Want to Recruit Better Engineers? Open Source Your Code - <AUTHOR> https://angel.co/blog/want-to-recruit-better-engineers-open-source-your-code <comment><USER2> On the contrary, I've found that companies who are actually doing hardcore software engineering, where the code is the main value driver for the business, rarely open source their best stuff, but they're great places for engineers. Google doesn't open source its self driving car code. Facebook's value driver is the network, not the code, so it can open source anything. Dropbox's client is amazing and is not only closed source but heavily obfuscated.

When a small company open sources everything, their main value driver is in sales or marketing or partnerships or something. Not a bad thing, but not a really engineering centric place.

<comment><USER3> Think the MBA speak for this is "commoditising you competition". It's when you use open source or zero pricing to either offensively or defensively to nullify an advantage your competitor has. Google attacks Apple by offering an open source OS (Android). Now everyone can make a phone.

They defend against Facebook controlling the internet by offering an open source browser (Chrome/ium).

Microsoft defends against irrelevance in the Linux age by open sourcing .Net Core. So now you're just writing code for .Net, not Linux.

FB open sources dev tools to both attack and defend the talent pool.

Google open sources Flutter to counter React, decides it can show FB how it's done.

Google also puts out K8S because AWS ate their cloud lunch and they need to show they also get it. Now you're just running on K8S, not AWS.

AWS just open sourced a JDK. Now we can all give Oracle the finger.

Apple sits in their spaceship, not giving a fuck. Chris Lattner tried to open source for the sake of OSS, with LLVM and Swift, but he left.

<comment><USER4> > Chris Lattner tried to open source for the sake of OSS, with LLVM and Swift, > but he left.

Maybe there's some history here that I'm missing: but it looks like LLVM and Swift are open source. Did Chris have any trouble open-sourcing them? Was the reason for his departure related to that?

<comment><USER3> He succeeded at open sourcing those two projects. Not sure why he left, but other than WebKit, which was probably a defense against Microsoft and IE, don't think anything else can come out of Apple.

<comment><USER5> WebKit started as a fork from khtml (from kde). Apple didn't have a choice about open sourcing Webkit because they started with GPL2 code. They would have kept it closed source if they could, but that would have taken a few years of development, while they could start with khtml and get a great browser in just a few months.

I expect in a few years (5-10) Apple will do an audit, discover that only a small amount of code isn't written by Apple, and replace that with inhouse code and then relicense to something propitiatory. Time will tell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anecdotally, I look at the public repos of any company advertising a job I'm interested in before I apply, so open source certainly attracts some class of developers.

The problem is the assumption that people who do that are "better" in some way. I've known some brilliant engineers who don't care at all for open source code; they wrote great code that no one besides the customer would ever see or use. That doesn't make them bad engineers.

<comment><USER7> >I've known some brilliant engineers who don't care at all for open source code

The obvious irony here is those "brilliant" engineers will use open source code even though they don't care for it.

<comment><USER6> If you go through your dev career thinking only people who write and use open source code are brilliant you'll miss out on the opportunity to learn from some of the industry's best developers. There are loads of people working on entirely closed source projects who are very, very good engineers.

Not every project is web.

<comment><USER7> >If you go through your dev career thinking only people who write and use open source code are brilliant

I didn't said that. I have just pointed that even close source developers are using open source when working daily on their closed source projects. So saying they don't care about something they use daily is ....wrong. Also I didn't said anything about their level of brilliance :)

>Not ever project is web.

The snark level, off the charts....

<comment><USER8> > So saying they don't care about something they use daily is ....wrong.

A lot of people don't care about cars but will still own one to drive to work every day. It's just a tool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Or just... you know, pay more?

Ah, but then you must raise managers' wages too, because they _obviously_ have to make more than your engineers. Okay, then I guess open sourcing your code is indeed the best option!

<comment><USER10> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18461563](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18461563)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was listening to a friend's music podcast tonight and they were talking about how industry will seize on any shred of creativity so that they can use it to sell cars, and this contributes to people getting defensive about the things they like becoming popular. There is a latent fear that just over the horizon, some marketing asshole is waiting to get their hands on something that is meaningful to you, in order to abuse that connection so they can buy themselves a boat.

This post feels like it's edging way too close to that. If you want to attract "talent" by putting repos on Github or Gitlab, that's great. But if you are hiding bad engineering practices and/or a shitty work environment and putting up a facade which is carefully crafted as a recruiting tool (and not truly a reflection of what it's like to work on a project inside your company), you are making a huge mistake that will backfire and it _will_ come back to haunt you.

That's not to say that we don't know that open source is a tool companies use to get more for less (everybody knows that). But if you keep a carefully- controlled open source repository around to show potential hires when there is a bonfire in the engineering team's side of the open-office floorplan because your actual engineering practices are abysmal, you should know the "talent" you want to hire is no spring chicken, and they will know almost immediately that you have been duplicitous in your hiring, and word will spread. And then you'll have _existential_ hiring problems.

<comment><USER3> It's really difficult to have your engineering quality or culture NOT reflected in your open source projects. What are you going to do, keep the regular coders locked in the basement working on CRUD apps and a penthouse full of cool evangelist programmers writing OSS for no good reason?

A company's OSS is an excellent reflection of the people, decision making processes and culture that permeates it. Look at React, Go etc. They all heavily embed the founding company's DNA, from the design of the tool, branding, blog posts, contributor engagement, build system, everything.

<comment><USER12> I know a company where they have this exact same setup. Ivory tower "elite" team + countless wtf teams writing crappy code.

<comment><USER13> I'd love to know who they are!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't know about you people, but I don't give a rats ass if the company I work for open source their code or not. I care what benefits i receive and mostly the salary and the possibility to work remotely.

Also it is a positive thing if what I do is fun and/or meaningful.

<comment><USER10> Open sourcing the code is important to me because its frustrating being a senior hired onto a team of all newbs. By senior I mean a person who can write code quickly. By newbs I mean people with high insecurity that just want to dick around with code style and framework tooling.

<comment><USER15> I would not define "senior" as "one who codes quickly." I also would not define a software developer's level as "newb." So there is that.

Junior, mid-level, senior, and then maybe principal. I would gauge them by a combination of time in the market, ability to write production grade code, the ability to make informed tradeoffs, ability to work independently and as a team player, and ability to work across teams and disciplines effectively. A very, very small part of that is "quick coding."

<comment><USER10> > I would gauge them by a combination of time in the market,

Absolutely not. Time on the market isn't an immediate indication of competence. It certainly isn't an indicator of potential. In my experience you are so much better making an objective hiring choice by throwing EVERYTHING related to programming and interviews away and simply providing a battery of personality tests. I went through this when I was interviewing with Bridgewater.

Performance is better determined by the briefness of product, the speed of execution, and minimal time of delivery. An educated person can make gross determinations of this by examination and testing of the code. Likewise, lesser souls can evaluate the product for code style, a super high dependency count, and favorite framework.

Ultimately it comes down looking for an ambitious endeavor versus looking for emotional comfort.

<comment><USER15> Time in the market is not good by itself, but can be a proxy for leveling. Someone could have 15 years of repeating 1-year experience and be a junior dev. Another could be out of school by 1 year and show tremendous potential and have shipped some great stuff and quickly fill a mid-level position. But time in the market is definitely a consideration. Not the most important, but, for sure, on the radar.

For a normal person, it will take time to develop expertise. Time for exposure to novel problems and time leveraged for (the opportunity of) growth.

After you get into an organization, you can level up quickly depending, to a degree, on the speed of execution. I also agree with you that it is uninteresting to gauge leveling based on code style, dependency count, and/or a favorite framework. However, discussions around those can lead to a better understanding of someones professional maturity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Quasi-ethical business idea:

Sell open source software 'ghostwriting' services

It makes an engineer look good to have solid commits to an open source project on their github profile. The people who actually make the bulk of these commits put in tons of (at times thankless) free labor.

Create a grey market for open source software contributors to sell their diffs (that they've already written and actually entail useful contributions to their project) to some rich lazy wannabe engineers to submit to the repo, and get credit for. Bulk discounts for corporations!

It would get OSS devs more money, which is good, but is lying which is bad.

<comment><USER17> I don't know about the rest of the world but in France you cannot sell (or give, or transfer in any way) attribution rights, only copyright.

<comment><USER18> I thought this didn't apply to computer programs, but I looked it up and you're right... In France, authors' moral rights are quite strong.

In the UK, the moral right of attribution exist, but there's a specific exception for computer programs, so that programmers don't have a right to be identified as the author, or as far as I can tell any other moral rights.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "personal engineering brands"

You do not want to hire engineers with "personal brands", in the same way that hiring celebrities for anything other than showbiz, normally causes problems.

At a previous large company with massive opensource scheme, "personal brand" engineers blocked many attempts to increase security, specifically filtering git commits for keys, PII and other expensive mistakes.

the "personal brand engineer's" solution? everyone singing a pledge to stop committing PII & keys to git.

The argument was: "well, committing 60,000 PII records to github was done by an idiot[1], not one of us, there is no way it could happen to _us_. We can't work on private repos, because that means we can't collaborate"

[1]They are not an idiot, they weren't in the trendy department.

If you want good engineers, don't let your tech department be run by penises. Let me put that into a list:

o hard limit on work hours(rota for Out of Hours support, if needed) no more than a 40 hours week, ever (averaged over a month)

o Solicit feedback from everyone, more importantly, action it.

o Pay well

o only use data for decisions (HR or otherwise)

o keep no secrets

o Balance empowerment with maintainability

o aggressively kill legacy

o correct or eject bullies

o allow differences (live and let live)

o don't all look and think the same

o Train the next generation

o don't allow silos (rotate at least twice a year, bonus points for feature teams)

Its really that simple

<comment><USER20> For me the problem is that to create a brand around yourself you need a pretty damn big ego, and ego is just bad in a team setting. The best engineers I know have zero ego.

<comment><USER21> This is a really important point. I work with someone who has quite a bit of an ego. Definitely cares far too much about his personal brand, which has been built up over the years through open source projects. Any time you work on a project with this person you basically _need_ to use all of his open source libraries if any of them are at all relevant for the project, regardless of if they are the best option for the task or not ... sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.

By far, the best developers I've ever worked with are quite humble.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> So here's some of the reason's they give for why Engineers want to work on Open Source:

> They want to work in the open because it creates some visibility to them

> The best companies align business needs with the desires of individual > contributors (Engineers) to create their personal brand

> Smart developers like to hang out with smart code. When you open source > useful code, you attract talent.

Some of these may play some factor when choosing a company but honestly I think its very small and/or confounding with the underlying factors. More likely IMHO is that companies with an open and communicative culture, where people and processes are transparent, and where work is iterative and agile, tend to open source more code b/c it fits perfectly in that culture. I think Engineers in turn are probably more attracted to that culture as opposed to classically hierarchical, bureaucratic, structured monolithic organizations (which also tend to open source less code b/c it doesn't fit their culture).

<comment><USER23> Is there really a reason/data to think that open source companies are better places (better culture) to work at compared to another company of the same size? Or is it just assumption?

<comment><USER24> As a note, "open source companies" != "tend to open source more code".

There are relatively few open source companies. Most companies which distribute open source do so for part of the company which is not directly connected to revenue generation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've seen a lot of teams write code internally with the intent of open- sourcing everything once they're done. If you're doing this, you're missing out on a huge opportunity. Just as important as open-sourcing the code, is open-sourcing the collaboration process. Why not make your code 100% open- source from the beginning and let contributors participate in the design process? Let your contributors join in your heated debates & hear the rationale behind your design decisions.

At Origin, 100% of our code is open-source and everything we do is "public by default". We have a culture of radical inclusion and transparency. Everyone is welcome to participate in our open-source engineering process and our product discussions. Our engineers collaborate every day in our Discord (1), we track our progress on a public project board (2), discuss what we're working on each week in a public Google video Hangout (3), and publish our engineering meeting notes for the world to see. (4). As a result, it's really easy for outsiders to get up to speed on what we're building, what our current needs are, and get a feel for our company culture. While our core engineer team is only 9 people, we've had over 60 contributors to our codebase and we have new people showing up every week wanting to get involved. We've also been able to attract and hire amazingly talented people we would never have discovered if we were running a traditional hiring process.

Don't just open-source your code. Open-source your collaboration process too.

(1) [https://www.originprotocol.com/discord](https://www.originprotocol.com/discord)

(2) [https://github.com/orgs/OriginProtocol/projects/2](https://github.com/orgs/OriginProtocol/projects/2)

(3) [https://meet.google.com/pws-cgyd-tqp](https://meet.google.com/pws-cgyd- tqp) (Every Wed at 1pm PT)

(4) [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aRcAk_rEjRgd1BppzxZJK9RX...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aRcAk_rEjRgd1BppzxZJK9RXfDkbuwKKH8nPQk7FfaU)

</comment><comment><USER26> There is a line you can draw in the sand here. I usually define it in terms of the Product; I don't believe companies should feel compelled, or even desire to, open source code which directly relates to the product they're trying to sell. The number of companies which actually do this are few and far between (Red Hat, Gitlab, others of course).

However, companies should desire to open source code which supports their product. Libraries they've written internally to do important things. Services. Infrastructure tooling. These are all great things to open source. There are many reasons why this is a great idea, beyond just recruiting and marketing.

1\. Every company has shit code. Most of this is centered around your business domain (aka product) because that's what changes so often. Its alright to find a balance between "we're hiding skeletons in the closet" and "don't make a snap judgement based on a few Github repos, we have mentorship and you'll learn a lot about the context and intentions a lot of this stuff arose from."

2\. It forces your developers to think beyond just their team. Now, suddenly, anyone can see this. Woah. I mean, its pretty likely only a couple dozen people will, but I guarantee you'll get really high quality READMEs, you'll get documentation, clean APIs... all of this benefits your internal team tremendously. Why doesn't this happen as often "by default" with strictly internal projects? Developers _know_ the internal requirements, and they're usually not a strict as their perceived public requirements many open source projects live by. Crazy. True.

3\. It forces your developers to think beyond just your product. This is HUGE. I cannot stress how important this is. "Evolved" companies develop _everything_ with the little voice in the back of their head that it could just be thrown away tomorrow. Because, whether you like it or not, pivots happen. Maybe small, maybe big. If all of your code is intricately intertwined with your latest Uber for Canaries idea, you'll find reusing it during one of these pivots to be very difficult. But if its open source, there's this invisible force telling you that it can't be like that. It forces you to find the right APIs to work with both your product and Generic Use Cases. This takes longer. You should find a balance. But its worth it.

<comment><USER27> I challenge the notion that product is so precious that there's a benefit to it remaining closed source. If there is a line, I'd draw it at business process, not product.

I'm a former Artsyer. There, a good bit of core product code t is actually open source, including the entire website and iOS app. As it turns out, the real value in most businesses is the data, business relationships, the domain knowledge, and the processes. People can't use your code to steal your business, even if they want to.

It does, indeed, have some impact on code quality, although I wouldn't say there was major difference. Much of the closed source code was pretty critical in its need for correctness.

Another benefit is that as you blog or do conference talks, you can point to real life code, rather than contriving examples. So there's somewhat of a virtuous cycle of positive exposure.

I can also say that the CTO is genuinely enthusiastic about his engineers building their personal brands. Sure, they might eventually leave (like me), but on the whole, it gives people growth opportunities outside the company while working there, and definitely helps with recruiting.

<comment><USER28> > I challenge the notion that product is so precious that there's a benefit to > it remaining closed source. If there is a line, I'd draw it at business > process, not product.

The overwhelming commercial success of FOSS desktop software.

<comment><USER29> Huh? Most FOSS desktop software is not commercial to begin with, however there are companies like JetBrains that do sell quite successfully to Linux users, even as their core product is FLOSS.

<comment><USER28> Exactly, because everyone failed to monetize it.

JetBrains sells developer tools, a very niche market, specially when a large majority of FOSS is allergic to paying for tooling.

In fact I would bet a large percentage of those Linux users are using Android Studio or Community variants.

It would be very interesting to know how many of those users has JetBrains actually managed to monetize on.

<comment><USER29> > It would be very interesting to know how many of those users has JetBrains > actually managed to monetize on.

> developer tools, a very niche market

Overall yes, but on GNU/Linux, most users are still some kind of a developer.

I don't have numbers, but JetBrains did say that most users of their products use the paid version and that their Linux business is a healthy one. I am on Linux and subscribe to all their products and have colleagues and friends that do too, so we do exist.

I also paid for Githost.io when I was using GitLab.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Artsy CTO here. I am excited to see this article and, putting aside that it quotes me :)

A couple of things I wanted to highlight that are not in the article and should have been.

\- Pay attention to how Microsoft has used open-source to turn things around in terms of developer credibility.

\- Becoming open-source by default can still be an advantage as 99% of companies don't do it. It can still fix your hiring pipeline, but that advantage won't last as it's becoming more mainstream.

AMA

<comment><USER31> Why didn't you open source before ElasticSearch invented something better than yours?

Was the code your core business proposition? I doubt it but still asking.

Was there a bureaucratic blocker -- or golfer-type rich guys with strong bias who simply don't get software? Or was it something else?

I mean, I am pretty sure you guys knew for a long time that this moment has been coming. What kept you from reacting a bit earlier?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> One obvious benefit of open sourcing the code, or at least important parts of your code, is to identify developers who are really interested in that part of your product. This goes both ways. As a developer, I have a list of open source software I use and have used. Some of the software I selected because I had a specific problem to solve at a time, but a a large part of that list is software I keep reusing across projects and which I am actually fond of. So, if I were to look for a new job, of course, those software packages would make their main maintainer very attractive to me as a potential employer. And for the employer, who is better to hire than an engineer who already took interest in the software before even being paid for it?

</comment><comment><USER33> At all companies I've worked the code has been a big legacy mess and showing any of it publicly would scare off even the most junior engineer.

<comment><USER34> Exactly especially for those just out of university who probably have not worked on any system of scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I have a question for some other HNers that is kinda related to this topic.

I've got a library built solely by myself that I'm interested in open sourcing.

I'm tossing up between putting it on my own Github account, where it probably blends in with the rest, or putting it on the OSS page for the company I work for which, honestly, is a bit of a wasteland (numerous unused forks mainly)

I guess I just wonder what looks nicer on a resume. I would assume having something on an OSS Github org looks better but is it really? I don't recall ever looking at eg; a Google or Netflix project and looking into the authors vs looking into an individuals Github project.

I dunno, just wondering if anyone has any thoughts. I understand legalities come into play too but for this is more of a hypothetical.

<comment><USER36> I would definitely put it under my own name, if I were you. Like another commentor mentioned: if you leave the company, you still control your own repo.

Also, whenever I interview programmers, I always browse their Github (or BitBucket or whatever). Not having a Github isn't such a bad thing, but if you have a cool (or popular) project of your own there, it can help you get noticed.

(Of course, you need to be careful that your employer isn't going to freak out about you posting code openly. I have a habit of starting side-projects in- between jobs, then only do updates on the weekends after I've started a new job.)

Another option, perhaps: put it on your own repo, but track it from the company's repo on the company's webpage. (If they'll let you do it, that is.) That gives you some free visibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> So Angellist don't want better Engineers?

</comment><comment><USER38> A side effect of open sourcing is that programmers might be a bit reserved to do stupid things in the code. This might be both advantage or impediment I guess.

</comment><comment><USER39> What is a good engineer? Seriously, what makes a good engineer? Good at coding? Helps out his colleagues? Arrogant?

<comment><USER15> Off the top of my head, a good software engineer is not just a coder. They develop solutions to problems that provide value. They do so under constraints of time and resources. Beyond that, you then can get a feeling of the level of the engineer depending on the following:

\- code: maintainability, instrumentation, extensibility, readability, testability, performance, handles tradeoffs in complexity, and the time to create the code.

\- projects: can work independently or in a team, can work with individuals across teams and disciplines, can influence project direction, can architect solutions and choose designs and supporting tooling based on tradeoffs, can deliver on a reasonable time scale.

\- people: can mentor and be menteed, can collaborate well, can lead or follow, and can inspire best practices.

I'm sure there is much more, but that is off the top of my head shortly after waking up.

<comment><USER39> Yes and I'd like to put an emphasis on the last point, soft skills are really important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> And here I sit, thinking that competent middle management that can actually evaluate people based on results delivered instead of attendance and therefore allows more flexible remote work instead of commuting 3 hours would help.

No, open source.

<comment><USER41> Increased pay also helps. Flexible remote work is just not enough - you are still tied to incredibly expensive housing. You need full remote - so you could live uncommutable distance away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't think open sourcing code will necessarily attract better developers. _Better_ is highly subjective. If anything it will attract more compatible developers.

</comment><comment><USER42> Do not do this unless your code is reasonably well constructed. And make sure you're not fooling yourself. Otherwise you'll scare away good engineers.

</comment><comment><USER31> This seems mostly like a Silicon Valley filter bubble talk.

All the great places I worked with valued:

\- People's time. Any extra red tape was aggressively and actively hunted and killed on the spot.

\- Self-sustainable business model. No venture capitalists, no investors of any kind. They walked before they ran.

\- Not hiring more that they can pay for in a year.

\- Less people doing more in exchange for hefty salaries and job security. As business needs grow, the company's leadership turns inwards and people seriously discuss how can they optimize people's time and efforts better _without_ burning them out. I've seen 5 juniors replaced with 1 senior a number of times.

\- Respect and appreciation. Be it a few days off after a lot of work, or 20-50% extra salary that month, or just a collective thank you from several people -- all of these go a VERY long way towards loyalty and sense of camaraderie that make people stick around for 10 years.

\---

Open-sourcing your code serves a number of goals:

\- Shows that you are open to be vulnerable and that you are ready to do better. However, sometimes it's just a PR stunt and no pull requests or comments are ever addressed.

\- Serves to attract young and enthusiastic programmers which is often times not such a good thing -- the company might need people who they can guilt-trip into 17-hour coding sessions to get N projects off the ground in a short time frame. Sometimes they actually need the fresh perspective though. So 50/50 here.

\- Shows that you care about your ecosystem even if you don't actually open- source your own product but a number of libraries that you managed to extract from your monolith over time.

...and a few others. But open-sourcing stuff in a corporate setting is mostly a PR move.

So really, this article is not at all valuable nor does it even give an interesting side perspective.

</comment><comment><USER43> > _Want to Recruit Better Engineers? Open Source Your Code_

Know this as YSFlight[0] (free flight sim) dev drama aka "New things from Soji"[1]

[0] [http://ysflight.in.coocan.jp/main/e2018.html](http://ysflight.in.coocan.jp/main/e2018.html)

[1] [https://forum.ysfhq.com/viewtopic.php?f=167&t=6036](https://forum.ysfhq.com/viewtopic.php?f=167&t=6036)

</comment><comment><USER44> If you're good at something, do it for free.

</comment><comment><USER45> Nah. Just need more hacker rank.

</comment><comment><USER46> > Refactoring your code to be as simple as possible

> Following style conventions for names, whitespace, etc.

> Replacing private information with environment variables

> Commenting your code to contextualize snippets within your broader codebase.

While I do wish more software was released under a FOSS license, I also wish that these points were a given for any codebase regardless of license or source disclosure policy. I really don't think you can be agile no matter how many agile-trademarked tools and processes you pile on top of your project if you don't do this first.</comment>


[TED Talk] Ditch Your Dis - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWcQEcYCsjA&app=desktop

<comment><USER2> Very courageous young lady

<comment><AUTHOR> Her and her talk are both inspiring.</comment></comment>


Show HN: From SF to Tokyo - My App Went Worldwide in 1 Week - <AUTHOR> http://www.popcornmap.com

<comment><USER2> There needs to be a clear guideline for how to use Show HN in submissions: should it be used to showcase a cool project, or should it be used as a form of Hacker News-friendly SEO for veiled product announcements?

After all, OP submitted a link without the Show HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6686207](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6686207)

<comment><AUTHOR> I acutally thought this was a cool project, the map and layout that is, but maybe that's just me

<comment><USER3> I wish to see Popcorn on Android. I think it's cool idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> just started working on the Android app Wednesday - hoping its out by the end of next week

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Worked pretty well for me on a phone.</comment>


What is it like to be poor at an Ivy League school? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/04/09/what-like-poor-ivy-league-school/xPtql5uzDb6r9AUFER8R0O/story.html <comment><USER2> I attended an elite UK university having had a poor upbringing. This article reads painfully to me. I don't have the words to describe why, but I can try.

The closest I can come is to say that this idea of inclusiveness is terminally broken. It's a sort of bandage over a huge chasm of differences.

For a poor person to become wealthy requires them to discard their baggage. Change the accent, the clothes, the pop culture references, the 'back home...' stories. Avoid the discussions about parents. The list goes on.

My transition into adulthood at present is essentially a game of throwing away my connections to that past. Not intentionally, but because living a double life is just too difficult. Visiting my hometown I feel like more of a tourist each time.

Money is a huge divider, the gulf between the working class and middle classes in this regard is enormous.

I am hardwired to assume that people cannot afford anything. My basic instinct is to design activities that are free.

Wealthier people do not always appreciate this. They might want to go and do something more expensive - and why not? They can.

Friendship groups.

I could waffle on seemingly forever but words can't really express how odd I find all of this.

Different species...

<comment><USER3> Thanks for this post. I'm debating applying to a state University right now. Coming from a poor background (and still being poor) I find it hard to relate to a lot of my peers. You speak of "dropping baggage", and for me, this is next to impossible because of my poor dental health. As soon as I open my mouth people assume I must be some meth head. My mom has dementia and can barely take care of her self and my dad is struggling with COPD. I'm not going to go further into my home life because I'm not looking for pity.

I'm one the best math students at my current school and calculus is fun for me. I'm the only person I know that knows how to program, none of the other students I've met are interested in computers at all.

The students that are performing at the same level as I am seem (to me) to be "elites". I find my self becoming more and more cynical each day listening to complaints about having an old model of iPhone or "having to go to Paris with dad" (someone really said this), when all I have is a flip phone and I've never ridden on a plane.

I told my self a few years ago I was going to learn to program because it seemed to be something that anyone could do (as long as you have a computer and internet access), seemed to be growing, and seemed to be high paying. I've gotten pretty good, but I still have a ways to go.

Now I'm at the point where I can leave my disabled parents for school and let my teeth continue to decay and deal with that social stigma, or I can get a job doing tech support and hopefully help my situation a little faster.

We'll see..

<comment><USER4> I was in your situation 8 years ago. I decided to furlough my entrepreneurial endeavors and learn to code so I could get a high paying job with benefits and afford to get my teeth fixed. I went to a state school, hustled my way into the game industry and later the startup world, and have gotten +$40k in dental work done over the last 4 years.

It's not always easy, but if you're smart and work hard, it gets better. If I could have given myself advice back then, I would've told myself not to be afraid of medical loans or dental schools. I've had ~22k in work done at a really nice dental school in SF that would have cost +50k at private practice. The sooner you get in there, the less it will cost in the long run (trust me).

Also, regardless of the current state of your teeth, every day is still a battle for your oral health. Brush after meals and floss regularly. Email me (link in profile) and I'll hook you up with a Sonicare toothbrush.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the offer! I actually was able to buy a pretty nice electric toothbrush a little while ago with a coupon I found online.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would caution against too much class consciousness.

My parents came to the west in a boat, much like the ones that are sinking every day in the med. They scraped together a living and tuition fees running Chinese food joints.

When I arrived in Oxford, I did realise there were some interesting characters around. One guy with a posh accent stuck waved his chequebook outside his room during a tuition fee demonstration, offering to pay for everyone's tuition if he could just be allowed some peace. There are dudes walking the street in top hats. There are kids with sports cars.

But why should you feel alienated from them? You can be friends with the ones who want to be. They are just as curious about you. Some of them actually feel a bit guilty about having ridden into a top uni on their fathers' coattails. There's also people who've had it worse than you. One friend actually fled from shelling, and was lucky to miss a boat that got sunk by helicopters.

When you meet people, start with what you have in common. You're all young, and academically gifted. You're in the same place, you speak the same language.

<comment><USER6> _When I arrived in Oxford, I did realise there were some interesting characters around. One guy with a posh accent stuck waved his chequebook outside his room during a tuition fee demonstration, offering to pay for everyone 's tuition if he could just be allowed some peace. There are dudes walking the street in top hats. There are kids with sports cars._

When were you in Oxford? In my day I never saw any top hats, barring the occasional actor; and even the richest kids didn't have cars, because (a) there was nowhere to park them, and (b) you could walk faster than you could drive anywhere.

<comment><USER5> 99 to 03. You had to know which kids had the cars. There's not much in the way of parking, but now and again you'd see a flash car pull up outside a college.

Top hats are an eccentric thing. Kids did it to get mentioned on HN years later.

<comment><USER6> Well, our time in Oxford overlapped (I was there 2001-05)... I guess you were just more observant than me. ;-)

I did see some fancy cars, but they were always driven by college fellows or other "adults" \-- never anyone of student age.

<comment><USER5> There was one particular Rolls driven by a prof who'd written THE book on Physical Chemistry, I remember seeing that quite often.

Did you not think people wore some strange clothes? I was back last week and saw loads of kids in suits. These days it just screams "first day at work".

<comment><USER6> There were always some students wearing sub fusc, but that hardly qualifies...

<comment><USER7> You can always spot an Oxford man... Because he'll tell you :-p

<comment><USER6> I find that a college scarf is a far more effective identification symbol.

<comment><USER7> The fake MAs are a dead giveaway too

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't think this is limited to schools. All through life you will find that there are people with more, or fewer, resources than you have and interactions may be adversely affected by that.

The example of going out to dinner and then catching a movie is a good one. In a mid to large sized metropolitan area that is an expenditure of $40 - $100 (depending) and that can represent anywhere from .1% to 10% of a person's take home pay. So people gravitate to socializing with folks who have the same sort of budget for recreational expenses.

And it can get even weirder when you're wildly different in available resources. Consider the following illustrative example

Bob is a very high net worth individual, he owns an interest in a Gulfstream jet. While folks are hanging out they hear about a restaurant in Santa Fe (over 1,000 miles away) that is really great. Bob thinks it would be a great place to go for dinner. So he invites folks to dinner, when they show up everyone gets on the plane and flys to Santa Fe and eats at this restaurant which has been reserved (entirely) for this dinner.

Bob is trying to be friendly and help everyone share the experience of a restaurant they were just talking about. Except that everyone on the plane that wasn't extremely wealthy felt really weird about the whole experience. (surreal might be better).

So its easy to be friends with Bob, he's a nice guy, but it is hard to "hang out" with Bob as his idea of a reasonable idea of what to do next, can sometimes collide with your idea of reality.

That goes all the way down to things like skiing (fun, but expensive to do for the day).

To avoid that you need communities of people with similar resource levels, and yes this means that things like the 1st generation outreach program mentioned in the article will collect all of the 'poor people' together, but it gives them a social structure to start from. And if they mix with the the 'not quite so poor' people they can start to move through the variations in strata. Once they graduate they are very likely to be at least part of the "middle" and their kids the "upper middle".

<comment><USER9> My boss's boss's boss once tried to socialize with me by asking what kind of boat I owned.

<comment><USER8> perfect example!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Disadvantaged students are accustomed to doing everything on their own because they rarely have parents educated enough to help them with things like homework or college applications, so they may be less likely to go to a writing center or ask a professor for extra help."

The author missed the much larger problem in this statement. The school system these students are from are often poor with incompetent staff[1]. The competent staff are mostly dealing with students with problems and leaving the bright students to look after themselves. Resource allocation is a harsh mistress.

1) as an example, $2,000 a year (1988 USD) down the tube because a school official couldn't be bothered to mail a letter.

</comment><comment><USER6> This very much reminds me of my time in Oxford. I was there on a Commonwealth scholarship (referred to by many at the time as "Rhodes light") which paid for my tuition plus about £550/month of living expenses; this was enough to keep me alive, but it certainly wasn't generous.

My friends were very obviously split into two groups -- poorer students from state schools who were first-generation Oxbridge attendees, and rich students from public (UK) or private (US) schools whose parents had been at Oxbridge or Ivy universities. Academically, I fit in well with the wealthier crowd -- my parents both have Oxford degrees and doctorates, and I was there on an academic scholarship -- but financially I was far closer to the first- generation students. On one memorable occasion I was invited to join a group for a weekend skiing in the Alps, and declined when I realized that it would cost me more than my rent for the month; and while all of my American friends flew home between terms (and often for long weekends in the middle of term), I stayed in Oxford over Christmas and Easter because the rent was cheaper than even the lowest-price plane tickets.

But I can't fault Oxford for any of this: Indeed, the reason these socioeconomic strata were so obvious is precisely because they're doing a good job of bringing in students from a wide range of backgrounds. I never saw the University of my College doing anything which stigmatized or isolated students based on their background; the stratification was entirely due to the differences students brought to the university in how they saw the world and their places in it.

<comment><USER11> >but financially I was far closer to the first-generation students

I suggest you have understated your relative wealth.

UK students at Oxford today are entitled to £478/month living expense (in 2015 money), which they get mostly as a student loan, to be repaid.

Taking into account inflation, or looking at the equivalent scholarship today, I believe you were almost twice as well-off as the typical student from a poorer background.

[I don't doubt there were students twice as rich again, but I question the suggestion that you weren't treated generously in this context]

<comment><USER6> _You may be somewhat under-stating your relative wealth._

I was better off than most of the first-generation students, but not dramatically so.

 _Students today are entitled to £478 /month living expense (in 2015 money), which they get mostly as a student loan._

The Oxford University website says that students typically spend between £951 and £1,405 per month on living expenses. When I arrived in Oxford (in 2001) I was told that students typically spent around £650/month (the scholarship administrator was very apologetic about the value of the living allowance).

I haven't been in the UK for over a decade, so I'm not familiar with the state of student financial aid, but from what you've said I suspect that either the government bursaries/loans have gotten smaller or they were being supplemented by significant University and College awards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm happy this is here. Anytime affirmative action, race issues, etc is discussed, someone will always say "it's a class issue! What about poor white people?" Well, here's an article about that.

</comment><comment><USER12> I was first from my family (poor) to attend a well known PUBLIC university in US. Like top 5 in US or world, in name recognition. I did not feel like I fit in.

Many of the kids at this public university just did not get into one of the ivys but definitely middle/upper-middle class.

Many kids in the school that came from poor families often went to a public high school where it was easier to get good enough grades to get into the university. Once they got in though, they were just not prepared for the rigorous competition to get good grades.

<comment> barry-cotter There are no public universities in the top 5 in the US. The top three are Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Stanford is basically comparable. The fifth spot goes to either MIT or University of Chicago, both also private. That was pulled out of my ass but I just looked up the USNWR rankings and Berekeley is 20, and is the first public university on the list. The universities I mentioned form 6 of the top 7, along with Columbia.

<comment><USER12> I meant top 5 public school.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I attended Stanford business school on scholarship. I was brought up in a middle class household, not poor. I couldn't fit in with the rich kids, many of whom were sons/daughters of millionaire/billionaires, the bankers and the consultants. All the students were obsessed with networking and as a "lowly" engineer pursuing an MBA, my classmates never considered me worth getting to know. I tried but couldn't really forge any meaningful friendships.I felt like an outsider all the time. This was in sharp contrast to my experience in engineering school in India, where the only thing that mattered was how smart you are, irrespective of who your parents are.

<comment><USER9> Want to hob nob with GSB students? Should have gone to Stanfurd for engineering.

"Hey you are a programmer? Want to make an app for me?"

<comment><USER13> Haha, yes. Met a lot of those."I can't code but I have lots of ideas."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This resonated with me - a poor farm kid from Iowa going to Stanford. I had my student loan plus zilch. Other students were off to Hawaii for vacation. Me, I had to bum a place to stay over breaks when the dorms were closed. I never asked questions; never used any tutors or talked to a professor; never studied in groups. It was a lonely life.

<comment><USER15> > I never asked questions; never used any tutors or talked to a professor;

I am a professor (albeit at a non-elite university). How do I persuade students such as yourself to ask questions, to use tutors, to show up to office hours, and to talk to me?

<comment><USER16> If a student is struggling and does not use the available resources for catching up with the rest of the class, it may be for any of several reasons:

\- Asking for help is a display of weakness, and that student has been conditioned to conceal his or her weaknesses.

\- The student has feelings of inferiority that lead him or her to assume that they do not deserve additional assistance.

\- The student has given his or her last pennies to the bursar and the bookseller, is literally living in a van and gleaning the trash to meet survival needs, and is avoiding peers and professors to conceal this lifestyle.

\- The student has a job, and the work schedule interferes with your office hours. You don't pay them to show up, so you lose the conflict.

\- The student is simply unaware that such resources are available in general, or available to him or her, specifically.

\- The student has adopted compensation strategies to deal with an environment unsupportive of their goals. Being invisible and anonymous may be one of them. Wearing a "mask personality" in public may be another.

\- The student is conditioned to believe that no one offers help without expecting something in return. In some cases, accepting help is actually dangerous. (Remember how I helped you out with your rent? Good. Hide this gun for me. You owe me.)

Just use your position of perceived authority, and order them to show up.

If you teach an intro-level class, draw lots, and assign every one of your students to visit you during your office hours in a specific, scheduled, 10-minute window prior to midterms. This is where you actually teach the student how to interact with professors outside the classroom. With each student, talk a little about your class, and a little about anything else. Make it a pass-fail item on the syllabus. Show up? Get some free course credit. Don't show? 0 points. (If you really kick ass at this, you can play "friend matchmaker" and try to coerce your students into befriending and helping each other.)

Remember, there are no classes in most public high schools on how to "do college". Those kids are learning it as they go.

<comment><USER14> Another reason: the student grew up in a rural community, and has rarely dealt with anyone they don't know and aren't related to, so are congenitally incapable of approaching a professor unintroduced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hmm I went to an Ivy League school.

Maybe it was the company I hung out with but there was never really any talk of how rich anyone's background was (in fact it was kind of taboo) -- the same way no one ever talked about what their SAT scores were. It seemed petty.

There were several well off kids in my social circle (though not mega rich or anything) but there wasn't really any flaunting of wealth. In fact, many of the well off people I knew tried to save more money than some less well off people! There were also some poor kids around who people knew about but they were never really looked down upon.

<comment><USER18> Its more about what you do on spring break, on weekends, when not in class, that sort of thing. Those who can afford expensive outings naturally drift away from those who can't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am curious whether anybody else has experienced this in professional settings.

I make as much money as most of my peers at work, but fairly regularly I am made aware of the fact that my upbringing was less affluent than many of theirs. They have stories about exotic vacations they went on with their families, while my stories are about manual labor on farms. On some occasions somebody has made a crack at the expense of blue-collar workers, but I don't feel particularly far removed from that life.

<comment><USER20> I've definitely noticed that, though I think it varies by region and industry quite a bit. Engineering feels to me a little more "blue-collar" than the tech industry in its attitudes, even though engineers often don't make any less money. Some may have to do with where people come from, e.g. in large parts of engineering, the big "feeder schools" are good but not "elite" public schools: places like Purdue, Texas A&M, and Ohio State. People who at least sometimes work on-site in plants might also have more direct contact with blue-collar workers and feel more part of the same enterprise, though that is a minority of engineers.

In terms of region, SF, LA, and NYC are just about the worst for being full of "moneyed family" type attitudes. I lived some years in Indiana and it was far more tolerable on that front, despite what you might expect from the respective regions' politics.

<comment><USER21> Purdue graduate here, and I think that's a fair assessment. The rich kids seemed to be Management majors. They just needed a degree so that they could take over Daddy's company when he retired in a few years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I came to the U.S. from Eastern Europe when I was 13. My father was an engineer, and the rather humble entry-level salary was just enough to support our family of 4. My parents chose to settle in a "middle-class" suburban area with a great school district, which immediately placed us at the relatively lowest "class" in the area.

Besides the obvious language barrier being a massive separator for some time, there were also plenty of instances where "class" came into play. We couldn't afford to purchase airfare, or to eat out for a while. I felt jealous, or angry at people who did not immediately understand that I won't receive cash from grandparents for christmas, or that I won't be able to get the latest toys and electronics.

Even though it was very hard at first, but I didn't crave community support or entitlement based on my class or language. I didn't want special treatment, because I knew that that would just alienate me even more. I wanted acceptance, just like everyone else who is "different", but instead of attempting to change people around me to tailor to my needs or feelings, I guided my own attitude and expectations to accept certain things as they are. I managed my own social anxiety and didn't expect anyone to tailor to it. I cultivated my own belonging naturally, without reliance on programs or groups that attempt to do it artificially. I even refused to take ESL class for a very long time, fearing that that would socially single me out.

I soon started to socialize and became friends with people of all "classes," and I never attempted to place myself in a group based on financial privilege -- I looked for more important qualities in my friends. Even when I got jealous or angry at someone's privilege, I understood that it is OK for them to be more fortunate, and that I shouldn't expect others to walk in my shoes. I assumed most people, even those that can never fully understand my situation, are good -- and expected nothing from them. After all, my goal was to achieve what they have, and I expected myself to someday enjoy the same privileges.

</comment><comment><USER23> The most logistically frustrating part of the ordeal: "Dining halls at some schools, for example, close for spring break, though some students can't afford to leave campus."

<comment><USER14> Even during the semester, they didn't serve on Sunday. Presumably because you were all out with friends, eating at a pub or whatever. I just didn't eat on Sunday night.

<comment><USER6> Huh, I had completely forgotten about that. I had the same experience in Oxford -- my college served breakfast/lunch/dinner 6 days a week, but on Sunday there was just a brunch, and most weeks I ended up not eating dinner on Sunday.

<comment><USER5> Which college were you at? We had one day a week without food at Corpus, and I just found a couple of friends to cook with.

<comment><USER6> Wadham.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I attended an Ivy (Penn). Most of my friends were far from wealthy. Many from what most in the US would consider poor backgrounds. It's hard for me to speak on their behalf here, but it's quite obvious seeing them now how radically their lives have changed.

Here is a recent story that was fairly typical in my experience : [http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2423782-left- parentless-a...](http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2423782-left-parentless- and-homeless-harvard-stars-amazing-journey-may-lead-to-the-nfl)

It seems that there are those who pursue greatness and success and use their challenges and circumstances as motivation to do better and those that see themselves as handicapped and disadvantaged.

Are there pompous kids? Sure. But I believe that exists anywhere and quite frankly, I felt that those kids were the ones who were missing out. Missing out on relationships with people who were not caught up on the superficial, either because they couldn't afford to be, or didn't care.

Anyway, just my perspective, FWIW.

</comment><comment><USER25> Couple of thoughts:

\- Even if you provide resources to students for finding jobs/internships, they don't come with the same connections or experience as their wealthier peers so I'm wondering how much these help. For example, technology companies are typically going to hire those computer science students with the most programming experience, outside of a few small programs run by the larger companies (Google, Microsoft, Facebook) specifically for disadvantaged students.

\- Often you see stats on what percentage of students attending a university are low income (by some proxy like Pell grants), and what percentage of them graduate, but I have yet to see stats on career fields and income for these students. As someone from a blue collar middle class background getting an engineering degree I could count on one hand the number of students I met with backgrounds similar to mine (and this is at a fairly large school). I would expect these sorts of stats aren't very flattering to schools, but would love to see the numbers if they exist.

</comment><comment><USER26> Great article. That story struck a chord with me. Some changes to the settings. Replace an American Ivy league with an elite IIT in India.

It was rare to find a first generation engineering student who came from a humble background. My peers were fairly affluent, upper-middle class or middle class at the least. Enjoyment was proportional to thickness of their wallet. They didn't do anything abnormal or flashy. But it was hard in so many ways. After all how do you justify skipping their fun events, trips and parties?

I wanted to write some more. But don't feel like reliving that past. So making an abrupt end.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think the article misses the point: the problem with poor people is they don't have money.

I'd know, I grew up poor. That's the problem, and ONLY problem.

'We can do more to be supportive' \- JUST GIVE THEM MONEY. Oh they don't have to pay tuition, that's great. Do they have to pay rent and eat? Do they need to buy textbooks and clothes?

Give them money, end of story.

All this talk of self-esteem issues - please. Every 12-30 year old has self- esteem issues or ego-maniacal issues, time fixes all that. Just let them study and learn to fit in instead of washing dishes.

<comment><USER28> At the top ivy league schools, they do in fact also pay for rent, food, and even clothes (Harvard has a fund to pay for winter coats for students on certain levels of financial aid.) Harvard also has a fund to pay for some school-sponsored social events (like formal dances) as well as certain types of travel. There is still a notable class difference and there are still issues of money around different types of activities and behaviors, but it's not like they just pay tuition and call it a day.

(I mentioned Harvard specifically a few times because I went there and am familiar, but I believe the situation is the same at a couple of other top ivy league schools.)

<comment><USER27> If this is truly the case - I don't understand the notion of working part-time and studying at a top school. What is that all about?

If it is as you say it is - then this is just folks boo-hooing about the challenges of... well... being in challenging situations.

You are going to be put in those when it comes to your health, relationships and likely money, sooner or later. Everyone goes through that at some point in time - most come out alive :)

<comment><USER28> I think it's a bit unreasonable to describe it all as just "boo-hooing". Obviously everyone has challenges, but that doesn't mean that it isn't worth considering how these could be mitigated. There is a real problem of social stratification and isolation that affects many students at these top schools in a way that substantially impacts their experiences, and while it may be difficult to resolve, it's probably worth thinking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I can answer this, just wrote an answer then deleted it.

Bottom line: If you are poor and can figure out this loophole, just do it. On the balance I'm very, very glad I did.

</comment><comment><USER30> John Scalzi's essay "Being Poor" is a really good read along these same lines.

[http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being- poor/](http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/)

</comment><comment><USER7> _now a junior sociology major_

This surprised me - I expected someone in this situation to pursue a vocational subject like engineering or medicine.

</comment><comment><USER31> It has nothing to do with Ivies or the US; it's humanity.

</comment><comment><USER32> First first world problems.</comment>


The 30-year-old health sector billionaire - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28756059 <comment><USER2> As far as I can tell, the stars aligned here.

You have a brilliant founder who has a background in the tech (Chem Engineering) and the upbringing and connections to take research trips out to Singapore.

Second, you have the tech: microfluidic assays, and the idea of collecting them all in the same place.

Third, an existing industry that's been content to sit around and charge high prices due to low competition: LabCorp & company.

Finally, a generous funding environment.

Unfortunately, their secrecy is kind of a turn off. How can I know to trust their numbers?

<comment><USER3> Their secrecy is a turn off - as well as the people who are orbiting around the company. Do we really want the ideologies of the likes of Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld - people who have extraordinary track records of _not_ doing good in the world - to be involved in the next generation of health care technology innovation - particularly its control and application? Kissinger- doctrine style politics and healthcare do not mix.

<comment><USER4> Rumsfeld was also the Chairman of Gilead. I doubt it's a question of "do we want these people involved?" \- the reality is there's nothing that can stop it. They're the ultimate insiders. Rumsfeld can easily clear the deck for whatever approvals you need, and solve any problems you have, just as he did for Gilead. In exchange, you make them richer. That's how the FDA system works. You can't play in the medical / healthcare field without having a devil on your shoulder protecting you from the other monsters that will use the regulatory environment to destroy you. That's also how the business world at large works in general now, ala Al Gore on Apple's board, helping to protect Jobs from the options scandal. It's why Dropbox picked up Condoleezza Rice. It's ugly, but it's what you get when you have extreme government regulation, and when lobbyists can crush you by bribing the right people in DC, all major businesses must have their own power brokers.

<comment><USER5> Oh please. The FDA loves antagonize Congress about it's independence. Are there shady dealing? Sure, but don't make it out to be some secret cabal who always gets their way through shady backroom dealings.

To me it sounds like you'd love to have some sort of "political leanings filter" on people who do business. If their politics agrees with yours, great, if not, we need to make sure those people don't get into positions of power.

<comment><USER4> Positions of power are of little concern in a free market economy. The influence that comes with wealth is not the same as having political power, which is power at the barrel of a gun. The problem is, America is not a free market economy.

Hilariously I'm the exact opposite of what your false conclusion proclaims.

I'm neither liberal nor conservative - in fact I'm anti partisan - and I'm a laissez-faire Capitalist. I'd prefer the government be completely outlawed from creating economic regulations, and I believe in the separation of state and economy for the exact same reason state and church is separate: they infect each other. That instantly wipes out all lobbying for special treatment, special laws, and competition-by-government. The government returns to doing what it's only job should be: protection of individual rights.

The US is becoming a fascist oligarchy, dominated by a massive consolidation of select few winners that are then protected by the government from competition; this has occurred in nearly every segment of the economy.

The FDA rarely does anything that isn't shady. It is fully dominated by the mega-corps that can afford to buy political influence, from Pfizer to Merck to Gilead.

<comment><USER6> I'm baffled by why you don't understand that what you're describing isn't an inevitable outcome of low-regulation, laissez-faire capitalism.

You only get stability with negative feedback. Capitalism is all about positive feedback, and leads inevitably to systems that conglomerate, stagnate, distort, and eventually either implode or blow up.

Where do you think the negative feedback to prevent that is supposed to come from?

And please don't say 'markets' because there is no evidence that I know of that markets have ever done any such thing, or even that a market economy is capable of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The important thing about this article is not her age, her gender or her net worth: it's the enormous change her company is saying is possible in blood testing.

Ignore the comparisons with Steve Jobs and other crap and think about what her company is doing and what it means.

<comment><USER8> It means...

INVALID. You are not eligible for this product/job/life.

<comment><USER9> Hah, makes me think of Gattaca.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Prior (~1.5 months ago) HN discussion on Theranos: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951019](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951019)

</comment><comment><USER11> I think what is important is the LACK of critical articles out there. Where was the counterpoint in this article, or the recent Fortune article. I run a hospital laboratory in Seattle, and I am a clinical pathologist. Like Elizabeth Holmes, I studied Chemistry at Stanford, although I did graduate. Everyone in the lab world is a-twitter about Theranos right now, up to the CEOs of the big companies, largely because no one knows what they are doing. Everyone who goes and talks to them, including interviews for a job, signs a CDA, so this isn't surprising. However, there are several things we can know: 1- the big name folks on the board are Hoover Institution connections. No surprise there, I knew all those guys were there when I was at Stanford, and she was connected with them early. The person who commented about the importance for these links when it comes to FDA problems is right on. 2- what these people are doing for lab testing, in terms of technology, sounds totally revolutionary IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CLINICAL LABS. If you did know, you would understand that most of our routine instruments ALREADY use a couple microliters for an assay, and that results are available in seconds to minutes. There has never been an article about Holmes that mentions this. What she has done with microfluidics is to reduce dead volume quite a bit to allow overall lower sample volumes, but this is an evolutionary, not revolutionary, change to instrumentation. It is also of dubious clinical value (more on this later). 3- the fact that they list their prices IS revolutionary, and it's the best thing about the company. I wish I could do at for my lab. Secrecy of pricing is one of the major problems with Us healthcare. 4- no one writing any of these articles about her understands that fingerstick blood is not the same as venous blood. It is blood mixed with interstitial fluid from the tip of the finger. The results of tests are different for analytes in venous bold and fingerstick blood. Thus,they need to do a clinical validation that their results are meaningful, in addition to an analytical validation to prove that they're accurate. This is where the FDA, as they did to 23andme, is going to get involved, unless Don Rumsfeld can head them off. If LAb Developed Tests get regulated in the coming years, though, they are totally screwed, just like I am. 5- many people don't know that you can already get lab tests done on finger stick blood, ie prick your finger at home and mail in the blood or take it to participating Walmarts. The reason for this, I suspect, is that the companies that do this are not headed by an attractive blond woman and enveloped in the shroud of mystery of a Silicon Valley.

I will be interested to see how long it takes before a serious "the emperor has no clothes" article will come out in a mass media outlet, and someone who actually runs a lab or knows any of the rules of running labs is asked even one question. It is much less sexy of a story when told that way, so maybe never.

<comment><USER12> Where do you see room for improvement, if any, for blood testing? As far as I can tell based on what I've read and what you've said, they've basically made certain types of blood tests easier, cheaper(?), and accessible via an app? Is that accurate? If so, even without any new technology, that seems like it could be interesting, if only as a business with a marketable product. Not sure about $10B interesting, but hey...

<comment><USER11> The 10b valuation is nuts. That's more than LabCorp or Quest, two companies that already do lab actual lab tests on real instruments for hundreds of millions of people. Yes, it looks like you can get results online from Theranos, but you can do this for lots of labs, as well. Theranos' app is undoubtedly slicker...Silicon Valley can afford better software people than labs can. As for improvements in labs today.... Our financial structure is crazy. Fee for service drives more testing, when in fact the main problem in US medicine right now is that we do too much testing (overall...there are still some areas where we need to do more). The solution to test overutilization is not making tests cheaper so folks can get more tests at Walgreens. One answer could be the current ACO model (or it's logical extension, single payer or socialized medicine) in which the goal of care is the health of the patient, not the profit. Once hospitals and labs are payed by the person, not by the test, we're gonna find lots of surprising ways to stop letting folks get tests they don't need, since the answers to those tests will often be misleading, require expensive follow up, etc... To the folks on this discussion who think that they would prefer to be able to go and get frequent tests (or, god forbid, get frequent Lyme serologies, which borders on outright quackery), I would say this: you can't handle the truth. Really. There is a reason why we put doctors as gatekeepers between patients and medical services like MRIs, lab tests, and chemotherapy. It's called Bayes Theorem (it's on Wikipedia). If it's exceedingly unlikely that something is wrong with you before you get a test, then it's still exceedingly unlikely you have the condition even when you get a positive test for it. This breaks down when the doctor does a bad job, since it's the doctor's job to select tests only in those with higher pretest probabilities, but it is an inescapable issue. I realize also that suggesting that laypeople are too ignorant to take their own health into their own hands sounds not even a little elitist, but it is sorta true. One of the main concerns for healthy people should be staying OUT of the medical care system, because we hurt people sometimes, even when we help them. The lab is a gateway to the medical care system, so unless you want to go through the gate, stay away.

<comment><USER13> Is there really an over-utilization of blood tests? MRIs, yes, but I'm not sure that right now we're really doing too many blood tests.

Regarding your point on Bayes Theorem, that's valid in some ways and invalid in some ways. Suppose someone gets a vitamin D test back at 8 ng/mL. There's not really a chance of a false positive. He's deficient and needs supplementation. Making the test cheaper, faster, and more accessible can really only improve the health of the population. It will likely also drive down the cost of healthcare overall, because vitamin D deficiency has all sorts of unpleasant effects.

Furthermore, the literature suggests that the vast majority of doctors do not understand Bayes Theorem. Source: [http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes](http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes)

<comment><USER11> You are demonstrably wrong about the vitamin d. What if it was a specimen swap, and the lab screwed up and tested someone else's blood instead of yours? This happens.

<comment><USER14> The cheaper and faster the tests, the easier it is to reorder a confirmation (or two or three).

<comment><USER11> And then what.... Rock Paper Scissors for which one is correct?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The recent FDA ruling on lab-developed test means this company is now massively disadvantaged, as their entire secrecy is based on not needing to get FDA approval. Now they need it.

</comment><comment><USER16> As a practicing doctor (albeit a junior one) I simply cannot foresee any more than 1 or two conditions where direct to consumer lab testing would actually be of practical use.

If on the other hand her technology is radically cheaper than the hospitals own lab then it would rapidly achieve huge market share and help cut healthcare costs. Just yesterday I had 2 sets of coags on the same patient sent back necessitating retaking (not an easy job on an elderly severely demented woman), one because it had clotted (apparently) and another because there was not enough blood. Smaller volumes required would be great for a whole bunch of situations.

<comment><USER17> I see dozens of conditions this would be good for. I think you get biased once you spend 8-10 years becoming a gatekeeper to healthcare.

People want to take their health into their own hands and not have to have every test blessed by a $150 doctor visit plus a separate lab visit.

Conditions to test for:

Hemachromatosis Many other genetic conditions Vitamin deficiencies (D, B, potassium) Blood sugar for people prone to diabetes Lyme disease (test after every tick bite after waiting the required time period)

And that's just off the top of my head.

Many of those are tests I'd like to a few times a year, but don't want to schedule a doctor appointment, take off work, make a copay, schedule a lab test, take more time off, another copay, etc.

<comment><USER18> I can't agree with you more. I go hiking a lot and have gotten tick bites. There is nothing worse than having to schedule an appointment and going to the doctor just to have something simple done. Biggest waste of time, vacation/sick days and all to do something that is so easy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ironic that a company focused on blood tests would have a board of directors with so much blood on their hands.

</comment><comment><USER20> The shape of lab testing in the U.S. seems to be bad: from the article I get that significant advantages include _upfront prices_, wide network of sampling stations, and results being emailed within 24 hours. In Moscow (recently in other cities as well) we've had InVitro Labs for several years, which do everything mentioned. No doubts there are some billionaires.

</comment><comment><USER21> I remember reading something quite awhile ago about her and her company, which was very dismissive of the entire subject. Is anyone familiar with what this was in reference to, because this articles does seem rather convincing to me!

<comment><USER17> Well I think it's a disruptive technology to traditional labs. So expect to see a lot of dismissive articles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The most important thing: Holmes still owns half the company.

It's extremely rare for such a young founder to still be in control of the company, and to own 50% after more than a decade. That's not only a huge accomplishment, it's a testament to the strength of Holmes' conviction in the company's mission.

Getting rich all comes down to ownership—every single percentage point counts.

<comment><USER4> If you just want to get rich, a few points of a serious company would do.

She could have cashed out a long time ago and been very rich. The reason her ownership is important isn't the substantially inflated valuation and digits on her net-worth, it's the control it enables to steer such a young company long-term.

Getting rich doesn't come down to counting every single percentage, it comes down to creating a lot of value. If you do that, whether you own 14% or 40%, you're going to be rich.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's interesting they've pegged the company at a $9 billion valuation. Labcorp at this moment has a $9 billion valuation (with $6 billion in sales, and $573 million in profit...).

<comment><USER23> Nice catch. However, Labcorp has almost no revenue and profit growth in an increasingly competitive industry. A valuation at 15.5x LTM profit does not seem unreasonable.

Comparing the valuation of a growing startup with a stagnant incumbent is always going to look strange if you only consider a snapshot of financial numbers.

<comment><USER4> I think Labcorp's valuation is perfectly reasonable.

I think Theranos is overvalued by a factor of ten fold.

The market eventually forces a sane valuation on companies based on revenue and earnings. It's extraordinarily unlikely a company charging vastly less for its products will produce a dramatically greater economic outcome than Labcorp which dominates the industry (Labcorp has the best of both worlds, high prices, and high market share, the only thing they could improve is volume).

Theranos investors have had all their future returns pulled forward. Even in a wildly successful outcome, Theranos is unlikely to be worth much more than 2x what they already are, 20 years from now. That assumes they can one day grow to have ten billion in sales and a billion in profit, based on much lower prices and higher volume. That day is so far off, there's zero chance of Theranos sustaining their crazy valuation between here and there as capital markets turn negative after this hyper bull market run.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Well that would be awesome to monitor anticoagulation.

<comment><AUTHOR> yes indeed, this opens up new possibilities for monitoring what's going on in our bodies. But we would need more knowledge / education so we don't jump to conclusions when a value out of bounds.

<comment><USER24> Sure, but that particular ship sailed a long time ago. Most patients track their INR from the lab and simply ask when it swings too much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Maybe this is why its possible - $10k for blood test

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your- health/wp/2014/08...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your- health/wp/2014/08/15/a-10000-blood-test-yes- really/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost)

</comment><comment><USER26> Why does she wear a turtle neck? lol

</comment><comment><USER27> On paper being the important bit of this piece.

</comment><comment><USER28> She is dressed like CEO if a dystopian ruling corporation.</comment>


Real Men Use Android: Special Forces Favor Google Phone  - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/special-forces-want-android-apps-for-warzone-john-maddens/ <comment><USER2> Apparently "real men" can't be pacifists. Good to know.

<comment><USER3> I do not understand. I do not see where the article suggests that all "real men" are in the armed forces.

<comment><USER4> Apparently "real men" can't be iPhone users. Good to know.

:)

<comment><USER5> Back in AF, pilots in training would be obsessed with their iPhones playing X-Plane. It actually is a fantastic simulator considering that many of these pilots could very possibly be flying your commercial jet someday :) My buddy who went the cargo AF pilot route is a heavy iPhone user, but I guess the rest of the military doesn't consider the AF a real branch and call it the "Air Farce." The AF is going towards the UAV route, so pilots in the service are less and less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Pretty good article. For one that works directly with the troops as well as building tools for the R&D department for my company. We are building and showing off tools just like what is explained in this article to try and win contracts just like this.

We are always looking for more things and ways to help the troops out. This article does a good job of actually telling the public what the private sector builds for the troops.

<comment><USER5> For all the flack vets/servicemen get, it's _not_ their war. Policymakers such as Bush determined what servicemen would do. Servicemembers can save lives in Katrina, and they may be ordered to carry out bombing missions--a lot of people were commissioned/enlisted during 9/11 after being moved by the collapse of the twin towers: it is a case of bait and switch, when we were sold the falsehoods of the "War on Terror."

What the military does is not a binary answer. The public chooses the commander in chief and the policy (Congress). It's a system that has endured for the last three centuries. You have the power to change it, and if you don't like it and don't speak up, remember V for Vendetta: "If you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror."

I sometimes remember the story of my girlfriend's grandpa: He was a Japanese soldier drafted in the Second World War. Around the same time, my maternal grandmother was serving as a provincial administrator of the Republic of China version of the IRS as one of the first college educated female accountants. She had to dress up as a man, cut her hair short to avoid being summarily raped and shot in Nanjing, then-capital of China. So now you know I'm of Chinese ethnicity dating a Japanese girl. My girlfriend's grandpa on a China mission was ordered by his commander to shoot one of the prisoners. If he refused, he would most likely be shot (most militaries allow this; the UCMJ allows this in combat). It was a choice between his life or somebody else's. If you watched Dark Knight, you know it's never a black or white answer. It's always a cruel decision to make. Just ask any Vietnam vet who saw combat. If my girlfriend's grandpa didn't shoot the man, my girlfriend might not exist. If he did, he would be a conscientious objector at the expense of his life, and I would not meet my girlfriend. All the while it's awful 40 million Chinese people lost their lives to the Japanese. There are your obvious offenders, the ones that _do_ enjoy raping and killing people, but they are not normal and are present even in civilian society. A lot of them are likely decent people, and would secretly free Chinese prisoners if they had the opportunity.

I wish we could all be pacifists, but should we eliminate the military? I'm sure that's a resounding no, and I realize my sentiment may not be the most popular on HN, but we would be looking at anarchy without the men manning the silos too.

War is awful and thankfully the Internet seems to be eliminating 99.9% of armed conflicts. There is no point in senseless loss of life. But we still need a good defense--maybe not as much power as we have now, bur nonetheless something to protect the border.

<comment><USER6> Even tho this was a good read, what does it have to do with my above comment?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> They also use Windows...

<comment><USER8> So does everyone. Now they'll use less of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One problem with releasing your code as open source is it can get used in ways that you don't approve of, eg weapon systems by the military or crapware by the carriers.

<comment><USER10> This is why the GPL is better than Apache. The military would have to release their code.

<comment><USER11> Why? They don't distribute it outside of their organization.

<comment><USER10> good point. I didn't think of that.

<comment><USER12> Use AGPL.

<comment><USER11> They _still_ wouldn't be distributing the service outside of their organization.

<comment><USER12> You are right. AGPL is not a solution.

Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I still have a problem with using a VM on a phone and having GC on a phone. (I also have a problem with Objective C's function call overhead.)

<comment><USER14> Macho. But a phone is exactly where you want a VM. In fact, I would _love_ to be able to push vm images for my phone from my desktop machine. Wake up, plug phone, push image. Security upgrades, new GPS data, my downloaded podcasts, news, emails, etc. I want to be able to come home with a new handset, plug it, and have my "phone" back.

<comment><USER15> Totally different use of the term "virtual machine". You're talking about a virtualised execution environment, or hardware virtual machine (as executed by virtualbox, xen or whatever); he's talking about a runtime virtual machine (like the CLR, JVM, or Dalvik).

<comment><USER14> The distinction is negligible on the mobile phone where the the 'runtime VM' takes care of memory allocation for even "native" C code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Today all of my SMS messages disappeared off my HTC Incredible.

Google is just full of wonderful surprises.</comment>


You've Got Male: How Rom-Coms Have Secretly Been Holding Women Back - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@bethanymarz/youve-got-male-how-rom-coms-have-secretly-been-holding-women-back-ab1132102fb <comment><USER2> Sure, there's no balance between the male and female roles but that's not the real problem with these films. The problem is that there's very little chance that a woman will enter a relationship as portrayed in these movies. Which leads to never-ending relationship dissatisfaction in relationships. What these movies portray most likely can't be achieved but there are women that get fooled into thinking that that's what they should seek. A recipe for unhappiness.</comment>


Chrome OS 12 — AKA: The Shipping Version — Hits Beta - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/16/chrome-os-12-—-aka-the-shipping-version-—-hits-beta/ <comment><USER2> The key feature was not even mentioned but alluded to. If you use your ChromeBook everyday you will never ever hear about new versions, new features, or even think to read a story like this again. It will just be, and little things will get better and you will be pleasantly surprised and move on with your day.

I've been running on the dev channel here since I got m CR-48 and I didn't even know I was running version 12 or anything but here I was. I've been getting regular updates and have been only seeing minor changes from time to time.

That is the key feature.

<comment><USER3> You never have to reboot for an update? If you do, than it's little different from Windows' auto-update, which downloads and installs in the background. Also, Chrome OS is based on Gentoo, and I doubt Gentoo will never need an update again.

<comment><USER2> It does sometime require a reboot; an almost instant reboot.

Edit: I get your point though I hate reboots and the CR-48 is not perfect. But its quickly becoming my main driver. Just as soon as I can afford unlimited 3G.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Im not sure it has "hit beta". Im running a CR-48 on the beta channel, and I'm up to date running 0.11.257.91. Switching to the dev channel doesn't seem to provide 0.12 when I hit update.

<comment><USER5> You can't just switch to the dev channel and immediately update. You need to wait until the next dev version releases to download it.

<comment><USER6> If the dev version is greater then the currently installed beta version you can.

<comment><USER5> This could very well be true but I would've assumed that the dev version is always greater than the beta version? I just remember having to wait around 3 days before I could download a dev version after I switched.

<comment><USER6> Yes. Dev should always be greater then beta. In the earlier days when everything was unstable enough there might not have been much of a difference at times. It was pretty much instantaneous for me both with my Cr-48 and with the Chrome browser.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


PySh: an attempt to create a shell providing both bash and Python features - <AUTHOR> http://www.aspyct.org/doku.php?id=pysh <comment><USER2> They used one of my favorite licenses, the FSF-approved WTFPL:

                DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
                        Version 2, December 2004

     Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar
      14 rue de Plaisance, 75014 Paris, France
     Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
     copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
     as the name is changed.

                DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
       TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

      0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

<comment><USER3> Personally I hate licenses like this. At least this one has been approved by the FSF, but I have to look it up. I see no reason not to just use MIT/BSD if you want a short, permissive license. That way everyone knows exactly what they can do with it and programmers hoping to use your code won't have to beg the legal department to ok it.

<comment><USER4> I agree. If you really want something extremely permissive just go the SQLite route. Otherwise BSD/MIT (BSD is my fav). There seems little use for this license.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There already exists Pyshell ( <http://pyshell.sourceforge.net/> ). Pyshell is a lot more mature, PySh is more a proof of concept.

</comment><comment><USER6> Awesome, who knew that bash could be (more or less) reimplemented in another language('s interpreter) in less than 300 lines? I sure as hell didn't. This bash script is the trump card to all of my previous excuses for _why I don't want, need, or care to learn Python_. . .thanks Antoine. . .I just got sold.

Ask thread: who here uses Zsh? does anyone actually think they're more productive in _their_ shell than they are in bash? why do you think this? can you prove it?

<comment><USER7> zsh tab-completes command options (in freebsd, anyway. doesn't seem to work in osx).

<comment><USER8> So does bash.

<http://bash-completion.alioth.debian.org/>

It's extensible to boot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How does this work with whitespace? Do you have to indent if you are going multi-line?

<comment><USER10> Yeah it seems like ruby would be a better fit here, as much as I like python.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps they can import the Haskell-rules. Haskell allows indentation and curly braces/semicolons to be mixed at will.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've always fancied an interactive (ruling out scsh) sexp based shell. At the prompt Bourne compatibility doesn't matter to me.</comment>