Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-fakenews-idUSKBN1Y3093 <comment> qeng-ho I'm Singaporean, and completely not surprised to see this appear on HN.

As with many places, the situation in my country is a bit more nuanced than a simple "the ruling party has ruled the country since 1965". Civilisation is the surrender of varying degrees of civil liberty for security and safety, and over here we definitely surrender more degrees of civil liberty for the safety and security of our streets. As another user put it, essentially a benevolent dictatorship, emphasis on the benevolent. For the most part, the ruling party has done a good job with the administration of the government. Things are fast and efficient. Is it worth the trade? It depends on your perspective. Even as a liberal, I agree that the paternalism of the government is not without its merits.

There were quite a lot of push-back on the POFMA (what the fake news law is called) among the people, though our politicians, no doubt because of their same-party membership, barely discussed anything concrete in our parliamentary debates. In the end, the law was passed because of course it would be.

<comment><USER2> Genuinely asking. Do most of the population believe Singapore's authoritarian government would stay benevolent??

<comment><USER3> As an US expat living in SG, I would say yes.

Singapore is the first place where I actually began to question whether democracy was the absolute way. Democracy was how I was raised. Overall, I still believe it is the way long term, but what can you do when you have a single, unified government that cares for its people is simply amazing.

Safest in the world, hands down. This can be felt in every day life. I hold tables while I get my lunch with my cell phone. I've even dared it in public "hawker centers" a number of times. My friends have had stuff stolen, but that was in the bathroom where there's no "watchful eye". My kid can run/play freely and I only worry about her running into traffic.

A about 1-2 years ago, someone was stabbed to death in the central business district. It was the biggest headline for ages - murder of passion from father-in-law. That's it... nothing else. I don't think/worry about guns - ever.

"Hawker Centers" are basically food for the people. Each meal can be had for US$2-4. I live in public housing, HDB, and while that sounds weird - 70%+ is public housing. i.e. only PR or citizens may purchase (I can rent as an expat). This keeps the price of homes at a relatively reasonable amount. US$250k - US$600k. Housing is not perfect but it is way better than stateside problems.

There are dark sides, do not get me wrong (built on the backs of migrant workers who can never gain status - is just one. Black and Chinese built US but gained status eventually... migrants can never gain status here and continue to build this country), but they're not nearly as dark as others.

Is it worth it? I say if you are willing to submit yourself, it completely is.

<comment><USER4> > Safest in the world, hands down.

Any figures to back that up? It's said that nothing gets stolen in Singapore, until you speak to Singaporeans. Bikes still get stolen for instance. The city seems super clean, but mainly because low paid workers clean the city really often. If a Singaporean visits another country you'll notice that they're used to the city being cleaned often, not so much that they're behaving differently.

Your "Hawker Centers" have people in their 70s bent forward cleaning up tables to some earn money. Those centers are cheap, but why does the benevolent government not care for those people?

Further, Singapore is pretty much a city, nothing more. Being isolated from any other country helps a lot too.

I think you too easily dismiss the "dark sides".

> My kid can run/play freely and I only worry about her running into traffic.

This is the same as a lot of other countries.

IMO the biggest benefit of Singapore is being a small city on pretty much an island.

<comment><USER5> Keeping the elderly working is not an absolute negative.

<comment><USER6> Keeping the elderly working is slave labor. Instead, you should make sure that there's always opportunities for them to do meaningful work.

<comment><USER7> That's an interesting take. Why do you define it as slave labor?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just so you know, this law doesn't apply the govt themselves.

In 2018, a historian criticized this and said that the govt broke this fake news law and that the law should apply to govt too.

However, govt said that the historian's evidence were incorrect even though no other historians dispute this fact.

See: [https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the- sel...](https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the-select- committee-on-deliberate-online-falsehoods-parliament-of-f1c34a2d9365)

<comment><USER9> did he go to court and a judge said the evidence were incorrect?

<comment><USER10> one does not simply sue a military dictatorship

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure Singapore's government falls under a military dictatorship by any means.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore)

<comment><USER10> I'll counter your wikipedia link with one of my own.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regimes)

Not seeking to discredit the ruling party. What they've done with Singapore is nothing short of a miracle. But the fact is that they're still backed up by a ridiculously strong army, and the opposition party exists just so they can say there is one (but is frequently bullied regardless).

<comment><USER12> Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military dictatorship in 2004 in the source data [0] for that article because the newly elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984. So it's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military takeover.

Note that by this measure, there can be "military democracies", such as the U.S. during 55 years (in 1946-2008) where the president was ex-military (e.g. Bush).

[0] [https://sites.google.com/site/joseantoniocheibub/datasets/de...](https://sites.google.com/site/joseantoniocheibub/datasets/democracy- and-dictatorship-revisited)

<comment><USER13> > _Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military > dictatorship in 2004 in the source data for that article because the newly > elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984. > So it 's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military > takeover._

The Singapore government has been trying to move away from this — a significant part by requesting that the press address them as "Mr", instead of their military ranks. There was a time when Lee Hsien Loong was addressed as `BG (NS) Lee Hsien Loong` everywhere [1].

One of the potential heirs to the Prime Ministership is the ex-Chief of Army, Chan Chun Sing [2]. It's very rare to see either the media, or the government themselves, to address him as `MG (NS) Chan Chun Sing` in their publications.

[1] Example from a government website: [https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record- detail...](https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record- details/77e6b874-115d-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Chun_Sing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Chun_Sing)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why am I not surprised that it is Singapore doing this.

That country is an authoritarian nanny state disguised as Disney Land.

I have visited many times and have lots of friends there. Nobody cares about freedom of the press because they are well paid and comfortable.

They have truly figured out how to placate the masses.

<comment><USER15> It's interesting to see people in the west often lauding Singapore for that and vilifying China if they do the same.

<comment><USER16> I've lived in Singapore for more than half of my life and met expats there from all walks of life. And I would tell you Singapore is very well integrated with western values, both in terms of the cultures and the social-political aspects of many things (other than weed and cocaine, etc; but you can certainly get your hand on some lsd if you know the right contacts). Anyway the point is that Singapore is very westernised and very, very clean in the conservative way - it's like a little Sydney without all the underground and neo-liberalism - and that's why the west love it (i.e. in general, especially the Rights - I've not known a self-declared Left that could stand staying in Singapore for more than a week). There is just a tremendous amount of logistics transactions happening everyday there.

I've just moved back to China now and I would have to say that China does the opposite of embracing western values. They go with, well, "the Chinese way". [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602206](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602206)

<comment><USER4> > And I would tell you Singapore is very well integrated with western values > [..] > I've not known a self-declared Left that could stand staying in > Singapore for more than a week

Weird combination of statements. It gives the impression (though you probably mean something different that anyone not liking it is 1) "left" 2) not part of Western values

Left vs right is pretty useless distinction anyway. Someone who is considered "left" in US is IMO very much "right" in Netherlands. Plus some parties on the right or left differ greatly on how they see things. E.g. not every "left" party will align with what someone agrees with; else there wouldn't be multiple parties. Those parties differ more greatly than "a little bit left" vs "a lot left" (with some exceptions).

Further, I reject the notion that someone who is left wouldn't be able to stand staying in Singapore for more than a week. Though biggest problem is that after a week there's not much to do (for anyone reading along, all the Singaporean colleagues completely agree with me on this!) :-P

<comment><USER16> Yeah I guess I had mistakenly used left vs right as a synonym for the more liberal-ish vs the more conservative-ish and that is indeed probably an oversimplification.

Anyway I was talking more about the "liveable" aspects of Singapore. Maybe not a week as a tourist but say living longer than a month there. The night life is pretty boring, the underground scene had dissipated in the 2000s and the art scene is not at all vibrant (though things are gradually improving). I would say it doesn't enjoy lots of things liberal-ish cities (like Berlin, NY, etc) enjoy. But there is stability and comfort. It's just that people that is more liberal-ish would ultimately leave the country and live overseas, or if circumstances allow they would start an NGO or something and try to improve things to have more freedom of expressions, more social acceptance for LGBT, etc. But ultimately it is a very conservative place with things like homophobia and an embedded racism. And that's the point I'm trying to make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My prediction is that Facebook is going to resort to "this content is banned in your country" route.

Only way to access this would be through VPN... if everybody in the country uses VPN, they govt would probably start copying the Great firewall of China.

<comment><USER18> It's getting there: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singa...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singapore)

<comment><USER19> The internet "censorship" in SG has been around for a long time, and it hasn't really changed. It's a symbolic block that ISPs sometimes forget to even implement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is there a factsheet or written definition for what actually constitutes 'Fake News' or is it "news I don't agree with?"

There were perfectly reasonable legal words available to describe fraudulent, false or factually inaccurate statements, it's sad that 'Fake News' has caught on so well as though it is a meaningful term.

<comment><USER21> > the law, known as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act > (POFMA)

Singapore is an english-speaking country, they used valid words to describe "fake news"

<comment><USER22> Malaysia, where Malay is the official language but much of the legal system still runs in English, passed a law that was in fact entitled the "Anti-Fake News Act 2018" and very much uses "fake news" as a legal term.

[http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputaktap/20180411_80...](http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputaktap/20180411_803_BI_WJW010830%20BI.pdf)

Thankfully, the new government has repealed this ridiculous legislation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I have a lateral question about Singapore. Everything I have read about the country says that it is one of the best in the world for business and, in particular, startups. Yet some of the commentary here leads me to believe there's a dark side to the reality of this nation.

Anyone with first hand knowledge care to comment on this?

I am puzzled because it so happens we might have to do some business in Singapore and a friend was telling me about the business/startup environment. I did a bunch of research and found articles with nothing but praise. Is the truth more nuanced than this?

<comment><USER24> I've been living and working in Singapore for two years now, coming from the United States. I'm a libertarian who finds politics and economics in the US to be horribly broken, and while in principle I don't agree with authoritarianism or planned economies, I'm also of the mind that one cannot apply a single concept of government to every culture. That's a colonial mindset.

America's liberal tradition came from many, many factors over hundreds of years. By comparison, Singapore is still in its infancy. While I don't agree with everything I see here, the system does work.

All that said, I'm applying for permanent residency here, because when I look at what's happening in America, in either major party, I don't have much of a desire to return. At least the Singaporean government is much more honest about what it is. It's not perfect, by any means, and it's expensive to live here, but it's clean and safe, it has the world's best airport, and it is a great place to do business.

<comment><USER25> I've met quite a few libertarians in Singapore but i continue to be puzzled by why someone with libertarian leanings would choose to live here.

Can you explain why it appeals to you? Do the low taxes make up for the limitations on personal liberty?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Journalists need to look at alternative platforms, such as those under the control of their own organization. The Fediverse is a good place to be.

<comment><USER27> I recently joined WikiTribune which is supposed to solve just that. It's still invite-only with a huge mailing list but you can get in early if you donate (I donate).

If anyone wants an invite email me at username @ gmail and I will try to send everyone invites (I have like 200) when I get back from JSConf.

<comment><USER26> I wonder if Jimbo Wales would consider white labeling this app or in providing managed nodes to media / content providers (in the way G Suite provides managed email services to third party orgs). There's a need to maintain control of the namespace and content and you lose that on yet another walled garden service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Reserving any judgment on this specific action, I just note that it's all consistent with how Singapore has treated this in the past. From Lee Kuan Yew's autobiography:

> My early experiences in Singapore and Malaya shaped my views about the claim > of the press to be the defender of truth and freedom of speech. The freedom > of the press was the freedom of its owners to advance their personal and > class interests.

(There follow a few examples of rich individuals forming their own newspapers, to push their preferred politics.)

> In the 1980s, Western-owned English-language publications became a > significant presence in Singapore. [...] We have always banned communist > publications; no Western media or media organization has ever protested > against this. We have not banned any Western newspaper or journal. Yet they > frequently refused us the right of reply when they misrepresented us. We > decided in 1986 to enact a law to restrict the sale or distribution of > foreign publications that had engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore. > One of our tests for "engaging in the politics of Singapore" was whether, > after they had misreported or slanted stories on Singapore, they refused to > publish our reply. We did not ban them, only restricted the number of copies > they sold. [...] This would reduce their advertising revenue but did not > stop their reports from circulating. They could not accuse us of being > afraid to have their reports read.

> Singapore's domestic debate is a matter for Singaporeans. [...] We cannot > allow [American journalists] to assume a role in Singapore that the American > media play in America. [...] Indeed, America's Federal Communications > Commission regulations bar foreigners from owning more than 25 percent of a > TV or radio station. Only Americans can control a business which influences > opinion in America.

> Advanced in information technology, satellite broadcasting, and the Internet > will enable Western media networks to saturate our domestic audience with > their reports and views. Countries that try to block the use of IT will > lose. We have to learn to manage this relentless flood of information so > that the Singapore government's point of view is not smothered by the > foreign media.

The memoir is incredibly prescient. Many of the policy debates held in Singapore in the 1980s mirror those held in America over the last three years, as we start to face a tiny fraction of the threats they dealt with daily. I wouldn't be surprised if the very same people who flaunt moral superiority over places like Singapore end up being the ones who take us in the exact same direction.

</comment><comment><USER29> Given Facebook policy, they'll probably underweight the post in their algorithm but not take any step to remove it or put a "fake news" disclaimer on it. If they don't even correct fake news in the US, I doubt they care about fake news about Singapore.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's unconscionable to subordinate US companies and Australian citizens to a feckless foreign power.

If Singapore why not every other nation on earth?

<comment><USER31> It's actually perfectly reasonable to subject American companies to the laws of nations they operate in unless you're suggesting they ought to act in imperial fashion and ignore the law of sovereign nations.

It goes without saying that the same is, of course, true for foreign companies in the US.

<comment><USER32> How do you define 'operating in' for a web service? I would suggest they are operating on the internet, out of the US, therefore bound only to US law. Having the service accessible worldwide shouldn't make you subject to everyone's laws.

<comment><USER6> I guess it depends on whether they have ads paid for by Singaporean based companies targetting Singaporean based audiences. If Coca-Cola sells their wares in Singapore entirely by remote operations based in the United States, we'd still expect them to abide by Singaporean regulations pertaining to the sale of beverages in Singapore, taxes etc.

The alternative would seem to be separate national internets. Data might be imported and exported, but it wouldn't be seamless like today.

You can say you're not subject to a foreign law, but if you want that market, you aren't really immune.

<comment><USER32> If Coca-Cola sells remotely, I would imagine that would be through a local importer, and it would fall on him to follow the local regulation, or through a local subsidiary, and the same would apply. So yes, Singapore should have to separate from the internet if it wants to enforce its laws imo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Just as Uber is slowly but surely getting checked by authorities around the world (London among others), I hope Facebook gets held to account.

</comment><comment><USER34> > Facebook has previously said it was "concerned with aspects of the new law > which grant broad powers to the Singapore executive branch to compel us to > remove content they deem to be false and to push a government notification > to users".

How comical is this coming from Facebook that went all out combating "fake news" but they now they are concerned about arbitrary censorship?</comment>


Show HN: Bash.org for Omegle Conversations  - <AUTHOR> http://www.omegrep.com/

<comment><USER2> Bash.org is text. I can C&P sections of a conversation to share. Omegrep.com is images, so I can't.

Valid and interesting enough content, but I think the execution is a little lacking, and technically uninteresting.

<comment><AUTHOR> We scraped the chats from logs.omegle.com/ __ __* and OCR'd them. Because the OCR was far from perfect we chose to display the original images rather than the text. It's a very valid point though, text is better than images for many reasons.

Was there anything else about the execution that you found lacking and would recommend improving?</comment></comment>


THE  REV-UP:  IMAGINING  a  20%  SELF-DRIVING  WORLD - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/08/magazine/tech-design-future-autonomous-car-20-percent-sex-death-liability.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fmagazine&action=click&contentCollection=magazine&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront <comment><USER2> NOW IMAGINE BUYING YOURSELF A KEYBOARD WITH CAPSLOCK WORKING CORRECTLY.

<comment><AUTHOR> SOrRy! CoPY anD PasTe</comment></comment>


NASA Launches 'Eyes on the Earth 3-D' - <AUTHOR> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-048

<comment><USER2> Unity is getting more and more traction as a browser 3D/Game engine plugin. Checkout their cool demos : <http://unity3d.com/gallery/live-demos/shadows></comment>


Envision.js - A Library For Creating Dynamic HTML5 Visualizations - <AUTHOR> http://functionn.blogspot.com/2012/03/envisionjs-library-for-creating-fast.html#.T2tbM12z9q8.hackernews

<comment><AUTHOR> Direct Link: <http://www.humblesoftware.com/envision/index></comment>


Ask HN: I'm a programmer. I am always angry at job. Is this normal? - <AUTHOR> Something always pissed me off at work -- whether it is bad code, unknown crashes, demanding boss, demanding clients, unreasonable colleagues, insensitive colleagues, damn deadlines that I didn't agree to, or emergency calls on weekends away.<p>I think I need help unless this is very normal for those in software development. <comment><USER2> Congratulations. You have admitted being at Level 3 of Pissedoffedness, the last level before the solution.

Levels of Pissedoffedness:

Level 0: You don't know that anything is wrong. You just think that's just the way it is.

Level 1: You know something is wrong, but you don't know what to do about it, so you just go along with the program.

Level 2: You know what to do about it, but aren't yet able to do it. So you stick it out, learning as much as you can.

Level 3: You know what to do about it and you are capable of doing it. Now you're really pissed off (mainly at yourself) because you're a fish out of water, in a place where you don't belong.

Level 4: You do something about it. You challenge the people at work to fix things. You start fixing them yourself. Or, best yet, you just go out and do it right on your own. Either way, sweet relief.

Get to Level 4. The days of pissedoffedness will soon seem like a distant memory.

(I have been through this cycle many times, but now I'm at Level 4 and have no intention of ever going back.)

<comment><USER3> At Level 2 with respect to the observable universe, heading for Level 4. I don't understand why this list has a Level 3.

<comment><USER4> Wait until you start creating something that you're _sure_ will work, and it commits recursive suicide.

Or maybe you know exactly the necessary steps, but can't get sufficient funding.

We all visit Level 3 at some point, it's just a question of how long.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is not normal, although it might be common in the technology industry.

some important points to consider:

1\. Stress takes years off your life. You will die early, probably of a heart attack, if you don't correct things.

2\. It is possible for two different individuals to look at the same exact situation as insurmountable/overwhelming or, on the other hand, challenging and fun. It really is a perspective thing.

3\. Without knowing the exact details of your situation it is impossible for the untrained folks (i'm assuming here) to know how much of your stress comes from you and how much comes from your current situation. Certainly it's a little of both--but the % is critical to understand.

4\. You need to talk about these issues with a life coach, career coach or even therapist. They will give you objective feedback on the state of affairs.

5\. If this helps, when I was younger in my career (Silicon Alley Reproter days) I would sometimes internalize the bad situations my business was facing (i.e. "What did I do to cause this?" or "Why didn't I see this problem coming?"). This made me anxious. As I got older, and hopefully a little wiser, I wouldn't internalize these things. In the Weblogs, Inc. days I would look at problems as challenges. My internal dialogue morphed to "Oh, this is an interesting challenge... I wonder what ideas my team can come up with to overcome these roadblocks?" and "If we resolve this issue we're going to soar!" This is called attribution theory in psychology and it's a very important concept to understand IMO.

6\. Life is short and you get one shot at it. Don't be proud or stupid: get help and get out of bad situations as quickly as possible. Do not stay in a bad situation, like many smart people do, out of some "tough it out" philosophy.

Good luck with it and if you wanted to talk about it with someone ping me at jason at calacanis.com. I'm not a professional, but I been there.

</comment><comment><USER6> You know something's not right when people say stuff like how it's normal to not be completely satisfied at work, to hate monday mornings and so on. Feels like we're being told this just so we can shut up and keep working like zombies. And it amazes me that so many people feel this way and yet nothing changes at companies.

Anyway, yes, getting help is one option (bad code, like bad driving, is a part of a dev's life. You try to keep a safe distance away from it ;) but you don't get angry). Create an intuitive plan of what you'd really like to be doing and at what company, and then get to work at solving the problem. Don't let it hurt you until it boils over.

</comment><comment><USER7> Here's what worked for me (YMMV): Increase your rate until you either feel comfortable again - or until they let you go.

Call me greedy but the question I usually end up at with annoying clients is: "Is this worth it?". Pay me enough and I'll put up with whatever you throw at me.

Obviously your pain/compensation ratio may be unrealistic (i.e. nobody is gonna pay what you need to feel comfortable). In that case you'd have to go freelance or dip a toe into different professions.

<comment><USER8> This is actually really good advice. Though money cannot buy you satisfaction in your job, it does help to alleviate some stress in other factors of your life and can give you an outlet. More money means you can take a mini-vacation every weekend or new toys or what ever floats your boat. The point being that stress reduction in other facets of your life can really help one to cope with work related stress. Not to mention that if the rate is good enough saying "oh well at least they are paying me a small fortune" is a coping mechanism in itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would say you're burning out. It's definitely not normal. I'd change jobs if it's possible.

Same stuff happens to me. Alas, I'm not in a position to change my job easily (think immigration issues).

<comment><USER10> Agreed. It's surprising that in 40+ comments, yours is the only one that mentions burnout.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yeah, not normal. I think most of us can say that a job will have its ebbs and flows, but if you are constantly ready to blow your stack, then you should be looking for a new environment.

Also, I'd split your list out. Things like bad code and unknown crashes come with the territory. That particular patch of grass is never greener on the other side. Demanding clients are also likely to be a problem just about anywhere, even if your clients are other people in the office. Your colleagues and bosses, however, well, there will also be problematic people everywhere, but you can get on with the people around you, then yes, you should should consider a change.

In ten years in the industry, I've only once been "on call" and that was to test our systems after a co-lo move. Sometimes deadlines will be silly, too, but if there's a pattern to that silliness, then something is wrong.

</comment><comment><USER12> How are you away from work? If you're rarely angry there, then it's job- related. Anger is a symptom: the cause can be genetic or environmental.

One excellent programmer friend is "naturally angry". He takes medication to control it. When his pills run short, his voice level and agitation increases noticeably. He has shared his difficulties, which makes it easier for everyone else to work with him. Angry or not, his judgement is always sound and exacting and you'd best listen to him, whether he is raising his voice or whispering.

So if you're like my friend, see a psychiatrist. They understand the organic causes of emotions better and can prescribe appropriate drugs. Otherwise try a kickboxing class or a good run or ask a girlfriend for a little sustenance.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think it's your subconsciousness's way of telling you that it's time to search for a new job.

</comment><comment><USER14> Who cares?

I don't care if this is normal or not, and honestly, I don't know you. How am I supposed to help you?

You could be: A bad programmer. A good programmer. A non social person, and hate socializing with colleagues. A social person and hate writing code alone. A good leader that wants to decide by himself. A bad leader that just want another relationship with his boss.

You want to be happy in your live, don't you?. So go to a good psychologist or read books and fix that by yourself. You are a grown up human. Take responsibility.

<comment><USER15> > So go to a good psychologist or read books and fix that by yourself.

Believe it or not, people who go out and try to find a good psychologist often wind up with mediocre, or even bad ones. Same with books and many other things. If someone provided the magic keys to help them find good books and good psychologists, you'd still need to know where to get the keys, and it's a catch-22.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, you are right. But that there are bad doctors and engineers and teachers doesn't mean there are no very good ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Did you ever pick up a (personality) trait or habit from a co-worker, although you didnt want to ? Did you ever have trouble understanding how a policeman ignores obvious insults and stays cool ? Feelings are catchy like the flu, but remember you are a part of the equation too. If you treat a desperate customer with calm and being realistic, or colleagues with humor and a relaxed mood, they might catch it too. So there is a starter strategy, although it might take patience.

<comment><USER8> You are right about this one, negativity can spread in an organization like a cancer and once it has set in it is very hard to eliminate. It becomes a corporate culture that is nearly impossible to eradicate. I have seen it happen first hand on several occasions. Usually it starts, with a major corporate event like a buyout or the termination of a highly respected employee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There is a concept in systems theory (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory>) that all systems must move toward equilibrium. There is also a concept that you are a component in any system that affects you. So, the course of action based on this is to change yourself, and the rest of the system must change around you toward equilibrium. This works much better than trying to directly change other people or external situations.

I think a lot of your anger may be frustration at lack of control in your situation. I know others are giving you advice to leave your job, but based on your report, there's no evidence yet that the job itself is the problem.

You have an opportunity to use this as a learning experience and practice different responses to situations. Observe the results. You may find that this is in fact a toxic work environment, but you can't see that clearly until you've mastered the situation. Finally, your anger is something that comes from within you. It isn't part of the situation, and other people didn't put it there. The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle provided really useful tools for me in learning to understand and manage my emotions. I highly recommend it in your situation.

</comment><comment><USER18> Being angry at work is very common, but that doesn't make it healthy. Take it as a sign to look for another job, doing something you can take joy in.

<comment><USER19> I agree. If you're persistently unhappy at work, this is probably a sign that you should be trying to move to some other kind of job, although I realize that will be difficult in the current economic situation. Being persistently angry will eventually take its toll on your health, or could result in incidents which will damage your career, so this is really just a question of self preservation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm in academia and enjoy what I do now. However, I went through years of the same frustration. My solution was "save the interesting and creative stuff for home". I feel this talk hits the nail on the head (its not just about ACLs): [http://blog.cusec.net/2009/01/05/zed-shaw-the-acl-is-dead- cu...](http://blog.cusec.net/2009/01/05/zed-shaw-the-acl-is-dead-cusec-2008/)

<comment><USER21> I have to admit, I loved that talk that Zed gave and it influenced myself and a few of my coworkers quite a bit. Unfortunately, I refuse to allow my day job to stifle my creativity. I'm pretty hell bent on innovation and finding new and better ways to do things. Personally, I feel that your day job is in part what you make of it. If you expect it to suck, it will. Now, that's not to say it won't suck for other reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It sounds like most of the stuff that sets you off is people-related. If you are an introvert, certain types of social intrusions are going to generally be harder to deal with than others. The right boss (one who respects your space better), the right type of working environment with the right type of policies and/or the right job where you have less of that might help.

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't think it is specific to software development, it sounds like you just aren't getting respect from your colleagues. The same could happen to folks in chemical engineering, public relations, or any professional setting.

Set boundaries. If an unreasonable deadline is set onto you, insist on the reasonable date you previously agreed to. Tell insensitive colleagues to straighten up, or you'll leave or go to HR. If you are on a romantic get-away for the weekend, make it clear that the problem will be your top priority Monday morning (or Sunday night). If things are on fire and you are the point man on the situation, you should stand up, but you should not bend over.

Be willing and prepared to leave. Keep enough money in savings to be able to walk away from the job and take a few months to find a better fit.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER24> It's ok to be slightly ticked off but not always angry. Maybe it is the work conditions. If so switch jobs.

However, if you've been switching jobs for a while now and still feel the same way at every job, then either you've got bad luck with picking your jobs, or you're just a bit too sensitive.

At the end of the day though, no job is going to be perfect, and you're not going to be at any job forever anyhow -- so my advice is to just let things slide, brush your shoulders off (channeling Jay-Z), and say to yourself this crap isn't going to matter in a year or two anyhow so why am I getting worked up about this. (Works for me most of the time)

</comment><comment><USER25> I believe that the word "normal" does not help here. It bundles "common" with a solid dose of "acceptable". While I think your situation is common in IT, you should definitely separate this fact from its acceptability.

</comment><comment><USER26> i find that i am happier once i have a project "rolling along" - the start and end are more frustrating, but the work in the middle is pretty peaceful.

maybe you are in a transition period between projects, or need to shift to a position where you get to work longer term on a single project?

[edit: this applies on more than one scale - it's best if a project lasts for a couple of months or more, but even within a single week i prefer to not switch around too much, so try to do avoid anything smaller than day-sized chunks when possible]

</comment><comment><USER27> Sometimes anger can make you stronger (give in to your anger, Luke...) But some things you can't change, you can only change how you deal with them. Unless it's caused by an immediate physical threat to you or your loved ones, anger is a choice or a learned response and you can learn to respond differently. Have you tried chi gong or other forms of meditation? Something to help you see the big picture and realize that these annoying things _don't really mean anything to you_.

<comment><USER22> I had an abusive childhood and lived with a _lot_ of (very legitimate) anger for many years. I'm generally pretty slow to anger these days.

Some thoughts:

Unlike depression, anger contains energy for action. If used constructively, this can be a Good Thing.

The best antidote to anger is action. I find that I fume when I feel helpless to act. Even just analyzing why something is ticking me off is an effective action that starts reducing my anger. If that leads to a To Do list for how to resolve the problem, the anger can pretty completely dissipate -- even _while_ I continue to live with the same frustrations that caused it. But I stop being angry because I know I am working on a solution and won't have to put up with it forever.

Although a lot of people feel bad about being angry and we are generally taught that anger is a bad thing, feeling bad about being angry is a waste and anger is not an inherently bad thing. Righteous anger can do a great deal of good in the world. If you are angry for the right reasons and then take constructive action to resolve the problems causing it, anger is nothing you need to worry about "fixing" per se. When the actual cause of the anger is resolved, you will stop being angry.

<comment><USER28> It sounds like you are someone who is not naturally angry who had a lot of cause for anger at one point in your life. I would be very careful in extrapolating from that experience to what will work for people who may have a natural tendency towards being generally angry.

<comment><USER22> No, I'm naturally a hot head. One reason I don't anger easily these days is because I have resolved a lot of my problems and I rarely run into anything as extreme as what my past held. So most stuff is "small potatoes" in my eyes. I'm a "bounce off the walls" type but I surround myself by people who aren't like that so it doesn't get fed. My youngest son is also something of a hot head, though less expressive of it in part because he is an introvert. We have found that when we are mad, the best thing to do is physically separate us. Doing so reduces tension by 50%. We feed on each others anger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Being always angry and frustrated at work is more common than many might think, but it's certainly not healthy.

Ideally, you should do what you love in order to be able to love what you do.

<comment><AUTHOR> I love software development and is grateful that I'm being paid for doing it everyday.

But I still get pissed off more often than I would like to. Yes, I do think it's not normal. I think I should try to get somekind of help.

<comment><USER29> If you think some kind of counselling will help you, then you should certainly go for it.

Nothing is more important that your state of mind and health.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I hope it's normal because I'm pretty much the same.

</comment><comment><USER31> Be professional (Read clean code chapter 1), do your best, don't take it personal.. it is just a job.

If you are good at what you do, and behave professionally you should not have to be angry at your job.

Now, If you are being asked to behave in a matter YOU consider unprofessional, it is up to YOU to say "I can't do that" and... be prepared to find some other job.

Having options is the best medicine for frustration.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everyone for the replies. Helped me more than you know.

I'm not going to quit my job -- this is the best job of all the jobs so far. Oh well, not yet anyway.

I could be frustrated because it supposed to be a quiet weekends away from work or it could be that I just burn out lately.

</comment><comment><USER32> I had a love/hate relationship with software programming for a couple of years until I discovered test driven development for me and committed myself to do development cycles with the client.

Maybe that would work for you as well.

</comment><comment><USER33> It is not normal. Bad project mgmt if you asked me. PM did not manage the change request, did not manage users expectations, did not recruit the best talent, etc.

But then have I done yet to help him? Hm... I think I have.

</comment><comment><USER34> Not normal, not by a longshot.

</comment><comment><USER35> I conjuncture being angry is directly proportional to how smart you are

<comment><USER36> I counter conjecture that if you plot smartness vs anger you'll get a Laffer curve shaped graph. If you're really dumb you won't realize that there is something to be angry about and if you're really smart you'll find trivial way to work around the problem without getting annoyed. The real problem is somewhere between those points where you are smart enough to realize every that is wrong, but just not smart enough to find the right thing to do about it.

<comment><USER37> Brilliant

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I think you're _frustrated_. Take a small vacation.

</comment><comment><USER39> Speak your mind. Even if your voice trembles.

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't know but I've heard "Love what you do than do what you love"

</comment><comment><USER41> maybe it's normal for you?

</comment><comment><USER42> If you're "always angry", you need to get out now. If you're occasionally angry or stressed (e.g. 5 to 10% of the time) that's normal.

Every job has annoyances, but if you're constantly pissed off, you need to do something. My advice would to be to start speaking out when people take advantage of you. If a client is being unreasonable and making your life hell, he's probably making your boss's life even worse. Figure out who you can talk to, and what you might be able to say, in order to improve your situation. You may have to find another job. If you're this angry, my advice would be to start the search process now.

A lot of Americans think it's a reasonable strategy to bottle in anger at the workplace, rather than speaking their minds. This made sense when people stayed at the same company for 30 years, and when getting fired or laid off was a disaster, because you'd be around the same people for most of your working life. Now that the average job lasts 2 to 5 years, it doesn't make sense. You're better off raising the issues (in a respectful, reasonable way) than repressing the anger and damaging your health.</comment>


Small house design workflow with Open Source software (WIP) - <AUTHOR> https://community.osarch.org/discussion/175/small-house-design-workflow-with-open-source-software-work-in-progress <comment><AUTHOR> Hopefully FOSS software In architecture will get popular soon, so that when I get to build my home I can get files from my architect, make some adjustments and send it back for discussions and verification. It would be cool to truly "own" design of my own home (also I would overoptimise and overengineer the design w.r.t. to energy efficiency air flow etc. more than an architect reasonably should and could due to time constraints).</comment>


Research study shows a benefit to including two spaces after a period - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5870e1aa6b43 <comment><AUTHOR> Ironically, this article includes typos where:

• a period is followed by just one space

• a comma is followed by two spaces

• a period is followed by no spaces</comment>


We Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/upshot/we-ran-out-of-words-to-describe-how-good-the-jobs-numbers-are.html <comment><USER2> "unemployment rate falls to 3.8 percent, a new 18-year low." Wow! It looks like US economy is growing really fast, and it's happening across the country.

"Economists are slowly ratcheting up expectations for growth through the end of the year, with widely followed measures putting the second quarter at between 3.6 percent and 4.8 percent." [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/the-us- economy-suddenly-look...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/the-us-economy- suddenly-looks-like-its-unstoppable.html)

Texas is growing at 5.2%, Idaho is growing at 4.8% [http://www.businessinsider.com/state-economy-growth- map-q4-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com/state-economy-growth- map-q4-2017-2018-5)

</comment><comment><USER3> They could write about the facts that so few of those jobs pay livable wages and we are are nearing a point where half of those employed are freelance workers, increasingly not by choice.

</comment><comment><USER4> Around 1999-2000, unemployment rate was very low and labor force participation rate was at an all time high.

Around 2017-2018, unemployment rate is very low, but labor force participation rate and wages are so low, you have to go all the way back to 1976 to see a comparison.

In 1976, most spouses weren't working full time.

Oh and by the way, if you work Uber for a week and quit, you aren't considered unemployed anymore.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm more interested in the quality of those jobs added.

<comment><USER6> When you don't have a job any job is a quality job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I thought ProPublica did a better job describing the state of new job "growth" in America [https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/trump-job- promises](https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/trump-job-promises)

</comment><comment><USER8> I think the author was stretching how to write an inventive approach to what's essentially been the same article every month for months.

If you hit the paywall on NYT, but happen to have an Amazon Prime membership you can _listen_ free to many NYT articles narrated on Audible Channels. Here is this article: [http://a.co/eBxMho2](http://a.co/eBxMho2)

(Disclosure: I happen to the narrator for this one, but I don't get any added compensation if you listen. )

</comment><comment><USER9> What a ridiculous article.</comment>


Partisan Nonresponse in Trump Approval Polls - <AUTHOR> https://agadjanianpolitics.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/possible-evidence-of-differential-partisan-nonresponse-in-trump-approval-polls/ <comment><USER2> The TL:DR version of this is quite simple. Trumps poll numbers actually do not move all that much. They change because the ratio of democrats:republicans change in every sample.

In effect, the pollsters are creating the illusion of movement in opinion where there is actually very little. Note the author does not say this is intentional, just a statistical fact.

This jives very strongly with 2016 where the most accurate polls were the polls that had the uniform samples (in fact THE most accurate poll polled the same set of people over and over again).</comment>


Reading (self-education) while starting a startup? - <AUTHOR> Do you guys think that it's worth reading new stuff (about biz, startups, hacks, products, management, innovation, YC...) while starting a startup?
<comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---
I have this dilemma cause I learned tons from reading, including tons about how to start a great company. Now, I'd like to put in practice. I know YC recommends doing nothing except for developing the product and talking to customers. But is it wise skipping the daily reading (0.5h-1h) that can push you personally but also your startup to the next level?
Thanks for your ideas. </comment><comment><USER2> I definitely find reading things about startups helps keep me motivated and a lot of them warn of things not to do or "If you could start over, what would you do different?" questions. I know everyone has a different experience, but ... if someone says, "Listen, we did this .. it didn't work... " Why would I have any reason not to believe them? So it definitely helps. Don't forget to constantly work at your startup, but helpful advice along the way can go a long way.</comment>


Researchers or Corporate Allies? Think Tanks Blur the Line - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html <comment><USER2> It's news that "think tanks" aren't always as independent and impartial as they claim? Really? Before the Brookings "controversy" nobody at the New York Times suspected that these organizations, which are closely linked to the political parties, government departments and corporate interests, might not be as independent as they claim? Now that I find hard to believe. Or maybe they had a tiny inkling and this shocking example of DC lies and corruption pushed them over the edge and they finally produced an article about their dark suspicions.

Are we to believe the "newspaper of record" has just discovered the tip of the iceberg that will eventually lead them to conclude that the Beltway think tanks are, in part, propaganda mills for the Dems or GOP, or DoS or NATO and the government's corporate sponsors? What next in this brave new world, the NYT discovering it shilled hard for the Iraq invasion of 2003 and is shilling hard for Hillary Clinton in 2016? What other "blurred lines" will this fantastically brave and honorable newspaper pull into focus for the public?

I don't know what's weirder...the article itself or the fact that it's taken at face value by the target audience. Looking at the parts in isolation but never ever zooming out and considering the links and connections between them and the whole it reveals is a sign of these interesting times. Likewise, the earnest and perplexed "study" of various symptoms like, Trump, say, but never ever honestly considering what caused them to appear in the first place.

Is it simple ignorance that drives this insane game of charades or is it something else...like a deep fear of having to face an unbearable truth...a fear so deep that outright self-delusion is preferable to holding power to account. Accepting the consequences of what an honest evaluation of government and corporate power would reveal about where American society is heading...well, that is something the mass media is definitely NOT prepared to do.

Which raises the question of what role exactly is the media playing in all of this? The Times article partially answers that question. When a person or persons repress uncomfortable thoughts and feelings, these will find an indirect outlet, often without the denier being aware that this is happening.

<comment><USER3> at some point you have to just admit and then get over the fact that the NYTimes is a naked propaganda instrument and that the target audience is actually themselves (by which I mean pundits mostly).

the paper, and its so-called "reporting", is incoherent and non-sensical from the point of view of someone just looking for information. it is ONLY a mouthpiece for institutional power and nothing else, despite the pretenses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I strongly believe that open sourcing the analyses that are intended to influence policy would be a big step to mitigating the 'money problem' in Washington. If we could see exactly which assumptions policy researchers rely on in their analyses, we could judge the analyses more easily and more accurately.

Disclosure: I work at the open source policy center at aei.

<comment><USER5> Open data should be the rule everywhere. The internet was created to share academic and scientific data.

I dream of a world where, if you make a scientific claim, that you are bound to release the data you used to arrive at the conclusion.

<comment><USER4> I agree. In the case of fast moving policy debates, open analytical code is also important.

There are also situations when government agencies like the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and many many others use private data sources like tax return data. In these cases, I think they should be required to release the analytical source code as well as data dictionaries that allow others to create dummy or synthesic data. They should also release detailed summary statistics when possible-- after taking differential privacy concerns into account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It boggles my mind. People actually think think tank are independent?

<comment><USER7> Why would a researcher funded by government grants be more independent than a researcher at a think tank funded by a corporation?

<comment><USER8> Because gov't grants are awarded by a committee of people with lots of different opinions, while corporations have only one interest in mind.

<comment><USER9> Careful: a government board has one interest (welfare of its constituents) and multiple opinions about how to serve it. A corporate board has one interest (welfare of its shareholders) and multiple opinions above to how to serve it.

Besides that, both types of boards can have a variety of unofficial/official power structures, consideration of the welfare of non-constituents/non- shareholders, and varying degrees of competency.

This isn't to say that any type of governing body has arbitrary properties. Predictable inequalities exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So that's what Lennar is up to at Hunters' Point.[1] Build high-end condos on the waterfront, downsize the public housing,[1] push out the low-income black people. With the head of the project now a "senior fellow" of the Brookings Institution, it's easier to sell this.

[1] [http://thesfshipyard.com/](http://thesfshipyard.com/) [2] [http://hope- sf.org/hunters.php](http://hope-sf.org/hunters.php)</comment>


Ask HN: I was the victim of a targeted cybercrime and found the perpetrator - <AUTHOR>

I'm a student at the University of Chicago. On May 29, 2013, a large number of people on campus (including faculty) received several unsolicited emails claiming to be from me, asking them to visit the website http://UChicagoAnon.com (now down.) At least one faculty member directly complained to me, claiming that she had encountered sexual content. These emails were sent through MailChimp, and signed with my name in an attempt to impersonate me. Thankfully MailChimp has shut down the account involved.
Through some sleuthing I was able to determine from WHOIS / DNS records who runs the server running UChicagoAnon.com. This person lives in East Brunswick, New Jersey. I was able to make contact with said person on Facebook, where he admitted to running the server but claimed that a friend of his with access to the server is responsible for the emails and the website. Of course, I am unable to verify any of these claims myself.
I've already filed a report with the local university police department (unable to follow up due to jurisdiction), and I've also tried to follow up with the East Brunswick PD, but they refuse to file reports over the phone. Finally, I've also reported the incident through http://ic3.gov.
What are my options at this point? Right now I've only been playing defense, and I'd like to go on the offensive and go after this guy to make sure this doesn't happen again. Is there anyone else I can contact? Needless to say, this is very frustrating since I have a name, address, and phone number that can be investigated, but it seems that most agencies in the United States are reluctant to investigate cybercrimes. <comment><USER2> <http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/reporting.html#C4> \- FBI Local Office \- US. Secret Service (can't see how much use they would be for this \- Internet Crime Complaint Centre

Also, a lot of detailed information on the relative departments here <http://listcrime.com/reportcybercrime.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> You could sue the guy for damages, if you believe there are some that would be valued by a court.

<comment><USER4> I agree, civil suit seems like the way to go here. If I can ever kick in a couple bucks to help you make this happen, let me know!

<comment><AUTHOR> How do I go about filing a civil suit? I'm sure I can "google it" but I'd like to hear more from someone who knows what they're talking about.

<comment><USER4> I have filed one suit, a landlord-tenant dispute. I found a local lawyer, almost literally from the yellow pages, showed up for a consult, and then paid them to file the suit.

The best next step here would be to ask people for recommendations for a lawyer to pursue the case. What you'll learn is that different lawyers handle different kinds of things; most lawyers do things like contract review or mergers and not litigation.

If you have any kind of rapport with any lawyer, they should be able to refer you to someone.

When you talk to the lawyer, you should make it clear that your interest in the case is in stopping ongoing fraud and abuse, and not in getting any kind of payout, because otherwise lawyers will probably be at pains to tell you how your case isn't lucrative. But of course that's not the point!

There are a couple really smart lawyers (and hackers with legal training) on HN who might be able to recommend people to talk to.

From my very limited experiences with law enforcement: they are overwhelmed and unlikely to pursue a case in which no clear damages occurred. But the same thing is not true of civil litigators!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Have you tried reporting this to the FBI? It seems like this would fall under interstate fraud; though I am not sure if this damage is sufficient to provoke an investigation.</comment>


Crowdsourcing My Vacation - Entrepreneur/maker, 40 days, destination: US - a-naimi

Dear HN friends,
Please help me with ideas/activities to do in the Silicon Valley and Boston area. It has been two years since I've had a proper vacation, and I'd like to invest my time wisely. I created an editable document listing the objectives below: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qhDkdt6AP4f9M58DSQ3ZHYeKlxArsGGn7kCIWMJlbCs/edit
I'm an aspiring entrepreneur/maker from Saudi Arabia, 28 years old, unmarried. I'm a pretty good software developer (on the side) but I work in business development (running the coolest business incubator in the country!). I'm looking for things to do within the realm of entrepreneurship, product development, design, art, and software development.
I don't mind working for ultra-cool studios/shops/places/individuals for a week or so. I can offer fast-paced software development skills and mediocre business development insight. I am well-rounded and very curious. I would consider this journey a success if I 1) learn new things and 2) network with the right people.
I am also considering the idea of building a product in 30 days in SV and then go to China for the last 10 days to mass produce - got nothing to loose, why not try? I will evaluate this based on my options.
Thanks, A. Naimi http://anaimi.com (blog) http://burkanlabs.com (part-time startup) http://twitter/anaimi <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qhDkdt6AP4f9M58DSQ3ZHYeK...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qhDkdt6AP4f9M58DSQ3ZHYeKlxArsGGn7kCIWMJlbCs/edit)

</comment><comment><USER2> In Boston, definitely walk around Harvard Square and Harvard's campus. It's a bit touristy but is really cool. MIT is a bit boring though, to be honest. Also check out the Back Bay area.</comment>


How To Manufacture a Hit - <AUTHOR> http://www.nontoxin.com/how-to-manufacture-a-hit/

<comment><USER2> Hmmmmm. Dennis rodman was playing for the San Antonio Spurs when he painted his hair and became famous. When he moved to the lakers he was already famous (or notorious). You could say that it is an unimportant mistake, but it seems rather silly, considering they actually have pictures of rodman in a san antonio spurs uniform illustrating their point about how he played for the lakers.

<comment><USER3> He played less than a season for the Lakers. He played three seasons with the Bulls, winning three championships next to Michael Jordan.

I wonder how much correlation there is between attention-seeking behavior and high salaries among professional athletes. Do Terrell Owens and Chad Ochocinco actually make more money than equally talented but more workmanlike wide receivers?

<comment><USER4> Probably about the same as the correlation between attention-seeking behavior and money for pop stars :)

I think the system works similarly - a face gets turned into a trademark and a 'flavor', which is used to sell stuff to people. But poor people don't make good flavors, which is why they have to be paid a lot.

Being 'different' certainly has something to do with it. If the loudmouth- alpha-guy market is saturated, maybe by addressing the totally-insane-guy market you can get picked up to fill that niche.

It's much like high school social dynamics, to be honest; everybody has to find their own part to play, with the price of failure being utter insignificance, and (low) compensation to match.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whenever I see a piece like this, it makes me think I'm just oh so very slightly out of touch with how normal people interpret things. Take for instance:

> Be the best at what you do. Because the difference between #1 and #2 is > growing wider in all the fields!

> (But what if you aren't the best in your field? Read on…)

Growing wider in all fields! (But what if you're not the best?! Read on...!)

Now, I'm not poking fun at that style of writing - I'm genuinely curious, if anyone knows, why it seems to draw people in. Energy? Excitement? People's short attention spans? Very curious, any insight would be welcome.

<comment><USER6> (Disclosure: I'm the author of the post in question)

So why did I use the "Read on" tactic?

Answer: To circumvent an objection. I felt that an objection would be raised after that story. So I added that sentence so people would read further stories without being turned off.

Why do others use it?

Couple of reasons:

1\. It builds anticipation. And its a form of subtle encouragement. 2\. It shows that the piece is incomplete. Which improves the % of people who end up reading the entire article.

Similar tactics people use... good copywriters always end the page in the middle of a sentence - so people have to turn the page to know how the sentence ends. Magazines mention the page number right besides the headline on the cover itself.

The purpose of all these tactics: prevent people to drop off in the middle of an article and get them to finish reading the entire piece!</comment></comment>


Defending Wall St. Earns Academics Financial Reward - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/business/academics-who-defend-wall-st-reap-reward.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

<comment><USER2> This association between monied (and especially banking) interests and economic thought is hardly new, though that's not to say it isn't insidious.

David Ricardo, the second name in classical economics after Smith, was himself a stockbroker and speculator who, according to Arnold Toynbee, bought a seat in Parliament in large part to spread his views of economics and free trade ( _Lectures on the Industrial Revolution_ , also discussed in Ricardo's Wikipedia biography [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo)). His personal papers were collected and purchased by other bankers (notably John Ramsey McCulloch).

Journals such as The Economist were founded expressly to cover _and promote_ specific economic viewpoints:

 _The Economist was founded by the British businessman and banker James Wilson in 1843, to advance the repeal of the Corn Laws, a system of import tariffs.[13] A prospectus for the "newspaper," from 5 August 1843 enumerated thirteen areas of coverage that its editors wanted the newspaper to focus on..._

... thirteen areas of coverage, including "Original leading articles, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#History)

[http://mitpress.typepad.com/mitpresslog/2007/01/from_corn_la...](http://mitpress.typepad.com/mitpresslog/2007/01/from_corn_laws_.html)

[http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1873493](http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1873493)

Numerous other academic and research institutions have similarly been strongly associated with specific business and/or banking interests.

The _Times_ piece is only the latest coverage of a very long history of this influence.</comment>


Ask HN: How did you get your first 1000 users? - <AUTHOR>

Just wondering what kind of techniques people have used to get users when launching new websites/services. What brought in the most users? What did you find was a waste of time? <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2239281>

</comment><comment><USER3> I built something that would appeal to certain college professors (as well as others), then emailed probably a 100 of them to see if they would find it useful for their students. Remarkably, probably 25% not only responded positively, but posted it on their class websites.

Great way to kick off an SEO campaign :)</comment>


Mark Cuban: The world's first trillionaire will be an AI entrepreneur - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/mark-cuban-the-worlds-first-trillionaire-will-be-an-ai-entrepreneur.html <comment><USER2> In many conceivable scenarios, the AI trillionaire's riches will represent a transfer of wealth from millions of people whose jobs got eaten by algorithms and automation. If AI is going to deliver maximum benefit to humanity, we should probably think of the ascent of trillionaires as a negative outcome.

</comment><comment><USER3> Or they'll do like a lot of AI's biggest experts, and work for a large but reasonable salary in a research lab.</comment>


Show HN: Beans – a plain-text accounting tool written in Haskell - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sboehler/beans <comment><AUTHOR> beans has some novel features (importer DSL, transaction-level valuation) and I am looking for feedback both from the Haskell and from the plain-text accounting communities. I've been using beans for my own accounts for some time now.

Let me know your thoughts!</comment>


Arduboy - <AUTHOR> https://www.arduboy.com/ <comment><USER2> Mods: This is one of those cases where the website title is not very informative. I suggest changing it to the first sentence of the site, "Arduboy, the game system the size of a credit card".</comment>


Beware of Open Source Software Zombies - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mhausenblas/beware-of-open-source-software-zombies-26a56f38a4f4

<comment><USER2> This notion that software must have a community is really tiresome and reeks of entitlement. Most people who create OSS projects are doing so in their spare time as a charitable endeavor and don't want to support it forever. Open sourcing end-of-life products so they can possibly have a second life as open source software, serve as code examples to the community and be preserved as part of our collective history is undoubtedly a good thing. Spreading the idea that only supported community-driven OSS is worthy of existence is basically asking anybody who ever open sources anything to commit to involving themselves with it indefinitely.

If that's the barrier to entry, I suspect you'll see a lot less open source software going forward into the future. ;)

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I do wish that on projects--both commercial and individual--when the owners have decided not to continue contributing, they'd put a note to that effect.

A lot of times it's hard to tell if, say, there's been no dev activity for six months, whether the project is just temporarily quiescent or whether the owner has decided to move on to other things.

<comment><USER4> How does it affect your decision making?

If there has been no development for 6 months, have you tried emailing them with a consulting or support offer? Because I've put things off for years sometimes due to lack of funding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > So, the question is: how can we avoid these zombies, both from a user and > also from a 'producer' perspective?

No, the question we should ask first is why being a zombie is bad (especially compared to _not existing_ at all, ie. not being open sourced). I don't see it answered in the article. I don't see it asked in the article. It's simply assumed.

There are many different kinds of zombies. Most of them are essentially immortal unless shot in the head. They may move rather slowly, but they have great strength. They may become blind, but they often get a great sense of hearing. They tend to rot if left alone but can last very, very long if preserved properly. There are instances of zombies who continue to be conscious after zombification and who continue to do what they did before (think Mr. Slant from T. Pratchett books). They are unlikely to change their ways, but sometimes it's a good thing. There are zombies who retain their emotions (see Sankarea manga). And so on.

It's equally true for open source projects. Even if abandoned (for some definition of abandonment) for the same amount of time, two different projects may become two very different kinds of zombies. LiveScript, for example, is a zombie if you look at its mailing list, but is one of the most productive (for me, of course) compile-to-JS languages out there. StumpWM (a Common Lisp WM) is also nearly dead, yet it's still the best WM if you want a WM that's hackable.

On the other hand, there are projects which we'd really like to see dead, yet they refuse to die or even zombify. Projects which suck a massive amount of resources into their life support systems without any visible improvements.

> and if you find one in the wild: run!

Or you could just take a nice pump-action shotgun (ie. ability to read and write the code) with you and have a good time.

In short: this article is shallow. It reads like a generic advice written only to write something, without any deeper insight. And the author seems to know very little about zombies...

<comment><USER4> Hear, hear. In the Xanth series, love rejuvenates a zombie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> An alternative tldr: spend your precious free time giving away your stuff for limited or (most likely) zero personal gain, and then make sure to spend even more time shepherding it afterwards, also for no gain (but possibly considerable frustration, no doubt from entitled jackasses like the author of this article).

Honestly, is this guy really suggesting that when you open-source some software, you should also create "an exciting video walkthrough" and a Slack channel? Seriously?

<comment><AUTHOR> Both you and others made valid points concerning individuals. I will update the post to make the scope clear. And just to clarify this here: I certainly don't feel entitled to anything concerning OSS, no need for an ad hominem ;)

<comment><USER2> >I certainly don't feel entitled to anything concerning OSS, no need for an ad hominem ;)

No ad hominem here, it's entitlement. And even if you personally have a more nuanced understanding, what you've written will encourage people who do not.

[http://byfat.xxx/what-is-opensource-and-why-do-i-feel-so- gui...](http://byfat.xxx/what-is-opensource-and-why-do-i-feel-so-guilty) (Skip to nineteen minutes in.)

[https://github.com/wpeterson/emoji/issues/23](https://github.com/wpeterson/emoji/issues/23)

For larger context of these, their relevant HN threads:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10093332](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10093332)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8712035](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8712035)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some software doesn't need a community. Unless it is a framework a lot of software can be relatively stable. For example, NaCl[1], arguably the best high performance cryptographic library, hasn't been updated since 2011.

[1]: [http://nacl.cr.yp.to/index.html](http://nacl.cr.yp.to/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't see any problem with OSS code without a community. I've always thought of the freely available code online like a library full of books: nobody is reading 99% of them, but their availability is important for someone who wants to learn or find new ideas. What if only the most popular code repos existed?

</comment><comment><USER9> This sort of expectation ends up being a mental block for me sometimes as far as putting something I've done out there. _If I put it out there, someone might use it and expect updates. How many projects could I maintain at once? Is this one really worth that much trouble?_

<comment><USER10> My suggestion: just release it. If someone uses your program or gives it a new life under a fork, that's great. If no one uses it, there's no harm done. If some asshole complains about support, either kindly ask him about a paid offer, remind him of his right to fork the project or ignore him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I suspect I'm not alone is thinking, that it's not a problem specific to OSS. The codebase at work,,, for 25% of it, basically if it worked the first time, zombie.

</comment><comment><USER3> This reads more like a description of what to do if you want to build an active community. We're long past the point where putting OSS code out there implies a project that the owner wants to build a community around.

</comment><comment><USER12> A lot of .NET indie games are relying on such a zombie - Farseer. A Box2d clone so full of features and complexity, nobody but the owner can support it. And the owner checked out.

</comment><comment><USER13> Does Apache OpenOffice fall under this category? Seems very much a candidate - that project is moribund.</comment>


Cover your PHP legacy code with 1000 unit tests in just few lines of code - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/zavg/Asis <comment><USER2> This is a cool idea but seems fairly limited when you take into consideration the state of the resources used in your application. For example, if I have a method that checks the balance of an account, I may hit that method with an account with a positive balance, make a payment, then hit the method again and have a zero balance. The method might take an account instance and the same account instance yields two different results.

I realize that this may be an issue with a poorly written method or un- anticipated side effects, but with legacy code, that is often what you have to deal with.

Cool stuff, though!

</comment><comment><USER3> At first glance this appears vaguely similar to this for Django: [https://django-test- utils.readthedocs.org/en/latest/testmake...](https://django-test- utils.readthedocs.org/en/latest/testmaker.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Yeah, this will be great for a functional language. PHP functions tends to have side effects and their results often rely on variables outside of the function which means the tests will be wrong.

<comment><USER5> Wait, what?

Are you referring to something like globals?

<comment><USER4> not just globals, but what could be in the database, or global variables get, post, session variables. you don't test with your production database do you?

<comment><USER5> My unit tests are isolated. I don't unit test database connections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anyone know the minimum version of PHP this supports? I still have to support code on 5.2.4 :( I'd like to try and implement this when I get a chance.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it should work on it, it doesn't use PHP 5.3+ specific features.

<comment><USER6> Actually looks like you're using some magic constants (e.g., __DIR__) and namespacing.

One instance of namespacing I've found so far is line 118 in the Common/InputDataProvider.php

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I have just noticed. It will be really great if you will make pull request of version which is compliant to you old version!

<comment><USER6> You got it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This look really cool! :)

How does it handle that time has passed since the recording of the test?

<comment><USER8> Generally, with this sort of thing you regenerate before refactoring episodes. Tools are okay for creating a temporary behavioral invariant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is why unit tests suck. They are but a simple exercise in basic code interpretation. A computer can easily do it.

What you want to test is the interface of your module to the rest of the application and whether it satisfies the published contract, and preferably if it handles weird cases correctly.

Those tests cannot be done by a tool.

<comment><USER10> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_testing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_testing)

You're criticising unit test for things that unit tests don't do.

I hate apples. They don't taste like pears.

<comment><USER9> Bleh. That definition of unit tests is so bland as to not differentiate between any kind of testing. That definition explicitly states that having a person (like QA?) go through the app and see what happens also constitutes unit testing. And that's bullshit, manual testing is not unit testing. And neither is testing an entire module at a time.

A useful discussion on the terminology problem can be found here: [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardDefinitionOfUnitTest](http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardDefinitionOfUnitTest)

Most definitions define unit testing as testing the "smallest piece of code that can be tested in isolation". Then my criticism definitely applies.

And given my code reviews, it's obvious that the vast majority of programmers see unit testing as testing every individual function/method in isolation. This actually hides problems by increasing total source code (actual code and the tests + "compromises" for testability) and locks down internal structure of supposedly encapsulated logic. Both are very, very bad things.</comment></comment></comment>