Tesla produces 400 model S each week - <AUTHOR> http://automotivediscovery.com/tesla-model-s-attains-weekly-production-benchmark/9216356/

<comment><USER2> I really want Tesla to succeed.

I live in Arkansas and just saw a Chevy Volt in the wild for the first time about two weeks ago, and they are two years old now.

If Tesla succeeds, it will force the autobehemoths to step up their game, which will be good for everyone. I'll be interested to see what the old guard will be able to come up with to match Tesla in the (hopefully) new generation of auto. There is a lot to be said about having such massive resources to leverage, so I wouldn't write them off as being out of the game quite yet.

<comment><USER3> One item to consider, Tesla is only going the route of battery powered cars. The majors are investigating multiple different sources, hydrogen, natural gas, compressed air, battery only, simple hybrid, and series hybrids. So as for stepping up their game I am not sure what you think they need to do.

There are already a half a dozen or so cars that are full battery powered for under forty thousand, or less than half the price of the current transaction prices of the S. The luxury market is safe territory because the margins are large enough for Tesla to fit within.

As for interior work, I am not sold on a full size touch screen. For the most part it looks a bit tacky to me, its just too "there". That and I am a dial person, specifically for radio and such. I just like the idea of feedback. Sure I could talk to my car and one day that may work when I don't have to drive it but I am not ready to give up that fun.

<comment><USER4> > One item to consider, Tesla is only going the route of battery powered cars. > The majors are investigating multiple different sources, hydrogen, natural > gas, compressed air, battery only, simple hybrid, and series hybrids. So as > for stepping up their game I am not sure what you think they need to do.

I don't see how that benefits the incumbents. Unfortunately, the realities of physics and economics (to say nothing about total pollution generated) mean that there are really only two choices: Burn liquid hydrocarbons; or store electricity in a battery (or some combination of the two). Tesla is currently pursing the second option and traditional auto manufacturers are using both. Hydrogen, natural gas and compressed air have all the limitations of batteries and more: The technology that goes in the car is more expensive, the infrastructure is more expensive and exists in fewer places (excluding natural gas), range is short, and 'refuling' times are long.

About ten years ago, as an undergrad, I worked on an NSF- and DOE-funded project to use single-walled carbon nanotubes both as a catalyst in hydrogen fuel cells and for hydrogen storage. Unfortunately, the efficiency gains were minimal, and I'm not aware of much[1] progress that has been made since (but I now work in a different sub-field). That means that a practical fuel cell, big enough to power a lightweight vehicle still costs hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars (mostly due to the requirement for large amounts of platinum to catalyze the H2 in to 2H). Frankly, there has been enough money wasted on pie-in-the-sky projects when there is already-existing technology that works (lithium-ion batteries).

If you don't trust a random stranger on the Internet, then please trust the managers of auto companies. Honda has effectively abandoned their FCX Clairity project because it is cheaper to meet CARB (CA Air Resources Board) requirements by buying zero-emissions credits from Toyota, Tesla, or GM. The FCX, by the way, was a hybrid that only used a fuel cell to meet the average load for electricity and batteries to meet the peak load.

[1] You need _at least_ an order of magnitude better catalyst performance before you can even _consider_ using PEM fuel cells in a mass-produced car. Every time I've seen a press release about better fuel cells, they seem to mention a few percent. At the current rate of improvement, it will take a quarter of a century before we even solve one of the show-stoppers for hydrogen cars.

<comment><USER5> What do you have against natural gas?

Compressed natural gas/biogas is available today and has been for years, at prices far below that of electric cars, with none of the range and refueling issues that electric cars have.

<comment><USER6> If you want to learn more about where it comes from, watch the documentary "gasland".

Eye-opening to say the least.

<comment><USER5> I was merely pointing out that hydrocarbons don't have to be liquid to be a viable vehicle fuel. Where I live, all the vehicle gas comes from sewage and municipal waste.

<comment><USER7> sheer curiosity, where _is_ that you live?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8>
      Jerome Guillen, the company's director of Model S programs
      previously directed the business business innovation
      department at Daimler AG. He comments, "We are doing things
      in a couple weeks that, at my previous employer, would have
      taken two years."

Knowing quite some people working within the German automobile industry (mainly BMW) attesting how slow and _corporate_ the decision finding process is, I think this is what will cause the traditional car manufacturers quite some headache in the future.

<comment><USER9> On the flip side what these car companies manufacture in 2 weeks will take Tesla two years to manufacture.

On the other hand, Tesla is not doing the kind of innovation on the automotive side that would create a meaningful barrier to entry. The big players are all catching up (already caught up) and are going to chisel marketshare away from Tesla. IMHO, Tesla will close or sell within two years!

<comment><USER10> Is there an equal to the Model S? Seems unlikely they'll be closing since they're profitable and their flagship model has no equal.

<comment><USER9> That's not really a fair point. I think it's better to look at their market segment. The people who want a nice-looking (luxury) car, roomy with 4 doors who are environmentally aware. That being said, there are/will be numerous established players (American, German, Japanese) who will provide a vehicle that could fulfill this market segment in one way or another.

Keep in mind consumers with certain existing brand loyalty are more likely to buy from your trusted brand before buying from a relatively unknown car maker. Especially, one that doesn't have as many dealership footprints around the country, which further reduce the probability of a sale.

You can make the argument of Ferrari who have a niche market and who have stayed in the business despite all the competition. However, Ferraris had/have a long history of racing history and certain brand around handling and driving. They are targeted to that audience. Tesla sedan is marketed to a whole different segment that could as easily buy a BWM, GM, MB, VW or Lexus before they would buy a Tesla.

Tesla is innovative, but their innovation is not something that can hold everyone else back. I've seen the car and how beautiful the interior and the center console is, but it's not enough to hold the competition back.

Lastly, Tesla is yet to offer a leasing plan. Nissan is offering an amazing deal on their Leaf. I looked at it and my projected fuel cost saving was roughly the same as my lease rate. Meaning I could drive a car for FREE for 3 years.

So now Tesla is going to move to a saturated market and they need to start adding marketing costs, dealership expansion costs and other unseen expenses to maintain their sales and suddenly they are not going to have the same profit margins and are going gradually get squeezed out. Their only hope is to sell to Toyota or MB who already buy components from tesla.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's hoping they can find the balance between increasing production and keeping quality high. Most of these aren't mission critical, but I think only some early adopters would be ok with all of these reported issues if they proliferate:

[http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081935_tesla-model-s- gl...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081935_tesla-model-s-glitches- quirks-and-peccadilloes-roundup)

<comment><USER12> Some of those are fixed in software (4.2 fixes the sunroof issue and deep- sleep related issues). Some are hardware issues that Tesla has been resolving on a case by case basis (door handles and charge ports). The regenerative breaking issue is a feature. It will reduce the breaking ability if the batteries are too cold or if they are full (and the standard charge mode only goes to 90%, so it rarely is a cause). When breaking is reduced (or acceleration is too), the car shows a dashed yellow line on the current gauge. So, there is an indicator and you can know to expect the reduced breaking force.

Regardless, it's by far the best car I've ever owned. Considering the vehicle didn't exist outside of a CAD program 4 years ago, the minimal number of issues people have found is amazing. Tesla is a very well-run company and it's clear quality is their top priority.

<comment><USER13> How big a reduction in braking power is it?

Can you notice the difference? Does it do this while you are already braking and the batteries end up full? (in other words, does the braking action change while you are braking?)

<comment><USER14> Any reason they can't just route the current generated when battery is full to a big resistor/heatsink?

That would seem to avoid the problem of changing braking dynamics, and potentially save wear on friction brake components (pads, discs, etc)...

<comment><USER15> It's kind of a lot of power (hundreds of kilowatts for a panic stop from 60mph), so a reliable resistor bank would probably add more weight/bulk than it buys in reduced brake wear.

<comment><USER16> it's not really about the reduced brake wear so much as avoiding the sudden change in stopping distance when the battery stops charging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice to see, site load load takes forever though :-), 400 / week was their minimum cut-off [1] (thats 20,000 /year if you work 50 out of 52 weeks a year) Now they have to do that for a year without a serious glitch to bank enough to for the next step.

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/autoshow-tesla- pro...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/autoshow-tesla-profit- idUSL2N0AJ0GX20130114)

</comment><comment> bjelkeman-again 400 cars per week is 20,800 in a year. That is nearly twice as many as GM made Chevy Corvettes in 2012, just as an interesting perspective. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette#Production>

<comment><USER18> Though the cachet vector is different, the cachet magnitude is about the same, and many other kinds of utility are greater in the Model S.

In retrospect, that would've sounded like a compelling but seemingly too good to be true pitch in the pre-Tesla years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Tesla needs to innovate quickly because they're in a bad spot. It turns out that creating electric vehicles just isn't that hard. BMW has the i3. Nissan has the Leaf. Ford has the Focus Electric. These are not has good as the Tesla, but they're much cheaper, and are taking the bottom of the market away. But most importantly, these manufacturers have non-electric car lines that they can use to achieve massive economies of scale. Once these manufacturers decide to do a high end product, Tesla is in a bad way. Tesla can out innovate these guys easily, but there just isn't much innovation differential in cars except at the very high end, which is not enough to survive on.

The lesson of Tesla is that you can produce really cool things if you can throw a ton of money away up front and wave your hands around vulnerability to established competitors. In this respect the conservative approach of existing manufacturers towards electrics looks much more prudent than Tesla's high risk approach.

<comment><USER20> "But others can create/sell cheaper inferior products" has always been the argument against companies like Apple, Neiman Marcus, Porche, Rolex, etc.

Tesla is in a very good position in the market. They have a hot product, visionary leadership, good funding, and political tailwinds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is tesla's factory fully robotic? Or do they still have human labor in the build process?

<comment><USER22> Lots of humans in the build process. They might have robots making battery packs but all the engineering on those is done and dusted, probably a decade ago.

Generally people don't start building/buying robots to do this stuff until the economics forces it. That probably doesn't happen until they sell a million or more cars per year.

EDIT: This is factually incorrect as Tesla does employ a lot of automation. But there are still plenty of people in the loop as well.

<comment><USER23> Tesla's factory is fully automated, as automated as any other automobile factory. It is practically impossible to get the necessary level of repeatable precision without it. <http://www.teslamotors.com/gallery#>

<comment><USER22> I'm not arguing there is NO automation. But it's definitely not FULLY automated.

My dad did design work for division of Tyco that made syringes. That was fully automated. 100,000sqft of production and a single janitor automated.

Tesla? Definitely a lot of people visible. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/77735091@N08/7398173016>

<comment><USER23> I reckon Tesla's automation compares well with any other automaker in the same stage of the product life-cycle. I don't see a complex product such as an automobile ever being automated to the point of needing only a janitor to mind the factory. There is no lack of robots, which is the statement that prompted my response. Robot: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/77735091@N08/7395856658/> Robots: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/77735091@N08/7351817696/> Robot: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/77735091@N08/7338398440/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The article site was having trouble serving when I tried to read it, so I'll just say...

Ugh.. 400 per week just reminds me how long I have to wait before mine is ready to be delivered. :)

<comment><USER25> Lucky, I just recently got a chance to see one at a mall kiosk. It's certainly a beautiful vehicle. I hope Tesla does well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> At an ASP of $75k (probably pretty close), that's about $1.5b/yr or about 1/3 their market cap... not bad at all.

</comment><comment><USER27> So in a few years customers will drive Beta cars which get patched to stability later ? Doesnt sound good :)

<comment><USER28> It's certainly an improvement over what otherwise currently happens: unless there's a recall, we are all driving "beta" cars with bugs that never get patched. At least this way there is an easy method for correcting software defects.

<comment><USER27> yeah i know, i was just trying to make fun of certain aspects of the software industry :) In the end its a good thing of course and car makers have alot of validation to go through before a new car can be released anyway.</comment></comment></comment>


Google vs China - <AUTHOR> http://oonwoye.com/blog/2010/01/13/google-vs-china-my-thoughts-on-why-the-chinese-did-it/

<comment><USER2> From what I have read this article has some merit. It seems the breach/hacks occurred from within the Google shanghai office. This is a possible reason for them saying that the china office had no notice of the US announcement. I know nothing however, and am just watching the spin...

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it really true that pulling out of China will result in Google getting hacked less (i.e. protect their IP)? If the attack really originated in the gov't, it seems like the gov't wouldn't have any trouble getting past any filtering in order to gain access to Google.

<comment><AUTHOR> It would be MUCH easier with people on the inside.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article feels a bit scattered... capitalising on a recent news item? Nail in the coffin: "loosing market share"...

<comment><USER5> Could the poor English have anything to do with English being a second language for the writer?

I think you'll need to find better criticism.

<comment><AUTHOR> English is my fist language shamefully :(. Thanks for pointing out my poor writing/spelling, I will make an effort to improve . I would like comments on the points (if any) I raised.

Cheers!

<comment><USER6> I liked the joke about the UK. I'm English and well..... it's funny to see a formerly massive power be.... well... a bit crap. Especially since that's where I live :D</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How We Got 50 Women to Our Hackathon (And You Can, Too) - <AUTHOR> http://lgilchrist.com/how-we-got-50-women-to-our-hackathon/ <comment><USER2> From what I understand, the hackathon itself was advertised from the start as "50 men/50 women". When 50 men signed up, they stopped accepting male applicants.

So they did find 50 women that wanted to attend a hackathon, but they did it by leaving the door open for women to attend when otherwise the entire hackathon would have filled up with men. Not mentioning that approach in their blog post seems ... disingenuous.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's not entirely accurate. We needed to control the number of attendees to accomodate the venue's space constraints. We set aside 100 tickets, 50 male and 50 female. The male tickets sold out first, then the women's. We then opened up the waitlist in batches as people changed their RSVPs.

Eventbrite made this pretty confusing, as you can't waitlist more than 1 type of ticket (e.g. we couldn't waitlist male and female tickets). We'll come up with a better system for the next one.

<comment><USER2> I wasn't disagreeing with what you said here. What I was suggesting is that you got 50/50 balance by a technique you didn't mention in your blog post: limiting male enrollment as a percentage of the whole. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but it is unlikely that someone doing only the things you mentioned in your post would achieve the same gender balance you got by doing something else all together.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a fair point. I left it out of the blog post b/c it's a more complex issue that probably merits its own post.

It seems there's only 2 ways to go when hosting an event -- open the floodgates or actively manage the attendee list. Because of space constraints, we had to go with the latter.

Managing attendees isn't just about restricting male signups, as you say -- it's also about making sure there are enough designers to developers, beginners to experienced coders, and yes, men to women.

<comment><USER3> >It seems there's only 2 ways to go when hosting an event -- open the floodgates or actively manage the attendee list. Because of space constraints, we had to go with the latter.

I don't think that roguecoder is saying that this was the issue. This is a perfectly valid decision, considering all the logistical realities and your stated goal. It colors the implied message that there was a 50% split in interest between men and women, which is what I get from the blog post(which I do realize that was not the intent).

Unfortunately, I think that the blog post is misidentifying the real success here. It wasn't that you got 50 women. Your signup strategy pretty much guaranteed this. The hackathon could have been an utter failure, but the original goal would have The real success is that not only did you have an even gender split, you still had a very successful hackathon. That alone takes more work than just throwing up the signup page and limiting the signups to ensure that the proper distribution is reached, and I think should be the takeaway here: That it doesn't matter whether it's a guy or a girl.

<comment><USER4> The limit of 50/50 doesn't guarantee an attendance of 50 women it just limits the attendance to 50 men, although it obviously doesn't guarantee that either. Personally I think it's a pretty useful message to say 'here are a number of ways that you can make your hackathon more appealing to women' but that's a very boring headline and it would never have hit the front page so I can understand why it wasn't used. The number of frankly misogynist (I don't mean yours or the parent posters) only heightens my belief that articles like this are useful. There are well known ways to entice men who spend time hacking to your hackathon such as beer, pizza etc. but if we want to broaden the appeal of coding/hacking/programming we need to broaden the appeal of the events that nurture such creativity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was at this hackathon. Sure, if you micromanage every single aspect of the event, you're going to achieve what you set out, but getting people to hack together over a weekend does not create a culture in which men and women can collaborate and work together after the event is over.

Specifically, as a guy, I found some of the marketing material distributed at the event pretty offputting. Most of the stuff was color-coded, either pink or blue, and that was the first weird thing. Why would you reinforce the traditional gender roles like this if you are truly trying to change them?

Second, I didn't keep the materials, but as I recall there was one that was making the suggestion that "every fairy tale starts this way." Well, maybe, but that suggestion is not really welcome in a professional setting. I wonder if that's the right approach to encourage guys to start taking women seriously in the work setting.

Bottomline, the motivation of the event is commendable, and I am all for adding more women to the technology sector, but adding sex into the promotion of a hackathon, and so badly, will not get us there.

<comment><USER6> I was there, too, and I came away with different impressions. A big part of hackathons is meeting other devs and sharing product/project ideas. Then if you find you like working with someone over the weekend, you're more likely to do so in the future. So it seems like having a hackathon where they reach out specifically to women would be very conducive to helping women feel more a part of the scene.

Their swag certainly had a blue and pink/red palette (see also their website: <http://www.hacknjill.com/>), but it wasn't color coded. They just handed out bags of stuff, and you got whatever happened to be in them. Similarly, the t-shirts had the logo and whatnot on them, but they were all the same design IIRC. The color palette reminds me of an instagram photo, which fit with their hackyoursummer motif.

I don't remember that marketing line anywhere, and upon a cursory glance, I don't see it on their site, but even if it was, so what? Whimsy is commonplaces in marketing materials these days, and is definitely something you see in a light-hearted professional setting. This isn't a corporate-lawyer lawyer-a-thon where one would expect things to be staid, it's a casual hackathon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Make the Attendee List Public_

Interesting, I have been told that (many) women prefer not to have their real names published online especially not in connection with a particular real- life event they are attending. It multiplies that amount of harassment they are open to.

<comment><USER8> In running similar events in the past, I have found adding a single checkbox to the sign up form labeled 'Please include my name and contact information in the official attendee list' is both simple and effective.

<comment><USER9> My gut reaction tells me that women are less likely to check that box than men are -- is that your experience?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's great to see that the list of changes to make does not include anything enormous, ground-breaking or incredibly difficult. The author is basically proposing a few subtle changes to the tone of the hackathon -- I'm glad to see it had such a huge impact.

<comment><USER11> There is no evidence that the huge impact was caused by these subtle changes. It is far more likely that the even gender split was obtained by the ticket quotas omitted in the original post. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4282226>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is it just me or does all this talk about women in tech and efforts to balance things out (artificially) just devalue what good work women engineers are doing?

It's the classic affirmative action problem: if you lower the bar for one group in the eyes of everyone else members of that group are viewed as having less merit regardless of whether or not its true.

I'm all for having more good female engineers because I'm all for having more good engineers (male or female). The counterargument seems to be that women find the male dominance of tech intimidating or engineering careers aren't presented to women as possibilities. If there is gender bias is science/engineering/maths classes or with career guidance and so forth then I'm all for eliminating that.

But as far as the first goes, I have two words for you: Grace Hopper.

<comment><USER2> It is just you: empirical evidence finds that balancing things out artificially increases participation without affecting performance. See, for example, [http://www.tirol.gv.at/fileadmin/www.tirol.gv.at/themen/gese...](http://www.tirol.gv.at/fileadmin/www.tirol.gv.at/themen/gesellschaft- und-soziales/frauen/downloads/frauenfoerderung_wirkt_-_Studie_2012.pdf)

This isn't a quality problem: it is a cultural problem. There are enough high- quality women programmers out there to have 50/50 gender balance (obviously). It does not usually happen because of self-perpetuating social dynamics.

I notice you are only in favor of interventions that don't require you to do anything. What if overcoming bias required you, and everyone like you, to take a step back and create space where women can participate? Would you be willing to forgo participation in a hackathon to an equally-qualified women so that the other women would find it a more welcoming space?

I would, because the comfort of more-than-one woman is more important to me than my own participation. If I don't have a hackathon to participate in I can always start one of my own; I don't need to see participation as a zero-sum competition with the women and men around me.

<comment><USER13> All this paper shows is that men compete just as hard even if you give preferences to women.

It does not address the question of whether lowering the bar for some people will lower the overall average or the average for that subgroup (hint: it will - this is almost a mathematical identity).

<comment><USER2> Who said anything about lowering the bar for anyone? There is no bar to attend most hackathons, no qualifying heats or even resume screening.

You also assume that lowering the bar inherently attracts less-qualified people than the marginal alternative participant. That is not true unless the outcome you care about is whatever bar you are using to measure and people accurately self-assess (or universally apply). For example, there is a 1992 study that found that SAT scores were equally good at predicting success of women and men, but only within those groups. Women performed as well during college courses as men with SAT scores 50 points higher (<http://her.hepg.org/content/1p1555011301r133/>). In such a case in order to maximize total academic performance, you would need to compensate for that systematic discrepancy and lower the SAT bar for women: what you are actually doing is normalizing the predicted-college-performance bar. That would not maximize total admitted SAT scores, but might maximize the outcome the college actually cares about.

<comment><USER13> _Who said anything about lowering the bar for anyone?_

Cletus, in the post you replied to.

As for using gender as a predictor in admissions, you'd also need to penalize high scoring women (and reward the low scoring ones). I have no particular objection to any of this.

<http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/variance-induce.html>

<comment><USER14> _Mean_ SATs, not their variance. I don't think that overcomingbias link is really adding anything to the discussion.

The paper that roguecoder referenced is just pointing out that SAT scores are not a perfect predictor, and adjusting the intake based on gender is probably a good idea if you want to maximise the real effect (academic performance), rather than the predictor (SAT scores).

<comment><USER13> The Robin Hanson blog post points out the exact same thing. Why is a positive correction for women useful, but a negative one "not adding anything to the discussion"?

If you want to use gender as a predictor, it could be positive or negative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So for me, to be honest, I would be excited to go to this type of event because I hardly ever interact with women. Which is just because my life is sad. LOL.

But anyway, I think that to sell it to men would be pretty easy: tell them "There will actually be lots of women at this hackathon!".

To sell it to the women, you would probably tell them the same thing: "There will actually be lots of women at this hackathon!" The motivation for the women would be to finally get do work in an environment that wasn't completely saturated with men.

Then of course you have to limit the number of men you allow in. The real trick I think is just finding enough women who are in tech, can commit to going to the event, and convincing them that there really will be lots of women there. I think the secret to that is to access to and pull in existing networks of women in technology.

<comment><USER16> Hey ilaksh, some of what you have said is actually a big part of the problem. At professional events, you should refrain from seeing women there as holding the potential for interaction outside of a professional setting. Sexualizing women you meet in such contexts is NOT okay.

<comment><USER15> Excuse me, "sexualizing"??

Just to clarify, what I meant was I would be happy to just literally be having any type of extended interaction with women while I was there. Not flirting with them, or hitting on them, or asking them out, or "sexualizing" them. Just working with them.

First of all, I generally refrain from seeing women as holding the potential for interaction of any sort in any sort of setting. Mostly because I generally don't interact with them, but also because I am bad at socializing in general and also because I have personal priorities to take care of before I am willing to attempt dating again. I'm short, not particularly attractive, I have a health issue that causes me to feel and look fatigued a lot of the time, and I'm not particularly well-off financially.

So I get that. No female in a working context ever wants to date _me_ or have any interaction with me outside of a professional one. I got that many years ago. Thanks for re-iterating that.

Anyway, I can understand that women are tired of being hit on at work. They are just really really sick of it. So I get the motivation for your comment. But to suggest that, based on my comment, I was "sexualizing" women was not fair or accurate, and the reality is that some of the women who attend a hackathon would not mind one single bit if a man who was there who they felt was attractive flirted with them a small amount.

So I think that the truth is that not every woman in every circumstance in regards to every man at every event like that would agree that there is no potential for interaction outside of a professional setting whatsover with every man there. Its worth emphasizing to keep things professional, but you definitely overstated things the way you worded your comment.

But anyway, don't worry. If I ever attend such a hacker event with women (which I probably never will, realistically, I hardly leave my home, and I am really bad at making friends, even among hackers), I will never consider having any kind of friendly or otherwise social engagement or interaction with any of the women there aside from one that is 100% professional. Thank you for setting me straight.

My mistake for being honest.

<comment><USER16> Oh! I'm sorry if I came off as insensitive. I didn't mean to criticize you as a person or anything. I was trying to convey that your post held undertones which weren't really compatible with the goals of events promoting women in tech.

Sexualizing doesn't have as extreme connotations as you seem to think; like a lot of sexism these days, its manifestations are much more subtle.

Anywho, I hope you go to one of these hackathons! It's easy to make friends when you just respect and treat everyone equally, man or woman (or extra- binary adjective).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Check out all the awesome stuff that got built here: <https://www.hackerleague.org/hackathons/hackn-jill/hacks>

</comment><comment><USER18> The icebreaker is genius. It's awkward enough for normal people, much less some of us who are less socially adept.

</comment><comment><USER19> Change the genders and you see how fucking ridiculous it is. 'How we got 50 men to go to our [stereotypically female activity].

Have fun with stereotyping yourselves... "Feed People Well: Offer vegetarian- friendly options, salad, fruit, and wine in addition to the usual beer/pizza/redbull. We got at least a dozen thank-you's specifically for having fruit with breakfast. Everyone likes healthy food – so why not go the extra mile?"

<comment><USER20> There are so many other demographics in tech that are also under-represented. African American men. Latinos. Heck, even though Asians are highly represented in engineering/comp-sci at top tech schools in the U.S. very few are in leadership positions in major North American tech companies.

Every week on Twitter or HN I see great stories about people trying to advance women's presence in tech. I don't disagree with that movement at all. But I hear very few talking about the other subgroups in the male gender that may have obstacles from going into tech.

<comment><USER21> _> African American men. Latinos. Heck, even though Asians are highly represented in engineering/comp-sci at top tech schools in the U.S. very few are in leadership positions in major North American tech companies._

There is something subtle going on here. Most likely multiple subtle things going on. Unfortunately, they are subtle enough that I have a hard time thinking of ways to gather empirical data concerning these things without breaking the law. For example, I have noticed that Asian men seem to be interrupted more often than white men in restaurants.

<comment><USER22> By whom are they interrupted?

<comment><USER21> The wait staff and by others at the table. I think there's a subconscious perceived status thing that just makes interruption less likely for "white" men. Granted, this is just my perception. Data would be good. I should probably search the social psychology literature.

<comment><USER23> Interruption might be partly due to mismatch in visual cues. People look for non-verbal signs that a person stopped talking. Maybe those misfire because of cultural differences? If true, this should be especially pronounced in group conversations.

<comment><USER21> That's not all of it. There are clear interruptions of the person talking by the wait staff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Awesome a hackathon that is run by a product person(blog owner), marketing/pr woman, banking analyst and one front end dev. Where do I sign up?

<comment><USER25> It seems like you're being sarcastic, since the hackathon took place in the past and, therefore, signing up is no longer a possibility. Despite the exhaustive observations you surely made while not attending the event, I find your insinuation that only teams of back end developers have the qualifications required to organize hackathons to be facile and, frankly, untenable.

I think that the founders came from heterogenous backgrounds is, in fact, a positive thing. Part of the point of the hackathon was to create an environment that values different perspectives. The fact that the organizers have experienced the tech scene from avenues other than coding gives them different perspectives, which, all other things being equal, is probably a good thing.

Perhaps all else is not equal, but I'm not convinced. I volunteered at the hackathon. The hacks were quite good and--possibly more importantly--the atmosphere was phenomenal. People worked and played well together, and a number of individuals made comments to me along the lines of the following: \- I feel really comfortable working at this hackathon. \- This hackathon is really well-organized. \- I appreciate that this hackathon doesn't require me to do unreasonable things like sleep in this office, or not sleep at all, or expect me to do tequila shots like other hackathons.

I'm sure a team of 4 back-end devs or 4 startup CEOs could have put together a similarly great hackathon. But is that sort of team composition a necessary condition for the event to have been a success? No.

Reladtedly, how funny/sad/appropriate is it that in a discussion involving the exclusion of females from the tech community, someone would protest that teams composed of non-developers should be excluded from organizing hackathons?

<comment><USER24> Hackathon is about technology not about building products. The cancer that has infected the tech industry has bastardized the word. Prototyping something with bootstrap, rails and sqllite is now a hackathon and focus is more on design than technology. I bet there were more designers,marketers, product people than devs at this hackathon. Afterward the demos are built, the cancer(marketing/pr/sales/product people) will ask the developers to build the real product and offer such awesome terms like working for free for two months and getting 5% in RSUs.

Developers need to learn, they don't need these leaches. If you're the original developer and not getting over 30% of the equity, you're getting fucked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Limiting tickets alone doesn't ensure that equal number of men/women show up.

If they hadn't done all of the other stuff it may have been the case they sold 50 male tickets and zero female tickets.

People seem to assume that if tickets are there then women show up. It takes a lot of encouragement to get that to happen.

Also I'd like to add I'd be more encouraged to join a 50/50 style hackathon than a female only one. I think they did a great job.

</comment><comment><USER27> Oddly, they didn't include a line in their posters describing their perks:

 _Men:_ Need another beer? Let one of our friendly (male) even staff get that for you.

Which would surely work right? --particularly if you add a giggle about "staff" as a metaphor....

</comment><comment><USER28> It is pretty amazing to see how much the term "hackathon" has been diluted in such a short time. How did we go from a very literal "a hacking marathon" where the developers of project X get together to hack non-stop for a week on their project to "non-programmers scraping together some off the shelf javascript/css frameworks into a trivial web app for a couple of hours, and then having some marketing person call it an awesome hack"?

<comment><USER29> "Non-programmers?" Where are you getting that from?

<comment><USER28> From the fact that programmers don't go to "hackathons" that are 8 hours long, have no set purpose, and are run by marketing weasels who say things like "build awesome hacks".

<comment><USER30> I wish I were surprised that this sort of hostility is only shown when attracting women is one of the main goals of an event.

But I'm not. I'm not.

<comment><USER31> Granted, the OP is showing an inappropriate level of hostility; but you bring up an interesting point:

Why should having women show up at a hackathon be a goal in its own right? It seems contrived, and doesn't do much to address the disparity of women in technology (in fact it seems to further enforce the notion that such contrived measures are the only way to effectively get women to participate in such an event.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> That's great. I wonder what will become of all these things these people spent their time building.

<comment><USER33> that's not the whole story of a hackathon - tremendous value gets added from the experience/learning/relationships built as well

<comment><USER17> +1. Where did this idea that weekend hacks should become startups come from? Hackathons are about building communities and making awesome stuff for the sake of making awesome stuff, not making money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This seems great, but this is my concern: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA>.

Fundamentally a psychological problem. Whether the attendee can keep it professional or not would make or break this hackathon

</comment><comment><USER35> From an evolutionary psychological standpoint I find this ridiculous:

Traditional standpoint is that men go to places where women are (e.g. bars) and hit on them. This requires a combination of various skills on the part of men, including resource acquisition (to be able to buy drinks for women), social skills, and the ability to be aggressive in a non-threatening way (e.g. to approach an attractive woman and chat her up).

There are of course many variations on this, but the skills that men ostensibly need to succeed in them are, generally speaking, some rough combination of the above -- which, perhaps unsurprisingly -- are some combination of the same skills that many women would want for a male partner (i.e. assertive, successful, socially capable, attractive).

The presence of these so-called "feminist" threads on HN often take the form of hackers, who presumably do not have all of the aforementioned skills, attempting to get women to come to them. I think it is reasonably obvious that the motivations include the fact that people who do not have all of the aforementioned capabilities and who are limited to incredible hacking skills, want to be able to succeed with women (e.g. obtain sex and/or relationship) on their own terms.

Personally, I believe this is both selfish and a violation of evolutionary norms. Certainly, there is a place for certain types of affirmative action, but in this case (and many like it) it is pretty clear that the action is not made so that the end product is better (i.e. better computer programs built in less time), but that nerds get babes.

While there may be some success with respect to the _unstated_ motivation, I think the fundamental dishonesty with respect to the approach vector means that you will never attract the type of woman that you would ideally want to couple with (yes, I'm speaking primarily to a male audience here).

There may be "good enough" couplings insofar as there clearly is some appeal here from the standpoint of women, given the relatively high salary of nerds (I saw some unusual couplings in silicon valley along these lines, particularly in the South Bay), but I don't think this is a very good strategy long term.

At the very least, I think the motivations need to be clear. Why do dudes in industries that are dominated by dudes want to have women around them in the work place so bad? Yes, we know why, and so do most women. There are other reasons of course, but we have to be honest about all of them when we are coming up with a supposed "solution."

<comment><USER16> Wow, I have to say this was a pretty disgusting comment. Didn't expect to see this on HN.

If you start your post off with any variant of "from an evolutionary psychological standpoint" in a thread about sexism/feminist issues you need to seriously consider not clicking the "add comment" button. Also, look up "projection". I can honestly tell you that no, the reason I support women in tech is _absolutely_ not so I can "get babes."

Really, your post was unbelievable.

<comment><USER36> Thanks for pointing this out, because between the multitude of posts in this forum and the posts which I responded to on the blog, I feel like I am taking crazy pills. What is the big deal here? Seems like so many of my peers have deep seated psychological problems (not like I don't, but damn).

<comment><USER16> Misogyny is unfortunately scarily prevalent. All we can do is call people out on it. If there isn't social backlash they'll never question their worldview.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Keeping "Free Law" Free - <AUTHOR> http://www.benedelman.org/news/012218-1.html <comment><USER2> [https://www.aallnet.org/Blogs/spectrum- blog/45407.html](https://www.aallnet.org/Blogs/spectrum-blog/45407.html)

 _"In 2008, computers at the Library for the U.S. Courts of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago provided free access to PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records), which normally cost eight cents per page. Swartz loaded a script onto a library computer, which automatically downloaded PACER records every three seconds and uploaded them to a cloud server. Over a couple of weeks, he downloaded about 20% of the PACER database. [Aaron] Swartz provided the PACER documents to Public.Resource.Org. The FBI 's investigation of this incident eventually ended without charges. Swartz continued to promote free public access to PACER documents by working with RECAP and PlainSite."_

<comment><USER3> Do note, with PACER, making a search counts as a page. So does clicking on the second page of results - another page. So does clicking the print button. Another page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > One, I don't know that RECAP's expenses need to be particularly high. Open > source software development often does not entail paying developers anything > at all.

It's incredibly hard to run an open source project like this with zero paid developers. I've done it! And others have too, but it's nearly impossible to pull off in the long term and having paid staff with some kind of recurring revenue is almost essential to keeping these kinds of projects alive and growing.

Sure, you can launch that kind of project and run it for a few years, but over time you have customer support queries to deal with, obnoxious bugs that take hours to ferret out, uptime and DevOps challenges that will ultimately otherwise fall under one volunteer who, if unpaid, has a day job and outside commitments and gets sick or bored or run down.

> With the right motivation including public praise, some people may be > inclined to donate their skills. Certainly RECAP needs new features and > improvements from time to time, but most such improvements should last > indefinitely once built, reducing RECAP's ongoing expenses.

What's the model here for having an organization with zero expenses run this kind of broad-based public good?

It's very easy to underestimate what it takes projects like RECAP to operate, or to think that open source contributions can bring costs close to zero, but the reality is that these projects are very hard to keep running on the cheap, which is why we keep seeing small projects — even when that get a lot of praise and acclaim — shutter.

And relatively speaking, RECAP is an incredibly cheap project already: It's got one full-time staffer, and in 2016 its expenses were under $100,000:

[https://free.law/pdf/taxes/2016-990-EZ.pdf](https://free.law/pdf/taxes/2016-990-EZ.pdf)

RECAP is still making its data broadly accessible for free, while also trying to find some kind of sustainability model beyond a hope and a prayer. Donations and grants come and go, and while open source contributions can be helpful they can almost never keep a centralized service like this running for the long-term.

<comment><AUTHOR> The model is RECAP before Free Law Project took over. It was backed by Princeton (which didn't spend much), had far fewer expenses (certainly no one got paid $90K a year; it was a grad student project), and moved forward code- wise via the coding challenge my foundation sponsored which cost one-fifth as much. See [https://free.law/2013/04/02/two-recap-grants-awarded-in- memo...](https://free.law/2013/04/02/two-recap-grants-awarded-in-memory-of- aaron-swartz/).

The problem here is that RECAP may need money, but it is not being transparent about how it gets its money and is misleading users as a result.

Mike has made deliberate choices about how he runs FLP. I run Think Computer Foundation and PlainSite, which does the same thing as CourtListener. PlainSite is financially self-sustaining. CourtListener is not. There are alternatives to FLP's new "model."

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This change makes a ton of sense if RECAP wants to make these documents accessible. Aggregate the data and make it easy for wholesale users. Soon enough, numerous sites/services will crop up, likely funded by ads, subscription fees or non-profit status, competing on usability for retail consumers. That will drive down profits and promote UI development and curation. Compare, e.g., ERISA and EDGAR data.

<comment><USER6> "Soon enough, numerous sites/services will crop up, likely funded by ads, subscription fees or non-profit status, competing on usability for retail consumers."

Will they compete with the Internet Archive, which does not need to serve ads or charge fees?

The authors question remains unanswered. Is there any reason for the data to now be withheld from the Internet Archive?

This comment appears to be an appeal for "competition" that involves eliminating a competitor: the Internet Archive.

But consider that there are some users who prefer the Internet Archive for usability. Perhaps this is why the author writes about this on his blog. Anyone wishing to compete on usability can copy the data from Internet Archive and reformat it as they wish.

In the same way, there are some users who prefer EDGAR for SEC filings versus alternatives in terms of usability. Anyone can copy the data from EDGAR, repackage it and then compete on usability.

The existing source of the public data may present the data in a format free from Javascript tracking, third party advertising, paywalls and "free apis" that would allow access to be _limited and optionally denied_ (contradicts stated objective of "making these documents accessible"; instead seeks to _limit_ access). For some users, being free from these impediments makes the data highly accessible.

With respect to those users, any new proposed source must compete with the existing source. Not to mention the potential it allows for any others who may wish to reformat/repackage the data.

When the people behind the new proposed source call for the discontinuation of the original source, this raises a red flag.

Eliminating a competitor is not a prerequisite for "competition".

Finally, the suggestion of "non-profit status" is interesting.

Lets say someone who enjoys programming wants to start a project/company that repackages donated public information in a way that _she believes_ is more usable than the alternatives.

Lets assume the costs of doing this are not that much, mainly just her time.

If _she charges fees to users or advertisers_ for access, her income from this effort might exceed her costs.

She might reinvest the surplus into the project. She might pay herself a salary.

Is there a limit on how much she can pay herself while the business still remains tax-exempt?

<comment><USER6> In fairness to free.law which appears to provide unrestricted bulk access and uses open formats, what stops anyone, including the blog author, from downloading the bulk data, and then uploading to the Internet Archive?

To some users, it is actually preferable to have bulk access to raw data than thousands of individual html pages on a www server. Because for some it may be less work to transform the raw data into some other format, e.g., 1000s of pages of html, than it is to scrape all those html pages from a www server, process and store them in a _searchable_ format.

Consider raw text versus PDF. PDF may look great but text is more flexible and more easily searchable. While its easy to convert text to PDF for reading, converting from PDF to text for searching is fraught with difficulty and a high margin for error.

If one accepts

       more difficult: PDF -> text
       less difficult: text -> PDF

then it stands to reason that text is the more preferable format to start with. Because its _both_ easy to search and easy to generate PDF for aesthetics and reading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The misleading thing about the "free law" angle is that PACER does not record "the law." It's a system for accessing parties' legal filings. Opinions rendered by courts, which are "law" are generally posted on the courts' websites: [http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/judges- info/opinions](http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/judges-info/opinions). PACER is a service that's primarily used by litigants that's value is primarily to litigants. Litigants who need PACER access but can't afford it are given free access.

It's not unreasonable for the government to charge a user fee to access it, like all the other kinds of user fees the government charges for public services. (Indeed, the government charges substantial filing fees for availing oneself of the courts in the first place.)

<comment><USER8> This cannot be emphasized enough.

Accessing PACER from a courthouse is free. Accessing PACER for a case you are involved in is free. Getting judicial opinions from PACER is free. If you convince a judge that the cost of PACER is a burden to you, it is free. And finally, PACER doesn't actually charge you anything until you owe them more than $15 in a 3-month period - it is not cumulative: if your balance is less than $15, it goes to 0.

<comment><USER9> > Accessing PACER from a courthouse is free.

... other than the half day you had to take off work, transportation to the courthouse and fees for printing out an electronic document -- and that is if you are local. What if I want to get a 'free' document in a court that is 2,000 miles away?

> Accessing PACER for a case you are involved in is free.

This is false. If you are an ECF user you theoretically can get "one free view" of a document as they are filed in a case you are a party, however this rarely works so you end up having to pay the pacer fee anyway. You still have to pay PACER fees anytime you view the docket, search, or view any document in a "case you are involved in".

> Getting judicial opinions from PACER is free.

... a relative recent development and only covers some opinions.

> If you convince a judge that the cost of PACER is a burden to you, it is > free.

Really? You have a citation for that? I'm sure I can convince at least one federal judge my several thousand dollar a month pacer bill is a burden. That would be great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very interesting topic, hadn't ever considered the possibility that the availability of legal proceedings / documents might be something other than a taxpayer-subsidized venture. It sure seems like that's the appropriate source for funds to accomplish this.

<comment><USER11> When I heard abut this the first time I also was surprised that this stuff is not available for free. In a country governed by laws it should be one of the most important things that the law is easily accessible to all people.

<comment><USER12> > _one of the most important things that the law is easily accessible to all > people_

As rayiner points out [1], court filings are not case law. Decisions, the only component of a court's output that can properly be considered law, are generally freely and publicly available.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16230803](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16230803)

<comment><USER11> That's fine. I still think that if openness is a good thing then the legal system should be one of the first places. Everything should go into a central and open database.

<comment><USER13> I mean, they do already. The database is just the court records and you can go to the courthouse and access them. That's how its been for centuries.

<comment><USER11> I think it's time to take the records online.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: I'm Looking for work - <AUTHOR> Hello, my name is William.
I'm looking for entry level work in the bay area. I've been teaching myself how to program for two years. I've also recently enrolled in thinkful.com (starting soon) and have a small portfolio available online. I have very little professional experience doing web programming outside of my personal projects and have been teaching myself in a vacuum. With that said, this is a possible opportunity for your company to mold a new long term employee who is hungry and excited about the process.
Below is my homepage and SO account.
helpknow.com
http://stackoverflow.com/users/1152980/taoist
Thanks for reading.:) <comment><USER2> Upvoted because I'm in nearly exactly the same position as you (not that that helps your situation -- I do have my heart set on Portland however). I graduated in December with a bachelors in computer science after a somewhat checkered 9-year relationship with higher education. In addition to throwing myself to the mercy of the up-and-coming MOOC revolution to fill in some wide- open gaps in knowledge I feel like my undergraduate education completely failed to address, I also have several ideas I've been kicking around for side projects that interest me and I want to start working on. My impression from your website is that you are very motivated and accomplished for someone lacking in a formal technical education (I'm guessing) and work experience. Have you tried applying to entry-level positions at companies in your target area with cover letters expanding on what you've written in this post?

<comment><AUTHOR> All of the companies I've applied to have been via formal corporate processes that either never get back to me or if I actually get my foot in the door something happens where I blow it in a manner that is very superficial. For example, I applied for an audio tester position ( non web related ) about 5 months ago that would have been perfect for my skill set and that I would have absolutely loved. I built up a good rapport with the project leader. They then gave me a basic online test about 3 weeks ago. Before they gave me the audio section (which I'm confident I aced) they gave me a subsection asking me questions about computer networking as well as a few questions that technically I knew the answer to but the way they were phrased completely confused the hell out of me. I then got a rejection email. Regardless, I'm confident that I would have been perfect for the role even if I didn't know by heart how to network a Windows system (I could easily look it up on Google and figure it out without any problems). But to answer your question, no I haven't created cover letters that are similar to this post. I try to phrase my cover letters in the self interest of the company. Nobody wants to hear otherwise and they simply don't have any reason to. One little secret though, about 8 months ago I went on a stream of interviews for web companies that give programming and coding tests and I knew I would blow them. So I would just suck it up, do them (and fail) and then I would go home and learn whatever it is I was being tested on so I can parallel my skill set with the job market. I make a habit of doing that now on every job interview/test I go on. If I fail ( which I usually do), I just make sure I make a compartmentalized note of what they're looking for, then I go home and learn it - even if it takes me weeks or months. My advice to you, since your probably younger than I am. Whatever project ideas you have try and get something online and in front of people. Even if it's just a basic version. And stay in that "state". So much so that it becomes addictive and it imprints itself onto you and becomes the norm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think you are aiming too broad. "Just a job - any job" makes it very hard to decide if so done reading can or cannot help.

Can I suggest taking something you enjoy or work well on (maybe webrtc / html5 audio/video from your so comments maybe?) and focus on that. Look for companies hiring in those areas, google for the libraries and see who has them on their pages. Contact those people

I know it's a fair chunk of work but you are much much more likely to get a good position out of it being focused and proactive.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know it's about being focused and proactive. This post is an addendum to my existing focus and proactivity. But seriously, it's a chicken and egg to even know what I have to offer anyone. So little posts like this are my attempt to break the dilemma.

<comment><USER3> What you have to offer anyone sounds a lot like second guessing what employers might want. Instead go for a solid grounding (sicp is a start) and find something that is valuable (almost all software) and you enjoy (upto you, audio?). If you lead they will want to employ you,

<comment><AUTHOR> The book you mentioned looks great and ( I've heard of it ) but I'm kind of on a tread mill at the moment. I do my best to nudge basic CS concepts in the direction of my Javascript learning ( exploring basic sorting algorithms using Javascript etc. ) The problem is there aren't any books like sicp that use Javascript. Just to get familiar with Scheme to use that book might take me a few months. So all my conceptual learning is taking place within Javascript, while additionally learning to dodge the "bad parts" , dom manipulation, and the entire web of intricacies of HTML-5. Within Javascript all that stuff is part of having a strong foundation. I would love if there was a theoretical CS Javascript equivalent of sicp. Thanks for the response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Have you looked at the WhoIsHiring[1] threads? If you use some Google-Fu, you can find some "Who is Hiring Interns" threads that are posted occasionally by various users.

If you have any code you can show off, you should definitely throw it on GitHub.

Best of luck!

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=whoishiring>

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem with that route is I'm bit older and past the "intern level" age and the other roles expect you to already know everything. I'm looking for an entry level role where I can actually work with others to even begin to understand a professional front-end work environment. I've tried the telecommuting start up route where I work for peanuts and don't get paid until a revenue benchmark it made (assuming it ever is). In my case the entire experience felt pointless. No money and I wasn't learning anything. I actually dont mind working for very little as long as I'm in an environment where I'm learning something and actually have a purpose for being there.

Thanks for the thread regardless. I didn't know the who is hiring threads worked like that.

<comment><USER5> It sounds like you want an entry level front end web dev position. Try to make your future job title as specific as you can. "Front-end developer experienced with JQuery and django interested in ecommerce" is better than a generic "front-end entry level developer". You can start contacting people in the bay area that have those job descriptions to figure out if that's what you really want to do.

Once you have your next goal in mind, you can start optimizing towards that goal. Can you get interviews? If not, optimize your skills / portfolio / network to help get you interviews. Can you get job offers? If not, improve your interview skills.

Here's a great post by Satvik Beri on how to manage 'Job Search Frustration' by making the process into a more stepwise progression. <http://qr.ae/TpZGM>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I saved the link and made note of the advice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Send me an email - andrewcantino.com

<comment><AUTHOR> done</comment></comment>


Show HN: Your new "what I'm up to" page - <AUTHOR> https://thenow.page/ <comment><USER2> You should link the original concept on your page. Like your clean design.

"What is a "now page"? Most websites have a link that says "about". It goes to a page that tells you something about the background of this person or business. For short, people just call it an "about page".

Most websites have a link that says "contact". It goes to a page that tells you how to contact this person or business. For short, people just call it a "contact page".

So a website with a link that says "now" goes to a page that tells you what this person is focused on at this point in their life. For short, we call it a "now page"."

[https://nownownow.com/about](https://nownownow.com/about)

[https://nownownow.com/](https://nownownow.com/)

[https://sivers.org/now](https://sivers.org/now)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for the feedback!! I will do that!</comment></comment>


YouTube deletes 7hr science symposium video due to bg-music in the lunch break - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2014/11/25/youtube-nukes-7-hours-worth.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess they're lucky not to be sued, Youtube "just" deleted the content :(

Copyright and patent laws are definitely pushing our industry back. Especially patents.</comment>