Swift Functors, Applicatives, and Monads in Pictures - <AUTHOR> http://mokacoding.com/blog/functor-applicative-monads-in-pictures <comment><USER2> If functional languages had called them the Mappable, Applicable, and FlatMappable interfaces, and used map(), apply(), and flatMap() instead of operators, it would have avoided a lot of confusion. But I guess that's how you avoid success at all costs.

<comment><USER3> Honest question: Is there a reason 'flatmap' is any better other than it is what you learned it as somewhere?

I'm not convinced English has a word or convenient phrase for "monad", and it doesn't strike me that "flatMap" is it. How do I "flatMap" Haskell's STM monad? Or a probability monad? (I know the mechanics of the answer, I am specifically referring to the English-induced intution.) I don't see the intuition being particularly correct; flatMap is really tied to List, which isn't a particularly great thing to be tied to since it isn't very used. List's monadic interface is cute for some little algorithms, sure, which makes it disproportionately appear in examples, but list's monad implementation has complexity O(m^n) (where m is the size of the lists and n the number of lists you're going to consider) and you need some algorithm that gives you some _serious_ culling on that before it's practical for very much.

<comment><USER4> > flatMap is really tied to List

Its tied to _collections_ , not specifically to List. A number of (but certainly not all!) important monads are (or can be viewed as) collections, including Optional/Maybe (which can be viewed as a collection with cardinality restricted to being either 0 or 1.)

<comment><USER5> Follow-on question, are there any useful monadic constructs _not_ tied to collections (including optional as you said)?

<comment><USER6> Silly and wonderful there is always

        data Fake a = Fake

which is trivially a monad

        instance Monad Fake where
          return _ = Fake
          Fake >>= f = Fake

yet it clearly contains nothing.

<comment><USER7> Grandparent asked for _useful_ though :P

<comment><USER6> Who says Fake isn't useful? It's very useful for stating that nothing can happen :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I appreciate that this article is just a quick code snippet rewrite but it really could have done with some quick (even if ugly) edits on the graphics and as a result ditched all the Haskell asides.

Assuming of course that I'm correct in my assumption that the articles is aimed at Swifties looking at FAM and not Haskellers looking at Swift.

</comment><comment><USER9> People often complain about Haskell syntax and operators looking ugly (I disagree) but dang:

        func <^><T, U>(f: T -> U, a: T?) -> U? {
            return a.map(f)
        }

Gnartown!

<comment><USER10> What is so ugly about it? Swift tries to be somewhat close to the usual C-syntax (it's supposed to be the successor of Obj-C, after all).

For someone used to C-syntax, I guess the main deviation is that the return type is in the back and that there's a func keyword. As for the operaters, there is the addition of generics (what is wrong about <> ?), -> to describe signature of a function (a very sensible choice IMO) and ? for Optionals (again, fine for me).

I don't really see how a statically typed language can substantially improve this, but I'd be happy if someone can proof me wrong :-)

<comment><USER11> It's not clear to me why it's necessary to include <T, U> at the start of the function definition. In Haskell, unquantified type variables are implicitly universally quantified, i.e. you assume that the signature must be valid for any types T and U.

That's the only thing I think could be substantially improved, though. Personally I find the style where you separate the type signature from the function definition easier to read, for example

How about

        <^> : (T -> U) * T? -> U?
        <^> (f, a) {
            return a.map(f)
        }

or even

        <^> : (T -> U) * T? -> U?
        <^> (f, a) -> a.map(f)

which is already pretty close to the Haskell equivalent

        (<^>) :: (t -> u) -> Maybe t -> Maybe u
        (<^>) = fmap

Arguably, Haskell syntax could be improved with more built-in syntax

        <^> : (t -> u) -> t? -> u?
        <^> = fmap

though I haven't thought about what this means for parsing the language.

<comment><USER7> Explicit is better than implicit. Does Haskell allow functions to have value parameters that aren't declared?

<comment><USER12> Depends what you mean by "not declared". Haskell doesn't require you to provide type signatures, so if you don't put a type signature on a function, you can have parameters that aren't explicitly declared (though they still have an inferred static type, so you could use ghci to see what all the parameters are). If you do put any type signature on the function, then all parameters would have to be included.

<comment><USER7> If I make a typo when using a value parameter in a function definition, can I accidentally introduce an extra value parameter?

If I make a typo when using a type parameter in a function definition, can I accidentally introduce an extra type parameter?

<comment><USER12> > If I make a typo when using a value parameter in a function definition, can > I accidentally introduce an extra value parameter?

No.

> If I make a typo when using a type parameter in a function definition, can I > accidentally introduce an extra type parameter?

You couldn't introduce a new concrete type. You could introduce a new type variable, but the type signature would still have to typecheck, so it would difficult to come up with a non-contrived example where that would happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13>
        let post = Post.findByID(1)
        if post != nil {
          return post.title
        } else {
          return nil
        }

Or, as a cool C-like would put it:

        let post = Post.findByID(1)
        return post?.title

Just saying!

<comment><USER14> That is how it's done in Swift. Are you saying there are C languages that do the same thing?

<comment><USER13> Well, mine does ( [https://github.com/FeepingCreature/fcc](https://github.com/FeepingCreature/fcc) ). I don't think it's very widespread, sadly.

Example: [https://github.com/FeepingCreature/fcc/blob/master/tests/tes...](https://github.com/FeepingCreature/fcc/blob/master/tests/test69.nt)

<comment><USER14> Nice! If you want it to be, you should add some information and examples. Or a simple website, even.

<comment><USER13> No I mean the syntax. :)

For my language, I'll do some proper advertising on it once I figure out version two; v1 is very much a testbed for playing around with language design.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting. And people think Swift is easy to learn. Not all of it though.

<comment><USER16> Swift itself is quite easy to learn, and you don't actually have to do any functional programming in it if you don't know how to do so. I'll bet most people writing in Swift are doing little more than they would have done in Objective-C since it fully supports the OO paradigm. Over time, more and more will adopt some of the neat things you can do with this first-class functions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was expecting a Chipotle menu

</comment><comment><USER18> Why even have the concept of a monad in Swift? The language is neither lazy nor purely functional, so the problem monads were introduced to solve doesn't exist. You can just write regular code to do I/O.

<comment><USER19> Monads exist regardless of whether you call them that. They are a mathematical idea. An algebraic structure.

If you made a language that used conditionals based on 1 and 0, it could do _boolean logic_ , even if you didn't include boolean values explicitly.

Monads exist in just about every programming language. They weren't introduced to solve a problem. They already existed, and just happen to be useful to solve certain problems.

<comment><USER20> I've read that synchronously executed code from a text file is actually a form of monad in itself. Is this true?

<comment><USER7> Sequences of bytes form a monad. Sequences of machine instructions form a monad. (Indeed, for any x, sequences of x form a monad). This is occasionally a useful fact (e.g. it's what tells you that you can debug an assembly program by debugging the first half, then debugging the second half starting from the state it was in at the end of the first half).

The definition of a monad is really simple - a lot of things form monads. Which is what makes them so powerful, because if you write a function that works _on a generic monad_ , you find you can use that function for a lot of things.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple Hires Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts to Head Retail Efforts - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20131014/apple-hires-burberry-ceo-angela-ahrendts-to-head-its-retail-efforts/?mod=atd_homepage_carousel <comment><USER2> Let's just compare her to the recent cluster fuck John Browett.

If you'd have ever been into a Dixons in the UK you know it was all about hard selling microwaves and insurance.

However she is from Burberry, which is total elegance, luxury and class. You couldn't get a more extreme opposite to John Browett.

This feels like a good decision from the outset.

<comment><USER3> If Cook ever provides us with his memoirs, this will be one of the things I'll be most interested in. I've never been in a Dixons but it seemed like everyone who had howled in protest when Browett was hired. At the time, I assumed Cook knew something everybody else didn't… apparently not. Props for moving on quickly when it didn't work out, I suppose.

Anyway, Ms. Ahrendts seems like a pretty much perfect person for the role. I'm excited to see what Apple Retail does under her guidance.

And it might go without saying, but it'll be very nice to finally see a bit more diversity on [http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/](http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/).

<comment><USER4> Their hiring the Dixons guy was sort of astonishing. Dixons/Currys/PC World is about as close to the opposite of an Apple store as you can get.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Coming to an Apple store near you, accessories that complement the "chav" look of the gold, I'm sorry, "champagne" iPhone.

This is actually half in chest, Ahrendts is credited with saving Burberry [1]

Totally irrelevant, but they're also selling an alligator skin trench coat on their website for a measly 79,000.00 GBP. [2]

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/16/angela- ahren...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/16/angela-ahrendts- burberry-chav-image#start-of-comments)

[2] [http://uk.burberry.com/alligator-trench- coat-p38791451](http://uk.burberry.com/alligator-trench-coat-p38791451)

<comment><USER6> Trivializing her position to accessory-driven conclusions is misleading the $26MM/year salary she was receiving at Burberry. Clearly her role was something bigger like strategy and making the brand memorable. I would hope that is the plan, rather than creating iphone cases, as you suggested.

<comment><USER7> What's your reasoning behind using "MM" to denote million (as opposed the fewer keyed and more commonly accepted "m" or "M")? I see it a lot on Hacker News and I just can't figure out why people are doing it.

<comment><USER8> Latin for thousand M*M = one million

<comment><USER7> I appreciate what it represents, but that doesn't really address the reasoning behind the use. Beyond (as some people have said) "That's what accountants do", I have been completely unable to find any justification. We _have_ a word for million, and a commonly accepted abbreviation. Why use something else?

<comment><USER9> 'mm' _is_ a commonly accepted abbreviation...What exactly are you complaining about?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's a couple of things worth mentioning here:

\- Burberry is both a wholesaler and a retailer, which can be quite rare for luxury goods. (most are wholesalers who focus on brand and let others handle distribution) I believe Apple shares roughly the same mix of wholesale/retail revenue streams.

\- Head of retail is very specific to well, uh retail, which means she'll presumably be focusing much more on distribution through Apple's multi-channel (B&M, e-commerce, mobile stores, etc). One should also presume this means she'll be focusing on how to get more devices to more people...globally. (and less about "what an iPad looks like on 28 year old women")

\- Burberry has been massively successful in recent years in the Asian market (the growth is very slow in US/EU)

My armchair analyst conclusion is that this is a play to get more distribution to the Asian market. One thing I've noticed about the Asian markets (especially catering to the middle and upper middle class) is that they want to know what the trends are in the Western world. If they see rich western travellers buying luxury goods in their "rip-off" market they see those trends and mimic them (by buying the real thing). Burberry did one thing very well, which was set trends. That's something very difficult to do consistently, over a long period of time, and in your own wholly owned retail chain.

</comment><comment><USER11> I would be more optimistic about this than when they hired John Browett from DSG (Dixons Store Group - Currys, PC World, Pixmania...)

<comment><USER12> Wow, you are really setting the bar low! That was a disaster, and one foreseen by many immediately who had any familiarity with Dixons (I personally did not). At least Cook had the sense to fix his mistake quickly, to his credit. This choice makes a lot of sense, and I expect she will be a much better fit at Apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's a very interesting move, Burberry has weathered well over the last decade.

Also food for thought, Burberry made large inroads into China and tailored a lot of their retail efforts around that. Maybe Apple thinks it's time to double down on their China strategy.

<comment><USER6> Admittedly, I am not a Burberry-china strategist, but it appears a direct quote from her in this article seems to say the exact opposite of China being a growth market for Burberry:

"She added that future growth would likely come from India, Latin America and Indonesia."

Do you possibly have a source or anecdotal evidence to support that statement you presented?

[http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/436421/China-helps- Bur...](http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/436421/China-helps-Burberry-bag- first-half-sales-of-1billion)

<comment><USER14> Nowhere does gp say that China will be a future growth market for Burberry. But even so, how can you conclude that the article says the opposite based on this one sentence? Most of the article is about Burberry's success in China, and it even mentions sales growth percentage expected.

I read the article as saying that China is going well for Burberry and is expected to continue to go well. Additional growth on top of that will also come from other countries. This is likely because China's been penetrated pretty well by Burberry, whereas those other countries haven't yet.

Live in China, and my anecdotal experience is that the Burberry advertising and store presence is on par with a lot of luxury brands here. They've done well.

<comment><USER15> I think the CCP's recent cutback on bribes and conspicuous consumption limits their growth potential for the next few years. Their biggest season in Beijing used to be when the national congress was in session...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This hire is a more natural fit than most techies would think.

The genius of Jobs was that he understood better than others that personal tech had more to do with fashion industry than tech industry.

He run Apple as a fashion company: he set trends, introduced seasonal device colours and collections, presented them in fashion gala shows packed with industry press. He was a fashion dictator.

Most of their competition still doesn't get it, they still think they sell technology.

Apple builds great technology, but it sells hip and sexy.

</comment><comment><USER6> "...in this newly created position..."

I always love this corporate ploy bc we never know if they created this position to fit the candidates ego, or whether the company wanted this position to happen regardless of the person appointed to the role.

My guess would be it is the former, but it's kind of like commenting on bird migration patterns bc I don't know anything about bird migration patterns!

<comment><USER17> Yeah, it's also interesting that she is effectively taking a demotion, from CEO to "senior vp". Burberry is a prestigious brand, and I'm very curious what factors led to her decision.

<comment><USER18> Whilst being the CEO of a FTSE 100 company is very impressive, Angela is going to head up the retail division of the world's largest company.

I'd take a guess that if Apple Retail was a separate company from Apple, it'd still be worth more than the whole of Burberry.

<comment><USER19> I agree. But this isn't about how much money the company is worth but the amount of control she has.

As seen before, most people don't get to sit on the Head of Retail chair for a long time and can be removed by Tim Cook at any time. Angela could have stayed as CEO for at least one more decade.

I assume that they are compensating her heavily for his move.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Burberry has been showing technology adaptation consistently in the past few years, and also took part in the music promotion with their Burberry Acoustic department, which is close to what Apple is doing with iTunes and iTunes Festival. I think this relates to the Apple culture deeply, not to mention their deep link to aesthetics and fashion. I see it as a great evolution for Apple retail and Angela.

</comment><comment><USER21> Aside from the comeback of Burberry under the leadership of Angela Ahrendts does have similarities to the comeback of Apple with Steve Jobs and definitely the retail efforts of Burberry, I have a feeling this hire may also be to lead the wearable computing era that Apple is rumored to be starting soon with the iWatch

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm taking this as a weak hint that Apple is moving away from what I wish it were. Burberry sells useless stuff for lots of money. I was hoping Apple would try harder to be genuinely useful.

Still, it's a big ship and this hire won't really change anything. And to be able to be useful, Apple are also going to have to be able to extract money from fools.

<comment><USER23> If many people are willing to pay lots of money, I don't think things they sell are useless.

<comment><USER22> Counterexample: Cigarettes aren't useful.

Consumers may perceive things to have value, and pay accordingly, but I see no need to relinquish my sense and judgement that certain things are actually useless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The connection between Apple and luxury will only be strengthened because of this.

<comment><USER25> It's interesting how the luxury brand of Apple used to be a hindrance, but is now seen as crucial to fighting off lower-end disruption.</comment></comment>


Google Life Sciences Exodus - <AUTHOR> http://www.statnews.com/2016/03/28/google-life-sciences-exodus/ <comment><USER2> _Former employees, however, characterized Conrad in less complimentary tones. They said he exaggerates what Verily can deliver, launches big projects on a whim, and rashly diverts resources from prior commitments to the next hot idea that might bring in revenue._

This reminded me of the Bloomberg article about Boston Dynamics: (1)

 _But behind the scenes a more pedestrian drama was playing out. Executives at Google parent Alphabet Inc., absorbed with making sure all the various companies under its corporate umbrella have plans to generate real revenue, concluded that Boston Dynamics isn't likely to produce a marketable product in the next few years and have put the unit up for sale_

Is it safe to say that despite Google's founders' expansive visions of the future, the company is not really interested in expensive "moonshots" that might take many years to realize? It sounds like the robotics and medical innovation labs are really more focused on inventions that will bring in cash in the next few years.

1\. [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/google- is-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/google-is-said-to- put-boston-dynamics-robotics-unit-up-for-sale)

<comment><USER3> That's a shame. I'd like to believe that large companies like Google could throw a bit of cash towards open-ended problems. Realistically it's large companies, governments (please no) and research institutions that can afford to think on large timescales. Governments don't and probably shouldn't, research institutions are fine, but large corporations with nice payscales also feel to me like they should be taking part.

<comment><USER4> >Governments don't and probably shouldn't

The extreme irony of you writing this comment on the Internet should not go unnoticed. Are you really unaware of the extent to which the government underpins all of the interesting long range research in the country?

<comment><USER5> In a sense, the Internet is the poster child for this, because the alternatives funded and promoted by the telecom industry was so closed that it never grew. The rapid growth of the internet happened because the government funded it for many years (pre-ARPAnet, ARPAnet/NSFNet/etc, then Internet) before it was really ready to expand rapidly. Then, when it was growing rapidly, it funded people to study tech that allowed it to continue to grow rapidly.

AT&T and ITU and others never would have been able to do this with the tech they promoted- we'd all be using 56Kbps modems to call BBSes today if they had won.

<comment><USER6> >AT&T and ITU and others never would have been able to do this with the tech they promoted- we'd all be using 56Kbps modems to call BBSes today if they had won.

This is such a ridiculous statement I can't tell if it's sarcasm (from the post I guess not - but that's the kind og argument I'd make if I wanted to make a strawman argument on this), extreeme hyperbole or you really beleive it ?

<comment><USER5> I've studied the history of the internet and have also talked extensively with ppl on both sides of the discussion. At best we'd still be using ISDN which isn't much better than 56kbs

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Biology is hard in a way that directly conflicts with silicon valley managerial thinking.

There is a reason pharma and biotech companies are slow lumbering giants. It's so they can absorb the impact of R&D failures.

<comment><USER8> I was going to mention this. Andy Grove wrote a number of papers where he said "if biotech just does what the tech sector does, we'd have hundreds of new drugs".

The fact is, it doesn't work that way in biology. When developing new biotech, you'd be lucky if you understood 5% of what a new drug does in the body (sometimes it's 0%!). Serendipity plays a huge part in new drug discovery, although most companies don't like to admit it.

Also, I'm not surprised that Google has matured to the point where "moonshots" don't work so well. You see it in biopharma as well. Huge companies, with billions of dollars of R&D spend fail to produce new innovation on a regular basis. It's the small biotech companies that seem to come up with the innovations, often on a much smaller budget.

The reasons for that are multiple, but it does come down to a big company worrying about how they will grow their $100 billion company by 10% (finding $10B in business isn't easy) and the fact that with large companies comes structure, process and other things that stifle innovation.

<comment><USER5> I don't think Andy was completely wrong, or right, in his thinking that if biotech copied tech, they would be more successful. He was naive, and didn't really understand the underlying structural reasons for the inability to translate the tech sector to the biotech sector.

I went from academia to industry to learn how to do what Andy said: make biotech copy tech. In many ways, I was extremely successful: I built Exacycle, which took Google's style of warehouse computing and made it available to a number of biology researchers. The scientists who were successful with it basically had to drop a lot of the preconceived notions about how to solve problems- they were accustomed to spending a huge amount of time setting up their simulations or drug docking (months or years of prep work before running sims for a year). Exacycle converted this to a rapid cycle where they could test an idea in a day on 600+Kcores/sec, make a few tweaks, and run again. This greatly sped up the productivity of scientists.

Ultimately, these ideas weren't well received in biotech until we published a bombshell paper on GPCRs that spoke to them in their language. Even then, it wasn't a product that I think any biotech would want to buy (this is the part where Andy was spot-on). I think Google/Verily paid attention to what we had to say and hopefully, they'll be able to succeed in ways that biotech does not.

At this point, though, I think the nail is in the coffin for rational drug design as a multibillion dollar investment for pharma. It's just not productive enough. Instead, I think pharma needs to solve the inverse problem: for every drug that is already approved for something, what diseases can it impact (the RDD problem is "for a given disease, find a drug that modulates the disease").

<comment><USER9> The real nail is that each individual is unique. There are not X number of disease cases out there, there are Y number of more or less closely related disease states. We might say that someone is suffering from the disease of high blood pressure, but the underlying causes and hence ideal treatment is unique to that individual. Add in idiosyncratic responses and the drug discovery problem is almost impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hmm, first quote is from Rob Enderle, who has in my past experience either being a quote-for-hire who will say whatever the journalist wants them to say, or just totally wrong of his own volition. Either way, as annoying as that "Didn't read past..." thing is, seeing his name was enough for me to close the tab.

<comment><USER11> I was dismayed by that too, but there seems to be a lot of first-hand sources as well. It's a long piece and a very short quote from Enderle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> After reading this article, it's no wonder. Conrad hasn't been a real technical person in decades. He's a hard-charging business type who learned from a billionaire real estate guy.

Nothing wrong with that personality type it's just totally not a fit with Google or frankly with managing any sort of technical people.

</comment><comment><USER13> What I still don't get is why Google thinks they're good at moonshots, or why they're a good idea in the first place. Google is great at tons of stuff, but all this rhetoric about moonshots seems really empty and baseless.

<comment><USER14> >why Google thinks they're good at moonshots, or why they're a good idea in the first place.

this is the only way to deal with a perpetuum mobile of a money printer they've got in house and the resulting 70B+ cash pile problem, and to avoid it growing into 200B problem that Apple is battling (when did you hear anything new from Apple? - yep, this is how left unchecked small issue grows info a big problem). So, either moonshots (probably a lot of them and god forbid one turns into a money printer too) or pay the dividend like IBM.

<comment><USER13> Or why not cut your margins right down, helping your customers and hurting your competitors, like Amazon?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This article cites Rob Enderle. Remembering his performance during SCO/IBM saga I would be very cautious to make conclusions based on his analysis.

</comment><comment><USER16> > Friends call him charming and farsighted — a "disruptor," in the words of > former Paramount Pictures head Sherry Lansing, who will "always challenge > the way things are done."

Well disrupting markets is cool, disrupting people not always.

From experience, usually managers who like to disrupt have some insecurity about them (they know they lack technical knowledge or other personal things) or they are under high pressure, which translates to going around disrupting things because it feels to them and to those above them that work is being done -- "look at all this work, we've re-organized practices 2x this year, switched to agile and so on isn't that great!" kind of stuff.

<comment><USER17> I have never worked at a place were that wasn't the case for higher management. In some places that was 90% of what management did (ie. 100% of what was visible to reports plus more that wasn't even directly visible), in some places it was 30% or so (ie. 50% of what was visible to reports).

But I've never been at a place where turning the wheel (a -> b -> c -> a) wasn't a big part of what management did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Turns out people are hard. You can be a brilliant mind, but that doesn't equate to being a good social engineer. No real, tested science on getting all those complex components together and work productively.

</comment><comment><USER19> Larry's standard M.O. Hire and empower megalomaniacs because he thinks everything runs too slow and the right way to speed it up is to act like a startup, with one huge personality driving everything.

He tried it with Andy/Android, Vic/G+, and Conrad/Verily, among lots of other places. It doesn't work very well, but it looks like it has great 'velocity' so he's happy.

<comment><USER20> Having worked for Andy and Conrad I don't think that comparison is true at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Offtopic: given that the life sciences are the promised new hi-tech boom, I'm wondering why there are so few posts about it on HN (?)

<comment><USER5> Life science was the promised boom 25 years ago when I started undergrad as a mol bio major. Very little progress. I check back in every decade or so and things proceed slowly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > _he exaggerates what Verily can deliver, launches big projects on a whim, > and rashly diverts resources from prior commitments to the next hot idea > that might bring in revenue. This has led to what they describe as difficult > meetings with business partners, and resignations by demoralized engineers > and scientists in the face of seemingly impossible demands._

Someone has already made the comparison to boston dynamics, but doesn't this also sound just like the recent problems within dropcam/nest?

Does anybody have a counterexample of somebody with this personality leading a team to greatness?

It feels like a personality type like this is mentioned more often than not when my technical friends leave companies. Somebody has to frame the memo that guys like this (they're always guys) will kill your org.

<comment><USER23> > they're always guys

Marissa Mayer might qualify.

<comment><USER24> Gini Rometty, Ellen Pao, Meg Whitman, and Carly Fiorina don't exactly have stellar reputations either.

I don't think it's a guy thing - I think it's a corporate culture thing.

You get failure and disaster whenever you have overpaid and undertalented management. Gender isn't particularly relevant.

You especially get failure and disaster when upper management runs a corporation as its own personal cash cow and makes decisions for reasons of self-promotion, self-image, or plain greed, instead of for sound growth- oriented reasons - never mind employee welfare.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Good Lord, there is so much to unpack in this article. Lets start here:

 _In short, he wants "to defeat Mother Nature," Conrad told STAT in a brief interview last fall when the Verily name was unveiled._

I mean, welcome to every doctor and bio researcher ever. Bio is hard, very hard. Think of it this way, your code is actually alive and trying to kill you back. Doyah' think that might increase the complexity and timelines for debugging a bit, maybe?

* And its researchers have published just one scholarly article — about a spoon for people with hand tremors.*

I actually saw some of this too. It's a neat idea, The Bodine lab at CU Denver does some cool stuff with this too, using rubber-bands and not electronics that run out of batteries. It's cool stuff, really, but its a 'if all you have is a hammer' myopic outlook for the problem. I concede that the leapfrogging would be great from there.

 _A new car has up to 400 different sensors. You know the oil pressure. You know how much air's in your tires. But we don't do that for people," Conrad says on a promotional video posted on Verily's website. "Instead of episodic, reactive health care, we should provide preventative and proactive health care," personalized to the individual._

Let's ignore the privacy issues that places like 23andme are dealing with when it comes to this level of detail. The cost alone and the time needed to validate these things are non trivial. If you have, I dunno, black skin or freckles, how much more complex did you just make the problem for an optical sensor? Yes, I can hear you already, you start putting in a case struct in your code, blammo, done. Ok, now for every single sense you add, you have to do this all over. Then you have to train this on the staggering variety of healthy human geometry. The time and more importantly, the power, needed to do this increases factorially (I think) with each new sensor paradigm. Oh, and then you sweat a little bit or go outside. In short, this is really hard.

 _Verily says it has two wristbands in the works: one to read diagnostic nanoparticles that would detect cancer or other ailments at very early stages, another to continuously monitor skin temperature, pulse, and other heart activity._

Ok, this is a pop-press article and I will give a pass to the band that is essentially a fit-bit. Journalists are low-paid compared to their hours and utility to society and, as such, can make very big differences seem mundane. However, the cancer screening band sounds too good to be true. As such, it likely is. I admit, I have no idea what this thing is or how well it works, but there is a significant test it needs to pass: is it better than a dog? ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_cancer_detection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_cancer_detection))

Ok, look, I make it seem like these guys are fools. They are not, they are all very smart and very hard working people that want to see the world as a better place. However, the SV bubble that includes YC and their ventures into biotech, is just foolish here. \

Bio is Hard, full stop.

Bio wastes colossal amounts of cash in failed ventures, more so than in tech, though I have no data to back this up. Bio is not something that you 'hack', it hacks you (see any disease or disability). I get it, VCs see the profit margins on Viagra and their mouths get wet. Here is what you need to know though, in biotech the road to success is very very difficult, but once you get 'there' you essentially have a monopoly due to that barrier to entry. But don't confuse that monopoly with the the reality that many grad students and VCs imploded in failed ventures too.

Mad respect to those folks working under this guy, but SV needs to understand that debugging yourself is neigh impossible.

</comment><comment><USER21> Medicine and an advertising agency, I'm not sure if they are such a great combination anyway.

<comment><USER26> A distressingly large function of many pharmaceutical companies is "drugs marketing".

There may be more synergy than you think.</comment></comment>


German Regulators Tell Tesla to Stop Advertising Cars with Gas Savings in Price - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedrive.com/news/26842/german-regulators-tell-tesla-to-stop-advertising-cars-with-gas-savings-included-in-price <comment><USER2> Good. No one else plays this deceptive game, cherry-picking individual costs of ownership. You can advertise (but not promise!) expected savings, but pretending this reduces the price of the car is deceptive.

<comment><USER3> Let's be honest though, is anyone fooled by this? If you are plopping down ~50k for a car you should read the text directly on their first. It says the full price as well as the price minus savings in gas, in the same font size. I get it, it's tacky, but it's not like hidden fine-print and fees 10 pages into a contract.

<comment><USER4> I've been a Tesla shareholder since 2016, and I think the German government is right. I sincerely hope Tesla drops this, not just in Germany but worldwide.

The question isn't "is anyone fooled by this anyway?", it's "why is Tesla using deceptive practices?". IMO, they should feel free to point out cost savings somewhere, but they should not fudge guestimated values into the first price they show you. It's not just tacky, it's bullshit. Energy cost and tax savings vary by region and based on your individual situation, your driving habits, etc. Tax refunds do not affect the cost you have to pay for a car upfront. Elon Musk is an engineer at heart, and I feel like he should know better. Doing things like this loses them the respect of a lot of people.

<comment><USER5> I personally feel like pricing in tax refunds into the displayed cost of the car is fair game, but pricing in gas savings is bullshit.

Tax refunds is money I'm definitely going to get back in a bounded (and reasonably short) amount of time. If I pay $40k for a car and get $7k back in the same year, it seems reasonable to advertise the cost as $33k (assuming it's clear that $7k of that is a tax refund).

But gas savings feels like bullshit -- it's money I may or may not get back (depending on my habits), the time horizon is unbounded, and even if it were bounded, it's long (an order of multiple years). That feels deceptive to me, and it's surprising they got away with it until now.

<comment><USER6> In the US, the federal tax credit is a "credit" rather than a refund. That means that if you don't pay enough federal taxes in that year, you won't be saving the listed amount. Many state rebates don't work like this, but in some sense it is still misleading for Tesla and other electric vehicle manufacturers to not make this clear.

<comment><USER7> How many people can afford a Tesla while not having $7k of federal tax liability?

<comment><USER8> The same way "students" and "homemakers" sometimes buy multimillion dollar properties: offshore money (laundering).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We europeans don't like it when the final, listed price isn't the price you have to pay when you buy something. It's the same for airline tickets: no hidden fees in the final listed price allowed.

<comment><USER10> Somewhat unrelated, but the first time I bought something in a physical store in the USA, i thought i was being ripped off, because the final price came out different than the one that was listed next to the item. I had no idea that it was standard practice to exclude taxes from the displayed price.

<comment><USER11> Yeah that is bullshit that should have been stopped 50 years ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> it is the one shameful act I have to encourage people to ignore when using the Tesla site. the truth is they don't need to do this to sell their cars, it just looks tacky.

to be honest it is stunts like this where regulation does come in handy. like how we have truth in lending laws for home loans and even cars.

<comment><USER13> I don't think it's the only "shameful" thing unfortunately. The claim of cars being capable of FSD is pretty clearly nonsense, although I recognize that some true believers will take some more years to accept that. Still, I think most of us have figured out that full automation isn't right around the corner, and unless we posit that Musk is an idiot (he isn't) then he knows that too.

My dream for Tesla is thst Musk is gone, soon, because while he appears able to start great things, he's a pretty lousy leader (and person) beyond that. I look at SpaceX and see something great that for the most part, does its thing because Musk isn't around. I look at Tesla and I see him screwing around on Twitter, lying, and generally being a drain on the company. Tesla has too much good going on to make stupid promises about FSD or bullshit about their pricing.

<comment><USER14> > Still, I think most of us have figured out that full automation isn't right > around the corner, and unless we posit that Musk is an idiot (he isn't) then > he knows that too.

Except that just the other day Musk went on record (on an earnings call?) saying that Tesla's would be capable of "full self driving, coast to coast, this year"...

<comment><USER15> Uff, wincing facepalm. That man needs to close his mouth.

I would bet 85% odds that Tesla is eventually going to offer a refund to all current Model 3 owners who "pre-purchased" self driving. In fact, _that 's_ the event that is more likely to happen "coast to coast, this year".

Calling it now: There will be an "autopilot hardware v2." And Tesla will have to dig deep to pay back all that pre-purchased FSD cash, probably plus extra to stave off a class action lawsuit, which is its own risk.

I would love to see full self driving, but I don't trust that hardware. I would love to see Tesla succeed, but I fear that Musk himself will bring it down.

<comment><USER16> He isn't necessarily lying, and there won't be a lawsuit.

The "self-driving" will be made available, both in hardware and software. It just won't be usable on roads (because every state will immediately outlaw it).

Few owners, brave enough to try it in spite of regulations, might discover some notable flaws... But hey, — no one promised you a _perfect_ self-driving! You will be able to "self-drive" in couple of dedicated cities or around wilderness in the middle of nowhere (with modest risk of damaging vehicle), and that's supposedly what everyone has paid for. Musk won't be held responsible for restrictive laws, — he most likely anticipates that and hopes precisely for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The headline is wrong. It's not a regulator telling anything. A regulator would be a federal or state body making a decision (which then might be challenged in court). It's an organization which maybe could be called a self- regulation body threatening with a lawsuit. And Tesla agreeing "voluntarily" to stop the practice. Well, voluntarily, because they obviously admit that their previous practice would be deemed illegal in court.

<comment><USER18> The Wettbewerbszentrale is a bit more than a self-regulating body (and why self-regulating? The "regulated" business aren't members). It has special legal status in that it can start such lawsuits, which normal associations can't.

<comment><USER17> I must admit that I don't have a deeper understanding of their members. Can you shed some light of the structure/profile of their 1200 business members and 800 (lobbying) organisation members?

<comment><USER19> The list of members is here: [https://www.wettbewerbszentrale.de/de/institution/mitgliedsc...](https://www.wettbewerbszentrale.de/de/institution/mitgliedschaft/mitgliederverzeichnis/)

It includes for example Audi, BMW, Daimler, Ford, Opel, Volkswagen, the VDA (Verband der Automobilindustrie; German Association of the Automotive Industry) and the VDIK (Verband der Internationalen Kraftfahrzeughersteller; Association of International Motor Vehicle Manufacturers)

VDA members are here: [https://www.vda.de/en/association/members.html](https://www.vda.de/en/association/members.html)

VDIK members are here: [http://www.vdik.de/members/members.html](http://www.vdik.de/members/members.html) and include for example Citroën, Fiat, Honda, Hyundai, Jeep, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugot, Renault, Saab, Toyota, Volvo...

<comment><USER17> OK, so all traditional car manufacturers are there. Tesla is probably not represented and at all or only with a very minimal weight through some association. No surprise they don't accept Tesla's aggressive and misleading marketing, which did not exist in Germany before and is not in compliance with accepted legal practice.

On the other hand there are so many competing companies represented there, that similar practices of any single traditional manufacturer would not be accepted either. So I don't see why people reject the characterization of self-regulation.

Of course if most of the car manufacturers agree to do something illegal the self-regulation will fail. This has happened in the car manufacturing supply- chain, fines have been imposed and more investigations are on the way IIRC. That is governed by different legislation.

Probably also in the emission frauds there have been at least been "gentlemen" agreements. It's not very convincing that the engineers of the competitors did not understand how some manufacturers achieved their emission values.

But also cases related to consumer marketing which should be covered by the self-regulation remain unsatisfactory. It's well known that all manufacturers advertise misleading and unrealistic mileage values that no driver can achieve in real life. So if the majority of the businesses agrees to cheat customers self-regulation just fails. They will just stop newcomers who try to be disruptive in their cheating.

In the end every decision could be brought to court. As a matter of fact in the case of self-regulation it would not have even been Tesla who would have needed to appeal a decision. There was no decision, just a request to comply with legislation. They could have just waited whether Wettbewerbszentrale goes to court. That they decided to comply without any court decision tells a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This makes sense to me: On any purchasing/configuring/ordering page, the local-currency number displayed should be the number that is actually being charged, and that number should have the highest weight (the largest size, the most-emphasized, etc.).

<comment><USER21> Europeans might be particularly sensitive to this mispricing, because I think they enjoy SANE advertised pricing all around - such as including tax in the price.

Meanwhile, the shenanigans in US advertised pricing allows for enormous hidden costs - think cellphone, cable or telephone bills.

<comment><USER22> > Europeans might be particularly sensitive to this mispricing, because I > think they enjoy SANE advertised pricing all around - such as including tax > in the price

How does that work for online advertising and online shopping sites? Most of Europe uses destination based VAT for remote sales, which could make it very difficult or annoying to include VAT in the advertised price if the ads or shopping site reach more than one country.

<comment><USER23> Most Europen countries also have their own languages. All of them have their own top level domains. And despite the Euro, there are 11 different currencies used in the EU.

VAT just isn't particularly hard, as business problems go.

<comment><USER24> It's not that trivial either (search for "VAT MOSS" to learn more), but otherwise your point is valid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think most consumers take "savings" to mean "reduction in purchase price." Obviously, (or not so obviously) Tesla's sales-page means something different. But even if you dig into the asterisk next to the "after savings price" you find some aggressive assumptions. And $4300 gas savings over 6 years is not worth $4300 today to any rational person on this Earth. They need an asterisk explanation within their asterisk explanation stating they assume a 0% discount rate.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's disappointing that Tesla needs to be told to stop this deceptive practice

</comment><comment><USER27> They already did this change in Norway. Before the main price you saw was included the savings, now the main price you see is the actual price.

You can click on a "details" button where it will expand and list all the details, and only there, after the purchase price it'll say how much you can save by not having to buy gas.

</comment><comment><USER28> The problem with Tesla's pricing shenanigans is that it makes me not trust them at face value on the issue of pricing. The other day Tesla plainly tweeted Model 3 pricing and explicitly noted that the pricing was "before incentives" but I still had to wonder, "But is that the actual price or not?" because of their history of and reputation for bizarre communication when it comes to what the actual price of their cars are.

</comment><comment><USER29> Isn't this including negative opportunity cost in the price? I agree with one of the comments that the price should reflect what you have to pay at time of sale. The problem with this approach is that they are assuming too many things. The biggest assumption is 1) that buyers are comparing a Tesla to another car. Why not a motorcycle with better fuel efficiency. This also assumes a fixed differential between gas and energy costs which may or may not hold and 3) that a comparable time period is 6 years and 4) a present value discount rate of 0%. Sure, anyone can calculate all sorts of returns on investment on meechandise. But why don't we just agree to quote the investment and not the return. At the end of the day, that's all we know today.

</comment><comment><USER30> finally - it was an utter nonsense of a claim.

</comment><comment><USER31> Is the electricity that goes into a Tesla actually a cost savings over the cost of gasoline that goes into a gas powered car?

<comment><USER32> Yes, definitely, even with high-electricity-cost utilities.

Even the big, heavy older Teslas get the equivalent of at least 60 mpg (say, 300 watt hours per mile at 15 cents per kWh vs $3 for a gallon of gas).

<comment><USER33> Electricity is still cheaper than gas, but electricity in many European countries these days is at least 30 cents per kWh (and rising every year), instead of the 15 cents you mention.

<comment><USER34> The eMPG is an attempt to convert WH/m into MPG based on some fixed numbers for $/kWh and $/gallon.

 _a_ WH/m x _b_ $/kWh / 1000 = _x_ $/mi

 _c_ $/ga gasoline / _x_ $/mi = mpg equivalent.

For a=300, b=0.15, c=$3.00 you get 66mpg.

You can plug in your own numbers as you see fit.

The cost savings is then estimated by plugging in a number of miles driven, and comparing gallons of gas versus a hypothetically less efficient car (not sure what MPG rating Tesla uses for its comparison)

Note that the Tesla Model 3 is closer to 150 WH/mi. And what does gasoline cost in those European countries?

<comment><USER33> €1.3 per litre, so that's $5.53 per gallon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> They better advertise the higher residual price of a car after N years ownership. That's where the savings are! Or better yet, not advertise, but partner with banks to launch the lease program taking in account these savings. 3-yr lease of a $35K model 3 will be comparable to a typical $25-$28K car.

<comment><USER36> Who would buy a used Tesla?

The thing would need to be mint as any minor issue would be takes months to fix.

<comment><USER37> In defense of buying a used Tesla I really appreciate the idea that if your car is 'out of date' in terms of current hardware you can simply pay for an upgrade instead of being told you have to sell your car as used and buy a whole new car. When you think of how much money a lot of people invest in their cars treating it as a disposable commodity doesn't make a lot of sense economically and ecologically. In terms of turnaround time, obviously your point is valid, but if Tesla manages to disrupt the entire paradigm of an industry in a positive way it may be a minor critique in the grand scheme of things.

<comment><USER36> I've never purchased a car new, and my previous daily driver was a 2003 that was damaged in a minor collision last year.

With every car I've owned, I have no direct relationship with the OEM. I think I had a Cadillac repaired by the dealer once because it ended up being cheaper. That's a feature. I've seen what happens when companies corner the market on anything — it's not good for anyone but the company abusing the market.

I'd lease a Tesla. Anything else is too big a risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> On one hand, these numbers are kinda bogus. On the other... ICE car prices should really be advertised with a reasonable fuel cost included, particularly in Germany where fuel is so expensive.

<comment><USER26> All carmakers disclose the fuel economy of their vehicles. How much you'll actually pay for fuel depends greatly on not just the fuel economy of the vehicle, but how much you drive, how aggressively you drive, and the price of fuel in your area and at the particular time. I don't see how you could distill all that down to a single number that means anything.

<comment><USER38> A reasonable guess would be fine. It's what appliances are required to do, for example.

<comment><USER39> It's reasonable to assume that a fridge or freezer is powered on 24/7/365.

For a car there simply cannot be a correspondingly safe assumption, can there?

<comment><USER40> They could do the calculation based on the amount and type of driving done by the median driver. Then this would be a good approximation for most people and the outlier who knows they drive twice that many miles could double the number etc.

<comment><USER41> I think most people will get a better picture seeing the usual numbers like "4.8 l/100km urban, 4.5 mixed, 4.2 highway" than something like "median fuel cost per year 850€".

Especially since you can't estimate the future price of fuel.

<comment><USER40> The problem with l/100km is that you can't compare it to purchase prices without doing math, which makes it less intuitive.

This is especially true once you're no longer comparing the same units even between vehicles. It's much easier to compare euros with euros than having to compare euros with l/100km _and_ kWh/100km.

Moreover, it's possible to make a plausible fuel price estimate based on current and historical prices, and if it turns out to be wrong then it wouldn't be any less wrong for having the buyer calculate it instead of the seller.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> It was about time!

</comment><comment><USER43> People might not be aware how much they can save on gas prices by switching to full electric. I don't see any downside in advertising an estimate. It's not like they are presenting that as the price with a footnote that says it includes gas savings.

<comment><USER44> _It's not like they are presenting that as the price with a footnote that says it includes gas savings._

That is very close to what they are doing. If it had the real price and it said "You would save x amount with this option" I doubt anyone would care.

<comment><USER45> That's exactly what I'm seeing. A price with an asterisk, and below the fold, "Prices above include potential incentives and gas savings."

So, it's not just "like" they are doing it, they are doing it.

<comment><USER18> No, it's very different.

They are allowed to advertise "price X, but remember you also save Y per year". But not "price X minus Y".</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Wine and Water - <AUTHOR> http://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com/2004/10/wine-and-water.html <comment><AUTHOR> I poured a glass of syrah with my lunch just now and thought of Homer's watered wine. The referenced post suggests via original sources that unmixed was barbaric and for drunks. Other explanations say that it's more about improving the taste of water.

A mix as low as 20:1 is mentioned. Hesiod's 3:1 seemed like a good proportion to try. It's not anywhere near as bad as expected; refreshing; could be iced; could be honeyed.</comment>


Facebook's plan to unite AR, VR and News Feed with 3D posts - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/20/facebook-3d-posts/ <comment><USER2> Similar attempts have been made. I don't see the Minority Report interface working here.</comment>


Ask HN: Who is investing in side projects? - <AUTHOR> Curious to see if someone still invests in side projects or not? It would be awesome to connect if you are doing so. <comment><USER2> Minor suggestion that may help you get more responses... they way you phrased the question with the word "on" is a little ambiguous. I can't tell if you are asking which people/companies are investing 'in' side projects of other developers or if you are asking if there are individual developers investing their own time/money working 'on' their own side projects (and perhaps you're curious about what they're working on to potentially collaborate). If the former I recommend using 'in', if the latter I would use 'on'.

I'm not a grammar cop, I just literally could not determine which question you were asking.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for pointing my mistake. I have edited the question now.

<comment><USER3> But your edit is still not clear. Do you mean invest money in other people's side projects or invest your own time/money in your own project ?

<comment><USER4> I think it's clear now. He wants angel investors to invest in his side projects.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How men and women name colours differently - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/05/a-fascinating-visualization-of-how-men-and-women-see-colors-differently/

<comment><AUTHOR> Data is from a 2010 XKCD blog post survey: [http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/03/01/color-name- survey/](http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/03/01/color-name-survey/) (Actual survey no longer appears to be live)

The interactive data viz is here: [http://www.datapointed.net/visualizations/color/men-women- co...](http://www.datapointed.net/visualizations/color/men-women-color- names-d3/)</comment>


Everything you ever wanted to know about terminals - <AUTHOR> http://xn--rpa.cc/irl/term.html <comment><USER2> >so here's a short tutorial on ansi escape codes and terminal control, because you philistines won't stop using ncurses and oh my god WHY ARE WE STILL USING NCURSES IT IS THE TWENTY FIRST FUCKING CENTURY

Please either write a "modern" replacement or show us that one exists, before proceeding to tell us not to use ncurses.

</comment><comment><USER3> Alexander Burger, author of PicoLisp, has done something similar by outputting ANSI codes directly:

[https://www.mail-archive.com/picolisp@software- lab.de/msg090...](https://www.mail-archive.com/picolisp@software- lab.de/msg09043.html)

(Vip is a vi clone written in PicoLisp)</comment>


Show HN: I Wrote a Python Program to Play Google Dino Game Using GestRecognition - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/er9q4h/i_wrote_a_python_program_to_play_google_dinosaur/ <comment><USER2> Thats pretty cool, I guess the video feed is slightly delayed, it looks like it jumps before you even do the gesture?</comment>


The Dirty Little Secret of Successful Companies - <AUTHOR> http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/the-dirty-little-secret-of-successful-companies/

<comment><USER4> One of the original demotivational posters: "Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all of the unhappy people." <http://www.despair.com/demotivation.html>

<comment><USER5> I think there might be an argument for firing all the happy people - <USER2> along the lines of they can only get unhappy and ruin your stats whilst at least the unhappy ones might get happier, especially after escaping from being fired.

No, probably not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just about every company I have ever worked for has been very hesitant to fire, and it's really detrimental to the company, its customers and its employees. The end result is usually the good employees move on. My girlfriend works for the federal government and there it's basically impossible to get fired. The end result for her is a very miserable work environment. She is actively seeking other jobs.

<comment><USER7> I can't seem to find the study at the moment, but I recall reading one that found that, indeed, never firing people can have a detrimental effect on morale, and firing long-term poor performers can improve it. However, they found that this was basically a one-time "cleanup" effect, and that attempting to make it recurring via a regular, institutionalized system of firing poor performers (e.g. based on annual performance reviews) had the opposite effect, lowering morale as everyone was constantly worried about the next review, including people who objectively had almost no chance of falling below the threshhold.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The thing he doesn't mention is that some companies can be a "6."

What I mean is that a company can seem to be a good enough fit to the prospective employee but turns out, after a period of working together, to be a poor fit from the employee's perspective. During the hiring process maybe they spotted some weak areas or got an inaccurate picture of the work culture and environment. Maybe after hiring the job is not quite what was advertised. What matters is that they decided to take the job, even though it's not an optimal fit, because the potential positives outweighed the potential negatives.

What I wonder is what's the best way to deal with this from both the employer and employee sides of the table?

<comment><USER9> I keep my resume circulating and go on interviews for a couple months after I take each new job to guard against this. It has come in handy one time in five jobs, and I made sure to let the HR director know that I left so quickly because the work I was actually doing and the co-workers I was around were completely different from what I was shown in the interview.

People say that interviewing is a two way street, but I don't think that goes quite far enough. If you get a job you're not qualified for and can't do, you'll be let go quickly. If a company gets my labor by misrepresenting what they do, I see it as fair play to let them go and let them know I don't appreciate a bait and switch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A really good take on "I have to look myself in the mirror" and where a business leader's responsibilities are. Taking responsibility for having the right employees in the right jobs is a way of helping customers.

<comment><USER11> I always liked the quote from Good to Great, "Start by getting the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus."

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Someone (Ferriss?) once said that your success is directly proportional to how many difficult conversations you are willing to have, which is so true. Something that jumps out at me...

"How would you feel about flying on a plane with a pilot who is a "six?" What about the nurse who cares for your mother in the hospital? The mechanic who fixes the brakes on your car? The person who works for your insurance broker and is in charge of making sure your policies are renewed?"

More like "how would you feel _knowing_ you were flying on a plane..." etc etc. There are people all around us operating as 5s or 6s, even in critical roles like the ones mentioned. It's probably closer to the norm than any of us like to imagine.

<comment><USER13> Right. Reminds me of the old joke, "what do you call the person who graduated _last_ in med school?" Doctor.

<comment><USER14> Here's the thing about that joke: you could tell it _no matter what_ the standards of people at medical school, and _no matter what_ the difficulty of passing the examinations.

If medical schools are good at accepting only people who are likely to make good doctors, and at failing students who turn out not to be good enough after all, I'm not all that bothered by the prospect of being treated by someone who just barely passed. (Of course that's a big "if".)

The same goes for the OP here. How do you define that ten-point scale? If, e.g., "6" means "doing a good job, but there are other better people around" then firing your sixes may be a lousy idea: perhaps all the better people are much more expensive and you get better value from a cheaper 6; perhaps all the better people are off working for other companies; perhaps in this particular job the difference between a 6 and a 10 doesn't really matter all that much, and the cost in recruitment effort and training will outweigh the benefits of firing your 6 and getting someone better; perhaps the person currently in the job is a 6 who's working his or her ass off to turn into a 7, then an 8, then a 9, then a 10.

... Or, of course, perhaps not. The original article does specify that it's talking about people who "cannot do the job". But what sort of scale are you using where 6 means "cannot do the job"?

I think there's something badly wrong with the idea that Only The Best Will Do. Because (1) for a lot of purposes, someone who's not The Best can still be plenty good enough, and (2) there aren't enough of The Best to fill all the jobs, and (3) if enough companies start firing everyone but The Best you're left with a large number of people starving because no one is willing to employ them to do the jobs they could do perfectly adequately if employers weren't all insisting on getting The Best. Oh, and (4) guess what, these companies generally aren't keen on paying every single employee a superstar salary.

There are jobs for which you absolutely need the very best people you can get. In, for instance, a new startup, that might be all the jobs you've got. In that case, by all means insist on hiring only the best people and firing anyone who turns out not to be. But in that case, you'd better also be offering rewards commensurate to your demands.

<comment><USER15>
      ...you could tell [that joke] no matter what the standards
      of people at medical school, and no matter what the
      difficulty of passing the examinations

My Mum (dying of refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in her lungs) is being cared for by an oncologist who's a six. It isn't pretty.

<comment><USER14> I'm sure it isn't (and, my condolences; that must be awful for you and even worse for her) but ... would you rather she didn't have an oncologist at all? (That's what happens if you just get rid of the sixes and change nothing else.) Or that she had a seven, who's working 80-hour weeks and working like a six on account of exhaustion? (That's what happens if you geet rid of the sixes and expect everyone else to pick up the slack.) Or that she had a seven but someone else with similar problems got her six instead? (Actually, I bet you would prefer that, and I don't blame you, but it wouldn't be any improvement for society as a whole.)

Having everyone be more competent would be a wonderful thing, but that isn't something you can bring about just by firing all but the best.

<comment><USER15> Oh, we're firing her, all right, and going with an oncologist who comes highly recommended. Some kind soul like you can tolerate her incompetence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> OP complains about the "sixes" in his organization, but how would others (customers, vendors, investors, employees) rate him?

Sure, the "sixes" may be holding your company back, but just as likely, the "nines" and "tens" may be bailing because you're a "six".

OP sounds kinda like a high school jock rating girls in the hall, "She's a 6." But the analogy fails in one critical area: OP has the opportunity (and responsibility) to turn his "sixes" into "tens". That's _his_ fucking job (if he wasn't a six himself). I've lost track of the number of times I've witnessed mediocre employees become great with a change of management.

That person with great references and potential you hired didn't suddenly turn into a "six". Something you or your organization did changed them. On the other hand, that disgruntled, under-performing employee didn't suddenly become great when the new manager restructured his job and paid attention to him.

Like most stories, this one has two sides. Unfortunately, we often only get to hear the boss's side because when things to wrong, no matter whose fault, he's the one left standing.

<comment><USER17> If the author even knows a six from a ten. I'm continually surprised how often bosses fall for con-artist employees. I don't mean ones that are just clicking along and doing the minimum; I mean employees that are actively destroying your business.

The salesman that games the incentive system or overpromises to make sales. The developer that "makes it work", but writes code so labrythine and undocumented as to make it impossible for any other developer to succeed. Or the middle manager that will sabotage other projects inside the company in order to look good in comparison.

The easy question to answer is "should you hire good employees?". The hard question to answer is "how do you determine good vs bad?" Maybe those sixes aren't trying because they're worried that any exceptional performance will be seen as a threat to a paranoid senior staff member.

For every one true 10/10 employee there are five con-artists. I'd argue the con-artists are a bigger threat than someone who's just there to punch a clock.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Hiring and firing is so very hard. I have yet to see any good techniques to do it. It is nice to see an article that owns up to the fact that even if you make them write code in the interview and have really good brain teasers and... whatever other interviewing technique, you'll still get bad apples. So many articles are written that basically say, hiring a bad employee is so very bad, you must make sure it never happens. So it's good to see discussion of what you do when it does.

This article reminds me again of how the whole job process is a lot like the process one goes through with relationships. When I saw this bit - "What would your visceral response be if they quit? Relief? I think that says it all." - <USER3> realized it would fit perfectly as a relationship advice column.

</comment><comment><USER19> Man, this hits home... his description of a 6 is spot on. I need to let one go today.

<comment><USER20> Not sure if this is a stupid question. How do you fire people? Do you need to give them any buffer time (e.g., 1 month, just like you can give 1 month notice before resign)? How about the potential damage they could leave in that time?

I'm just curious.

<comment><USER19> Not a stupid question by any means- it's an important one!

In my case it's done based on the original contract, which provides for 30 days notice.

<comment><USER20> Then what kind of work do you ask your employee to do in the last 30 days?

<comment><USER21> It's safer if you terminate them immediately and just give them 30 days severance pay, which is the same thing.

I'm not sure I'd trust some people not to have a negative reaction and try to sabotage their project.

<comment><USER19> Agreed. It's easy to get worked up about paying for nothing, but the potential downside is often greater.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> When I first started at my job I was alarmed at the number of people that were fired. Over time I have come to value managements willingness to do what they do. People in key positions come up with a target when they are hired and generally receive all the resources they need. If they do what they said they would then they stay. If not, they go.

</comment><comment><USER23> the anti capitalistic mentality focuses on those phenomena where emotionally negative things are concentrated and the corresponding benefits are diffuse. the monkey brain can't seem to cope with the idea that the bad employee was literally hurting everyone else at the company.</comment>


GraphQL Editor 2.0 – draw your GraphQL schema – new Release with Search - <AUTHOR> https://graphqleditor.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> We've just released new version of editor with:

\- schema libraries

\- live collaboration

\- searching the graph

If you have any questions I am here for you!</comment>


Ask HN: Does your startup have a t-shirt I can wear to school? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I'm Gabriel.
I moved to Boston not that long ago to start my first startup, and to be honest when I arrived I didn't exactly have much business casual clothing. I still don't. Actually, come to think of it now I have less.
With that in mind, I'm going to be a student soon at the Boston Startup Institute! I'm extremely exited, and trying to get my ducks in a row. One of those ducks relates to you, and the above question, so thanks for reading!
I'd like to show up in a little more than my usual old T-shirts, or my sole dress shirt, because this is a huge opportunity for me. I feel like I'm turning a corner, and I want to dress the part! I would absolutely go snag some new duds if I had the means, but there are other ducks that are taking priority.
So, I'm trying to create a win/win out of this! My goal is to get at least a few startup shirts which I can wear while I'm attending the eight weeks of the Startup Institute (I'll definitely tweet some photos of me wearing them!).
What's in it for you is my love and appreciation, and at least some level of exposure to the companies and people in the building, which includes Techstars Boston, and NextView ventures.
I'd really, really appreciate it, will you please send me a large / x-large t-shirt? <comment><USER2> Speak to the guys at trak.io - They might have some spare t-shirts they can send your way. Founder's twitter: [https://twitter.com/liamgooding](https://twitter.com/liamgooding)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

<comment><USER3> yeah for sure email me on firstname.lastname@example.com :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A good friend of mine, Scott Motte can hook you up: [http://scottmotte.com/startup-shirts.html](http://scottmotte.com/startup- shirts.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Great! I'll check it out!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Shoot me an email at email@example.com, I can probably hook you up with a Fogbeam Labs shirt.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's awesome! Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you have a server that could use some nice monitoring, install newrelic. They'll send you a nice T shirt.

</comment><comment><USER7> send me an email (in profile) and I'll ship one out!</comment>


Application template: isomorphic widgets using RxJS and React - andreas-sotnik https://github.com/zxbodya/reactive-widgets

<comment><AUTHOR> If any questions about it - I am an author.</comment>


Follow changes to sites without RSS feeds with GReader - <AUTHOR> http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2010/01/follow-changes-to-any-website.html

<comment><USER2> Damn. Just tested it on a site that I lost interest in [1] because a feed isnt offered. The service doesnt work for the particular site because there _is_ an RSS feed, but it contains the wrong content. :(

[1] <http://www.kuro5hin.org/section/Diary> if anyone cares. The RSS feed points to the main page rather than the diaries page.

<comment><USER3> Have you tried <http://www.feedbeater.com> ?

More specifically: [http://www.diffbot.com/api/rss/http://www.kuro5hin.org/secti...](http://www.diffbot.com/api/rss/http://www.kuro5hin.org/section/Diary)

Disclosure: I hung out with the guys who did that site last summer.

<comment><USER2> No, I haven't! Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I use the Firefox extension Update Scanner to much the same effect: <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3362>. No complaints so far, although my use has been mild. Note that you'll need to install via the beta channel if you've got Firefox 3.6.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think this could be a really good source of data for Google. If a lot people use this it could be used as one more way to ensure search quality.

<comment><USER2> Agreed. And it's a great way to crowdsource checking of "What parts of this page are meaningful?" (Provided there's a way to give feedback)

<comment><USER5> I think personalization is the only way to reduce web spam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> People interested in this might like a site I launched a while back:

<http://www.readfresh.com>

Feedback is appreciated!

</comment><comment><USER7> I've been using <http://www.changedetection.com/> but this would be a nice change - less email for me ;)

</comment><comment><USER8> If this gains wide usage, it could be a boon to RSS adoption. Users could eventually learn to think of websites as collections of changing content, so they'll have less difficulty accepting the use case that RSS offers.

Some people might even think RSS is introduced as an _enhancement_ to this Google feature.

(Or maybe this implementation will become so solid that RSS becomes unnecessary, but I doubt it.)

<comment><USER9> The catch-22 is that this feature would be used by people who use Google Reader and thus who know of RSS and its benefits.

<comment><USER8> Understood, but I can imagine a website displaying a button for "Get notified when we add new information" or something to that effect. Personally, I'd love to see more these buttons on local government websites, which are notorious for not having RSS feeds. So people might _begin_ to use Google Reader upon discovering this new feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cool stuff. I have been using Sucuri's Network Integrity monitor for the same thing... I monitor my own sites and some pages that I am interested to be notified when they change.

That can be very useful as an intrusion detection system if your pages are modified without you knowing it.

Link for sucuri: <http://sucuri.net>

</comment><comment><USER11> This takes me back... Internet Explorer 5 for Mac used to support a widely lauded feature similar to this, where you could "subscribe" to a page and it would tell you when it updated.

RSS pretty much obsoleted the feature and I have never seen it in a browser since. There have definitely been times when it would be useful, and I'm glad it's in Google Reader now!

</comment><comment><USER12> Yet another service that requires giving up information about yourself (in this case it's which websites you read) in order to use it.

It would be much more valuable if it was a stand-alone application which did not require communicating any information to Google in order to use it.

<comment><USER11> If you're philosophically opposed to web applications why are you participating in Hacker News?

<comment><USER12> Because they're not directly making money off of me.

I used to comment on movies on IMDB until they took the information I and others submitted to their free website and went commercial, putting tons of ads up and clearly started making money off of my contributions.

I also refuse to give reviews to Amazon for similar reasons.

I'm ok with participating in non-commercial forums, as I feel they are less likely to sell information about me than sites which have gone commercial.

Also, I don't really view forums as tools for collecting information about their participants, unlike all the "free" web-services run by corporations. I suppose forums could be used for this purpose, but I think at this point it's just less likely. But it's definitely something to consider.

<comment><USER13> > I also refuse to give reviews to Amazon for similar reasons.

I could not picture myself bothered by Amazon reviews. They help decide when to and when to not buy. They also help me decide between two books on the same subject, gives me tips on another titles/authors that I didn't know, etc.

<comment><USER12> Oh, I'm not bothered by other people giving reviews on Amazon. But I wouldn't do it myself unless Amazon paid me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd like it more if it allowed the user to define the search pattern and output template for each created feed like some services which I already use and pay for do.</comment>


Why We Can't Have the Male Contraceptive Pill - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-08-03/why-we-can-t-have-the-male-pill <comment><USER2> I just want to share my two cents here:

I am a man in my 20's. At the moment, I am seeing people casually, because that's the kind of relationships I currently want and have time for.

I have been wanting male birth control for a while now.

As a guy I feel like a lot of what we are told as teenagers by our parents, and so on is that what ever you do, dont get someone pregnant. It will ruin your life, and probably the life of the child.

I know many people who have had pregnancy scares with people who were keen on keeping the child, without discussing whether the male counterpart felt similarly.

If men had the ability to control whether they could get someone pregnant, it allows them to live their lives, enjoy themselves, and explore without fear of negative life changing repercussions.

I'd imagine the arguments for women's birth control back in the 60's (70's?) were similar, with the added issue of carrying the child.

I'm not sure why male birth control is so controversial here on this forum, and in general, it sounds like the arguments for both sexes are similar, and having control of ones own body is never a bad thing.

<comment><USER3> So use a condom. Especially if you are seeing people casually, as that helps prevent STD infection.

<comment><USER4> As said in the article. Condoms doesn't work 18% of the time. That's a pretty high failure rate.

The contraception methods available to women are much more effective.

<comment><USER5> \---

[https://sexetc.org/info-center/post/do-condoms-work-whats- th...](https://sexetc.org/info-center/post/do-condoms-work-whats-the-best- brand-and-which-type-of-condom-is-most-effective/) Condoms—when used correctly and consistently—prevent pregnancy about 98 percent of the time. The typical effectiveness rate—where mistakes are made or condoms break—is about 82 percent.

\---

<comment><USER4> It works all the time when ignoring the times it didn't.

<comment><USER6> Now that's intellectual dishonesty. You start with using wrong numbers (or manipulating numbers in a dishonest way to prove your point), then when someone calls you out on that you give that sort of troll answer. 98% is on par with the best female contraceptive methods, and it probably better than what we could achieve with male pills.

<comment><USER7> What? He cited a failure rate of 18%, which the article supports and you quote as the "typical" failure rate, taking into account that condoms do break and are used incorrectly at times.

If a manufacturer says their manual transmission car gets 45 miles to the gallon, and Fuelly says that same car gets 39 mpg (averaged over a million user mileage submissions), is it intellectually dishonest to use 39 as the working figure when budgeting for gas?

What you interpret as a troll answer, I interpret as a reasonably clear explanation of why he chose the figure he did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's a hard problem. I think there's a simple observation that helps explain why it's going to be so hard (the article hints at this without saying it): a healthy adult man is, more or less, fertile. At all times. If a adult man is infertile--if him having sex can't result in pregnancy--there's something at least slightly wrong with him.

By comparison, an adult woman is often infertile--three weeks (ish) out of every month, or whenever she's pregnant, she can't _get_ pregnant.

So it stands to reason that it's harder to produce male hormonal contraceptives: we can (at least sort of) fake healthy-but-infertile states of women, but there are no such states for men; we have to construct one from whole cloth, so to speak, and that's much harder.

<comment><USER2> > By comparison, an adult woman is often infertile--three weeks (ish) out of > every month, or whenever she's pregnant, she can't get pregnant

So you're telling me that I could have unlimited unprotected sex with my partner for three weeks out of every month (assuming we had perfect fertility information about those three weeks) and there would be 0 chance that they would get pregnant...?

<comment><USER9> Yes, this is called the Rhythm Method / natural family planning: [http://www.everydayhealth.com/sexual-health/rhythm- method.as...](http://www.everydayhealth.com/sexual-health/rhythm-method.aspx)

Of course the tricky part is having perfect fertility information

<comment><USER10> This method is also called "Vatican roulette".

<comment><USER11> Vatican roulette has worked for me for over ten years... Or I'm infertile. It's kind of a toss up, but anecdotally I wouldn't rely on it if you wanted frequent sex. All contraception is a probability issue but there's a huge difference between 99% and 80%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12>
        > condoms, which have a real-
        > world failure rate of about
        > 18 percent

That's odd, so I did some research and found:

        > With consistent and correct
        > use, condoms have a failure
        > rate of 2 percent. The
        > typical use effectiveness
        > rate is about 18 percent

I ... don't understand. Are people putting them on their fingers? Can someone explain?

<comment><USER13> Rolling it the wrong way, not rolling it all the way down, not rolling it correctly which leads to more frequent tearing when air is caught at the end.

And one of the most common issues buying the largest size available even when you don't have a 12" as thick as drink can tool.

While it's been 16-17 years since I had a sexed class i still remember the girl who came and told us to buy regular or even ("small") since it was still when I was 14-15 then she took a the smallest size Durex and rolled it over a 2 liter soda bottle and said unless you are bigger don't buy magnum super XL.

<comment><USER14> Just because they can stretch that much doesn't mean they're comfortable.

<comment><USER15> Plus just rolling it over a 2 liter bottle doesn't account for the physical side of what's going on. You can stretch a condom pretty far, but that does not say anything about how it stands up to friction. If a condom is too tight, it will break on you.

I hate talking about this because people just assume I'm lying, but... I've had normal sized condoms break on me a couple times, it's frightening. Magnums do not break on me, and fit much better, so that's what I use (the XLs are too big). I just don't fit safely in a normal sized condom, it doesn't matter one bit that I can fit them over a bottle.

<comment><USER13> It's fine to use a Magnum I you actually need it, Western condoms tend to be 51-54mm in width for non Magnum sizes and 56-59 for magnums if you actually need it by all means use it but for most people the normal ones will be the best fit.

In other places it might be different I know people think that Asian thing is a trope but it's not Durex reduces the width from 54 to 49mm for the Asian market which is a bitch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Contraline, the polymer gel injection covered in the article, is a YC F3 (summer 2016) company. Kevin says he's on the road right now, but he'll be around later to answer any questions.

[0] [http://contraline.com](http://contraline.com)

<comment><USER17> I remember reading some time ago about an Indian guy who was developing something like that. He said all he needed was investment but couldn't find anyone interested.

Edit: here it is [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-29/a-new- kin...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-29/a-new-kind-of-male- birth-control-is-coming)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This article makes it sound like WIN 18,446 is a safe and effective male contraceptive and it was abandoned completely just because it has bad interactions with alcohol. Is this actually true? There are lots of drugs on the market that have a bad interaction with alcohol. It's possible to just not drink alcohol.

<comment><USER19> Having a contraceptive pill not working together well with alcohol is probably one of the worst user interfaces ever. At least judging from the behaviour I observe amongst people in the UK :)

<comment><USER18> Not for people who don't drink or would be willing to stop drinking. That has to be a nontrivial market. Why not make it and just put a big warning label on the bottle?

<comment><USER20> Even for people who don't drink, there's still small amounts of alcohol in some medication, mouth wash, etc. If the severity of the reaction is high enough, even small amounts could lead to a medical emergency.

<comment><USER21> I hear what you're saying here, but just taking what the article was saying, that shouldn't be much of an issue.

        Then one of the participants drank some contraband Scotch and became
        unusually, violently ill. He confessed his transgression to the
        researchers, and follow-up studies confirmed his account: WIN 18,446
        didn't mix well with booze.

I suspect this inmate was more than a little liquored up. Just a guess. But more importantly this part:

        WIN's side effects sounded familiar to Amory. In his clinical practice,
        he'd occasionally prescribed Antabuse (disulfiram) to patients who
        struggled with alcohol addiction. The drug blocks a form of the enzyme
        acetaldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), which helps the body metabolize
        alcohol;

which means it's effects are used in practice to combat alcoholism.

Can't be _that_ bad. Though, that still means that there could be other interactions not described?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> While I get that you could argue that 'pregnancy is the worst std' with 18+ years-long untreatable consequences, I don't really see the appeal for something that just targets pregnancy.

As a gay male, I would tend to favor condoms and other things that have a chance of reducing std transmission. If anything, the AIDS epidemic taught us that STDs are just as serious as pregnancies.

Ultimately it comes down to not fucking complete strangers and using protection when you do. For long term relationships, there are so many options: pills, IUDs, condoms, plan b, and even abortion.

I'm much more interested in research into how to make condoms more effective and better treatments for unsolved problems, like herpes, HIV, Chlamydia, gonorrhea, etc. (antibiotic resistance is still a thing btw).

<comment><USER23> I am intrigued, what is "plan b"?

<comment><USER24> It is a strong contraceptive made to be taken the morning after. Useful if a condom broke or wasn't used.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> A great male contraceptive is already here and it is testosterone injections.

"The two-and-a-half-year study of 399 couples in nine countries found that the injections of the male sex hormone were an effective contraceptive for 98.6 percent of the participants."

[https://nytimes.com/1996/04/03/us/testosterone-injections- wo...](https://nytimes.com/1996/04/03/us/testosterone-injections-work-as- contraceptive.html)

<comment><USER26> Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Here's roughly how it works, if I understand correctly. First, a normal male endocrine system looks roughly like this:

      1. The hypothalamus produces GnRH.
      2. In response to stimulation by GnRH, the pituitary produces LH and
         FSH.
      3. In response to FSH and LH, the testes produce sperm and
         testosterone, respectively.
      4. Testosterone inhibits the production of GnRH by the hypothalamus (a
         negative feedback mechanism). This effectively keeps testosterone
         levels regulated.

When external testosterone is introduced, here's what happens:

      1. The increased testosterone inhibits the production of GnRH by the
         hypothalamus.
      2. In absence of GnRH, the pituitary produces less FSH and LH.
      3. In absence of FSH, the testes produce less sperm (this is the
         contraceptive effect). In absence of LH, the testes produce less
         testosterone.

The net effect is less sperm and the body produces less testosterone on its own.

This makes me wonder: would this lead to testicular atrophy? That happens with steroidal antiandrogens and GnRH agonists/antagonists, both of which have the effect of decreasing LH and FSH. Also, I think there are cardiovascular risks associated with high testosterone.

<comment><USER27> Its well known in the powerlifting/bodybuilding space that steroid use will cause small balls. Yes to testicular atrophy. Supposedly they will come back after you get off, assuming you did so properly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Female contraceptive pills have a lot of problems. They are linked to cancer, liver disease, gallbladder disease, stroke, blood clots, high blood pressure, and heart disease.

Taking pills to inferfere with your normal hormonal and bodily functions is not a great idea, when there are other options with fewer or no side-effects. As a man, I would not take pills for contraception.

<comment><USER28> First, I agree that non-hormonal contraception decreases a lot of the risk associated with hormonal contraception (almost tautological, but worth stating).

Second, there is no increase in mortality between women who use oral contraceptive pills and women who do not (with the exception of women over 35 who smoke; OCPs are contra-indicated in this group).

For any OCP-users who might read this, there is _no_ overall increase in cancer associated with OCPs, though some cancers are more likely with OCPs and others are less likely with OCPs.

Many of the side effects you're mentioning are either rare (hypertension, stroke/blood clots) benign (maybe you mean hepatic adenoma when you say liver disease?) or things I have not heard of (would appreciate scholarly references; gall bladder disease, heart disease[not sure what you mean here]).

 _> Taking pills to inferfere with your normal hormonal and bodily functions is not a great idea, when there are other options with fewer or no side- effects_

In general, all medications have risks and benefits. A blanket statement such as this one ignores the risk-benefit calculation that each patient and her physician must assess in picking a medication.

<comment><USER3> > Many of the side effects you're mentioning are ... things I have not heard > of

Admittedly hasty research, these are listed on WebMd as possible side effects of contraceptive pills.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The article mentions the gel injections that destroy sperm as semen travels from the testicles. Last I heard the Indian company that developed it was still doing trials in Indian and the US (long running trials in India show it effective and reversible for years).

It's more invasive than a pill, yes, but it seems like the most viable reversible solution so far.

<comment><USER3> I believe it was injecting/inserting a block (some kind of gel maybe?) into the vas deferens, with the effect of a vasectomy but much more easily reversible.</comment></comment>


Natus Vincere Team bought a hotel for cyber sport events - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1286282302214078469 <comment><AUTHOR> Interview (in Russian) with _Alexander Kokhanovskyy_ , member of «Natus Vincere», published today online by «AIN» (Ukrainian media about IT).[0]

[0] [https://ain.ua/2020/07/23/koxanovskij-dnepr- blic/](https://ain.ua/2020/07/23/koxanovskij-dnepr-blic/)</comment>