Ask HN: How often do you ask for help? - <AUTHOR> And how do you ask for help when it seems like the same people are being asked by 4-5 others?
Now I feel like a jerk asking about something that I know is likely a silly error but I just can't see it.
Does frequency of asking for help differ with the kind of help you need? i.e. do you ask design/high-level questions more or less frequently than stupid mistake/compiler/missing semicolon type questions? <comment><USER2> As long as you're not asking the same questions repeatedly, then you're doing great! It's important that you're learning, growing, and asking new questions. Collaborating and asking for help is an important part of being a team.

Many people like being asked to help. I love giving my coworkers a second pair of eyes and helping them discover a solution to their problem. It's incredibly rewarding and I'll almost always learn something.

</comment><comment><USER3> vidro3 says: _" Now I feel like a jerk asking about something that I know is likely a silly error but I just can't see it."_

Whenever I need it! I recommend that you phrase it just as you have here, i.e., "I feel foolish asking about this, its probably a silly error, but I just can't see it!"

This kind of thing happens to everyone, especially in an environment with interruptions where you cannot concentrate for long periods of time. Just to make it even more interesting sometimes, when you're explaining the problem, you'll suddenly realize the solution too, without anyone else saying a word! Its as if there's a different problem-solving mechanism that is invoked by talking through the problem.

</comment><comment><USER4> How often: entirely depends. Hard to put a number on this.

How I do it/when I do it: easier to answer. I primarily ask for help when I've tried a handful of things first. Also, when I do ask for help, I bring my findings/efforts with me!

</comment><comment><USER5> There is a skill to asking for help and it is much deeper than the single question "how often". One key to the skill is a mindset where you recognise that you are delegating a task and therefore should try to set your answerer up for success.

* What type of attention do you need? An answer to a specific question? A pair-debugger? A 20-minute walkthough of an area of the codebase? Feedback on a design? A sounding board to talk though a tough problem? A pointer to the best person to ask? It is important to give this to someone so that they can manage their attention.

* Why are you trying to do what you're working on? This is important so that they can frame the task in their head and can be creative in helping you.

* What have you tried before? what is your understanding of the problem? This is important both to establish trust that you respect their time but more importantly to give them space to spot your misunderstanding.

Julia Evans has written two really good blog posts on this topic and you should read both: [https://jvns.ca/blog/good- questions/](https://jvns.ca/blog/good-questions/) and [https://jvns.ca/blog/answer-questions-well/](https://jvns.ca/blog/answer- questions-well/)

</comment><comment><USER6> 1) Imagine that you're going to talk to your company's CEO and that therefore every second counts.

2) Prepare your question by summarizing your problem to its core and to then present with a few words all what you've tried so far to fix it and why all those attempts failed respectively what their relationships are.

3) Don't initially approach your potential SME (Subject Matter Expert) by asking generic questions like e.g. "do you have a minute?" or "sorry, I need your help" etc (s/he won't be able to prioritize your request as s/he got no infos about your issue's criticality) but by throwing at him/her directly your core summary, together with your criticality assessment of your problem in as few words as possible.

</comment><comment><USER7> As long as you put in reasonable effort and ask at a good time (don't interrupt). For timing, messages are often very good, which is also why in my office, we often message to the person sitting right across us at the table.

If 4-5 people are asking the same person, at some point it probably is their role to sit around being asked.

If you're being paid, you're also costing the company money for every hour you spend on the problem. If someone else can answer it in 5 minutes and it takes you 2 hours to find it, it's a lot more polite to just ask.

</comment><comment><USER8> I always recommend that the time scale up as your career matures. New to the work? Try it on your own until you go 15 minutes with zero forward progress. Then ask for help. Mid-level, maybe a couple hours. Senior-level, maybe a couple days, but you'll also hit the point where you are the expert, and there is no help. You'll just have to figure it out. (Which is also where I tend to draw the line of who is/is not senior.)

</comment><comment><USER9> I ask for help as often as I need to when I need to get something done. Of course I try to explore other avenues first wen possible.

But you will probably find that if someone is answering other peoples a lot of the time then they probably enjoy it. A lot of people really appreciate being able to give help and support others. Asking for help can be akin to giving a gift for them.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you feel guilty, try Rubber Duck Debugging first: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging)

You'll be surprised how often you'll find the solution by yourself before annoying anyone else about it ;)

<comment><USER11> To add onto that, do your rubber duck debugging in the form of an email asking for help and explaining what you've tried so far. Maybe you'll find the solution while writing the message, and if not, just click send!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have kind of a timer in my head. If I've worked on it for 15-30 minutes and can't get it, then the timer says "I'm probably wasting time here, time to try something else". That something else is either a new approach to solving it or, if I don't see one, then asking for help.

</comment><comment><USER13> Pretty much never. I hate asking for help, and will usually find the answer by myself.

<comment><USER14> How do you feel this affects your efficiency?

<comment><USER13> I am not sure, nor I'm sure I care very much about efficiency (in resolving problems) in the first place.

But I learn, take notes, and rarely make the same mistake/ask the same question twice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> i ask for help frequently, but in a community of people (at sdf pubnix) who are very, very, very likely to have lists of answers to commonly-asked things ready via gopher or www.

of course this is only after having rtfm.

i imagine it's different for everyone. an interesting question certainly!</comment>


Looking for co-founder. - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Please post more details as to who you are looking for with what kind of qualifications.

<comment><USER3> Might be: Feel free to drop me a line suchy~dot~ivan~at~gmail~dot~com or visit my newest site at <http://www.jobitems.com> or homepage at <http://www.ivansuchy.com>

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This request is closed. Thanks.</comment>


A developer's guide to interviewing - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@djsmith42/how-to-interview-as-a-developer-candidate-b666734f12dd <comment><AUTHOR> I'm not the author, I saw it on reddit and liked it.

I'm not sure that our company would have scored 100%, in fact I'm sure it would not have. But there was a lot where I nodded and went "yup, we do that" and on the other parts it was more like "hmm, need to fix that".

I thought it was a good read. Good for people looking for a job, but also good for people providing jobs to see how they would stack up.</comment>


Show HN: MStream – A personal music streaming server - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/IrosTheBeggar/mStream <comment><USER2> I made a similar server a while ago, but it is more minimal and command-line- oriented [1]. The only client so far is a fairly minimal browser client, but it is functional. It supports any container/codec that libav supports, and allows either MP3 or Ogg Opus as streaming formats. Songs are dynamically transcoded to the streaming format when they are requested. This means you can have a library of heterogeneous, potentially streaming-unfriendly formats, and not have to worry about the streaming codec du jour or transcode your entire library when you want to use a new codec.

I want to do more work on the server, but I've been busy working on an audio format library in Rust to support the transcoding. Right now, the best option is to either exec() the ffmpeg command line tool, which is easy but has overhead and makes distribution more difficult, or use the libav* C libraries, which are quite complex and in my experience poorly documented. I've decided the best option is to make a cleaner, more minimal audio library that wraps reference encoder/decoder libraries.

How does mStream handle transcoding, if at all?

[1] [https://github.com/wwalexander/river](https://github.com/wwalexander/river)

<comment><AUTHOR> mStream doesn't do any transcoding. Instead I've focused on support for all common file formats. The webapp includes a fallback to Aurora JS if the the browser doesn't support the filetype. Typically this is only needed for FLAC but recently Firefox and Chrome have added FLAC streaming

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the info. The main reason I transcode the streams before transmitting is for size, not compatibility. There are a lot of situations where you really, really don't want to stream a 20 MB FLAC file. Lossy codecs like Opus at 128-192 kbps or MP3 V3/V4 can achieve transparency at a much smaller size, which is vital if you have a slower or metered connection.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good use case. People typically ask me about trans coding as a why to stream unsupported file codecs. When I have the time I'll take another look into transcoding

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What advantages does this have over Plex, mpd and Ampache?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's easier to setup and manage than other music streaming servers. The latest version of mStream Express doesn't have an dependencies. You can get your server running in 30 seconds since nothing else has to be installed or configured. It also works for Windows, which most servers don't support.

Here's a video of v0.1 of mStream Express being setup in under a minute: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuxYTaixpU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuxYTaixpU)

<comment><USER4> Can't you do something similar with plex? I don't remember doing much other than using their installer. Good work though, although I don't listen to much non-streaming (spotify) music lately.

<comment><USER5> Plex kind of works, but if their central server thinks it's offline for some reason (which happens a LOT), you can't use it, even if you connect directly to it over LAN.

<comment><USER6> Eh? I connect directly to the computers, either from LAN or WAN+port forwarding, and only have an issue if my home connection is having issues.

<comment><USER5> Hmm weird. I'd be connecting directly to it, as in 192.168.1.10:32400/web and all it would do is redirect to plex.com and then complain that the server is offline. Refreshing a few times would sometimes fix it, but usually not.

<comment><USER7> Even prior to setting up port forwarding I have never had this issue with Plex :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm using Koel: [https://github.com/phanan/koel](https://github.com/phanan/koel)

Great alternative to ampache etc, very slick interface.

The hardest part is keeping music and especially playlists synced between devices, something that can be solved with syncthing or similar software. Playlists are very hard though with offline desktop clients (Musicbee)

<comment><USER9> Hey, they both use the same image for their devices!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> How well does it handle larger libraries? My collection is around 1.4TB and I've found web apps that use a lot of js tend to lag up in the browser etc....?

<comment><USER11> You have 1.4TB library? That is quite a huge library. How many songs? Are they MP3s or uncompressed? Do you listen to all of it?

<comment><USER12> Doesn't seem so huge to me. I have about the same size, mixed FLAC & mp3 (I prefer FLAC, but it isn't always available), pretty much all of it I've listened and it even lacks some considerable number of artists/albums I like. This does not include podcasts & audiobooks, I have more of them and I did not listen to all of them yet (I tend to delete audiobooks/podcasts I've listened more often than music, as probability of repeated listening is usually lower).

<comment><USER13> > Doesn't seem so huge to me.

At 176K per second of uncompressed (CD-quality, anyhow) music, 1.4TB comes to just over 100 days. Several times that figure, with compression. That's a lot of music. More unique audio data than total amount that I've listened to on repeat for...probably about the last 5 years added together.

<comment><USER7> It really depends on how much variety you have. I had more than that in 2005, discographies and high bitrate files but it amounted to roughly 1.5 TB. If that HDD hadn't died around the time Spotify and similar streaming services came out I'd like have a larger library today

<comment><USER13> Well, right, the amount of data depends on variety. In my opinion, having enough audio to listen to something different all day, every day, for an amount of time measured in years, is a large collection.

That's not saying that there aren't larger ones, that the collector would consider themselves unusual, that any value judgement should be implied, etc. Just that more than a couple months worth of unique audio data seems like "a lot" to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So, why isn't it compared to the venerable mpd?

</comment><comment><USER15> I still prefer dlna! but yeah, clients around are the equivalent of xmpp in terms of user experience, even if setting up a server is a 2min operation.

</comment><comment><USER16> Also [https://github.com/tchaik/tchaik](https://github.com/tchaik/tchaik).

</comment><comment><USER17> I have been using Audio Streamer ([https://audiostreamer.org/](https://audiostreamer.org/)) for this purpose for a few years. It also works on Windows/Linux (and probably Mac, although it's not listed).

This looks a bit snazzier, though. I may have to give it a try.

</comment><comment><USER18> What are the advantages over e.g. Subsonic? ( [http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp](http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp) – there are some popular forks like [http://beta.madsonic.org/pages/index.jsp](http://beta.madsonic.org/pages/index.jsp) and [https://github.com/Mach5/supersonic](https://github.com/Mach5/supersonic) )

</comment><comment><USER19> Does anyone know of any software to help keep libraries in sync across devices?

I have an OSX install that syncs to my iPhone, and I have a Linux laptop and want the collection on all 3 devices.

<comment><USER20> Anything wrong with good ol' rsync?

<comment><USER19> That is my current solution, but that only allows for one-way sync from the OSX device to either iPhone or Linux, it could be cool if I could add songs from my Linux device, or the devices could share playlists.

<comment><USER21> There's Unison: [https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/](https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/)

it's like bidirectional rsync.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Just a thought - What if we create a radio hub (something like Shoutcast) pointing to streaming servers like mstream hosted by indie artists and others. Those who want their collection to be heard by the public can register at the hub. User management, analytics etc can be handled at the hub.

</comment><comment><USER23> Open source Plex alternative? Pretty cool.

</comment><comment><USER24> Curious: how does this handle NAT (for example, being installed behind multiple routers)? I have my home server connected to a Linksys router that connects to the cable modem: if I installed it on that server how would I connect to it from my phone when I'm not at home?

<comment><AUTHOR> You'll have to setup port forwarding. This can be done by logging into your router.

If you don't have access to your router, you can try mStream's auto port forwarding feature. It will use uPNP to try to automatically configure port forwarding

<comment><USER24> Ah, I see. Would I also need a dynamic DNS entry (or a static IP address from my ISP)?

<comment><USER25> Just throwing this in, as I thought it was pretty cool.. If you use google domains, you can update via dyndns request. I haven't tried it yet, but there doesn't seem to be a charge, and would probably be easy enough to setup a cron job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm assuming it could run on a raspberry pi?

Also, any plans to write plugins for Spotify or Google Play back end?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm looking into writing plugins for youtube, spotify, and maybe soundcloud. I've found a bunch of open source projects that do it already so I may fork one of those or see if the author is interested in collaborating.

And yes, it can run on a Raspberry Pi.

<comment><USER27> I think you could hook youtube-dl in to get youtube support (and more).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Lately I have used [https://github.com/thedmd/pianobar-windows- binaries](https://github.com/thedmd/pianobar-windows-binaries) for Pandora.

</comment><comment><USER29> Does the music play out of the clients or the server?

Is this used to control/queue music on a media server or will it play out of my phone?

<comment><AUTHOR> The music plays from the clients.

The server hosts your files and has JSON based API to search through music. The server comes with SQLite built in and a webapp to stream on any device with a browser

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> When I visit the page from my iPhone it does not play the song.

</comment><comment><USER31> what no edna love? [https://github.com/res0nat0r/edna](https://github.com/res0nat0r/edna)

</comment><comment><USER32> You an ex What.CD member?

</comment><comment><USER33> Runnable on a Drobo?

</comment><comment><USER34> is Flac available?</comment>


BumpTop gives Windows desktop a much-needed makeover - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/07/bumptop-gives-windows-desktop-a-much-needed-makeover/ <comment><USER2> I don't know. Research that tends to make computers more tactile and replicate common real-world actions seem to completely ignore how typical users work on computers. Not one of my fifty corporate users does anything fancy with their files or folders. Most don't even switch from grid view to detail view unless I do it for them. They delete by right-click 'delete' and will not be comfortable lassoing and crumpling. Making neat piles is useless because they have memorized the haphazardly arranged desktop icons and will freak out if anyone arranges them (Ooops!).

Also, where are the file names? Who really opens files solely by their icons? Most of my users have 1000s of PDFs or Excel files nested in multiple levels of folders. How is the 'fan out widget' going to help them, especially if the long file names can't be displayed neatly? The files most users (corporate or even small business) deal with are something like:

      \\FileServer\PublicDrive\CONTROLLED DOCUMENTATION
          \Quality System Docs\OP - Operating Procedures
            \OP 12 R41 Cleaning of Tanks and Totes for Water-Based.pdf

The real-world unsolved problem is how does someone without much experience get to the right file with minimal effort. The answer could be a number of things like tagging, deep search, meta-info, file ranking based on usage etc. The problem research like this concentrates on is "how do I manage my 4 excel files, 12 mp3s, and 100 jpgs?" Yes, it's a wonderful app but it doesn't solve one problem for today or tomorrow's users.

I thoroughly believe that we need to continue research into better UI, even when the technology cannot be applied immediately. But I don't think making already simple things more tedious or complex for the sake of coolness is the way to go. Personally, I never see my desktop and barely have any icons on it so I'd never use this. My users would get confused because they lasso'ed the wrong file and now it's in a pile they can't find anymore.

<comment><USER3> If you don't see the filenames, then you're looking at an old demo version of BumpTop. You're right that it's pretty important to have ;-)

BumpTop is definitely not for everyone, but that's fine. Not all software has to be designed for your 50 corporate users, because they certainly have different needs than the rest of us. A designer, for example, might really appreciate the visual and spatial aspects of the system, because it's more meaningful than a bunch of PSDs named icon-concept1, icon-concept2, etc.

Also, although the 3D and physics is the most noticeable thing about BumpTop, it's actually got quite a few very useful features that are completely orthogonal to the 3D/physical aspect. For example: type to find on filenames, thumbnails of several different document formats, seamless photo browsing, and icons that grow or shrink based on your usage of a document.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm glad we've finally advanced to the point where computers can accurately simulate the efficiency and usefulness of a messy desk.

I really can't see why this is needed. I thought we had entered the era of search.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very cool stuff.

The world needs to think more about UI design. I like pdubroy's comments. All these paradigms are much more intuitive, it'd be nice to see how new users (or children) like it.

It'd be the greatest thing ever built if it also ran on *nix...

</comment><comment><USER6> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ODskdEPnQ>

</comment><comment><USER7> One word: awesome.</comment>


Asus announces x86 Ivy Bridge Windows 8 tablet/laptop hybrid - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/130364-the-answer-to-all-our-windows-8-dreams-the-ivy-bridge-asus-transformer-book <comment><USER2> Acer also announced 11.6 and 13.3in Aspire S7 Ultrabooks with 1920x1080 displays. Full HD at 11.6in -- 190 dpi -- seems almost excessive, but I'm not complaining. Other stats (11.6/13.3): 9h/12h battery life, about 1kg/1.3kg, and "800-1800 USD" (yeah I know).

Now please start selling regular sized displays with those kinds of dpi!

<comment><USER3> Acer or Asus?

<comment><USER2> Acer: <http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/03/acer-aspire-s7-ultrabook/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very impressive hardware design from Asus: full-HD display and dockable GPU too, remaining impressively thin and all from 11". Although I can see it seriously struggling with heat (noise?), battery life and price.

Will be very interesting to see if they have been able to manage these issues to make it a useable option in tablet-mode.

It's pretty much what I would design as the perfect device-- in theory.

<comment><USER5> This is exactly it. "In theory". Prior to iPad, then before MacBook air... This is exactly the device I wanted apple to make (And in many ways I still do).

Sadly, when you wrap your head around things like battery, heat, and the like. You realize it might not be the dream machine you're looking for. For Asus' and MS (and my) sake I'm hoping this thing kicks ass. If it does I know I'll be considering it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Gotta get this news out before any Apple Ivy Bridge-related announcements next week, I suppose.

<comment><USER7> Or maybe there's some kind of annual conference for hardware manufacturers in Taiwan where it would be natural to announce new products. Such a conference might even have existed for, oh, thirty years or so.

The world does not revolve around Apple.

<comment><USER6> You have a point, but this product is a direct competitor to both the iPad and Macbook Air, both tough nuts that other companies have been trying to crack. Given expectations that major Macbook Air upgrades are coming as early as next week, based on Ivy Bridge, getting a word out before the Apple hype starts seems like it could do nothing but help competitors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really don't get the "wimpy Atom" thing. I run Ubuntu 12.04 with Unity (with visual effects) on a first-gen Acer Aspire One with a first-gen Atom processor and, while I won't be playing games on it anytime soon, it runs very well. So well, in fact, it is taking me months to effectively move my main computing to my newer i3-based laptop.

It still starts Emacs in under 5 seconds (and, considering my init.el, that's quite an accomplishment).

I'm not sure I'd be that much more productive if I could start Emacs in under a second.

<comment><USER9> Relative to Ivy Bridge, the Atom core is dog slow. On L1 cache bound benchmarks, it's routinely about 2x slower per clock (it runs about the same per clock as an ARM A9, FWIW). And the size of the L3 cache on SNB/IVB means that many tasks actually get much faster, relatively, as they start to spill out of L1/L2. If all you do is editing, you really aren't likely to care. But things that tax the CPU, like big web apps, tend not to work well on Atom boxes. Atom looks closer to an iPad or a smartphone in that regime than it does to a desktop CPU.

<comment><USER8> It plays video well enough. I never hooked it to the big tv to check whether it does 1080p at 60fps, but, apart from that, it works well enough. In any case, the Atom should not be the processor doing the video decoding and rescaling - that's what GPUs are for. Flash is very slow and Gmail is not very snappy, but that's the extent of my problems with it. I'll probably replace its battery, give it a small SSD and use it when I really need something small.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wish there were more 13" screens with a 1600x1200 or 1440x900 resolution. Whether it's too much density (1920x1080 11-13") or not enough (1366x768 13-16").

<comment><USER8> You can always use more pixels to show the same amount of information.

I don't think many people will ever run xterm with the default font on a 1080 13" screen.

<comment><USER10> It's indeed easier to downgrade from high-res to low-res. Although non-native resolutions tend to have a blurry render.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Battery life on this is going to be terrible and so is price. The article was probably right that it will land in the 2-4 hour range. For ultrabook type specs you'll be paying ultrabook prices. This won't likely be a $500 machine, more like $800-1000. So, $500 iPad3 or $800 for Windows transformer tablet?

Sure it will sell, but not in any kind of volume like the iPad.

I'm sure Apple could have build this, or still could, but they likely didn't because they coudln't hit mainstream pricing. Nobody has the volume or the operational excellence to compete with Apple on price, quality, or volume without sacrificing profit margins.

<comment><USER12> _So, $500 iPad3 or $800 for Windows transformer tablet?_

Full keyboard, proper general purpose OS, running a fairly powerful CPU and GPU and offering all your standard set of I/O ports. This is not an iPad competitor, but a Macbook Air competitor, that can also be used as a tablet in a pinch.

<comment><USER8> > proper general purpose OS

That's debatable ;-) but I concede your point that Windows is more "general purpose" than iOS.

> Macbook Air competitor

Won't run OSX. It's not a competitor unless you plan running Windows 8 on your Macbook which is not very smart.

And iPads can use Apple's wireless keyboards, so, for US$ 50 more you get a really good keyboard you can use with your desktop computer too.

<comment><USER12> _Won't run OSX_

No, but it will run most of the apps that I run on OS X, or apps of equivalent functionality, so who cares. I bought my MBA because it offered the best hardware for my needs at the given price point, not because I'm a slave to OS X.

 _iPads can use Apple's wireless keyboards_

Sure I can get a keyboard for the iPad, but I still can't (easily) run most of the apps I need to get work done.

And as an aside, I'd be fascinated to hear your argument as to how Windows is less general purpose than OS X

<comment><USER8> > will run most of the apps that I run on OS X

Good for you.

> I'd be fascinated to hear your argument as to how Windows is less general > purpose than OS X

For me, at least, it's a pain to develop software on Windows. If I did Java development, it'd be relatively painless, but having to rely on Cygwin to have an environment that approximates the servers that will actually run my code is very suboptimal.

Don't think I'm a slave to OSX - I'm not, but I'd have a very hard time being productive in an environment that's completely alien to the software I write. Actually, for work, I prefer Linux, but a Mac is fine. And I can play with Xcode and iOS development on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Personally I'm far more intrigued by this: [http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/04/asus-taichi-notebook- tabl...](http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/04/asus-taichi-notebook-tablet/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Hopefully it is better than the dreadful tablet/laptop hybrids MS hawked a few years back. That standard is painfully low, though. They were awful.</comment>


IndexTank now free up to 100k documents - <AUTHOR> http://blog.indextank.com/609/indextank-now-free-up-to-100k-documents/

<comment><USER2> The sticky bar at the bottom saying that your devs are available to talk to is making me leave the page. It is extremely distracting since it doesn't scroll like the rest of the page, and compared to the rest of the page it stands out because it is completely black with white text.

Honestly I got about half way through before I just closed the tab. Put it anywhere else, it is nearly as bad as those popups that show up on GoDaddy, Dell or others sites asking if I need help and they float over the top of the page...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. This is a new design (just done) so we are testing it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Great news, but... why do I need to email you to get anything beyond very basic pricing info (which was not too easy to find either)?

</comment><comment><USER4> You guys need a easily findable 'plans and pricing' page.</comment>


How to Get a Job - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/opinion/friedman-how-to-get-a-job.html <comment><USER3> Did anyone else catch the irony in Friedman talking about employers that "increasingly don't care how those skills were acquired: home schooling, an online university, a massive open online course, or Yale," then writing an article entirely about two Yale graduates who went to work at McKinsey and Goldman Sachs post-graduation?

Last time I checked, McKinsey isn't recruiting at University of Phoenix. Going to Yale doesn't hurt in getting into YCombinator either. Nowadays, YC's name recongnition functions as a credential as well. Dig a little deeper than the title, and this op-ed only reinforces the reality that credentials and connections matter a lot more than raw skill.

<comment><USER4> Have people considered that "credentials and connections" are actually a valuable signaling mechanism? Connections (in the broadest sense of the word) indicate that a candidate is able to form strong personal relationships. People are not robots, and this ability goes a long way in the workforce. If you are hiring someone, you know you're going to spend the majority of your waking time with that person for the foreseeable future. So any kind of signal that this will prove a positive use of your time is a valuable one. This is not to say that other schools don't offer this mechanism. I'm simply observing that the idea of "connections" does not carry nearly as much negative weight as its connotations often imply.

Similarly, credentials indicate that a candidate has conaistently passed more screening processes over a long duration of time than a company could practically present to the candidate. Consider that nobody is born into Yale (contrary to popular belief, and any exceptions to this are in the minority). To get to Yale, you effectively must pass through a fifteen year funnel. No company can match that kind of screening rigor, so why not leverage it? From a company's point of view, it would be dumb not to. (Also, think about it this way -- if you are a high school senior with a choice of any school, and therefore one of the smartest in your class, will you choose Yale or a state school? I parenthesized this because it's a straw man argument, but do consider that financial barriers to the Ivy League are basically non-existent nowadays.) Yes, you can get qualified candidates from other schools. But your chances of getting a "lemon" candidate from Yale are, I presume, much lower than getting one from another school. You know that at the very least the candidate is capable of learning quickly on the job. In many industries, especially those where most domain knowledge comes from real world experience, like finance and consulting, the ability to learn quickly is a candidates most valuable asset. If every candidate will arrive at the company with a "blank slate"of knowledge and experience, why not recruit the ones who can fill up their slate the best? This is why finance companies recruit history majors, for instance. They know that success in a liberal arts education demonstrates an ability to learn quickly (not to mention strong writing skills).

I know many people on here are anti-liberal arts or anti-Ivy favoritism. Those arguments, especially the latter, have obvious validity. But I hope this post will cause you to consider the other side of the argument.

Disclaimer: I go to Yale. I realize we are extremely spoiled in the job market, but I also do not necessarily think it's undeserved. It's unfortunate that other people suffer, but I do not feel like we are disproportionately favored. I think a VERY high majority of Yale students are top 1% job candidates. Everybody gets in here for a reason.

<comment><USER5> You got into Yale because you were privileged. You had literate, educated parents. Your high school didn't have metal detectors on the doors and a razorwire fence. You didn't have to cut school if a younger sibling got sick, you didn't spend every spare minute looking after an elderly relative. Nobody on your block was a crack dealer.

Sure, you're smart, but America is full of people much smarter than you who didn't even finish high school. The "fifteen year funnel" is a filter primarily of socioeconomic status and only secondarily of ability. Most people fall out of that funnel through no fault of their own, because they didn't catch the breaks that you did.

That's the fundamental failing of a meritocracy - unless you take steps to ensure equality of opportunity, you just end up with an oligarchy.

<comment><USER6> Unless you personally know the other person, I'm not quite sure how you make these claims. On the face of it, you're slinging mud at walls and, of course, some may stick. In other words, your claims may be on point _some_ of the time. _Some_ Yale students (undergraduate or graduate) may have had literate, educated parents. Mine aren't. Many others here could say similar things. _Some_ Yale students may have come from Andover, Loomis Chaffee, and the like. Not all. And I'm willing to bet there are numerous students who came from high schools like the ones you describe. Or, as in at least a few cases, came from "schools" that were essentially converted sheds or barns. _Some_ Yale students may not have had to worry about taking care of their families or being the breadwinner during adolescence. But others did. _Some_ Yale students may not have lived in shady areas. Many did.

We're an intelligent lot, certainly. And certainly there are many others who are much more intelligent than us. But Yale does not exist to serve the world. Yale is not a public service. Yale is exclusive by design. You don't get here by being intelligent, but by the same token, being here does not mean we're more intelligent than you (in the plural sense). The fifteen year funnel notion that the other person described is, in fact, much more a filter of ability, grit, and exceptional achievement than you could ever dream of. A minority of students here come from the sort of Gatsby-ish background that popular myth suggests. There are students here who may not be the most intelligent in the world (certainly, not all of us are MENSA members), but they are, for the most part, people who have proved time and again their exceptional qualities. There is a reason this institution has been an incubator for leaders around the world.

Yale is not a meritocracy. Yale is one among a few institutions that have carefully cultivated the ability to choose from an exceptional pool of human beings each year. If you point out the issue of legacy admits, I'd ask: why not? Why not give back to those who have given to Yale? I don't simply mean monetary contributions, though certainly I would wish to signal appreciation of someone who has endowed a chair, a library, or has done something to grow Yale as an institution. But, in general, if someone has reflected well on Yale, then I believe it is worth nurturing that relationship. So, yes, not all legacy admits are evil.

The world is not equal, and equality is not a given. We will never be equal, as long as scarcity exists. But instead of whining about how "all Yale students are privileged" and thereby exposing your own prejudices and jaundiced perceptions, why not make the best of your circumstances, much as we have of ours?

<comment><USER7> > I'm not quite sure how you make these claims.

Because statistically, this is nearly always the case.

>And I'm willing to bet there are numerous students who came from high schools like the ones you describe.

I'd be surprised if there is even one student from the kind of school the GP describes. Even if you find one, you've found an anecdote. An exception that proves the rule.

> There is a reason this institution has been an incubator for leaders around > the world.

And right here is where your argument flies out the window. "Leaders around the world" are usually not better than anyone else, often worse. They're simply better connected. Which, incidentally, is what is being pointed out.

I know you really want to believe it was grit, determination, and something extra that everyone else doesn't have that got you where you are but it was actually privilege. If you had been born to the wrong family all the "grit" you think you have wouldn't have gained you anything.

<comment><USER6> Statistically, _what_ is nearly always the case? Please, point out these statistics specifically instead of making airy allusions.

You may be surprised to see "even one student" from the 'wrong' sides of the city, the 'wrong' skin of colour, the 'wrong' nationality, or the 'wrong' religion. Get here and get your mind exploded, then. Or learn to accept that you are clinging (futilely) to popular misconceptions and that Yale, like most other "elite" institutions, is a home to all kinds of people. Privilege may have gotten _some_ of them in, but it sure as hell is not the norm.

As for your final claims: You wish to imply that leaders in various fields got there solely by leveraging connections. I am pointing out that leveraging connections is by no means disproportionally represented. Leveraging connections is an incredibly useful skill, and of course it has its place. What I am pointing out is that for most undergraduates who ever got here, connections didn't exactly play a big role. Yes, the people here probably have a lot more grit, determination, and "something extra" that most of you don't. Some of us are here thanks to family connections, sure. Now go find out just how many students Yale (for example) has graduated in its entire history, and compare that with the number of legacy admits. Or compare that with the number of admits for whom a plausible case of "connections" may be argued. I can assure you that it won't be a pretty picture for your case.

I'll reiterate what I've said before. Most of you are using popular misconceptions to make straw-man arguments. Most of us here are not from "connected" families, and most of us are here not because of some mythical privilege. The sort of logic you people are using would make the mere fact that you can go to the corner store and buy a pack of bread a "privilege." Privilege is relative. Most of us got here because, yes, we did a few things more and were a little better at some things than a lot of other people.

No reason to whine about it.

<comment><USER7> Let it go. You lost. Not only did you lose, you lost so bad that yahoo! wrote an article about how stupid your post was.

No one likes a person telling them that he/she is better then them. Especially when that's clearly not the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _> The way HireArt works, explained Sharef (who was my daughter's college roommate), is that clients — from big companies like Cisco, Safeway and Airbnb, to small family firms — come with a job description and then HireArt designs online written and video tests relevant for that job. Then they cull through the results and offer up the most promising applicants to the company, which chooses among them._

So hireart is tackling the problem from the demand side for employees by improving the signal to noise ratio of applicants, so to speak.

This is only a partial solution, since at least a significant part of the problem is the skill mismatch of the more "ordinary Joes" (for lack of a better word) and the skills that are asked of them by their prospective employers.

I don't think there will be a one size fits all solution for the variety of employment related issues we face today. We'll probably see many "winners" in the market that offer very distinct sets of benefits to both job seekers and employers.

That makes me think that my friend's startup [1] which does focus on the more basic tier of the supply side of the job market problem, training ordinary people to gain the specific skills that specific employers want.

We can't have enough hypotheses tested in this market, so I genuinely wish the best for all the current and future players in this market.

[1] <http://www.learnup.me/about>

<comment><USER9> learnup is awesome. we need lots of companies to solve this problem. Elli (co- founder @hireart)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _The company receives about 500 applicants per job opening._

This succinctly demonstrates everything that is wrong with the entry-level labor market, especially in fields dominated by overabundant cohorts like political science and english majors. There are a deluge of incompetent graduates competing for a negligible number of jobs. They are either forced into menial shift jobs for years or, if they're fortunate, will have the privilege working 70 hours per week in an unpaid internship before taking a jobs marginally above the poverty line.

<comment><USER11> _especially in fields dominated by overabundant cohorts like political science and english majors_

Actually, according to Louis Menand's book _The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in American Universities_ , the absolute number of English majors has declined over the last 40 or so years:

 _"Between 1945 and 1975, the number of American undergraduates increased 500 percent, but the number of graduate students increased by nearly 900 percent. On the one hand, a doctorate was harder to get; on the other, it became less valuable because the market began to be flooded with PhDs.

This fact registered after 1970, when the rapid expansion of American higher education abruptly slowed to a crawl, depositing on generational shores a huge tenured faculty and too many doctoral programs churning out PhDs. The year 1970 is also the point from which we can trace the decline in the proportion of students majoring in liberal arts fields, and, within the decline, a proportionally larger decline in undergraduates majoring in the humanities. In 1970–71, English departments awarded 64,342 bachelor's degrees; that represented 7.6 percent of all bachelor's degrees, including those awarded in non-liberal arts fields, such as business. The only liberal arts category that awarded more degrees than English was history and social science, a category that combines several disciplines. Thirty years later, in 2000–01, the number of bachelor's degrees awarded in all fields was 50 percent higher than in 1970–71, but the number of degrees in English was down both in absolute numbers—from 64,342 to 51,419—and as a percentage of all bachelor's degrees, from 7.6 percent to around 4 percent._

What field has taken its place? Business, which now accounts for about a quarter of all degrees awarded.

Moreover, according to the research done by Arum and Roska in _Academically Adrift_ , undergrads in the hard sciences and humanities (including English) tend to show substantial increases in their reading comprehension skills, writing skills, and math skills over their first two years of college and over their college careers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Friedman is such a shameless hack.

Using his column as an ad for his daughter's college roommate's business? Honestly? Ugh.

Nothing against the HireArt folks who may be great people, and maybe they are offering a useful service. I even understand why they couldn't tell Friedman not to do this for them. I doubt anyone could turn down the free exposure.

But it's just tacky, and it doesn't help that Friedman is a hack to begin with.

<comment><USER13> It's really sad to me that the top comment on any thread at HN is ad hominem. I'm not around much but this community really has changed.

Seriously, ebbv you have _nothing_ to add that is interesting or unique? Calling a columnist at the NY Times a "hack" is hardly original or insightful.

<comment><USER12> I pointed out he's shilling for his daughter's friend. That's not enough to support my characterization for you? I think it's plenty.

But there's tons of other examples of how terrible Friedman is, and most people don't need me to spell them out because they are very familiar with them already.

Do a quick Google search and you'll see what the rest of us already know.

<comment><USER13> There's nothing substantial about that "critique". You only know of the relationship because he disclosed it. And any columnist of the last 50 years at the Times provokes the same exact response from a segment of their audience. In fact, as a columnist, that's the point of his job and so your "test" would fail for every columnist at that paper.

My point still stands. Your comment adds no value to this community and itself is a comment on the state of this community. You start with ad hominem then work backwards to the "critique". When pushed, you simply re-state the ad hominem. This community used to be much better than that, esp for a top comment in well-read thread.

EDIT: At the very least, I'm glad vapid comments aren't staying at the topmost position. I hope that's a combination of downvotes and the time-gravity function. Too bad ad hominem is so easy to upvote and leads to the herd mentality that begets the trivial.

<comment><USER12> It's not a critique, it's a simple fact. He's shilling for a friend. That's shady at best. Disclosing it is better than not disclosing it, but using your Times Op Ed column to shill is always shady.

"Every columnist" at the Times (or anywhere else) does not elicit the same response that Friedman does. That in itself is a baseless statement, which is something you claim to dislike so very much.

Here's a short article pointing out _one_ of the problems with Friedman:

[http://gawker.com/5921030/thomas-friedman-writes-his-only- co...](http://gawker.com/5921030/thomas-friedman-writes-his-only-column-again)

You seem like you could be a smart person from your profile, so I'd think that if you actually read Friedman with any regularity you'd see what every other intelligent person who reads him does; he's a hack. Call it an ad hominem if you want, but to me it's like saying an apple is red. It's a statement of fact backed up by evidence.

Also complaints about how the community used to be so much better based on one comment you don't like being top temporarily is so ridiculous as to be comical.

EDIT:

Also the subtext of your complaining about the decline of the community is "ebbv get out you make this place worse." To which I say, you're the one who's basically throwing a tantrum because you disagree with me regarding Thomas Friedman.

<comment><USER13> You've done nothing to substantiate that charge of being a shill short of pointing out the very relationship he himself disclosed.

As to the claim on columnists all being "hacks", I have little doubt that every single columnist at the NY Times has been called that or worse in their tenure by some segment of their audience. Saying Person X is a "hack" (or troll or asshat) has no place in rational dialogue. It's a non sequitur. Stick to what's being said and dispute that. In this case, that would be a matter of arguing that HireArt is not part of some broad new trend in hiring and being hired. You are very far from arguing contra Friedman.

I don't know you. All I know is one ad hominem comment you made and continue to defend. That's a problem for this community and indeed any community that aspires toward rationality. What you continue to be (and this community, even) is only up to you (and us). That you assume I'm throwing a "tantrum" and that I disagree with you on Friedman won't ever get you (or us) there.

<comment><USER12> Ok clearly my effort is wasted on you. You are not even reading what I'm saying. So just a couple quick points:

1) Just because someone discloses something doesn't make it ethical / not shilling.

2) I (and others) are not just calling Friedman a hack and leaving it at that as you seem to insist we are. We are calling him a hack and backing it up with evidence -- as I have said repeatedly, and I have pointed you to the evidence. It absolutely does have a place in rational dialogue.

You pay lip service to being interested in discussion, but your behavior indicates you are not at all interested as I have attempted to engage you repeatedly and you pay it no heed whatsoever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It seems a bit lazy of Friedman to interview his daughter's roommate. Why not include other sources? At least he mentioned the relationship.

I don't begrudge Sharef for using the connection. It's another reminder of how important networking is.

<comment><USER15> Tom Friedman quit writing real articles back in the 90s.

<comment><USER16> This showed up on HN a while back: <http://thomasfriedmanopedgenerator.com/>

<comment><USER15> Hah!

When i was younger and trying to educate myself into a higher class, I read a couple of his books. The only good one was From Beirut to Jerusalem, which was published in 1989. Everything after that was just crappy analogies.

I really don't understand how an "expert" in Middle East affairs could think that the USA going to war in Iraq was a good idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a bandage to the problem, perhaps even a good bandage, but not a cure.

The issue is so much deeper than this.

On the "physical labor" side of the economy, the college system, in its current form, will not efficiently fill America's production lines with workers. It will not create more craftsmen. It certainly does not cure the average American college graduate of the mentality that they are above being a gardener in their own backyard.

On the knowledge side of the economy, MOOC can potentially add enormous value. The distribution of credentials (aka a degree from an elite university) is being decoupled from the educating of the knowledge workforce. Rather than a couple thousand or tens of thousands of people having access to the highest levels of education, it is now accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

P.S. I take issue with anyone who is 28 years old being considered a "veteran" at her job, let alone at McKinsey. Perhaps I think too old-school.

<comment><USER18> > _Rather than a couple thousand or tens of thousands of people having access > to the highest levels of education, it is now accessible to anyone with an > internet connection._

The printing press has been around for hundreds of years. The problem has never been _access to knowledge_. It has been:

1\. Selecting what people need to know (curricula), and

2\. Checking that they know it (credentialling).

If people want to learn about anything, about any topic, to any depth, public library systems enable that and have done so for a long time.

Plus, the reductionist view of Universities as mere generators and disseminators of knowledge is inaccurate. Attendance at universities introduces you to new people, many of whom have similar interests. This leads to friendships, business partnerships and romantic relationships that MOOCs can't replicate (and libraries only poorly).

<comment><USER19> > If people want to learn about anything, about any topic, to any depth, > public library systems enable that and have done so for a long time

About a year ago, I decided to read through what I considered the most interesting topics in my old discrete math textbook, on basically this theory.

The first few sections were fine. Then I started getting different answers to the ones published in the back of the book. Lacking someone who could tell me what I was doing wrong, I gave up. :/

<comment><USER18> Did you try a different book? When I get stuck on a subject I often turn to a different book to get me over the hump.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So the Detroit woman who taught herself Excel and outscored Stanford and Harvard grads, and is held out as validation of Friedman's thesis - she's only referred to as a "top applicant". Did she get the job? And if not, what was the background of the person who did?

Otherwise, my only take-away from this article is that in a column ostensibly about meritocracy, Tom Friedman managed to turn 3/4 of his column inches into a PR piece for a company run by his daughter's Yale buddies.

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality...

<comment><USER9> Hi, Elli from HireArt here. She didnt get the job because she lived in Michigan and couldn't move to SF but she made it as a finalist. I was directly involved and was astonished at how well she did given her lack of "formal" education. I wish more people were like Patti. She really inspired me. The fact that Michigan is struggling economically and that she was unable to leave is a different and very interesting topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This feels a lot like an advertisement to me

</comment><comment><USER22> I took a hireart interview recently, really excited for a chance to show off my skills. However, the responses asked for were basic interview questions like, "Describe yourself" and other personality questions. Which is fine, but I thought it had more potential.

One caveat is that it was time consuming and cost the company doing it nothing. I really hope such time consuming tasks do not become the first line of defense against job seekers, but are only used on already vetted resumes.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm injured. Right arm can lift much more than 5 lbs above horizontal. On Voc rehab, yet disability says it's not one.

Been without a job for 2 years. Before that, fired from wal-mart because I got injured (faulty equipment) and had to go to hospital.

What the hell do I do? I look and apply for jobs. I'm in school for drafting. Every sign and indication says if you're without a job for 6 months, you're screwed.

Do I just start and lie about my credentials? If they catch me, all they can do is just fire me... I'm already up shits creek.

<comment><USER24> No, you're not screwed. Acquire a useful skill that's in demand and which can be done from a desk: drafting, CAD, graphic design, 3D modeling, video editing, web design, programming. Do that craft, and develop a portfolio of work. Find a non-profit that you like that needs that work and spend some time donating that work to the non-profit so you can have some real world experience in that field, that demonstrates that you can work with other people.

Almost every reasonable hiring manager (which may be a minority of hiring managers, but is still non-zero) will value someone with a good portfolio who's shown that they can get the job done over someone with credentials and years of experience in the industry who doesn't have a good portfolio to show (as someone who's been doing technical hiring recently, I've always wondered about people who apply for a job with 20 years of experience and not a line of code they can show me; I realize that there may be many jobs where you work on proprietary code that you can't show to someone else, but not having a single side project, one-off hack, a few patches to the mailing list of an open source project, or even a former employer you can ask for a code sample to show under NDA in your whole career seems a bit odd).

<comment><USER23> I already am going for drafting, which includes Autocad and Solidworks. I already am decent at general 3d design (and still have plenty of classes to go).

Still, because I'm past the 6 month employability gap, NOBODY will touch me.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the- terr...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-terrifying- reality-of-long-term-unemployment/274957/)

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/16/after- six...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/16/after-six-months- unemployment-turns-into-permanent-unemployment/)

<comment><USER25> It's actually easier to do "creative career repair" on a 6-month gap than a 4-month one.

Don't get me wrong. You always want to avoid being unemployed for 6 months if possible; but there are ways of touching that up.

If you were in full-time school, just use that. You don't even need to lie. The truth is always better-- not because there's major risk of getting caught, but because it's always better to form relationships based on the truth, and the cognitive load of maintaining a lie will take steam out of you even if you never get caught. The "6-month problem" doesn't include full-time students. If you were a part-time student, maybe you can make it look full-time?

However, if you are stuck needing to lie, I advise the "odds and evens" strategy. Rank your choices 1, ..., N. Odd-numbered choices get full disclosure of the truth. Even-numbered choices get the story you want to tell. (Or, if you think your history is that damaged, tell the truth to evens and your new career history to the odds.) This gives you a sense of whether the issue you are covering up is an actual employment problem, or whether it's something else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> What is the HN term for "slashvertisment"?

<comment><USER27> "submarine"

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> having been on both sides of the hiring equation, my sense is that the current system is broken by design.

For myself, I've read positions at a company that are a perfect fit, only to see things like (paraphrasing) "5-10 years of prior experience at a digital media company required". To get that, there are a small handful of companies one could have ever worked for. why wouldn't the hiring manager just call the 5 people you know who are a fit? right - because HR says we have to post the job.

From the hiring side - it is important to understanding managerial objectives in hiring, which frequently diverge from company interests beyond a certain size and maturity. Job security and minimizing headaches come to the forefront. The most understandable is training - even a smart pup needs time to learn. the remaining motives are questionable, and hard to surface.

No doubt there's room for a company like HireArt, but when i read the description of what the company expects to solve, my first thought is that rather than fix a broken-by-design hiring market, it will mostly relieve the guilt of HR employees who know hiring is intentionally broken.

<comment><USER29> I don't know if hiring is "intentionally" broken, so much as it's a casualty of bureaucracy. Very few companies invest strategically in HR, and for the most part, they treat the hiring process on an ad hoc basis. It's a nonissue until it becomes an issue, at which point, it's a fire drill that nobody has really thought through. The hiring manager has other things on her plate, and the HR manager has a few dozen other positions to fill out. And then there are the legal requirements, the risk mitigation, the forms and procedures, the pay bands, and so forth. Nobody's set out to create a broken system; the breakage in the system is the result of a couple dozen microscopic fractures that have built up along the way.

What seems intentionally broken is the general approach to human capital. The workforce is massively, ridiculously undervalued. Most companies -- especially the bigger ones -- would rather churn and burn through their employees, replacing them as they leave, than invest seriously in training, retaining, and developing a strong and long-term workforce. The inefficiencies resulting from this attitude are hidden, but massive. But the short-term ROI is, sadly, quite positive. So nobody's got any incentive to change the approach.

<comment><USER30> Isn't that the reason most unions formed in the first place?

I wonder how many generations it will take to fix the current approach to human capital. The current pessimism around employee training and development will rub off on the next generation, like a downward spiral, but without some of the reasoning or perspective.

<comment><USER31> We had a fix. Unions. They were dismantled by Nixon, Reagan, et. al. from 1968 to the present because the professional classes believed that they were insulated from the problems of the working class.

They were wrong, and we are paying the price, the profits going directly to the owners of capital.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> HireArt's approach is an interesting one, but culling through 500 video interviews by hand is time intensive for the reviewer and the 499 candidates who don't get the job.

We're working on these problems at Mighty Spring (<https://www.mightyspring.com>), with a focus on talent whose time is more highly in demand.

Our approach is to reverse this process: you have an anonymous profile that companies view. If a company sees your profile and they're interested, they can request an interview. You receive these requests via email and can choose to accept or decline. The anonymity means you can both freely decline interviews and use the site while employed with no repercussions.

The goal is to provide a similar service to working with a really great recruiter, but without the hassle.

As most of the readership here is in our target audience, we'd love any feedback and welcome questions. We'll expedite invites to HN signups - <USER2> feel free to email me: lumen@companydomain

</comment><comment><USER33> The correct term is advertorial. It is when the editori staff does an advertisement disguised as an article. It works wonders, more so when it comes from the NYT. This company is now front and center. Well done to your marketers. You will get a lot of flack here, but this is one more way to jump start growth. Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER34> I think a big factor in this discongruety between education and the job market is the fact that students cannot write off student loan debt in a bankruptsy. It alleviates the banks from their due diligence of making sure their loan will create a return on investment. There is virtually no risk on their side. They can be certain. That no matter what you do or where you go you will have to pay them and the longer it takes is just more interest for them to collect. You can be certain that if student loans required the bank to take a risk there would be a lot more engineers coming out of colleges in america and a lot less degrees in ancient Greek philosophy. The banks would require people to choose majors that will pay enough.

<comment><USER35> I agree that's a possible outcome, but I think an equally likely outcome is that banks would require parental co-signing of loans, from parents with income and credit ratings sufficient to mitigate the risks.

Which overwhelmingly means that the economically disadvantaged (or those estranged from one or both parents) would be shut out, which would make "college degree required" a proxy for "upper middle class or better".

I agree that it's a different outcome, but I don't agree that it's a better outcome. There are benefits to easy availability of student loans; with those benefits come some risks. You can't eliminate only the risks and leave all the benefits.

<comment><USER36> > Which overwhelmingly means that the economically disadvantaged (or those > estranged from one or both parents) would be shut out, which would make > "college degree required" a proxy for "upper middle class or better".

Considering the overall education picture in the US, this is already true. Students from low income families already have a hard time getting to a point where they can apply and be accepted to a university. See [http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/21/news/economy/income_college/...](http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/21/news/economy/income_college/index.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> >So what does she advise? Sharef pointed to one applicant, a Detroit woman who had worked as a cashier at Borders. She realized that that had no future, so she taught herself Excel. "We gave her a very rigorous test, and she outscored people who had gone to Stanford and Harvard. She ended up as a top applicant for a job that, on paper, she was completely unqualified for."

I don't know if I'm too cynical but the first thing that came to my mind after reading that was if her pay is gonna be the same of someone who went to Stanford or Harvard.

<comment><USER38> Isn't excel just a tool? The challenging parts are knowing what numbers to put in and the analysis of the results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> such a shameless advertisement on NYT that you can't even call it a placement marketing

</comment><comment><USER40> This is a very interesting approach to solving an old age problem: how do you match the right people to the right employers?

The solution for most people used to be stacking credential and hoping the competition wouldn't have the same level of credentials as you.

What type of jobs are available on HireArt? How do you decide on what metrics and skills are useful for that particular post? How many test have you devised?

<comment><USER9> Hey, Elli from HireArt here.

We work only with non-technical jobs like marketing, biz dev, sales, etc (we think technical jobs are quite different). And then we have two different types of challenges: 1) Challenges that individual employers create 2) General industry challenges that candidates can use to apply to lots of jobs.

In terms of how we come up with the questions, we mostly just ask employers: "What does this employee do at work" and then we ask candidates to do similar tasks.

<comment><USER18> I'd be interested in hearing how you got such a high-profile writeup.

This is not a snark attack. Genuine interest.

<comment><USER41> > Sharef (who was my daughter's college roommate)...

<comment><USER42> In the end, connections still matter then...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This read to me like think tank backfill. Friedman has definitely got his own angle on things. I think reading _Linchpin_ would be more useful advice, "The job is what you do when you are told what to do. The job is showing up at the factory, following instructions, meeting spec, and being managed.

Someone can always do your job a little better or faster or cheaper than you can.

The job might be difficult, it might require skill, but it's a job.

Your art is what you do when no one can tell you exactly how to do it. Your art is the act of taking personal responsibility, challenging the status quo, and changing people.

I call the process of doing your art 'the work.' It's possible to have a job and do the work, too. In fact, that's how you become a linchpin.

The job is not the work." ― Seth Godin, Linchpin: Are You Indispensable?

<comment><USER44> Does anyone else find Seth Godins advice to be totally devoid of actionable suggestions? It reads to me as "the key to being successful is to be awesome!" It has some hand-wavey concepts, a few cherry picked anecdotes, and a pithy title. I don't get it...

The original article had a similar quality when it came to the question of how to actually acquire advanced skills. How many jobs exist in which the main skill is knowing Excel? Maybe there are, but usually if it is listed it's as part of a laundry list of required skills.

<comment><USER45> > Does anyone else find Seth Godins advice to be totally devoid of actionable > suggestions?

Same as most motivational and self-help advice, then?

<comment><USER44> Point taken!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Personally I think this is not a Friedman level article, more like a HireArt advertisement.

</comment><comment><USER47> After reading the article, I didn't really catch any tips on how to get a job other than use HireArt. I guess that was the message?

</comment><comment><USER48> There certainly are multiple ways to attack this problem, but when the vast majority of jobs now are never advertised it makes me wonder how many people will find jobs with this kind of service.</comment>


A deeper look at the Comcast/Level3 business relationship - <AUTHOR> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-November/028387.html

<comment><USER2> Level 3 has a direct connection to the Comcast network (I don't think it matters much whether it was peering or transit)

Level 3 gets clever and decides to provide CDN services leveraging their proximity to Comcast. Normally Comcast _charges_ CDNs for the proximity that Level 3 already enjoys as a product of their existing relationship.

Comcast decides _"Hey - wait a second, you're now a CDN"_ and tries to charge them similar fees to what they charge the other CDNs for proximity.

<comment><USER3> Yep. Level3 more or less decided to start offering a CDN service without setting up an actual CDN. Or at least one that provides any benefit to Comcast (or as Comcast would argue, their customers).

As mentioned in the thread, this is compounded even further by the fact that not only is Comcast not receiving revenue from L3 for power/colocation, but they are also getting taxed by having lease more fiber/lambdas to wherever they are peered to L3.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Definitely interesting, but I'd hesitate to describe it as a "deeper look", like how you might describe an investigative piece. I think the author correctly describes it as an "educated guess".

<comment><AUTHOR> Doh, I was going to change it to "closer" look or something but I'm out of time. I think closer sounds safer, no?</comment></comment>


Why game developers hate the Facebook-Zynga marriage, how Google+ can benefit - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/07/29/facebook-zynga-google-games/

<comment><USER2> Is it just me or is this whole industry starting to feel increasingly sleazy? I guess it's inevitable when so much money is on the table but I don't feel as proud to call myself a developer as I did a few years ago.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that no matter who you are and how big you are (Facebook) you have to come out clean.

If you say that every developer has the same deal going on, no matter how much money they pump in, you should give them the same tools. If you DO think that who performs better should get better deals, as every business would, then just say so.

Playing the way they played so far (giving poor support, shutting down apps, making subtle deals, etc) do Facebook think they can really leverage developers with the HTML5 platform when they release it?

The only reason why developers want to keep working on Facebook is for their (official) userbase. Facebook knows that and they didn't do anything better than showing muscles so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I kind of hate the Zynga revenue model more than anything. It doesn't seem like an ethical way to make money, and has absolutely nothing to do with any of the things that spurred me to get interested in game development in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ironic thing about this is Zynga sees their relationship with Facebook as one of the weakness, as reported in their S1:

 _"Facebook is the primary distribution, marketing, promotion and payment platform for our games. We generate substantially all of our revenue and players through the Facebook platform and expect to continue to do so for the foreseeable future, the filing explains...Any deterioration in our relationship with Facebook would harm our business and adversely affect the value of our Class A common stock."_

So Google+ could even benefit from working with Zynga, if they wanted to that is.</comment>


New York Times API Coming - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/new_york_times_api_coming.php <comment><USER2> I'd settle for just being able to _see_ their stories without logging in.

<comment><USER3> I have never had to log in to newyorktimes.com ever

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really like what the NY Times is up to. They're already one of the poster children for Amazon EC2 and the new silverlight reader is pretty sweet.</comment>


Apple engineer uses Lego to rebuild Antikythera mechanism - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20025264-71.html <comment><USER2> What should really blow your mind is the precision of the original metalworking and gearing, _well_ before the age of clockmaking and watchmaking.

An item like that to spring in to existence without any record of a history leading up to it or a history of devices descending from it really makes you wonder whose imagination it sprang from and why it wasn't recognized that these principles had further application, or, alternatively could point to lots of stuff (including knowledge) getting lost.

<comment><USER3> It's a wonderful piece of engineering indeed, but not the first one. Gears were used long before that ([http://www.nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT- MADRAS/Machine_Desig...](http://www.nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT- MADRAS/Machine_Design_II/pdf/2_1.pdf)), as early as 2600 BC for opening doors, lifting water and measuring distances. Archimedes used gears for all kind of stuff in 330 BC (See <http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/ArchimedesGears.htm>)

An explanation for that fact that so few devices remain that a record of history seems to be missing, could be that they were made of metals (copper, bronze, etc) which were quite precious in that time, so the devices probably got recycled. Image that, some warrior smelting a few antikythera machines to forge a sword!

<comment><USER2> Sure, but there is a bit of a difference in precision between a man sized gear or one that would not be out of place in a modern gear driven clock.

I think you got confused by the wording of "precision of the original metalworking and gearing", original as in 'not the lego version', not suggesting it was the first use of gears.

<comment><USER4> In a clock precision in the metalwork in the gears is important to cut down on friction, etc. But I'm not sure if the saem can be said for this ancient computer.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like what is important here is simply the ratios of the number of teeth on the different gears.

I mean obviously all the parts have to mesh when the device is cranked but it doesn't have to turn terribly smoothly to work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Previously on this subject:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1992756>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1992715>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1991659>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1991557>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1990493>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1988818>

None of those have much discussion, but it's interesting just how many submissions there have been about the antikythera:

<http://searchyc.com/submissions/antikythera?sort=by_date>

<comment><USER6> In particular, this one: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1992756> has a link to a blog post by the guy that made the video with some of the background on that, which is particularly value-added.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Check out the guy's actual site with tons more technical detail: <http://acarol.woz.org/antikythera_mechanism.html>

What an impressive achievement. I think this is what we want all of our pet projects to be...

</comment><comment><USER8> I've always thought that "Math with gears" would be a fascinating elective course and should be included with most engineering programs.

<comment><USER3> You will love the mechanical analog ballistic computers of 50's: [http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/19/how-a-1950s-ballisti.ht...](http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/19/how-a-1950s-ballisti.html)

It explains all the mechanics used for adders, integrators, differentiators, etc... very insightful.

<comment><USER9> Love the videos!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Kudos to the director as well. The video wowed me as much as the machine it self.

<comment><USER11> Making of post here:

<http://blog.smallmammal.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just a clarification on the source story. I work at Digital Science, who commissioned this video. Andy had actually already built this device (we didn't sponsor building it), along with a Babbage difference engine. He brought them a long to Sci Foo this year, and i believe the filming took place around that time.

I've seen both the devices in the flesh, and they are little works of art. Not sure if he's planning on building any more.

</comment><comment><USER13> The video is definitely very impressive, but I'm still far more impressed by the fact someone made this in 100 BC than that someone re-created it in 2010 AD. I had never heard of the Antikythera mechanism before.

<comment><USER14> Well of course, that's why the Antikythera mechanism is so unique. But that doesn't mean making it in Lego isn't kickass!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is probably the first time in my life that my jaw has literally dropped while watching an invention/recreation in action. Absolutely incredible.

<comment><USER16> Direct link to the video:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLPVCJjTNgk>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> He is a long time redditor. Gave some more info in this reddit post: [http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ej948/lego_antikyth...](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ej948/lego_antikythera_mechanism/)

</comment><comment><USER18> Say what you will about Apple, their products, or their business model, but I've always found their engineers to be the pinnacle of quality and hacker culture.

</comment><comment><USER19> For me the professional production of the video makes a ridiculous difference to how much I enjoy news like this. It's really nicely put together.

Related to that, the way it was posted on CNET added nothing to the information in the video and reminded me that I'm getting increasingly irked by reposting culture.

Hacker News is good because it links to original content with a snappy title and then space to discuss below. Which leads me to wonder why this item links to the CNET article and not straight to the youtube video?

</comment><comment><USER20> Beautiful! When I first read about Antikythera sometime back, it fascinated me to learn that 2000 years ago, someone has created what seems to be the first computer.

I wonder if the Ancient Astronaut theories could actually hold water.

</comment><comment><USER21> The same engineer also built a Lego Babbage difference engine:

<http://acarol.woz.org/difference_engine.html>

Anyone know what Mr. Carol works on at Apple?

<comment><USER22> Just while we're thinking this sort of thing, people might be interested to see <http://www.meccano.us/>. I believe Tim helped Andrew on his Lego difference engine, and he's now working on the Analytical Engine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Brian Dunning wrote an interesting article about the Antikythera Mechanism:

<http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4184>

 _"Astronomers and astrologers probably could not have afforded it. It could have been used as an education tool. Most likely it was built for wealthy Romans who had some interest in its features, probably not too different from early adopters who wanted to have the first iPhone with all the cool apps."_

<comment><USER23> _...probably not too different from early adopters who wanted to have the first iPhone with all the cool apps._

Suckers. Didn't they know to wait a few centuries for the 2nd gen?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Reminds me of this: <http://xkcd.com/659/>

</comment><comment><USER25> This is offtopic, but it makes me angry every time someone uses Lego (singular) as a collective noun. When I was a kid they were always called "Legos". I never heard someone say "I built X out of Lego". I don't know if it's worse that they try to enforce this artificial use of language, or that everyone goes along with it. "Lego bricks" sounds artificial too, but at least it sounds plural.

<comment><USER26> LEGO(TM) is a trademark, which means (in the USA at least) that it should not be used as a noun. The company risks losing the ability to assert its trademark if they don't enforce this. The "proper" use is: LEGO(TM)-brand toy building blocks.

Yeah, I know it sounds dumb and no one will ever call them that, but calling them "Legos" or "Lego" isn't correct either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> According to Aristotle, we uncover theoretical knowledge by exploring that which has no practical (action-based) or productive (product-based) result; and what we possess is that which is known only for its own sake, for the sheer pleasure of knowing.

I've often thought a similar distinction can be made in engineering, where the product is created for its own sake, for the sheer pleasure of seeing it exist. This is one of those. An amazing piece of work. Bravo.

</comment><comment><USER28> For those interested in mechanical calulation, check out the Curta Calculator: <http://curta.org/>

I have one of these. It's amazing.

</comment><comment><USER29> Gears doing math and the adding is especially amazing.

Then realize they figured that out over 2000 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER30> Their next task will be to build the Babbage Difference Engine out of Lego.

<comment><USER30> Too late. They already have. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Truly amazing level of detail! Hopefully the plans are made available for others to learn from.

</comment><comment><USER32> Does anyone know if some body has created an emulator for the Antikythera mechanism?</comment>


Juggling: Theory and Practice [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.solipsys.co.uk/Writings/JugglingTheoryAndPractice.pdf <comment><USER2> I'm currently only sporadically on-line, but I'm the author of the linked paper, and would be happy to answer any questions.

<comment><USER3> This was super fascinating, thanks for your work on this. Its definitely an elegant way to think about patterns, time, and travel. It brings back fond memories of my Klutz book and lots of bruised apples. I found myself staring at the quantum mechanics bit for quite a while, and might still be stuck there. Would you be able to break down that transaction for me in terms of double ledger accounting?

I found it really interesting that higher numbers correlated with higher energy required to be input into the system from the juggler. I've not dared more than 4, but it feels like that motion would require lowering the throwing hand before making a strong toss, effectively borrowing time from the prior throw/catch. So, like higher orbits/orbitals means more (positrons)?

Bravo, this is great work. I've spent entirely too much time playing with siteswap simulators now :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I learned to juggle (thanks, YouTube!) a few years back. It's fun and relaxing-- highly recommend this to anyone looking to just learn something new.</comment>


Hackers Assault Epilepsy Patients via Computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy <comment><USER2> This raises another question: how long are we going to fight the losing battle of reclaiming the word "hacker" from its current shady connotation? After reading news like this, I would be really ashamed to call myself a "hacker".

Note that I am making a purely linguistic point here. The popular culture has pretty well defined the word already .... think about explaining to your non- technical friend that you were reading about the epilepsy episode in Hacker News!

This reminds me of another word, "liberal", which in America means someone who advocates what would be classically considered illiberal economics (government intervention in the economy, protectionism and so on). The Economist still refuses to accept the American hijacking of a fine word, but somehow I don't believe a Ron Paul would ever want to be called a "liberal", which he actually is in the classical sense.

As a counter-example, J.K. Rowling seems to have bestowed a different meaning to the word "witch", equating it with "wizard". And then I realize PG was originally a Brit, so may be the Brits can "take English back" :-)

<comment><USER3> The fact you will not use the word due to shame makes me think of Gresham's law which states: "Money overvalued by the State will drive money undervalued by the State out of circulation.",(from Wikipedia). In this case the bad association the word brings pushes its use beyond the comfort zone of those whose intentions are good.

Also, the positive image of good hackers is no doubt appealing to the more nefarious computer users and so only increases there desire to use the label. Combine these pressures with the fact that the negative version has already captured the popular mind and it would seem you might be right that the battle is lost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder how hard it would be to get a web browser to recognize and block these attacks. Are the patterns very formulaic?

<comment><USER5> There is a standard gadget, the Harding FPA Machine, to check television adverts for likelihood of triggering epilepsy. Apparently, it wasn't used to check London 2012 Olympic publicity material ( [http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/06/05/2012...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/06/05/2012_logo_epilepsy_feature.shtml) ).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Disgusting.

</comment><comment><USER6> Having read Paul's treatise yesterday on the importance of improving our on- line dialectic, this story also reminds me that it may also be acceptable, if not appropriate, to occasionally refer to people as simply 'assholes'. A much better word in this case than 'hackers'.

<comment><USER7> these people aren't merely assholes. They are terrorists (I do not throw this term around lightly). I generally abhor black hat's (grey hats and security researcher's breaking the law to prove a point aside) but this is beyond attacking a network, cracking a web site or even stealing someones Identity. This is as bad as taking an old womans walker and proceeding to beat her with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Snow Crash

</comment><comment><USER9> Oh, look. Pure naked evil.

Small now, yes, but give them an RPG and a mask and I assure you it will scale.

</comment><comment><USER10> I was hoping that wasn't going to be as despicable as the title sounded. That's really upsetting.

<comment><USER11> Yea, me too. I mean, while I'm not part of the hacker culture, I always understood the point of it was more for recognition than actually hurting anyone. This very much goes against that.

<comment><USER12> AFAIK "Hacking" is the creative implementation of any technology to do something it wasn't designed to do.

Cracking and griefing regrettably fall under that umbrella as well, as do physical assaults perpetrated with technology.

<comment><USER13> Definition of creative (ditionary.com):

>1\. having the quality or power of creating. >2\. resulting from originality of thought, expression, etc.; imaginative: creative writing. >3\. originative; productive (usually fol. by of).

Adding blinking gifs to a homepage does not create anything, it does not result from any originality of thought nor is is productive so I would argue that it is not hacking.

<comment><USER14> You're right. It's not.

The word "hacking" has, in the media, taken on a meaning which is different from the meaning that it had originally - and the meaning that you'll most often find around here. Sadly, though, the use is so common that arguing against it is pretty much hopeless. It seems that outside of the hacker community (proper sense of the word), you probably shouldn't call yourself a hacker, since the first thing that will come to people's minds is this.

This isn't hacking. This is 'cracking' - and a more disgusting form of it than usual, a form meant to physically harm people.

<comment><USER15> Actually the earliest recorded references to hacking (in the documents of the MIT Tech Model Railroad Club which is generally acknowledged as the origin of the term) all have the term used in the mallicious (if mischevious) sense such as phone phreaking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think the term "griefer" is more appropriate. I hope it continues to gain currency.</comment>


Stop Online Piracy Act - <AUTHOR>

Hey hacker world(: I was wondering if you have heard of the Stop Online Piracy Act and if you have I wanted your opinion on it and if hacking or downloading illegal things on the internet is considered stealing in your opinion.<p>Please be nice, I'm purely curious... <comment><USER2> Hi, and welcome to Hacker News.

One of the things you really, _really_ need to know about hackers - or about people in general - is that they don't like to waste time. When someone asks a question, it's considered polite for them to have done some homework first.

So see if you can find a search box on this site, and then type SOPA into it and see if you get any results.

Read them, and then come back and ask questions.

And if you want to participate here I strongly recommend you read these:

<http://www.mikeash.com/getting_answers.html>

<http://labs.phurix.net/articles/how-to-ask-a-question>

<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/how-to-ask>

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Alright, sorry for the newbie question and thank you for the directions.

<comment><USER2> It's worth reading around for a while before starting to contribute, so you can get a sense of the content, style, culture and existing subjects. Questions are welcome, provided it's clear from what you ask, and how you ask, that you've done your homework and are willing to share the work you've done in return for the help you get.

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay, so let me revise my previous statements. I'm a high school journalist writing a story on SOPA. I've done research on the bill for the past couple of hours and I think I've grasped the concept of it. So I am here now because I want to get a hackers' point of view.

Obviously, every average teenager can download movies and music on the internet for "free". How much power do hackers have on the internet (what do you do)? Why do you enjoy hacking? Is it a hobby or job? And are you worried that SOPA will decrease freedom of speech and censor major sites, or because it could potentially hurt the hacker world a lot?

I apologize if my questions are rude or stupid, but I am not familiar with hacking and I am doing my best at the moment.

<comment><USER3> Hi, and welcome!

First, you might want to read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_definition_controversy#H...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_definition_controversy#Hacker_definition_controversy) and <http://paulgraham.com/gba.html> (the latter by the founder of this site), which describes how the word "hacker" is used on this site. In short, the popular concept of a "hacker" is usually considered a cracker around hacker news and similar sites, while the term hacker refers to someone interested in computers or programming.

Hacking, as referring to programming, can be both a career or a hobby. "Software Engineer" would be a common job title, but many people from different industries enjoy programming on their own time (sometimes in addition to a programming job). Hacking as a hobby is a way to create things in the 21st century, where a digital creation such as a website can be just as real as a physical creation such as a car.

In regards to SOPA, there is plenty of reading material on hacker news: [http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=SOPA](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=SOPA) (and one of the earliest links there: [http://boingboing.net/2011/11/11/stop- sopa-save-the-internet...](http://boingboing.net/2011/11/11/stop-sopa-save- the-internet.html)) Some of the articles and comments on those threads will probably be much more useful for your story than comments on this specific thread will be.

A little preface to the comments around here: what most people here tend to agree is that SOPA's free speech ramifications are much larger than its ability to stop piracy, regardless of whether they feel piracy is morally wrong or not. SOPA would fundamentally transform the internet in a way that user-created content sites that have taken off over the last decade (Wikipedia, Youtube, Facebook, Reddit, etc.) would become legally infeasible to operate. It also has several constitutionality issues, primarily around free speech and due process of law, both of which would be subverted by SOPA's provisions. But others have already said everything I could more elegantly in the above links.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Demand Media IPO Opens Up ~33% - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:DMD

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't understand why though. The financials filed with SEC showed it's not profitable (they've been losing money, less of it each year, but still losing money).

The business model of content farms is questionable in terms of how long it will last. What was interesting was they claimed to be dependent on Google for only about ~20% of their revenue. A lot is coming from registrar business (eNom).

Would/did you buy demand media? why?</comment>


How to do market research for a new product? - <AUTHOR>

Hi All,
I have several ideas for new products, they are all hardware/software based.  Apart from speaking with my contacts in the industry I am completely unclear on how to do basic market research to see if there would be any interest in my new product ideas.  How does one actually go about doing market research for a new product?  I'd be very interested in hearing what did and didn't work from the HN community.
Thanks for reading, FB <comment><USER2> I'm working on a new product. Before we started, my partner and I interviewed a few people from our target market to listen first hand to their pains and how willing they would be to pay for something that solves their problem. We found willing individuals through an ad on Kijiji, and they were just eager to help.

</comment><comment><USER3> one interesting way of market research is twitter search. Twitter search can give you people's opinion about the problem you are trying to solve. Search the terms which you think are related to your product and see if people are talking about it. I found it very useful in our case. Try www.topsy.com for twitter search, it searches older tweets as well.</comment>


Why isn't Mexico Rich? - <AUTHOR> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/why-isnt-mexico-rich/

<comment><USER2> Here's an important reason that I bet isn't in this article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim>

(Important background that curiously enough isn't in either Slim's or the NYT's Wikipedia entries: <http://www.google.com/search?q=Carlos+Slim+new+york+times>)</comment>