Science Fairs Aren't So Fair - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/why-science-fairs-arent-so-fair/387547?single_page=true <comment><USER3> I did a lot of science fairs in high school. I was pretty good at it, too; I'm currently paying for college with the help of some military research scholarships I won at an international science fair.

Here's my perspective on the whole thing. Take it as you will.

At the regional science fairs (where everyone starts out), there are a lot of people there who are only doing it because they have to. Usually, their high school requires it. A lot of these projects are shit, and a lot of them also clearly stole the idea or got help from their parents. All of these get eliminated at the regional level.

Then, we have the state level fairs.

When it comes to engineering projects (mechanical, electrical, or computer), almost 100% of the projects are actually done by the students themselves. It's very easy for engineering judges to tell when someone's bullshitting or didn't actually put in the work, so almost none of the bullshitters make it to the state level. Most of these people don't have any immediate family members who could help them, even if they wanted help.

When it comes to biological sciences (medicine especially) the situation is much different. Almost everyone in this category knows their shit, but it's a lot harder to say if they actually did the work themselves or not. A lot of the projects absolutely _require_ that the students work in industrial lab environments. It's impossible for a student doing MRSA research to work in a lab below BSL-2, for example. A lot of these students get lab access through their parents (who may be doctors or researchers or something), so it's very likely they are working alongside their parent, and it's possible that they are working with the help of their parent. A huge portion of students doing this kind of research _do_ have an immediate family member who can (and, with some likelihood, does) help them.

Because it's much harder for judges to sniff out people who didn't do original work in the biological sciences category, you get a lot more bullshitters in this category making it all the way to the top science fairs. They're still usually experts in whatever they're researching, but they didn't necessarily put in the thought or effort themselves.

When I was at Intel's international fair, the guy who won the top prize claimed to do some sort of cancer-detection research. It was pretty impressive stuff, but after the science fair a whole bunch of incriminating stuff came out. IIRC, there was some situation where his parent had a position of power at some major research university, and he essentially plagiarized the research of some researcher there with minor changes, but it was soon enough after the actual research that no one caught it.

I can't speak as much to the other categories (sociology, mathematics, etc.). I didn't have a lot of experience with those.

<comment><USER4> >it's much harder for judges to sniff out people who didn't do original work in the biological sciences category

This applies to biological research all this way up the chain, including research done at top Universities, and by "top men".

<comment><USER5> Perhaps we should only fund the women then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow a lot of parental angst there. Lets take a paragraph out of that which summarizes this:

 _" Last year my son, who was in third grade at the time, came home with a sheet of paper from his school that listed three categories for appropriate projects: developing a hypothesis and conducting an experiment to test that theory, inventing something new, or researching 'something specific.' The guidelines listed 'whales' as an example of something specific. Given that my son was 8 years old, the idea that he could, on his own, do any single one of these things seemed ludicrous."_

Ok, so here we have a parent which completely doubts what their kid can do. In my experience this is a pretty bad place for a parent to be, as the kids seem to _always_ be more capable than parents expectation.

But the author really drives it home here:

 _" Even the easiest of these items—researching a topic—is nearly impossible for a child who hasn't yet mastered the ability to browse the Internet. (As a parent and the founder of a tech company, I've observed that in order to browse the Internet one needs to know how to scan the screen, differentiate between actual content and ads, and evaluate the trustworthiness of a resource—elements that are far out of reach of most 8-year-olds.)"_

Get that? Browse the Internet? Here is a question, how hard is it to pick up the volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica with the big "W" on the spine and turn to the page on "Whales" ? Not that hard. I'm sure the problem with that is that an 8 year old cannot be expected to drive themselves to the library. (only half joking).

But in context it says volumes about the _parent_ and very little about the _child_. Even the poorest child can research things like the kinds of insects that live in their neighborhood. The sad part about this article is not that Science Fairs are not fair, its that parents don't know what science _is_ and so cannot help there children develop a sense of wonder and discovery.

And what is truly heartbreaking for me is that the author's child has no hope of learning what science is from this person, and if they don't get it in school, well they will grow up believing anything they read on the Internet as truth. That makes for a very sad story indeed.

<comment><USER7> Yup, I agree! If we want to point fingers, lets point them at people of influence who should know better. But authors of internet articles are fairly low on that totem. Leaders in the sciences, public-policymakers, educators and marketers should all be held accountable for the public perception of science.

On one hand, science should be taught as an art. It is a creative endeavor, and when well-taught it engages the mind naturally. Why aren't we asking these kids what interests them and helping them apply the appropriate science?

On the other hand, science is incredibly useful and necessary to understand the world today, and fix the bugs in our social systems that otherwise are or will cause human suffering.

I think finding a handful of heroes to fix all our problems is dumb. We are at a point where fulfilling the greatest potential of all humans should be the goal of any thoughtful person.

Let people fix their own problems, but also let them borrow your tools. And science is an amazingly cool set of tools for fixing things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been disgusted for years by the parade of "winners" of the major science fairs, most of whom have privileged access to research labs, wealth, or both. Because, protip: no high school student can do graduate-level scientific research. When you see that, it means that the student had special access to a lab that was already doing the work.

And yet, year after year, these folks are given lucrative scholarships and trotted out by the media as examples of the best-and-brightest scientific talent. There's no way to reform it -- there's an incentive to game the system, so parents will find a way to a game it. It's just one more example of the perpetuation of wealth across generations.

<comment><USER9> _" It's just one more example of the perpetuation of wealth across generations."_

You say that as if it's a bad thing. The thing you seem to be complaining about is one of the wonderful things about parenting. I.e. to impart/share/teach/give what you have accumulated over your life. Whether that is something physical, or intangible such as knowledge, makes no difference.

<comment><USER10> I agree with this. I struggled at first (with my daughter's performance in a recent science fair), but realized that my experience was a gift I could give to her in the form of a better-than-average ability to explain seemingly complicated ideas to an 8 year old. And to provide somewhat expert guidance on the scientific method itself.

To a certain extent, this happens in many other ways at schools as well. I mean, those kids with very athletic, or sports oriented, parents, may be more driven or have better guidance in athletic endeavors that would my kids. But we seem not to care about that (until the parents are screaming during a game).

And likewise with music, or art, and so on. So I think I've decided not to get too concerned about how others might view my daughter's work on her project. It would be unfair (to her) if I decided _not_ to give her explanations that were the benefit of my own experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anecdotal evidence to the contrary: I was from an unprivileged background growing up in a dying blue collar steel town outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania that used to be the company town for ALCOA.

I was that one weird kid that was really into computers instead of football like everyone else. I taught myself C++ programming, OpenGL, and matrix math in high school because I wanted to develop 3D games.

I convinced my high school principal to let me enter a flight simulator that I wrote during summer break of sophomore year into the Pittsburgh Regional Science Fair (at my own expense), and I won. I remember standing on stage sticking out like a sore thumb from the usual snooty, upper class high schools that everyone knew from around the area.

That day, I met a robotics professor at CMU who was one of the judges, and that introduction, along with sending a DVD video of my work to a few top universities with my college application ended up changing my life.

</comment><comment><USER12> I judge high school engineering projects at the Synopsys Science Fair and California State Science Fair, and have become quite skilled in BS detection. Aside from the usual methods to detect BS, the most revealing question in my experience has been _" what problems did you run into while doing this project?"_ I ask this question to every student regardless of whether I think their project was BS or not, and the responses from legitimate students are usually sincere admissions of incompetence, while the response from a BSer is some inconsequential roadblock that they easily overcame. Students who are willing to submit a project where they did not produce the actual content will be willing to pawn off any experience or skill as their own, and will vastly overstate their abilities. The students who are humble about what they have accomplished and understand the full implications of their work are usually the ones who produce original work and win science fairs.

This year, I saw a project where a high school senior used deep power analysis and machine learning to break AES 128 on a microcontroller ([https://instagram.com/p/0JzlxBoIaJ/](https://instagram.com/p/0JzlxBoIaJ/)). The student was from a prestigious private school, and the project required an expensive high-precision oscilloscope. Naturally I assumed that he had bought the project off eBay, so I didn't hold back in my questioning. But after I began questioning him, it quickly became clear that this was just an exceptionally bright mind who was willing to put hundreds of hours into deep understanding of a topic and reading the relevant research, before embarking on some original work of his own. He iterated over many possible solutions, and had an incredible demonstration of a working one. When I asked him difficult cryptography questions, he answered them precisely. And when I questioned him on his research methodology, he was humble in acknowledging his shortcomings and truthful in citing the research that guided certain aspects of his project. It is unfair to the exceptional few students capable of producing such a project to assume that all high school students are incapable of doing graduate-level research.

<comment><USER8> ...or, you were fooled, and your methodology for BS detection isn't perfect.

I've seen, first-hand, kids who were coached to perfection at this sort of thing. And they could easily pass your test: one common pattern is for the kid to be handed a "project" that is pre-conceptualized and nearly complete, and have them do the last 5% of work in consultation with a senior researcher (typically a post-doc).

The kid basically flails around for a while, struggles a lot, and learns to talk the talk, but doesn't do much of anything in terms of productive work. So they'll struggle like crazy and hang around brilliant, hard-working people (and therefore be humbled and able to pass your test), but that doesn't mean they did the research.

Doing a research project end-to-end takes _years_ of concerted effort. It's almost completely unrealistic to think that a high school senior has put in the time.

<comment><USER12> I get what you're saying. Think about it from the perspective of the dishonest student though - they're handed a project that does some amazing thing, and need to pass it off as their own work. Unless they have the domain knowledge around that amazing thing, they couldn't possibly have done the amazing thing, and science fair bullshitters are generally not willing to put in the time to get a deep understanding of the area their BS'd project is in. The student I mentioned had a deep knowledge of cryptography, and with that understanding and the knowledge of relevant scientific research, was able to build something new that did an amazing thing. But if he was handed that project, I doubt he would have the motivation to research crypto to the extent that he did, or be conversant with another person. And most importantly, _he knew what he didn 't know_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've judged at the local school science fair in California, at the Intel ISEF a bunch of years ago, and I was also part of the organization that arranges the national science fair (Utstallningen Unga Forskare) in Sweden. Hence, I think I have some perspective on this topic.

The American science fairs are a completely different thing from what we did in Sweden. First, the Swedish one is strictly for 17-19 year olds. But more importantly, the Swedish one is not a competition -- the whole idea is that you do this voluntarily, because you have some project you are excited about, and because you get feedback about your project from real scientists.

What purpose does it serve to make it a competition? Isn't the idea to encourage the idea that science and engineering is fun and interesting? Making it a competition just serves to accentuate the issues mentioned in this article: giving an extreme advantage to kids who have access to professional equipment and personal mentoring.

And the whole thing about doing "original science" is ludicrous, especially when it's applied to middle school kids. What matters is whether the outcome is known _to the student_ , not to the world. Kids engage in authentic inquiry every day, and whether the topic is "original science" or not matters not one bit.

If the choice is between the kid who investigated how different rubber bands shoot rocks of different sizes, but did it by his or herself vs. the one who was hand held through some fancy-sounding project at their parents lab, my choice will go to the former every time.

And yes, maybe there are super prodigies out there who actually mastered a research field enough to not only be able to do cutting edge research but also to know enough to pick a topic that is as high school students. I'm not worried about those kids, they don't need encouragement.

</comment><comment><USER14> The Simpsons noticed this phenomenon and proposed a solution 20 years ago.

[https://s-media-cache- ak0.pinimg.com/originals/79/78/1d/7978...](https://s-media-cache- ak0.pinimg.com/originals/79/78/1d/79781db88dbbcde81febb7537554c684.jpg)

"And the award goes to the kids who clearly didn't have any help from their parents"

<comment><USER15> I'm right in the middle of this. I have two sons (11 and 8 yo).

Yesterday was the cub scouts Pinewood derby. The "kids" each build a 4-wheeled car out of a pinewood block. There are various rules that need to be adhered to. I resisted putting my stamp on the cars, but ___most_ __of the cars in that derby looked like they were machined by Ferruccio Lamborghini. My kids ' cars looked like someone had vomited on a block of pinewood. They did okay in the race, so that made me happy.

On the other hand, my 11 yo has an upcoming science fair at his elementary school. This time, I "became what I hate", because I helped him a little too much. I got lab equipment from work.

We're not doing anything fancy, but my "fingerprints" are all over it. He's making the poster, but I told him that the poster should contain his name and also state "with help from Dad."

<comment><USER16> I'll share my first science experiment that I was happy about. I came up with it in a college class, so well after my science fair days, but it might be something your kids could do.

There was pathway with a circular fountain in the middle. The path goes around the fountain. People have the choice of going left or going right. On the outside of the path are benches. My question was, will people avoid walking near someone sitting on the bench?

I still remember the numbers. I only measured it when a person was walking alone on the path. If no one sits then 90% of the people veer right to go around the fountain. (Clearly I want to re-do this in the UK.) When I sat on the bench on the right side, only 80% of the people would take the right. 10% of the people changed their path to avoid me, sitting on the bench, reading a book.

This is the sort of observational research that your eldest could easily do. Observational research the basis for a lot of research, though often overlooked in favor of flashier technology and lab equipment. The author of one book I read - I believe he was a field biologist - wrote that he gets asked how to encourage someone's child to get involved in science, and he suggests to buy a hand-held click counter. [http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/revolving- doors/](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/revolving-doors/) is an example of how test which sign is the best way to get more people to use a revolving door than a regular door, with the goal of reducing the heating bill.

Down this way also lies eccentricities, like John Trinkaus, who won an IgNobel Prize [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners#2003) for publishing reports like "percentage of young people wear baseball caps with the peak facing to the rear rather than to the front". That's pure observational studies, with no experimental variable or control. It won't do well in a science fair.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I feel like it's impossible for many people to acknowledge the fact that the world isn't fair.

To me, that's the basic assumption that you have to start with. Afterwords, you're free to figure out how to make things more fair, but if you don't start out understanding that things will always be messed up, you're left with a senseless rant.

From what I got through it seems like the author was upset that some parents can spend more time with their kids and that teachers were setting a high standard, and that wealth in families can function as a privilege for children. Those seem like pretty fundamental issues to me. The science fair is maybe like a microcosm of life that way, but I didn't get what was a problem unique to it.

<comment><USER18> On paper the kids do the work, but in practice, its more "what can they get away with".

I made it to the state region levels as a kid with a lame project, but I did it all myself, and I remember walking the aisles thinking to myself, "I can probably win against that kid, but there's no way I can win against that kid's Dad who obviously did all the work"

The pinewood Derby in scouts kind of suffers from a similar problem, "who's dad has the best woodworking shop"

This might be a useful life lesson, in that on a very large scale the first thing you learn in business, politics, law is whats right or legal doesn't matter, its all in what you can get away with and who your parents are, and the top players tend to be better at getting away with things and won the genetic lottery. A meritocracy ... of crooks. And that's an education all in itself that will provide a lifetime of benefits once understood at an early age. So I'm not necessarily seeing a problem with education kids.

<comment><USER19> That's not the sort of lesson I want kids to learn. Including my kids.

I want kids, including my kids, to learn that life is fair and if they don't see it be fair, they have to sit down and fix that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This quote shows something really bad, although it wasn't explicitly discussed:

"But at the three fairs I've attended over the last several years, the unknown rarely makes an appearance. At my son's fair last year, at least a handful of students did the popular "experiment" in which the "scientist" waters plants with three different liquids—one of which is typically soda or detergent—to determine which is best for plant growth.

"Were you surprised that water made the plant grow?" I asked one child after she presented her experiment.

"No," she said."

Aka "Science = boring and predictable and uncreative" Which is pretty much the opposite of reality, although a fairly accurate example of K12 science education...

Try harder kids? I put 10 seconds into it and got the idea of pond water, fresh chlorinated tap water, and collected rain water?

Then again, some decades ago I successfully won the local grade school with what boils down to a grid of detergents/soaps vs sources of dirt. (edited to highlite that dumb project ideas are not a recent invention of 2015, I mean think about it, a hypothesis that clothes detergent cleans dirt from cloth the best is lame, although what cleans kitchen grease was a good question, I think hand soap won?)

There is an interesting side dish of some fairs in some decades have allowed research projects or "inventions", which is pretty lame. Do science, do a book report, or do an art project, but don't confuse yourself into thinking the three activities are indistinguishable.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, they need to be encouraged to ask questions about what happens in their lives. Stuff that they genuinely care about.

For example, the other day I was peeing and though, "Is there less splatter by aiming my pee above the water line or below the waterline?" If I was Richard Feynman, I'd probably actually do an experiment. Now that may not be allowed in a school fair, but it's an example of a trivial everyday thing that one can wonder about, and design an experiment about, yet maybe hasn't been established as fact (like plants like water).

<comment><USER21> Below the waterline. All you need to do to learn this is pee with bare legs. ;p

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As a kid, I remember science fairs being an enjoyable time to run around a gymnasium learning about cool things with my friends and classmates. There were two projects that I actually remember vividly. One involved measuring distance using laser pens. The other was about how to make different sounds with wine glasses filled of water. If I dig deep into my memory, I think that I probably had one that involved plants, the light spectrum, a vinegar plus baking soda volcano, plus a few more that all probably came out of a science fair book I found in the library. The point is that none of them were scientifically ground breaking as say a new method for pancreatic cancer detection, but I still got almost perfect grades. I never did win any awards, certainly not any monetary ones, but I learned a considerable amount from the hands on experience.

Since that time, I've gone to a top 10 engineering school, have written research papers, and even have a patent. I'm applying for PhD programs now to study Artificial Intelligence, which I think is as noble a cause as any, and I haven't thought about my science fair experiences until reading this article.

My opinion on the science fair is that it should be more about playfulness and exploration than competition. After all, science should be a team effort rather than a battle royale, and we should worry more about helping one another than whether Sally won because her parent's helped her cut construction paper while Timmy was on his own.

If you are a parent worried that the science fair system is too corrupt, perhaps steer your child towards the rise of high school hackathons. I mentored high school students at MIT's Blueprint and was amazing to see high schoolers deploying machine learning solutions after less than 24 hours. The best part was that the hackathon itself was run by college students who are there to help any way they could, which could be one way to level the playing field.

</comment><comment><USER23> I stopped reading when the author basically implied that making a trifold poster about whales was too much to ask of her third grader because it would require using the internet.

There are probably a lot of problems with science fairs, particularly at higher grade levels. But her example is pretty terrible.

My 2nd grade science fair project was making a book about the planets. I chose it because I thought space was cool.

All it involved was checking out space books from the school library and then putting a page for each planet in a binder with facts like how big the planet is or how far from the sun along with a hand drawn picture (ie a circle with moderately correct colors). I think there were some extra pages for the Sun and a random moon or two.

It could have easily been a trifold poster with most of the same stuff. I had loads of fun because I liked learning anything about space. It could have easily been about whales or something else if that's what I was interested in. But all it took was some help from the school librarian: "I want to do my science fair projects on planets. Do you have any books about planets?"

The next year I found a book of experiments in the school library and did one of them and explained it on a trifold. It was fun and not rocket science. I think most of the "experiments" in the book required stuff like rubber bands, paper, and straws.

I'm not clear why finding a few books in the school library and making a trifold poster is a headache for an elementary school student.

After that I never attended a school with a science fair, but I think it was perfectly reasonable the few years I did participate.

</comment><comment><USER24> "Even the easiest of these items—researching a topic—is nearly impossible for a child who hasn't yet mastered the ability to browse the Internet. (As a parent and the founder of a tech company, I've observed that in order to browse the Internet one needs to know how to scan the screen, differentiate between actual content and ads, and evaluate the trustworthiness of a resource—elements that are far out of reach of most 8-year-olds.)"

Given your child a book (or ebook I guess). Wow, just wow. Has the disappearance of things like encyclopedias increased the barrier of entry to knowledge?

Science fairs (or "Imagination Fairs" as they seem to be called) could be fun, but I get the feeling this is a lot of parents ruining something cool to be competitive.

</comment><comment><USER25> I remember science fairs. I definitely had help from my parents and/or my partners parents. I don't think we ever won anything more than an honorable mention but the experience was really great. One time we did a soil erosion study looking at what kind of tiered mounds would erode less. The second one I forgot what the hypothesis was, but it got me and a friend to study blood and come to an understanding of clotting via platelets. My friends mom was a nurse and had us into the hospital to use the microscopes and take microscopic pictures of blood. The most fun was building an electric motor with my dad (RIP) out of nails and copper wire. I think the test was to see what manners of winding the wire would produce a faster motor. Nothing ground breaking. I'm sure we could have found the answers through study and not testing but it sure helped me grasp the concepts better. These were all elementary school projects and pretty rudimentary but it taught me that you are able to figure things out on your own. You don't necessarily need someone else to do it for you. Not an argument with the article really, just my own experience.

</comment><comment><USER26> I remember what I learned from going to the state science fair in middle school:

how to fabricate results when the testing apparatus you built isn't sensitive enough to actually conduct the experiment.

I think science fairs could be greatly improved if they were more accepting of failed experiments.

</comment><comment><USER27> The time I spent with my dad building a model of a turbofan jet engine - <USER2> real spinning blades - for our local science fair, is one of my fondest memories of him. And while it is true that he helped a lot we also did all the work _together_. Just sayin'.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is why "bucket of bolts" competitions are better.

"The task is X. Here is the bucket of parts you are allowed to use. Build the best solution you can."

Given the current state of robotics, an alternative is: "Here is the robot. The task is X. Write the program to pull that off."

However, those kinds of competitions require _way_ more work on the part of the organizers.

</comment><comment><USER29> related: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9208624](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9208624)

I was going to put it all in one comment, but I wasn't sure what the HN character limit was.

</comment><comment><USER10> This was rather timely, for me. I have been struggling with the assumption that my daughter's science fair was due to me, rather than her. I was very proud of her work/effort, and wanted to share that with friends/family, but many of the reactions were, essentially, "well, it was really you who won". And that couldn't be further from truth.

Now, one reason, I assume for this reaction, is due to two things: 1) they know I'm science nerd (I have a degree in physics), and 2) she's really young, but won for the whole school (she's in the second grade, and won 1st place for the school, and her own grade). They say this, without even knowing what she did or how she did it. To me, the entire point of the fair is to get kids AND parents involved in science, while exposing kids to the scientific process. So, to me, I get my daughter to do as much of her project as she can. And even things she can't do, I still get her to try, even when it takes her a long time (like typing her slides that get glued to her board - she types with one finger pecking very slowly). But she loved the work, and felt like she was learning something. Her experiment was incredibly simple (literally a cup of water and a timer), and she thought of the procedure herself, and the question she wanted to answer was hers.

But, even after I explain this to someone, they still feel my daughter was unfairly advantaged, or at the very least, was given some better than average coaching, because of my background/experience. To a certain extent, I kind of agree on that point. I do try really hard to explain the concepts to her in a way that an 8 year old can understand. But, ultimately, it all comes down to her. The idea and experiment were hers.

When I walked the gym and saw the other experiments/projects, many were highly decorated and beautiful (my daughter's had no decoration, just a title and the required sections with text in her own words). And many experiments had rather elaborate processes, and/or complex devices. Sadly, I too thought that many parents were at work, rather than the kids, even knowing how much I made my daughter do on her own. But it all seems to come down to the kids. And, some here have mentioned, the judges are pretty good at detecting BS. So although a perusal of the fair wouldn't make it obvious which kids did their own work, or how much they really learned, and that's where the assessment of the judges has to be taken into account.

And it was that that made me feel better about my daughter's work. I was proud of her, because I knew that it was she who did it, and was glad the judges were able to see it. But I totally know that many parents do over-involve themselves to the point the kids don't learn anything. It seems a difficult balance to strike, but it does seem possible to distinguish the extremes.</comment>


Ask HN: Advice on features and when to ship an iPad app - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for some advice, feedback or mentoring from the many of you who have more experience than I do in the matters of timing a software release.
I've developed an new app for the iPad which I think is already pretty cool (you can judge for yourself) but I have even greater ambitions for it that haven't been built yet.
I've posted a short demo of the app on Vimeo which shows off some of the current features (yes it's a bit rough around the edges):
http://vimeo.com/10451888
What I'm trying to decide is, should I ship it with the current features in order to make the "day one" deadline of the iPad app store or should I hold off until I have some of the even more compelling features in place?
One thought I had was to release it now with an open and honest statement that it is just the beginning of a much richer application and as early adopters customers will be rewarded with a much lower price than will be the case when the application is more complete (as well as playing a role underwriting  future developments with their purchase).
I thank all of you in advance for taking time to lend a hand! <comment><USER2> I'd release it just to find out if Apple approves it. Could save you a lot of wasted effort. Cool app, IF Apple allows it!

<comment><AUTHOR> That's definitely always a risk, and although nothing jumps out as a violation to their policies you're right that it would be nice to learn this sooner than later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Your app looks very cool. I'd buy it. One minor thing that you've probably already noticed: Make sure that the draggable edge of the apps are big enough to move with a finger (as opposed to the mouse in the simulator).

I'd put it out right away and improve incrementally.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes there is some tuning to do yet in regard to the UI (especially the app picker!) and I'm sure there will be changes once I can test the app on an actual device and see how some of the controls function first-hand.

Thank-you for the encouragement, it's been tough cranking something like this out so quickly but from the feedback I've received so far I think it will be worth it.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I took your advice and sent the app off to Apple last night.

Here's a updated video showing off the version I submitted:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fg4PAefWC4>

...thanks again for the advice and encouragement!

</comment><comment><USER4> Looks like a great app. I'd spend a few hours to pretty it up... but I say go ahead and submit it!</comment>


Declaring media bankruptcy - <AUTHOR> http://www.erickarjaluoto.com/blog/declaring-media-bankruptcy/ <comment><USER2> Nice concept. It is good to question whether what you are doing is really worth it. Seems to me one of the challenges going forward with personal management is to not only set goals, but also to set constraints. What the author is doing is setting constraints by explicitly limiting the amount they can consume. That frames up the problem as to what to consume and what is more valuable to consume.</comment>


Mobile data traffic in '11 will roughly be same as total Internet traffic in '02 - <AUTHOR> http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/12/mobile_data_ube.html

<comment><USER2> Link to the Cisco document that serves as the basis for this claim:

Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2009-2014

[http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/...](http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-520862.html)

edit:

One of the more interesting predictions:

"Picoprojectors are a nascent feature addition to smartphones. Although very small in number, this category promises to create higher multiples of traffic due to the high bandwidth required to project images and videos from an advanced mobile device."

I'm not so sure, though. Will picoprojectors really change consumption habits that dramatically?

<comment><USER3> It only takes a few calculations to realize that picoprojectors are unlikely to become a "big thing", simply based on power requirements. The only possible exception would be projection directly into the human eye. Even very powerful projectors are difficult to be seen in anything other than the lowest light conditions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm curious to see, if when bandwidth for mobile catches up to something that is comparable to that of desktops/laptops today, we will see a move away from apps and to web apps just as we are seeing on desktops.</comment>


Prize pool for the International Dota 2 tournament reaches $15M - <AUTHOR> https://www.dota2.com/international/compendium/

<comment><AUTHOR> Note that the team (of 5 people) that wins first place will receive around $7M.</comment>


Startup Needs a Product Engineer Immediately - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jproco/your-startup-needs-a-product-engineer-immediately-8902f7787c25 <comment><USER2> What features do you think a product engineer should have?</comment>


The new breed of chatbot talks more like a human, but that is not always good - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/21/technology/conversational-bots.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftechnology <comment><USER2> "Let's stupidify a machine that can easily give you exact answers with all the impreciseness and ambiguity of human language."

That basically sums up what I think of these things. They're a horrible substitute for existing UI, and even worse for things that really require a _real_ human.

<comment> gm-conspiracy I also think that current gen. of UI (touchscreens flat-design) has become such a degraded experience that these alternatives become more appealing.

<comment><USER3> Could you please elaborate on the degraded experience?

<comment><USER4> idk OP's position, but the lack of tactile feedback is probably the biggest flaw of touchscreen UIs. it's really nice to be able to give input to a device without actually looking at it.

it's a mild to moderate inconvenience on a phone, since you are looking at the screen most of the time you are using it and swype style keyboards remove most of the pain of typing on a virtual keyboard. it does make for a compromised music player, though, unless you can remap the hardware buttons to control media playback.

on the other hand, i find the touch UI trend in cars absolutely horrible. it's bad enough that you have to take your eyes off the road to read the center screen, but actually pressing a virtual button requires even more concentration to track where your finger is wrt the button and stabilize it against the motion of the vehicle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Heh. We're developing code that can impersonate the average human better than the average human. Well that about wraps it up for the Turing Test.

</comment><comment><USER6> Someone needs to tell the author that Microsoft isn't headquartered in Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER7> It's case of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy). Silicon Valley is no longer just a physical place, but also represents the tech industry itself in popular imagination. Also, while the article is centered on Microsoft, I think the title is meant to be general, as shown by this passage:

> The project represents a much wider effort to build a new breed of computing > system that is truly conversational. At companies like Facebook, Amazon, and > Salesforce as well as Microsoft...

<comment><USER8> I was going to just brush this off as silly, but then thought of all the NewYork things that you see around (NY Bagels, NY Fashion, etc) and realize they suffer at least as much... so I can almost forgive the NYT.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well, I think chatbots are good for marketers and online sales companies.

<comment><USER10> I think it is junk technology for consumers/anyone that has to interact with them

<comment><USER11> Paradoxically it's the future of customer support and what we are observing is an early stage. A few tweaks and semantic advances in deep learning here and there, and a regular person would be happy to interact with them for stuff like getting more info about their order, specs and availability of the product etc.

<comment><USER12> The problem is when you have a question slightly more complex than that and no access to a real human being. I recently enjoyed that situation with a medical benefit provider's phone menus, and it was infuriating. (Still haven't figured out how to get a human being on the phone and am waiting, 2 weeks later, for an answer to an email.)

<comment><USER13> That being said "computer says no" is often a standard answer when you call a call center. They may be humans but if their guide doesn't have the answer to the question you are out of luck.

<comment><USER12> Sure, but a lot of times you have an open ended question or problem. Or need to ask about something undocumented.

Here are some questions I couldn't get bots to answer for me recently:

"This printed form you provided me for a regulated action requires an account number, but no account number is displayed anywhere on your website or statements or any communications I've had from you. Where do I find that information?"

"Your site took money out of my account, said it couldn't complete the transaction, and now refuses to return the money to my account. How can I fix this and either get my money back or get what I paid for?"

And sometimes it takes a human to answer "is it still the case that the answer is 'no' if these other unusual circumstances apply?"</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The most important revenue number you present in a business plan - <AUTHOR> http://b2brainmaker.com/b2b-lead-generation/the-most-important-revenue-number-you-present-in-a-business-plan/

<comment><USER2> Right, so the most important number is their revenue? That's quite a revelation!

<comment><AUTHOR> No. The most important number is the first year projection. And more importantly, the deep understanding of how it will be achieved.

<...the companies who best answered the questions above weren't guaranteed to be successful, but the disproportionate number of companies who could answer the above questions in detail were.></comment></comment>


A Real Person, A Lot Like You - by Derek Sivers - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfwwHa-7Ux8

<comment><AUTHOR> I found this video to be quite moving. It's something you already know but sometimes forget.</comment>


Archaic Perl - <AUTHOR> http://perliscope.blogspot.com/2009/08/archaic-perl.html <comment><USER3> This article isn't terribly interesting, really. Yes, you can write clean, understandable code in Perl and most widely used languages. Yes, you can write awful code in any language. The real test of messiness, ugliness, readability and comprehensibility is in the cases in the middle. How easy is it to write readable code? How hard is it to write bad code? And this one might be a little controversial, but how does the culture around the language value readable, clean code?

Put another way, when I'm actually working on a project in the language, what's the likelihood that someone who I'm working with or who worked on the project before me has really messed up the code base in ways I'm going to be dealing with for years? And how hard am I going to have to work to not be that guy?

Finally, the article uses an example of parsing LaTeX with Perl vs. Python, and uses a regular expression. Now, I don't know if LaTeX can, in general, be parsed with regular expressions, but writing a parser aside, it's no surprise that Perl wins when dealing with regular expressions. That's a fine thing, and definitely something Perl's got going for it (or possibly against it, depending on how you feel about regular expressions), but Perl just about grew out of being a regexp DSL -- it's not really a fair fight. Put a full Perl TeX parser up against one written in Prolog, and I bet Prolog would win, but it doesn't mean I'd use Prolog over Perl for most things.

<comment><USER4> >>when I'm actually working on a project in the language, what's the likelihood that someone who I'm working with or who worked on the project before me has really messed up the code base

Well, the quality of Perl code is very diverse, since a lot of system administrators are mangling the language... :-)

Perl's general community seems to be very good (newbies went with PHP for quite a while). You can arguably see the CPAN as a result of that. (It is common to say -- "Perl is irrelevant, the killer app is CPAN!".)

Another advantage is that Perl doesn't have so many embarrassing fanboys as certain other environments...

(I believe the hype level regarding the scripting languages comes from them being so similar that they compete for the same niche.)

Since Moose seems to standardize a solution to the OO syntax ugliness, the main Perl problem is IMHO the parameter passing to functions/methods. There are advantages and disadvantages to most everything.

Edit: Small syntax/word choices. Removed ":-)" on comment that other environments have too many fanboys, language wars are such a time waste.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Perl still sucks, and I wrote Perl5 code for years. It's more about the inconsistency in the way the language is implemented. Having to explicitly scope variables, the disaster than is OOP, the riddling of special cases and context-sensitivity, by-ref vs. by-val, etc etc etc. Having to memorize all of these various cases sucks. The only upside to Perl is the CPAN. Other than that, there's no reason to waste your time when there are fantastic languages like Python and Ruby out there.

Steve Yegge says it best: "Within about 3 days, I was more comfortable with Ruby than seven years had made me with Perl. I was still accidentally sticking "my" in front of variable declarations, typing "sub" instead of "def", little things like that. But I was already starting to think in Ruby, and suddenly I had all this extra space in my brain. You have to learn Perl by memorizing, but you learn Ruby by understanding."

<comment><USER6> Perl is pretty big language and build of not very orthogonal parts. I've read somewhere an interview with Larry Wall where he said he was not planning to make the language very clean and orthogonal from the start - but instead he wanted to watch the way people use the language and then cut off the unused parts (the actual analogy was with building pavements along the paths that people made in the grass instead of planning up front how they are going to commute). I think that cut off phase never came. After some 10 years of programming in Perl, there are still areas that I don't know really well - <USER2> just don't use them, and when reading other peoples code I still sometimes need to lookup something. I can see why this can be annoying. But eventually the size of the libraries that you need to memorize when programming is still much bigger than the language itself, so it does not matter that much.

My prediction is that other languages will not build their CPAN equivalents soon. It looks so easy to copy, especially if you believe you have a better language, but what people don't see is the complex network of things that enable CPAN existence. It's not just code repository it is a complex ecosystem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Whenever I have to use Perl, I get to a point when I want a nested data structure. Then I remember that I have to use a completely different syntax to do so, and my head explodes. Who thought explicit and non-automatic references were a good idea?

Nowadays I use Ruby if I have a choice: most of the best bits of Perl, less of the worst bits. The language actually feels like it was designed, rather than accreted over time.

Perhaps Perl 6 will be better, but I'm guessing scripts and apps written in Perl 5 will be around for a long, long while yet.

</comment><comment><USER8> This was a very refreshing read. I used to write Perl at my last job, and a little bit where I am now. The language serves a noble purpose, parsing data, and it does that extremely well and in a very understandable manner. When others step into the land of Perl, it can be a little daunting, but once you work out the difference between @ # and $ it all gets a little more clear. Thanks for this!

<comment><USER9> I disagree. With no parser combinator library, I find it very difficult to use Perl for anything but the most trivial parsing tasks.

It is very good for building complex applications, however.

<comment><USER10> what is a "parser combinator library" ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have been programming perl and php for many years now - I don't agree with rbranson here. Its not that perl is _the_ best tool , if it solves your problem use it , otherwise please stop whinging about it. If you really feel so strongly about the issue, you are welcome to fix it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Every half-baked, low-quality, ill-designed language has defenders _somewhere_ on the web.

Why is this news?

In my professional career I've used C, C++, Perl, and Ruby.

I come with no preexisting biases.

...but after having written several programs in Perl until they became unmaintainable (despite my good coding style), and then rewritten them in Ruby in something like 1/10th to 1/20th the lines... I've got no particular interest in spending time reading about how Perl is wonderful.

I've been there.

I gathered my own data.

See Paul's thoughts on blub programmers and blub languages.

<http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html>

<comment><USER12> > ...but after having written several programs in Perl until they became > unmaintainable (despite my good coding style), and then rewritten them in > Ruby in something like 1/10th to 1/20th the lines... I've got no particular > interest in spending time reading about how Perl is wonderful.

I agree with another poster. I'd love to see the data that you gathered.

I've worked fairly extensively with both Perl and Ruby, and I have a hard time imagining anything which is 10-20x shorter in Ruby than in Perl. I also have to question the maintainability assertion. Ruby and Perl are similar enough that I'm pretty sure I can take a "maintainable" program in either one and port it to the other with minimal changes and no noticable change in maintainability.

<comment><USER11> > Ruby and Perl are similar enough that I'm pretty sure I can take a > "maintainable" program in either one and port it to the other with minimal > changes

Without intending to flame, I can't imagine that you'd say this if you've used some of the more powerful techniques in Ruby.

If you've used techniques X,Y, and Z in Perl, you can find them in Ruby. ... but unless you think in a Lisp-like way, you won't even realize that techniques G' and E''' exist in Ruby, but not in Perl.

<comment><USER12> Some content would be nice, rather than the implication that I'm just an ignorant blub-er.

So, once again, how about some of that data you say you collected to back up what you're saying? Which "more powerful techniques" are you talking about?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Perl is very influenced by the Unix command line. I can remember years ago (when other mini computer operating systems around and everyone was mad on pascal) my college lecturers disdain for the design C and Unix.

If the same thing happens again terseness, power and flexibility win against ridged ideas of how programs/command-lines should be written.

Perl exploded with the web, however before the web it was widely used. It might not be the web programming language of choice but it it's still great at manipulating information, processing large files and general administration.

</comment><comment><USER14> I consider shell script programming archaic, yet I still see it as a job requirement for UNIX SA jobs. Once I learned Perl I never had the urge to write another bourne shell or ksh script ever again. I still need to read and debug them from time to time though.

<comment><USER15> It's painful to watch Unix SAs who don't understand shell scripts (which are, after all, a way of automating repetitive command-line tasks), because it is such an essential part of understanding the OS and how it works.

I think it is important to know when to use a quick shell script, and when to solve the problem with some Perl (or even some C.) Sometimes it is quicker to throw together a shell script, with a bit of sed, awk, or some simple for loops, automating the command line you just manually ran a moment ago; sometimes it's best to solve the problem by switching to some Perl.</comment></comment>


SASS: The Better, More Powerful CSS - <AUTHOR> http://www.intridea.com/2009/2/4/sass-the-better-more-powerful-css?blog=company

<comment><AUTHOR> I imagine many of the same arguments for and against Haml would apply to Sass. I'm thinking of James Britt's critique:

<http://www.jamesbritt.com/2009/4/30/thoughts-on-haml>

Would be curious to hear what people think of Sass. I'm considering using Haml/Sass as my templating engine.</comment>


A New SEO Business Model - Selling Your SEO Data / Logs? - <AUTHOR> http://ryanspoon.com/blog/2008/05/14/a-new-seo-business-model-selling-your-seo-data-logs/ <comment><AUTHOR> Agree that for small collections of data - but imagine the logs on TechCrunch? Or a site that is in between those two? That data is very unique and very qualified. The interesting part is less how relevant the data is - but more how it has never been available before...

</comment><comment><USER2> I think its a little Ego-heavy for you to think companies should care about your .00000000001% of the internet traffic. Hitwise already gives ISP data about searches being conducted.

\- just saying not a business, at least not in my mind.</comment>


Using Neuro-Physiological Responses to Chill Music to Defeat Coercion Attacks - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.01072 <comment><USER2> Chill music is not "chill out" music, but rather the type of music that gives you a Chill down your back, a shivering sensation of pleasure.

<comment><USER3> Any examples of Chill music on e.g. youtube or soundcloud? Or does the actual music depend on the individual?

<comment><USER4> I only briefly read the paper, but a personal example of music that gives me chills, the denouement of this song: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaCvvIzVj1I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaCvvIzVj1I) (warning: video game music)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This will work for the first handful of times! But, like using your favorite song as an alarm for an early class or a stressful job, it creates a large problem for the user and their music taste:

The user's favorite piece of calming music will now be consistently connected as an alarm for the more stressful times of their profession/life.

Eventually, playing that music at any other point will induce some level of panic when they hear it because now they've trained their brain to associate it with this stress.

<comment><USER6> One day I woke up to the usual buzzer of my decades old alarm clock and decided I would never hear that horrible thing again. I bought an alarm clock that, in theory, wakes you slowly with gradually increasing light and finally, a pleasant little bird song when it's time to get out of bed.

Now, I hate that @#&%ing bird instead of a buzzer.

<comment><USER7> Needing an alarm clock to wake up is a sign that you don't get enough sleep. You should sleep until you naturally wake up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is rather brilliant work, but i would suggest thinking carefully before using to secure your production systems. When a sysadmin is woken by a page at three in the morning, becoming calm enough to be able to log in may be a Sisyphean task.

<comment><USER9> Not quite: _" Chill music and stress are both stimuli for a neuro-chemical called Dopamine. However, they release the Dopamine at different parts of the brain ..."_

<comment><USER10> Er, what? That doesn't contradict GP. The system is _designed_ to prevent login if you're too stressed.

<comment><USER9> I stand corrected; my bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a very good idea, but the application isn't terribly broad yet. For something you need secured more than you need reliably instant access, I can see this being wonderful. Eventually, when biometric sensors are smaller and cheaper, and AI is a little more mature, that will change.

</comment><comment><USER12> Computer: You cannot login, you're too stressed, go home.

I think this is great, but you'd probably need to wear a EEG which is going to be a tough sell until we have something more compact.

<comment><USER10> I think they've done it with lighter-weight equipment already. I'm acquainted with a couple of the authors in real life, and one of them (Max) showed me a pretty compact headset he said he used in his experiments. I don't remember how well it worked, but it seems like we'll have adequate lightweight equipment soon, if not today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It uses NeuroSky Mindwave Mobile for brain waves, plus a heart rate monitor, plus a one minute rest period before attempting login.

They never tested coercion. "One reason we did not do this is because it is unethical to threaten test subjects in order to verify that our system is fully coercion resistant." That's a problem.

Incidentally, names of chemicals, such as dopamine, are not capitalized.

</comment><comment><USER14> sounds very similar to lie detector or more like a new improved version of lie detector.</comment>


Cultivated Play: Farmville - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddyeno5.com/afeeld/notebook/cultivated-play-farmville/

<comment><USER2> This article appears to be little more than advertisement for the Farmville game.

Although I agree that we should have more games that train responsible behaviour, I don't think this particular game falls into that category.

The article mentions that if you start certain actions in the game, you'll have to return to the game within a certain amount of time. That doesn't train responsible behaviour, it's just a way to keep users addicted to the game, by forcing them to integrate this game into their daily rhythm. It reminds me on things like TV, Tamagotchi or WoW.

Real responsibility starts when you break your addiction to such games and concentrate on important parts of life.

Farmville isn't really "defined by responsibility and routine". It is just defined by routine. So instead of fighting the worries stated in the article's beginning, it trains people to do exactly that:

 _"I'm worried that students will take their obedient place in society and look to become successful cogs in the wheel"_</comment>


Mt. Gox has at least 200k BTC - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1z37zw/mt_gox_has_at_least_200k_btc/

<comment><USER2> The top comment is always quite interesting. There seems to be a few people saying that Mark possibly lost the private keys. Is there any source to that? Or pure speculation?

<comment><USER3> I think the theory is that he no longer has access to the keys... the implication being that the authorities are in control and he has to obey a gagging order.

<comment><USER3> Possibly best twist in the story yet :P [http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1z3gom/conspiracy_t...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1z3gom/conspiracy_theory_mark_karpeles_is_under_a_9gag/)</comment></comment></comment>


How to work with Software Engineers - <AUTHOR> https://www.kennethnorton.com/essays/how-to-work-with-software-engineers.html <comment><USER2> I know where this article is coming from, but I guess I've just been lucky to work with a lot of great PMs that:

1) Are a firewall between upper management and the development team.

2) Organize the priorities of the team and help the developers to get the most done in the limited amount of time that they have.

3) Follow up on business requirements and the thousands of other details that need to be figured out so that the client doesn't say, "what the hell is this?" on delivery day even though it is precisely what they asked for (but not what they wanted).

4) Praise the team for the great work that they've been doing and make their successes known to management.

I've worked with as many (or more) crap developers as I have PMs, so I'm always wary of articles like this. It's way too easy to talk about how management/sales/PMs/etc don't add any value to the process (which is patently false) while lionizing the work of the developer as if they are all dedicated, hardworking, and never, ever, make mistakes.

This "us vs. them" mentality that exists is ridiculous. We are all trying to accomplish something. Some are better than others at it. But don't shit on someone else's job, complain about how you want to be left alone, and then wonder why your career isn't going anywhere.

<comment><USER3> This has generally been my experience, but even the best product manager I've worked with will occasionally do something, well, dumb.

Just like engineers do sometimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cute. Nice fake list. Nice writing. The "true" list at the end, like a Hollywood ending, was probably not necessary.

Now my list:

1\. You don't "work with" software engineers. We don't even "work with" each other. If you don't learn anything else from this, get this: we work alone. Always. Even when we think we don't. Sure, we occasionally get together to plan, analyze, discuss, white board, even "pair program" whatever that means, but sooner or later, we all sit down alone and do what we do. With that in mind...

2\. Leave us the fuck alone! If you see a software engineer looking at a screen and typing, that means we're BUSY. Do not interrupt. Do not call. Do not text. Do not IM. Do ask if we're busy (WE are!). Do not tap us on our shoulder. And whatever you do, don't just stand there waiting for us to stop typing (We won't; that's a test of wills you will lose). Just send an email. That's it. When we break, we'll check email and reply. If you don't write well enough to communicate with us, then learn how to.

(If my language seems a little strong, it's because I feel so strongly about this. Nothing is more frustrating to us than having work to do and being kept from doing it when we want to. We often need large blocks of time and room to focus deeply.)

3\. Don't try to understand how we work, what makes us tick, what turns us on, or the "secret" to making us more productive. a. All those things are different for every one of us. b. We don't even know what they are ourselves.

4\. Don't patronize us. Sure, we all appreciate beer, donuts, chocolate, and foosball, just like everybody else, but don't bother trying to get something from us with a gimmick. It may work once or twice, but then never again. That shit doesn't even work on your dog. Why do you think it would work with us?

5\. Provide us with the resources we need. This is pretty binary. Do this and get results. Don't do this and don't get results. For the most part, we're fairly easy. A comfortable chair. A decent machine. Good lighting. Fresh air or HVAC. Peace and quiet. Decent facilities. Specs or requirements > 50% accurate. (Forget about 100% accurate; none of us has ever seen that; we'll live with 50-80%.).

6\. When we tell you we need something, believe us!.If we need clarification on something, get it. If we need more time, give it to us. If we need access to someone/something, make it happen.

7\. Never lie to us. We are used to our machines always telling the truth. We insist on no less from other humans.

8\. Contrary to common belief, we do not hate the following classes of things, we just hate idiotic instances of them: meetings, status reports, timesheets, processes, procedures, policies, mission statements, motivational posters, HR, reviews, interviews, reports, specs, and team-building exercises.

9\. The best thing you could possibly do for us: everything you must and not one thing more.

10\. Top ten lists suck (except this one).

<comment><USER5> > We don't even "work with" each other. If you don't learn anything else from > this, get this: we work alone.

I don't get this. I like working in a team, and like working with people. I can't imagine working alone all the time. I am more productive when I am with the team, and interacting with the team than when I am alone in a room.

I know everyone works differently, but almost no one seemingly is willing to discuss an alternate version of this. I'm tired of the old 'meetings suck, PM's suck' cliches. When I was working for a large internet company, we got a lot of work done in meetings and lots of PM's were respected.

<comment><USER6> > _When I was working for a large internet company, we got a lot of work done > in meetings and lots of PM's were respected._

How did you get work done _in_ meetings? By definition, meetings are stopping work to communicate; the most work-efficient approach is to optimize away the need for meetings as much as possible.

<comment><USER7> > By definition, meetings are stopping work to communicate

You have implicitly and uselessly defined "work" as "everything you do that's not communicating".

I can write code and solve problems all day long by myself. So can my coworkers and housemates. When we have meetings at work, we figure out _which_ problems to solve and _why_. Why is it that the coding part is considered "work" and the meetings is considered "not-work"? I would just be a lone programmer working on subsets of the wrong problem without the meetings. Lately, I feel like the "work" gets done in the meetings, and I just tidy up afterwards (for a few days) by myself. That's because the answers are easy, but the right questions are hard.

Let's try this: _meetings are stopping implementing to communicate._ Or, from another perspective, _coding is postponing meetings until new issues/questions have been solved._

<comment><USER6> > _Why is it that the coding part is considered "work" and the meetings is > considered "not-work"?_

In kernel terms, meetings and PMs are the scheduler, and you are the threads/processes being scheduled.

Is the scheduler doing work? Yes. Is that work simply overhead required to keep the pipeline full and fair scheduling of work occuring? Yes.

> _Let's try this: meetings are stopping implementing to communicate or from > another perspective coding is postponing meetings until new issues/questions > have been solved_

Or to put this another way, meetings are a page fault interrupt that is taken because the necessary backing store (the solution to issues/questions) is not available.

They're almost pure cost. Spending any more time there than you absolutely need to is a waste.

<comment><USER7> > Spending any more time there than you absolutely need to is a waste.

This is a tautology. Spending any more time _anywhere_ on _anything_ is a waste. The point that you're missing is that just because some meetings add no value doesn't mean that no meetings add value.

<comment><USER6> > _The point that you're missing is that just because some meetings add no > value doesn't mean that no meetings add value._

The fact that _some_ meetings add value doesn't mean _all_ or even _most_ meetings add value.

My analogy holds; page fault handlers add value. They also incur a heavy cost and you want to avoid faulting if it at all possible.

<comment><USER7> I agree. You asked "How do you get work done in meetings" and implied it was impossible. I argue that just because there is no work accomplished in _your_ meetings or _most_ meetings doesn't mean that no work can be done in meetings. No one _anywhere_ is suggesting that valuable work is accomplished in all meetings. But when you suggest that _no_ work is accomplished in any meeting, you're wrong.

I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience with meetings; it must be common or the stereotype wouldn't exist. My workplace is different. Since my most valuable work is accomplished in meetings, I wish I could be in meetings all of the time. The only reason I can't is because we frequently need long breaks to _implement_ the work we did in the meetings. In fact, coding is a much heavier cost than meetings; unnecessary coding is much worse than unnecessary meetings and you want to avoid unnecessary coding at all costs (even though it's usually still quite fun). Just because you develop software doesn't mean you should spend as much time as possible writing code. Just because you produce code at work doesn't mean you're only working when you're coding.

<comment><USER6> > _But when you suggest that no work is accomplished in any meeting, you're > wrong._

This is where we disagree. Talking about work isn't tangible work. Talking unblocks work, to a point.

> _I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience with meetings; it must be common > or the stereotype wouldn't exist._

Given that my experience spans roughly 15 years, major corporations, small and large startups, in both management (director, VP, and C-level roles) and engineering (software, systems) I'm inclined to trust my experience that meetings are generally a work-substitution mechanism and a means of furthering political/social career advancement, and bad PMs (which is, sadly, most of them) are the worst offenders of them all.

<comment><USER8> Man, no offense, but you seem extremely short-sighted here. So when you and a couple coworkers are architecting a system, deciding what the pipeline of information flow is going to be, where the security holes may be, stopping any latency or unnecessary operations, and making sure the user knows how to use the damn thing on top of that - and you aren't writing code, but instead communicating with your coworkers - you don't think that's work? How could it not be?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The sad part is that my current boss follows his "do not" list to the letter.

Yes, I'm working on leaving. Eight hours of that crap in the office, then usually 2-3 hours of job hunting in the evening after working in the yard or otherwise getting the house ready to sell.

<comment><USER10> The even sadder part is that the "do not" way of working is the norm and the "do" is the exception in majority of the workplaces. And what these people in leadership positions don't realise is that it's good management that creates great results which directly affects the bottom line.

This is why the good start-ups do well because they manage better which results in better output.

<comment><USER11> have in mind that this will only work if you have great workers, that are able and willing to help theirselves. This attitude will be destroyed by continous bad leadership and will not come back very fast.

<comment><USER10> Tell me about it. Been there, done that. But to be fair, if you have good management, they'll do a good job of hiring in the right type of people as well. So it works both ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Honestly, I didn't find the article particularly funny or original, but I can't really blame the author for it.

It's probably one of the cases where reality exceeds the worst exaggerations one can come up with.

</comment><comment><USER13> Start the morning with some coffee and sarcasm. Fun read. Though it might be problematic that some managers might take it serious. Usually the dumb ones.

<comment><USER14> I think that's why he said (paraphrased) "I troll U" at the end. Most software engineers would get the joke immediately, but many managers wouldn't.

The problem is that executives never read to the end of anything. They still have to call their kids (or interns, same thing really) in to show them how to work a "scrollie bar".

There was a very large company that required every employee to submit a 63-word summary of accomplishments per quarter (do they still do this?) I pointed out, rather publicly, that this was precisely the low-end of adult reading speed (3.5-8.0 words per second being the typical range) times the short-term memory loop (18 seconds). That didn't go over well.

Ah, managers. They sure love sunbathing in the Yucatan, but that bright point just above them isn't the sun...

<comment><USER15> I can't tell if this is parody, or a parody of a parody, or a parody of a parody of a parody. The tone is very much like the original article, but as if written by a hypothetical Scumbag Steve software engineer rather than an imaginary Scumbag Steve management type.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is it just me or is this article a bit condescending? This makes it seem like software engineers are exotic creatures that normal people require a guide like this to work with. What if someone made "How to work with PMs" or better yet "How to work with women"? I feel like one of the core problems between PM<->Eng is that both sides stereotype each other, this just perpetuates that.

The rules in the afterward make sense but if you need a guide on the internet to get you to do those things, I'm not sure I want you to become a great PM in the first place. The problems here seem to be more fundamental, like: _Don't be a psychopath_. I think the rest of the rules should follow naturally.

Has the profession of PM become so bad that we need "don't be a psychopath" posts?

<comment><USER17> I think that's intentional. Imagine the impact of your "How to work with women" list with similar satirical pseudo-rationalization of bad behaviors.

The existence of the list seems as much an example of what not to do as are its contents.

<comment><USER16> Sorry, I knew it was intentional but I mean, despite the sarcasm, it still feels condescending. Just the pure existence of an article with the title "How to work with women," no matter how accurate, would still be condescending and bigoted. It's because all women are different, just as all software engineers are different.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Grrr. I was going to do a presentation on exactly this next week, and have just put a presentation together on management that pretty much says all these things but Kenneth has done a far better job. I guess I'll go in the corner and sulk. Just kidding :)

</comment><comment><USER18> All I was thinking was how wrong could this be until I reached the 17th slide.

<comment><USER14> I loved it because I actually believed it (with vehement disagreement) until about a third of the way through.

<comment><USER19> I hated it for the same reason. I find this kind of sarcasm manipulative. The piece had me pissed off by the end until the reveal, which made me even more angry. Maybe as a talk it might be slightly more tolerable since you can presumably hear the sarcasm in the speaker's voice.

<comment><USER18> I pity the engineers whose managers read this list but don't go all the way to the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> A good guide, but not an answer to all. Software Engineers are humans, and everyone of them are different. So, if you want to work with Software Engineers well, get to know them first.

<comment><USER10> This is the point I agree with the most. When I first started working with developers, a person I highly respect said to me that the most important thing you can do when working with anyone in a technical field is to win their respect. You don't have to be an ace at development or engineering yourself. You don't have to know the craft as well as they do, but there are many things you can do to earn your delegate's or colleague's trust and respect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a great list of what _you're_ receptive to, but it's silly to use a person's position as a replacement for their personality.

The reality is, not all developers want to be "left alone," just like not all developers want to talk to people.

Why not invest in the person and tease out _how_ they want to be interacted with instead of making assumptions one way or the other?

</comment><comment><USER22> It wasn't until I read the hn comments here that I noticed the "No, don't do any of these things" part of the post.

I think he should make the bold NO in the slideshow much more noticeable in the blogpost.

The sad part is that most PMs I know skim too and will have all the wrong takeaways from this post.

<comment><USER23> If someone goes past the 1.000.000 estimate in the third paragraph without feeling uncomfortable, he deserves it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Oh my god, this is priceless. Sadly, this is like a manual of what happened in my past job.

</comment><comment><USER25> He has slides. Did he do a talk? Was there a video?

because that would be a great video.

<comment><USER26> It wasn't officially recorded, although audience members might have captured some of it. I wish it had been: I can only really give this talk once.

As an aside, if you're not familiar with the Ignite format it's great. You have 20 slides, and each slide auto-advances after 15 sec. So I really had to practice the timing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wish this post were written in a less sarcastic tone and more directly. It's an important topic and deserves to be less off putting than it otherwise seems at first.

<comment><USER28> It's a long standing rhetorical device known as "humor."

<comment><USER29> The OP seems to be aware of this. He's stating it would have been better to just state his 10 points rather than hide behind sarcasm. (I agree.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I was surprised how many thing the management of the company I'm currently working for is doing right, until I reached the afterword. ;)

</comment><comment><USER31> I actually looked up the cited book in vague hope and was moderately disappointed; I'd read it.

</comment><comment><USER32> Yeah, let's build a baby in a month using 9 moms.. I'm sure You can do it!

</comment><comment><USER33> a while back there was a post here about quadrant methodology. it fits nicely in with it <http://quadrant.tumblr.com/>

</comment><comment><USER34> nice one, Ken!

All-- having worked with Ken, he's indeed awesome.

</comment><comment><USER14> That's brilliant.

However, I don't think it's only PMs who indulge in that behavior. I've seen managers and engineers (yes, indeed) do the same shit. Internal competition within companies is pure corrosion and it's _always_ detrimental. I'm convinced that there are no exceptions to that.

The rare good manager is K-selective insofar as she intends to reproduce (scale) processes with _quality_ and moral decency. If she runs a company, she won't hire before she trusts, and she'll make sure everyone gets credit and autonomy. Most managers are r-selectors, though; they over-hire, don't trust, and throw shit at the wall until something sticks.

The egoistic bad-guy PMs being described here are the ones who thrive in the typical r-strategist corporation.

<comment><USER35> Had to look up R and K selection:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory>

<comment><USER14> It's what I'm focusing on as I study organizational decline. It turns out that the metaphor (reproduction of processes, skill sets, and values) applies to corporate life. The reason most jobs suck balls is that most companies are r-strategists.

The r-selective alpha male was the harem owner who treated his "wives" like chattel and invested nothing in his (hundreds of) children, most of whom would fail. It was "spray and pray". The K-strategist was the monogamist who treated his one wife well (often, as an equal) and invested heavily in the health of mother and children.

The r-strategist boss doesn't mentor employees, creates a sink-or-swim environment, and over-hires, generating internal competition, which is always toxic. The K-strategist hires more slowly but invests trust and interest in the people brought in. Of course, r-strategist companies grow a lot faster and, in many spaces, are much more "fit", but I believe that's going to change amid the convexity of post-technological work.

<comment><USER36> Could you expound on what you mean by post technological work?

<comment><USER14> Essentially, I mean that technology is taking the boring, commodity work away from humans and the stuff that remains can't really be managed into existence.

<comment><USER36> oh, okay. I thought you meant that we were entering a phase of economic development where technology had obsoleted itself as a business advantage.

<comment><USER14> Oh, no. If anything, it's the opposite.

"Post-technological" was terrible word choice on my part. I meant "post- technological _transition_ " but there is no way anyone could have known that based on what I actually said.

The last transitions were 10000 BC (into agrarian) and about 1750 (into the industrial era). The technological transition is underway. We're probably 10-20% technological at this point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've seen people do this at my last startup, needless to say, they are now tanking. Close to a 100 million VC dollar going down the toilet... Those people got promoted really high too...

</comment><comment><USER38> I see what you did there.</comment>


Found: A Drug Catapult at the U.S.-Mexico Border - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/drug-catapult-us-mexico-border <comment><USER2> The Mexicans should educate themselves about siege weapons. There is a much superior design that could launch heavier projectiles over a greater distance without sacrificing firing rate.

<comment><USER3> The trick is that you want your payload to be intact on impact. :3 Staining the Arizona desert with marijuana mulch doesn't help anyone except the jackrabbits.

<comment><USER4> Time delay air cushion or parachute could resolve those problems pretty cheaply.

<comment><USER5> This may come as a shock, but the drug dealing world is not full of rocket scientists.

<comment><USER6> The drug dealing world is resourceful. I would be shocked to the point of incredulity if the primary obstacle to implementing basic improvements casually mentioned in HN comments was simply that they didn't have anyone they could consult on the matter.

They're not going to be developing in-house nuclear weaponry, no, but cartels can _and do_ find intelligent, experienced and competent people who can help optimize their supply chains.

I don't think it's a matter of them not realizing there are superior designs; I think it's a matter of superior designs not being worth the extra cost or somehow having an unintended result.

<comment><USER7> They've been known to kidnap "consultants" :(

One cartel had a large-scale meshnet.

<comment><USER5> You're not going to find a specialist in "Whole sub designs and manufacture" anymore than you could kidnap one person who would teach you how to build the space shuttle. You'd need to kidnap teams of specialists, which I would assume might draw international attention.

<comment><USER7> True. I recall reading that they kidnapped people to build their meshnet.

<comment><USER5> That must have been a terrifying and hopeless situation to be in.

<comment><USER7> Indeed :(

They were also co-opting local ISPs to identify activist bloggers.

All driven by the US drug war.

<comment><USER5> Insane. I don't doubt that legalizing drugs would have relatively short-term impacts as _some_ people who would have otherwise never tried them, try them, and some of those become hooked. How anyone can look at that, and compare it to the insane and eternal war we've chosen instead, and find the war a better choice is baffling to me.

<comment><USER7> Yes, it's been a disaster for several South and Central American countries :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love the ingenuity of drug dealers. Not as sophisticated as the drug submarine though [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco- submarine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine)

<comment><USER9> So cool.

Love the following engineering problem and fix: "The newer models pipe their exhaust along the bottom to cool it before venting it, making the boat even less susceptible to infrared detection"

<comment><USER10> The cat and mouse between these guys and the naval/Coast Guard units of the involved nations might in the far future see the introduction of full-blown diesel-electric, liquefied oxygen-bearing, water-cooled exhaust submersibles. Battery-powered and make the legs of the run only at night. Diesel plant is fed stored oxygen, gas expansion powers compressor-free air conditioning. Metal-oxide-based CO2 scrubber is regenerated from diesel generator heat while engine is run during day-time to recharge, as the smugglers stop and snorkel stationary to avoid wake-detection. Noise-isolating mounts reduce detectable range of running diesel generator. At or near the destination port, a disguised tender trans-loads the shipment, and resupplies diesel/food/reverse- shipment-goods. Between those technologies and operational discipline, it would be a big PITA to detect.

It's a good thing these future submarines would be immensely more expensive, and narcos are not known as good employers guaranteeing solid operational secrecy, as such an unusual setup would bound to get disgruntled/prideful operatives blabbing/boasting. By the time they get around to it, involved nations will probably litter the nearby ocean floors with a SOSUS-style dragnet, and that will likely put this smuggling route out of reach of all but nation-state-grade narco-cartels willing to spend about multiple billions in R&D and $1B US per construction unit to upgrade to military-grade diesel- electric submarines with their more advanced acoustic signature mitigation systems and protocols.

<comment><USER5> You also have to consider that the US at least would be strongly inclined to bomb that kind of thing out of existence... it would after all be a huge potential threat if used for something other than smuggling drugs. We're not trying to fight the cartel subs like we would an invading military, and if we did, they'd have no chance. The payoff stops being worth it when fucking up means you lose the sub and the cargo without warning.

<comment><USER10> The US Navy is already involved a fair amount, as the article described the torpedoes getting detected by their acoustical signatures. That is not US Coast Guard-built skills, equipment, and expertise, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out the military is involved way more than we are let on.

This presents an interesting operational challenge for the US Navy. Say they are authorized to engage and terminate without warning any submarine operating within US territorial waters that is not a registered civilian submarine broadcasting its presence, or another US military submarine. Just how would US naval underwater assets know who each other are without compromising their mission if it involves staying undetected? The closest approximation I can think of is encrypted sub ID and anticipated operating theater within the next 24 hours, using a Gertrude-like system or some other two-way submarine communication (and there aren't any good current choices for systems in that field).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Makes me wonder how a modern catapult or spear thrower would look like and be able to do with our current material science and engineering.

<comment><USER12> Modern mass launchers are canons, guns, and rail guns.

<comment><USER13> Rail guns maybe, but cannons and guns rely on explosives and play in a very different field than the things mentioned by OP.

<comment><USER14> Is being propelled by the release chemical potential energy qualitatively that much different than by gravitational or elastic potential energy?

<comment><USER15> It's certainly much louder, which matters a lot in this application!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wonder how much is moved by drones?

<comment><USER17> Not much I would reckon. The catapult is probably a more efficient device for getting the drugs to the other side.

Having to fly a drone back and forth takes time. Unless they have a very large drone capable of carrying large quantities of drugs, I don't see the benefit.

<comment><USER18> Multiple small drones, single control point, flying in formation? Would be a sight to see heh

<comment><USER19> which could probably be knocked out by a simple jammer

<comment><USER18> Fallback to pre-programmed route on signal loss? :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> nv-vn I wonder if they had a catapult to send the money over to the other side.

<comment><USER20> And what happens when the drug and the money collide just above the border?

<comment><USER21> Higgs Boson?

<comment><USER22> 10 points for Gryffindor.

<comment><USER23> You should have posted this right under the GP, not the parent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The wall just got 100 feet higher.

<comment><USER25> Local child with protractor assists re-calibration...

<comment><USER26> Shoot, trial and error would be fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Clearly the cartels need to set up a "punkin chunkin"[1] contest where the winner takes home some cash and the cartel gets their device. Then every year they get an additional 'chunking' machine and they can drive them back and forth along the border periodically sending their payloads several thousand feet inland.

[1] [https://www.punkinchunkin.com/](https://www.punkinchunkin.com/)

</comment><comment><USER28> I just hope that I'm never kidnapped by a cartel because I think there are a lot of rather low tech (but tech) means for them to circumvent border control. I'd never ever want to associate with these groups, but I imagine it's a bit of a nightmare trying to prevent movement of desirable and valuable goods (drugs, objectively have value according to most news reports on seizures, street value estimates are quoted). Seems like decreasing demand might be a higher ROI investment than trying to prevent said smuggling.

One thing that worries me is the potential for wildlife to be abused as a means of smuggling.

</comment><comment><USER29> Wouldn't a ballista with hollow projectile filled with the stuff work better and be mobile or should I stop giving them ideas?

<comment><USER30> Ballistas are no more (or less) mobile than catapults, are harder to maintain and have a lower payload if you use them for transport. They have a good precision and piercing power, but much less payload, even if you include the entire bolt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Walls don't work to stop contraband; good economic policy does.

<comment><USER32> I disagree. Walls stop physical objects from passing through it. Good economic policy has the primary function of building the national economy––economic policy has no role in curtailing contraband.

<comment><USER31> Counterexample: the lack of regulations around pharmaceutical prices in the US leads to illegal imports of identical pharmaceuticals from Canada.

<comment><USER32> It's not lack of regulating prices that causes it... it's the proliferation of intellectual property laws in America that were written to protect corporations. This is what creates the need to get knock-off drugs.

<comment><USER31> Canada has intellectual property laws as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Wouldnt a Lastensegler drone design be far more efficient?

</comment><comment><USER34> The technology question should probably be:

Would it work with people?

<comment><USER35> Would you put your brain inside a robotic trebuchet?

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's going to take quite a wall to stop people from catapulting over it, onto an airbed-like structure.

</comment><comment><USER37> Just wait till they hear about drones.

</comment><comment><USER38> Making Trump's wall even more pointless!

<comment><USER39> I mean yeah, we really should just leave the border wide open since after all, if you can't stop border shenanigans 100% you shouldn't bother at all. Might as well remove all our border patrol agents as well since a non-zero number of people still get through despite their presence.

<comment><USER40> $21 Billion for a wall is a lot.

Penn & Teller did a show on Immigration. Tthey got a bunch of Mexicans to build a wall. And yes, after it was built, they asked the workers to try to get across it.

The wall slowed them down by about 2 minutes. Which isn't really worth it.

Any wall built along the border will likely be similar in efficacy. And even if the wall is perfect, tunnelling under it won't be a problem.

TBH, You'd probably be better off increasing _detection_ along the border. Leave it open, but make sure you catch everyone $21 billion will buy a lot of equipment that can be hidden, and a lot of border patrols.

<comment><USER39> I think it would be interesting if the internet were around 50+ years ago so we could hear everyone respond to news of the Berlin Wall being constructed with "LOLOLOL ever heard of a ladder?"

Walls do work. Not 100% because nothing is, but they absolutely do. Ask Hungary how it's been working out for them: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_border_barrier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_border_barrier)

<comment><USER41> The Berlin Wall worked because it was backed by fear and guns. The Soviets had no problem arresting and torturing or outright shooting anyone who tried to cross. I think you understand what I'm trying to point out here.

<comment><USER39> How about Hungary's current wall?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I was expecting a trebuchet</comment>


Mozilla CEO urges European Commission to seize once-in-a-generation opportunity - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2020/09/07/mozilla-ceo-mitchell-baker-urges-european-commission-to-seize-once-in-a-generation-opportunity/ <comment><USER2> From the letter: _Any regulation needs to encourage comprehensive content responsibility, meaning companies are accountable for ensuring their practices and processes do not give undue amplification to harmful and illegal content._

Does the same viral amplification of normal content become "undue" when applied to "harmful" (I'm sure the definition won't be abused!) content? Meaning platforms will have to preemptively police and suppress such content, or be held liable?

I would have expected a company supposedly devoted to user freedom such as Mozilla to know better than to endorse censorship through vague messaging like this.

<comment><USER3> Endorsing censorship seems right in line with all of the other terrible decisions made by mozilla as of late.

Leadership team needs to go, start with the CEO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't think UvdL is the correct figure to spearhead such an approach. She might be popular outside of Germany because people cannot understand what she says and she isn't really know for digital competency.

> For too many individuals and groups, the internet today is not an empowering > outlet for free expression

I disagree. On the contrary we see classical news outlets preferred in search results because of direct business relations with Google and the false info hysteria, that is stressed in this letter. This has infested search results that are only tangentially related to the news business. "Foster diverse and reliable media content" shall mean mainstream media sources.

Was Covid a disaster because of misinformation? I don't think so. People being knee-jerks about wearing masks has multiple causes.

Otherwise I agree for the issue of transparency when it comes to ads. It is a seriously toxic industry that needs strong legal borders for their operation.

The EU also wants to market health data of its citizens which can make you look envious at the UK, although I am sure their government is just as incapable on digital technologies.

However, digital policies should not be delegated to the EU, since it doesn't have the capacity and legitimization in my opinion. So I cannot really see the once-in-a-generation opportunity aside from maybe using the pandemic to implement unpopular decisions, which I hope Mozilla would define upfront.</comment>


SEC Seeks to Freeze Crypto Assets of $600M Coin Offering - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-30/sec-seeks-to-freeze-crypto-assets-of-600-million-coin-offering <comment><USER2> How would this possibly be enforceable?

<comment><USER3> Jail is a powerful motivator.</comment></comment>


Amazon to pay Kindle authors only for pages read - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/amazon/11692026/Amazons-to-pay-Kindle-authors-only-for-pages-read.html?utm_content=buffer749ff&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

<comment><USER2> Scalzi has a good take on this: [http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/06/21/amazon- tweaks-its-kind...](http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/06/21/amazon-tweaks-its- kindle-unlimited-system-it-still-sucks-for-kdp-select-authors/)

Notable is that Amazon still sets the overall amount that all authors can be paid -- the pages money comes out of a pot, and Amazon sets the pot. Also, he brings up the idea of a "choose your own adventure" book -- it's not yet clear what the payout would be in this case.

This is only for Kindle Unlimited.

Scalzi points out that he doesn't view Amazon as evil, but that there are situations in which Amazon acts more in its own interests than those of authors.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is for self-published authors, but how long until Amazon will try to force it to regular publishers too, perhaps with some algorithm to even include (re-adjusting price as data come in) regular pre-paid books?

It's also a bad precedent for Spotify and co (to not pay for tracks skipped mid-way etc).

Finally, what about books that are meant not to be read in their entirety, like any kind of reference book?</comment>