Ask HN: Changing careers into IT?  - <AUTHOR>

I bought my first computer at age 8 in 1994. I built websites, scripted, wrote ASP, PHP, played around with everything I could just for fun.
Unfortunately due to bad advice I pursued a very traditional education path, getting a BS and then a JD.
I'm a lawyer now... I'm not miserable, but I know I will want to reposition myself into tech in the near future. It's more natural for me. I don't believe software engineering would be the right move for me; I think working in IT is more realistic.
I know "big data" is quite hyped right now but I'm not sure how much software/coding skill is needed to be successful with it. I'm not looking to retun to school, I want to do this with self-teaching and certifications.
Is my goal realistic? If so, what area of IT is best for someone in my position to try to break into, and how should it be done (which certs, etc)?
Thanks HN! <comment><USER2> Well...first off, Big Data isn't in IT. Replacing hard drives, imaging servers, and configuring IIS/LAMP is IT.

Depending on where you are in your life and what options you have available, you could go back and get another BS, in computer science or similar. Or you could get a professional MS in computer science. Or maybe just take some coursera courses like this one: <https://www.coursera.org/course/dataanalysis>

Since you already have a JD, I'd think you could combine your legal knowledge with coding knowledge, possibly working in the legal department of a medium sized software company, as a bridge between legal and dev?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply.

I don't think I'm at a place where I can return to university. I don't have the time to slog through arbitrary course requirements, I'm still pretty burnt out from schooling given I graduated fairly recently.

I've considered Coursera and the like, but my main concern is whether completing these courses then putting them on my resume would get me a job in a relevant field. Does anyone have any insight into this?

Either way that course looks interesting and I'm going to sign up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Start attending IT-related events and conferences. Check if there are IT- related User Groups or meetups in your area. If you are working in a company that has some sort of IT department, ask your IT co-workers on how to get started.

A good network to join and search for IT people is LinkedIN.

You could send me questions: mribunal [at] gmail [dot] com :-)</comment>


World's Best Rails Rails Hiring Process - <AUTHOR> http://startups.learnhub.com/lesson/page/1061-worlds-best-rails-hiring-process The comments on the article are the best part. <comment><USER2> This is not the world's best rails hiring process - there's no such thing. The title makes you sound arrogant; it will surely turn some potential hires off.

Anyways, here are a few assumptions your process makes:

1) Of the pool of Rails developers world-wide that you could hire, the smartest/best ones are among the 10-50 devs that show up to a local rails/pub nite.

2) That there is a strong correlation between the number of reference checks (beyond 3), and the quality of a hire.

3) Bloggers and open source contributors are better programmers than those that aren't.

Here are a few things I would change:

1) A take-home project is fine, but I would not expect a potential hire to spend 10 hours. Why can't you think up a problem that takes an hour or so to solve instead? I've hired plenty of sharp engineers by asking them to perform a short take-home.

2) Because your project is now a lot shorter, you could have the candidate do this before they meet face-to-face. This would save you time, and moving the face-to-face near then end of the process allows you gather the most info before committing to a whole day of interviews.

3) A much more interesting phone screen question would be 'What are the disadvantages of TDD?'. I want flexible thinkers, ones who can argue both sides of a point.

</comment><comment><USER3> A 10 hour project seems a -little- extreme for a hiring process, but I suppose if people really want to work there, then that's fine.

10-15 references? Now that IS extreme.

<comment><AUTHOR> references can/should be really fast. can get them all done in a couple hours... worth it, given all the good stuff you can discover. You are going to work and pay this person for months/years.

<comment><USER4> Regardless of how long it takes the interviewer to review them, I think it is pretty extreme to ask the interviewee to give 15 references, assembling 10-15 references, especially if you are young or maybe have worked at a small shop for a long time would be pretty annoying

<comment><USER5> Agreed. If I can provide references from peers and superiors at my previous jobs and also character references from outside of work, why would I need more references?

<comment><AUTHOR> The 10-15 includes all references of all kinds, professional, friends, even family.

I spoke to one of my hire's father, one time, because he worked for him for 2 years. You'd be surprised, family members are often the most honest. The point is to get to know the candidate as quickly as possible and make a good decision. Speak with as many people that know them as possible.

<comment><USER6> Asking for "friends and family" references is unprofessional.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wouldn't specifically ask for friends and family of course. The moral of the story is to try to collect as many perspectives as you can on the candidate.

<comment><USER6> So, without commenting on the "ethics" of this --- I don't care that much --- it's worth it for readers to consider the practical implications of your approach.

(1) Most interviewers won't ask for a 10 hour sample project.

(2) Most interviewers won't ask for 10 references.

(3) Good serverside web dev talent, even in this economy, is not in surplus.

(4) There are extremely talented developers who are just going to say "no" to these weird requests.

Your loss.

I don't mean "unprofessional" as in, "you'll get kicked out of the guild". I mean, "this will make you look bad". It's as much an interviewer's job to sell their company as it is to qualify a candidate. Perhaps if you're getting a stream of people that's so bad you feel like you need to talk to their Mom and get them to work on spec for you, your real problem is that you just have a really crappy hiring pipeline.

<comment><USER7> I agree. I think it's great that these guys want to make sure that they get good talent, but yeah, I'd have to _really_ want to work at a place before I'd put in the time to complete a 10 hour project and provide 10 - 15 referees plus whatever else is also involved. Maybe these guys are awesome to work for and stuff, I'm not really meaning to comment on this.

But from personal experience, I very much agree that it is also the interviewers responsibility to sell their company. I've been in the fortunate position for some years now that I haven't _needed_ a job. When I move, it's from the position of already being employed. Near the end of a job interview there will usually be the point where the interviewers will ask if I have any questions for them. My stock questions always include:

a) What do you like about working here?

b) What do you not like about working here?

I love observing their reaction/response to question b) particularly. :) And I feel asking these kinds of questions sends a clear message to the interviewers that I am not _desperate_ for the job, which puts me in a better bargaining position when it comes time to talk salary etc. Of course, this tactic only works when you really aren't desperate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> TEN to FIFTEEN references? If you're (a) "that fast" on reference checks, or (b) that totally dependent on references the candidate provides you instead of backdoor references at their employer, you are doing that part wrong.

Sad, because references are extremely important.

<comment><USER8> How do you know that a back-door reference from someone they did not list would not poison the well on an otherwise qualified candidate? Perhaps the candidate is ill-placed enough at his current employer to be likely to garner a one or more middling reviews -- perhaps that is why he is looking elsewhere. It's possible that your corporate culture is sufficiently different that he can thrive, but how would you know?

Really the opposite could be said for references he provided; they'll sing his praises, even if he is a total dud.

Not saying references aren't extremely important, but I wouldn't mind some thoughts on getting past the apparent fragility in the process.

<comment><USER6> You don't, just like you don't know whether a "front-door" reference would _really_ hire the candidate again, or is in fact just being nice. The whole references thing is frought with peril; I got tanked on (one, longshot) VC due diligence thing from a bad back-door reference. A friend of mine I recruited for a company I worked for got tanked on her back-door reference. She went on to be a total rock-star at the job she got instead of us.

On the other hand, I have stories about back-door references that were collected too late to avoid tragic mistakes.

You want to do both. The back-door reference is harder. The idea that you're getting real information from "10-15" fast reference checks from friends and family seems crazy.

<comment><USER8> I agree that 10-15 references is totally bogus; I said so much in a reply to a different comment.

I'm still boggling though, actually more so than I was before your reply. You mention examples here that make the whole process seem incredibly error-prone, bound to result in false positives and negatives, and as you described it fraught with peril. This is a discouraging testament to the utility of doing reference checks.

I feel quite uneasy questioning years of standard hiring practice, but do the benefits of this sufficiently outweigh the drawbacks? You gather data about the candidate, but no metadata about the recommendation, which I can see make a considerable difference in how the reference is acted on. Metadata such as:

* the relationship dynamics of the recommender to other people besides the candidate

* how candid the recommender is about the benefits and drawbacks of things he/she evaluates

* what sort of events the recommender encountered, and what mood that set him/her in before talking with you.

All of these would put the recommendation in better context. There are probably other data points (recommendations of the recommenders, etc), that could be considered, and then there are time/benefit trade offs to decide which are best left unconsidered.

I will agree that a reference check will likely shuffle out someone who is obviously a raving lunatic, and would never work out no matter where they are hired. But, beyond that, it seems more nebulous. I have the sense that there is a combination of institutional inertia and real benefit that drives this practice; I want to understand where the bounds of each are, and whether my intuition is completely off-base.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'll never understand why someone would want to hire a "Rails developer". That makes as much sense as hiring a "Blub developer". Rails is just another framework in a sea of similar products that all do similar things. Wouldn't it make more sense to hire skilled and intelligent developers who can learn Rails if necessary?

</comment><comment><USER10> I think a lot of what was said is right on - hiring the right people is hard and I've _really_ stuggled with that at times.

But I think making people code for free is somewhat unethical unless it's for open source. As an applicant I would feel that I was being taken advantage of if you used my code, didn't open source it, and didn't give me the job.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be totally wrong on this one - but I'd be a little worried that this could become grounds for a lawsuit. Perhaps not a serious one, but, for example, a lawsuit to obstruct an eventual IPO or investment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally agree! and so does the article... See point #5, the second bullet.

<comment><USER6> Presumably, you're only providing _suggestions_ for what your applicant writes; if they want to demonstrate their ability by writing a modular synthesizer simulator in Ruby with an AJAX front end, you're going to let them do that instead. Open source or not, asking for portions of your own product up front is spec work, and it's also unprofessional.

<comment><AUTHOR> Call it what you will, but as a hiring manager you really should review as much code as possible before hiring. Usually they can't show you proprietary code from their last company, so unless they've already done open source contributions, there won't be much to look at unless you give them a project.

In the past I've given candidates projects that we've come up with together. Check out the ones mentioned in the article... fairly straightforward Rails plugins. One of the was particularly successful, and included in the Advanced Rails Recipe book.

<comment><USER6> So you're fine with (a) open source contributors just providing you with samples of their previous work, (b) people who _can_ show you non-public code just showing you that, and (c) candidates coming up with example projects totally unrelated to your own products, so long as it's demonstrative of the right expertise.

You should write that, then.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah... guess I should have explained it that way. Good feedback, thanks.

Hopefully the point remains: review as much code as you can, and don't be shy of asking them to demonstrate their skillz.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The whole tone of the process sounds really immature and unprofessional.

Good people wont put up with this. 15 references, thats a red flag right away. Sorry, but only desperate, or naive people will put up with it.

Remember, a person that has choice (even in a down economy), will be interviewing you as a company just as well.

</comment><comment><USER12> "Company Win: We get a chunk of code that we need"

Wow that's bullshit - interviewers aren't developers working on spec.

<comment><USER13> _interviewers aren't developers working on spec._

...till they are. If it's a consensual relationship, who cares?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I know a lot of good developers, and I can't imagine any of them jumping through all of these hoops to work for you (or anyone).

When you get this extreme with your process you're filtering out a bunch of great people who won't put up with this all of this bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER15> That's not the best hiring process, but I'll grant that it's the best _vetting_ process.</comment>


Show HN: Hacker News Digest – A responsive HN with summaries and illustrations - <AUTHOR> http://www.hackernews.im/?from=hn <comment><USER2> This is awesome. I am always struggling when I open HN with my Phone.

Bookmark saved!!

Thanks man.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your identity, I made this for a better readable hacker news. Your comments and criticisms are always welcome.</comment></comment>


Is it really healthier to live in the countryside? - happy-go-lucky http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180531-where-are-the-worlds-healthiest-places-to-live <comment><AUTHOR> Takeaway: In India it is not really healthier to live in the countryside.</comment>


Ask HN: One YC application per co-founder? - <AUTHOR>

We are getting ready to submit our application for YC Summer '09. I wanted to clarify if we should submit one application per co-founder (for the same project)? or do you create a separate account for YC application and everyone puts in their stuff?
Just want to be careful here.
BTW, anyone else applying for summer '09? <comment><USER2> You submit a single application, and include all your founders' Hacker News account names there. If you have multiple ideas, you submit multiple applications, one per cofounder, but each idea gets only one application.

We're applying for YC summer - we've been updating and trying to fine-tune our application since we first submitted. I'd advise you to get what you've got submitted, and to spend the next day or two looking to perfect what you have.

</comment><comment><USER3> Its one application per company.

      YC usernames of all founders, including you, vaksel, separated by spaces. (That's usernames, not given names: "bksmith,"
      not "Bob Smith." If the startup has 3 founders, there should be 3 words in this answer.)

<comment><USER2> Can you add linebreaks for those of us with less wide browser screens? :-)

<comment><USER3> done

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've toyed with the idea but sadly got a pay rise in my day job which means it's worth more to me (well, us).

(which I do consider a shame because I would love to give YC a crack and see if I am up to it! :D).

Let us know how you get on: I for one would love to see someone blog about the whole process from the get go right through. For those of us who are/were never funded like this it could be insightful :D

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been there myself. I recently doubled my pay by becoming a consultant but would any day leave it for YC. I understand that not everyone is as free to do that. Good luck to you and hopefully we get to go thru the whole process to blog about it.

<comment><USER4> I doubt we would ever do YC now: things are past the idea stage (and have been for a while) but I was thinking of coming up with a spin off idea just for the sheer experience (not really expecting to get funding).

Good luck in your app!</comment></comment></comment>


Cartier's $7.5bn owner says fear of poor rising up 'keeps him awake at night' - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/cartier-boss-with-75bn-fortune-says-prospect-poor-rising-up-keeps-him-awake-at-night-10307485.html

<comment><USER2> Journalist Chris Hedges: _" in his latest book, "Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt," Hedges argues that the world is currently at a crisis point the likes of which we've never really seen. There are similarities between our time and the era of the 1848 revolutions throughout Europe — or the French Revolutionary era that preceded them — he says."_

[http://www.salon.com/2015/06/04/we_are_in_a_revolutionary_mo...](http://www.salon.com/2015/06/04/we_are_in_a_revolutionary_moment_chris_hedges_explains_why_an_uprising_is_coming_%E2%80%94_and_soon/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> See also:

The pitchforks are coming - [http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the- pitchfork...](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks- are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.htm)

<comment><USER3> Removed?

<comment><USER4> nope, missing "l" at the end:

[http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the- pitchfork...](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks- are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Lesson: no matter how much you make, you can find something to worry about.</comment>


The Truth About the WikiLeaks C.I.A. Cache - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/opinion/the-truth-about-the-wikileaks-cia-cache.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0 <comment><USER2> Perhaps a better title would be "The Truth About NYT's Level of Scrutiny toward Wikileaks Tweets".

<comment><USER3> I've found that journos rely on sources to essentially write their story for them and many clearly know nothing about the subject they're covering.

I don't think they realize this is the reason many people don't get their news from main stream media anymore. Because you can just read the source's blog and twitter feed.

So in this case a journo is frustrated that a source who they should have been able to echo, and call that news, has their own agenda.

<comment><USER4> You should maybe check out who @zeynep is before you suggest she knows nothing about this subject.

<comment><USER5> seconded. amazing that comments like parent are bright and shiny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Can people who have read the article address specific facts the author brings up, or specific errors in the analysis? Maybe we can have a serious discussion right here.

I read the article and it looks straightforward to me, but I don't independently know the facts. The analysis seems solid, but perhaps someone knows something I don't.

Unfortunately I've rarely seen so much noise (i.e., non-contributing comments) on HN, though the level tends to rise when someone doesn't buy into a Wikileaks' message.

<comment><USER7> The article gets all the facts and analysis right. The article is most likely meant for a less tech savvy audience than HN i.e the average internet user who falls for fake news such as "WhatsApp is hacked". Yes, such nonsense is circulating on social media.

Since this article does not bring anything new to the table for us HNers and has a reasonable number of upvotes, people start creating noise here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Everything in this article was extrapolated from 140 characters.

</comment><comment><USER9> Amazing how many people fail to grasp the difference between opinion and journalism.

<comment><USER10> Agreed, and here's a way one can easily tell. Summarize the article's new content that it brings to the table in one or two sentences. These sentence(s) will be easier to classify as fact or opinion as the article as a whole. I would summarize her unique message as "Wikileaks over-sensationalizes their releases", which may be fact if it's true (and she offered good evidence), but 90% of the rest of the writeup had little to do with that new content.

<comment><USER11> Another way is to read the section title (in this case "The Opinion Pages").

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Off topic: Maybe I'm too cynical, but whenever I see an article titled "The Truth About X", I immediately expect that it contains someone's crackpot theory about X, rather than anything resembling truth.

<comment><USER13> Yep, a school teacher doesn't need to harp to their students about how they're hearing the truth. Whereas a church pastor frequently brings it up

<comment><USER14> Pithy statement there. But I would hope a school teacher would harp on it, and further, that they would explain just why it is the truth. Part of their job is taking students to detect and evaluate the truth of something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> >Using automated tools to search the whole database, as security researchers subsequently did, turned up no hits.

This sounds so serious and involved, but probably took 10 seconds and just involved ctrl-f or (even) grep.

</comment><comment><USER16> NYT defends its source of leaked information on Trump's White House, regardless of what they do. More news at 11.

</comment><comment><USER17> Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but is there some place where one can read a description of the exploits?

On the surface, Whatsapp, Signal, etc being compromised can mean either they are individually compromised or the platform they're on is somehow compromised, or something else... in my experience journalists have the incentive to just pick the headline that is the most sensational rather than the most informative.

<comment><USER18> Generally speaking, most of the "exploits" I've seen so far have fallen into the mundane category of "if you have full access to the computer/device, you can inject code into target applications to exfiltrate information". This is more of a demonstration of the platform's security than of any specific application -- if you can get the user to run code, all bets are off.

For what it's worth, iOS has come out of this looking _very_ safe. The CIA is essentially riding on the coattails of jailbreaks, which have been getting increasingly rare.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Oh cool another round of "but they can't spy on the _whole_ internet" from media stooges and their dumbass readership who haven't seen the pattern that's been going on for 20 fucking years now.

<comment><USER20> Yep, and the nytimes's reputation takes another hit on #fakenews

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Device and information insecurity, overzealous surveillance by governments — > these are real concerns that call for real attention.

I'm looking forward to The NY Time's Zeynep Tufekci's real discussion about Operating Systems that spy on us, collect our data and share that data; tracking across the internet; lack of security updates on phones; a tie-in with PRISM (allowing the NSA unfettered access to company databases) and anything else her top-notch "security researchers" turn up.

Maybe she can add a few words about the lack of oversight, transparency and accountability our tech & phone companies enjoy for the privilege of cooperating with certain government agencies. Let's get your "sources" to add a few words about backroom deals that circumvent _The Constitution_ and the laws of this land too. It's a big topic with many players.

Be careful though, Mrs Tufekci. This kind of _real_ news will get you into hot water with your masters.

I'm sure she'll get to it after another hit-piece on Wikileaks for actually bringing this discussion to the table instead of trying to kill it. That is, once she gets over her political biases (which are sprinkled throughout the article) and does some _real_ journalism.

Security and Privacy are issues that need "real attention" and not something that gets tacked on at the end of an article and forgotten.

*edit: word

<comment><USER22> This is standard operating procedure at propaganda outlets like NYT/Washington Post Et Al. It's called "burying the lead". When the crux of an issue is buried as a footnote in the last paragraph.

The controlled media will quibble over symantics of a Tweet and ignore the shocking truth that innumerous government agencies can aquire blackmail on anyone they want at any time without even breaking the law; and if they fear a journalist or leaker sufficiently, cause a high speed car or plane crash to get rid of them.

<comment><USER23> > This is standard operating procedure at propaganda outlets like > NYT/Washington Post Et Al.

It's an opinion piece. It's literally _right there in the title_ that you should expect someone to be expressing an opinion, not engaging in objective reporting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> As an outsider whose only contact with New York Times is from submissions here, it seems that they don't know what they are talking about most of the time.

</comment><comment><USER25> I love how the NYT turns their own ignorance of technology into some condemnation of WikiLeaks. That tweet is perfectly fine. What exactly do they believe "bypass" to mean? Of course their own misstep here is only referred to as "a honest misunderstanding" of the generic "press".

The article then goes on to explain what should have been researched from the beginning and delivers the brilliant sentence

 _This should not come as a surprise._

Right. Here is the salient excerpt from the WikiLeaks release _linked in the tweet_ (!):

 _These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo, Confide and Cloackman by hacking the "smart" phones that they run on and collecting audio and message traffic before encryption is applied._

You turned a tweet into a press article, didn't bother to read the referred article and then have the audacity to depict that as some sort of deliberate misinformation campaign in yet another article instead of simply admitting you rushed for the clicks. On the upside, it is now much clearer that it's maybe not only WL that is in the business of misinformation..

<comment><USER26> Not really, having a rootkit on a device allows you to bypass anything this is a given.

Wikileaks tweets are also quite demagogic and are tailored for maximum effect, these "techniques" do not actually allow the CIA to bypass the encryption, bypassing the encryption is a whole other thing completely what it does is allow the CIA to read anything on the phone and use any of it's hardware sensors.

Overall the problem with this leak specifically it that there is so far nothing damning, this is exactly the toolkit a modern intelligence agency should have, in fact this is likely to kiddy stuff not the rogue nation targeting kinetic payloads.

What it doesn't show is who these tools target, if Wikileaks to be believed the NSA only targets journalists and human rights activists whilst in reality this isn't the case.

Unlike the NSA the CIA is also not interested in mass surveillance, the CIA produces intelligence analysis primarily revolving around humint sources and targets, which means that their operations tend to be much more targeted a SIGINT agency which relies on bulk data collection.

<comment><USER16> > ...these "techniques" do not actually allow the CIA to bypass the > encryption...

The definition of the word bypass is, "a secondary channel, pipe, or connection to allow a flow when the main one is closed or blocked." How is a rootkit not bypassing encryption? It doesn't _break_ encryption.

> Unlike the NSA the CIA is also not interested in mass surveillance...

Why do you believe this to be true?

> Overall the problem with this leak specifically it that there is so far > nothing damning

The wholesale violation of 4th Amendment protections isn't damning to you?

<comment><USER6> > wholesale violation of 4th Amendment protections

Where is there a violation of the 4th Amendment? The 4th Amendment is not about capabilities, which always have existed in one form or another (e.g., reading people's mail), but about legal authorization to use them.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Free links to your site - <AUTHOR> http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/free-direct-text-links/ <comment><USER2> Let me get this right - this is a re-write of something on Google's blog, about a "Web2.0" equivalent to logging 404's, called "free links to your site"... why is this the top story on hacker news?

 _sigh_

I want a "from now on, invert the votes of anyone who upvoted this crap" button.

<comment><USER3> "re-write of something on Google's blog"

Matt Cutts works for Google - I think for many SEO types, Matt Cutts IS Google.

I agree that the title is complete linkbait, but the tool itself is useful to know about.

<comment><USER4> Google should seriously invest a little bit of money and pay to have the site design for Matt Cutts look better. Add a custom design (not a template) and maybe say somewhere that he works for Google. I've sent some customers to that site, and they don't take it seriously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The first comment on the article brings up a good point too. Rather than spamming everyone who links to you, you can also just change the bad URL into a 301 redirect, redirecting to where you want that URL to go, and Google will pick that up.

<comment><USER6> yeah wayne, that's how we're going to do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Instead of sending 40 emails to those 40 webmasters, why don't you simply create the page and add good content to it?

<comment><USER8> Or at least get your server to return "moved permanently" and redirect to your home page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> just make a custom 404 page on your site with .htaccess

</comment><comment><USER10> I <3 Google</comment>


Ask HN: Amazon Kindle inventor is trying to get a friend arrested, advice wanted - <AUTHOR>

Not very long ago I made my acquaintance with an individual named Robert Kiraly. He struck me as an interesting individual with an interesting resume (http://oldcoder.org/general/misc/aboutme.html#SECTION02 -- Berkeley dual-major graduate, cum magna laude), who surprisingly was willing to help me out on my school assignments, and with my internship projects (programming, and so on). He didn't tell me much about him in the beginning, but I eventually came to found out that he was an autistic 50-something year old individual who was wheelchair-bound, with some sort of speech impediment, and he was penniless (often complaining about coming close to homelessness, and fearing death from sickness). Now I've come to find out that his brother (who I understand is the guy behind the Amazon Kindle) is trying to have him arrested.<p>He's written his side of the story here: http://details.wikidot.com/ -- and though to me it reads a little peculiar at times, I think he's quite frustrated for all that he has suffered over the years (strong physical and emotional abuse when he was young). The court proceedings will apparently be in a few days, is there anything I can suggest to him to help his case? I'll be passing a link directly to him to this thread -- please feel free to address advice directly to him. <comment><USER2> The majority of people visiting HN aren't lawyers. I personally wouldn't put much stock in legal advice from Internet strangers.

Mr Kiraly needs a real lawyer. I do not know how to go about getting him such a thing.

(I would wager that something similar to the above is the only "legal advice" that +95% of HN is qualified to give.)

<comment><USER3> Thanks and you're probably right. But I'm hoping to attract attention and conceivably find an attorney that way. Time is pretty short for conventional means as I didn't learn about the first hearing until shortly before it was scheduled.

In fact, I haven't actually been lawfully served but the hearing will proceed regardless. In just a few days. To be honest, I'm worried about the whole thing.

Additionally, there are some unusual aspects to the case. Kenneth Kiraly is apparently the architect of the Kindle. Thomas is a VP of Humana. Some of the allegations are serious but bizarre at the same time. And the entire exercise started when I asked our parents to work on a book. The book was going to touch on abuse and that's certainly a issue of some importance. If enough people see this, it's possible somebody will be interested enough to consider pro bono.

BTW I use the Crowley spelling most of the time these days. I don't see myself as related to these people. They aren't my family. Anybody who reads the document might understand why.

The family history is interesting, though, and I'll expand it. One person I talked to in the 1990s was an Admiral who ran Security for the Manhattan Project. And James Kiraly's mother (my grandmother) Ann Kiraly was a remarkable woman. Rose to the top of the insurance industry back in the 1940s. James didn't like her much, though.

I'm new here and I hope a detailed response is all right. The document explains why I write this way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thank you. I should explain a few things, if it's all right:

1\. Regarding the post title, Kenneth Kiraly isn't a friend. I did teach him to drive a car and to code in 'C'. He also lived with me rent-free for years. Kenneth is my brother. These are the sorts of things that I thought somebody was supposed to do for a brother.

The document includes a short biography of Kenneth that explains how things worked out. It will be expanded over time. There are some positive parts worth mentioning. Not many but I'd like the family history to present a complete picture.

2\. I was told years ago that Kenneth was the man who had developed the Kindle. And he _was_ interested in convergence as far back as the 1980s. Additionally, people I meet around Silicon Valley all seem to know him. Except me, of course.

But I was never able to confirm the Kindle story. He's been cautious about staying out of the limelight; not the way he used to be. Somebody who was curious and checked said there's little about his role on the Amazon Lab 126 webpages.

It appears that he did do the Kindle, though. The court papers seem to indicate this. Note: Since I've mentioned the court papers, I should add that I haven't been lawfully served. The whole thing is tiring and confusing. And more than a bit frightening. Gee, thanks, Kenny.

I haven't read that part of the court papers closely but I gather Kenneth is furious that I've sometimes referred to him as the Kindle Kid. I don't see what's wrong with calling Kenneth the Kindle Kid. I think I'm entitled. I'm the big brother who taught him to code in 'C'. I helped to teach him to walk and I remember the expression on his face when he took his first step.

There's other things I haven't mentioned. I think Kenneth may have forgotten about some of them.

I don't deserve to placed in a criminal database for saying Kindle Kid. That isn't the way Kenneth and Thomas (he's a VP at Humana) are playing it; but see the history of the case if you're curious.

3\. Regarding the wheelchair remark I see in the post above, I should explain that I walk perfectly well most of the time. I'm just in the wheelchair occasionally. This was a gift last year and it helps in the apartment but it doesn't work outside. The story of how I received it is in the document.

<comment><USER2> Okay so, after reading your story, one question feels very unanswered:

You mention writing a book, what is it about?

<comment><USER3> I was forced to spend about 48 hours recently unexpectedly writing 32 pages; the document you've seen. Somebody has told me it reads like "Confederacy of Dunces". Note: I don't know if that's true. I've heard of the latter book but I haven't read it.

The 32 pages might provide a better jumping-off point for what I'd like to say than my original idea. I'd never have gone public about some issues but the decision has been made for me. And it felt right to write about some of the things that had happened.

So after I deal with the Kiralys (James, Grace, Thomas, and Kenneth) and hopefully after I recover from an illness, I'll look at the current document and see if I can shape it into something worthwhile.

The family history would go into it (possibly back to 1850). I'd add incidents from the lives of each of the Kiralys, more about Twisted Time, myself, and our peers, and a narrative that tries to make sense of it all; families, abuse, love and hate, success and failure, and the role that religion plays in our lives.

The Kiralys aren't going to like the idea much. But I think the project might work out. And after the events that you can presently read about at <http://details.wikidot.com/> I am not sobbing on the ground, heartbroken by their sadness.

They're likely to try to take actions related to this. And I still face the first court hearing in a few days and there's no attorney. But if the current version is spread around a bit I don't think they'll be able to stop it.</comment></comment></comment>


The US Is Going into Hyperinflation - <AUTHOR> https://seekingalpha.com/article/4371490-united-states-is-going-hyperinflation <comment><USER2> Dupe from about 12 hours previously (trying to game the fact that it was flagged?)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24317288](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24317288)

<comment><AUTHOR> I´m sorry, I didn´t know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If this were true, why would gold be the only safe haven? Surely any other currency would suffice.

<comment><USER4> Historically, in the 1970s and early 80s, inflation seemed very bad for stocks. Single digit p/e ratios. I'm not clear on whether it would be the same today. One argument might be that most of the stock market capitalization is so globalized these days that devaluing the US dollar shouldn't have much effect on revenue.

In other words, maybe US stocks would constitute a safe haven currency too. But I can't say I'm confident of that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What's the reputation of Seeking Alpha and why is it featured so much in HN?

<comment><USER4> I know of them from before/outside HN; I haven't noticed them being especially common here. I think of it as a petri dish of investing clickbait.

The merit, if any, is that it incentivizes writing on any given public company, but most of it is worthless.

The other thing, that wouldn't be on HN, is they link to earnings call transcripts. I don't know if there is some other easy way to obtain them, but it is the channel I'm aware of and seems useful.</comment></comment>


Claude Shannon: How a Genius Thinks, Works, and Lives - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-mission/10-000-hours-with-claude-shannon-12-lessons-on-life-and-learning-from-a-genius-e8b9297bee8f <comment><USER3> Arthur Lewbell, who knew Shannon personally, wrote a eulogy for him [1] and included photos of his "gadgeteers paradise" toy room[2][3] which is mentioned in the article.

I collected photos of the gadgets he built to play games (now in the MIT Museum) and put them on this list in boargamegeek[4].

[1] [https://www2.bc.edu/arthur- lewbel/Shannon.html](https://www2.bc.edu/arthur-lewbel/Shannon.html)

[2] [https://www2.bc.edu/arthur-lewbel/toys1.jpg](https://www2.bc.edu/arthur- lewbel/toys1.jpg)

[3] [https://www2.bc.edu/arthur-lewbel/toys2.jpg](https://www2.bc.edu/arthur- lewbel/toys2.jpg)

[4] [https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/143233/claude-shannon- man...](https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/143233/claude-shannon-man-games- and-machines)

</comment><comment><USER4> I went to school with his grandson - incredibly, ridiculously, intelligent guy, who was the only person three years ahead at the school - I and one other were two ahead, and a dozen or so were a year ahead.

That said, I always felt for the chap, as socially inept didn't begin to cover it (as someone who graduated school two years early I can say with surety that it wasn't solely the temporal displacement that fettered his sociality - <USER2> was definitely a factor for us all, but he couldn't/wouldn't communicate even with other maths geeks), and I could only see him pursuing a career in academia - which he is.

I also felt for him as as a mathematically brilliant Shannon expectations couldn't have been higher - I was going to cap this off by saying I'm sure he'll do great things, but instead, I'll say I hope he has a happy life.

<comment><USER5> Wow... what school is this, where everyone is years ahead?

<comment><USER4> King's Canterbury. Out of 700 pupils, there were about 20 one or more years ahead - I was skipped a few years when I was six, at a previous school, so just continued from there - similar for him, I believe. No idea how it is there now, I left 15 years ago.

I had the advantage of having always been tall for my age, so mostly hid the fact that I was young - Alex, however, was a fairly small chap and I think suffered for it.

Fond memories of celebrating my 18th at university, and the college bar being like "lol what, we've been serving you for a year".

<comment><USER5> Are the gifted students all in the same class?

<comment><USER4> No, and oddly, kids who were years ahead weren't necessarily viewed as being gifted - just ahead. The scholars were the gifted (grafters, bluntly, rather than gifted) ones, and wore special gowns and got discounted fees.

Rather than having a number of classes for each year, they operated a set system for each subject, so if you were great at maths and sucked at Latin, you could be in the top set for maths and bottom set for Latin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a psychology enthusiast (and soon to be student), I'm quite annoyed with our fascination with "geniuses".

It seems obvious that people who are very famous in their field became "very intelligent" because of a combination of hard work and genetics. But it's as if these books capitalize on the faint hope of being a repressed genius of some sort. I highly doubt Einstein or Shannon (as the article implies) ever saw themselves as more than passionate. And the ego required to want to find your inner genius goes contrary to the enormous humility they seemed to display.

That aside, these books and articles all make the same mistake of studying a single person _after the fact_. It's similar to mimicking Steve Jobs: That's not how he became Steve Jobs. We literally cannot know how much luck was involved in his (or Einstein's) success. Might as well study the lives of lottery winners.

So if not that, how can we maximize our potential and generally better ourselves intellectually? Simply by referring to the very vast fields of learning, motivation and general cognitive science.

But "learn the science" doesn't have quite the same ring to it as "how to be Einstein", now does it?

<comment><USER7> _I highly doubt Einstein or Shannon (as the article implies) ever saw themselves as more than passionate._

They may have kept it to themselves, but they were certainly aware of their status.

Who are we to say what the author should or shouldn't study? Why is studying a genius a bad thing? (And they _are_ geniuses, if it's possible to compare one person to another at all.)

You've made some good points about how someone becomes a genius: it's mostly luck, especially in genetics and upbringing. But there's no reason that studying this is inherently useless.

<comment><USER6> Fair enough regarding the status.

> Who are we to say what the author should or shouldn't study? Why is studying > a genius a bad thing?

The authors can do whatever they want with their time. But people who buy books and read articles on geniuses would be better served buying and reading science-based books on intelligence. They mostly have all the same advice without the fluff of big names. Also they are actually empirical science, which can't always be said about studies on "famous" people (which to me seem more akin to profiling).

That's not to say you can't enjoy a good biography. But titles like these and what they imply just rub me the wrong way. We're not Einsteins, we'll never be geniuses, and that's fine.

<comment><USER8> I concur. As a teacher and mentor to students, I find that assigning the label of "genius" to anyone famous for their accomplishments can have a negative affect on young learner's goals. They often think "oh, they're just a genius, that's how they've accomplished X". I try and dispel this, giving them examples of how most "geniuses" just worked really hard on one thing, and that if they focus and work hard on the one thing they are passionate about they will find that someday they may be referred to as a "genius".

<comment><USER9> Yes. They worked to get to the limits of their abilities, and that's how they accomplished so much. Without that work, their potential would have been wasted.

Everyone's limits are at a different location for different tasks, and they can be pushed to some extent, but not indefinitely. (If nothing else, people eventually die.) Finding how far your limits in a useful or fun area can be pushed is a worthwhile task as well, and progress is measured by change relative to your past, not someone else's.

So we sit between two tragedies:

On the one hand, we have people who believe genius is magic, and unapproachable, who never work to find what their level is, and never work to push it out.

On the other, we have people who think any level can be attained through hard work, who work themselves into burnout or worse trying to reach goals their lives aren't long enough to attain, and who never appreciate the progress they _have_ made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One thing that occurred to me is that if Einstein or Shannon hadn't discovered their respective theories, someone else would have. It probably wouldn't have taken very long, either.

I'm not sure what to do with this information, but it seems true.

<comment><USER10> The same is true of most (all?) scientific discoveries. A good evidence for it the fact that most important breakthroughs were made independently, within the space of months or years, by two or more people/teams that didn't collaborate with each other.

My takeaway is that science is very incremental, and discoveries depend on what the state of scientific knowledge is at any given time, and not on particular smart individuals.

I also believe the same applies to social progress - e.g. if Martin Luther died as a child, someone else would start the Reformation; if Marx and Lenin decided to pursue art instead of economics/politics, someone else would invent communism anyway, etc.

<comment><USER11> This sort of determinism seems wrong. It implies that if you had a Monte Carlo simulation engine of the universe and ran it 1,000 times beginning at the 20th century through today, you would expect those iterations to look a lot like our world. Only with some of the names and people being different, but fundamentally, everything else would still have happened.

That seems unlikely, no?

<comment><USER10> Yeah, sort of. I'd say it's quite likely.

The thing about how engineering and the markets work - they are attracted towards local optimas. So I'd expect each iteration to e.g. have cars that are more-less like we know. I'd expect it to have soft drinks; maybe not Coca Cola, but something very similar and recognizable to us, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interestingly, I just listened to a decent podcast with Ed Thorp (an interesting man in his own right) who briefly talked about his work with Shannon.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2017-07-14/ed-thorp- the...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2017-07-14/ed-thorp-the-man-who- beat-the-dealer-and-the-market)

</comment><comment><USER13> Was curious enough about the thesis paper, I went searching for it.

[http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/11173/34541425...](http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/11173/34541425-MIT.pdf?sequence=2)

</comment><comment><USER14> Vint Cerf's article on Claude Shannon: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v547/n7662/full/547159a...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v547/n7662/full/547159a.html?foxtrotcallback=true)

</comment><comment><USER15> >But if his tendency to follow his curiosity wherever it led sometimes rendered him less productive, he also had the patience to keep coming back to his best ideas, over the course of years.

[snip]

>"He never argued his ideas. If people didn't believe in them, he ignored those people."

I think there's a connection here which reveals a common misconception about intellectual creation, namely that scientific theories are born in a legalistic fashion by criticism, argument and debate. In reality the role of criticism is to defend against ideas we _don 't_ like. Ideas we _do_ like are shielded from explicit criticism, for instance by ignoring critics, and allowed to grow in our brains over time. It's a pleasure to return to such ideas again and again, while they remain interesting, so 'patience' isn't required either.

</comment><comment><USER16> Boy is this article filled with unwarranted hyperbole. And Tim Ferris, really?

Substance is overwhelmingly like a self-improvement article, cherrypicking details to support whatever point the author stands to posit.

<comment><USER17> >Substance is overwhelmingly like a self-improvement article

Because many believe that if they just work or behave like a genius or successful entrepreneur they will be one as well. It's the mental equivalent of a trendy diet. It's not that there's not some interesting habits in the article, but people will focus on the easy bits and start riding unicycles, not reading their emails and leaving checks uncashed.

Like diets, people want to hear things like: Eat a lemon with every meal and only poop on Thursdays. Allowing yourself to be mentored is hard, if it doesn't come natural to you. Being patient and keep working on problem for years on end is equally hard. It's not bad advise, it's just really hard to implement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > "Letters he didn't want to respond to went into a bin labeled "Letters I've > Procrastinated On For Too Long." ... Inbox zero, be damned."

moving things to folders is... the definition of "inbox zero"?

<comment><USER19> My thought exactly. The authors seem to have gotten it completely backwards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I read The Idea Factory, about Bell Labs, and they had a few sections on Shannon. Honestly, from what I read, it sounds like the guy didn't want to work, or have a job. And the Fates were kind, and dropped him into a situation where not only was he able to make that a reality, but he was able to provide several meaningful contributions to the fields of programming and information theory while doing so. He was able to not have to "work", and get to be part of some pretty amazing stuff.

<comment><USER21> >he was able to provide several meaningful contributions

Don't you think that's severely downplaying his role?

He invented the field of information theory, not just made several contributions. He founded digital circuit design. The entire concept of being able to use electrical circuits to implement boolean logic, and proving you can use those circuits to solve any problem that boolean logic can. He also came up with sampling theory, bringing communications into the digital world (as well as signal processing).

And then sure, he made several (extremely important) contributions to the field of cryptography

> get to be part of some pretty amazing stuff.

He WAS a lot of that pretty amazing stuff.

<comment><USER20> Maybe I did downplay a bit. But the key takeway was, he was involved with all of that, not because he was assigned to it, but because it was interesting to him, and he wanted to do something with it. His work with digital circuit design arose out of him playing with making maze solving robots.

He, of all people, clearly embodied the idea of, "Get a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life." Of course, it doesn't help that he had an extremely tolerant employer, one who realized that letting him do things like play with the robots, would lead to such breakthroughs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I bet there would be many more geniuses with ubi

<comment><USER20> Quite possibly. From what it sounds like, Shannon's job with Bell Labs was kinda his form of UBI. They didn't really make him "work"; they just kinda gave him money, and told him to do what he felt like. That lead to a bunch of impressive things, given the resources he had access to.

Granted, a lot of that came after some of his groundbreaking work on information theory, which is what earned him his fame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> > _During World War II, those friends included Alan Turing, with whom Shannon > struck up a lively intellectual exchange during Turing's fact-finding trip > to study American cryptography on behalf of the British government._

This little tidbit has always fascinated me from a _What-If_ perspective, because of course because of the War and secrecy, Turing and Shannon did _not_ discuss cryptography, the Bombe (Turing's Enigma-cracking machine) or the Colossus (arguably the first electronic computer, except its very existence remained a secret until the 1970s).

How would've things gone had they been able to talk freely?

</comment><comment><USER24> There seems to be a lot of parallels in how Shannon lived and how Feynman lived. Obviously, Feynman was more gregarious, but they both found inspiration and solace in curious play. I think more than curiosity, which most people have, they both showed a profound disinterest in hiding their interests or fear of looking dumb.

That might be the biggest difference between smart guys who work jobs and geniuses who pave new paths. It is both sad and empowering because it means we simply get in our own way when we try to be "serious adults".

</comment><comment><USER25> I've seen 3 Claude Shannon articles on HN in the past 2 weeks. What's the occasion?

<comment><USER26> There's a new biography on him, A Mind at Play

[https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Play-Shannon-Invented- Informatio...](https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Play-Shannon-Invented- Information/dp/1476766681/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Honestly it is hard for me to regard as very credible an author who openly admits not knowing who shannon was before starting this book..

<comment><USER28> We all start from zero. If a person can't be knowledgeable after a bit of rigor, then no one can be trusted in any subject and we can see how everything will become "fake news" and "alterntative facts"

<comment><USER27> I suppose. Another part of this I try to read science writers who have a bit of a stem background, like the very good [http://www.ericaklarreich.com/](http://www.ericaklarreich.com/)

I find people with no stem background, even when they mean very well and work hard, just miss a lot when doing writing of this sort. They simply do not and in a real sense cannot understand the process of creating new scientific knowledge. Their impressions are merely metaphorical and not direct. Having the words 'genius' in the title...ugh. I suppose I am maybe not the target audience for this though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Well, I find it very motivational.

</comment><comment><USER30> You lost me at "10'000 hours".</comment>


HyperConsole: Instantly load JavaScript libraries into devTools to experiment - <AUTHOR> https://hyperconsole.itsarnavb.me <comment><AUTHOR> This gif should explain: [https://imgur.com/6BnAFjh](https://imgur.com/6BnAFjh)</comment>


Mother raising money through Kickstarter to send daughter to RPG camp - <AUTHOR> http://www.playereffort.com/?p=3884 <comment><AUTHOR> Just in case my title gets de-editorialized. I submitted this as 'Fraud: Millionaire using Kickstarter "girl controversy" to raise money.' (did have to edit out some typos on my part) The kickstarter isn't raising money for camp (as you might guess), but for single rich individual.

I am all for more funding to support young girls in computing. I would just like to see it applied to those that would not receive such benefits without additional help.

I am not for "shaming" in general, but I feel exposure is the only way to try to set this right. And this is ongoing, Susan Wilson has not withdrawn the Kickstarter which has collected over $22,000 to send a rich girl to summer camp.

<comment><USER2> So is your problem that the money is going towards a training course, or is your problem that she could have raised the money some other way?

Where is the fraud, by the way? What is she lying about? Are the people who are choosing to give their money to this being totally fooled and they think their money will be spent on something completely different?

<comment><AUTHOR> My problem is rich people soliciting donations for their selves (under the sneaky implication they are somebody who needs this).

As to Fraud from the Kickstarter: "My goal is to raise $829 to cover the cost of RPG Camp." The fraud is the implication the girl needs the money and won't get to go if we don't fund it. Or any implication this will help other girls than this one. Additional fraud is the Kickstarter is being run by a minor who can't enter into contracts, set up Amazon/Paypall accounts and so on.

I guess it isn't fraud if you have enough after the fact apologists.

<comment><USER3> Isn't much of Kickstarter rich people seeking donations for themselves? It's not like Peter Molyneux, a multi-millionaire, needed to get Kickstarter donations, but he did anyway. Presumably he just didn't want to spend his own money on building a game prototype.

I guess I'd leave it up to the funders of a particular project whether they think giving already-rich people more money is a good use of their own money. Some kind of mandatory disclosure of existing net worth could be an interesting twist, to make sure people aren't misled about the requester's existing financial situation. But I doubt KS would go for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Most millionaires become rich by keeping as much of their income as they can ... I guess it's easier if you're willing to give up a good reputation in the process. When I read the KS campaign, I thought it was a bit weird that the mom was obviously doing the writing, but I hadn't researched Susan Wilson at all. Maybe she was really just trying to show her daughter how to reach for her dreams but she'll have to be careful with the extra money or she'll teach her the wrong things. I'd suggest using the extra money to send needy kids to the computer camp.

</comment><comment><USER5> If Kickstarter doesn't stop this sort of thing, it will soon be overrun with this sort of thing. I'm not necessarily against soliciting charity for those who may not deserve it (after all that would mean I'm against most non-profits in the USA), and there may be a sustainable business model for it _somewhere else_ , but if this becomes "a thing" it will detract from the point of Kickstarter.

</comment><comment><USER6> My opinion is that if this were a more sincere Kickstarter that focused on the child, I'd give it a pass. Instead it reads as a mother's ignorant views on sex and sexuality ironically being used to generate sympathy for gender issues and, ultimately, profit. She even manages to hate on developers by saying "as a businessperson" she feels like she's "at their mercy" instead of taking some responsibility and educating herself before hiring people she feels used by. She says she's glad her daughter's getting into it so she no longer feels swindled. What a great attitude to have about an entire industry and one's own willingness to learn.

Regardless of her wealth, I'm not cool with people taking advantage of Kickstarter by exploiting children, people with different lifestyles and serious social issues. Her Twitter campaigning illustrates her intentions even further.

An honest campaign would have been much more driven by the child. When I was this girl's age, I would have pounced at the chance to show people the nerdy stuff I was doing so I could prove how badly I wanted to go to a game dev summer camp, especially because I was a girl. If my mom put this together, I would have been embarrassed and ashamed.

Do away with the weird over-produced secret agent PowerPoint template of a presentation and ridiculous TLDR written by the mother. Do away with the weird marketing materials (a beer koozie that says "I drink like a girl, keep up!"?). Like any other gaming Kickstarter, I want to know more about what I can expect from this game rather than vague bullet-list promises to be "unlike other games", especially when the original cost was only going to cover 5 days of development. The girl has an entire diary of game ideas she could help sell herself with, but instead of substance I get to read trying-to-be-funny commentary not at all written by a 9-year-old.

Caine's Arcade (<http://vimeo.com/40000072>) comes to mind as a much better way to tell the story of a child's passion through their eyes.

<comment><USER7> Lemme give a counterpoint:

What if the lesson here were to teach how to raise money? What if it were to go through the actual process of building a game (which includes far more than just writing the game)? Instead of looking at it as a scam, this is a mother who is trying to teach her daughter some valuable life lessons that I wish I learned when I was young (I'm male, but that's beside the point).

To put it in terms more germane to technology, she has a brilliant pitch (appealing to gender issues), really good reward items (lots of people get burned by underpricing those) and a really modest goal (even if she doesn't finish the game, everyone chipping money into the kickstarter feels good)

<comment><USER8> Two questions:

\- What do you think about the usage and portrayal of the sons here?

\- What do you think of the $10K reward where the boys apologize?

Followup question depending on your answers:

\- Do you approve of teaching about dishonesty by behaving dishonestly?

My own answers:

1) Disgusting and manipulative 2) I don't believe she would do that, but if she did then... 3) That's repulsive

<comment><USER7> We don't know the underlying family dynamic, but the storyline that is being sold here is:

\- Girl proposes idea of making a game

\- Brothers were skeptical: "She tried with my brothers but they weren't interested."

\- Brothers challenged girl, maybe saying something like "you can't do it"

\- Girl says "watch me!" and asks mother about going to this RPG camp.

So if you believe that actually happened, the $10K reward where the boys apologize is a really clever lesson. The girl gets her money and the boys lean a lesson about not being overly cynical (after all, someone would have given her $10K)

Of course we don't know what actually happened here.

So my answers are:

(assuming everything stated is true)

1) Disgusting and manipulative (I never would want to cast any of my children in a negative light)

2) Brilliant if it actually happens: no better time than now to stamp out cynicism and negativity

But of course, that assumes the story line is 100% true.

If it turns out not to be the case, then I agree that the entire situation soup-to-nuts is repulsive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The only thing that -really- bothers me about this kickstarter is that people kept donating after it had passed its goal by such a ridiculous amount. I can understand it ending at a few hundred dollars more than they asked, but 20x the original asking amount? Really?

It's as if the people donating don't really care that donating more money may complicate things - they just want to donate so they can get their daily "I'm such a nice person" high.

I can't help but wonder whether or not this controversy would have even happened if the donators had stopped at the target amount of 800 dollars.

</comment><comment><USER10> There are so many girls whose parents aren't millionaires who need our help that I am a little shocked that so many people were misled in backing this. I think Susan Wilson's comments on the kickstarter are a fine example of shooting yourself in the foot. It's actually a little funny to see the comments go from very positive at first to negative as more and more concerns are raised. It's She's clearly exploiting her children and the goodwill of the community. I'll be very surprised if Kickstarter doesn't put a stop to this very quickly.

<comment><USER11> some women would do anything for money.

<comment><USER10> Now I didn't, and wouldn't, say that. (That's a rather rude thing to say.)

I do think that Susan Wilson probably doesn't need the money. But more importantly, I think this kickstarter (and however much notoriety it generates) is more what Susan Wilson is after here. It's almost finely crafted to be controversial, just at an edge of what is acceptable, and will be something she can cite for the next decade in interviews. It's clear that this particular woman doesn't need the money, but the fame she generates in exploiting her child is priceless.

edit: for clarity

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't think this is fraud, but I'm not sure it's currently allowed on Kickstarter. The problem is, this is "$829 so I can go to camp", not funding the game itself. So normally the excess money is explicitly for continuing to develop whatever is being funded, but in this instance that may be LIKELY but it's not explicit.

However, having a bunch of money and being able to afford something without Kickstarter is meaningless in this equation. The fact that the mom is a wealthy person has 0 pertinence.

<comment><USER13> The pitch copy explicitly says the money over the goal will go to extending her time at camp, up to the length of the entire summer.

I don't know how much that would cost, but I think we're probably past that now, and I don't see any indication what the rest will go towards.

I've wished in the past that Kickstarter required some sort of open accounting for projects funded through them. But in practice I don't know how that would work. There's no effective leverage outside of setting that as a standard. If someone didn't, nothing could be done other than community pressure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't get it. Is it fraud because she already has enough money to pay for it, but opted to use Kickstarter instead?

How is that fraud? Is every millionaire startup founder who raises capital a fraud as well?

<comment><USER15> I think there's a fair bit of double standards here. Here's a short, by-no- means-exhaustive list of well received, wildly successful Kickstarter campaigns started by multi-millionaires who could've easily offered the funding themselves:

* Double Fine Adventure (Tim Schaefer): [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doublefine/double-fine-a...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doublefine/double-fine-adventure?ref=live)

* Yogventures (the Yogscast): [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/winterkewlgames/yogventu...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/winterkewlgames/yogventures?ref=live)

* Veronica Mars Project (Rob Thomas or Kristen Bell): [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-veronica-m...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-veronica-mars-movie-project?ref=live)

* Wasteland 2 (inXile Entertainment, run by Brian Fargo): <http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2>

* Torment ( _2nd_ Kickstarter run by inXile Entertainment, before even fulfilling Wasteland 2): [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/torment-tides-of-...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/torment-tides-of-numenera?ref=live)

* Project Eternity (Obsidian Entertainment, a AAA games company, run by Chris Jones): [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternit...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity?ref=most-funded)

* Project Godus (22 Cans, run by Peter Molyneux): [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/22cans/project-godus?ref...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/22cans/project-godus?ref=live)

Why a nine-year-old girl and her ostensibly well-to-do mother get called out as "fraud" but not everyone else is something I don't really understand.

<comment><USER13> I figured out what bothers me about this Kickstarter- There's almost nothing about the actual "project", that is, the game.

This is all that's said about it:

"As I said in the video, I want to create an RPG that isn't too violent and isn't filled with bad words, still has a good story line & cool graphics, but has shorter cut scenes, less menus & fewer controls. And most importantly, I want a game that allows team members to face danger together and get hurt but doesn't kill team mates off & eliminate them from battle."

That's it.

There's tons and tons of stuff about...well, everything but the supposed project. The game itself is secondary, if that.

So it's hard for me to see how this is really about a project and not about sending someone to summer camp. If that's the case, it would seem to very clearly run against Kickstarter's rules.

<comment><USER15> I think that's a fair criticism: definitely one of the reasons why I didn't decide to back the project.

And I think the idea that this is may be really about paying tuition instead of finishing the game is something that's fair to report and let Kickstarter decide whether it violates their terms of use.

Overall, it looks like a bad Kickstarter campaign to fund, but it's not fraud and the level of vitriol about it is over the top. Bad Kickstarters happen all the time[1], but they don't get this crazy amount of hate.

[1]: <http://www.reddit.com/r/shittykickstarters>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't think this is fraud.

Looks to me like a mom & daughter made something together and put it on the internet.

I live in an affluent part of San Francisco (Noe Valley) and last week saw lots of rich moms selling girl scout cookies with their daughters, mom doing all the "work." Is that fraud?

Also, nowhere do I see anything in the article (or the CNN article it links to) about the mom's finances. Just because you have a business does not mean you're rich -- it often means the contrary.

<comment><USER17> Fraud requires a lie, which I don't see. Apparently "fraud" now means doing something that you don't like.

Personally, I think this could be great, if the parents are doing it properly. The daughter is learning how to achieve her goals with assistance from other people who give willingly, instead of mooching off mom and dad. A lot of children are lucky if they can manage to learn this lesson by the age of 18 (or later... I wasn't exactly an early bloomer here myself), and, managed well, this kid is going to have a good handle on it much faster than that.

<comment><USER18> It's a lie by omission. As a backer, you're missing a critical piece of information which would cause a lot of people not to fork over their cash. The only hint you get that mommy is not living from government handouts is that it's said she "sometimes has to hire programmers and developers for her work", and that she is a "business person", which might as well mean a freelance web developer struggling to make ends meet.

So what is little Mackenzie Wilson learning? How to achieve her goals "with assistance from other people"? Or that you can find plenty of suckers on the Internet if you pull on their heartstrings just enough?

<comment><USER17> The default assumption now is that people are living off government handouts until proven otherwise? Huh?

<comment><USER18> The default assumption is that, when you have to ask money from strangers to fund your kid's holidays, you're not flush with money. I used "government handouts" to drive the point home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Older siblings tend to give little siblings a hard time in general, regardless of their gender.

This is most definitely a publicity stunt at Kickstarter's expense. Millionaire's begging others to fund their child's camp is not something you see every day, and it most certainly doesn't belong on Kickstarter.

</comment><comment><USER19> This reddit post sums up everything wrong with this, quotes the broken KS rules, and links to evidence: [http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1awnzx/so_you_know_th...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1awnzx/so_you_know_that_kickstarter_for_the_girl_who/c91g8yn)

</comment><comment><USER20> Just skimmed the article and kickstarter page so maybe this is addressed already: (speculation) surely this isn't about the money, it's about publicity for the game camp? They don't need the money if her profile is to be believed (although the amount of supposed millionaires around that are dirt poor means it's plausible she isn't rich). She probably has some connection with the game camp.

Edit: actually I want to revise that statement, on looking through her website links I think it's more likely this is advertising for _her_ , she's trying to build a brand. I assume she'll go a long way off the back off "next on USA Today, the crowd-sourcing mom!" or something. She's got her own female entrepreneur thing at fundher.com. Maybe that's it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Then why don't they collect money for the camp instead of for themselves?

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Conversation already running here:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5427771>

and here:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5425235>

and probably elsewhere as well.

<comment><USER21> Out of curiosity, are you in any way affiliated with this Kickstarter? Your comment history shows 10 comments on the topic so far, mostly siding with the mother.

<comment><USER22> If your opinion was on the side of the mother wouldn't you find yourself commenting quite a few times given the bombard of comments on the other side, without the need for a hidden agenda?

<comment><USER5> Given the comments made, GP has a valid question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> report abuse now: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/susanwilson/9-year- old-b...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/susanwilson/9-year-old-building- an-rpg-to-prove-her-brothers-w/report/new)

<comment><USER23> I don't know if it is alright but i made a new news item of this with a clear call to action and hope we can take this project off kickstarter. let's get it done, hack0rs

<comment><USER23> Save Kickstarter from scam - report this fake sexist project (kickstarter.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's not fraud simply _because_ the mother is a millionaire. But it's probably against Kickstarter's policies nonetheless:

> Kickstarter does not allow charity, cause, or "fund my life" projects.

I suppose one could construe summer camp tuition as "training" and the new laptop she'll be getting (see "Where is the money going" section) as equipment costs. But that's really not what is happening.

</comment><comment><USER7> For those wondering if kickstarter will do anything about this:

It's pretty clear that kickstarter is happy with getting the 5% cut, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this in the future.

<comment><USER25> Yup. Just as eBay doesn't care about shill bidders that bid up the price, Kickstarter doesn't ~really~ care about their users getting scammed through violations of their TOS as long as they make their cut.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is not fraud. If the basis of the campaign were that her family is just too poor to send her, that would be fraud. But that is clearly not in there. As far as whether she needs it or not, many kids with rich parents don't get to enjoy that money. Some rich parents are just downright cheap and selfish, and others want to teach their kids the value of a dollar. My guess is that the daughter asked for the money, and mom wanted to teach her how to go out and get it instead of just asking her. They worked together and created a successful campaign.

The people calling this fraud are jealous. They look at their own kickstarter campaigns that aren't nearly as successful and wonder why they haven't been as "lucky". Looks like the mother is successfully teaching her daughter how to make her own luck, and that isn't a bad lesson to learn.

<comment><USER27> "and others want to teach their kids the value of a dollar"

In this case, the value of a dollar being "I'll overproduce a PowerPoint, spam some celebrities and women's groups on Twitter, we'll include a few pictures of you being all cute and smiling, and people will just throw money at you!"

"They worked together" - BS. Their merchandise includes beer coolers with adult slogans. Their marketing includes spamming of women's rights groups, and celebrities. You don't honestly believe that this was driven by the nine year old, and not her multimillionaire debt collecting mom, who made her initial fortune squatting on kinkos.com, do you?

<comment><USER26> >In this case, the value of a dollar being "I'll overproduce a PowerPoint, spam some celebrities and women's groups on Twitter, we'll include a few pictures of you being all cute and smiling, and people will just throw money at you!"

In today's world, this actually seems to be correct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I am a backer of this project, and after reading this post I am still very happy to be involved.

There is so much involved in this project that simply isn't financial.

Going through the process of putting up the Kickstarter project creates accountability and motivation for Mackenzie to actually build and finish the game because she now has a group of people cheering her on from the sidelines.

To me this is exactly what Kickstarter is about: supporting creative endeavors. The financial aspect of it is secondary...don't you think Kirsten Bell could just bankroll the $2m Veronica Mars movie herself? Probably. But with Kickstarter you get the benefit of a built-in support group, and I am just as happy to support Mackenzie whether she's from a rich or poor family.

<comment><USER29> This mom previously tried to raise $20k to make...capes. How much of this $20k+ do you think the 9 yr. old is getting? She's also spamming celebs and women's groups on twitter - <http://i.imgur.com/b4l2fI2.png>.

I'd be happy to back a child interested in tech but I don't think her daughter made this - <http://i.imgur.com/F03oG3e.png>.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This comment on Reddit is quite interesting: [http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1awnzx/so_you_know_th...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1awnzx/so_you_know_that_kickstarter_for_the_girl_who/c91g8yn)

</comment><comment><USER30> Strong argument for a 'maximum' cap on kickstarter funding.

<comment><USER31> How would it be decided, though? By the person posting the Kickstarter? Despite claiming to be about raising less than $1,000 this Kickstarter allotted up to 5 rewards for $10,000 donations -- so I'm going to guess in this case they wouldn't have voluntarily put a sane cap on this.

<comment><USER32> It could be a multiple of the original amount, perhaps. That is, at a 2x multiple, say, an attempt at raising $800 could go no further than $1600.

<comment><USER33> Terrible idea. That would have severely impacted all of the high-profile projects to date.

Whoa, HN double-posted my comment. Never seen that happen before.

<comment><USER32> The thing is, the big heavily funded projects I can recall all got to that stage by essentially _selling_ something (the OUYA stands out in this regard). And Kickstarter now seem to be making the point that it's not about selling stuff but just raising enough to produce something you can sell separately later. So while I don't actually agree with my own idea, it would seem to fit with the new line of thinking over there IMHO.

(Happens to me every now and then, but the software is smart enough to [dead] the dupes, somehow.)

<comment><USER33> Sure, they sold something. This is the first "high-profile" (whereby that I mean I'm actually seeing it on HN or some other aggregator that I read) Kickstarter I've seen that isn't really about the actual thing being created. That said, backers are actually getting a copy of the game, plus other perks, just like any other video game kickstarter. The only reason there's any controversy seems to be the fact that the mother in question could presumably have afforded to do this without the kickstarter. But as others have said, just because she could have afforded to do this another way doesn't make the kickstarter somehow wrong.

(And yeah, HN did [dead] the dupe, which I then deleted, I've just never had this happen before).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Can't really see the fraud here.

</comment><comment><USER35> Fraud? No. Distasteful, dishonest, stupid and incredibly callous? Yes.

</comment><comment><USER35> Why was the title rewritten and the thread effectively killed?

</comment><comment><USER36> If it's the mom saying "hey look kid you need to earn your way in this life, but if you really want to go to this camp, one thing you could try is kickstarter" then that's great! I had plenty of super wealthy friends growing up and the ones that tended to be of solid character had parents that led them in such ways. Why does a parent having a ton of money necessarily mean the approach advocated for the child to take/learn should be different than for less wealthy parents?

Though I do agree kickstarter ought to disallow this sort of thing regardless.

</comment><comment><USER29> Brilliant way to capitalize on recent news by this mom. Smart lady. Her daughter will be thrilled when she finds out enough money was raised for her to attend the camp. As for the rest of the money...

</comment><comment><USER23> they have spent more than 1000$ to pay for the video and want less than 1000$ funding. clearly marketing for mothers business

</comment><comment><USER23> vote this up ? <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5433664>

</comment><comment><USER37> oh my...

</comment><comment><USER11> i just contacted kickstarter via email.

i hope they take down this cheating fraud bitch. she has a lot of nerve to be so blatantly stealing other people's hard earned money.

<comment><USER2> Is it still theft if you tell them in advance what you want it for and they choose to give it to you? Our judicial system says no, but your opinion is considered valid too!

<comment><USER11> A thief is a thief, it doesn't matter if she pimps out her kids to Johns on the internet willing to pay the cash for a fuck. As long as she takes the money she is guilty, and human trash too.

<comment><USER2> Perhaps you don't know what theft is. Theft is taking something that belongs to someone else (without permission) with the intent of keeping it.

She is not taking anything. People are choosing to give her money. She's not (obviously) defrauding anyone either; she explained what the money is going towards. Maybe it is all a scam and she doesn't exist and it's going on coke n' hookers, but you don't know that any more than I do.

You, however, don't like this, and you don't like that people are choosing to give her some money, but you are unable to express yourself clearly.

All you have is your pathetic rage and your inability to explain what you don't like about the situation. Does it make you feel like a big man? Are you going to start issuing death threats now? You're safe to do that; this is your new throwaway account, yes? So you can let you inner rage out without losing any of your precious social approval.

<comment><USER11> What about those people who invest money in an unknown ponzi scheme? Bernard Madoff stole billions yet the victims gave to him willingly.

<comment><USER2> Am I really going to have to be an online dictionary? That's fraud.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A growing library of user flow design patterns - <AUTHOR> https://pageflows.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN. While this tool is mainly for UX designers and product managers, quite a few of the customers are product-focussed developers.

It's a growing library of user flow videos and screenshots of popular products. It's useful when you're designing a new flow and are stuck or need some inspiration.

I personally like it when people share their side project's revenue numbers, so I'll share mine. The first sale was in mid-February. Here's what the revenue has looked like since:

Total revenue: $3,618

Feb - $1,182 March - $754 April - $638 May so far - $1,044

I'd love to hear feedback from more developers as to whether this is something you'd find useful.</comment>


A Life Hearing Voices: How I Manage Auditory Hallucinations - <AUTHOR> http://www.elleuk.com/life-and-culture/culture/articles/a40278/hearing-voices/ <comment><USER2> What's the distinction between 'hearing voices' and just thinking internally to yourself? Thoughts seem to be happening all the time and are not always super directed (isn't the goal of mindfulness to get a better handle on this?).

In the article having more negative thoughts post breakup in a competitive environment seems like a normal thing.

Is it a lack of agency or the voice sounding different or something? It feels poorly defined.

Reminds me a bit of this where internal maps might be different in a way that's hard to notice - language is not very good at sharing direct experience: [http://generallythinking.com/richard-feynman-on-thinking- pro...](http://generallythinking.com/richard-feynman-on-thinking-processes- did-he-know-nothing-about-psychology-v/).

<comment><USER3> I think you are having a hard time really believing that people "hear" the hallucinations.

When they started for me it wasn't voices, but telephone's ringing. I never thought, "is that telephone really ringing or am I just thinking of a telephone ringing?" I never considered the sound was generated internally.

I just went and answered the phone. It was months of what I thought were random hangups before I realized that I was the only one who could hear these calls.

<comment><USER4> That's really interesting, did you used to hear it in 3D? Were the sounds coming from a certain position and then increasing volume as you approached that position? or was it just plain?

<comment><USER3> That's a great question. It mostly happened when I was a good distance from the phone. So I would be running to pick it up before the caller hung up or it went to the answering machine. (Early 90's).

I do think the ringing would get louder as I got closer to the phone, but it never actually went off that I remember in my hand or even when I was within 5 feet of it. Really close, the sound would have been much different. Also the phone should have actually vibrated in my hand which never happened.

I always thought that meant I had 'just missed' the person who was calling. But it may have just been the limit of what the hallucination was able to produce.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Saw a fellow somewhat recently with a bunch of patches on his jacket. "Which one is your favorite?"

"The voices may not be real, but they do have some good ideas" \- [https://imgur.com/8KjfH56](https://imgur.com/8KjfH56)

I've "heard voices" two, maybe three times, spread out over maybe 7 years. Both times they were very helpful. The second time was while walking through my apartment. A very distinct voice said, "You're doing well, now go back to [website] and read about [subject]".

I did as I was told and was amazed - I'd been studying the reports on [website] for years, and just hadn't noticed that [subject] was extensively covered, and was of much importance for getting the author's various ideas to fit together.

One of my passengers has had a complex relationship with her voices. Her psychiatrists tried to snuff them out, but I don't think their efforts were very helpful.

<comment><USER6> Philip K Dick experienced a voice which told him to clean himself up & get his finances in order. Also to have his kid see a doctor, "When this presence warned him his infant son had a fatal birth defect that required immediate surgery, Dick took the child to the emergency room. It turned out that the voice was right."[1]

[1] [http://www.signature-reads.com/2014/12/poetry-prophecy- and-m...](http://www.signature-reads.com/2014/12/poetry-prophecy-and-madness- philip-k-dick-and-the-teeth-of-wisdom)

[2] [http://www.openculture.com/2014/05/philip-k-dick-takes- you-i...](http://www.openculture.com/2014/05/philip-k-dick-takes-you-inside- his-life-changing-mystical-experience.html)

<comment><USER7> There's also a rather fascinating case where a woman had voices telling her she had a brain tumor and the voices were correct.

[http://www.bmj.com/content/315/7123/1685](http://www.bmj.com/content/315/7123/1685) PDF available from the NIH, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2128009/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2128009/) , starts on pdf page 17/document page 1685.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is really interesting. It reminds me of a controversial psychological theory, called "bicameralism". This theory suggests that in the ancient past, all humans heard voices in their head (which they interpreted as the voices of gods) because the two hemispheres of the brain were not integrated together, so the other hemisphere's thoughts were experienced as a separate voice.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_\(psychology\))

</comment><comment><USER9> If you "hear voices", there is now an additional possible explanation to it. It is called the "Hannes Jacob Syndrome" [0]. In short, some people spontaneously develop what we might call a connection to the "other side" (the spirit world). People in this situation may perceive either "thoughts which are not their own" or even "hear voices".

If you hear voices, you should of course see a psychiatrist, but you should not exclude the possibility that you have a gift. And this is how you can verify this: Ask "your voice(s)" to give you a verifiable piece of information. If your voices are real, they will give you proof. So just repeat the experiment until you're satisfied.

[0] [https://openaccesshannesjacob.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/hello...](https://openaccesshannesjacob.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/hello- world/) (see the PDF)

<comment><USER10> Also, check your family history. If you are a descendant of Arathorn, those spirits might be persuaded to be your personal army as atonement.

<comment><USER11> If I may be allowed a tiny nitpick, it should be descendant of Isildur, as it was Isildur who cursed them to linger in the Paths of the Dead until fulfilling their oath by helping one of his heirs.</comment></comment></comment>


A New Tool For Finding Pages From Browser History - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22417/

<comment><USER2> Three minutes to find a page that I've visited, searching my browser history?

Three-damn-whole-minutes?... gee.. if I can't find with two or three tries on the search bar (in 10 seconds, tops) I google it. I know I am not normal on my daily net usage, but three minutes?

I guess there's a market for making people finding stuff that they have encountered but can't quite remember how.

Wow... there's a market there, indeed. Presenting "how it looked like" meta- info might work for a subset of the population, but repetition is the key to memory retaining.

Hummm... I wonder if some website that "normalized" every other website would make sense. Every website would look the same. So people, by using it daily, would forget that "there was a red stripe at the top" and instead just remember the content. Perhaps the key is removing every other element expect the crucial ones.

I bet the designers would kill me to decide what's crucial :p</comment>


Google will deliver groceries to Kansas City doorsteps - <AUTHOR> http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/09/13/google-express-grocery-shopping-service.html?ana=e_ae_set1&s=article_du&ed=2016-09-13&u=v3zG4AOzM2Z088kXcVNGkg01f2c2b5&t=1473894037&j=75773712 <comment><USER2> I don't have much faith in Google being able to scale this into something truly game changing. They don't have the nimbleness and service culture that is required.</comment>