Ask HN: What is good advice going forward in my negotiations? - <AUTHOR>

Currently I am one of three young cofounders (CEO, developer, marketing/customer development). We have been working with an outsourced developer for a bit of time now and he has been very involved in the business and has been acting as an advisor. Due to the three of us thinking he would be a good fit on the team  and wanting to get more code pushed quickly, we have offered him the  option to join us as a cofounder. He is much more senior than us and  adds a lot of credibility to the team, and he has many connections that  have proven useful many times. He was the CTO of another startup years ago and has been advising many other companies since then while coding.  He has agreed to join us but we are having a bit of difficulty on the  terms of it. He would like 24% of the company vested over two years with a six  month cliff, and he would work around 30 hours a week or more probably on  it. (The three of us are vested over 4 years with a one year cliff and  are fulltime and own equal amounts of the company) He would have to work  on other projects, however, since he has a lot of debt to pay (kids in college, mortgage, medical bills, etc). Basically, he wants 1%/month for  the next two years and he is pretty set on that. I would much rather have him vest over three years at the least, and some investor friends of mine have agreed with this. They think an investor would want him to vest a bit longer to ensure he stays. We were thinking of maybe doing a deferred salary contract to get him to agree  to three years and 20% once we are able to raise a seed round. At the moment we don't have the type of cash to pay him his market rates and we can only give him equity and the promise of a small deferred salary/incentive bonus later on. Once we raise a seed round we could pay him a small salary and he could work more on this. How should I continue the discussion with him and is what he is asking for fair to us and him? Will this cause headaches down the road? <comment><USER2> You have a number of negotiation points here: \- Percentage ownership \- Vesting length \- Vesting cliff \- Hours you expect him to work \- Cash salary \- Bonus \- Title

And some questions to ask yourselves: \- How long have you been working on the project before he got involved? \- How much ownership in the idea/IP does he have? \- Do you all have the same definition of success? (e.g. does he want a long-term business or an acquisition? what does a 'successful exit' look like for you all) \- Is this going to be his only job or is he consulting on the side?

When you're all very clear about the above, it will be easier to come to a reasonable agreement. The "What does success look like?" question is the most important, and something that many startup founders are afraid to ask until it's too late.

A 2-year vesting schedule is not insane, but it begs the question of whether the guy thinks he is key to the business. It is certainly something that seed or A-round investors will want to increase if he is vital, and if he's not vital he shouldn't get 24% :)

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> He was involved as an outsourced contractor very early in the process. He doesn't have any IP.

We all have the same definition of success of the company being a profitable business.

Assuming he goes to three years at least, with 20% equity, and an incentive bonus/deferred salary of around 30k is that fair to us and him, in your opinion?</comment></comment>


Sweden Stayed Open. A Deadly Month Shows the Risks - vanilla-almond https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/15/world/europe/sweden-coronavirus-deaths.html <comment><AUTHOR> Typical misleading headline. Reading the article it's quite clear that comparing Sweden to other countries in Europe that while higher than normal aren't really any different from the other countries.

Many people predicted that Sweden's policies would result in black death levels of mortality and it's clear that's not the case at all.</comment>


Google called the MPEG-LA's bluff, and won - <AUTHOR> http://www.osnews.com/story/26849/Google_called_the_MPEG-LA_s_bluff_and_won

<comment><USER2> Saying that Google "won" is an absurd statement. What was the competition? What Google did was smart. The fear of patent infringement was likely the biggest issue VP8 had. They've taken that off the table.

But saying they've won seems to imply that someone lost. MPEG-LA didn't have to make a deal with them. But they got enough money that is was worth it to them. As far as they're concerned they get money from Google now, plus all the fees from everyone else. That's a "win" for MPEG-LA.

Both Apple and MS pay for H264. I'm sure both would be happy to not have to pay for a codec (although H264 will be around for a long time, even in the worst case). Microsoft's position on VP8 has been pretty clear... they're not shipping it (but maybe will now), but aren't opposed to it.

This was a smart move. But doesn't mean that there are winners and losers. And certainly there was no bluff that was called. Paying to license patents from a patent holder is hardly calling their bluff.

<comment><AUTHOR> VP8 went from (according to the MPEG-LA and its proponents) legally dangerous to a better option (at least legally) than H.264, covering more users and more usage scenarios (namely, not just non-commercial, but commercial too), and for free to users, to boot.

So yes, VP8 (and thus Google) won.

<comment><USER3> That's like saying someone claimed they didn't order something at a restaurant while the restaurant claimed they did. The person pays anyway and the restaurant is happy and they don't get in trouble. Did the person win? Google has claimed for a long time VP8 was clear of patents. This is them giving up.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't it depend on how much they paid? If the person paid for much less than the restaurant was asking and/or for less than a court case would cost, I'd say they won. And as long as the size of Google's MPEG-LA payment isn't visible in their next earnings report (remember the MPEG-LA was claiming hundreds of millions of willful infringements), I'd say Google won, too.

<comment><USER5> > Doesn't it depend on how much they paid? If the person paid for much less > than the restaurant was asking and/or for less than a court case would cost, > I'd say they won.

I guess that's a matter of opinion then.

Because if the person really didn't order (or receive) any meal, and they still had to pay _anything_ to clear up matters, I wouldn't say they _won_. At most I'd say they got off relatively well, considering circumstances. The restaurant, however, getting _any_ money for a meal they didn't make, is a clear winner.

On the other hand (and I'm not sure how/if this holds up in the analogy because I'm not entirely clear about what's going on with the Google/MPEG-LA thing) if the restaurant _did_ prepare the meal they claim the person ordered (but who didn't), assuming they got less than the costs of the meal, both are losers. Which figures because miscommunication often lead to waste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How does agreeing with a random third-party about how you can use your own product, and worse, paying them for the mere unproven _possibility_ that they own parts of your product, count as "won"?

In any other situation, history would classify this as a clear cut case of _racketeering_ or extortion.

<comment><USER7> Yes I am still waiting for that answer. Maybe I am being dense but to me this is not a victory? If anything seems like a loss? In other words suspicions now are founded that VP8 was never free of patent infringement.

<comment><USER8> It's arguably a victory within the existing rules of the game. Taking it to an extreme - if Google paid a single cent in order to remove the threat of MPEG- LA related patent suits and in return massively increased adoption of VP8 and following specs, would that have been a victory? A dollar? Ten dollars? A million dollars? It's a victory for Google if the cost to them is less than the expected benefits of removing a barrier to adoption.

Of course, the flipside to this is that it's also a victory for the existing patent system. It's usually cheaper for people to settle than it is for them to fight a patent suit, even if they win. At the end you maybe get most of your costs back, and it's cost you several years of your competitors telling your potential customers that you're a patent infringer and if they implement the spec they could be next.

So yes, a real victory would require certainty over the patent status of VP8 without Google having had to pay anyone anything, but also without having to spend years in litigation to prove that. But that's not an option at the moment, and the fact that Google were able to negotiate a relatively wide- ranging and liberal license (without any admission of infringement) is arguably the best that's possible without significant changes in the law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> haha this is absurd, and drawing the conclusion in the headline makes about as much sense as "Google admits its WebM (VP8) codec infringes MPEG H.264 patents; agrees to license technology" [1]

It is so hard to take OSNews seriously.

[1] [http://macdailynews.com/2013/03/08/google-admits-its-webm- vp...](http://macdailynews.com/2013/03/08/google-admits-its-webm-vp8-codec- infringes-mpeg-h-264-patents-agrees-to-license-technology/)

<comment><USER10> I think the article you linked is a pretty reasonable interpretation. Google was claiming VP8 didn't infringe any patents they didn't own, which apparently wasn't the case, and now they're having to backpedal and say, "well, it did infringe them, but we're covering the licensing." My understanding is that MPEG-LA does not engage in "patent trolling," but exists to provide an easy way to license all the (known) patents. I think it would be up to the individual patent holders to try to sue for infringement. I think Daniel Eran Dilger is spot-on here; there's been a lot of misinformation being spread by some proponents of free video codecs, first that Theora is good or almost as good as H.264 based on some crappy codec comparisons (it's not), and then that VP8 was not patent-encumbered. I recall thinking the situation with VP8 when Google first released it for free kind of seemed to me like a "turd sandwich," since the quality was somewhere between slightly inferior and very inferior (due to a bad encoder) to H.264, and the licensing was uncertain, despite Google's claims.

<comment><USER9> It seems that google's position is firmly that this agreement is not an admission that they infringed any patents. That said, it's a pretty funny statement coming from an entity that just paid for patent licensing. The tricky thing about the situation is that the _details_ of the agreement aren't clear enough to say who "won", and personally, it looks to me more like a stalemate. Even stalemate might be putting it strongly, as it implies that they are in some kind of opposition, which may not be the case.

<comment><USER11> "Paid for" is an assumption isn't it?

<comment><USER9> Oh you're right. It seems they are being tight lipped about whether money was exchanged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't understand why so many comments are painting this as bad. Who cares if Google paid a shitload of money to MPEG-LA. The main point is, VP8 is now free for anyone to use, for any reason. Wasn't that the goal?

<comment><USER13> No, VP8 is not necessarily "free", there are numerous companies that may wish to sue the users of VP8 over patent infringement. Qualcomm, Broadcom, Samsung etc. (Why would you want a free alternative when you're the only few companies that can make hardware encoders?)

Companies that are in MPEG-LA won't sue, but there are many "relevant" companies that have not joined. Companies are still being sued (and settling) over patents supposedly infringed by H.264.

The system is a mess. Google are moving in the right direction by eliminating a large potential threat (MPEG-LA), but it's job is not done yet.

Note that Google pushing VP8/9 is trying to promote competition and reduce the licencing costs of H.264/5. This is very similar to what Microsoft (rightly) did before with VC-1.

<comment><USER4> Samsung couldn't sue - they've already shipped hundreds of millions of WebM implementations that they lose their patent license for if they do. Depending on how much WebM-related code ended up in their graphics drivers and/or how widely distributed their Android reference platforms are, Qualcomm could easily face similar issues. And well, um, Google has also clearly taken care of a third major H.264 patent holder outside the MPEG-LA - Motorola. I'm sure there are others out there, but the pickings are getting thinner and thinner.

<comment><USER5> > Samsung couldn't sue - they've already shipped hundreds of millions of WebM > implementations that they lose their patent license for if they do.

I don't understand, why would they stand to lose their patent license for WebM?

It says on Wikipedia about WebM that "The project releases WebM related software under a BSD license and all users are granted a worldwide, non- exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free patent license" so how can anyone lose the right to that license?

And given that the above WP quote is in fact true, what would Samsung sue over in the first place?

> And well, um, Google has also clearly taken care of a third major H.264 > patent holder outside the MPEG-LA - Motorola.

Because, what did they do to Motorola then?

Would I be sort of correct in saying this whole matter is more about power/politics between these big corporations (using patents as leverage) than it is about the actual legality of who is doing what with whose algorithms--in the sense that they do use these legal tactics to attain their goals but the usual goal (justice) is secondary?

That'd explain why it's so confusing to me, laws are usually quite logical (especially the codified type), but politics and power gets really complex really fast (to me).

<comment><USER14> > why would they stand to lose their patent license for WebM?

From <http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/> and <http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/>

> If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to > the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross- > claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 > or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes > direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent > infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for > this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is > filed.

<comment><USER5> Right. That explains that then, thx :)

And somehow all these corporations (Samsung, Broadcom, etc) believe they have a claim to these patents? But it can at best be only _one_ of them, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> TL;DR Google gave MPEG-LA a bunch of money. Yep, Google sure showed them!

<comment><USER16> You misunderstand the nature of the agreement.

Please point to a case where MPEG-LA has given a _completely sublicensable royalty-free right_ to someone for H.264, for _any_ amount of money.

Can you get all the H.264 rights MPEG-LA offers from microsoft or apple, without going through MPEG-LA? Does it cover all use cases?

<comment><USER15> H.264 is obsolete. MPEG-LA is moving on to H.265, the new hotness. It is telling that MPEG-LA's sub-licensing for VP8 only covers one subsequent revision of the codec. If VPx+ is augmented with H.265'ish technology in order to stay competitive, we'll see a new round of fighting.

<comment><USER16> You completely ignored the question I asked, by raising an irrelevant point :)

I'll point out that despite your claim that H.264 is "obsolete", nobody _still_ has gotten the kind of licensing google just did, despite people trying.

<comment><USER15> Both Microsoft and Apple have patents in the H.264 patent pool. It is in their interest for H.264 licensees to go through MPEG-LA; it is not in their interest to give away sublicenses.

<comment><USER16> Actually, neither make much revenue from that pool. But, fine, pick someone else. AFAIK, nobody has the right to sublicense all the H.264 patent rights to others.

This is one reason, for example, you have cameras and camcorders that ban professional use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Meanwhile, in reality, everyone is using H.264. Seems like a lot of wasted effort to me.

<comment><USER5> Well, next up is Google paying off the Scene to drop H.264 and switch to VP8 :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you cut the crap, does this mean VP8 is safe to use for everyone for free (without royalties to either MPEG-LA or Google) or not?

<comment><USER19> Safe except for not working in most places you care about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I know many here don't like/trust Florian Mueller but he is claiming that Nokia (not part of MPEG-LA patent pools for either VP8 or AVC) is currently suing HTC for patent infringement regarding VP8 in Germany. Google is acting as an intervenor. Assuming this is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it) VP8 is not in the clear just yet and Nokia did not participate in the standardisation so is not committed to FRAND licensing.

It is obviously possible that the court could rule the patent is either invalid or not infringed but I think it would be wise to avoid counting chickens just yet (unless anyone has good alternative and contradictory sources on this).

[http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain- over...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over- vp8-google.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> It's a shame. As much as i wish this headline would be true, it does only seem to me that Google bent to MPEG-LAs will, a conglomerate of Apple, MS and what not..

From my point of view, the MPEG-LA needs to be shut down, not subsidized with more money. It shows every sign of a typical patent troll and will always choose the option that guarantees its members income, not the most innovative or best option, but the one where there the most money can be leeched out of people and companies.

<comment><USER22> On the one hand, MPEG-LA appears to have "won", because they got Google to licence their patents. On the other hand, the license Google has acquired is incredibly broad: MPEG-LA usually seems to offer broad non-commercial / small income rights but reserves the right to charge considerably more for large scale commercial use of codecs that they regard as infringing patents in their pool. They've given up on receiving any of that income from future use of VP8.

Perhaps they regard VP8 as a dead codec, now that h.265 is on the horizon, so not worth the licensing effort?

<comment><USER4> The license agreement also applies to future codecs derived from VP8, most specifically VP9, so I doubt the MPEG-LA thought it was giving a license to a dead effort.

<comment><USER22> Point. I think the general thought still stands: Perhaps MPEG-LA believes they have now established h.26[45] strongly enough that VP9 will never be a threat.

Of course, if we knew how much Google had actually paid for these patent licenses we'd have a much better idea of who, if anyone, had actually "won"! I doubt we'll get that information though.

<comment><USER4> The alleged infringement was massive - every download of Chrome 6+ and every Gingerbread+ Android device (or at least the ones with the Google apps) to start. And all of it could easily have been willful - On2 and MPEG-LA had apparently tangled long before Google got involved.

Given that, I think not finding out financial terms is a tell all by itself. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I don't think Google would be able to hide the cost of an MPEG-LA win in their earnings reports.

<comment><USER23> Not to mention that the free internet broadcast license of h264 expires in 2015. After that I am fairly sure that Google will be looking at hefty fees for YouTube if they do not convert over to VP8.

<comment><USER24> The MPEG-LA extended that free licence to forever already due to the threat of vp8. And YouTube is already converted to VP8.

On the other hand you still need to pay to sell TV shows and movies, which Google has just started rolling out as VP8 (starting with ChromeOS clients but expanding from there).

<comment><USER4> Google Play Movies and TV is going VP8? Interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Regardless of whether Google "won" or not, it does look like VP8 will be a much more approachable codec thanks to being open source, and because it doesn't require video makers to pay MPEG-LA license fees whenever they want to make money from their videos. I'd think at the very least professional camera makers would be interested in supporting it. From that point of view, I think the article is right.

<comment><USER26> Even better, given that the issues raised by (iirc) Mircosoft and Apple against webp becoming the HTML5 standard video codec (and thus mandatory to support for HTML5 compliance) was that of 'patent uncertainty', with this agreement we can finally get a really great royalty free standard codec which can be used with any browser which is HTML5 compliant.

Same goes for WebRTC, which should now be on the fasttrack to be accepted as the standard for RTC (currently supported by Chrome, Mozilla and Opera).

I think having open and royalty free standards for such integral parts of what is likely to be the 'future of the web' is extremely important to foster innovation, thanks to VP8/VP9 and Opus we now have technically competitive offerings which anyone can implement free of charge across all platforms and for whatever interesting solutions they can come up with.

<comment><USER27> > _the issues raised by (iirc) Mircosoft and Apple against webp becoming the > HTML5 standard video codec_

"webm" is the video format (and uses VP8). "webp" is a related image format.

[webp is not very compelling as an image format on its own, but maybe the relationship with webm confers some advantage...]

<comment><USER26> yes, that was a spelling error, but given the context of the discussion (standard video codec) I doubt anyone failed to understand that I meant webm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Will google now follow through and remove H.264 support from chrome?(1)

(1) [http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2011/01/google...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2011/01/google-reveals-plan-to-remove-h264-support-from-chrome/)</comment>


A Practical Guide To Securing OpenSSH - <AUTHOR> http://www.minklinks.com/weblog/2010/11/19/practical-guide-securing-openssh/ <comment><USER3> If you're going to use weird ssh-hiding tricks like alternate ports, gateways, or port-knocking, be sure to read all about what you can do with ~/.ssh/config

      Host securebox
        #if not proxying
        HostName securebox.tld
        Port 1023
        User fji00random
        #if going through a gateway
        ProxyCommand ssh gatewaybox.tld nc securebox.tld 22
        #if knocking
        ProxyCommand proxyknock %h %p 1337 1337 900

With that, you can have

      ssh securebox

rather than

      knock securebox.tld 1337 1337 900; ssh -p 1023 firstname.lastname@example.com

(and for systems without a knocker installed, you can use something like <http://sprunge.us/HJHB> for proxyknock, which can be cloned along with the rest of your dotfiles/scripts)

And if you're doing public key auth, read about ssh-agent, it can store your private keys in memory so that you don't have to retype your passphrase all the time, while the "physical" key is still protected if stolen. In my bash_profile, I have

      SSHAFILE=/tmp/.$(whoami)-ssha

      if [ -n "$SSH_AUTH_SOCK" ]; then
        echo "We has auth!"
      elif [ -f $SSHAFILE ]; then
        . $SSHAFILE
      else
        eval `ssh-agent | tee $SSHAFILE`
        chmod 600 $SSHAFILE
        ssh-add
      fi

This runs ssh-agent if it's not running, and sets proper env variables if it is.

(also, the ssh-agent can be forwarded, so you can use your private key to auth into box C, from box B, while the key is only on your local box, A - this can also be added to your .ssh/config)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is also good advice. I didn't want to put it in as I just wanted it to be an explanation of my own position on port munging and to keep it fairly simple, but ssh-agent is a great way of making multiple ssh accesses easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This isn't really a configuration suggestion, more of an architecture suggestion: let's say you're like me and you have 5 VPSes. You want precisely _one_ to have SSH exposed to the public Internet. Everybody else has SSH only listen on a private IP. (Your host can probably set those up for you. Slicehost does, for example.)

e.g.

ListenAddress 22.214.171.124 #This is not really your IP address.

You can go an extra step and drop all packets to the SSH port on the public interface in IPTables, if you want. It strikes me as being overkill but, hey, whatever.

If you need to log into any server, you do so by tunneling through your gatekeeper server. That fellow gets locked down tightly. All of your other servers are firewalled tight as drums, with the exception of public-facing HTTP servers who have 80 and 443 opened (and that is it).

<comment><AUTHOR> This is sound advice and I've seen this in quite a few small multi-server environments. The only thing I'd say is that once you get to 5 - 10 servers you might want to look at a VPN such as openVPN (<http://www.openvpn.net/>), at which point all your SSH services can run on their hidden networks.

This makes a bigger difference as well if you have more than a few people accessing the boxes, and for purely remote-based businesses quite a few use this type of setup to host their 'internal' network tools like an intranet, file storage, internal wiki etc.

If you have the cash and capability, I'd recommend an IPSEC VPN over OpenVPN (using something like a low-end Cisco ASA for example, but shop around - <USER2> point is to use dedicated hardware), but if you're starting out, OpenVPN is fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a total Linux n00b, I was given the advice to also run SSH on a non- standard port 4 digit port like 4232 instead of 22. I don't know how effective that is, but it sounded like good advice to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Running SSH on a different port sounds like good advice because the automated scanning tools tend to focus on port 22.

However, if you're vulnerable to the scanners then you haven't actually addressed the vulnerability they exploit. What you're looking at is a form of security by obscurity that reduces the number of low end attacks, but if someone port scans you, finds the SSH port and runs the same attacks you're still going to get compromised.

Another thing to consider is that if you're moving SSH ports your OS will still respond to requests to connect over SSH by telling the scanners that there's no SSH service running on that port. If you're being metered for bandwidth by bytes transferred it shouldn't be a lot (unless you're getting really hammered by it, which tends to happen when the IP address has been previously compromised).

The correct way to deal with this is to use only public key authentication (which stops people getting in through password brute forcing) and to block the port with a firewall with exceptions for the places that you access it from. You can find out where you're accessing it from by going through the SSH logs.

By all means swap ports if you want to, but don't rely on it alone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It is funny, but Theo (OpenSSH leader developer) thinks that SSHv1 is more secure than v2:

<http://www.ossec.net/dcid/?p=10>

<comment><AUTHOR> To be fair he's not saying that. He's saying that he's concerned about the increase in complexity of the SSH2 code base. Given that was 4 years ago I'd be surprised if the SSH2 code base hasn't been thoroughly audited by the team.

I think it was a valid concern to have if SSH2 hadn't been audited at the time, given that you're trading known issues for an unknown solution that may or may not work, but to infer he thinks SSHv1 is more secure than SSHv2 in that post is slightly inaccurate.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Incidentally, if you have any top SSH tips, please do post them here so that the next time any questions about SSH come up we can refer to a HN post.</comment>


Jeff Bezos evacuated off Galapagos for kidney stones - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/04/world/jeff-bezos-evacuated-galapagos/ <comment><USER2> _Galapagos: five stars. Kidney stones: zero stars_

Dammit Jeff. One is lowest number of stars. It's an arbitrary number. Anytime you see a review that starts "I wish I could give this zero stars..." you know you're dealing with a knucklehead.

<comment><USER3> If that were an actual Amazon review, he would base his entire review on the shipping experience instead of the actual product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If a US ambulance ride for 15 minutes costs $1,722 [1] then how much does evacuation via an Ecuadorian navy helicopter and then a jet back to a US hospital cost the insurer?

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/health/think-the-er-was- ex...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/health/think-the-er-was-expensive- look-at-the-ambulance-bill.html?_r=0)

<comment><USER5> He probably flew Prime Air.

<comment><USER6> He could just have waited for some other diseases to appear and they would transport them for free!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Walk it off and resume work

</comment><comment><USER8> I've had kidney stones and they were incredibly painful. I wouldn't wish them on anyone.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wish Jeff a fast recovery. He is probably overworked and has a lot on his mind. Get well soon!

</comment><comment><USER10> I was expecting either Bezos or medical treatment to be delivered by Amazon's drones.</comment>


IPython 4.0 Released - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jupyter.org/2015/08/12/first-release-of-jupyter/

<comment><USER3> Jupyter is great ! Did you know that Github renders the .ipynb files ? See [https://github.com/SciRuby/sciruby- notebooks/blob/master/get...](https://github.com/SciRuby/sciruby- notebooks/blob/master/getting_started.ipynb) for example.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does it have any new features? I am a big fan of IPython Notebook/Jupyter, and use it daily, but from the release note I don't see what's that cool in v 4.0 (from the users perspective).

I.e. is there a reason to actually upgrade? (Against typical cons - <USER2> are not backwards compatible.)

<comment><USER5> Yes iPython is no longer the project but only the parts that actually deal with Python. So the kernel is now 100% agnosit. For users this means if your a polygot (I sort am one) you can now use Jupyter for Haskell or R or Julia.

I think that if people will let the name iPython go we will see an explosion of usage by other communities and see new features added to the project.

<comment><USER4> I already run Julia and Haskell on IPython Notebook 3.0 - does the current 4.0 make it simpler to add kernels?

<comment><USER5> Yes 4.0 is suppose to make it so that the kernels are much easier to install and work with. I haven't been home to install it on my Linux boxes nor the Linux boxes at work. Only thing I can try is Windows and well I HATE working with Python in windows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >Since all of these packages were part of IPython 3, they are all starting out at 4.0. They won't be updated in coordination with each other as their APIs and release schedules will be allowed to advance at their own respective paces.

I can see this leading to problems. Are we going to be left in a position of new features being added to one project while being unusable because the other project release schedule is lagging behind a bit?

<comment><USER7> That's why when you use them you get a message:

> /.../site-packages/IPython/nbformat.py:13: ShimWarning: The > `IPython.nbformat` package has been deprecated. You should import from > nbformat instead.

You are supposed to use the new modules for new notebooks, but this way it won't break any old notebook you have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> `echo 'alias ipython=jupyter' >> ~/.bash_profile`

Since I seriously doubt I'll ever remember the name "Jupyter". According to PG, they should change their name- because jupyter.com is already taken.

<comment><USER9> They have jupyter.org, are they a company?

<comment><USER10> They are not a company, but an academic _very_ open source project with substantial grant funding. Last week I talked with Fernando Perez (IPython founder) about the name choice, and he and the other devs thought very hard (and deeply) about it, and researched the choice of name, and they definitely have no plans to change. I really like the new name and inclusive vision to support everything, rather than just Python.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I just tried to install iPython on Fedora using dnf and it depends on Node.JS. Really?

<comment><USER12> It doesn't do any such thing for me. I `pip install`ed it just now and it ran fine. You mean the shell, right?

<comment><USER11> When I do this on Fedora 22:

repoquery --requires python-ipython-notebook

I get node.js stuff.

<comment><USER13> The notebook is a web interface, node-based tools (bower, less) are used to package the in-browser part: [http://jupyter- notebook.readthedocs.org/en/latest/developmen...](http://jupyter- notebook.readthedocs.org/en/latest/development.html) It's unclear why fedora adds it as a dependency, it shouldn't be necessary for a packaged notebook application as far as I can see, only to package or run from source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> And it works with R now! Nice ...... :)

[https://github.com/joyofdata/joyofdata- articles/tree/master/...](https://github.com/joyofdata/joyofdata- articles/tree/master/r-meets-ipython)

</comment><comment><USER15> ipython notebook works on command line, jupyter notebook does not, even after upgrade

<comment><USER16> Same here (on Windows). The files created in scripts directory are actually python files without extension. Tried to do a python jupyter notebook but then it doesn't find the jupyter-notebook script neither.

<comment><USER17> also got errors on windows after install

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Anyone know of a Clojure kernel for jupyter?

<comment><USER18> [https://github.com/roryk/ipython-clojure](https://github.com/roryk/ipython- clojure)

There is a list of all kernels in the Jupyter documentation, linked from the OA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> so when Jupyter does the next upgrade will it be called IPython 5 or Jupyter 5.0 (or 2.0)?

</comment><comment><USER20> Where is the changelog for the 4.0 release? Or is the release devoted to the name change?

<comment><USER21> Seems to me like the split is the biggest part of the update. One reason is that an iPython install now only includes the iPython terminal interface. On Ubuntu though one already needed to install iPython notebook separately (apt- get install ipython3-notebook) so not a lot changes, I suppose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> ipython notebook is now jupyter notebook. ipython notebook still works.</comment>


Palantir discloses $20mm in new funding from a single unidentified backer - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/danprimack/status/801552167978995713 <comment><USER2> Why would a company the size of Palantir take investment of such a relatively small amount at this point in its lifetime?

\- Seems like it's too make the difference between life and death for the company.

\- Too much to be a personal investment, and I can't imagine the company generally wanting to do that?

\- I doubt the company needs angel investors with specific skills to help grow/develop the company in some way, and could just hire for those skills if needed.

I'm sure there are good possible reasons, and it could be more random, but I'd be interested to know what motivations a company like Palantir could have in taking this investment?

<comment><USER3> This is likely a strategic investment by a major user of Palantir, and neither party really want to make a big PR deal out of it.</comment></comment>


Cheap, 'safe' drug kills most cancers - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

<comment><USER2> The original article is from four years ago. Here's an update: [http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/05/...](http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/05/cure- for-cancer-resurfaces-and.html)

Alas that headline, like so many in this space, is misleading and converts promise into something a lot more definitive.</comment>


Show HN: Mnemonic url shortener - <AUTHOR> http://longener.herokuapp.com/ <comment><USER2> As of this moment it's throwing an 'Application error' status page.</comment>


Vacuum has friction from an effect similar to the Casimir effect - <AUTHOR> http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/vacuum-has-friction-from-effect-similar.html <comment><USER2> Only for accelerating systems. The system here is spinning, which is an acceleration.

</comment><comment><USER3> vacuum can have temperature? am i reading it wrong or....?

<comment><USER4> In physics, "temperature" is the same thing as "speed". The faster the movement of particles in a given amount of space, the "hotter" it is. The terms are interchangeable.

There is also a common misconception that you would freeze almost instantly if you jumped out of an airlock in space. Quite the contrary. A vacuum is actually an incredibly efficient insulator. Hence vacuum thermoses. Your body would not lose heat very fast. Not having a helmet on, though, would be very bad for your health.

<comment><USER5> > _Not having a helmet on, though, would be very bad for your health. >_

NASA accidentally tested it in 1966: [http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.h...](http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html)

<comment><USER6> This link just shown me how many misconceptions I have about vacuum exposure. Thank you! I've learned a lot from it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What "I don't have time" really means - <AUTHOR> http://fourlightyears.blogspot.com/2015/09/what-i-dont-have-time-really-means.html

<comment><USER2> Ok. I really hoped in something much more deep.</comment>


Tesla will raise prices on its cars, reverses plan to close stores - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/11/18259580/tesla-price-hike-stores-reversal <comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19357844](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19357844).</comment>


Strategy Letter VI (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/09/18.html <comment><AUTHOR> It has now been 8 years since he wrote this, and I think it's pretty clear that his prediction was wrong. I guess it would have been hard to predict, just three months after the first iPhone (with no third-party apps), that mobile devices would have an even bigger impact than rich web apps.</comment>


Willy Wonka and the Medical Software Factory - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/business/epic-systems-campus-verona-wisconsin.html <comment><USER2> Tangentially related:

The side of doctor's isn't always as positive, as this (rap) video alludes to: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB_tSFJsjsw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB_tSFJsjsw)

I work on medical software as well that is technically a competitor to Epic (though they only run in 3-4 hospitals in my country, whereas we hold +50%).

Medical software has some ways to go - not just for Epic, we share a lot of the same issues. Doctors want to focus on health care and not on the arcane sides of the software they are 'forced' to deal with.

On the other hand, our campus is definitely more 'boring' than the one from Epic it seems :)</comment>


Paper Phone - <AUTHOR> http://specialprojects.studio/project/paper-phone/ <comment><USER2> Absolutely hate it, though must say, it is formatted nicely.</comment>


A Breakdown of Unity's S-1 Filing - <AUTHOR> https://thegeneralist.substack.com/p/the-s-1-club-unity-is-manifesting <comment><AUTHOR> Look at the future of gaming and the Metaverse ahead of the IPO.

</comment><comment><USER2> This is awesome. So thorough.</comment>


How I failed to land a remote position - <AUTHOR> https://kostasbariotis.com/how-i-failed-landing-a-remote-position/ <comment><USER3> Let me tell you something I learnt myself about remote job positions:

\- Competition for each position is fierce. Especially for the SF-type jobs where the salaries are so astronomical compared to your remote area (like Greece, India, Thailand, etc.). You may have some (or even a lot) of experience in some tech, but so would the other 50-500 applications for that position. This puts the ball in the court of the employer, because they use stupid filters like "the right fit" \- which most of the time equates to finding the person they can extract the most value from per-dollar (or the 1 who kills their wannabe-Google interview process the best)

\- As someone reading your blog post, even I did not make it past your full email text. It's just too long for HR to even bother. A shorter, concise, "get in your face" email sometimes works better

\- HR filters are the worst way to get remote positions. You said you have friends working for remote-first companies like Github and Automattic - <USER2> should have been your first method of entry to go direct to the team itself and not need to get through HR first - if you're a great programmer and your friends know it, they will gladly recommend you

<comment><USER4> if

<comment><USER5> _> if tech is a meritocacy then why are most jobs made through social connections?_

Two reasons:

1) There is no such thing as a true meritocracy (we can generalize this to the claim that there is no such thing as absolute efficiency, which is what a true meritocracy would ostensibly be a manifestation of in employment).

2) Human beings have limited attention and productivity bandwidth which typically (though not always) becomes less than the sum of its parts in groups.

The second point is what's really important here (and it has a causal relationship with the first observation). If you have 100 candidates applying for a position, you literally do not have time to adequately review each and every candidate in a reasonable amount of time while maintaining productivity in your professional capacity.

Theoretically we shouldn't use referrals. But in practice it's a good heuristic because it models a web of trust: if person A trusts person B's abilities, they might also trust person B's ability to judge person C's abilities. Obviously this can't be formalized well enough to be extremely rigorous, which is why it doesn't always work.

It's probably not even the most optimal solution! You could develop sophisticated organizational processes to scale up the candidate review process without leveraging trust in other parties as much. But people default to it because it works often enough _and_ because it's intuitively an attractive idea. That combination tends to be viral for human interaction, even if it's technically suboptimal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thanks for sharing, remote job hunting is challenging. Some constructive feedback:

TL;DR. Too much personal fluff and no meat. Nobody cares about your hobbies unless they're directly relevant to the position.

Overly general. You haven't differentiated yourself enough from others applying to the same position.

These kind of cover letters/emails should be highly specific to the company you're applying to. It should answer the HR manager's primary question: Is this applicant the best person to help the company achieve its goals?

Find out from the job description what you're being hired to do, and provide examples of things you've done in the past that are similar. Help the manager imagine how you could apply your experience and talent to that position. And do it quickly, since they're reviewing hundreds of these a day and will spend less than 30 seconds on yours.

Customizing your cover letters in this way is definitely more effort and more time consuming, which means that 99% of applicants won't do it. Be the 1% that stands out.

Finally, the HR filter sucks. Find the actual team managers/members and reach out to them instead. Referrals, even if cold, are better than nothing.

<comment><AUTHOR> > It should answer the HR manager's primary question: Is this applicant the > best person to help the company achieve its goals?

Yes that's actually something I didn't pay much attention. Thanks, will definitely keep in mind.

<comment><USER7> You should, I did exactly that sometime ago for only the 5 companies at that time who were super interesting to me.

For each of their cover letters I told a personal story that was spot on relevant to the position and their mission/values. It demonstrated all the soft skills....each of them called me within a day or two.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not to sound impolite at all, but your cover letter sounds more like a dating site profile than a cover letter for a job. Overly personal, a lot of irrelevant details. Too friendly.

Let your resume, portfolio, etc. do the talking.

<comment><USER9> I totally disagree. The resume/portfolio will talk either way, but they usually don't say enough. If a cover letter can give me an idea of what it's like to talk to someone in real life, it helps tremendously. Resumes just blend together, and it becomes impossible to tell anyone apart.

Doing anything -- literally _anything_ \-- that differentiates a resume from the rest of the stack is going to get me to pay more attention. Giving me a personal/emotional connection to the person and an idea of their personality is also going to help, because that's just how most human minds work. We tend to like people who put themselves out there.

<comment><USER10> You stand out in a cover letter by finding a concise and convincing to summarize why they should interview you and the value you bring. Not by telling people your hobbies or how nice the beach near you is. That kind of stuff should come up naturally in a call or in person.

The same applies to dating - putting so much info up front is rarely successful.

<comment><USER9> > _You stand out in a cover letter by finding a concise and convincing to > summarize why they should interview you and the value you bring_

You don't stand out that way because everyone else is writing the same thing. After the first five, it's monotonous and loses any feeling of meaning or sincerity.

I usually know what "value" someone will bring by their resume. I need a data engineer -- you're a data engineer! Great. Business value is established.

Beyond that, I'm trying to figure out what it's like to work with you, whether you're an ethical person, whether you can work independently, etc. Those things are conveyed by personal details (and, eventually, the interview).

<comment><USER10> > Beyond that, I'm trying to figure out what it's like to work with you, > whether you're an ethical person, whether you can work independently, etc.

Good point, you are right. I still believe what OP had in his cover letter was unnecessary but it would not be a deal breaker for me. Honestly, if he got rid of the paragraph about his hobbies and the sentence about where he lives, it's pretty good aside from some generic phrases ("I like clean code" \- who doesn't?).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I run a mainly remote team with over 30 people that also has a small office in LA. I am blown away with the level of competition for remote roles we hire for vs a role in our LA office. On average job boards will drive 5x more candidates for the remote role and the overall level of candidates is way higher. My last remote dev job post had 300+ candidates and a customer success role has 700+ and this all from one post on Stackoverflow or WeWorkRemotely. That said we might be outlier for we pay really well and have a remote first culture. The overall lesson I got though is their a lot more qualified people are looking to work remotely than their is awesome remote jobs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you recall a time where you hired a less qualified person in a remote position for some reason?

<comment><USER11> Personal referrals that this person was amazing. One huge challenge of remote team members is training is a lot harder. You end up hiring very experienced people due to this and not junior talent. Helpscout another remote team has a bunch of articles on how they have this issue also

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have never had any success with applications to larger companies, although I dropped a lead with one of the larger companies in the ICO market after I got a very good offer at a promising early-stage startup, where I could engineer something I always wanted to do.

The easiest way to get a remote position is to be start a relationship as a contractor. Help early stage startups build a product, try to be as valuable as possible and they should try to keep you as an employee when the time comes. Everyone is remote and you create what you want, but you earn slightly less (but that's still a shit ton of money compared to your local area, for example if I offset living costs I have more money left every month than I would in US). Yes, it's a lot riskier, but when the company explodes, if you can sell yourself well, it should be fairly easy to find another job in less than 2 weeks.

Now obviously you need to sell yourself somehow. It was especially difficult for me in the early stages of my career, but right now in my CV I have a list of companies, some defunct, some still existing, in which I was a Lead SWE on major projects. I was forced to make vital decisions, learned a lot from it, now I can sell this knowledge. There is no replacement for that.

Ironically I find most of my contracts on "cheaper" websites such as Upwork. "Premium" marketplaces such as Toptal are useless, due to their markups almost doubling programmers' hourly rate.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've been searching for a remote position for 6 months, and I can relate to OP on a lot of this post. Methods slightly different.

I feel like I'm one of a huge crowd and being ignored completely is very common, even when I surpass all of their requirement check-boxes boxes, then some.

I spend a good amount of time on each cover letter, research the company, and email the CEO or a lead developer on the team. I very rarely get a response, but twice I got to the first stage and then it's as if I was forgotten.

I'm currently employed in a non-remote position, and I would be able to get a new local job with ease simply because I can walk in and talk to someone. I have gotten offers already, but I have a good list of reasons for wanting a remote position.

I'm persisting, but it's getting a bit tiring going this long at it.

<comment><USER14> Contracting can be a backdoor to remote work. If you're specialized it's not too difficult to find companies that need help. There's more risk (no benefits, no steady income).

<comment><USER15> I prefer remote contracting. It's great. More money, a lot of exposure to different tech and ways of doing things (and ways to not do things.)

As far as benefits, there are few benefits that are worth having a lower salary. Pension, retirement, all that nonsense – a waste of money – create your own retirement investments with the increased money you make. I'd rather money go into my pocket directly than to some benefit system that necessarily results in some amount of dead-weight loss.

65 per hour gross as a full timer versus 100 per hour gross as a contractor. 35 per hour is like an additional salary.

But, it does take discipline and being extremely organized so it's not for everyone.

<comment><USER13> Would you say contracting on the side is taking on too much? I think I could handle it.

I like having the stability, so easing into contracting might be a viable option for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> To get remote work, you need to find a company that really wants you specifically and you need to give them a reason to trust you - That means that you have previously done remote work or maybe you've made a lot of open source contributions on GitHub (which shows that you're basically a coding machine and not a human ;p).

It's not that easy to find because most big companies treat employees like a commodity; they don't tend to get attached to any specific individual (even if you have excellent credentials and thousands of GitHub stars).

It's difficult to find remote work for a big company; most of them have policies against it.

Also a lot of startups don't trust employees enough to allow them to do remote work; they have to be more conservative with money so it's high-risk for them.

<comment><USER15> Trust? If the features are being shipped there really isn't much trust required. You know after a week of that employee is delivering. Being in the office does not guarantee a single minute of additional productivity. In fact, I get more done in 2 hours working remote than I do at a typical day on-site.

Making people work on site for roles that don't actually need to be – that's just nonsense. The only thing I care about is shipping. I don't care about eating lunch with the team, I don't care about the idle chit chat. I certainly don't need to be sitting in a conference room looking a a computer projector during sprint planning when I could just as easily be seeing that same screen and listening to the same conversation sitting in my office at home. When I work with the team, RARELY does it require interpretive dance to get a point across. Even white boarding can be just as easy remotely.

If you don't trust employees enough to be remote, then you shouldn't hire them to work in the office either.

Hardware engineering or other physical product-based businesses, I get it, remote usually doesn't work. But for writing code, sales, marketing? Not a single reason not to be remote except if are working on something that requires a triple-lockdown environment and is highly secret. Very few companies have that level of absolute secrecy as a requirement – but even then, there have been known to be remote people even on those types of teams.

<comment><USER16> It's easy to ship poorly designed features quickly. Shipping well designed features is a different matter.

As a developer, if you want to take extra time to implement something because you want to put more thought into it, your employer has to trust that the extra time that you're using will translate into a superior, better designed product.

If the employer is trying to squeeze efficiency out of employees by giving them ridiculous deadlines based on optimistic assumptions about how long x should take to build, the result will be poor quality software and it will cost more in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Greece and California are ten timezones apart. I just don't see how you're ever going to get past that unless you're willing to be nocturnal (and you tell the companies you're applying to you're willing to work during their daytime). You're competing for the job with hundreds of people in the same or adjacent timezones.

<comment><AUTHOR> Aw no I wasn't targeting California at all. I was mostly targeting timezones that I would be working the same hours with theirs. The spreadsheet has some outliers but those must be a few exceptions that I would be happy to stay late at night to work with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> >> I took back like 3 offers which lead me to the conclusion that the market of the remote positions is highly competitive and it's really hard to find the job that you would be happy enough.

That's interesting, I'd love to hear from others who agree/disagree with that.

<comment><USER5> I disagree with that. I've worked remotely for most of my career (three tech companies + long term consulting). I've worked remotely for so long that when I decide to join another company I'm specifically looking to work in an office :)

To preempt the comments regarding survivorship bias or humblebrag: I acknowledge that people absolutely experience higher bars when interviewing fully remote positions. That said, I personally believe (from my own experience and that of friends) that people who typically experience higher competition in seeking remote positions are probably not optimizing their search.

There are, broadly speaking, two classes of companies featuring remote positions. The first type is a company built on a foundation of remote- friendly culture - people communicate in Slack for almost everything, at least half the company is remote, positions are headlined with remote work, etc. The second type is a company that offers remote work and has a well-intentioned desire for remote employees, but which ultimately does not favor them.

I've worked in both sorts of roles. If you are competing against non-remote candidates for the second type of company, then all things being equal they likely will not proceed with you. This is not only because of the cultural differences in preference but also because the interview process is not optimized to treat remote employees as first class citizens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The cover letter should have more direct language and be mostly about your skill-set.

You can also reach out to recruiters at those companies you like rather than going through the official website application.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've been working remotely for the last 3 years, including for one of the top rememoré-only companies. I've also did freelancing sourcing clients on my own and working through a recruiter.

One thing which is surprisingly not as oftenly discussed here are other criteria besides pay taken into account when making a choice between remote and non-remote.

I'd like to make an argument that remote work works only for a particular use case: when you need to execute on a particular vision with some strict framework of action. You'd need employees who are highly senior (therefore autonomious) and have great communication skills.

Probably the main reason why I'm considering to move away from working remotely is the lack of challenging projects. Even though I definitely improved my engineering skills by working on projects and reading up blogs/books, I'd learn much more if I had direct interaction with other engineers which is impossible due to constraints of communication medium in remote context.

</comment><comment><USER21> I find this, and many of the comments here interesting. I've been working on a mixed remote/office department for a few years now and lead a team (remotely, with a 3 hour time difference) which is mixed as well.

I do notice that my standards are higher of my subordinates than the other leads. (I expect that they stick to their deadlines that they set for themselves, that they document their thought process, they talk to stakeholders when appropriate, they optimize for the project and company goals, they can produce quality code and debug quickly and effectively.) I also provide one-on-one coaching for them if they want it, or if they are not living up to expectations. I also have a significantly lower turnover rate than other teams in the company.

I always assumed the higher standards were due to personality or management differences, but perhaps not? I would be interested in knowing other people's experiences with remote managers/team leads.

</comment><comment><USER22> When we hired for a remote position we received probably 100x the applications as when we hired in San Francisco. The pool of labor is much bigger and much cheaper.

Now we're hiring a full-time machine learning instructor, and I can't even imagine trying to find someone in SF. Even remote is difficult, but at least there are applicants.

</comment><comment><USER23> To me, there is one extremely insightful comment on the original post. The commenter asked what the timezone of the remote positions were and if that had an effect on the applications and hiring team.

As I'm sure anyone who has had to get up at weird, uncomfortable hours in the past to work with remote teams in India can attest, there is definitely a big difference between someone working remote in your country (3-4 hours difference, if not Russia) and someone working remote on the other side of the world (8-12 hours difference).

Greece is GMT+2 or GMT+3, depending on the time of the year. SF is GMT-8 or GMT-7, depending.

I know in a perfect world that remote workers would take jobs from a queue and work asynchronously and then submit their work to another queue. But the world doesn't work that way. People are still people, teams are still teams, we are not (all) coding robots yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely. FYI, I was targeting specifically timezones that I could be comfortable working with. There are a few outliers in the spreadsheet but were mostly close to my timezone so we would work the same hours.

Unfortunately, I forgot to reply to the commenter.

<comment><USER23> Thanks for the reply with the information about timezones.

Best of luck with finding your remote job!

Perhaps one will come out of the attention your blog post has joined. Since people at your current employer may well know about this, perhaps put a small text 'ad' at the top of your blog advertising that you are always interested in the appropriate remote opportunities in Node.js?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The phrase "I am obsessed with clean and efficient code" should be rewritten. Most developers will not want to work on the same project as you; they will not want their code picked over for imperfections.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, that's interesting. I do keep doing comments on PRs on small things but not at the point where I would reject a PR but rather discuss it. Maybe it's a strong phrase though.

<comment><USER25> Frankly, I agree with the OP. I dislike people who nitpick during the code review, esp. if it's in a remote setting where communication is less efficient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The pitch is way too long and fluffy. The first paragraph is basically about how nice the beaches are. That immediately puts me off (I am not currently at the beach, and neither are my colleagues). It is always better to open with facts instead of phrases that sound like marketing talk ("amazing beaches," "passionate doer," "great fit," "really love," "personal playground.") None of these are meaningful to your job performance.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm not a developer, but I've worked remotely for a long time as a freelancer and full-time, remote employee.

Here's my two cents (I edited your email):

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/15sEbo_WKI1q1z3aZ- lELZ0lA...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/15sEbo_WKI1q1z3aZ- lELZ0lARgp1zybe6sIAAmx9QUs/edit?usp=sharing)

</comment><comment><USER28> hey @kostarelo! Recognize you from the Node.js slack group as you were one of the first one's to join (i'm justin :wave:)

Anyway, IMO alot of other commenters here have given some really good feedback, so I won't elaborate on any constructive criticism. But if you'd like to chat sometime about potential opportunities, send me a message sometime (email is in my profile, or as you know I'm always on that Slack group). I have a few decent people in my network I can probably send your way.

I appreciate the post, was a good read :)

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm on the other side of that coin! Do you know how hard it's been to find someone that is good at SRE/DevOps & wants to manage ESXi/VMWare Boxes and SANs/Storage?

<comment><USER30> Is that one job or four? I see four distinct engineering disciplines in your post - Site Reliability - DevOps - Compute - Storage. The only two I would reasonably consider combining (in a day-to-day combined way) are the last two and even that's a risk for any largish operation. The first two do not benefit being combined and neither will garner the attention required to succeed. I would not apply unless you were small, generous and good to your community. Buy hey, if you threw in networking and security I'd know you have two boxes and need help and I'd bite out of sheer curiosity, like a shark, testing, tasting.

<comment><USER29> Your point of view is interesting but surprising. We are a small company and a small group, but I don't view (my definitions) of devops/sre as terribly dissimilar.

I think it's very reasonable to have one person responsible for compute storage and virtualization infrastructure.

I can see how a big company would specialize though.

Mail me if you're the least bit interested in a growing team with little shiny-chasing and lots of pragmatic engineering.

<comment><USER30> Yes, you're not wrong. I tend to think of the slightly larger, more complex scopes having multiple programs with many teams when looking at these things lately. This is just a small example of an impetuous reply not adding value and it didn't even reflect any real opinion that I may or may not hold.

I'm about a decade removed from any real "two-box shops" (small and/or startup focus etc.) and so sometimes think they can't possibly exist anymore. I see a few of the "we want the world" job postings and experience burnout just reading some of them.

"Pragmatic engineering" I like the sound of that but I'd secretly hope it's not meant to rhyme with "best practices" \- I like good practices and all but I like and appreciate the actual games much more. :O) That's just a small parting snark - mostly harmless. Best of luck on your search! I'm trying to maintain some focus on data operations at the moment but with any luck my next jump attempt will be into something counter to current trends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The spreadsheet was totally useless. The most interesting information was missing :(</comment>