A growing respect for the Samwer brothers - <AUTHOR> http://posts.richoakley.com/post/rocket-internet-respect <comment><USER3> They hurt local innovation and ecosystem development in emerging markets from Asia to LatAm to Africa. They come in, hire away talent only to fire them in a few weeks. they damage the budding trust the consumer has in ecommerce.

They are bullies and have a superiority complex boasting about their capacity to execute. They do not have a monopoly on execution. That's a farce.

They are greedy, selfish and generally think only of themselves. Not the consumers they serve, the local markets or their employees.

I have witnessed them come into markets, destroy the lives and dreams of entrepreneurs and employees in emerging markets and shut down abruptly.

Finally, this operation (thier ecommerce operations in particular) is a house of cards. Service quality sucks, customers are lied to and they engage in an epic waste of money

It is impossible to build online retail operations in 1-2 years. Yet this is their objective. Build fluff and sell to some unsuspecting corporate development team.

The problems groupon is facing is inextricably linked to the involvement of the samwers as far as I'm concerned. Elsewhere, flash sales and couponing operations do well. Anything these guys touch is ultimately unsustainable and fluff. Now they want to try online retail with its logistics, warehousing, etc in emerging markets without a long term horizon. Ha! In a few years time you will realize how stupid the praise in this article is.

[http://e27.sg/2012/09/10/is-rocket-internet-losing-its- grip-...](http://e27.sg/2012/09/10/is-rocket-internet-losing-its-grip-in- southeast-asia/)

[http://sgentrepreneurs.com/2012/09/05/is-there-any-method- in...](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/2012/09/05/is-there-any-method-in-rocket- internets-madness/)

<comment><USER4> I'm going to assume you believe what you're saying.

You make it sound as if customers hand away money to a shady stranger who quickly disappears, and that the entire point of the company is to trample employees into the dirt. I have a hard time believing this, especially after all of the examples given in the article.

<comment><USER3> Let's not debate this. Go to

<http://www.facebook.com/home24.my?filter=2>

This is what they do in many cases. Comments about refunds can be found on FB page of virtually all ecommerce operations.

With regards to employees, imagine you live in the developing world, you have a well paying job at a mobile company. The sort of job 95% of the population will kill for.

Rocket shows up, doubles your salary. You quit your job and join rocket. One month later, they decide they are shuttering operations. You are fired through no fault of yours.

This may be fine (actually it isn't) in the developed world but is terminal to career and financially disastrous in emerging markets where job market is not liquid, job opportunities are prized and one individual sustains an entire extended family.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Samwer brothers fill a (pretty big) hole in the market. They execute proven business models in countries before the market leader can get there. If US-based companies would put more emphasis on international expansion the Samwers' business would melt away. (I'm a American who's lived in the UK for years and gets really irritated that a lot of great US companies don't bring their services here.)

side note -- I have to think there's a market for a group of experts based in major European/Asian markets that would specialize companies in clearing the hurdles to expanding internationally. Get a handful of people in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Russia who are experts in local regulations and can work fast to expand a US-based business.

<comment><USER6> I agree.

I'm in the UK, and has done quite a bit of work in the payment space, and I've kept seeing this all the time.

On one hand, a lot of US companies just ignore the European markets. On the other hand, a lot of the ones that try demonstrate why:

Assumption after assumption about regulatory regime, languages, culture etc. need to be beaten out of them. When they grasp multiple languages, you can bet a lot of them will get caught out with multiple languages in a single country (this one always confuses me - so many US companies deal with at least Spanish that you'd think more companies would be prepared to deal with this). Then there's inevitably issues around VAT/sales tax, and engineers who don't have the faintest understanding for just how strict handling of invoices are in some European countries (I remember when my dad still had to print out every electronic invoice he issued and _glue them in_ on numbered pages in a book to satisfy the auditors - thankfully things have moved on somewhat, but US engineers: Stop making systems where invoices can even theoretically be mutable after issuing already, and you'll be vastly better placed for international markets).

<comment><USER7> > so many US companies deal with at least Spanish that you'd think more > companies would be prepared to deal with this

Actually it's the opposite - inside the US, Spanish-speaking markets are mostly served by companies that only serve those markets and not the English speaking ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As Steve Blank tirelessly repeats, a startup is NOT a business, but a temporary organization searching for a viable business model.[1]

The Samwer brothers don't invest in startups! They invest in viable business models. They don't fund search; they fund only execution.

\--

[1] <http://steveblank.com/2012/03/05/search-versus-execute/>

<comment><USER9> I'm glad you reminded me that Steve Blank is the only living authority on start-ups, and that the word start-up can only mean precisely what he says, and nothing else.

<comment><USER10> Can you not make your point without the sarcasm and snarkiness? When I found HN, the reasoned, respectful discussions were what made it different from other sites. Posts like yours make this feel more like Slashdot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My response: <http://swombat.com/2012/9/20/rocket-internet>

The short of it: This is, in my opinion, perhaps the most innovative company in the startup industry today, the first of a new industry. To declare them non-innovative, as some people do, is either short-sightedness or just jealousy.

I'm sure a lot of people were jealous of YC too when it first started turning the angel/VC investing world on its head. Same difference.

<comment><USER12> Their strategy looks good - however what many people are assuming (that they do great execution ) is not correct. They have a record of hiring the top management in their investee companies from consulting firms. There has been a series of hire and fire events in their portfolio at the CEO level because of this.

I see a lot of comments in this page highlighting the fact that they open and shut companies in a matter of months. Actually, the problem is what I mentioned earlier. Poor choices of executive mangement (with no execution experience) results in runaway spending, disproportionate salaries, etc. In 6 months time the Samwer brothers take one look at the margins, decide that the business is unsustainable (as opposed to changing the execution) and shut it down.

In fact there is a recent article floating around that talks about this (my google-fu isnt good enough).

I personally think that Rocket's model is a brilliant strategy, but lacks appropriate execution structure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The Samwer brothers definitely deserve respect in a world where execution is paramount. Often, they execute more efficiently than the companies they copy.

If anyone says it's easy to just copy a company, they've never built a company before. There are so many intricacies that go into building a company and culture the right way. When you look at a company, you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. You can copy the part that you see, but without everything under it, you won't succeed.

One thing I would have loved for Rich to speak about a bit more is their treatment of the founders and employees of Rocket companies. I've spoken to employees before who shared stories of very harsh work environments and high turnover rates. Founders get very little equity. Employees get none.

From a business perspective, obviously they're doing something right and if people find enough value in being a part of these companies to put up with the downsides, that's their decision.

Still would love to see a deeper look into the negatives.

<comment><USER14> _Often, they execute more efficiently than the companies they copy._

Easy to say when the guy out front is taking all the arrows. Onlive went out of business because they had too much capital tied up in servers and not enough customers. Competitors now know that tying up money in servers is not the way to go. A fatally, expensive lesson learned by a technological leader.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> At Airbnb we respected them as a competitor, enough to know that we needed to crush them. Forgive the sports metaphor, but it's like in sports when you have respect for an opponent that you will face, but come game time you're at war.

Gotta say though, it was damn fun absolutely decimating them in a global game of 'Risk'.

I'll just leave these numbers here....

Airbnb vs Wimdu in Berlin - home of Rocket & Airbnb clone Wimdu \- Airbnb - 5830 listings (<https://www.airbnb.com/s/berlin>) \- Wimdu - ~504 listings (<http://bit.ly/P3XcLA>)

Airbnb vs Wimdu in San Francisco - home of Airbnb (and yes, they tried to compete with us here) \- Airbnb - 3904 listings - <https://www.airbnb.com/s/san-francisco>) \- Wimdu - <USER2>

</comment><comment><USER16> They're incredible at what they do and that isn't building innovative, new businesses. They've probably made more successful (in terms of revenue, exit, etc) web businesses than anyone else has. They've scaled up ideas into big companies by bringing on a lot of capital.

I don't respect them because they don't use this to build new, long term businesses and tear into others intellectual property but I can acknowledge their success thus far.

From what I've heard in the inside it's not the kind of place you'd want to work, people are fired and quit daily and it's cut throat but it seems to be working for them in terms of business.

</comment><comment><USER17> I am blown away, these guys have hacked innovation.

What this says to me is innovation is relative. If you've never seen an iPhone, and someone shows you a Samsung Galaxy, you would think it is mind blowing.

As far as the true innovators are concerned, because this is clearly a massive hack and not innovation, maybe this means there is a problem that companies have when trying to take a domestic company/app/service global.

Is there someone that could figure out how to deliver a service that simply takes any company's app and makes it globally distributable?... By removing government obstacles and language barriers...

</comment><comment><USER18> Being able to paint copies of a Picasso does not make you a great artist. Nor does it _deserve_ respect from the artistic community. All it says is that I have enough skill to operate a paint brush when given an exact template.

<comment><USER19> This is true, but art and business are not exact mirrors. Business has a lot more in common with sports and war than art. Sports teams copy each other like crazy when they see something working.

Facebook was a copycat. Google was a copycat.

Every television network in existence would be considered a copycat of the DuMont Television Network.

NASDAQ is a copycat.

Best Buy is a copycat.

American Idol is a copycat.

Not sure where you draw the line on originality.

<comment><USER18> There's a big difference between your examples and copying a company down to the pixel level. Come on, copying literally _every pixel_. As a designer and entrepreneur, I strongly feel there is something wrong with that. It is purely theft.

<comment><USER20> _theft_

The word "theft" implies that someone is being "wronged" by the action.

If we ask ourselves "is this the case? Is anyone harmed by the actions of the Samwer brothers?" then, after we force ourselves to really sit and think about the answer to the question, and after we attempt to find real-world examples which support our point of view, then we find ourselves in the uncomfortable situation of being inexorably pushed, prodded, and shoved toward the inevitable conclusion: No. No one was harmed. In fact, just the opposite: the people who now have access to the cloned services now enjoy a higher quality of life due to it.

In short, inasmuch as I share your prejudice, I cannot figure out any way of reconciling that prejudice with the honest assessment that the world is now more enriched than it was prior to the Samwers.

<comment><USER21> The people working for RI and the incubated companies are wronged. The copying is not the problem. The problem is how they treat their employees. In the Berlin tech scene, if you were working for rocket you are treated as an easy victim. As someone who accepts every insult, being yelled at and every wrong that is done to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _its as if they want to make it known that they are unashamadly, and without apology, cloning to the pixel, rather than taking the same idea and taking it into a new market. There is an element of cheek and disrespect that detracts from their credibility as entrepreneurs._

I wonder if this has (accidentally?) become part of their winning formula. Psychologically it seems quite likely that a competitor will give less respect (and therefore thought) to a company that seems cheap and uninspired.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm going to go against what most people are saying and disagree that this is a good thing. Too often companies like this are only after the money. For some reason their company STRONGLY reminded me of Zynga, which in my opinion is not a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'd be curious to know pg's opinion on the Samwer brothers.

</comment><comment><USER25> There isn't an issue in creating a process to bring business models into new markets that are working. It's innovative in a way and that's cool.

But it's not cool how they at least used to operate: contact US startups that had traction, and tell them they wanted to invest and bring them into EU. Ask for info on the business. Then, clone it.

As a side note it actually isn't great to have such a short cycle between startup traction and inevitable cloning. It means small startups have to rely on things like (gasp) the patent system to protect themselves from paying upfront to work out a business model only to have someone come in immediately to fragment the market.

</comment><comment><USER26> The way I see it the major difference between Rocket and startup foundries (Betaworks, Science, Sandbox) is how original the ideas are. And the only difference between foundries and VCs investing in shared assets for their startups (data analysis in Google Ventures, distribution in 500startups) is the belief in founders. If the costs of starting up fall it´s just time before some investors with operational backgrounds consider removing founders as part of the risk. Rocket is a model for a new form of ´startup corporation´, which, beyond clone sites, seems like an original idea.

</comment><comment><USER27> We often hear that "ideas are worthless, execution is everything", so it comes as no surprise that someone who executes well, should reap the rewards. I've heard many times about how terrible the Samwer brothers are for "ripping off" others innovations, but the truth is they have proven that they can out execute the original innovators.

In the case of Groupon, there was very little innovation, so riding the wave over an incumbent seemed on obvious. However many have tried, but few have executed as well as Samwer and in the end Samwer proved the business was too simple to emulate.

I don't think in the case of Stripe and Square that emulation will be a viable strategy. Payments by their very nature suggest an extremely high level of trust. Short term emulation would seem to breach that trust. I wouldn't invest the time nor money in a platform which is inherently built to sellout.

Pinterest on the other hand...well...good luck!

</comment><comment><USER28> First thing - this is written by a "media guy" and looks essentially like a practice PR piece - <http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html>.

Second - whatever the source of the article it still has a point.

The Samwers do execute reasonably competently and they do help bring new things to market. The thing that most people don't like is that they succeed and put bed to the lie that original ideas drive markets - when timing, location and execution matter more. See Apple's success in bringing copied tech to mass market consumption - one of the biggest companies in the world is a copycat and that is perfectly fine for Apple buying consumers.

</comment><comment><USER29> I wonder if this is actually a knock against the common incubator/VC idea that "founders/team are everything".

Clearly that's not how the Samwer brothers operate, where a viable business model that "clicks" for whatever reason is all that matters.

They simply hire qualified people to execute an existing idea, and then pump massive marketing dollars to establish the company. There's ZERO evidence that they go into a market _because_ they have "a great team", which AFAICT, is all something like Y Combinator really cares about.

It's interesting nonetheless -- perhaps there's multiple ways to start and scale new companies?

</comment><comment><USER30> The Samwers are exploiting the incredibly inadequate web of trust we have on the internet. It's incredible to me that we're willing to spend money with completely virtual entities and expect things to work out. Is our trust in regulation and the rule of law that solid? Especially in emerging markets?

</comment><comment><USER31> Business 101 teaches you that if barriers to entry are low there will be many competitors. Why is this so surprising for people? It is good for the consumer. It always has been.

In the SWOT section of your business plan, under W, if you didn't have Samwer brothers you need to rethink it a bit.

</comment><comment><USER32> I trialled for their Aus arm and promptly walked out after finally getting an answer to how much they (don't) pay. I took a job a week later for double what they offered which is still an average wage. I have no respect for these guys.

</comment><comment><USER33> Execution is key, ideas can be easily copied.</comment>


Apple to include new keyboard in 2019 MacBook Air and 2020 MacBook Pro - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2019/07/04/kuo-new-keyboard-macbook-air-pro/ <comment><USER2> >> The MacBook Pro is also getting the new scissor switch keyboard, but not until 2020.

I guess my 2013 macbook pro will have to stay alive yet another year. Plus half a year of seeing if these keys are reliable

>> Apple is apparently set to ditch the butterfly mechanism used in MacBooks since 2015, which has been the root of reliability issues and its low-travel design has also not been popular with many Mac users.

Profitability issues due to replacements

>> Kuo says that Apple's butterfly design was expensive to manufacture due to low yields. The new keyboard is still expected to cost more than an average laptop keyboard, but it should be cheaper than the butterfly components.

Do they count low yields at the factory, or do they include replacements due to defects?

<comment><USER3> Indeed, why not just switch back to the old design instead of yet another "new" design that will need to be proven - even if the old design is expensive, this is a premium laptop, for professionals, and I'd argue the keyboard is one area you should not be compromising too heavily for cost.

<comment><USER4> I get the sense that their new new design will be little more than an incremental improvement on the tried-and-true scissor switch, with a fun story about breakthrough materials design.

And I also get the sense that whatever Apple does here will be tested within an inch of its life. Hopefully that includes chocolate crumbs followed by a spilt latte.

<comment><USER5> > _chocolate crumbs followed by a spilt latte._

Bring back the Atari 400 keyboard!

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Atari_40...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Atari_400_keyboard.jpg)

<comment><USER6> Interestingly, the one version of the butterfly keyboard, that seems to be reliable, is the smart keyboard for the iPad pro, which to no surprise is covered with a thin sheet. It is completely resistant to any dirt of liquid and even feels better than the MB Air keyboard.

<comment><USER7> The keyboard part of it is reliable for a while. But both the prior and current models have a keystroke correlated life.

The more you type, the sooner some part of the system (maybe the smart connector apparatus?) becomes unreliable. You increasingly have to uncouple and recouple the keyboard for keys to register correctly. Eventually, you throw it away and buy a new one. Thankfully a new one fixes it. For me, Apple has been ok with giving me the new one even though of course it generally doesn't act up while in the store, only while trying to take real time notes during a critical retro ...

For me, the failure point ranges somewhere between 6 and 9 months, correlated with amount of notes and emails.

To be fair, the electronic failure comes well after the physical failure where the fabric printed with key caps has the key caps wear off then itself wears through — for me usually where the right thumb hits the space bar goes first.

Long story short, a superficial study would say it's fantastic. In real world, I don't know anyone using the iPad as a real genuine daily driver (to the exclusion of laptops and desktops) that has the Apple keyboard last a year. Every one that's tried this with me for the past two models has had to replace them multiple times.

<comment><USER6> That is bad news indeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd love to know more about the development timeline of this. When did Apple realise the butterfly switches were not salvagable?

My assumption is that Apple has a two year lead time for new models, so that they would have started working on this rumored 2019 Macbook Air in late 2017. At that point they must have realised that their updated butterfly switches from the July 2017 Macbook Pros still had reliability issues, so they started working on Macbooks with scissor switches. But since that would take 2 years, they had to do something in the mean time, and tried the silicone barrier to improve the situation with the 2018 models. When that still didn't help, they introduced their keyboard service program to avoid further hits to Macbook Pro sales.

Of course, that's all speculation, but I'd love to hear what the decisions were really like -- those must have been some very stressful meetings...

<comment><USER4> > When did Apple realise the butterfly switches were not salvagable?

Probably about five minutes after Jony Ive left. Somehow I doubt the timing is a coincidence.

<comment><USER9> It's probably one of the reasons for his departure. According to Ive, Apple is no longer pursuing design for the sake of design and it's instead going for products that work but in a more "mundane" form. And this somehow is a bad thing.

<comment><USER6> I don't think Apple has pursued design for the sake of design until very recently. Apple devices traditionally combined great design with good functionality. The G5 iMac was not only beautiful but you could open it up in a minute with a simple screwdriver. Only the current generation of iMacs hat the whole device literally glued together, so that any access to internals turned into an expensive repair bill.

My late 2008 Unibody MacBook hat a door which opened with a latch and gave access to the battery and hard disk. In a body that looks very much like my 2015 MB Pro. For quite a while, MB Pros might have been difficult to open, but you still could access battery, memory and SSD.

<comment><USER9> > I don't think Apple has pursued design for the sake of design until very > recently.

Most likely. But Ive saw that the senior layers being stacked against him and his vision over the past few years. I think this was best for everyone. Consumers included.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I sometimes feel that many people and companies need to take a lesson in the art of doing nothing.

Change for change's sake is pretty shitty. The feeling of needing to do or change something is sometimes wrong.

Like this app which used to work pretty damn good... Scanbot. Every single release they mess it up even more, simply because the developers need to be doing something.

<comment><USER10> Nah. Developers learned to do something without producing anything: Refactoring! We can do it all the day as long as you want, there's no end at perfection. That's managers who feel that they need to do something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Keyboard ergonomics and feel is dependent on many factors, but it is a > promising sign that Apple is reverting to the same key switch mechanism used > in every MacBook before 2015, which was widely praised.

If Apple builds an MBPr with the 2015 keyboard with newer materials and calls this a new and improved keyboard. They will have a purchase from me.

I will also hope that it's essentially a 2015 chassis and comes with magsafe and an improved cord so it doesn't wear out as quick. With the extra thickness they shouldn't have the screen issues with the cord wearing out either, solving that problem as well.

The only two wishes that I have are a micro-oled screen and arm processor. Maybe in 2022 I get delivered these, but I can wait.

edit: i meant micro-oled, not mini

<comment><USER12> Isn't the touchbar what you're asking for? Mini-oled screen and arm processor. Unless it was ironic and I am oblivious.

<comment><USER13> I think they mean MicroLED rather than mini oled. MicroLEDs are meant to look and act the same as oleds but since they're non organic, which means they don't burn out like oleds do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> First good signs after Ive departure. I hope that new blood will improve their product line.

</comment><comment><USER12> Unfortunate. I really love the new keyboard. I am typing it right now on a 2017 Macbook Pro butterfly keyboard. I have a 2015 Macbook Pro too but I don't like its keys that much.

<comment><USER14> I'm in the same boat, I much prefer the feel of the butterfly keys to the older mushy-feeling MacBook pro keyboards. Currently I'm still using the first Touch Bar MBP from 2016 and have had zero keyboard (or other hardware) problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's good news—for the people who are buying laptops next year.

Hopefully the return to scissor switches is combined with some improvements to the touch bar. My suggestion to Apple would be: put a small physical ESC key on the far left of the touch bar on 13 inch models, and include both physical F-keys AND a touch bar on the larger models.

Bonus points: allow people to choose classic F-keys on the 13 inch models as a BTO option.

<comment><USER15> I suggest ditching that piece of shit of an invention.

4 years on, the TouchBar:

\- Adds zero value in terms of functionality nor user experience for 95%+ of the user base

\- Fails to better the classic buttons to change volume

\- Fails to better the classic buttons to change screen brightness

\- Leaves users deadlocked when they change screen displays

\- Is incompatible with bootcamp, oftentimes blanking out

\- Needs the user to be very cautious to not rest their hand anywhere near the touchbar, or ESC/F1/F2 will be pressed accidentally

\- Needs the user to make sure that ESC was pressed when they wanted it pressed. No haptic feedback is terrible.

\- Consumes more battery

\- Adds a few hundred bucks to the price of the laptop, and there's lack of choice for 2018 MBP which forces the TouchBar on the user

If still alive, Jobs would have ripped someone's head off for letting the marketing idiots drive product development.

Fuck you Apple.

<comment><USER16> I avoided the Touchbar MBP for having no physical feedback and no escape key.

Yet I know multiple developers who consider it "quite nice, actually".

So I'm wondering: do you really own a Touchbar MbP or do you just have an opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is it going to improve repairability?

Failing keyboard is just part of the problem. It is exposed part and sometimes fails.

The main issue is that its not possible to replace keyboard in easy and non destructive way. One has to ripout rivets, drill new holes and cut new threads.

Glu, SSD soldered on motherboard, non availability of replacement parts, bad repair service centers...

</comment><comment><USER18> It's a pity they can't get them reliable enough.

My son has a 13" 2017 MPB and really likes the keys. I have a 15" 2015 MPB and need to replace it, and have quite enjoyed the butterfly keyboard when I use his.

I'm really looking forward to getting one with the touchbar, although I'd like a physical escape key.

</comment><comment><USER19> I love the low travel and the feel of the keyboard on the 2018 model, but I'm not overjoyed that I had to hand my machine over for repair. Still, at least I got a brand new battery out of it too, thanks to the sketchy design choices…

</comment><comment><USER20> As I mentioned [here]([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20322875](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20322875)), negative reviews (especially to brand new tech) tend to get much much more traction, because the ones that are currently satisfied to the machine have no reason to 'whine'.

Read and compare the comments of this article and other news about the butterfly switches/keyboards. There are practically none comments about the butterfly's advantages. In this page, I see 4~5 comments about how butterflies are better (out of 27) even though this was submitted to 1 hour ago. [0] Considering this is HN (which likes bashing Apple) and that this is an issue more about reliability than the butterfly keyboard itself, and that the title really doesn't indicate the loss of the butterfly switches, it's a pretty high value (IMHO). I have yet to found anyone to complain while using the butterfly keyboards so IMO the criticism given to Apple with the butterfly switches are exaggerated.

The butterflies are innovative brand new switches, it's pretty reasonable for Apple to fail to predict these long-term failures. I was expecting 2018-style fixes where the fixes don't reduce the advantages of the switches; however I'm suspicious if the scissor based switches can retain low-pitch & stable keys.

When SJ did things, SJ wasn't worried about how others would say about new things. (To be fair, there were less people complaining as the market was much smaller before.) As a result, the (iterated and polished) end-results were pretty good, and people got to use the polished result.

I get to get worried about Apple when seeing these articles lately, as it looks like Apple has no more ideas and merely applying feedback to products.

I hope, (as a customer that prefers butterfly switches vastly over to more traditional switches or mechanical switches) 2019 & 2020 MBPs get a permanently fixed, better quality butterfly switches that can mitigate all customer dissatisfaction.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353336](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353336) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353528](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353528) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353685](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353685) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353617](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353617)

</comment><comment><USER21> Hope they update the non touchbar Macbook Pro as well. Which has been sitting dust from all the upgrades(new keyboard, 8th gen CPU).

</comment><comment><USER22> And at the same time, while Apple is moving away from butterfly switches, Dell is moving to them with new business laptop lines and XPS

<comment><USER23> Aren't those maglev though?

<comment><USER22> Yes, they are. Just a fancy branding with some minor technical differences, but the mechanical scheme is the same

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> They're going to come up with some putatively face-saving alibi for this if true, but beats me what that may turn out to be.

</comment><comment><USER25> Excellent. Where does that leave those of us stuck with keyboards that don't work?

<comment><USER26> They have a free keyboard replacement plan for keyboards that don't work. [https://support.apple.com/keyboard-service-program-for- mac-n...](https://support.apple.com/keyboard-service-program-for-mac- notebooks)

<comment><USER27> Yeah, so they can defer the problem until out of warantee... like they have done with every single other defect in the past.

Some people catch on to this fact and kick up a fuss in store when there is a newer model available without the defect, if you are lucky they will cave and replace it with a new model instead of a new old broken model. At least, this used to work about 10 years ago with the first significant defect on intel based models (GPU failures), I haven't bothered with Apple since, not worth it.

<comment><USER28> For what it's worth I waited until they supposedly fixed the sticky keys issue, and got the new model last year. And within a few weeks my keys were stickingi anyway. Just going to leave that extra i in the last sentence for effect...

<comment><USER25> Nnice work!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why don't they offer both options? I really like the 2018 butterfly.

<comment><USER30> Because it's about realiability, they just can't get the butterfly mechanism to work without failing eventually and don't want to replace keyboards constantly. It's irrelavant that some people like the feel of the butterfly keyboard more if it breaks far too often.

<comment><USER29> Makes sense, thanks.

<comment><USER25> Agree the mechanism is really very good. Just keeps breaking, unfortunately.

<comment><USER29> I've had the first butterfly model (wast it 2016?), and indeed the keys would get stuck easily and I had to clean the keyboard with compressed air every other day, but even then I didn't have a single key broken down completely to stop functioning. And the 2018 model is much better, I will blow it with air occasionally, more as a precaution measure, and it works just fine.

<comment><USER25> Compressed air doesn't fix it, sadly. Going in for repair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> And I will be stuck with my £3000 macbook

<comment><USER32> Yeah I'm stuck with my 1977 Datsun 120Y too.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Random midnight sunday request: critique our staging site - <AUTHOR> http://pogoweb-staging.a.pogoapp.com/

<comment><USER2> The app library looks like a killer feature of this site.

If I wanted to fool with my own application stack, I could just buy from a VPS provider or EC2 instance, and have total control.

But a lot of people probably just want their website to have a blog, or forums, or chat, or bug tracking, or Git hosting, or other stuff, without having to worry about keeping their Ruby gems up-to-date, installing a database and maintaining a database user, installing and securing Redis, maintaining a separate user account for the application, maintaining secure permissions on application files, and the like. And they're willing to pay to make it happen.

This is a place where a startup like you can make money by adding value, since there aren't a ton of big providers offering commodity services at rock-bottom prices.

I'd suggest including more apps in the library, and featuring this more prominently on the front page.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, we agree!

There's a lot of work that still needs to go into building the app library into what we're really envisioning it will be. We don't want to talk up more than we've got working, but I can say we're absolutely planning on expanding that aspect of the service over the coming months :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think you need to work on your content a bit. You main title is your best chance of drawing someone in. At the moment it's "Web app platform". Try A/B test it with something a little more exciting and add benefit of the platform i.e. why would I use this over Heroku?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! We're going to work on that. We've got some architectural advantages vs. Heroku that we think will become more apparent once we get some new features in place, but right now the main benefits vs. Heroku are WebSockets, the ability to persist data to local storage (for running databases/etc), and much simpler/cheaper billing for the beta. We're trying to come up with a way to summarize this in a bumper sticker slogan :)

<comment><USER3> Awesome! Sounds like you're on the right track.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://pogoweb-staging.a.pogoapp.com/team> is broken

<comment><AUTHOR> Heh, sorry about that. Worked only when logged-in. Fixed :)</comment></comment>


For gifted children, being intelligent can have dark implications (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://calgaryherald.com/life/swerve/gifted-children-are-frequently-misunderstood <comment><USER2> I think that there's plenty of intelligent kids who are able to devote part of their intelligence to noticing the whole lord of the flies going around and figuring that it's better to not raise you hand when teacher asks question (because answering it won't give you anything (besides grade which is useless) and can paint crosshair on your back) and figuring that it's better to be useful to reasonable group so you can hide among them, and figuring whom to hide from and how. I don't think intelligent kids are more maladjusted to average environments. It's just this is much more visible when smart kid is in trouble. When average kid fails to pay attention to their surroundings they are just bullied looser kids. I think there's proportionally more of such people than bullied looser geniuses.

Schools are just not healthy environments. Not only for gifted.

<comment><USER3> >I think that there's plenty of intelligent kids who are able to devote part of their intelligence to noticing the whole lord of the flies going around and figuring that it's better to not raise you hand when teacher asks question

I think these come from different sorts of intelligence. You can be intelligent in regards to knowing the right answer but be stupid in regards to knowing that you shouldn't be a know-it-all. Or you could lack the ability to evaluate the advice of adults and thus fully believe what they say at face value (which when combined with the peer-pressure is evil message can lead to optimizing social interactions in some of the worst ways possible).

Those who are gifted socially and in other ways are likely to have far less trouble. I think the gifted who have problems are those gifted in some way, but who are below average in terms of social skills, because the ways they are gifted leads to adults missing that the ways they are challenged.

<comment><USER2> I know that people say that there are various kinds of intelligence because you can get varying performance when you measure it for various activities.

But IQ correlates with widest range of performance measurements of various activities. There is a strong variability but IMHO it's just because you perform best in things that interest you. So even very intelligent person won't perform better than average person in activity s/he's vastly less interested in than average person.

My hypothesis is that being socially maladjusted is no more prevalent in gifted kids than it is in average kids. You could disprove it by showing that for example that bullied kids IQ profile is shifted toward higher values. I'm not aware of such studies but I think it won't be the case.

<comment><USER4> > My hypothesis is that being socially maladjusted is no more prevalent in > gifted kids than it is in average kids.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the problem with gifted kids, or those of higher intelligence in general, is indeed not that they're more likely to have certain problems, but rather their rational _awareness_ of the problem, combined with a stronger reliance on that rational side of their brain. This can make problems worse for them.

I've had a number of friends who are not very intelligent. And I started noticing that it's primarily their _response_ to problems that differs from mine and other more highly-educated friends of mine. I notice a general lack of awareness, introspection, and analysis of the problem.

This applies to fitting in socially, but also to many other 'typical' problems we humans tend to have: career paths, breakups, fights, work stress, difficult friendships, and addiction.

For better (and also worse), I notice that the less intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to just _feel_ bad, confused, angry, fearful, and then shrug it off and move on. The upside is that they're less likely to get caught up in over-analyzing and identifying with their problem (which in my experience doesn't solve anything). But the downside is that they might never face and try to fix or learn to handle such a problem.

I used to think that this downside is a very big one, and 'intellectual awareness' is mostly a good thing. But now I'm not so sure anymore. Ignorance can be bliss, and it's really, really difficult to think clearly and objectively about our own problems anyways. Perhaps our 'awareness' is really just a more elaborate and ultimately ineffective way to deal with these problems.

Intelligent people are better, in general, at rational thinking (pattern recognition?). But underneath that we still have all the subconscious, irrational machinery, primitive urges and 'lizard brain' emotions. Perhaps the problem is that smart people overdevelop the rational side, which perhaps is also culturally encouraged, and never learn to just feel bad and move on.

For example, the friends that I would consider clearly less intelligent are more likely to just yell or get mad in a fight. They'll vent about what the other did wrong, how they were treated unfairly, etc. They might ignore this person, or engage in various forms of meanness. And then one day they're okay again, and they act as if nothing happened. They don't need to understand exactly what happened, and they seem on average less likely to carry grudges.

The more intelligent of my friends will engage in long conversations diving into the psychology of the situation: freudian underlying causes, patterns of behavior in this other person, past events and what they mean, future implications, labelling ('Well, I think she's kind of bipolar'), the contextual factors ('Well, he's going through some tough things at work').

On an intellectual level we now understand the situation and even sympathize or empathize with the person who did something bad to us. We feel pretty good about how reasonable we are. Our rational side is happy. But emotionally we're just mad, or scared, or upset and confused. Because we don't give these feelings space (unless we understand them, which is often difficult), we don't learn how to just have those feelings, and we build up complex coping mechanisms that _appear_ to work, but easily lead to all kinds of bigger problems.

It reminds me a lot of the mechanics of addiction. The solutions are relatively simple (not easy though!), but in my experience those who stay stuck in addictions the longest are those who are overly rational about it. They might even have deep understanding of addiction, but paradoxically that knowledge seems to make it easier to remain addicted.

(As an aside, since this is a long-ass comment already, I can strongly recommend David Foster Wallace's biography. Reading it was confronting _and_ enlightening, as it highlighted how a brilliant dude with exceptional knowledge of human behavior and addiction could nonetheless stay addicted and rationalize his behavior in some very dumb ways.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A point not raised in the article: some areas have gifted programs that are simply too large. I was enrolled in one in Fairfax County in northern Virginia, and nearly a fifth of the student population was part of it. I moved away before high school, but in high school, the program ended, and the expectation was that gifted children enroll in the Thomas Jefferson magnet school for science and technology — which looked at GPA (of eighth graders) as a deciding factor in admissions — or simply continue taking ordinary honors classes in high school, which were essentially opt-in-to-more-homework classes.

The correlation with eccentricity is not nearly as strong, in my experience, among children who are one standard deviation above average, as in children who are two. Teachers who are actually talented at teaching gifted children see their efforts spread too thin, with only 1–3 children per class who could really benefit from this teacher over other good teachers.

And the eccentric children don't ever get the insulation from other kids' bullying they need; they often avoid even making friends among themselves because they see that as a way of cementing their low social status. Gifted children can make friends with — for lack of a better word — normal children, but some of them, at least, can only get the social stimulation they need from real intellectual conversation with their peers, which other children are either incapable of or uninterested in.

I don't believe we should isolate gifted children from the rest of the population day in, day out. That would only serve to create an echochamber and leave them woefully unprepared when they inevitably leave the bubble. But I do think they need to be given significant time amongst themselves so that they can develop the friendships and confidence they need to survive in the general population, and the special academic attention which might hopefully stimulate them enough to help them flounder less in regular classes.

<comment><USER6> An anecdote:

The gifted program at my school was genuinely fun and interesting. They spent the year on a theme, say astronomy, and explored that theme through a variety of projects. For example, they designed a game about space travel, they built a model of the solar system, etc.

I was not in it until the 6th grade, the last year before "gifted" meant "do more homework" in my school system. I got in because the previous year I built a fairly impressive lego castle for my entry project and maybe they thought that because they were doing architecture as the theme that I would do well. I really did enjoy it and looked forward to it every week.

But I was not, and am not, an exceptionally hard worker or particularly motivated to excel. I probably have an above average memory and was thus able to do well in school despite my laziness (I graduated high school with a 3.3 GPA). Even if I was "gifted", you wouldn't know it from my work. But given the opportunity to engage in something, I took that chance and looked forward to it.

I'm not sure that this addresses the children in the article, but I feel it's sort of a pity that the weekly "explore your interests" classes are no longer part of the gifted program in my child's school district. Not because she's necessarily gifted, but because I think she'd find it fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I could say a lot about the quality of education: the lack of a challenge, the boringness of the one-size-fits-all curriculum, etc. But boredom isn't that big of a deal. I made up for that by studying what I wanted to outside of school, instead of doing homework. Even with the vindictive teachers that made homework 30% of the final grade, it was still cakewalk to pass their classes without doing a single assignment.

The real root of the reason school was a living hell for me was the bullying. We all like to tell kids that "the teachers will help you", but they either don't care or feel they can't do anything. Either way, the net effect is they are completely useless. We tell kids, "it builds character!", but that's nonsense. I don't care if it _is_ the secret to my success, I'd rather be average today than to have experienced a tormented childhood. Those were formative years, and those scars run deep.

The worst mistake I ever made was deciding I wouldn't be a part of that Lord of the Flies bullshit. I kept thinking it'd get better as we got older, but it only got much worse. I never stuck up for myself, never learned how to fight, never worked out to become stronger to defend myself. And that's easily my biggest source of regret. Every day my mind recalls terrible memories from those days, and I find myself constantly thinking, "if only I had fought back here or done this there ..."

Bullying mostly targets the gifted, but it would help everyone if we took it seriously, instead of just saying, "well I went through it and lived; so the next generation can too!"

Also, it's bordering on a different topic, but bullying very much extends to the home as well. Abusive parents, siblings, etc. Some kids have literally no escape from it for 18+ years.

<comment><USER8> If it makes you feel any better, if you fight back you will get hit harder.

<comment><USER9> Potentially. I deterred many bullies because I simply didn't give any fucks. I grew up pretty poor and moved a lot, so I was always the new kid, and I also stood out because I usually immediately rose to the top of the class. That usually painted a target on my chest, but it didn't last long.

The few times I was bullied was always the first few weeks after I arrived, and they quickly found out I would fight back pretty aggressively. Was that a "being poor" thing? Was it my notorious "punched a kid in the face for cutting in front of me in line when I was five" temper? Was it simply because I wasn't an "easy" mark?

I can't rightfully say, but one of those things definitely reduced my propensity for being the target of bullies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was bullied for 8 years in primary school. I made the simple mistake of showing off how much smarter I am than the rest of the class (I was kind of a prick about that, looking at it now), and it was impossible to fix it later. Having visible skin condition, walking around bandaged for months, and asthma had not helped either.

I've learnt how to adjust when I was in hospitals and sanatorium, changing einvironment a few times is great for that. In middle school everything was OK already (also it was much better school, so there were more kids like me there).

I also think being on the receiving end of ostracism is valuable experience (but not for 8 years, a few months would suffice). It works as a vaccine against tribal thinking.

<comment><USER11> > I also think being on the receiving end of ostracism is valuable experience > (but not for 8 years, a few months would suffice). It works as a vaccine > against tribal thinking.

Peter Thiel said something about this once, speculating on why "disruptive" (pretty sure that was not the word he used) start-ups are disproportionally run by awkward social outsiders, and his theory is that "normal" kids instinctively seek validation from peers, and for these "disruptive" start- ups, they are saying that it's insane, it can't be done (go work in law/finance/management consulting instead). The awkward kids don't care (as much), and are therefore able to focus on actually doing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm from Calgary, and I went through the GATE program covered in this article.

While some of my classmates were certainly a bit ...eccentric... the vast majority were wonderful, completely normal people and many of them went on to do incredible things.

I've since moved to San Francisco, and I've gotta say, SF and the GATE program seem to have a lot in common: both fill me with the feeling that anything is possible; coupled with the nagging suspicion that everyone else is smarter, harder working, and more successful ... :)

</comment><comment><USER13> The article discusses people who may have a trait Dr Elaine Aron calls "highly sensitive". She has been researching the highly sensitive since 1991.

She says the trait is normal. It is found in 15 to 20% of the population. She writes:

"While being easily overstimulated and aware of subtle little things may be what most parents notice first about their Highly Sensitive Child, depth of processing is really the underlying trait."

See her 2014 summary of scientific research on highly sensitive children here: [http://hsperson.com/pdf/Authors_note_HSC.pdf](http://hsperson.com/pdf/Authors_note_HSC.pdf)

For more information see Dr Aron's website here: [http://hsperson.com/](http://hsperson.com/)

</comment><comment><USER14> There's a reason why "outsider feels lonely, outsider is needed, outsider saves the world" has been a recurring theme in fiction for decades - it's something that _everyone_ can identify with and everyone dreams of. It's normal. This isn't something that's limited to "gifted children".

<comment><USER15> This XKCD comes to mind: [https://xkcd.com/610/](https://xkcd.com/610/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Intelligence is disruptive to the way people organize. Any trait that is disproportionately out of balance is in effect, a deformity. We used to say about gifted special education classes, "we're not retards, we're more like _super_ -retards."

So we have a bunch of intellectually unbalanced kids whose deformity happens to be a mystical trait that modern society irrationally worships. Kids who have no control over the thing they are rewarded for learn to balance out their intellectual difference with new psychological defects.

You can see how this gets stupid really fast.

Like that comic character in the movie, I realized early on that gifted classes were not there to insulate me from the other kids, but rather to insulate them from me.

Do your gifted kids a favor and keep them out of special programs that isolate them from peers, and teach your kids to take their rightful place leading them.

<comment><USER17> That advice resonates with me.

My wife and son are Aspergers. I put a lot of effort into teaching social skills to my son (via myself and through courses) and by proxy, my wife has benefitted too. We also put my son into a regular and high performing school, despite his gifted ability (WISC tested).

I've had several friends tell me that I saved my son, which I think means that focussing on socialisation and behaviour was of more benefit to him than solely driving his academic performance.

He went from a troubled boy to reasonably accepted in a few years. While it's feigned behaviour (eg. He mimics being like others), it helps him socially. I've seen other Aspergers kids be broken by their peers because they don't try to (or can't) conform.

I spoke with his teacher last week and said "I expect the same respect and treatment for my son where possible" and highlighted a bad example where my son was singled out in front of the class "you can't treat an Aspergers like that".

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This resonated with me. Growing up I always felt like an alien around other kids, my mindset was just so different. I put a lot of effort into fitting in though, which I think helped somewhat. Even so, I very nearly dropped out of school and could quite easily have gone down a dark path (likely ending up homeless or in prison or worse). Luckily I went to one of the best public schools in the country and ended up with some pretty good teachers, but I learned as much on my own as I did from school, and had things been different I might have lost patience. As it was I nearly ended up stuck on a remedial track for most subjects on entering High School (due partly to the fact that I just didn't do homework, 20-some years later after discovering that I have ADHD a lot more things make sense). Somehow at 13 I had the maturity to realize I needed to fix that and luckily the school system rewarded my efforts (ultimately I graduated with special honors among a handful of top students in my class, and entered college as a sophomore).

I imagine a lot of other folks who are just as smart as I was but didn't luck out with the same circumstances have been severely let down by the system over the years. Things just aren't setup for people who learn differently, or at a different pace, or have a different form of cognition than the archetypal student that everything is built around. Which ends up ill serving a lot of students across all intelligence levels.

</comment><comment><USER19> I know smart people that had difficulties in school and smart people that steamrolled through school. Smart people that were bullied, smart people that bullied others, smart people that didn't have anything to do with bullying. I don't think any of the issues described has much to do with being smart per- se. There's this kind of people that just don't feel OK at school, smart or not.

</comment><comment><USER20> I have a friend that is considered incredibly intelligent. When he attended kindergarten he realised he was different from the other children and so deduced he must be an alien. Fortunately his hypothesis was just a phase.

<comment><USER21> This strikes home, though I'm pretty much "only" upper normal (110-120 - several results in that range; never tested as a kid), but I had this fantasy from like 2nd grade until 5th or 6th grade. I probably annoyed my parents to no end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Disintegration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Disintegration)

<comment><USER23> That was a nice read. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't know if I'm gifted (I score 125 at some IQ test on abstraction when applying at a company, but still IQ is not always a correct to measure intelligence, so take this with a grain of salt), but my psychiatrist tells me I'm intelligent (he might say this to agree with me, maybe he doesn't think so and it's for another goal).

Yet I'm unemployed, 30 year old, and can't manage to get hired or to do work that is given to me. I don't want to tell people I'm just a special snowflake or something of that matter (since many people easily come down on you for it when they can), but I always hated school because I felt it was formatting me, and not stimulating me. I recently went into some school program for web programming, I hated it and failed it, yet I was considered to know things already.

I'm a little tired of people telling me it's a personality problem, to be frank.

In my view, school is not meritocratic, because its aim is to be efficient and teach important basics to the most people, which politically is a good thing. But is it for everyone? No, and people who are intelligent and care about what the learn actually have more chances to fail, simply because learning program are tailored to be taught easily.

I remember meeting a jury for some project at this school program, and they were pretty judgmental towards my behavior or my opinions when they were asking me specific questions about me.

I think Good Will Hunting precisely describes this problem. Society doesn't know how to pull people up according to their capabilities, because not everything is known about psychology, but also because society often tends to perpetuates its error because of social models which are built on belief.

I think there is no real opportunities for people who might have better capabilities than other. Maybe it should be treated as a handicap or special need, but it's true that politically it's hard to explain such thing when there already is a debate about inequality.

<comment><USER25> I'm in similar situation. I finished MA and never really had to work hard for anything. Had IQ at around 130. Probably less now cause I had not done anything challenging for decade.

I hate my job, have no achievments whatosever and I balance on doing bare minimum not to get fired. Changed job 4 times and it's definitely me. That's despite the fact that I was always going to be a programmer since I was 10, and I loved programming. I'm lazy as hell and I'm astonished every day they won't fire me. Any dreams of success in mine choosen callign are long past.

I also had huge problems with social interactions, married first girl that could look past it (she has similar problems). It wasn't a good decision.

My wife has even bigger problems with employement, but she declines to agree it's her fault (she changes job every year and it's always "them"). We are codependent and use each other not to be alone. We hurt each other a lot. I don't think it's love, but then I find love to be hard to define (I mostly feel "I should be feeling this" instead of actually feeling this, not only towards her).

I should really leave her, cause she isn't happy with me (nor am I with her), but she has her life wasted, in some party because of me, and she depends on me at least economicaly at this point. Or maybe it's rationalization because it's more convenient to continue this.

I'm addicted to internet and gaming, and I'm well aware of the fact that I'm wasting my life. I just don't care. No right to complain really, I had it better than most people, and it's entirely my fault I'm wasting it all. And yet I do, because nothing worthwhile seems achievable and vice-versa.

BTW I know I sound arrogant and selfish, that's because I am. I wondered many times if maybe I'm just stupid (that would explain a lot). In the end it doesn't really matter, results matter and I don't have them.

I probably could get depression diagnosed, but I don't want to cure it even if it's true, because it would mean I have to actually do sth. So my best diagnosis is "chronic laziness".

<comment><USER24> I'm exactly in the same type of relationship problem, except she is the one working.

I'm currently trying a behavioral cognitive therapy, so far it's working a little better than whatever else I tried with psychiatrists.

What is making me hold to life, is to try to do some stuff I know how to do: programming, etc at a minimal pace and scale (I have this small video game project I'm trying to do). Even though it won't solve my problems (or at least immediately), I still believe in what I do or can do, and it prevents me from giving up everything.

If you have skills and like to do certain things or if you are attracted to certain things, go do them, it's not a waste of your time, even if the task seems daunting or hard. In a way, you can reason it as being some kind of possible contribution to society, and for me that's how I maintain a minimal amount of self-esteem.

<comment><USER26> (Un)mployment/skills/salary is just one peculiar property of the world you live in, making too much identity out of that seems unhealthy. Frankly, the first time I recall thinking about myself in such terms was when, as a young stupid kid, I wanted to punish some kids whose envy pissed me off by deliberately bragging how great I am. So, don't treat yourself the way I did my schoolyard enemies :)

To me, no matter how you think and try to rationalize your worth, the sense of worth seems to be strongly connected with empathy. You may experiment with things like making people happy just for the fun of it when you stumble upon some right opportunity for that. I think this slowly improves _my_ relationships with some people.

And I mean actually happy and actually fun - you see, others have empathy too and they know if you are sacrificing yourself for them. This may be appreciated in the short term, but not always in the long term. Sometimes you may paradoxically make them feel better by slowing down a bit, if they can handle that.

These processes are slow, all you do is maintain vigilance and use opportunities as they come. It would be hard to engineer one quick action which fixes everything, humans are weird and unpredictable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It can be the other way round. A child may strive to learn things and achieve academic success because he is deprived of normal love and unconsciously believes that when he proves himself smart and successful, people will recognize and love him. I.e. it's not that being gifted leads to suffering; it may be that these kids already suffer and just try harder to survive.

<comment><USER28> This was definitely the case in my situation. I grew up gifted AND overweight/obese at an athletics-focused public school in a Northeast US suburb. I was bullied. A lot of my thought processes were "it doesn't matter if I'm fat/how I look/how my peers treat me because at least I'm smart and someday I'll be better than them..."

So I spent my high school inside WoW, where nobody can see you, and I went to a good college and worked really hard to get an education, lost some weight there (and developed socially, somewhat), and now I'm a full-time software developer (graduated school last May). I'm realizing that (a) I'm not actually an "introvert," I just never had a chance to develop socially, and (b) the reasons that initially attracted me to software development (specifically, the ability to just "get in the zone" and escape from reality for hours and hours) are now considerably less appealing to me. I'd much rather be in a job that exposes me to some sort of social interaction beyond my manager, although perhaps the grass is always greener...

Anyway, to relate back to OP, I really, really wish someone had pulled me out of my public school and let me develop with a group of other "misfits." I eventually fell into that social group anyway, in high school (mostly artists, turns out), but the damage was done. I had a "challenge math" class in elementary school that was fun (and all the other kids I remember from that class either went to ivy leagues or ended up in software or both), but beyond accelerating our math education and offering AP courses, there was no support for giftedness in my school system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> luckily not everyone who is smart is necessarily a wreck, but some are. i was too. still am but now i'm a more powerful wreck and some people actually need to listen me.

<comment><USER30> I know it's incredibly immature of me to applaud this, but this sounds like music to my ears too.

<comment><USER31> Sure, but you may want to keep an eye on situations when this attitude limits you.

Stubborn power freaks tend to be excessively self conscious when they know how others are going to react once they "finally" make some big mistake.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Here is a great page of resource links that mostly avoids commercial things: [http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/social_emotional.htm](http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/social_emotional.htm)

I also recommend [http://sengifted.org/archives/articles/overexcitability- and-...](http://sengifted.org/archives/articles/overexcitability-and-the- gifted)

</comment><comment><USER33> Aikido instruction helps kids from being bullied, and from becoming bullies. It's also fun.

</comment><comment><USER34> Many, many things about public school are terrible; honestly, a ground-up restructuring is in order, but nobody is sure what to do with it, and no one wants to step up and say "let's tear up the public education system and start over!".

To borrow from G.K. Chesterton, we love school enough to want to see it changed, but do not hate it enough to change it (yet).

</comment><comment><USER15> Reading through all the comments posted it here - it almost seems that around half of the commenters are sociopaths. Mh!

</comment><comment><USER35> I see this interesting article from Canada in 2015 was submitted while I was catching up on sleep after my third son applied the previous evening to a summer science research program for high school students. Most of my employment, research, writing, and parenting for the last decade or more has been related to the concerns of third-party-identified highly gifted children, for example children who are part of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development Young Scholars program[1] or the long-term, longitudinal Study of Exceptional Talent (SET).[2] For practical knowledge for my own challenges in daily life, in teaching, and in parenting, I have taken care to read thoroughly in the published literature on Lewis Terman's long-term longitudinal study of gifted children.[3]

The Hacker News participant who kindly shared the article that opens this thread is a user whose user name I recognize from the many good articles he submits for discussion here. That said, permit me to not entirely agree with the opinion expressed by the Canadian teacher profiled in the article that "our most brilliant children are among our most vulnerable." That is actually not what the research shows. I agree with the several comments posted before this comment that say that age-segregated, lockstep curriculum school[4] is a particularly toxic environment for gifted learners, and not a good environment for any learner. But I learned, after majoring in Chinese language in university and living in east Asia after graduation, that there are varying cultural perspectives on how a smart person fits into human society. Growing up in the United States, in junior high I read a story by Philip K. Dick, which I have tried to find again but have not yet found in his collected writings, in which he expressed the opinion that the higher one's IQ is above the population median, the fewer true friends one can have, an opinion expressed in a top comment in this thread. I fully agreed with that opinion when I was a child, and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy, as I isolated myself from "average" people in my school and neighborhood environment. But when I lived in east Asia, I learned that Confucius said, 三人行,必有我師焉 ("wherever three persons are walking, my teacher is surely among them"). The east Asian Confucian philosophers were very clear than human beings vary in how smart they are, but they also deeply believed that any human being can learn from any other human being. The job of a smart person is to use brainpower to understand other people and make society better. As soon as I adopted those east Asian perspectives, I found it much easier to make friends. Now I proactively tell my four children and the gifted young people I teach in my supplemental mathematics program that they can find rapport with anyone, if they are willing to listen. And I spread this same message internationally among parent email lists and social media groups for parents of gifted children.

To sum up, the article makes strong claims that high IQ is strongly associate with social maladjustment and psychological disturbance. That is not an invariant property of high IQ, and I know many exceptions. All research on the topic confirms that many high-IQ people do fine in social interaction with other human beings, and some who do not start out that way can learn better social adjustment. School has a lot of toxic features for most learners,[5] but gifted children need not fear being social misfits for life.

[1] [http://www.davidsongifted.org/youngscholars/](http://www.davidsongifted.org/youngscholars/)

[2] [http://cty.jhu.edu/set/](http://cty.jhu.edu/set/)

[3] [http://www.amazon.com/Termans-Kids-Groundbreaking-Study- Gift...](http://www.amazon.com/Termans-Kids-Groundbreaking-Study- Gifted/dp/0316788902)

[https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?artic...](https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=40678)

[4] [http://learninfreedom.org/age_grading_bad.html](http://learninfreedom.org/age_grading_bad.html)

[5] [http://www.johnholtgws.com/](http://www.johnholtgws.com/)

[http://learninfreedom.org/system.html](http://learninfreedom.org/system.html)

<comment><USER36> Thank you for the Confucius quote. Humbling and uplifting.

I suppose the inverse would be the parent who constantly tells their child how clever he is, and actively discourages him from mixing with other children. Unfortunately this does happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Quote: "Reed's entanglements serve as an apt metaphor for the school life of severely gifted children."

Ah, "severely gifted" \-- what a meme. What a commentary on the times in which we live. I can imagine psychologists surveying this new frontier with barely concealed joy, in particular now that the DSM is being abandoned.

People need to understand that, in modern times, to avoid one or another mental illness diagnosis, you can't be too smart or too dumb, you can't be hyperkinetic or hypokinetic, you can't be extraordinary in any way. You have to be the very definition of dull and unimaginative. You have to be a psychologist.

<comment><USER38> The diagnosis criteria for most mental illnesses include that the patient is negatively affected by their specific symptoms.

Or regarding the specific quote, in the context of going to a normal school, "severely gifted" might be the right word for describing these children. If these children are given something meaningful to do in school instead, then the moniker would not be apt.

<comment><USER39> > The diagnosis criteria for most mental illnesses include that the patient is > negatively affected by their specific symptoms.

Even if this were true (which it isn't) the psychiatrist can always argue that the fact that someone else doesn't like the symptoms negatively affects the patient and therefore he is ill.

Circular reasoning like this is common practice.

<comment><USER38> > Even if this were true (which it isn't)

Maybe I was being too general, but the diagnosis criteria I remember from when I've looked at such (including ADHD, Autism spectra disorders, and Depression) have included such qualifiers, IIRC.

Checking ASD, the following is one of the criteria:

        The deficits result in functional limitations in effective communication,
        social participation, social relationships, academic achievement,
        or occupational performance, individually or in combination.

While the word "negatively affected" is not specifically used, I would at least argue that the above is morally the same.

Of course the diagnosing psychiatrist could always fudge the facts, but arguing whether or not psychiatrists accurately apply diagnosis criteria is a different matter to arguing that "to avoid one or another mental illness diagnosis, [...] you can't be extraordinary in any way".

<comment><USER37> > whether or not psychiatrists accurately apply diagnosis criteria is a > different matter to arguing that "to avoid one or another mental illness > diagnosis, [...] you can't be extraordinary in any way".

But that happens to be true and easily verified. If you're bright, you're assured of the Asperger's diagnosis unless you insist on avoiding the company of psychologists, increasingly difficult in modern times. If you're gay, it was the same thing -- until the public demanded that psychologists stop handing out mental illness diagnoses to gay people.

The history of psychology is punctuated with examples in which obviously appropriate behavior was falsely labeled as evidence of disease, including the infamous example of "drapetomania" \-- slaves who ran away from their masters were obviously mentally broken and in need of professional help to reunite them with their owners.

Psychologists don't wait for people to appear and ask for help -- they issue press releases announcing the discovery of yet another imaginary ailment from which many are claimed to be suffering in silence. Example:

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental- wealth/201207/el...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental- wealth/201207/electronic-screen-syndrome-unrecognized-disorder)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I love Martin Prince from the Simpsons: such a deadly accurate characterisation.

</comment><comment><USER41> I don't think our democratic society is very good for gifted/talented people.

Democracy is kinda like 1 human and 10 chimpanzees living together, with the chimpanzees insisting that everybody are equal, and threatening violent sanctions whenever anybody behaves otherwise.

<comment><USER42> > I don't think our democratic society is very good for gifted/talented > people.

I think it is better for gifted/talented people than any alternative anyone has proposed would be if an attempt were made to implement it with real people in the real world.

> Democracy is kinda like 1 human and 10 chimpanzees living together, with the > chimpanzees insisting that everybody are equal, and threatening violent > sanctions whenever anybody behaves otherwise.

I'm a "gifted/talented" person by most standards (by IQ test scores, PSAT/SAT/LSAT all at the highest reported point in the distribution -- 99 or 99.9 percentile, depending on what the particular test reported at the time -- etc.)

And, frankly, I find it quite likely that anyone who thinks that the relationship between humans and chimpanzees is even a remotely appropriate analogy for the relationship between gifted and talented people at the ~91% percentile and the rest of society is someone who is inclined to behave in a way such that forceful sanctions are appropriate and necessary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This kind of hits home because I a) live in Calgary and b) was in a 'gifted' school program for a year or so (at public school). I also graduated early.

Personally, I'm against the idea of segregated classrooms. In our 'gifted' program, we did get to do some cool things. We assembled a small robot (this was in the mid 1990's when that was just becoming a 'thing'), used computers, and did other 'gifted' things. But the problem was, we just saw it as a way to get out of doing normal homework (we'd still write tests in the classroom with the 'normal' kids), and eventually still got bored with it because the teachers didn't really have a well defined curriculum to teach. In the end, I not only went back to regular classes, but never did any 'advanced' classes again. And the truth was, those 'gifted' classes never really taught us anything that a bit of time in the computer lab or a science project (both of which were part of the 'regular' curriculum) couldn't.

I also made some poor life decisions (some good ones too, like playing sports, starting hobbies and making poor decisions/having fun), and today I'm quite happily adjusted, married, in University as an older student, albeit with kinda shitty job prospects in Canada.

And about the article, I'd also surmise that many of those 'gifted' kids may have some sort of mental health issues. Sometimes the two go hand-in-hand. And social conditioning is important.

Also, the regular school system in Canada is much better than most people realize. As part of the 'regular' school system, I learned French (immersion from kindergarten), learned basic computer programming (in 9th grade, still in the 1990's!), we did all sorts of cool science projects (which I hope my kids will still be able to do), used power tools in shop class, got plenty of computer lab time (much of which was spent playing multi-player games over the network of Apple IIs whilst ignoring the teacher), played countless sports, got to learn how to ski (which otherwise my family could have never afforded, and today I do a lot of), and band class was forced on everyone which was nice because even the bullies had to bear the embarrassment of being terrible at playing an instrument (actually everyone got quite good in the end). Assuming the public school system hasn't got worse, I definitely plan on sending my children there.

Anyhow, just some random thoughts on the matter - I believe in a strong system for everyone, if someone is a little ahead, maybe they can pick up a hobby, or use that time to learn a sport. The 'regular' system was quite good, the 'gifted' program was a bad afterthought, and making friends with 'normal' kids was definitely good for my mental health and general happiness.

</comment><comment><USER44> > The vibe I'm getting from Sweden (I lived there for a while, learned the > language and still follow the news), is that it's moving to a more and more > class-segregated country. Sure, everybody can look for the best school for > their children, but only parents from higher socioeconomic classes will do > that.

Hear, hear.

The school system decline is also a political "hot potato" because of the connection to increasing immigration. Since free immigration is considered a holy sacrament by many Swedes, it is a political no-no to connect school problems to immigration (just wait and see if I get any comments to this statement on here)

For the ten worst performing schools in Sweden, where students have the lowest grades in 2015, these are the stats:

Rågsveds skola, Stockholm (90 percent immigrants) Ryaskolan, Göteborg (93 percent immigrants) Vättleskolan, Göteborg (84 percent immigrants) Västra Engelbrektsskolan, Örebro (82 percent immigrants) Hjällboskolan, Göteborg (99 percent immigrants) Kronan, Trollhättan (98 percent immigrants) Sandeklevsskolan, Göteborg (98 percent immigrants) Apelgårdsskolan, Malmö (99 percent immigrants) Nivrenaskolan, Sundsvall (22 percent immigrants) Rinkebyskolan, Stockholm (98 percent immigrants)

It would appear that the Swedish school system is not able to properly educate immigrants.

And as you say, Sweden is "moving to a more and more class-segregated country." It very clear from the above list.

The 32-year old minister of education, Mr Fridolin, recently went on record saying the government will NOT implement further restrictions on immigration. He also said he would fix the school system in 100 days.

Source of statistics: [http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/vast/skolsituationen- aku...](http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/vast/skolsituationen-akut-i- kommunerna)

Asbestos suit ready. Flame on.

<comment><USER45> Internecine Swedish politics are becoming their own circle of hell on Hacker News.

> _Asbestos suit ready. Flame on._

Please don't do this here. I don't just mean talking blithely about flamewars, but conducting them at all.

We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11087694](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11087694) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER31> I see GP's allusions to flamewars more as rhetorical figures than actual invitation to flaming.

But whatever, you are the boss :)

<comment><USER45> Not the boss, and normally I'd agree, but one of the odder discoveries of HN moderation is that internecine Swedish political subthreads turn out to be virulent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Ah yes, the monthly link to an article about intelligent/gifted children and the troubles their talents cause them, leading to all the self-proclaimed gifted HNers coming out of the woodwork declaiming "Me too! Me too! Finally someone who understands me!".

Not dismissing the article itself, but it's definitely a pattern on HN.

<comment><USER47> Most people intuitively understand that a person with 25 points lower IQ than the average population is going to have unique problems and go through life in a slightly different path and order than the average. However, for some reason, this is not easily understood regarding people with 25 points _over_ the average.

It's also a pattern on HN because it really is a rather new concept. In Sweden, the law that dictates that every child should have a education that match their ability came into reality 2010 (2010:800, 3§). Before that, the goal was to target the lowest common denominator that would create a passing grade for everyone. This meant that school material targeting IQ around 75 was also put in the hands of children with around IQ 125, and unsurprisingly, this caused problems with under-stimulation and children that go through school without any training in studying.

<comment><USER48> > However, for some reason, this is not easily understood regarding people > with 25 points over the average.

I'm not sure how accurate this is. All the exceptionally talented kids/young people I knew growing up were nice and well-liked, well-adjusted people. All the weird kids I knew were just weird, not really especially talented.

I'd like to see the numbers behind those anecdotes. There was recently an article here that discussed why extremely academically gifted children rarely become grown-up geniuses and people who move their fields forward. They stated that it's not because they are troubled, most of them are socially well- adjusted, but I can't find that article now for the lie of me.

<comment><USER49> I think it's orthogonal to the article. Under a system designed to the lowest common denominator, those on the low end have to put X amount of effort in order to pass. Those who are gifted have to put in X-Y effort where Y can almost nearly equal X (leading to kids not ever learning how to study).

The Swedish system basically begins with the proposition that all students should put out X effort. Gifted children get more advanced work, or more quantity of work till they are putting out X effort.

This isn't designed to make them better adjusted, or less 'weird'. It's just there to equip gifted students with more skills relative to the mean.

<comment><USER48> What does it take to get into a gifted class in the US? Where I grew up, anyone can apply for these schools (not everyone gets in of course).

<comment><USER50> I was nominated by my counsellor and teachers in 5th and 6th grade. This was South Florida, other schools districts are different. I took an exam of puzzles, math, and wordplay. A few days later I received a later saying I qualified and to meet the ESL/gifted counsellor.

At the time I had 8 classes. 6 of them were required: math, english, history, etc., and 2 were free electives: sports, music, technical (computers and woodshop). As a 11yo these were the few freedoms we were allowed in school and the work didn't feel like work. I enjoyed making music. I enjoyed making stupid, wooden gifts for my family and friends. So the counsellor says we're dropping your 2 electives so you can have take our gifted classes. And that is when I hoped right out of it.

Now that is the gifted (also called ESL) program in none exceptional schools. It's usually just an extra class. There are schools of excellence, governor's school, magnet school, etc. Which focus on different curriculum. These will have an emphasis around math, language, arts, sports. You apply by filing an application or submitting a portfolio. Some, you have to be nominated by your teachers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Maybe because its a pattern in real life? Popularized by movies? e.g. Malcolm in the Middle.

Maybe with the 3rd wave of feminism, men feel that they must voice their problems if we want to exist in society?

<comment><USER52> Er, what does this have to do with men? It's not like this only afflicts boys.

<comment><USER39> Everything that relates to outlier characteristics will disproportionately affect more boys than girls. The more extreme the outlier the much more likely it will be a boy.

This is just basic human biology that like the GP mentioned is routinely deliberately ignored by feminism.

<comment><USER53> Are you referring to these Bell curves? :P

[http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology- explain-t...](http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology-explain-the- low-numbers-of-women-in-cs-hint-it-doesnt/21-Dont_believe_me_Heres_the)

<comment><USER54> I think the GP is referring to differences in standard deviation, not mean, which causes the larger-deviation population to dominate at both the left and right tails.

<comment><USER3> I'm not saying the theory is right or wrong, only that people seem to have a much harder time understanding a theory based off of same means but different standard deviations than a theory based off of different means.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Our experience with The Starbucks Pitch - <AUTHOR> http://blog.chuwe.com/the-starbucks-pitch-our-experience

<comment><USER2> I am really digging this post not only for its goal of training to pitch, but that it stresses approaching random people in a friendly, non-intrusive manner. I know I don't do this enough and I'm sure others have issues with it.

</comment><comment><USER3> My Inner Cynic says: "great idea!" might be a way of trying to get rid of people in the easiest way possible, since it doesn't cost anything? Maybe not, but if you have nothing to lose because you're just some random guy who wants to disengage as quickly as possible, it might be easier than arguing about why it's a bad idea, especially since you don't really care.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that's exactly my point. While I don't necessarily think they were trying to get rid of me, I don't think they really understood the pitch. So that's one of the signs to look for - if they just say, "That's great, good job!", you're probably not engaging them. If they grill you a little bit further, then they're at least slightly interested in the idea, and they've understood the majority of it.

One point of the starbucks pitch is quantity over quality. You may get a lot of people who will kindly blow you off, but you're not paying for any of it, so you can continually practice until you can engage any of them with an interesting pitch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I love this idea, but I'm not clear on the goal. Are you looking for feedback on the idea or are you only trying to improve the way you talk about the idea? If someone quickly understands what you're doing but thinks it sucks, did you succeed or fail?

Once (if) I've succeeded in making myself clear, I think I might trying asking explicitly what the 'pitchee' thinks is wrong or could go wrong with the idea. Oftentimes people need to be prompted to give negative feedback. To friends I just say, "What sucks about this idea?"

Finally, people are surprisingly game for things that are out of the ordinary. I don't think you need to lie about what you're doing so long as you're friendly and clear. "Hi, I'm Joshua Paine. I'm working on an idea for a business, and I'd like to practice pitching it to you to get an outside opinion. I'm not trying to sell you anything, I'd just like your thoughts." Or something like that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good feedback. We'll be going back out for the second round soon, so I'll try it without any subterfuge, and update the post with the results. My previous experience tells me people usually take pretty kindly to an student, but I'm all for mixing it up.

As for the results, I'm not too worried that the pitchee likes/dislikes the idea. It's all warm fuzzies if they do, and of course the more people you can interest with a pitch the btter, but they're not likely your target market. It's more important to simply watch their face for emotional changes (especially boredom) and gauge your ability from that.

Also, bringing your cofounders and critical friends along is where the real negative feedback comes from. People generally aren't going to be familiar with your domain to give much meaningful commentary, but your cofounders are imagining you pitching to investors or (in our case) potential users at a entrepreneur's meetup. With that context in mind, their feedback is golden.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me of "information interviewing" from "What Color is your Parachute" (job-hunting guide). Part of the aim there is to just get comfortable with talking to strangers.

I love those two old guys. It's also like you've given them something, like a freebie sample of a new product.

> People are a bit kinder if they think you're a student rather than an nosy > salesperson

Isn't that lying?

<comment><USER6> I'd argue it's for a good cause, and doesn't have much potential for harm.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think it harms anyone, but perhaps it's a bit dishonest. I'll go back to trying it the other way and see if I can't get the same level of kind interest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like an excellent idea, although some people might consider it a bit weird when you tell them about it.

It's funny how many things seem "weird" to "normal people" (try explaining to your non-entrepreneur friends that you went and practiced your pitch in Starbucks...), but are highly effective at actually getting results...

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, even my co-founder thought it was a bit strange. But after the first day, he was hooked. It's like crowd-sourced business coaching - it might not be _top notch_ but it's perfect for a bootstrapped startup's budget.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Unless patronizing a Starbucks is a good indicator that someone is a prospect, I would try a method that brought me into contact with prospects. If "everyone" is your prospect you may want to narrow your focus. If you need help overcoming painful shyness I would recommend Toastmasters or Dale Carnegie.

</comment><comment><USER9> Love the starbucks idea. What my friends from U of Waterloo do is pitch the idea to a very open economics prof (L. Smith) that gives highly critical feedback (tone, speed, size of market place, range of execution).

<comment><AUTHOR> Having a private network of experienced people to give feedback in a sandbox environment is wonderful. High quality, specifically targeted feedback - it's a dream for a startup.

Unfortunately, not everyone will have that network to tap. Starbucks serves as a lower-quality, but still effective practice ground. The only catch is, critical feedback on tone, speed, etc. is going to come from your cofounders more than your audience.</comment></comment>


Video tutorial on how raising money for a startup works and valuation - <AUTHOR> http://www.khanacademy.org/v/raising-money-for-a-startup?p=Venture%20Capital%20and%20Capital%20Markets

<comment><USER2> Interesting to see the Khan academy tackle this subject. But his numbers aren't anywhere near real world. Five million for an idea, is this 1998? Maybe that's possible in life sciences or energy but certaintly not in IT.

Getting the basics out there has great educational value but I'd like to see it redone with a more real world valuation.

It's going to frustrate a lot of people thinking they can raise money with just an idea. It can be hard raising angel money if you have an idea + working prototype + launched + traction.</comment>


Visual cryptography - <AUTHOR> http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/november32013/ <comment><USER2> _Give the people taking your questionnaire a coin. When the question appears e.g. "Have you ever made a mistake that has cost your company thousands of dollars?", ask the subject to flip a coin. If the coin comes up HEADS, tell the person to answer the question truthfully. If the coin comes up TAILS, tell the person to flip the coin again and if the coin lands HEADS to answer "Yes" and if the second flip comes up TAILS to answer the question "No"._

This protocol has small flaw as it is open to the "side channel" attack. I.e. when it is possible to count number of coin flips then observer can directly deduce the truthfulness of the answer.

Therefore one has to flip the coin always twice.

<comment><USER3> Good point.

"Flip this coin twice. If both flips agree, answer truthfully. If they're different, then answer 'Yes' if the 2nd flip was heads, 'No' if it was tails."

<comment><USER4> I guess both of you are right. But then even this is open to the side attack if someone looks over your shoulder and views the state of the coins and knows the protocol :)

I wrote the example thinking that people were filling in the survey in private (sort of like you, probably, do when voting).

Anyway, you get the concept :)

/\/ick

<comment><USER3> Ok, I'll try to solve that...

"You have a coin. Before flipping it, decide which flips you will count. Now flip it sixteen times, only paying attention to the _n_ th and _m_ th flips. If _n_ and _m_ agree, then answer truthfully, otherwise answer according to _m_ 's result, in a manner that you personally pre-designated"

:) That's when the survey-taker looks at you cross-eyed and just lies on the question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think we used to have these in old cereal box surprises or kids books for secret decoder games. There would be a message visually encrypted in a book and the book came with a transparent cellophane key sheet you'd place on top of the image to decode the secret message.

<comment><USER6> Those were usually red color filters which filtered out one of the noise channels, leaving the message.</comment></comment>


DogeOS – Very Smart – Many Zones - <AUTHOR> http://liyu1981.github.io/DogeOS/

<comment><AUTHOR> In spite of the silly name, it has some fantastic tech from SmartOS (ZFS, Zones + KVM, nice tools to manage all that) and is great to use as a cloud hypervisor. Project-FIFO provides a management portal on top of that, so bundling both in a easy to use system makes a lot of sense.</comment>