How the Media Can Help Prevent Mass Shootings - <AUTHOR> https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_the_media_can_help_prevent_mass_shootings <comment><USER2> > Sensationalized TV coverage of mass shootings may encourage more of them

Sensationalism sells ads. You're asking the media to act against their own interest in order to serve a greater public interest. But if one outlet doesn't do this, another will. Therefore such coverage is inevitable with a competitive free press.

A non regulatory solution would involve making such coverage _not_ sell more ads. That means making sensationalized murders less attractive to viewers. That means reshaping human character in a fundamental way. Quite a project.

<comment><USER3> Maybe the solution is to go after the advertisers. If there was backlash from the public towards companies whose products were advertised next to programs that sensationalized murder, those companies would cut funding in a hurry. The media would reform itself in a hurry in that case.

<comment><USER4> A hundred times this. Nothing is going to change until they're hit where it hurts more: profits. Enough people taking note of all products showed during or very near mass shootings coverage and then refusing to buy them, possibly informing the companies about the choice, would send quite a message.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "When it comes to covering mass shootings and gun violence, we want to emphasize the victims, we want to tell the stories of the community, and recovery, and resilience, rather than focusing on the perpetrator."

This is the solution proposed in the article.

<comment><USER2> Two channels, one showing a story of a victim, another of the perp. I'll watch the perp, because their story is more relevant to me. I might learn about how they select their victims, or some detail about how it could have been prevented, something I could get behind. Maybe I can at least salve my psychic pain by categorizing the murderer and so feeling a measure of control over the chaos.

But when I watch the victim I just get to relive the horror from my own life and so many past media circuses. My own experience is that I don't get a lot of motivation from wallowing in that kind of loss.

I want to know why, and the perpetrator has more to tell about that than the victims.

<comment><USER6> Watching the perpetrator will also tell you how to be a better one.

Innocent people get swatted and killed meanwhile with just this weird trick you can take the lives of many people and your reward will be a warm meal in a prison.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's not much but what I have done is began marking Not Interested in the spam of mainstream news coverage after each event. I also only watch coverage from places that refuse to name the shooter or show their face and avoid "body count" style coverage, Philip Defranco is one example.

<comment><USER8> This is absolutely a step in the right direction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The media makes /entertainment/ that glorifies mass murders. Cease glorifying insane people is the most obvious and easily actionable course.

Edit: I want to emphasize the media makes content that is intended to be /fun/ to watch that is based on mass murder.

<comment><USER10> Also actual entertainment industry glorifies mass murder.

See John Wick, GTA5, etc. First mission in the GTAV is to kill unarmed constrained cop to teach player how to aim [1].

[1] - [https://youtu.be/vMXq-4UDZ4c?t=104](https://youtu.be/vMXq-4UDZ4c?t=104)

<comment><USER11> I love when people blame video games yet they forget that the majority of mass murders are happening in the US.

People play GTA in Bulgaria, Israel, Russia, Egypt, Thailand, Australia etc. Everywhere. Switzerland even where 70% of the population has weapons at home yet they don't kill each other every single week.

You know what's the difference? The access to weapons. But I guess that's the founding fathers wanted so it's all good

<comment><USER10> Before GTA and "No Russian" [1] there was simultaneously easier access to guns (including full-auto) and less mass murders.

[1] - [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vBol8wud0](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vBol8wud0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _Their results were robust using both definitions of a "mass shooting": > either four or more individuals shot and four or more individuals killed._

Well that's a new logical predicate, the either-and.

<comment><USER13> It doesn't help either that one is a subset of the other. Or maybe I'm parsing that wrongly.

<comment><USER14> I think you both are -- They're saying it holds up with either definition of 'mass shooting';

1\. Four or more people killed in a shooting.

or

2\. Four or more people shot in a single incident.

It's just an either-or, but the 'or' is listed as an 'and' since they're enumerating the two definitions of mass shooting. E.g. It holds up with definition 1, and it holds up with definition 2. I agree a CS major would write it differently but I wasn't confused fwiw.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting experiment design. However, I wish the paper explored seasonal effects more. "# of deaths from extreme temperatures and wildfires worldwide" probably has large seasonal variance, and the graph in the paper suggests that mass shootings do as well.

</comment><comment><USER16> How about shaming politicians who offer nothing more than useless "thoughts and prayers"?

</comment><comment><USER17> response: media doesn't kill people, people kill people?

<comment><USER18> Means, motive, opportunity. Remove as many as you can. The media can help with motive.

<comment><USER19> Unfortunately, the Second Amendment makes it infeasible to remove means and opportunity.

<comment><USER20> Well we could stop ignoring the first half, the "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" part.

That clause doesn't sound like they mean "unlimited guns for all".

Using the context before the comma, the "people" clearly means polis, as in society, not as in the "every human with a pulse" way we use it today.

The word "person" is used twice in the BoR, both times referring to individuals. The other 3 uses of "people" clearly refer to the collective polis.

This distinction, as people not merely being a plural of person, is laid bare in the fourth amendment: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons", that only makes sense if "people" means the abstract composition.

<comment><USER21> What's your point? Every human with a pulse can't get a weapon. You have to be the right age and pass a background check. And in some states, go as far as provide evidence that your life is in potential danger and you need it for protection as well as a letter of recommendation from the local police chief.

<comment><USER20> It means the second amendment gives no individual right of gun ownership, at all. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing.

It's absolutely absent, it's not there. There is no right.

Perhaps there ought to be an individual right, but the second amendment doesn't have it.

<comment><USER22> The whole point is that the right to self-defense, which means the right to bear arms, _pre-dates_ the Constitution and the formation of our nation. The 2nd Amendment only makes it clear that the government is _not infringing upon the right which already exists_.

For a deeper look at the issue dive into the positive rights vs. negative rights discussion which has been going on for ages. Sometimes it's phrased as positive vs negative liberty.

The short version, or my understanding of it, is negative rights means your rights were not given to you by your government, they are inherent, or given to you by God, or they are somehow a part of your very existence. This means your government can only take rights away from you but it doesn't have the power to ever _grant_ you a right.

Positive rights on the other hand is the idea that rights _are_ granted by your government. And since they are granted to you they may also be taken away.

<comment><USER23> Bingo. Only clarification I'd make is to this:

>This means your government can only take rights away from you but it doesn't have the power to ever grant you a right.

My understanding is that the government is unable to grant nor deny you the right, only infringe upon it. The right is always there by virtue of your existence, so it can only be infringed upon.

<comment><USER22> Right, I misspoke. Thank you. It's a subtle difference but the implications are massive.

For anybody following along (since daenz seems more informed than me already), the 9th Amendment and the discussions that led up to it flesh out the idea that the Bill of Rights merely guarantees that certain rights won't be infringed even though many other rights also exist but were not explicitly mentioned. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution))

The biggest modern example I can think of is the non-enumerated yet Constitutionally guaranteed (according to the Supreme Court) Right to Privacy which played a pivotal role in the Roe vs. Wade decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This 'contagion effect', also supported by research in relation to media coverage of suicide, has often been discussed after mass shootings. Yet, little tangible action has been taken.

Maybe it's time for some new federal laws. Some possibilities:

• make reporting about mass shootings subject to a mandatory "cooling off" waiting period, of 48 hours to 1 week, to reduce the sensational allure of such "hot" stories to the mentally-unstable

• ban the reporting of salacious details, like a shooter's name & motivations, or specific weapons & actions – specialized information which is mainly of use to deranged individuals, rather than normal citizens

• set up a government office which would "fact-check" & approve stories about mass shootings before they're published/broadcast

• require reporters to receive official training about responsible reporting, and mandate reporting licenses to exclude careless or sketchy/unstable people from risky reporting activities

<comment><USER25> All of these suggestions violate the 1st amendment. Also there are no "reporting licenses".

<comment><USER26> We infringe on the 2nd and 4th in the name of safety. Why stop there?

<comment><USER27> Both infringements are invariably outrageous overreaches. If there is any greater danger to the average citizen than the evisceration that 4A has suffered, it could only be your proposed destruction of 1A.

<comment><USER26> Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic. I don't think rule of law actually exists with regard to the US Constitution anymore.

<comment><USER27> Haha I wasn't sure...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I ask for a raise? - <AUTHOR> What do you think is the best approach?<p>-I'm a shy person regarding this question, I have a friend that his method is "I have another offer, can you matched? or I'll leave" and got a raise 3/4 times. <comment><USER2> In my experience, by far the best way to get a raise is to find a new job that you think you will like as much or more than your current job and take it. In addition to the monetary benefits, this will open the door to meeting new people and take on new responsibilities. I've never regretted doing this, and more than once that action gave my overall career trajectory a huge boost, even when I already thought I was happy (which was the case most of the time).

<comment><USER3> The problem with finding a new job, as a programmer, is that you'll have to read and become familiar with a new codebase. Most programmers I know love coding, but hate reading other people's code.

<comment><USER4> That's… interesting. Stephen King advice for aspiring writers is to read a lot. I's say same goes for developers. Even if you read a lousy code you can at least anslyse what makes it lousy and how can it be improved. Reading good code will reinforce the understanding what good code is and might give some ideas for the future. Hating reading other's code is a sign if the still novice programmer. Imho, of course.

<comment><USER5> Reading code I perceive as "lousy" and sometimes stepping through it with a debugger has often been a great learning experience for me. Sometimes I even realize that I'm wrong, and "lousy" design decisions were actually chosen to solve some tricky problem. More often it was just written in a hurry, or written before more modern libraries were available, but reading it still helps me improve my brain's "pattern-matching engine" for next time I see something similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> 1\. Become divorced from the outcome. Sit down and think what it is you'd like to be doing if you weren't doing what you are, because these things can always go either way. Make two plans.

2\. Gather evidence FOR paying you more. You need more. Someone is getting more doing the things you do. You're doing more than what is expected of you. Things hinge on you. Make some evidence if it doesn't yet exist.

3\. Gather evidence AGAINST paying you more, and prepare to refute it. Make some, if it doesn't exist yet and prepare to give up some things or distance yourself from some things. Get into your manager's head for that. Talk to them: say, if I (you) needed help with what you're doing, what would they be prepared to offer? Prepare using that.

4\. Spend at least two weeks doing the above. Then schedule a morning meeting with your manager, right after lunch is best. This will be hard, better have shuffle the world around you in your favor. Good luck.

0\. Read some of this [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19542087](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19542087) if you get stuck.

<comment><USER7> And when it doesn't work, find another job that pays more and leave. Don't wait for a counter offer; a counter offer is just them admitting that they indeed didn't pay you what you're worth, and they're only willing to do so now because you're forcing them. That's a lousy basis for a work relationship.

Find a better job and leave. You wouldn't be the only developer for whom that's the primary method of advancement.

<comment><USER6> I see you have some experience with this.

It does go one of two ways, not always "when it doesn't work". But many times your salary will indeed be capped in some manner you're not aware of.

Be prepared to lose this negotiation, but don't go in thinking that you will. That will set you up to fail.

<comment><USER8> This whole discussion, however, is divorced from how healthy companies function.

In healthy places, what it takes to promote someone to the next level and his or her progress on that is a regular subject of discussion in his or her scheduled 1-1s with his or her manager.

So this whole tree which assumes that what the next level is, what that looks like for a specific employee, and that employees progress on attaining that level are entirely unknown seems just strange.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I recently got a raise by asking for it and it was the first time I did something like that. It was a great exercise and a good learning experience. A few things I figured out:

Rather than stating that you have another offer, you can research what people in your field are making. When I asked for a raise, I put together charts and graphs of what people are making in the industry in order to justify the raise.

Instead of saying you would like 150k per year, ask for a very specific amount such as 152,400 so that it seems like you've really calculated this number.

Ask for a range rather than a single number, such as 152,400-161,100. They will likely offer something at the lower end of the range but next to the higher number, the lower number look a lot lower than it would alone.

Be prepared to ask for intangibles if you don't get the monetary compensation. You can ask for your own office, more vacation time, to work from home, etc. But don't ask for these until after they have respond to your request for more money or they may default to this instead of more money.

Understand the mindset. Even if you don't get a raise right now when you ask for it, you are doing yourself a great service by asking for more. You are showing that you feel you are worth it, which translates to a lot of respect from management. Even if you don't immediately get the raise, there is a good chance you'll get a lot more of a raise at your next review just because you indicated that you aren't afraid to ask for more and you have confidence in your own ability and value.

Management would rather have a good employee ask for a raise than just go out and find another job without giving them the opportunity to discuss it.

<comment><USER10> A good employee would rather have their employer make proactive efforts to retain them, than to constantly expend their own energy just to get fair compensation.

The employer has 365 opportunities a year to "discuss it", but most somehow only manage to have a one-sided discussion once per year. I have never been asked "are you happy with your current compensation?" by anyone other than recruiters for other companies. I have frequently volunteered "I am not happy with the apparent reduction in non-salary benefits in comparison to last year" (mostly due to the health insurance plan).

As long as I have to ask for more money in order to get more money, I might as well go ask someone else, too. Getting a new job is very much like asking for a raise from someone you haven't met yet. So if I am already at that point, there's no particular reason why I'd ask my current boss first. They could have given me a raise any time they feel it is appropriate, yet somehow did not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What I did recently was risky, so YMMV.

I asked my boss for a raise last year around performance review time. I explained that I had taken on a lot of responsibility, I cited some projects that I led, and I enumerated how I had impacted our team since I had joined. I really was the top producer on my team at the time. He explained to me that I was already being paid more than any other engineer in my department, and he negotiated a small raise for me that year- 6% instead of the normal ~3%. I was disappointed.

This year, I decided to up my game. I continued to go above and beyond at work, and then around performance review time I interviewed at a couple companies in the area and got two written offers for 20%+ more than I was making. I handed those to my boss and explained that I really enjoyed working for him, and for this company, and that I don't want to leave, but I believed this is what I was worth.

He immediately submitted me for a promotion, and I'm hopeful that the raise will come with it. I should get the results in the next 2 weeks.

<comment><USER12> I recently went through some interviews and was trying to line up offers at the same time but what ended up happening was one would come in, and I'd still have a week or two process with the other company. Even telling the 2nd company I had an offer or one coming soon to speed things up made it impossible to get two offers at the same time. One offer would sit for a week and that seemed to be as long as they were willing to wait, so my question is how did you line these timetables up so that you can get more than 1 offer without risking 1 expiring?

<comment><USER11> That part was luck. These two companies both got me through their interview process at the same time, and they both gave me about a week to respond as well.

I'm also in a unique situation- I think I am actually sort of hard to replace, as I live/work in a smaller Midwest city. My manager has no interest in hiring a remote developer, and we've been struggling to hire people for the past year or so.

I don't think I'd try this at every company or in every city.

<comment><USER13> What city if you don't mind me asking? Trying to move outta one of the "Tech hubs" in the US and move somewhere where the rents/lifestyle is more manageable :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Some background reading:

[https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary- negotiation/](https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/)

[https://www.kalzumeus.com/2015/05/01/talking-about- money/](https://www.kalzumeus.com/2015/05/01/talking-about-money/)

[https://haseebq.com/my-ten-rules-for-negotiating-a-job- offer...](https://haseebq.com/my-ten-rules-for-negotiating-a-job-offer/)

</comment><comment><USER15> _" I have another offer, can you matched? or I'll leave"_

Using a strategy like this can work but it also carries the risk that your employer will just say "Bye then." _Everyone_ is replaceable. If you like your current role or you don't actually have another job to go to I wouldn't use this approach. Instead, try to overcome your shyness and just ask. It only requires a one line email to initiate the conversation (eg 'I would like to schedule a meeting to talk about my current salary.'). The simple fact is retaining a good employee is _far_ cheaper than hiring a new one, so most managers are happy to chat about it.

Alternatively, find a job at a company like Basecamp, where everyone gets the same salary for doing the same job and raises are calculated by looking at whole market for the role and increasing everyone's salary to be in the top 10% of the going rate. Basecamp employees effectively get Bay Area wages regardless of where they live without needing to be good negotiators. It's an good model that I hope more companies adopt.

<comment><USER16> > Using a strategy like this can work but it also carries the risk that your > employer will just say "Bye then." Everyone is replaceable

"I'm frequently contacted by recruiters suggesting that I have enough experience for roles in this area paying 20% more, but I'd much rather stay here" is a much lower risk approach of conveying the fact you have good reason to suspect you're being paid below market rates for your current experience and skillset. Not least because it saves you actually needing to have a firm offer...

Of course, the employer is also less likely to say "bye then" if the focus of your meeting is demonstrating what you've done well that's saved/made the company money, how you've improved your productivity since the original pay package was determined and additional responsibilities you'd be willing to take on rather than you explaining why you might leave.

<comment><USER17> Ironically, in my area, I'm above market already (at the top 3% or so), at which point it's been easier to ask for other things (an extra week of vacation time this last job cycle).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I would strongly recommend against the "I have another offer, can you matched" strategy. For starters, you've just revealed your cards: that you are talking to competitors or that you don't have much interest in working in your current spot.

If you want a raise, ask for a meeting with your manager and layout a few good reasons why you need a raise: you've worked there without a raise for a year+, you've tackled on more responsibilities and executed.

Generally, to get a raise you need to meet some sort of expectation or goal. Sometimes managers are bad at setting those goals - so do it for them. Don't tie those goals to money beforehand. Wait til the goal is reached then review your performance. Most managers will find it hard to turn you down.

<comment><USER19> _For starters, you 've just revealed your cards: that you are talking to competitors_

I see it as: guys, I could have resigned, but I love working here so much that I'd rather stay.

And also, please, when discussing your goals with the manager, mention the salary raise. What you have to do for a pay increase may be different forum what you have to do for, say, a new title. The surprise at the next review may be quite unpleasant.

<comment><USER18> More is said when you say less. If you just lead with "I love working here" you will create a lot less resentment than saying "I could have resigned"...

Also - I am not suggesting not to discuss a salary raise early on. I am suggesting not tying that raise to some performance goal. Keep it open...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "I love working here, and because of that I need to let you know that other opportunities are becoming financially better alternatives. Would you reconsider the maximum salary that you think I'm worth here, so that we can keep working together?"

<comment><USER21> I think this is the best answer. It shows you _want_ to work there still which your boss will hopefully appreciate. Pretending to already have an offer could come back in your face.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Your profile says _" Data scientist working on one of the big four"_.

Typically at a big corporation, you get raises at the designated annual review cycle. Those raises are adjusted inside of Human Resources' pre-defined "salary bands" for your title.

If you want to get a raise outside of the annual review, or get raises higher than your band's ceiling, you either...

\- Get a promotion. This means you need to demonstrate to managers that you can take on _more responsibility_ and want to be compensated higher for it.

\- Get another job offer with a higher salary. The company may match or exceed it. Or they may not.

Either way, you have to convince your manager to go to bat for you so the company will approve your raise.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have a good relationship with my manager, but I feel it hard to break the ice with Salary topics. It really hit my nerves

<comment><USER22> _> I have a good relationship with my manager,_

That's fine but that isn't what I wanted to emphasize.

My point is that if you're at a _Big Corporation_ , both you and your manager are embedded in a _bureaucracy_. Your manager can't single-handedly wave a wand and get you a raise on his own. He/she has to convince his superiors and Human Resources to get you a raise.

You need to imagine what your manager's bullet points would be to argue on your behalf to convince the company to increase your salary. What are your leverage points?

E.g. your role in data science work is crucial to release a $200 million product on time in the next 6 months. If you leave, everything falls apart.

On the other hand, if you have no leverage and want a raise outside of the annual review cycle and while doing the same work with no promotion... that's a harder sell for your manager.

<comment><USER23> To put another lens on this, if your manager goes to his boss and HR and says I can't lose Ralph, he's indispensable... Likely his boss and management will criticize him for building an org which has indispensable people in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In my experience, I've only gotten an offer of a raise when I threatened to quit.

First Raise:

I asked for an entire year for a $5k bump in salary to meet market standards. My performance, work ethic, etc was all well beyond my pay. After consistent denial of raise and being told "keep up the good work and in 3 months we'll review again" \- I went job hunting. I found another job, got the letter of offer.

The next day I walked into my bosses office, dropped the letter on their desk and said "I'd like to stay here, but I'll need a salary boost. In the event you still cannot give me one, I'll send you my resignation letter promptly this afternoon."

Three hours later, the two meetings are done, the new job offered a $25k boost in salary + position change to management. My current employer's retention offer was $35k boost + no position change. Since I didn't care for the position, more the financial aspect, I accepted the retention offer. I was also told, "don't expect another raise unless it's a promotion"

Sometimes, you just need to step on their toes, put them in the hot seat. If they value you, they'll make a retention offer - if they don't, then have fun at your next job.

<comment><USER25> How long ago was that? What were your salary increases (%) in future years at that company?

I'm asking because it doesn't seem reasonable to say "don't expect another raise" and expect people to be happy.

<comment><USER24> It was 4 years ago. I have since moved on from said employer. They had been engaging in some questionable business practices, and I had moral issues remaining there. I had never received any raise since then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Scenario A - it's a startup: I strongly discourage you from taking "I have another offer" approach first if you really like your current job. I've been on the other side of the table so many times and I can tell you that by doing this you immediately destroy all emotional capital and sense of loyalty with your employer. If you really like your job - I'd simply talk to your manager and say something like "I really enjoy working here and I've done X, Y and Z since my last raise. I think my current salary is below the market. What can I do to get a raise?".

If you're valued there - you'll get a raise. If not - time to start looking for a new job.

Scenario B - it's a big company: Just find another job. In most cases they have BS rules like "3% salary increase per year maximum", but it depends on the company.

</comment><comment><USER27> If you're shy, a way to get a raise that might sound easier is to back it up with data, in a written format.

This allows you to prepare it well (which avoids the "losing the track") and helps by adding a backbone to what you are saying. Hopefully that gives you more confidence to speak out.

* Made the release process 15% faster * Implemented 4 new features that impacted 50k customers * improved documentation ....

Whatever it is, make it yours and find things that matter to you.

It will also help you proud about it. It might sound a little formal, but having printed a one pager with a few bullets (or even a one page ppt) can help you find the confidence needed (and you won't feel like an imposter because it is rationally built).

Of course, adapt the method to something that will help you :), but it helped my shy gf a lot to have a strong foot against her more vocal boss :).

</comment><comment><USER28> My approach has been changing jobs.

You shouldn't have to ask for a raise. Your company should know your value. If they don't, go to a company who does. Don't bother with a counter offer because you'll have to do it again and again. The company has already demonstrated they don't value your work appropriately. Asking for a raise isn't going to change that situation.

Your only leverage is your willingness to leave, and you'll only really have that if you have an offer in hand. And by the time you have that offer, you've already decided you're leaving even if you don't know it yet.

</comment><comment><USER29> I've been subscribed to this weekly email newsletter for about 2 years now. [https://fearlesssalarynegotiation.com/](https://fearlesssalarynegotiation.com/)

The tips I learned helped me plan a negotiation strategy during a new job offer. it's not perfect, but it helped remove a lot of doubt from the process.

<comment><USER30> +1 for fearless salary negotiation. Just gone through an application process and it's earned me thousands. Haven't read the raise (as opposed to negotiation) content, but sure it's good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Be direct. Whether you're shy or not employment is ultimately a business deal (as many have mentioned already). That being said, it does require interpersonal skills.

I disagree that you have to move on to advance in your career. A lateral move _is_ the fastest route, but if you're happy with everything but your compensation you should tell your boss. One way to phrase it might be: "How are raises managed at Foobar Widget Corp?"

Part of a manager's job is to help you navigate your career at your company. If you're confident that retaining you is best for the company (and that salary is really the only downside to your job) you should be able to communicate that. In person would be best, but there's nothing wrong with writing down what you want to say and reading it.

</comment><comment><USER32> > "I have another offer, can you matched? or I'll leave"

Did this, got raise. I had an offer and other company offered me more, but I decided to stay anyway. It's been a year and I don't think I'll get another raise any time soon. I really regret about mine decision.

</comment><comment><USER33> You don't have to have a reason to ask for a raise at least once a year.

You should get a raise of around (at least?) 5% pa. 2% being general inflation, 3% for more experience.

The whole thing about pay being tabu is a mindgame played by your employer. Remember the person whom you are making the ask to has all the information, negotiates pay 10 times (maybe 100 times) pr. year.

You are really being a sucker if you don't ask. And you are not doing any favours to your fellow coworkers.

</comment><comment><USER34> If you get told no, it's very important to ask _why_. Because then you have something actionable to work for, and you can reference that conversation next time you ask. For example if they say you don't have enough responsibility, then you can ask for more.

Saying you have a competing offer may work in a big company, but in lots of smaller places that would immediately mark you as unloyal if you tried it more than once.

As always leaving implies you live somewhere with lots of jobs on your doorstep, and that you have the flexibility to pack up. That might not be the case, or you might actually (shock horror) enjoy your job. Depending on your industry, jumping ship may require a lot of preparation. You know the drill: that means whiteboard practice, waiting for weeks to bounce around HR folks, all day technical interviews and so on.

The subtle method is to ask for more time off (or other perks) so your effective salary increases. I would rather have an extra 10% time off than 10% more pay. At a smaller company working from home may be an option too.

<comment><USER19> _If you get told no, it 's very important to ask why_

Right. Alternatively you can ask "what can I do on my side to make my salary higher". The management tends to get less defensive and now open with such approach.

</comment></comment><comment> q-base Your friend has either gambled - and it payed off (He did not have another offer) Or he did have another offer in which case he negotiated from a leveraged position.

Allow me to be all internet-meta-psychologist. You are having difficulties with this because you are not ready to gamble your current position, as you do not have another offer lined up. You like the positive outcome of the gamble (a raise) but cannot stand the negative (loss of job).

You should only bluff if you are ready to be called on it.

I would concur with a lot of other advice here and perhaps add a little from the book "Never split the difference".

I would probably start as others said with explaining how much you like being there and enjoy your work. But with the market is and what other people in your position gets paid either there or other places you are having a hard time not looking at other career opportunities. So you would really appreciate your managers input on how he could help you stay in your current position and not be forced to look for other opportunities.

</comment><comment><USER35> Moving diagonally to another company is generally the best way to increase your earnings. You should get one or more offers from other companies. The more options you have the less shy you will be because you have alternatives if your current employer says no. Newer companies also have less leverage because they need to fill the vacancy.

Once you have options you can have an honest conversation with your current manager to say that you're not satisfied with what you're currently earning and would like to earn 'x' based on the market rate for that role/your skills. Expect some potential push back / negotiation on that figure but have a minimum raise you want to get in order to consider it a success.

If they do not want to give you that minimum, then be prepared to take one of your alternative options and go elsewhere. Their loss. So shop around because at the end of the day, it's mostly just business.

</comment><comment><USER36> I never understood what is the motivation for keeping the salaries in industry secret. It seems to reward precisely the wrong kind of behavior!

<comment><USER14> I think you've answered your own question. Salaries are secret largely based on the stigma that employers have put around publicizing them, because it allows employers to act from a more advantaged position.

<comment><USER36> But this system is allowed to continue only because the employees admit it. I guess it is not illegal to disclose your own salary. Or is it? Can an employer fire you if you disclose your salary?

In academia, even while the salaries are rather meager, at least they are public and equal to everybody (depending only on your position and seniority, according to some public tables). We could very well do with a bit of wage inflation!

<comment><USER37> In the US, for private-sector employees, not only is it not illegal, it is a protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935. Your employer cannot forbid or fire you for discussing salaries or job conditions.

(IANAL)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Just for a little background, I've been working for 20+ years as a software developer but I was a "dark matter developer" until 2008, so my career progression over the last 10 years has looked about like that of someone who just graduated from college in 2008 and worked in a major metropolitan city.

A few things:

Don't threaten to quit. You don't want to have an antagonistic relationship with your employer.

Your value to the company is s combination of your generic skillset that can be replaced at market value by someone coming in off the street, your institutional knowledge, and the amount of additional value you add to the business. If you aren't at least getting paid the amount you can get by switching jobs, that should be an easier conversation. Just speak to them honestly. Explain that this is the market rate for developers with your skillset and that is what you should be making.

There are really only two replies that they can give you. Either their assessment of your skills don't match what you believe or they don't have the budget to pay you what you are asking for. In the first case, if you believe their assessment is fair, ask what you can do to improve. If either you don't think that their assessment is fair or they don't have the budget, you have to decide whether to stay or look for another job.

As far as the other part, your institutional knowledge and the value you bring to the company, you have to have numbers to back you up - that you either made the company money or that you saved the company money and explain why you feel you deserve more.

Now, the reason I mentioned my background. For the last ten years none of the advice I gave you has actually worked for me. But also during the beginning of your career, you will find your market value will rise dramatically and most companies HR practices aren't setup to give the dramatic percent raises you can get every two or three years by switching jobs (again not referring to West Coast salaries, just big city wages in the US). Your best bet is to switch companies.

Later on in your career, the job hopping strategy isn't going to work. You have to be able to emphasize the business value you add and/or work toward promotions increase responsibilities.

</comment><comment><USER39> You want leverage more than you want technique. Not leverage in the sense that you're going to be cutthroat. You just want to you know what you're worth. If you make 100k, and some other company is willing to offer you 130k, then you can prove you're worth at least that.

The request for a raise isn't a fight: your employment is an agreement. You believe you're worth a certain amount, and some employer has to agree with you. Whatever number you both agree on is your paycheck. If you don't have leverage in the form of proof that you're worth more, it might be too easy to get caught up in emotion. This advice depends on what sort of person you are. I'm pretty shy too, and I don't like asking for things like raises. The point of getting another offers is to help depersonalize things. "Hello sir, I have another offer for this much, but I'm very happy at this company. I can't ignore what's best for me and my family, but I wanted to check if there was something we could do to keep me here."

That approach won't be best for everyone in every situation, but the point (as other posters have noted) is to depersonalize it to the extent that it's just about the money. If your current employer is affronted, you can be prepared to really change jobs. This might mean really waiting to ask until you've gone through an interview, etc.

</comment><comment><USER40> Most of the replies here paint the discussion as you against your employer, represented by your manager. In my experience things are a bit more nuanced. Even when your manager trusts you and knows your worth, he often does not have the authority to give you the raise you both agree you deserve. In that context, taking a day off to interview with another company and not hiding it from your manager may actually give him useful arguments when he has to argue for a budget increase so he can give you that raise.

<comment><USER41> You are correct, but I would never tell a manager I was interviewing unless I had an offer letter.

<comment><USER40> i have been lucky to work with managers i could trust enough for that sort of things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> It's easy. Understand how much you are worth to the company - and I do mean in dollars. This is what management understands. It's the hard truth, but the dollars don't lie. How much revenue do you individually generate for the company each year? (Hopefully you understand your employers financial model well enough) How much do you know about the operation, team structure, processes, technology. What is the cost of replacing you? It is measurable in dollars and this is how manamgent thinks. If you know how much you generate in revenue and what your replacement cost is, you have the information to determine your salary. Learn this, know it inside out, then request a performance review. Also important to consider how much you are willing to sacrifice to switch roles. Different team, different projects, different projects, etc. You need to know where you actually draw the line before you walk in. I'm saying this from the recruitment side.

</comment><comment><USER43> You need to ask the following questions (to yourself): \- Has your salary increased with inflation? \- Has your job changed to include increased responsibilities? \- Do you feel others are getting paid more than you for the same roles with similar experience?

If the answers above are no then its unlikely you would get a pay rise.

Unfortunately I have to agree with a lot of the people below, the best way of securing more money is to find a different job with a different company. Asking "I have been offered X - can you match it?" is a sure fire way to have confidence in you reduced.

If you feel you are capable (and the company can support it) then by all means ask for a promotion and a salary package that matches it and your wants.

New jobs mean new challenges and new learning experiences - this should also factor into your decision, the ability to work at something modern you are interested in on the job is a perk many people dismiss!

</comment><comment><USER44> It is a very emotional subject, so beware that both parties are prone to making mistakes at this stage.

Go discreetly, say "Hi, I need a raise, please consider this amount and tell me if this is acceptable." and pass a paper with the amount written on it.

Anything more or less will be unprofessional and will probably lead to more headaches than needed.

<comment><USER14> Why would it be unprofessional to say the number out loud?

I'd say the most dangerous part of the approach you're recommending is that it doesn't provide any context for why the raise is justified to the company.

This is only an emotional subject for the person getting the paycheck; it's not emotional for the business, and it's only emotional for the employee because of years of ingrained stigma about salary.

<comment><USER44> Why would asking for an evaluation from your superiors be dangerous? I think that was just random.

<comment><USER14> Nothing in this comment thread seems to ask for an evaluation.

Asking "I'd like $x, is this acceptable" invites a Boolean response. Either they think it's acceptable or not, with neither you nor your comp lead discussing _why_.

If you want to know "how would you evaluate my performance / accomplishments / etc", ask that. If you want to know about a raise, start by telling your comp lead why you feel it's justified, rather than leaving it up to them to define.

<comment><USER44> I don't think this is true, asking for a higher wage will implicitly prompt an evaluation. No other words are necessary to complicate the situation. If you start justifying your request, you are already playing some sort of defensive game. There is no need for that and I don't believe it is professional to do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> The easiest way to get a raise is to change companies. You can then ask your current company to match, but in my experience (from the company side) this never works out in the long term. You'll be branded (at best) a hired gun and not trusted beyond "work for hire".

For a less dramatic increase you can change jobs internally but the impact to your take-home is far less significant. You can also play off any goodwill you've banked (like history of quality work, extra dedication, etc) to ask for more vacation, training budget, etc. Try for things that can be part of your new _regular_ package; ex: an extra week of vacation each year vs. a one-time 2-week bonus.

The short answer is test the job market, get a better offer and take it.

</comment><comment><USER46> My reasons for asking for a raise:

1) Your responsibilities have increased 2) You have become an integral and important part of the team/project, so it would be costly for them to replace you 3) Your skills have improved

The second and the third point rely on the fact that you'd be probably able to get a better salary elsewhere. The first point is mostly about fairness. By assuring that you're treated fairly, they can be sure that you do your best. The second point is the least likeable reason for me, because in that scenario you're not making the judgment from your perspective but from theirs (by realizing your salary potential by not screwing them).

</comment><comment><USER47> Employees create value for the company they work for. If you can demonstrate that you are more valuable than what they're paying you now, then it's a pretty straightforward conversation.

One way to do this is to find out what others will offer you on the market, as others have suggested. Another is to identify how your work pushed company/team/individual metrics in the right direction. Being able to say "My work on [this project] led to a 25% decrease in churn" demonstrates your ability to provide monetary value to the company. If they want to keep making more money, they would be wise to keep you.

<comment><USER48> One thing that worked for me is "how can I be more valueable?"

Worked for a company for a year and loved it but was in a bit of a rut. After talking to my superior I ended up taking on an additional role but making more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> At most organizations, whether public sector or private, you only get significant raises on your initial hire and if you change positions/job titles.

It's hard to get a big raise without taking on more or higher-level responsibilities.

</comment><comment><USER50> Don't be shy, employers often need you more than you need them because the cost of losing an employee and having to rehire and train is incredibly expensive.

I think the best first course of action is to organise a meeting with your manager and just clearly state the salary increase you're after. Always back it up with evidence as to why your worth the raise. Often the more direct you are and the less you say the better.

If that doesn't work start job hunting and get an offer that you can take to your employer and use as leverage.

Don't get too loyal because companies often aren't loyal to their employees.

<comment><USER51> I've found more success clearly stating the increase I need to stay with the company without submitting reasons why I am worth the raise, except maybe saying that you believe your market value has changed.

I feel like if you start talking up specific points, you create things that can be argued back against and shot down while avoiding the main discussion of how much you are prepared to sell your skills for, and whether the company can pay you that much.

If you're prepared to leave and feel your market value matches the increase you're asking for, make it more of a demand than a negotiation. If you do want to keep this position, don't tell them why you deserve a raise, let them tell you why you don't deserve one, and counter their reasons instead of laying your cards down first.

Not a huge thing, but don't underestimate how much it can change the conversation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Not sure where I read it (perhaps "Hire with your head" by Lou Adler) but asking to match salary might not be the way to go. If you (think you) know how much you should be making then ask for that, perhaps adding a bit to it to have room for bargaining.

You should also know why you are staying (do you actually want to continue? is it still exciting to you?), if yes, then it will be much easier to explain what you have to offer. Otherwise, even if you should get more when compared to others, you might feel teethless when asking for it.

</comment><comment><USER53> This works really well, but you need to have an actual offer for this to work.

Otherwise it's a bluff and if they call it, you end up with the same salary _and_ on a list of unreliable employees.

Obviously, you need to be very tactful and polite when asking for a raise, and generally blame it on financial/life circumstances beyond your control that force you to look at other companies despite of really liking it here and never wanting to leave otherwise... or some such.

</comment><comment><USER54> I would offer something in return for the employer, because if you take their side it is illogical to give you more just because you would like to. You can tell your employer that "I would like to take more responsibilities" and actually take it even before talking of any raise, then try to ask, at this moment you have proven to be valuable and trustworthy. Earn your raises and direct them for your own growth.

</comment><comment><USER55> Do you have regular one-on-one meetings with your boss? The 1st step is to ask. That is when you'll set the goal posts to get the raise. They may give you some objectives to work on or be satisfied with your performance already and give it to you. If they're not willing to seriously discuss the matter, that's a red flag and you should probably consider job hunting.

</comment><comment><USER56> find another job offer that is willing to pay you what you feel you are worth and then approach your CEO and ask for the raise stating why you feel you deserve higher compensation. If they flat out turn you down, then state that you have another situation that is willing to pay you what you feel is fair compensation for your services but also state reasons why you'd rather stay working there.

If they still aren't trying to give you what you want, than say thank you for the great experience working there but you must go where you receive the most benefits.

Also its worth asking for compensation in vested preferential stock if you anticipate there being a substantial increase in the company's evaluation down the road. Though remember that you have to actually buy the stocks out of pocket when the time comes to execute your stock option. Which if you are barely covering your overhead now you should be careful anticipating actually having access to the money at that later date

<comment><USER56> Its really not the CEOs job to ensure that everybody gets paid what is moralistically fair to the employees because he has a fudiciary responsibility to the share holders to maximize the return on their investment.

What this means is doing whatever is necessary to retain valued employees and yet also try and make that profit to revenue ratio as high as possible on their quarterly report. Or at least make it look like that ratio will net positive in the near future.

What this means to you is that if your CEO is actually willing to let you walk, assuming he's not bad at his job, you need to really consider whether they can afford to pay you (and everyone else for that matter) more while still being able to reach their quarterly goals.

Thats why you might want to consider asking for stock options instead because if the CEO is focusing on increasing the companies valuation, chances are you can make even more money down the line.

In conclusion don't just expect that a CEO who is negotiating hard with you, is only doing so because they are trying to cheat you. They might actually personally agree that you should probably get paid more but they probably feel that way about themselves as well.

Stock is always the last ditch best effort to try and get the compensation you feel you deserve. Plus it reassures the CEO that they don't have to worry as much about losing you to the competition. At least not for a couple more years, and who knows. Maybe by then the company will do so well you'll be in a much better position to negotiate for a promotion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> The best way to find out if a company values your work enough to offer you a raise is to interview for other jobs, get an offer and hand in your notice. They'll soon offer you an increase if they want you to stay. It puts you in a strong negotiating position too.

<comment><USER58> If you hand in your notice, you might as well leave.

Managers are people too and can get really grumpy at your 'oneuppance'. They may give you a raise just to fire you a few months forward, making you lose your currently better offer (If you handed a notice, that was actually what you transmitted - "I want out").

Happens a lot more than one might expect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> If you're genuinely underpaid then make preparations to leave and find somewhere else.

Changing workplace every so often will help with your shyness anwyay, plus a lot of folks find more varied work more stimulating.

</comment><comment><USER60> I just ask every three months how I can have a bigger impact on the company. I then say "Let's talk compensation." And just make the case. Normalize the conversation.

</comment><comment><USER61> The current job market is tight. Every company has an interest in keeping good employees. Just ask for a raise in a polite email or meeting.

</comment><comment><USER62> yeah the only way i ever received a raise was changing jobs. i guess it was because I knew what the answer would be if I asked for a raise: "do not have the budget." or "you have not met x expectations". whether that would be true or not, its usually a sign to move on.

</comment><comment><USER63> Did he actually have another offer though?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, was 20% more. But he said it was about 40%. They matched.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you are in the position where you feel as though you are underpaid, there are several possibilities:

      A. Median salary or cost of living has gone up in your locale.
      B. You have taken on additional responsibilities.
      C. Your individual job-market value has permanently increased.
      D. None of these.

In case of A, wait until the annual review has completed. If your salary is not adjusted appropriately, notify the company through normal channels--by telling your manager--that the annual pay adjustment apparently did not account for changes in the local market, and that the company's compensation may be becoming less competitive. Don't ask for an individual raise. Ask that the compensation for all same-locale employees in your work group be re- reviewed, using survey data for your locale this time. If you, specifically, don't get a raise within 30 days, start looking for other jobs. At the exit interview, say only that you are leaving because you got a better offer elsewhere. By this time, you can't say anything else helpful to you or the company, so don't. If you do get a raise, ask around your peers to see if they got one also. If they did not, stop to seriously assess whether yours is a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" company or a "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down" company, and maybe still go job-hunting if you feel paranoid enough.

In case of B, you should be offered a raise by the end of the quarter in which you took on additional responsibilities. So on 1Jan, 1Apr, 1Jul, and 1Oct, think about whether you were given any additional job duties during the previous quarter. If you were, and you did not get a raise, meet with your manager to determine whether those additional responsibilities were intended to be temporary or permanent. If the former, ask for a bonus. If the latter, ask for a bonus and a raise. Don't mention a specific amount, other than "a fair amount for what I have been doing," so they make the first offer. If they lowball, counter it once, and then immediately accept whatever their next offer is. If that was still too low, go job-hunting.

In case of C, you need to build a case for a raise, and ask for a specific amount of additional compensation. If you earned a new degree or certification, or professional society membership, my approach would probably be to ask about updating the internal company resume, and mention that the changes will reflect an increase in value as an employee. Discussions of salary adjustments might get deferred until the next regularly-scheduled review, which seems reasonable to me. During that process, make sure to ask whether the additions you made will be considered in the final results. It is reasonable to also ask for a one-time bonus for resume-worthy achievements. If you don't get a raise that meets expectations, go job-hunting.

Case D seems most difficult to me. You'd basically just be saying "I want more money for the same amount of work". Don't say that. Instead, say "I want to do a little bit more work, but get a lot more money for it." In other words, ask for additional hours, additional duties, or promotion to a job title that has a higher pay-to-work ratio, and then after getting that, renegotiate pay as in cases B or C. Even if all you get is a change in job title with no change in pay, make sure it is a title that gets paid more at other companies. Then, when you go job-hunting later, you can get higher offers.

Your best alternative to negotiated agreement is always to take whatever the company offers and live with it while you are searching for other jobs.

I'm not a fan of telling my current employer that I have a competitive offer. I'd just resign, and take the offer. It's not really my job to do employee- retention work for the company. I'd be sure to mention that the only reason I'm leaving is a better offer, and that I would consider working for the company again later, if that were to change.

</comment><comment><USER64> [https://media.giphy.com/media/7B71Ci4KE3m0/giphy.gif](https://media.giphy.com/media/7B71Ci4KE3m0/giphy.gif)

</comment><comment><USER65> Why do you think you deserve one? Answer that, we can help you more.</comment>


Unravel: An attempt to re-engineer the internet - <AUTHOR> http://unravel.org <comment><AUTHOR> Overview from the about section (note: it's not my project):

> Unravel is my project to reengineer the internet (DNS and up). It will > replace messaging, chat, social networking, search, media and file shareing, > and a whole lot more. It will be open source and alow anyone to build > anything they want on top of it. It will be built to be secure, and provide > privacy, veryfyability.

> At its core Unravel will be a mesh distributed database with an API to > access the data. It makes heavy use of checksums and ECC encryption for > encryption and verification. It is written in C for maximum preformance, and > is built to run on anything from an enbeded device, to a phone, a PC or a > super computer.

> I dont like what the internet has become. Especialy I don't like the cloud. > Today most comunication online happens using walled guarden intermediaries > who store and inspect and triage everything. There shouldnt need to be any > intemidiares to do any of the things we want to do, but right now we have > to. I think that who controls information matters. I think that privacy > matters. I think the user should be in charge, of what they see, and who > they comunicate with, the software they run, and what information they store > and share.

> Maybe the rest of the world dont care about any of this. Maybe everyone else > is happy with the internet we have. I'm fine with that, I'm just not fine > with there not being any other options. Thats what im doing, I'm building > another option, because I can, and because someone should.</comment>


Profile based VPN service with SCEP enrollment - <AUTHOR> http://ruvpn.net/en/product/details/4/

<comment><USER2> This project was created to support Internet freedom in Russia, to avoid state censorship and black-lists.</comment>


Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/books/review/dark-matter-and-the-dinosaurs-by-lisa-randall.html <comment><USER2> I feel I've missed something in this article.

"Science, after all, isn't merely about advancing information — it's about advancing understanding. Its task is to disentangle the opinions and the claims from the facts in the service of truth. But beyond the "what" of truth, successful science writing tells a complete story of the "how" — the methodical marvel building up to the "why" — and Randall does just that."

I saw a lot of speculation and little substance. I couldn't even appreciate why dark matter had such a profound impact on the theory of the meteorite that hit the Earth.

Can someone please elaborate why this book is worthy of making the front page? I'm sure there was something between the lines I missed.

</comment><comment><USER3> What is this, a lit book review?

<comment><USER2> That was my impression. It seemed to be a scientific critique (without the value add), but by the end it was clearly a promotion for Randall's book. I'm still scratching my head why it made front page.</comment></comment>


Blog post aggregator of Hacker News users - <AUTHOR> http://morethanseven.net/2009/03/21/hacker-posts/

<comment><USER2> You missed me: <http://www.daemonology.net/blog/>

</comment><comment><USER3> so its like a friendfood room [aggregating x, y & z feeds]?

</comment><comment><USER4> It reminds me of my own pet project that i did in Sinatra (<http://montrealhackers.com>). It's nothing more than a blog mashup, though.

BTW, nice design.</comment>


Climate change is turning some sea turtle populations 99% female - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sea-turtles-climate-change-1.4479547 <comment><USER2> The canaries in the coal mine keep dying and we still can't collectively muster sufficient political will to change things top down. Change is slowly coming from the bottom up. Whether it will be sufficient to forestall the worst impacts is a pretty big gamble.

<comment><USER3> And the world can blame Trump and America.

I know it's not true, but I don't think actions of the past ( eg. Obama) can save blame in the public eye from the present ( Trump ), I know it's shortsighted, but will the rest of the world realize</comment></comment>


Happy 21st Century - <AUTHOR> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/05/happy-21st-century.html <comment><USER2> "agile, decentralized genocide as a cloud service"

No one will bring this to you as a business plan.

Make sure it isn't a second or third order effect.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you manage your orgchart? - <AUTHOR> Do you use a SaaS product to manage your company orgchart? We're ideally looking for an open source solution as the SaaS products get expensive fairly quickly. <comment><USER2> I don't have an answer for you, but I'm extremely curious as to why you would want to "manage" your orgchart and what that means exactly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry the word manage is used incorrectly here. What I should have said is software that displays org chart info in a way that is easily accessible by team members.

<comment><USER2> I'm still really curious why anyone should want to do that. Can you explain?

<comment><AUTHOR> The company is getting a bit bigger and it's now hard for a new employee to get a full understanding of the company org chart without such an app.</comment></comment></comment></comment>