Apple March 2016 Keynote – 10am PDT - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/apple-events/march-2016/ <comment><USER2> I found that keynote terribly disappointing and uninspired. I had really hoped for Apple that they show something new and innovative - instead of two smaller versions of existing products.

EDIT: I did not mean that in an Apple-bashing way. But I wonder what Elon Musk would come up with if he had time and - let's say - 100 billion USD at his disposal.

<comment><USER3> I agree. There was little sign of the old Apple Arrogance that paved new product lines and pushed tech forward. Instead, the presentation explicitly mentioned several times that they only released these products because "customers asked for them."

As Steve Jobs famously said, "customers don't know what they want." This change of motivation in their product development is a significant one.

<comment><USER4> Steve Jobs never said that, or at least it's easily to misinterpret. Here's what he said:

"But in the end, for something this complicated, it's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them." (Businessweek, 1998)

The point is that Apple is VERY concerned about what customers want, and listen to customers, and usually achieves that through an engine of incremental improvement once the product is out there. They just don't believe in a focus-group approach to new products.

Secondly, the current internet meme is that Apple needs to slow down and make their products more stable. Yet we still want our innovation "drug hit" from their announcements. This is hard to balance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Edit - doesn't work on Chrome 49

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

Non safari users, you can change your user agent to Safari for live stream.

Chrome extension- [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/user-agent- switche...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/user-agent-switcher- for-c/djflhoibgkdhkhhcedjiklpkjnoahfmg/related?hl=en-US)

Firefox extension- [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent- sw...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent-switcher/)

<comment><USER6> Works on Edge...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> No updated MacBook Pro? That's annoying.

I was rather hoping for a small refresh to include the new Skylake processors, it's certainly due one: [http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac](http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac)

<comment><USER8> I think one of two things is true:

\- There's no big redesign planned this year, and the Macbook and Macbook Pro will see press-release releases with updated guts (most notably Skylake) before too long.

\- There is a significant redesign of the Macbook Pro coming up, and it'll be announced at WWDC.

<comment><USER9> I hope number 2 ends up to be true, but most likely number one. Phil Schiller described the ipad pro as "The ultimate replacement for the PC", and that means Apple is all-in for replacing the laptop in the mass market, while also very convenient for profits since their closed hardware will only run an OS and Apps signed by Apple, with only one store to buy Software.

They don't have an incentive to support open computing, and for the first time in years IBM and Microsoft have better products (Carbon X1, Surface book) while OSX haven't seen a major update and MacBook Pros that once were the best professional laptops are really past generation hardware and software.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm curious why my modern browser "doesn't support live streaming of the event" according to Apple.

It was the same issue last year. I need an Apple product (or a Windows 10 PC with Microsoft Edge) to watch a livestream on the internet. Odd for 2016.

Is this really a technical barrier or a marketing/strategic barrier?

<comment><USER5> Interesting that Edge is allowed to stream.

PS: Wiki [1] says Apples's HTTP live streaming is supported on Chrome 30 and onwards.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming)

<comment><USER11> Isn't it more to do with safari doesn't run on Windows? So Apple need to officially support a Windows browser as to not exclude all those windows users

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Your browser doesn't support live streaming of the event.

Seriously Apple ...

'Apple refuses to stream on your browser' would be a better message

<comment><USER13> Apple uses a live streaming variant of HLS to stream their events. Since HLS is basically an Apple proprietary protocol it isn't well supported on other platforms.

Apple in one of their previous press events enabled support for the Microsoft Edge browser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I cringed every time they kept trying to emphasize the night hue mode as if it is innovative... they explicitly removed two apps from the store that added the feature in the past just to try and profit from an old idea.

<comment><USER15> A big part of Apple's product appeal is the ecosystem, and a big part of the ecosystem is that amazing features simply work, and work well. They don't have to be configured or hunted for. Taken a step further, the problems some of these new features solve don't even have to be fully apparent to the user.

To that end, Apple improves their ecosystem by making good features standard. Tim Cook mentioned that there were 1 billion Apple devices in circulation. How many of those do you think have users that were even aware of the existence of those two apps? Or even the problem that they address?

I'm not a fan of any bigCo squashing innovative software (and I'm certainly not defending it), but there's no question that in cases like this bringing that feature into the fold leads to a better user experience across the board. To those of us who knew the circumstances it might be cringeworthy, but for the other 98% of users it's just another advance in a progression of features that keeps the ecosystem's user-experience better than any other.

<comment><USER14> > Apple improves their ecosystem by making good features standard.

Only if you buy their latest devices. Case in point: I just updated to iOS 9.3 for the hue feature and I come to find out (by the fine print on their website) that it's not available for iPhone 5 users for no reason other than to force upgrades.

If they handled the Flux app situation fairly I wouldn't need to buy a new phone for such a simple but important feature.

<comment><USER15> I don't disagree with you. I'm not being an Apple apologist, just commenting why from their viewpoint it makes sense to bring the very best features into the fold of standard, native, functionality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> For those who aren't in a position to watch the video, Ars Technica is doing their usual live blog

[http://live.arstechnica.com/apples- march-2016-event/](http://live.arstechnica.com/apples-march-2016-event/)

<comment><USER17> The Verge: [https://live.theverge.com/apple-iphone-se-ipad-pro-event- liv...](https://live.theverge.com/apple-iphone-se-ipad-pro-event-live-blog/)

MacRumors: [http://www.macrumors.com/2016/03/21/live-coverage-iphone- se-...](http://www.macrumors.com/2016/03/21/live-coverage-iphone-se-ipad-pro- event/)

TechCrunch: [http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/21/liveblog-apple-event- keynot...](http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/21/liveblog-apple-event-keynote- iphone-se-ipad-pro-spring-2016/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Big reveal: robots will now do the dirty work of recycling iPhones, instead of Bangladeshi children.

<comment> inspector-g I think this is showing another benefit of focusing on a smaller number of products and controlling their development from (virtually) top-to-bottom.

Apple has such a limited number of products that they can build robots to disassemble said products piece-by-piece, which is arguably a more efficient manner to recycle individual parts. Other companies that have a zillion products would likely find it difficult to achieve the same level of efficiency, because they basically have to "shred" their products and sort the bits out later.

EDIT: Do you have a source on Apple using "Bangladeshi children" for disassembly before today?

<comment><USER19> OTOH a great way to reduce waste is to make products repairable and upgradable, which is something Apple keeps moving away from, especially on popular products.

<comment><USER20> Not really. The products aren't upgradable or repairable by the end user, but as they demonstrated today, they are upgradeable (to brand new things like solar panels) and repairable by Apple themselves. I for one hate the idea of an end-user upgradeable smart phone. That sounds like a minefield of driver issues and the like that I just don't want. Its why I moved away from Windows in the first place.

I think it makes a great deal of sense to consolidate the upgrades and repairs - they can do it far more efficiently at scale.

<comment><USER19> > Not really.

Yes really.

> The products aren't upgradable or repairable by the end user

See? Yes really indeed.

> as they demonstrated today, they are upgradeable (to brand new things like > solar panels) and repairable by Apple themselves.

Recycling is neither upgrading nor repairing.

> I for one hate the idea of an end-user upgradeable smart phone. That sounds > like a minefield of driver issues and the like that I just don't want. Its > why I moved away from Windows in the first place.

I'm not talking changing GPU (which doesn't really make sense on a laptop let alone a cell phone), I'm talking about soldered RAM and non-standard SSD connectors on laptops, and heavily glued batteries behind tons of odd screws on both phones and laptops. No drivers involved, and the ability to increase device lifespan by years.

> I think it makes a great deal of sense to consolidate the upgrades and > repairs

Again, recycling is not upgrading or repairing, it's taking waste and re- making into product, that requires more materials and energy than not having to do that and being able to keep using the product in the first place.

> they can do it far more efficiently at scale.

That makes literally no sense. Recycling, even at scale, can't be more efficient than not making product into waste in the first place. You can't recover as much matter and energy as was put into building the product to start with unless you've found a way around everything we know of thermodynamics, and if you have what are you commenting on internet forums for? You've basically solved all the world's problem!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Give Skylake MBP

</comment><comment><USER22> Anybody have a tip on how to watch on Windows 7?

<comment><USER23> Open this network stream with VLC:

[http://p.events- delivery.apple.com.edgesuite.net/1603kjbnadc...](http://p.events- delivery.apple.com.edgesuite.net/1603kjbnadcpjhbasdvpjbasdvpjb/m3u8/hls_mvp.m3u8)

<comment><USER24> Thank you. Why wouldn't they just put this on their website? Crazy that they make it so uninviting for so many people.

<comment><USER25> As with anything Apple, it's like that _by design_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Most boring apple keynote ever. Seriously.

</comment><comment><USER27> What a horrible keynote. There was literally nothing new, just the same products, only smaller.

</comment><comment><USER28> On Safari on OSX and I'm just getting the "starting at 10am PDT" message, anybody else?</comment>


Why Microsoft is abandoning the PC and Android tablets are expensive? - <AUTHOR> http://technocures.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-microsoft-is-abandoning-pc-and.html

<comment><USER2> _Add to this the fact that Android is free (Google makes no money in it) and you can see why all hardware manufacturers are moving like droves to the tablet market._

Google does make money on Android, through selling the eyeballs of it's users. The entire goal was to make a new advertising platform they could control.

Another result of this - hardware vendors have no motivation to keep the OS up to date after they've stopped selling that model - why add value to an old model that will then compete with your new models?

Nobody is looking out for the end users in either case, other than tangentially in ways to further their own business goals or prevent PR nightmares.

<comment><USER3> >> The entire goal was to make a new advertising platform they could control.

That's the way it was supposed to work. But surprise! It turns out that search is not big on mobile... mainly because typing is not easy on mobile. That explains why apps dominate -- one touch and you get to where you need to go -- no fiddling with on-screen keyboards, searches or URLs.

<comment><USER4> Have they ever heard of bookmarks or shortcuts?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't get this fixation on margins. There are plenty of good businesses with low margins (Walmart being an extreme example). A quick check seems to tell me Dell actually has a better return on equity than Apple does (49.4% vs 42%).

<http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Dell_(DELL)/Data/ROE> <http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Apple_(AAPL)/Data/ROE>

</comment><comment><USER6> Kind of have to disagree with this blog post. He predicts that the PC will be a relic of the past. By saying this, he fails to take into consideration the huge end-user market, PC gaming, and that pretty much all businesses use desktops running on Windows. The tablet market is undeniably booming but it's not going to replace the desktop. The tablet is meant to have as a device of convenience and casual use.

Source: 400 million Windows 7 copies sold thus far

</comment><comment><USER7> In a few years, phones will likely be powerful enough to displace laptops for their ability to run a full desktop OS. The transition will be seamless -- you just wirelessly connect your phone to your keyboard, mouse, and monitor and you'll be able to use a desktop OS like how you're using it today. The Metro UI gives existing Windows users the option to make that transition.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think this guy got off the rails. The tablet is going to kill the notebook/netbook market which is what most consumers buy.

Killing the PC will take a long time in corporate environments except maybe in the C level where all they need is email and document/presentation software and web apps.

It will still be served to them from Linux/BSD and even some Windows boxes.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have to disagree with you on the business market front. Most companies(excluding some obvious examples) use PC's/Netbooks only for doing basic data-entry and specialized enterprise software that usually runs of a browser anyway. Tablets when priced correctly will offer a significantly lower TCO to these companies compared to traditional PCs. Google, tried(unsuccessfully) with the Chromebook to tap into this sentiment, though I think their overall vision was right. If we are going to live with data on servers or cloud, why need a full blown PC. Its the pricing that is the current challenge to all vendors. Once, cheap tablet options come companies will realize that their TCO's will be significantly lowered by adopting these devices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Given that he made no mention of touch screen PCs I think he's totally missed where MS are betting the market is going to be in 2 or 3 years.

Watch the key note. See the load of touch screen PCs on stage. Realise he wrote a whole blog post of nonsense.

MS are trying to anticipate the next big market _AFTER_ the tablets.

Whether this will actually happen is another guess, but I think this guy is so far off the mark in his prediction of the demise of the PC.

Personally I can see MS pulling some stunt like encouraging PC manufacturers to give away a Windows 8 Tablet free with your new all singing Touch Enabled Windows 8 PC, cutting the entire market out from underneath Apple.

So, I suggest MS are actually hoping that touch PCs will actually give consumers a reason to upgrade their PCs again after the flagging sales of the last few years.

In the end I don't see it as compelling enough until they start talking about touch and gesture enabled PCs.

EDIT: part of the reason I believe this is because of the massive emphasis MS were making on the cloud based login anywhere, file available anywhere. The point will be devices that talk to each other with the same apps available on all of them.

<comment><AUTHOR> I should have defined PC more clearly. To me a PC is any device that runs Intel's(or AMD's) X86 Architecture, Is windows based and is non-touch. Touch- based PC's are just an evolution of Tablets. See Lenovo's new Thinkpad Tablet, where for $100 you get a keyboard and it converts to a Touch-Based device running "Android"!!. Microsoft, in their new Touch-Based PC's is going to mainly use ARM processors, which means all the old windows software is not going to work. MS might just invent a new OS and Device for the same, but I guess for marketing purposes is calling these devices "PCs".

<comment><USER9> Very inventive definition of a PC there. And totally wrong. What do you call Linux PCs? Or NeXT PCs? The Amiga? Spectrum? BBC Micro? Acorn?

The term PC was about long before Windows and Intel rose to dominance, don't pretend you meant anything else.

If you think that ARM is going to suddenly win overnight just because windows is offering a Windows that works on ARM you're wrong. Intel's here to stay a while precisely because most software won't work on ARM. You're a whole generation too early on your prediction.</comment></comment></comment>


IOS Programming: The Big Nerd Ranch Guide (3rd Edition) - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/iOS-Programming-Ranch-Edition-Guides/dp/0321821521/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332860302&sr=8-1-spell <comment><USER2> This was the first book I read (an older edition) when I was learning to program for iOS. It is very accessible, but occasionally they gloss over the details of some key things (like memory management). I would recommend supplementing a book like this with the literature that Apple provides.</comment>


Facebook Fellowships - <AUTHOR> http://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/a-new-year-of-facebook-fellowships/473033463919

<comment><USER2> Smart move on Facebook's part. It's competitive monetarially with other grad school fellowships, and access to FB's resources could be helpful. However, there's potential for the fellow to not be able to publish results, due to

 _Q. What are the intellectual property implications of a Facebook Fellowship?_

 _A. Facebook intellectual property rules are industry standard but we strive to work with each partcipant to create a workable arrangement on a case-by- case basis that is consistent with the educational mission and Facebook's need to protect its confidential information and other intellectual property rights._

I think it's a great way for Facebook to get access to some smart people for pretty cheap. And if you want to work at FB, it'd probably help to have been a Fellow.

</comment><comment><USER3> _Marshall Law - Can sum body tell me y nt b-tec it is more technical dan phd...authorites shud think upm it-.._

wtf?

It seems like most facebook communication pages have comments turned on, yet I never see anything but garbage on them.</comment>


Unicorns vs. Donkeys: Handy Guide to Distinguishing - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@abhasvc/unicorns-vs-donkeys-your-handy-guide-to-distinguishing-who-s-who-f1b30942b2b6 <comment><USER2> Interesting exercise. I'd like to see the justification for the "3" on the right side of the equation though. Does anyone know where that came from or have a reference?

A lot of the estimates are really bad and completely ignore sensitivities due to assumptions, especially with CAC in the denominator which can have a massive effect when the range of ratios offered in the article is 0 < r < 3.

The difference between a LTV / CAC ratio of 2 and 3 is 50%. If CAC is assumed to be $3000 when the ratio is 2, then it only needs to drop by 33% to $2000 to get the ratio up to 3.

The author appears to consistently guess at CAC and then completely ignore the fact that a slight shift in the right direction would quickly put a company back in unicorn territory.

<comment><USER3> At the end of the day it's all hand-wavy bullshit. You don't actually know either of those numbers with exactness if you're _in_ the company, let alone if you only guess by looking at it from the outside.

What this type of analysis turns into is, "I like this company, so I think their LTV would be very high."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What's badly needed here is a sensitivity analysis.

For example, he lists ZocDoc's CAC as in the range $1k to $10k.

If it's $1k then their LTV/CAC = 4.8 (wow good!)

If it's $10k then their LTV/CAC = 0.48 (wow horrid!)

The author chose $3k, seemingly arbitrarily.

There's nothing wrong with arbitrary assumptions in general, but in this case a lot more scrutiny is needed before we judge if its a unicorn or donkey.

<comment><USER5> When dealing with numbers that span orders of magnitude, it may be better to use the geometric mean (sqrt(1x10) approximately 3), not the usual mean ((1 + 10)/2 around 5). Just my guess.

<comment><USER4> I would argue that's no better.

I would say: When dealing with numbers that span orders of magnitude, and the result is very sensitivity to those numbers, you need to obtain more information in order to make a better estimate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting exercise. One can nitpick some of the math and assumptions, but the message is directionally correct.

The problem too many of these so called unicorns have is that there's not much in the way of real fundamentals supporting their lofty valuations. The valuation is largely based on hype. A lot of these companies valued at $1billion + may realistically only have a value of a few million based on their fundamentals.

In once sense that doesn't matter. If you're an early investor in such a unicorn you only need to convince some sucker to buy your shares while the hype is still hot. However, one needs to be a total fool to not understand that in such a game the music always stops playing at some point and someone is left holding a bag full of worthless $#&!.

The early players in this game have long since cashed out and are on a nice beach somewhere. The challenge for today's 'unicorns' is that they're starting to venture into nightmarish territory for businesses... i.e. massively overvalued without the fundamentals to stop a free fall. The number of recent tech IPOs where shares have plunged 50+% shortly after floating (or were forced into a recent big down round) are a strong sign that the market's tolerance for hype-based valuation is disappearing quickly. For those companies in that boat it's quickly going to become a game of put up or shut up. The solid business will survive but the rest will implode or be sold for pennies on the dollar in a fire sale down the line.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think according to this analysis unicorns don't exists...

<comment><USER4> Y'know, I'm not __entirely __uncomfortable with that conclusion...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I haven't checked how the magical 3 is arrived at but assuming it's reasonable I think a more valuable exercise would have been to hold the 3 constant and plug in the values you're most sure about and then speculate about the missing variables. For ZocDoc with its 1-10k CAC range you could then speculate if they could reach the CAC that would lead to the magical >3.

So basically I think it's more valuable to use this as a tool to check if you think a startup can realistically optimize towards the >3 or if that is futile (see how they can influence LTV and CAC respectively) instead of trying to "rank" startups by plugging in LTV/CAC if you're not sure about them.

Interesting read either way.

</comment><comment><USER9> I was a little questioning of why it was 3, but it isn't an unreasonable ratio after some thought: 1 would be borderline absurd, 2 could work but might not work with your operational costs, and 3 should represent a reasonable return on investment.

There is probably a closer, more precise number, but 3 is a decent number to use; if you're looking for businesses that generate a lot of revenue from customers, without spending a lot to acquire them or serve them; it works out.

Otherwise, great article and I will definitely be keeping this in mind in my own project. When I did the math it came out to 8.4, so I've got more wiggle room in the CAC than I thought.

</comment><comment><USER10> Like others have mentioned, I'm very interested in how the author arrived at the ratio of '3'. At the very least this ratio doesn't take into account how capital intensive a company is, since fixed costs seem to be what's left (my understanding could be wrong here depending on which definition of 'margin' is being implied here).

Wouldn't this imply that a company with a lower ratio that is not very capital intensive would have a higher "corrected ratio" than a company which is much more capital intensive (or even simply has a higher cost of capital)?

</comment><comment><USER11> Reminds me of this: [http://pbfcomics.com/253/](http://pbfcomics.com/253/)

</comment><comment><USER12> So are we supposed to ignore that unicorns aren't real and that donkeys are useful pack animals?

I mean, say I show up on a farm looking for work and you tell me there is a cart of manure to haul somewhere, and then conditionally tell me that either A) I'll have a donkey to do the job, or B) I'll have a unicorn. Option B sounds more like I'm doing the job by my lonesome.

<comment><USER13> Donkeys have a certain level of usefulness but very little growth potential. They can be productive and modestly profitable but they don't belong in a high-yield portfolio.

<comment><USER12> Except, what little growth potential they have is infinitely more than that possessed by a mythical beast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The ratio of 3 may or may not be correct, but the specific analyses here are absolutely worthless as at least one of the model inputs for each example is just pulled out of thin air. He could be out by an order of magnitude.

</comment><comment><USER15> What if the service has potential to drive LTV, but intentionally refuses to monetize in order to increase audience satisfaction and growth?

</comment><comment><USER16> unless I'm misunderstanding, isn't this double counting the costs? wouldn't the margin (revenue-costs / revenue) already take into account the cost of acquiring customers?

in their example, 52% margin and a $400 CAC:

      LTV/CAC = 0.25 years x $2160/year x 52% / $400 = 0.70x

<comment><USER4> > wouldn't the margin (revenue-costs / revenue) already take into account the > cost of acquiring customers?

Not necessarily. The word "margin" is very ambiguous because it could relate to many different types of margins.

In this case I think its safe to assume that "margin" meant the difference between the customer's price and the direct cost of supplying that particular unit of product, ignoring overheads.

<comment><USER16> ah, yes, good point. if margin only includes cost of production, that's valid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Great article. Keen to see how it applies to Xero and Shopify. I'll bet they are donkeys too.

</comment><comment><USER18> i'd be interest in his analysis of popular YC companies, AirBNB for example

<comment><USER19> Airbnb has network effects which effectively drive CAC towards zero.

<comment><USER20> I'd say _that_ is a hell of an assumption. The travel industry depends hugely on efficient PPC advertising with companies at any serious size.

This has been true of all three travel startups I've worked at. AirBnb may well have great brand recognition but I'd be amazed if they can acquire customers for zero.

<comment><USER21> Anecdotally, they do have some very strong direct/organic traffic based on word of mouth and brand awareness (that doesn't mean zero CAC of course)

I don't know where this derives its data from, but it seems to support it:

[http://www.similarweb.com/website/airbnb.com#overview](http://www.similarweb.com/website/airbnb.com#overview)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The George Plimpton Story - <AUTHOR> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/10/13/the-george-plimpton-story/ <comment><USER2> By his own admission, not a great businessman, but I think fits within the HN world for thinking creatively outside the box. He ran the Paris Review at a loss, but was trying to change the world by discovering new important authors. Also, writing about and participating in sports like boxing and hockey were, at the time, well outside the norms for those of his social status and upbringing.

<comment><USER3> He was also a prolific generalist and was able to communicate across many fun topics: The only book of his I actually have ever read was his book "Fireworks: A history and celebration" \- literally about fireworks, their history and how fireworks transcend culture and customs.

He actually had his ashes loaded into a pyrotechnics shell.

[0] - [https://www.amazon.com/Fireworks-History-Celebration- George-...](https://www.amazon.com/Fireworks-History-Celebration-George- Plimpton/dp/0385154143)

[1] - [http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/8127347/sent- bang](http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/8127347/sent-bang)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the article I still have some doubts, but was this the guy who hosted Mouseterpiece Theatre? If so, I always loved that guy. I'm going to go watch old Disney cartoons from the 50's on youtube now.

<comment><USER2> Yes. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouseterpiece_Theater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouseterpiece_Theater)

I was a Plimpton fan but never heard of Mousterpiece. Thanks for the info.

<comment><USER4> I think he also narrated a number of sports-themed Goofy cartoons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I mostly remember George Plimpton from the Mattel Intellivision TV commercials when I was a child. I didn't fully grasp exactly who he was until I was older.

</comment><comment><USER6> The Plimpton Project sponsored a song contest to raise awareness of George Plimpton and their efforts to raise a statue in his honor.

The winning entry: Jonathan Coulton "A Talk with George" [https://youtu.be/-YMcqNc4nSY?t=1h33m20s](https://youtu.be/-YMcqNc4nSY?t=1h33m20s)

ref:

\- [http://thingaweekredux.com/post/3564224482/thing-a- week-23-a...](http://thingaweekredux.com/post/3564224482/thing-a- week-23-a-talk-with-george-chapter-23-in)

\- [http://www.plimptonproject.org/](http://www.plimptonproject.org/) (warning, flash site)

</comment><comment><USER7> There is a fun look at George Plimpton in My Korean Deli, by Ben Ryder Howe who worked at the Paris Review. It was a fun read beyond that too, and it will show you a different (less ambitious and less successful) view of entrepreurship than you generally see on HN.

[https://www.amazon.com/My-Korean-Deli-Risking- Convenience/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/My-Korean-Deli-Risking- Convenience/dp/B008SLEODC)

Edit: Formatting.

</comment><comment><USER8> I drew strange, mostly scornful looks in junior high study hall by laughing at loud over _Paper Lion_.

<comment><USER9> All the books of his are good, and well worth a read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> His Mid-Atlantic accent always confused me as to where he was born and raised I never would have guessed it was NY City.</comment>


Battery pioneer John Goodenough unveils surprising new solid-state breakthrough - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/battery-pioneer-1528047409-d0515380-1881-4e96-891f-3763eaa84666.html <comment><USER2> Another battery "breakthrough" that will likely either crumble under the weight of scrutiny, or be too expensive to mass produce, or by some other factor not come to market.

I'm pretty jaded when it comes to battery "breakthrough" announcements these days. They crop up quite often and nothing of substance ever seems to follow.</comment>


Ancient data, modern math and the hunt for lost cities of the Bronze Age - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/13/ancient-data-modern-math-and-the-hunt-for-11-lost-cities-of-the-bronze-age/?utm_term=.b1f032736e46 <comment><USER2> Cryptography and data mining/science (ML/AI) have their roots in the study of Epigraphy [https://www.google.com/search?q=epigraphy](https://www.google.com/search?q=epigraphy) Combined, they enable the process of discovery, new hypothesis generation which in turn can lead to new inventions and cures e.g. extending human lifespan which also happens to be the only way humans will make it to other habitable planets [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1736/](http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1736/)

<comment><USER3> > _extending human lifespan which also happens to be the only way humans will > make it to other habitable planets_

[citation needed]

What about hibernation technology? Digital upload? FTL travel?

I know the last two seem vastly more fantastical than the first, or than age extension, but it seems odd to announce flatly that something is The One And Only Way.

<comment><USER2> Got another way?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, so interesting. TIL that we have 10s of thousands of 4,000 year old clay tablets. What a data set!

This was the only downer of the article:

> As a final check, the authors ran the model against the location of known > ancient cities to see whether its results matched the actual archaeological > record.

> One (sic) two out of three of the known cities they tested against, the > model nailed it. But it whiffed on the third.

2/3 is a bit troubling.

<comment><USER5> As well known, 2/3 ain't bad.

<comment><USER4> I think of it this way:

1\. Suppose we tested on 1 datum and got 0/1\. Not good.

2\. How about just 2? 1/2\. Hmm.. coin flip.

3\. Ok, let's do 3. 2/3\. Well, better than half but it's easy to get 2 heads on 3 coin flips.

4\. ....

<comment><USER6> 1/2 being equivalent to a coin flip is only true if we're looking at a binary value. In reality, much fewer than one in two coin flips would accurately pinpoint the location of an ancient city. Even if it only worked half the time, that would still be much better than random chance.

BTW, I believe the parent comment that you're replying to is a lazy joke referencing an old '70s song, not a serious argument.

<comment><USER5> > BTW, I believe the parent comment that you're replying to is a lazy joke > referencing an old '70s song, not a serious argument.

Or your belief is a lazy attempt at understanding it, and you missed the double entendre even though you agreed with the point...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


US Government Status Page - <AUTHOR> http://usgovernment.statuspage.io/

<comment><USER2> Kinda ridiculous that the _titles_ of each gag post are getting trimmed off, but the full-text isn't.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a fantastic advertising ploy. Really great use of major outside event.

</comment><comment><USER4> What is the "Department of Denying the Existence of the NSA"?

</comment><comment><USER5> great idea. Can visitors post status updates? Would be cool to have Government employees posting what works and what not.

Used to work at Government projects and it is funny how many of the people who work there including PMs (high level) actually support the Tea Party. Including African American PMs. Once you see this mess from inside, it is impossible not to acknowledge it is a huge waste of money and total mess. As for me they can shut them down like forever.

</comment><comment><USER6> Flag squad is on it.</comment>


Show HN: Justrequest.me - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> For mobile users: [http://www.justrequest.me](http://www.justrequest.me)

It's interesting but there is no explanation about the business model or even how it works, however I understand that it's a beta :)</comment>


Tim Berners-Lee: Spies' cracking of encryption undermines the web - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/03/tim-berners-lee-spies-cracking-encryption-web-snowden <comment><USER3> While I agree that its horrible for agencies to be doing this, I must also say - if it is breakable, then it is not good enough. We shouldn't have to worry about whether someone can break encryption or not. We shouldn't have to guard the guards. The factors of morality and ethics and trust needs to be removed from the equation entirely, because there will always be parties that are not moral, ethical, or trustworthy. This is happening at a good time in history. There are people who are doing what they can to make sure it doesn't happen again. We've only had the internet for 30 years. Lets patch it now.

<comment><USER4> >>if it is breakable, then it is not good enough.

And if the agencies are steering people towards crypto they know is broken but the public do not?

<comment><USER5> Then the agencies are endangering their own countries. It is simple math - <USER2> world produces much more geniuses that NSA employs (or GRU or anyone). If you deliberately introduce weakness someone will find it. And the entity may not be friendly.

The problem comes because the win of the cold war somewhat skewed the western view of their own capabilities.

When NSA had adversaries that they deemed worthy - they took the effort to strengthen everyone's communications. Right now while looking at the others with disdain and (wrongly) refocused the efforts on terrorism - they prefer weak networks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _" Internet security is hard," he says with emphasis. "All systems have undiscovered holes in them, and it's only a question of how fast the bad guys can discover the holes compared with how fast the good guys can patch them up."_

The internet should be thought of as something that transcends the notion of governments and nations; it's a tool for all of humanity regardless of who they are and where they live. The NSA should be considered just another "bad guy" in this scenario - a well-funded arm of a group of people who don't necessarily have the good of humanity _as a whole_ at heart. Literally _anyone_ who wants to manipulate the way the internet works away from an open tool for communication and sharing, to subvert it and break it for their personal gain, or that of their corporation, organisation, government or nation, is the bad guy.

<comment> grey-area I do find this an interesting notion. Because the internet transcends national boundaries and government jurisdiction, it encourages people to think of themselves as part of a global humanity, without loyalty to a specific government or group, and without loyalty to those who try to invade privacy for corporate or nationalist reasons. It's easy to forget that the concept of nation states and nationalism is a relatively new one and not necessarily worth of respect. Perhaps the internet and sharing and protecting our own data will help to obsolete nations and encourage people to be loyal to ideas, not brands or polities.

<comment><USER7> Nationalism is mostly pretty evil IMHO, but nation states are actually providing a crucial role as a check on the power of corporations, the boards of which would otherwise be defacto global lords. The tension of diplomacy between nation states is critical to keeping everyone honest. My biggest fear for the future of the planet is a consolidated world government with real power (as opposed to the United Nations) because I think serious corruption would be unavoidable over time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > _Internet security is hard_

And among the hard things is the fact that you can't have it both ways. In TBL's case this means he has to realize that DRM is Big Brother Inside. Standardizing DRM means building a standard framework for back doors. You can't be an enabler for the big entertainment companies without being an enabler for snooping.

Many security experts have not faced the fact that they cannot protect their users from state actors and still be deputized by the same state in crime- fighting. The only way to protect the user is to put the user's data out of reach of both spies and police. The security priesthood is easily co-opted and turned into witting and unwitting tools.

</comment><comment><USER9> Then he should stop underminding the web himself with HTML5 DRM.

</comment><comment><USER10>
         Any country that tries to create what he calls a "walled garden" of the internet would find the value of its GDP drop through the floor. Trade would be disrupted, cross-cultural exchange wither

While I agree with the sentiment of the article, I can't help but look to China's version of a "walled garden of the internet" and how that has affected China's GDP. It seems that China continues to do quite well in spite of the aforementioned "walled garden" approach to the internet.

Is the rest of the world doomed to a similar situation?

</comment><comment><USER11> DRM undermines the web.

</comment><comment><USER12> The whole cyber arms-race makes no sense. It's like mutually assured destruction when you have the capability to remotely dismantle each others' nukes by publishing your designs.

</comment><comment><USER13> This feels pretty rich coming from the same guy who kowtowed to the copyright industry in order to bring us baked-in DRM on the web.

In practice, the singularly boneheaded decision to allow DRM into the official HTML5 spec will have a far greater impact on the average user's web experience than NSA backdoors will.

<comment><USER14> Go take your misinformed whining somewhere else. HTML5 does _not_ have DRM. It merely standardized an API to allow media content to talk to a content decryption module. But there is no actual DRM in there.

You are right, though, that this will have a pretty big impact on the average user's web experience. Namely, it will let them view protected content without requiring proprietary plugins (e.g. Flash, Silverlight, etc). So it's pretty good for the average web user.

<comment><USER13> >HTML5 does not have DRM

Yet.

From the 14 Nov 2013 draft:

>This proposal extends HTMLMediaElement _providing APIs to control playback of protected content_.

In other words, they're extending HTMLMediaElement to allow Hollywood to put whatever DRM measures in place that they choose. What this WILL NOT do is increase accessibility. Maybe Tim thought it was a good idea, but the old adage is that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

The copyright industry are not the good guys, and they _will_ find some way, just as they always have, to make the user experience worse in the interests of their bottom line(s). But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe you just have more faith in the industry that was shipping malicious rootkits on music CDs than I do.

<comment><USER14> EME extends HTMLMediaElement to let it talk to Content Decryption Modules, which must be provided elsewhere. This is just a standardized API for being able to handle protected content. I do not understand all the hyperbole surrounding this.

You're also a bit off your rocker if you're trying to paint "the copyright industry" as some kind of secretive cabal of people who just want to cram DRM on users' computers. Not to mention the fact that sites that don't use this won't even be affected by it. The vast majority of websites out there won't even care, and the ones that do care _already have a solution to deal with protected content today_ , it's just a crappy solution (e.g. requiring Silverlight). Hell, using EME to handle protected content is a _far_ better experience for the user than requiring the installation of a third-party plugin that can has far more capabilities than just decryption content. So if anything, this actually limits the scope of what protected content playback code can do on users' machines.

<comment><USER13> I never said the copyright cabal was secretive but they absolutely want control over our computers' playback mechanisms.

There was a proposal, I think in the HDDVD spec maybe, wherein the dvd drive itself would be remotely disabled and prevented from playing future content based on the sole discretion of some nebulous 3rd party.

There's the Sony BMG rootkit thing that Mark Russinovich uncovered.

Yes, they absolutely want to cram your computer with DRM and you're a fool for thinking they don't.

<comment><USER14> They want to control how their content is played back on your computer. That is _not_ the same thing as wanting to arbitrarily stuff arbitrary computers full of arbitrary DRM. Yes, they've gone ridiculously overboard in the past, but DRM is not the goal in and of itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> When does "undermining the web" become the new "think of the children"?</comment>


Why Are Printed Circuit Boards Usually Green? (2017) - <AUTHOR> http://www.seeedstudio.com/blog/2017/07/23/why-are-printed-circuit-boards-are-usually-green-in-colour/ <comment><USER2> One of my startups was purchased by QLogic, which made PCI cards in bulk. One of their corporate standards is that prototypes have red PCBs, to prevent them ever being mixed together with production parts. These days I have some friends who have a particular debit card that's the same color of red. Every time I see it, I twitch.

<comment><USER3> At work we often try to do a different color for each revision so you can tell at a glance what's in a given unit. It's definitely saved me a few times!

<comment><USER4> We use different solder mask colours to differentiate different product variants that share a board outline. It is way easier to tell a factory to install the red board when making a specific product variant than to have them read a part number off the board.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > 1\. Green can relieve visual fatigue and aid in inspections

> In the early days, due to technological restrictions, quality inspections > relied on workers manually checking the boards with their bare eyes. > Squinting at tiny circuits all days is tiring work, but neurologists and > psychologists agree that the wavelength of green light has relaxing effects > on the body and can reduce fatigue. Additionally, they have found that the > sensors in human eyes, or cones, are most sensitive to green light. > Therefore, the contrast is greater between the circuit traces, pads, > silkscreen printing and empty spaces. Just by observing the boards from the > outside, one can easily identify defects in the outer layers. Compare the > below images of green boards to other colors such as blue, yellow or even > black and white. With higher contrast, errors are easier to spot.

Perhaps an IDE theme with a green background would be similarly helpful for programmers. Any particular suggestions?

<comment><USER6> Human eyes are more sensitive to slight variations in green than other colours. This is why YUV video often encodes green sharper and why 16bit colour give 6 bits to green and 5 bits to red/blue. So on a circuit board with subtle green-on-green variations, it makes sense that they picked green.

But since people have many more rods than cones, black/white contrast is easier to discern and white uses all the subpixels in your display to maximize luminance. And speaking of subpixels, subpixel antialiasing effectively triples your resolution when displaying black/white contrast.

The brain also highlights contours of contrasting black/white. (There's an evolutionary quirk in our blue-sensing cones that allows you to see contrasting blue/yellow better than most combinations too but still not as well as black/white.)

So sharp white on black or black on white are typically better suited to human vision if you're trying to discern outlines like when reading text.

Black/white also avoids the persistence effects that cones have, where when you look away from a green image for example, you'll see an inverted magenta copy of the image for a second or two.

<comment><USER5> Thank you, very well explained.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In various places I have worked we used Red color soldermask to indicate that the PCBAs were in early prototype stages(EVTs,DVTs) and once the final designs were released for manufacture(PVT) they were Green in color. This also was used to indicate that these boards were RoHS compliant. Again, this might have been very industry specific(Medical devices in my case) and YMMV. IN another FAANG place that I worked our ODMs who also worked with Chinese Fab houses started out with Green soldermask. Nowadays I find it fascianting that one can order preactically any solder mask color one chooses to, though i have a special affinity towards pink.

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting example of a place where a small but meaningful advantage in a manual application (reduced eye strain during visual inspection) leads to a larger, nearly insurmountable advantage in a world where the task has been largely automated thanks to preexisting R&D/economies of scale. I expect we will see more and more of this in the coming decades across multiple industries.

Anything else fit this pattern today?

<comment><USER9> QWERTY keyboards? Built so mechanical typewriter keys would not hit. Used for computers.

<comment><USER10> > Built so mechanical typewriter keys would not hit.

Most likely a myth. There's tons of articles on it, but here's one to get you started:

[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of- fiction-...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of-fiction-the- legend-of-the-qwerty-keyboard-49863249/)

<comment><USER11> The authors of the paper seem to believe that the object would have been to slow down the typist (had the jamming hypothesis been correct). The opposite would have been true. Increase the difference of the angle of approach of successive hammers, and you decrease the chance of jamming and increase the speed. I'll admit that the Z-SE ("dot-dot-dot-space-dot" in early American Morse, with the length of the space/mark mkaing the difference) problem makes some superficial sense, but then there's a corresponding R-EI ("dot-space-dot- dot") and others that aren't reflected on the QUERTY keyboard. (The original Morse code needed far too much space-length discipline, which is why it was replaced fairly quickly, even in the NIH-heavy USA.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> At this point, they're usually green because they're usually green. It's the most common mask color, therefore the cheapest. Also, oddly enough, not only do different mask colors have different achievable resolutions (minimum line widths) - some colors don't stick to the PCB as well!

</comment><comment><USER13> Pinouts usually use red and black to indicate power and ground [1]. It's possible to use several colours of solder mask on the same PCB. [2]

What I'd like to see is a developer board targeted at the education market that uses colours to show the traces.

I think that at least showing the power and ground could reduce the risk of shortouts. It would be a lot easier for teachers to say "plug the red wire into the red pin" instead of "the top right ... no, other top, turn it around".

[1] Raspberry Pi pinout [https://cdn- images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*QlSyHfcfNu4ePpNoN...](https://cdn- images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*QlSyHfcfNu4ePpNoNtKcZQ.jpeg)

[2] [https://i2.wp.com/makezine.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/12/20...](https://i2.wp.com/makezine.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/12/200912010746.jpg?resize=1200%2C670&strip=all&ssl=1)

<comment><USER14> Almost certainly a lot cheaper to just use keyed connectors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Green solder mask is physically superior

Possibly chemically. Practically? _EVERY_ other solder mask color is better.

I find that because green is the default, cheap, PCB soldermask, manufacturers thin it to hell and back in order to save money. As such, I regularly get coverage gaps over vias underneath QFN components which then short to the pad underneath the chip. (Manufacturing tip: if you can, only put vias underneath the chip that are tied to the same signal as the QFN thermal pad and your reliability will be much better.)

If I want good soldermask coverage, I always order an alternate color (with the requisite expense) and almost always get great results.

</comment><comment><USER16> Note that in the early days of electronics, PCBs did not have soldermask, because it wasn't necessary:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IBM_SMS_card_circuit_side...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IBM_SMS_card_circuit_side.agr.jpg)

<comment><USER17> Also lots of boards had transparent solder mask after that (Tektronix did this) which was great for debugging!

Examples here: [http://golddredgervideo.com/kc0wox/tek/7504/detailedpictures...](http://golddredgervideo.com/kc0wox/tek/7504/detailedpictures.htm)

Whole scope is a work of art!

<comment><USER16> Wow, gold everywhere. Even the ICs have gold-plated pins... that's not something I've seen before.

<comment><USER18> They're beautiful. Good luck oxidizing any of that in normal environments, those scopes will outlast the people that built them. Old computer hardware used to be just like that, I would buy the boards by the pound in the 70's for parts. Gorgeous stuff.

<comment><USER17> Annoyingly the IC sockets tend to oxidise if the board doesn't! I've lost count of the number of them I've had to replace in my life.

If it wasn't for mechanical switches, pots, contacts and some dubious thermal design I imagine the kit would last for 100 years easy. I have 40-50 year old stuff on my bench in daily use.

<comment><USER18> There are sockets with gold plated turned inner pins, those do not oxidize. Cost a pretty penny though.

<comment><USER17> Yeah the Tek scopes were made before they came up with them though which is annoying. I usually replace them with the Harwin gold plated turned pin ones as I got a massive box off them from eBay for virtually nothing :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Apple PCBs are all black nowadays. They probably went all they to make the black pigmened oil as good as green.

<comment><USER16> I suspect it's a deliberate choice both as a fashion statement and to discourage repair.

It's interesting to see a similar phenomenon with desktop PC motherboards: "gamer" or otherwise "enthusiast" boards are often a non-green colour and come with superfluous design elements (like plastic covers over the actual components, which sort of remind me of the engine covers on newer cars...), while both the ultra-cheap prebuilt and ultra-expensive server boards remain green and free of fluff.

<comment><USER20> I blame case windows for this. The last desktop I built, it was a chore finding a case that didn't look stupid, and I eventually gave up on a normal motherboard, as anything with a z170 chip set looked like it belonged in a transformers toy.

And while people definitely geek out over servers, it's nearly all about specs. After all, why make something that gets hidden away in a rack in a DC look pretty?

I suspect that is one reason Apple isn't using green mask, since the connotation for many people is 'cheap'

<comment><USER16> Ironically enough, case windows were created so people could show off the components inside, but now they're only showing off the covers on them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What this article doesn't answer is, when it talks about the green soldermask being physically superior, is that _only_ because it's had more R&D put into it due to being popular, or would it actually be the best regardless? (Admittedly, I don't know how one would possibly answer that question without, like, actually trying to invent better soldermask of other colors. But it bugs me that the article doesn't even _ask_ the question.)

<comment><USER22> Solder dams come down to a bunch of factors, but the bottom line is basically the best dye is the one that lets the resin cure stable and strong.

For instance, white dyes are hard (for a lot of things) because white dye particles are large[1] and you need a lot of them. That means they can interfere with curing.

Green dye can be relatively small amounts since green is so visible to the human eye, but afaik its more down to the fact that theyve been able to tune the dyes down better over time.

[1]: also why you can't dye anodized aluminum white. Most dyes are colored at the molecular level, and are much smaller than the wavelengths they reflect. White dyes need to reflect every wavelength, and normal molecules only reflect quite narrow ranges where they resonate.

In order to reflect white light you need particles at minimum the size of the wavelength. Then you need a range of particles for each wavelength. In practice this judt gives you black, since each particle will also be absorbing light at other wavelengths. You need one size of particle with fine, often fractal-like microstructure that has features at every size. That means white dye particles are hundreds of times larger than colored dyes.

<comment><USER18> Thank you. That answers a question I once had but could not get a satisfying answer to other than 'can't be done'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I love that OSH Park ([https://oshpark.com/](https://oshpark.com/)) uses purple soldermask. It's a fairly unusual soldermask color, but they use only purple. It looks great with gold plating, and it gives a satisfying sense of branding to for open source hardware and prototyping.

<comment><USER17> Actually OSHpark boards I find are pretty crap. They have mouse bites left over, the mask is crap and the registration poor on some boards. Getting better boards from JLC but you lose HASL and purple.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, there are a lot more options for easy, small-batch prototyping PCBs these days. OSH Park was one of the first that was really easy and accessible to hobbyists, so even if it's not the best or the cheapest any more, the purple soldermask still has a place in my heart.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Nit, but I doubt silk screen mask is used much these days. When I was last involved with board production 20+ years ago all our vendors switched to photoimagable mask in order to get the registration accuracy and resolution necessary for fine lead SMT.

</comment><comment><USER25> Somewhere in the early 3D video card years, I took one out of the box and the PCB was red! Blew my mind. I want to say it was a Diamond card but I'm not 100% sure.

<comment><USER26> I have a GeForce 2 which is red, I think it's the earliest non-green card in my collection (2000-ish).

<comment><USER27> All Gravis Ultrasound cards were red (>1992ish). [1]

It was partly a marketing choice, to make them stand out from conventional Sound Blaster cards.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravis_Ultrasound#Versions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravis_Ultrasound#Versions)

<comment><USER28> Yes, that's the first non-green PCB I can remember, too.

And it took a while until I saw it become common -- I guess a big incentive was the appearance of side windows on PC cases. At first all DIY (Dremel), then commercially sold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The article mentions that there are "even mixed color boards", does anyone have a photo of any? I did a cursory search and didn't see any, but am interested in how these looked.

<comment><USER30> I recall reading that the map of Italy on the back of an Arduino Uno is tendered using white solder mask, because traditional silk screens did not provide enough resolution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Soldermask is most commonly green in color but nearly any color is possible

Another reasons: based on old military requirements and standard, UV (ultra- violet) sensitive photopolymers and LPISM technology patent story

[https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/82669/why- ar...](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/82669/why-are- circuitboards-traditionally-green)

</comment><comment> the-dude I have read somewhere else the US Army standarized on it.</comment>


Resource Burning for Permissionless Systems - <AUTHOR> https://youtu.be/8QRCXwbwzQE <comment><AUTHOR> How can we defend Blockchains and peer-to-peer systems, when no central authority provides admission control? Resource-burning (proof-of-work, proof- of-state, CAPTCHAs) is one of the most used tools to defend such systems, but it is currently poorly understood mathematically. In this talk, I survey recent research to better understanding resource burning, in order to reduce its cost, and thereby improve system security.

Keywords: Distributed algorithms, game theory, costly signaling, money burning, Sybil attack, blockchains, cryptocurrencies, peer-to-peer.</comment>


Who Built the Pyramids? (2003) - <AUTHOR> https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids-html <comment><USER2> I remember a humoristic Soviet daily wall calendar that said: "And then we'll destroy the cranes, and the whole world will wonder how we built these pyramids"

</comment><comment><USER3> Unrelated, but I really enjoyed this guy's hands on approach to moving 20 ton blocks by himself, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5pZ7uR6v8c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5pZ7uR6v8c)

It goes to show that wood, levers and clever engineering could have achieved amazing construction feats.

</comment><comment><USER4> Presenting evidence of people who worked on project [X] and were not in group [A] is not the same thing as showing that group [A] did not work on project [X]. Surely that's elementary?

<comment><USER5> The claim isn't that slaves weren't involved, the claim is that the common knowledge that it was all slaves is wrong.

It was widely believed the pyramids were a massive slave operation because obviously people had to be forced to work on something of that scale and obviously nobody would subject themselves to something this arduous freely. Imagining how they were built conjures up images of Egyptian guards whipping slaves who drag massive slabs in the scorching heat.

But new evidence suggests not only wasn't everybody who worked on it a slave, there's even good reason to believe that slaves didn't play any bigger role than in the society at the time in general.

<comment><USER4> The claim isn't that slaves weren't involved?

The very first thing you see when loading the page is "Who Built the Pyramids? _Not slaves_.".

Later on, the article says (of Lehner): "He has found the city of the pyramid builders. They were _not slaves_."

Near the end, it says "Slaves or not, as the last season of his dig began, Lehner still did not know where all the workers slept."

So I think my original comment was salient and reacting to how the article actually presented things. It makes clear statements that slaves weren't involved. Then it leaves the possibility open at the end. It's common in many articles to overstate a claim in the beginning to grab readers, and I don't care for it.

<comment><USER5> Surely "slaves built the pyramids" implies that at least the majority of people involved were slaves. The article inverses that simplified statement, implying the same caveat: at least the majority of people involved _weren 't_ slaves (though some might have been).

If slaves were present in the society, it's absurd to interpret a blanket statement like "not slaves (built the pyramids)" to imply no slaves were involved, especially when it's a direct response to the blanket statements "the pyramids were built by slaves" (which noone would take to mean that no non-slaves were present anywhere near the construction site -- it's a given that someone would need to oversee the slaves somehow).

But we're literally arguing over semantics. Unless you assume that all generalisations are always intended to be understood 100% literally and that archeologists would want to express 100% confidence in knowing exactly what group in society each person involved in a construction project thousands of years ago belonged to, there really isn't anything worth arguing over.

General ignorance has it that the pyramids were built almost entirely by slaves. This article claims that is not the case. Everything else is just fluff to make for a better read.

<comment><USER6> >Surely "slaves built the pyramids" implies that at least the majority of people involved were slaves.

If I heard "structural engineers built the suspension bridge" I'd simply assume they were involved, not that they were physically responsible for over 50 percent of all tasks.

<comment><USER7> "structural engineers built the suspension bridge" is a false statement though. Engineers don't build generally, they engineer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article is from 2003. Did subsequent research confirm these findings ?

<comment><USER9> It is one of those topics that crop up every now and then. What emerges from the picture is that few of the low skilled worker at the construction site where slaves in the way we picture slavery today with many in a social situation more akin to serfdom.

At what point slavery becomes serfdom is more a matter of semantic. Then again there were both actual slaves, i.e. prisoner and spoil of wars and skilled craftmen working at the decorations, detailing etc, because building a pyramid was not just the "moving rocks" parts.

Attempting to reduce something that complex to a single slave vs non slave structure is reductive at best, especially in a society with a caste system such as the Ancient Egyptian. Just think about the ideograms, those were written under the direction of the religious caste, even if indirectly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> [https://allpoetry.com/A-Worker-Reads-History](https://allpoetry.com/A-Worker- Reads-History)

</comment><comment><USER11> An article from Mark Lehner, written for the internet in 1997, about bread pots: [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/newsflash/newsflash9702...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/newsflash/newsflash970203.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> (2003)

<comment><USER13> Thanks! Added.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Thinking of the economics behind this feat, if these were not slaves, but paid employees, I would assume that a whole ecosystem would exist nearby.

These people would need to be housed, buy food with their salaries (stores/markets), send kids to 'school'. A city would need to have been developed to accommodate that population.

Also, if they were slaves they wouldn't have been given the luxury of a proper burial/cremation, so somewhere nearby there should be mass graves.

I am not an archeologist, I am just trying to think with modern days analogies.

<comment><USER15> The article helpfully addresses a lot of this.

The majority of the article talks about the town that they excavated that existed for precisely this reason. The evidence strongly suggests that the residents were very well looked after.

They also speculate that the town was populated as a consequence of a form of feudal duty called _bak_. This feudalism is documented but isn't known to have been used specifically to build the great pyramids (though it seems likely).

On the assumption that this is true, the lack of family accommodation etc is entirely plausible: the workers are seconded to the town for periods rather than live there full time.

I would really recommend reading the article, even if you're not an archaeologist. It's very interesting what you can learn from the evidence.

<comment><USER16> Yep, that is why I love reading any kind of document that has managed to survive to our days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Haven't we well established that water was used? ;) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dup19cX6yXo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dup19cX6yXo)

</comment><comment><USER18> I thought it was ancient aliens...

<comment><USER15> Apparently, so did Lehner in his younger days.

Fortunately, he realised that evidence is better than ignorant speculation and, as a consequence, has done quite a lot for our understanding of the period and the great pyramids in particular.

<comment><USER19> I'm pretty sure they were making a Giorgio joke.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> duh, anyone who watches Teen Titans Go knows that aliens built the pyramid with the help of Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster.

<comment><USER21> Didn't know about the involvement of Big Foot and Nessie, but it's obvious that the pyramids are in fact landing pads for similarly shaped starships.

<comment><USER22> Aye, Dr. Daniel Jackson proved that pretty conclusively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Great article! This Lehner guy is an absolute inspiration.

</comment><comment><USER24> was it not aliens?

</comment><comment><USER25> Another enduring mystery, why doesn't the Bible mention the Pyramids?

<comment><USER26> There is no historic evidence for the jews ever being in egypt.

<comment><USER27> There is a lot of evidence for large parts of the early bible stories beeing copyied from the egyption sun god movement.

<comment><USER28> Not really, no. It has been speculated that Akhenatens elevation of Aten above other Gods inspired the monotheism of Moses. But AFAIK this is pure speculation without a shred of evidence. Moses might not even be historical anyway, and the chronology is off. It is much more likely the later monotheism was inspired by Persian religion.

<comment><USER29> >monotheism of Moses

 _Was_ Moses a monotheist, though? I thought that at the time depicted in the Pentateuch, the Israelites were henotheists - they believed that there were many gods but that YHWH was the only one worthy of worship.

<comment><USER28> Indeed, and Akhenatens was heneotheist also, since he elevated Aten to the primary god, but still allowed the other gods.

<comment><USER27> On could argue that even jesus did allow for xeno-theism, given that he argued for giving the roman emperor what the roman emperor was due- and the roman emperors at that time considered themselves basically gods or god decendants.

<comment><USER28> I don't think you can argue that. Jesus argued it was acceptable for Jews to pay taxes, but certainly not that it was acceptable for Jews to _worship_ the emperor. In any case, only some emperors where proclaimed divine, and it only happened after their death. Tiberius (the emperor at the time of Jesus) was never proclaimed divine. Caligula was the first to be proclaimed divine while still living, and this was after Jesus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I wish there would be more research done on the pyramids and the number 432

<comment><USER31> What's the connection there? I asked a friend just the other day if he thought the pyramid numerology kooks and the "cosmic A432" kooks had ever joined forces. Would love to watch a 50 minute youtube video of a guy rambling incoherently about it into a bad microphone.

<comment><USER30> They pyramids 1/43200 ratio is well documented, the same ratio and number is seen as very important in many Vedic texts and Vedic structures

<comment><USER31> _> They pyramids 1/43200 ratio is well documented_

Interesting. As I suspected, the only thing I can find is kooks playing numberwang to "roughly" arrive at 43200 by connecting various geometric properties of the pyramids to various measurements in cubits, meters, miles, seconds. It's an equation where you decide the units and operators, and also get to throw in whatever factors that seem significant to you, and at every stage of the equation you get to choose whether to dismiss the error of the number you "approximately" arrived at or not, so of course you'll find whatever number you want if you look hard enough.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to avoid the software salary ceiling - <AUTHOR> http://thinkfaster.co/2015/07/how-to-avoid-the-software-salary-ceiling <comment><USER2> Moneyquote: _" Now I understand why older programmers complain about rampant ageism in Tech. Younger workers are cheaper, and programmer productivity is notoriously difficult to measure, so most companies opt for the cheaper option."_

Wow that is so spot on, as a "generic" programmer asking $150K versus a "generic" programmer asking $75K ? Easy choice, we'll get two and double our productivity and halve the sick days! I noted that in the medical profession "General Practitioners" made the least, while specialists made the most. They were all doctors.

Specialist software categories:

Embedded Software - bringing up code without an OS, understanding hardware function and tools.

Graphics Programmer - these days understanding 3D programming with Shaders and other features common in todays GPUs

Kernel programmer - understanding the insides of the kernel and how to write code that works there.

Networking software - understanding all of the intricacies of how packets get from point A to point B, and what interferes with that and what facilitates that.

Security specialist - someone who understands what makes programs and systems break and can program fixes for them or ways to spot attempts at exploiting them.

Storage specialist - someone who understands file systems and disk drives and getting data to and from programs reliably.

<comment><USER3> The issue with a narrow specialty in Tech is that the lucrative niche can evaporate almost overnight.

<comment><USER4> Yes if you specialize in a specific technology. Not as much if you specialize in something more fundamental like audio DSP. you may have to jump between telephony and pro audio as the markets change, but there will always be work. And the barrier to entry is quite high.

<comment><USER5> Your working conditions and pay don't depend on how bad ass your specialty sounds, or how technically complicated the work is. They depend on the total supply of people who can do the work compared to the total amount of work that needs doing.

There's no escape for grown-up computer programmers. This thread covered the situation pretty well: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9361580](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9361580)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good strategy, bad choice of specialties.

There are lots of 3D graphics professionals working on video games, which is a notoriously over-worked, under-paid field. To hire 3D graphics professionals:

1\. go to a video game hub, like Montreal

2\. offer sane working hours

3\. there is no step 3.

Notice the complete lack of any mention of salary.

<comment><USER7> Could you be conflating 3d graphics artists with 3d graphics programmers? The former make 3d models for games. The latter writes 3d graphics systems to take those models and show them on the screen. The former is relatively low skill (as you say, it's a saturated market) the latter is very high skill (linear algebra).

<comment><USER6> Video game makers employ both, over work and under pay both. Artists make about $30k, programmers make $50k.

<comment><USER7> Maybe Montreal just doesn't pay for 3d graphics programmers. Triple what you just quoted and that's what an average gameplay programmer makes in the bay area. 3d graphics programmers make more because an average gameplay programmer can't do what a 3d graphics programmer does. Then again, there aren't as many jobs for 3d graphics programmers. You'd pretty much have to work for one of the big graphics engine makers (Valve, Unity3D, Unreal, ID) or a company big enough to make their own (Ubisoft, EA, Disney).

In Montreal, that's pretty much just Ubisoft, isn't it?

Anyway, the original suggestion was 3d graphics, not necessarily for games. Lots of other fields use 3d graphics as well. I don't know how well they pay, though.

<comment><USER6> 150K is pretty much the average salary for any programmer in silicon valley, though, right?

Autodesk also has a big presence in Montreal, and they do pay better than the video game makers, from what I hear. My OP was just saying that the best way to find 3D graphics programmers was to poach from games companies, not be one yourself. :)

I really don't know the field that well. It's been almost 30 years since I actually worked in the video game industry. Video game skills that old apply much better to the (much better paying) embedded market. We don't use assembler any more, but the experience is actually relevant there.

<comment><USER7> > 150K is pretty much the average salary for any programmer in silicon valley, > though, right?

Pretty much :)

> Autodesk also has a big presence in Montreal

Interesting. I'm very interested in the Montreal job scene because I live just across the NY/Canadian border and have wanted to relocate to Canada for a while now. Unfortunately, the salaries haven't been there for web development or game development.

> Video game skills that old apply much better to the (much better paying) > embedded market.

Do you work in embedded systems? How difficult a field is it to break into? I've been thinking about shifting in that direction for my own personal sanity, if nothing else. Doing nothing but building virtual worlds and websites for a decade makes you long for the physical world. I do, at least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Many people reach senior software engineer, and then they get stuck. They'll still be a "senior" level developer 5 or 10 years later. For many, getting stuck is just fine. They like coding, and they don't want to manage people, and the money is pretty good."

I have a problem with this part. Basically, being a developer and not making it to a managing position is "getting stuck". I strongly disagree with that. Developers and managers have very different roles, a great developer will not necessarily be a great manager. It's like expecting great athletes to become great coaches, and if they don't they're stuck?

Is becoming a manager really a promotion? I would argue that in such a hot market great developers should be making more money than their own manager.

<comment><USER9> I think he means stuck financially, not career wise since they have chosen to stay as a developer.

His answer to how to move ahead financially is to specialize. So maybe that is the general advice is to find something to specialize in or you are just seen as a commodity by management. If you are a commodity (e.g. general web developer with X years) then you may not get higher rates.

<comment><USER8> I agree with the general idea. You can remain a "simple" developer and still ask for more money if you specialize and bring significant value.

I disagree with the idea that moving to a management position means that you get "unstuck", especially financially. To me, becoming a manager is pivoting or branching out, not specializing. And as I stated, a manager should not necessarily make more money than the people they manage.

Do all NFL coaches make more money than their players?

I guess this is what bothers me the most. This idea that a manager should make more money than the developers. Salaries are in function of demand/supply and the value that you bring to the table, if it's easier to find a manager than a developer then the developer should make more money.

<comment><USER10> > And as I stated, a manager should not necessarily make more money than the > people they manage.

"Should not" is very different than "does not". In reality, managers almost always make more

<comment><USER8> Agreed. Mostly because managers are in charge of hiring and they would not hire someone reporting to them and making more than them.

<comment><USER11> I doubt that has anything to do with it. I've known at least one manager in the position of hiring developers who made far more than she did.

In the end, you have to do your job. If that job requires that you hire people making more than you, tough!

<comment><USER12> Then you've known a manager who was mature and professional enough to place the welfare of the company above her own ego. Such managers _should_ be the norm; unfortunately the actual state of affairs is that they are rare and precious. I hope her employer realizes how lucky they were to find her, and does whatever it takes to make her happy enough to stay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I agree with the premise of this article (if you wanna get paid, specialise) as it strongly echoes my own, perhaps limited, experience.

I am a generalist. I like being able to solve problems across a wide spectrum of fields. Working at a startup for the last three years has given me plenty of time for that. The flipside is that I have not had much opportunity to specialise. I take pride in being comfortable diving into anything. However this has meant I don't have DEEP knowledge of a specialist.

At a previous job, I was able to dig really deep on Solr and build some expertise. In the intervening years however most of that has become way outdated.

Also I've found (in an admittedly limited sample size of interviews) that jobs seeking "full stack" developers tend to really be seeking someone to fulfill a specialised role but ALSO be comfortable moving up and down the stack as the need arises.

So obviously in my next job I've been looking for more established organizations where my opportunity to specialise in something I enjoy is greater. I think I've found one and am quite excited about it.

<comment><USER14> I know many companies who would rather have someone like you. Someone who they can give a problem to and they know you can solve it because of your wide knowledge base. "Sorry we can't give this problem to Bob to solve because all he knows is tech X." This is worth a lot to some people.

It's also not that you know many things, it's that you can learn other things easily and quickly. (without training)

The hard part is finding the right place to work at. Many large corporations are looking for a square peg for a square hole.

<comment><USER13> Exactly on all that you just said. There are places but they are hard to find. The intersection of "looking for a generalist" and "doing interesting and/or meaningful work" is tiny.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Unfortunately, the author does not offer much to actually answer the question posed by the title.

He does complain about the whiteboarding during interviews, and would prefer to be taken at his word about his past experience. As an older engineer (much older than the author, I might add), I can understand the feeling; however, in my years of experience, I have seen too many people coast on their former laurels and contribute, basically, nothing to the day-to-day business of the company. They can talk a mean talk, but never deliver anything of value. They sure are quick to jump on a hot idea once it's proven out and take credit, though!

So is whiteboarding the best way to higher people? I don't know; but I think it is a good way to keep the slackers _out_.

<comment><USER16> Whiteboarding during interviews is a way to filter out people who don't know how to whiteboard during interviews. That is all.

Some of the best and most brilliant programmers I've ever met were horrible at writing code on a whiteboard.

<comment><USER17> I don't like whiteboarding interview, and I recently "failed" one. However, I can see the value in them to the employer.

To pass my whiteboarding interview, I needed first to review data structures and algorithms. It had been a while, so I went back to the textbook and got to the point where I could write mergesort, quicksort, dfs, and bfs, as well as do various permutations of sets (the sort of thing that you draw on when they ask you, for instance, to print all arrangements of a string), and could do this instantly (not by rote, through understanding, but "memorized" in the sense that I didn't have to reason through it, I could just write them on a whiteboard). Once I had that solid, I bought a copy of "Cracking the Coding Interview" and started working through the exercises. My goal wasn't to memorize, but to get to the point where I could answer medium to difficult level questions accurately on paper or whiteboard (no typing, no compiler) in 45 minutes or less.

I was unable to get to that point in the time I had to prepare. I should have asked for more time - I scheduled my interview for 3.5 weeks away, and I did devote a substantial amount of time to study. However, I lack the ability to get up to speed in that amount of time. You really do need to be razor-sharp at the whiteboard, and I just wasn't there. My guess is that I could get there in 3-6 months, studying about 15-20 hours a week. Others may not find this as difficult.

There was also a point in my life when I could probably have done this more easily. I have two kids, I'm married, I have a full time job, and there are a lot of demands on my time. It's far more difficult for me to shake 15-20 hours loose a week than it used to be.

Honestly, I do think that the ability and willingness to prepare for and pass an exam like this probably is a very strong indicator of success in the kind of environment where these developers will be working. In short, the constraints on my life and my own personal limitations that make it difficult for me to pass this exam would probably have reduced my value to an employer. They either need someone with more talent and an ability to get into this sort of form on shorter notice, or someone with more time who is willing to spend it on this sort of thing. I'm not happy about it, but there you go.

My broken record: companies are generally free to do as they please (within the limits of anti-discirmination laws, and so forth), but they should stop talking about a shortage of developers if this is how they wish to hire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In other words, your worth is equal to your replacement cost. Specialization helps because of demand/supply dichotomy.

There is another option; grossly unpopular, but I have to lay it out: make a career in startups. You'll eventually land with one or two that work out very well. That may not increase your yearly salary, but it increases your overall payout over a decade, because you'll get a windfall or two.

How? As you keep working for startups, some will fail and some will succeed, in different ways. Eventually, you'll learn how to recognize the more promising ones. Are there any guarantees? No. But there are no guarantees in any path.

(Link to my bit more detailed answer on Quora: [http://www.quora.com/How-can- I-increase-my-income-as-a-softw...](http://www.quora.com/How-can-I-increase- my-income-as-a-software-engineer-over-the-years))

[About me: Software Engineer by education and trade. Been in the valley for several years. Early employee at Box, left last year as their Director of Engineering. Now run [http://InterviewKickstart.com](http://InterviewKickstart.com). We've trained a lot of people on how to prepare for technical interviews, the right way, the no-shortcuts way]

</comment><comment><USER19> "I worked at Google so treat me differently" shows up several times in this article.

<comment><USER20> It's unclear to me if that was his message or if he was trying to get across the more nuanced "my experience at Google should be a signal about my qualifications"

<comment><USER21> The latter certainly describes the impression I got from the references to his employment at Google.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Or just be a CONSULTANT and raise your rates usng the wealth of information like patio11.

Seriously, FTE is considered "the" way to fo by far too many people. Is it really that hard to manage your own health insurance plan and deduct taxes?

<comment><USER23> I've been working as a consultant for a number of years and I think the biggest difference is the inconsistent salary. As I recall there was a recent poll someone posted on HN and that was the main reason people don't go into consulting. Consulting also suits a certain type of person because it's a hustling game. You can always make more, but that means there's no light to flip off at 5pm.

<comment><USER24> I found that switching to consulting, and charging a day rate is the first time that it finally _clicked_ for me that I need to stop after 8 hours.

by working longer hours, i was reducing the value of my time. I was also reducing the value I provided in those hours.

So it ended up giving me more balance than working a salary job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I recently blogged about this similar topic ([http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2015/05/20/moremoney/](http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2015/05/20/moremoney/)) and listed a handful of ways to avoid what I referred to as a salary plateau. The basic list was change jobs, get promoted, ask for a raise, brand additional benefits to your hire (network, visibility, etc.), consult/contract, moonlight or add revenue streams, and specialize.

I haven't read "Career Superpowers, but it sounds like Whitaker did almost all of these things - moved between Google/Apple, became a nationally recognized authority, specialized, added a revenue stream (book), and got promoted to VP.

<comment><USER26> Here's my tip to negotiate a significant raise without burning bridges: [https://medium.com/@colunchers/how-to-negotiate-a- raise-9166...](https://medium.com/@colunchers/how-to-negotiate-a- raise-9166c977645a)

In the end, your salary is roughly proportional to the number of people you impact. Management is an obvious path, since you directly control a group of people. But senior engineers can give technical direction and influence a lot of more junior engineers without having to be formally their boss. Also known as the technical track at companies such as Intel (principal engineer -> fellow).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The other thing that's somewhat related to this is the old "X years of experience means this range salary". Nothing like that cold, hard statement to remind you that the person across from you sees you as nothing but a cog or entry in a balance sheet. It immediately puts everything you've done, no matter how incredible/complicated/significant, down as if it's irrelevant.

<comment><USER28> That's capitalism. The sooner you stop thinking of your boss as your buddy and start thinking of the employer/employee relationship as a business transaction of hopefully mutual benefit, the better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "We can't hire 3D graphics people"

"I'm teaching myself 3D graphics"

There's more than a hint here. It's not hard to hire competent people and then give them space to grow. As engineers, that is what we want, to grow, challenge yourselves. And it is the only way that experience occurs. If you as a company are not willing to invest in that, don't be surprised when people don't walk in your door and agree to do exactly the same things they've done 5x already, with no opportunity for growth.

I'll take a job that offers great opportunity and a mediocre salary any day. The vice versa not so much.

<comment><USER30> Just because you are specializing does not mean there is not room for growth of your knowledge, it just may not be in programming manner.

Consider specialization in say Expert Systems, you get to learn immense amounts about each domain which you are developing expert systems for, but I can understand employers wanting you to have a firm base in expert systems before hiring for you such a job.

The same can be said for 3D graphics, real time simulation software, and most other types of programming you could specialize. Just because you know everything there is to know about making realistic vehicles with 3D graphics does not mean there isn't plenty for you to learn about making realistic 3D dinosaurs and the nuances necessary to make them look amazing. You may not always be given tasks that require you to learn and develop new skills, but if you actually care about challenging yourself and learning you can generally find a way to incorporate challenges and learning new things into your job. You just have to be willing to put in the initiative to avoid forcing problems to be solved with the solutions familiar to you, and put in initiative to try new things learning enough about them to be able to advocate for their use when necessary.

TLDR: Just because the job doesn't force you to learn and be challenged, doesn't mean someone who wants to can't learn and challenge themselves on the job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Key takeaway: You should become an expert in a deeply technical software specialty. Also, bounce back and forth between Google and Microsoft a few times.

</comment><comment><USER32> I second this wholeheartedly. Unless you are specialized in some vertical with locally or nationally recognized skills, you are going to hit the ceiling. I'm not commanding 200-300K salary yet. But story is true for someone earning 150-160K. It seems like 150K is the beginning of the ceiling.

From a company's point of view, it's legit to not offer high salary for individuals with generic skills and experiences. They can always hire 2 at the cost 1 engineer. Then pay thru slower productivity, buggy software, inefficient architecture and so on.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm much less stressed about this after I realized it doesn't take more than 10-15 years of saving to become financially independent. It's seriously stressful to know you have to find a career that can sustain you until 65. Many people seem to have problems fairly early in their tech careers, with rampant ageism etc. So I plan on being FI by 45, preferably 40. So liberating to know my current job could be my last.

</comment><comment><USER34> We should have a discussion about default SQL connectivity limits and the problems with using persistent connections.

There seems to be a ripe opportunity to make something similar to Amazon RDS, except with automatic scaling. The current version of RDS presents the user with different instance sizes and doesn't automatically scale during high CPU loads.

<comment><USER35> I believe your comment is for [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9845820](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9845820) ?

<comment><USER34> The page was showing a `DATABASE ERROR: CONNECTION FAILED!`

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> What other specialisms aside from WebGL/graphics, and QA, as mentioned, might be open to a standard web developer?

<comment><USER19> Build / release engineering.

<comment><USER37> Could you elaborate, please?

<comment><USER38> Many enterprise organizations have a build/deployment process that is archaic, error prone, and takes lots of time.(in terms of man hours, and deployment latency.) A build or release engineer comes in and takes that process and transforms it into the press of button. Basically just build/deployment automation.

But the benefits to an org are vast for just a couple of months of the build engineers time. -Deploys much faster deployment, shortening the feedback loop between end users and development -Is far less error prone. The manager doesn't have to explain to his boss why development started deploying last night at 6pm but now it's 10 am the next day and the software still doesn't work. -No longer has to pay someone to sit there and baby sits builds all the time.

I've worked with a couple of release experts and they've always been extremely valuable.

<comment><USER37> Now that you say it, it is both something I always missed and would love to do.

Especially, if you work with Rails, deployment / release times can be really slow.

What about the operations aspect of the job? What is the state-of-the-art nowadays?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Nice writeup. I think that the final message to be specialized is great, and I'd underline that this should come after you proved that you master the "general knowledge".

This is clearly true for the author, he can specialize on 3d graphics after 3y web+mobile dev at Google and 3y in a startup, but the assumption that one could start specializing in 3d graphics from 0 imo is wrong.

All great painters were highly specialized, but all of them mastered the "general skills" in painting before taking their art to another level.

</comment><comment><USER40> If financial side is so important, why not specialize in fintech / quant software development?

No special education (except for the general interest in finance and some math — easier than in computer graphics) is needed, and salaries are quite attractive.

The downside is zero work-life balance and huge stress levels, but everything has its price.

</comment><comment><USER41> >> Error establishing a database connection

Oh... irony?

<comment><USER42> None considering the article has nothing to do with databases.

<comment><USER41> Fixed now.</comment></comment></comment>