder's) site. File this under self-promotion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You either take control of constructing your identity/image (yes, that can mean intentionally projecting this or that stereotype) or you let others do it for you. You generally want the first option. Same applies to business.</comment>


Swiss graphic design: a history in photos (or, where trendy web designers get ideas to steal from) - <AUTHOR> http://www.flickr.com/photos/20745656@N00/sets/72157594296535170/

<comment><USER2> I have no artistic talent whatsoever, but now that I've learned to use grids I can churn pretty reasonable designs. Here's a good intro: <http://www.subtraction.com/pics/0703/grids_are_good.pdf></comment>


Electric life forms that live on energy - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25894-meet-the-electric-life-forms-that-live-on-pure-energy.html

<comment><USER2> > _As you may recall from high school biology, almost every living organism > consumes sugar to survive. When it gets right down to it, everything you eat > is ultimately converted or digested into single molecules of glucose._

This is an oversimplification. Some bacteria have very weird metabolism. (Or, from the other point of view, some bacteria think that we have a very weird metabolism :) ). They oxidize and reduce different kind of compounds to obtain energy. More info: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_metabolism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_metabolism)

The [extremetech] article has very few details and I think that it's misleading. I can't find the original research article.

There are some interesting details in the video. (Is this a video of this experiment?) Apparently these bacteria use O2 (oxigen) and H2S (hydrogen sulfide). The metabolism is probably like: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_metabolism#Sulfur_oxi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_metabolism#Sulfur_oxidation)

<comment><USER3> Definitely.

It should also be noted that any organism that uses oxidative phosphorylation for metabolism (humans included) technically use "pure energy in the form of electron flow" by having carrier molecules like NADH and FADH2 release electrons into the mitochondrial membrane. The electrons then flow through a few proteins, which use the electrons' energy to create a proton gradient in the mitochondrion, which is then used to create ATP (the "currency" of chemical energy in many cells).

<comment><USER4> I agree that the tone is a bit sensationalist. It is New Scientist, after all. But note that the article itself makes your point:

> That should not come as a complete surprise, says Kenneth Nealson at the > University of Southern California, Los Angeles. We know that life, when you > boil it right down, is a flow of electrons: "You eat sugars that have excess > electrons, and you breathe in oxygen that willingly takes them." Our cells > break down the sugars, and the electrons flow through them in a complex set > of chemical reactions until they are passed on to electron-hungry oxygen.

> In the process, cells make ATP, a molecule that acts as an energy storage > unit for almost all living things. Moving electrons around is a key part of > making ATP. "Life's very clever," says Nealson. "It figures out how to suck > electrons out of everything we eat and keep them under control." In most > living things, the body packages the electrons up into molecules that can > safely carry them through the cells until they are dumped on to oxygen.

> "That's the way we make all our energy and it's the same for every organism > on this planet," says Nealson. "Electrons must flow in order for energy to > be gained. This is why when someone suffocates another person they are dead > within minutes. You have stopped the supply of oxygen, so the electrons can > no longer flow."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> it's an interesting article, and I'd love to understand some of the science behind it. However, this article didn't tell me much of it.

> _" This is why when someone suffocates another person they are dead within > minutes. You have stopped the supply of oxygen, so the electrons can no > longer flow." \- Kenneth Nealson at the University of Southern California_

Chemical oxidation is _not_ , by any sensible analogy, current flow. It is the exchange of electrons, sure, but the tiny amount of charge flowing anywhere, and the huge masking that occurs in aqueous systems, would reliably prevent any normal consequences of current flow (like a B field) from occurring.

Even what happens in neurons isn't really current flow in any real sense, it is the sympathetic diffusion of ions _sideways_ (in and out of the cell all the way along its length, if the medic who explained this to me was talking any sense) which results in charge at one end of the cell "talking to" charge at the other. Obviously if it were actual "flow", i.e. diffusion, of ions your reaction times would be a _lot_ slower.

<comment><USER6> > Obviously if it were actual "flow", i.e. diffusion, of ions your reaction > times would be a lot slower.

The current in cables work similar way - each electron moves forawrd and back by small distance, never moving far away from the place it started in.

But the information about movement (the elecrtomagnetic field) spreads from one electron to another with the speed of light, so the electrons at the end of cable move as soon as the information gets to them from the begining of the cable.

That's why when you press light switch the light starts almost immediately, despite electrons in cables only moving by millimeters per hour.

<comment><USER5> I had forgotten about the analogy with electron speed in wires - thank you! I remember my music teacher giving me a very funny look when I pointed it out, and then claiming that electrons must move through wires at the speed of light...when of course it is the electric field "wavefront" that does so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Did anyone catch what these bacteria use as a source of carbon? Do they reduce CO2 with electrons directly? I imagine that would be an amazing feat.

<comment><USER8> shewys are typically in fairly carbon-rich environments, so the answer is "probably a lot of things", from acetate to glucose, to more complex stuff like waste nucleotides.

AFAICT, shewys don't typically have CO2 fixation capability. It certainly would be possible to engineer the pathway in and I think people are trying.

Note that assembling most simple carbon compounds, e.g. acetate, glycerol, etc. into higher order carbon compounds is not energy-positive (except for some sugars and fats with the concommitant release of CO2).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> That's just mindboggling. Perhaps before too long we'll grow computers rather than manufacturing them. The implications are staggering.

I'm surprised not to have heard more about this before now, but a search for 'shewanella geobacter' yields a rich trove of primary sources.

<comment><USER10> > Perhaps before too long we'll grow computers rather than manufacturing them.

Check this out: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGG__boRxU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGG__boRxU)

Perhaps my favorite TED talk, it was quite mind-blowing to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This seems like something that could one day pose a big problem for civilization. We have all these electrical outlets just sitting around, waiting for someone to request huge amounts of energy on demand. If a lifeform ever evolves to use these effectively, they could spread like wildfire.

<comment><USER12> There tiny. If you actually look at an electrical outlet they have a fairly large gap to prevent shorting out and potentialy starting a fire.

PS: Science fiction seems to love the trope where tiny change destroys civilization but life needs far more than just an energy source.

<comment><USER11> Plant leaves are also quite large. If we could hypothetically leave the earth unsupervised for millions of years with the electrical outlets still working, we'd probably return to find lots of macroscopic electric life.

<comment><USER12> Considering the general lack of a near by water source probably not. Now high tension powerlines could be an option as there out doors and pump out a lot of energy which can be collected on both the small and large scales.

Don't forget it's been a billion years and plant's still don't use green light. For plankton it was reasonable as green does not penetrate as far but on land it's a huge waste.

<comment><USER13> Interesting point, but certainly there must be a reason why they can't use green light other than just "evolution is slow".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> On how they are harvested (my favorite line from the article):

"Basically, the idea is to take sediment, stick electrodes inside and then ask 'OK, who likes this?'

<comment><USER8> I used to work in the lab adjacent to ken nealson... Another lab in the department was using this principle for waste water treatment. Stick electrodes in the water, draw current off of an enforced potential, and see what survives under this selective pressure. Turns out its a stable population that is fairly resistant to biotic and abiotic inputs... Just let the biology figure it out. The output water is really clean, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Neat. Reminds me of Slime Mold.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czk4xgdhdY4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czk4xgdhdY4)

</comment><comment><USER16> > A slightly higher voltage offers an excess of electrons; a slightly lower > voltage means the electrode will readily accept electrons from anything > willing to pass them off.

...is it just my before-coffee hangovered mind, or _they got this completely backwards?!_ ...would be really sad since NS is one of the few layman friendly decent-quality source of science news :(

</comment><comment><USER17> Two thoughts:

1\. Harvesting bioelectic generation ability would be neat

2\. Possible vector for metabolic disorders?

</comment><comment><USER18> Alright, but what kind of life form would create the circuits and the voltage sources to sustain an electric/electronic life-form ecosystem? The equivalent of plants, algae or cyanobacteria.

</comment><comment><USER19> This headline makes zero sense. Doesn't everything live on energy?

</comment><comment><USER20> Maybe this is the kind of space-life metabolism we should be looking for?

Cue: Larry Niven's _Outsiders_ , who live on the difference in electric potential between light and shadown.

</comment><comment><USER21> Anyone have any theories on how this could have evolved? I have to wonder what sorts of minuscule electric currents they're feasting on down their underground.

<comment><USER8> There's electrochemical gradients just about anywhere... If you have for example stratified rock, there's energy in the differing potentials between the layers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Reminds me of the Space Odyssey series: [http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Art/2001.html](http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Art/2001.html)

"In these, they roamed among the stars. They no longer built spaceships, they were spaceships.

But the age of Machine-entities swiftly passed. In their ceaseless experimenting, they had learned to store knowledge in the structure of space itself, and to preserve their thoughts for eternity in frozen lattices of light. They could become creatures of radiation, free at last from the tyranny of matter.

Into pure energy, therefore, they presently tranformed themselves; and on a thousand worlds, the empty shells they had discarded twitched for a while in a mindless dance of death, then crumbled into rust.

Now they were lords of the galaxy, and beyond the reach of time. They could rove at will among the stars, and sink like a subtle mist through the very interstices of space. But despite their godlike powers, they had not wholly forgotten their origin, in the warm slime of a vanished sea."

<comment><USER23> Reminds me of the progression in Asimov's "The Last Question".

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'd like to point out that every green plant you see outside your window is getting its energy from _pure_ _electro-magnetic_ _radiation_! Which I honestly think is a cooler accomplishment. And I would argue that light is just as pure a form of energy as an electric gradient if not more so.

Yes, the fact that a there are bacteria out there doing this is really cool. However, the ridiculous hype science and tech reporter feel the need to put in their articles is just annoying.

<comment><USER25> To me, this seems interesting because of its potential impact on us rather than an impressive feat of evolution.

We'll call this science fiction, but - imagine doing your wiring on the fly with self-organizing bacteria, or having to worry about bacteria evolved to leach off your circuit board.

Since we think of metal and electricity as very lifeless, the author is right to point out that this seems alien, even if it's an obvious and less-evolved form of life.

<comment><USER26> What if this "less-evolved" system is actually a step forward in our evolution as species? Because we use a lot of electricity for the machines required to create, maintain (and promote) our food, what if we could just skip that and directly plug the energy into ourselves?

<comment><USER27> It can be measured; here's a page listing the energy efficiency of various foods: [http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6252](http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6252). It appears it would depend on what we were giving up; if we replace meat with direct energy, we could save around 95%, for instance, but if we replaced grain with electricity we'd save much less, as grain is already fairly efficient.

<comment><USER12> That link ignores sunlight.

Average Corn yield is ~160 bushels per acer. 60lb per bushel. An acre is 4,046 square meters. A square meter gets 1kw in full sunlight. Call it 8 hours a day of sunlight. Corn takes 63 to 92 days so you can get 2 yeilds per year in some area. Call it 72 for sweet temptation. 72 * 8 * 4,048 / 160 / 60 = ~242 kwh worth of sunlight per pound of corn.

Note: Solar cells are ~22% efficient but they also work all year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> While this is quite fascinating, I resent the repeated statement that electricity is the purest form of energy. It just seems that way because it's convenient for a technological civilization like ours to sling around. IMO the purest form of energy is kinetic.

<comment><USER29> Of course, there's no such thing as "pure energy" because everything is energy.

It is far better to think about the _simplest_ forms of energy. And the simplest would be the different force carrying particles:

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

These particles mediate the fundamental particle interactions and therefore are the simplest forms of energy possible.

As for whether kinetic energy is the simplest... it's really more of a multiplier on top of existing force carriers rather than an energy on its own. For example: higher energy photons have higher momentum but it's the photon that's the carrier, it just exists at different levels.

<comment><USER30> I think "pure" just means that there are raw electrons in contrast to complex molecules with a charge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Url changed from [http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186537-biologists- discove...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186537-biologists-discover- electric-bacteria-that-eat-pure-electrons-rather-than-sugar-redefining-the- tenacity-of-life), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER32> "This is why when someone suffocates another person they are dead within minutes. You have stopped the supply of oxygen, so the electrons can no longer flow"

Oh i see, that is what happens. That makes sense now. Didn't know New Scientist has CSI edition too.

<comment><USER33> I also had to do a double take when reading this part. A rather interesting Freudian slip that grammar implied.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ij...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ijAYN9zVnwg#t=31)

I can't be the only one who thought of this when reading the article's title :)

</comment><comment><USER35> the force...Jedi is coming</comment>


Ask HN: How to build business acumen? - <AUTHOR> Assuming business acumen is a learned skill, can you share any experiences or recommendations in learning it? <comment><USER2> The same way you build technical acumen. Books help but just as you can't learn programming without practicing, you can't learn business solely with your reading list. Do business to understand the intricacies of creating one. Of course, I don't imply to jump-start creating a multi-million dollar startup but to start with modest things.

Sell services, or plugins, or books. Try to understand what your (potential) customers want. Trim down what you need to make and pitch how it can add value to your audience. Find a small niche and expand from there. Once you have a small trajectory of sustainable business, try to figure out how you can grow it. Reach out to people to seek their advice and be resilient against rejection.

I don't think there is a stepwise formula for raising a business. Everyone forms her own way to create it; there are thousands of nontrivial steps hidden in each 'actionable' advice and it's not something that articles can teach you right away, you need to learn it on your own.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well most likely the oldest way would work best: go into business, make mistakes, build business acumen.

If you're just starting out, I recommend reading business books that are good at explaining things like value proposition, market creation, etc, but also have a compelling narrative.

One book I really like is "The Everything Store" that is a brief history of Amazon.com and the challenges they faced as one of the few high-profile survivors of the dotcom boom.

Another I've enjoyed reading is "Losing the Signal", which covers BlackBerry's rise and fall, starting from its origins in the 1980s to its struggle to adapt to the consumer smartphone age. It's a great read because BB originally began as a telecom engineering company that developed a once-insurmountable advantage in enterprise communications.

</comment><comment><USER4> Business acumen is a combination of a mindset/attitude + skills relevant to running a successful business. It is best learned by apprenticeship. Failing that, get the best books out there and start reading. Negotiation, organizational behavior, thrift, psychology, forecasting, hiring, execution, sales, etc Read read read. And read some more for the message hidden between the lines. Adjust your behavior to reflect your newfound knowledge. This is my current reading list:

      The E-myth by Michael Gerber
      Felix Dennis: How to get Rich
      Execution; The Discipline of Getting Things Done: RamCharan
      Shoe Dog : Phil Knight</comment>


Cocaine tourism is now a thing in Medellin - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/roads/2017/06/cocaine_tourism_is_now_a_thing_in_medellin.html <comment><USER2> This is not "now" a thing. It's been a thing there for years.

<comment><USER3> Bolivia has had a small cocaine tourism industry for years, sometimes peddling just the leaves and sometimes more refined forms. Certainly not hard to find</comment></comment>


WE USED TO SLEEP TWICE EACH NIGHT – 6/30/15 - <AUTHOR> http://delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=2828

<comment><USER2> While it's dated "6/30/15", it's an "encore selection -- from Dreamland: Adventures in the Strange Science of Sleep", published in 2012.

The topic has hit the pages of HN before. From a bit over two years ago are the 107 comments at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5542453](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5542453) . One of the commenters there pointed to the 2009 paper "In short photoperiods, human sleep is biphasic", at [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2869.1992....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2869.1992.tb00019.x/abstract) . More background on Wehr's argument for biphasic sleep is at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_sleep](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_sleep) and [http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16964783](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16964783) .</comment>