Ask HN: Got hired for a position that doesn't exist. How do I leave? - <AUTHOR> I'm a recent CS graduate from a decent university in the US. It's no CS powerhouse but it's well respected and decently known. I won't name which because I don't want my co-workers to accidentally see this and identify me.
During my last semester we had a guest lecturer in my parallel programming class. He came from a local startup which supposedly created advanced systems to assist the work of other statups.
The engineer from the startup went on and on about how each day there is a challenge and you learn so much. I decided to apply and see what would come out of it.
I went through a very tough series a interviews complete with Python puzzles and whiteboard problems. During these interviews I was reassured the job there was challenging and rewarding. I got a (generous) offer and accepted.
Fast forward to my first day and  I ask my team lead what's the project I'll work on and I quickly learn that the challenging  work is done in a sister office. I get told that this location mostly does very simple client facing Java Swing applications. I was devastated and almost quit on the spot. I would have if not for the fact that I have very large student debts and can't afford to not work.
Now I've been working there for a month and I've tried everything to get assigned interesting work. It's pretty much impossible since no such work is even done at my location.
How do I get myself out of this? I'm looking for other jobs already. I could omit my current position  from my resume but then I'll be forced to reveal it if I get an interviews during regular office hours.
I have a friend who wants to personally refer me to work on his team at Amazon but I don't want to blow the interview. I would practice but at the end of the day I'm so burnt out from boredom and repetitive work that I can barely stay awake.
I know there are no clear cut solutions but I'm interested in hearing from people who had similar experiences. <comment><USER2> I consistently deal with this as do many of my coworkers. Here's some suggestions:

\- Take care of your immediate responsibilities first (rent, food, loan payments, etc)- this is non-negotiable unless you have a golden parachute (i.e. mom & dad). It's quite honorable to work for survival.

\- Always keep an eye out for a better job, the more interviews you go on the easier they will be. Never be satisfied where you are if personal growth is important to you.

\- NEVER expect to just be given the most interesting work out of the gate at a new job. That's not the way it works. You generally have to prove yourself. If they are not delivering on a promise that may be a separate concern, but I'd be skeptical of a job that would give a rookie dev the "interesting" work (which is usually the architecture work).

\- Identify problems at work and solve them in your free time, then present them to the appropriate people; that is the best way to fast track your own interesting work. Note the politics of your company and be sure to not step on any toes.

\- Most importantly, do your own interesting work on the side. Start a company, create/contribute/maintain an open source project. I can't stress enough the incredible opportunities that exist for skilled developers that have some initiative.

\- Get in a good routine that works to accomplish your short and long term goals, it's unusual for a job to satisfy that entirely.

<comment><USER3> > It's quite honorable to work for survival.

What does that even mean? It's necessary sure, it can also be a smart strategy, but honorable? You don't owe them anything and staying for 'honor' is foolish imo.

<comment><USER2> I think if you need to work at McDonalds to avoid calling mom and dad for money, then that's honorable. The easy unsustainable way out is not usually the best. I've been there.

<comment><USER4> Depends on your relationship with your parents.

If your parents are supportive and you are looking for a CS degree, only work at McDonalds if you feel like a life experience - probably not a bad idea.

If you have opportunity to get a zero interest loan from your parents or free bedroom with no external judgement (ie, supportive parents), that is a far better standpoint to spend your days working full-time at getting a job in your field.

<comment><USER2> Definitely (I'd be hypocritical to say I didn't take advantage of that myself), but when I hit 25 those zero interest loans weren't there anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Two issues: You are new to the job, in your first month and you are already pushing for all the interesting stuff. Welcome to the world of commercial programming! Sometimes it sucks but also sometimes knuckling down and getting stuff done will either a) get them to put you onto much harder/interesting projects as you are easily capable with the easy stuff you've been knocking out. b) Getting the easy stuff out of the way means you can then spend time tinkering on algorithms or reading online to further your knowledge.

At the end of the day you have money and time on your side, I was once in a similar position and I cut back on everything social to optimise my time away from work to find a job that I really enjoyed. Good luck but try not to moan too much, even 6 months there will help dividends with finding future work. (No one wants someone that is gonna quit immediately because they don't get what they want to do all the time).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your comment. I couldn't expand too much with the allotted 2000 characters but the thing is that I can't really get transferred to the other projects.

The interesting work is done in an office on the opposite coast and I can't move for family reasons.

I understand I might sound difficult but what really got me down is that the interviewer pretty much flat out told me "You will not do CRUD. Brush up on your algorithms!".

Anyway thanks again for the comment it's nice to know people were in similar situations and got themselves out of it.

<comment><USER6> This is pretty common in the tech industry. Everyone sort of adopted the "Google style" interview with lots of algorithms and complex problems, but few have Google style problems to solve. When poorly managed most of these interviews turn into a random subset of the engineers at a company asking you to implement something completely useless so they can "help you along" and seem smart when they judge your solution. (hint: startups have a billion other problems to solve before optimizing a sort over what a standard library can provide will ever move the needle)

An extension of this is every developer regardless of level ends up getting the algorithms questions and mind games because it is the only way most engineers know how to interview.

Unless the company is still very small (3-5 people), most of the people you talk to in an interview won't have any control over what you are working on anyway. They will probably be your peers and tell you what they are working on, but don't take that as an indication of your role unless you hear it from the person you'll be reporting to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In my first job out of college, I had maybe 2 hours of work per day. In the first year I was there I produced 2 albums, ran a monthly party, learned a new programming language and launched my first web app.

Ay my first year review, my boss called me out on it, and I said, "am I getting my work done?" He couldn't deny it.

I continued this for another year. At my second year review, my boss did something I still think is brilliant. He'd been following what I'd been learning, and asked if I couldn't use my new knowledge of building web apps to solve an in-house problem.

I spent the third year working extra hours, building a web app but _for_ the company. Everyone was happy.

I've never been a good employee, so YMMV, but CYA, and let it be their problem. If they fire you, there are always other jobs. You'll get out of debt eventually.

<comment><USER8> This is good advice. I went through similar experience in my 2nd and 3rd jobs, where the work of "junior security consultant" was reduced to pushing compliance paperwork. I ended up studying tons of new technologies on my own, and publishing tech articles in local magazines. It helped my resume tremendously when I got out of the consulting business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > I would practice but at the end of the day I'm so burnt out from boredom and > repetitive work that I can barely stay awake.

Sounds like you were sold a pup, but this is firmly in your hands. You're in a (relatively) fortunate position:

Your daily work is so easy it's actually boring, you say. Plenty of time, then, to try little POCs in other languages, to do some self study on the internet, or to perhaps involve yourself in client-facing meetings or other aspects of the company's work, if that sounds appealing. Use the slack to broaden your skills.

An easy job means you leave on time. Go home, do some exercise, eat a healthy meal, then spend a few hours each evening working on personal projects in a much more exciting stack. Instant energy.

You can spend part of your work day thinking about you side projects as well, maybe researching whatever technique or library you need next (but be careful not to do any actual work - your contract likely forbids this).

And spend some time looking for a new job too of course.

<comment><USER10> This is the best answer I've read here. I don't think blaming you helps here. I've personally seen things like this happen to me. Sure I've learned more about how to prevent this from happening in the future but it's still very aggravating.

Basically, don't give this job your everything. Do the work that's required of you and like the parent thread says leave yourself a bunch of energy. A technique that's worked out well for myself and other friends in the past is taking the first couple hours of each day to do personal projects and then go into work.

Don't give them the best hours of your day.

<comment><USER9> Thanks and good continuation of the point.

I'm often the first to say "pay your dues" to complaining youngsters, but OP has done nothing wrong and instead seems to need some guidance on how to maximize the value of his/her days while working out of this unlucky decision.

All I would say is that it's important that OP does try to find another, more engaging job, either in that company or elsewhere. It would be a shame to develop a permanently half-assed work ethic at 21, especially when he/she seems to have the energy and moral fibre to work hard. Treat this as a short- term situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have had a somewhat similar experience, quit after 3 or 4 days, and it has had 0 negative impact on my career. I can't believe the commenters telling you to grind it out -- why would you do that in one of the hottest job markets in this field ever? You owe the company nothing, they misled you. And the commenter saying day after day of boring work isn't enough to burn a person out alone . . . of course it can! I can't stand this meme where every (probably legitimate) problem with one's evaluation/enjoyment of their life can be solved by diet, exercise, and sleep. Don't be afraid to climb past the first few levels of Maslow's pyramid, folks!

</comment><comment><USER12> Get out ASAP. I've been in a similar position for the past 2.5 years: el. eng. MSc from a respected uni and I've been restarting PCs, fixing failing VB6 programs and reading HN. (Although at a decent salary.) Now I've finally been able to muster up the courage to leave here to travel. I'm just afraid that spending so much time in a meaningless dead-end position has ruined my chances to get hired at more interesting an challenging positions.

<comment><USER13> Your next job interviewer is most likely not going to know that your previous job was _that_ boring. And he/she does not need to. A job like you have can still be quite okay experience; the bottom line is that someone hired you, you made a living, and you got some experience. In fact, this may be a more valuable experience you believe now. In addition to reading HN you can study more new things, whatever interests you.

In the next interview, you can be honest and say that "I like to get more challenges, and I feel I can do more than what I have done". True and to the point.

One of my earlier jobs was such that I applied for an interesting job to work on SQL applications in Unix environment, at XYZ, the largest publishing house in the country; I did not get that job but they put me to a team that worked on a useless Christmas card address register using dBase IV on MS-DOS. Afterwards, what I could say was that "I worked on database solutions with XYZ company, and while I liked the working environment, I'm looking for some more challenging tasks". Got me into a job where I stayed for 20 years and 1 day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have hopped between three companies and two different industries. I think in majority of cases, I have been acknowledged to be incredibly talented both technically and practically. As for myself, I know I studied hard enough and solved some pretty difficult problems to be quite competent at whatever is thrown at me.

And similar to your case, I have also sought challenging work where I could be utilized 100%. But I have convinced myself that such environments don't exist. Why? Because there are two ways to tackle every problem: the simple but laborious way OR the complex but quicker way. How you perceive your work is up to you. You can see it as challenging and breaking new boundaries and work in similar manner to solve those challenges or you can see it as simple and boring and "ask for the solution to a similar problem."

For example, my first project had a highly revered boss who made me think that the project I was working on was significant and amazing. When he was assigned a second project, I was not going to come along, but the way he described it to other people made it seem the second project was just as challenging. In a turn of events, his assignment changed and I took on the assignment instead. I found it to be very simple and mundane. I learned at that point, the challenge in a project is the challenge you highlight and the challenge you CHOOSE to tackle.

Every project has challenges and every project has its ups and downs. How you perceive a project is up to you.

</comment><comment><USER15> Others have already said this in one way or another, but I think it's worthwhile to add another voice.

I'd just stick with it and keep looking. Be honest with the places you interview with when they ask why you are looking after so short of a time - the job is not what it was represented to me and despite my trying I can't fix it; and as a recent college grad with student loans I can't afford to leave while I'm searching. There's no need to try to hide this on your resume - it's better to be honest and explain it than try to hide something. Employers are people too and they will understand that.

My biggest piece of advice is don't give your notice at your current place until you have a written offer in hand for a new position.

</comment><comment><USER16> The lesson learned here is always ask questions in your interview. As the person being hired you should be just as engaged as the person interviewing you, because you are also interviewing them.

Learn everything you can about their company. People love to talk about themselves, and their companies. What they've built, what they're doing, how cool it is, and what challenges they've faced.

You can learn more in a 20 minute conservation then in 2 hours reading their website.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment. I guess I could have been more inquisitive. The thing though is that I did ask what my daily responsibilities would be. I did ask about the ongoing projects.

All I was told about is the work done at the other locations without being told that there was a difference of course.

I tried to get to the bottom of things but apparently not hard enough.

<comment><USER17> Don't beat yourself up. Making those mistakes is how you learn. Making this mistake on the first job is surely a forgiveable offence.

<comment><USER18> Sounds like he was flatly lied to.

His only mistake was not drilling down to "who will I report to and what is that group doing now?" And given that this was a bait and switch, at best he would have not gotten the job, which is mostly bad if he had other possibilities.

As other have noted, he is indeed getting an education in all sorts of other things. If he could move past the lies---not saying he should either forgive or forget---and make the best out of the current mess while finding a better job quickly, months not years, he shouldn't be too bad off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Sorry to hear about what happened. I know the feeling.

My advice is just to float your resume out to recruiters and keep looking for other jobs, which you are already doing. If you can keep the job you have and still make it to interviews, don't quit.

Staying busy writing Java Swing applications isn't a black mark by any means. I think it would be harder to explain a period of unemployment than a period of underemployment.

My first dev job out of college was at a startup (not in SV), and there was only dev work for the first 2 years. After that, all responsibilities were taken on by the lead dev, and we juniors were left with no work at all. Nada, zip. The salary was just enough to live on, and no one was allowed any raises. I took on a QA role and the other junior just bided his time taking MOOCs. QA wasn't for me, but I did it for almost a whole year until I couldn't stand it anymore and quit. I actually planned on becoming a truck driver, because the starting salary was about $5-10k more than what I was making as a dev. But I sent my resume out one more time and ended up getting a great Rails job in another city through a recruiter. So I didn't actually do trucking.

</comment><comment><USER20> "I could omit my current position from my resume but then I'll be forced to reveal it if I get an interviews during regular office hours."

You shouldn't be ashamed of your current job; it's well paid, it can be done well and professionally, and probably it can be more creative than you think.

</comment><comment><USER21> Two things:

1) Being in debt sucks. Become incredibly passionate about the idea of never being in debt again. If you don't have a giant student loan weighing around your neck, you are far more free to pursue work that interests you. So what to do? Come up with a plan in your favorite evolution of Visicalc, complete with how much debt you're going to pay off each month so that you can put a date on the calendar about when you're going to be debt free. Even if you're doing soul-draining work, knowing that that work is getting you one step closer to being free from debt should help.

2) Your current situation isn't as bad as it seems. I work with a ton of devs for whom working at a cool startup was their first real job. Awesome for them! Also totally not in line with most people's reality. Most people start in some version of "the bottom," whether that be in terms of low salary or poor culture, and then they maneuver their way through a couple of jobs until they find work they really enjoy. If you are smart and get things done, you'll do this too.

So your interviewer lied to you, exposing a toxic part of the company culture. They'll probably lose you over it and you'll eventually end up in a place you prefer to work.

Just come up with a plan to get out of debt. That can move your career a lot closer to freedom than you may think.

</comment><comment><USER22> My first job out of school was a developer job, but for the first few months they asked me to do some general sciency stuff that had very little to do with software engineering.

Onboarding engineers into an ongoing software engineering project is a bit of an art; and choosing the right job is also a bit of an art.

Looking back, I wasted my time going on job interviews. My first job was actually better than I realized.

In my current job, a lot of "first projects" for incoming engineers are lame, but they expose the incoming engineers to our process, code base, and the internals of our product.

IMO, it's too early to leave your position. It would be different if you had a toxic boss; or toxic co-workers; or found out that your company made its profits by killing kittens. In this case, however, you just don't like your first project.

I'd explain to your manager that you understand that someone needs to do the grunt work, and then be assertive that you didn't sign up to write Java Swing applications. Don't threaten to quit, but make it very clear that you'd like to work on something else.

You might need to be the donkey with the carrot hanging from the stick for 3-9 months, but if your manager is good, he'll get the message.

<comment><USER23> "Looking back, I wasted my time going on job interviews. My first job was actually better than I realized."

this is worth considering, especially when you're just starting out. I had a similar experience to the OP and had a string of 3 jobs where each was worse (in terms of being a mess) than the one before. I still managed to learn a lot along the way and don't really regret any of it, but in retrospect the first place had their shit together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It might just be me, but it sounds like you have some pretty unrealistic expectations of what working a job is really like. Banging out crap work sucks, but it is work that needs to be done. And since shit rolls downhill, you're going to be the one to catch it no matter what company you work for.

I'm sorry, but it seems like you need a quick reality check - you're a CS graduate who isn't from an ivy league university, and you appear to have no experience developing in a professional setting. From my experience with similar employees, there's simply a lot about professional programming practices which you likely don't know about yet.

Without a proven track record, a responsible manager would be an idiot to immediately give you "challenging" and "interesting" work; work upon which the company likely stands or falls. You have to build up that track record and prove your trustworthiness and ability.

Thankfully, building a track record doesn't actually take that long (unless your manager is an idiot, but sadly, that's a learning experience you'll end up getting as well). The method is very simple: apply your skills and knowledge to the work that you are doing. Strive to leave the code base in better condition at the end of the day than it was when you started it. Challenge yourself to exceed the minimum. Do _more_ with what you've been given.

In the worst case, you'll be in the same position next year as you are now, only with more money and some practical experience you can take to your next job. In the best case, your company will recognize your ability and start giving you the interesting work you are craving.

I've found that while Adam Savage works in an industry which bears little superficial resemblance to ours, there are a lot of parallels to your situation now which can be drawn from his talk at Makers Fair 2013:

[http://youtu.be/Xx9oJ8_r__8](http://youtu.be/Xx9oJ8_r__8)

</comment><comment><USER25> You don't drop it. You grow up and make the best of what you have, until a new opportunity presents itself. Persistence is the key. I once got a job, by applying to the opportunity every day for a month, and they finally called me and were impressed at my persistence.

My Advice to you is two pronged: 1\. Stay in the market and looking (always, never stop. If you find an incredible opportunity take it) 2\. Do your job, your mundane, boring (boo hoo) job, and then you do more. Get yourself noticed by the other location. Get to know the management team at the other location, be it by email or phone calls. Offer to do stuff on your own time for them. Soon they will want you there. They will extend an offer to you. If you want it bad enough you will get it.

Welcome to the real world kid!

</comment><comment><USER26> There is no shame in leaving after only 2 months, if you're really not enjoying. I've just left a job where I had to do nothing, the last months of the year was horrible. After many months of free time, I really had no idea what to do, days were boring and long.

I would start interviewing as soon as possible. Don't worry about blowing the interview at Amazon, you can try again in 2 years. You'd do well to read the interview questions at glassdoor.com, they often ask the same questions (I interviewed there), but don't think that you should postpone it and spend the time learning. Just apply again in a year, it's not like you are a very capable learner when you're burned out.

</comment><comment><USER17> Try to get transferred to the job you applied for. I would be completely honest with the situation and see how they react. Can you get hold of the guy who gave the lecture?

If it doesn't work out I doubt that IT is a field in general where finding a job is that difficult.

</comment><comment><USER27> > _The engineer from the startup went on and on about how each day there is a > challenge and you learn so much._

The world of "startups" is filled to the brim with charlatans. "Everybody's killing it." Be skeptical; even the "good" companies aren't all they're made out to be.

That said, start lining something else up while you make a little money and learning what you can. No big deal. Here's some advice: people care way too much about their "career path". There are more important things in life. If you're smart and capable, jobs and money will always come easy. This will be a mere blip on your radar.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think you should start applying for jobs now.

I think you'll have a _better_ chance of getting the job you want _now_, fresh out of college, then after 2 years of working at a job you _don't_ want which qualifies you to work at other jobs like it.

And what do you have to lose, anyway? Don't quit your job yet, apply while you're still there.

I wouldn't stress too much about whether to include the current job on the resume. Maybe now only a month out of school, you could leave it off, it hardly looks like a gap. Or put it in, and be honest if people ask -- it was not the environment or the work you were led to believe it was in the hiring process. Anyone who doesn't want to hire you because of that -- are they someone you want to work for anyway?

Leave it on the resume or don't, and if whatever you do is awkward at one interview, do the other thing next time. (But even if you don't they might ask what you've been up to. Personally I'd find honesty and transparency less stressful than trying to talk around it, and if you're confident and comfortable you'll do better at interviews).

Figure out what to do differently to avoid being bamboozled next time. (Make sure you talk to your to-be manager and/or co-workers before you get hired? I don't _think_ it's unusual to want to meet and talk to your to-be manager before accepting a job!).

Don't count on getting the first job you apply for (you might not), or what you think is your dream job (it might not be), you're going to have to work at it. (As you didn't the first time, it just fell into your lap, and look what you ended up with!). In the meantime, you're making good money apparently (very generous offer?), so it could be a whole lot worse, that's life, sometimes things don't go as we'd like.

Most jobs are found through networking -- just like you found the job you have now. So start networking. If you live in a city with lots of programming jobs, there will be user groups or meetups, find them and go to them. And keep staying in touch with and spending social time with your former classmates who you get along with.

</comment><comment><USER29> Grind through the work and pay off your loans, as you indicated you did get a generous offer. One of the biggest challenges that you need to learn is how to slog through the boring stuff - it can't always be interesting: even when you work at interesting places.

It's a job, not a playground. Jobs can be cool, but you need to work on that.

> so burnt out from boredom and repetitive work that I can barely stay awake.

Boring work alone won't do that to you. There's something else here, are you working overtime?

</comment><comment><USER30> Hey, please_help. I'd start by not beating yourself up - everyone has done some variation of this mistake by being very excited during a job interview that's going well and saying yes to everything (often a lowball salary or a team position that you don't want) or not asking many questions.

Don't omit the position. Say you quit because they misled you. Say that you know every job includes some amount of drudgery that you're prepared to tackle (right?) but you were pulled into something you didn't sign up for. Often there's scuttlebutt between companies and people know which places treat employees like that anyway.

As for leaving, this is entirely your prerogative. I'd say think strategically - is there any purpose or reason for you to stay? If, for example, staying will get you a goal like provide you with X months of runway that you can then use to survive and look for better jobs, then stay. If not, and it's only getting in the way of you finding other jobs, then just quit.

And next time just ask what the position they have lined up for you is. The market is in your favor, and you've already gone through a rigorous interview process and survived. I'm sure you'll do great. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER31> Here's my two cents.

1\. Make sure you've told your boss that you are not being challenged and that you really want to work on something that will challenge you. Perhaps you have already done this, but I still mention it because sometimes we can have a difficult time being direct and saying exactly what we mean. Make sure that they know you are grateful for the position but from what you were told during the hiring process, you were going to have more challenges. This may help you get the challenges you were looking for, but even if it doesn't it will help you when you need to explain why you have to leave. (If you have to leave, exit gracefully. I cannot emphasize this enough.)

2\. Make sure you're open to challenges. Are there other challenges around you that you can work on? Sometimes the best challenges are not the ones you go looking for. Sometimes the best lessons come from unexpected challenges.

3\. Keep open to new places and don't hide what you're doing. Explain clearly why you would be leaving - you were told that it would be challenging but once hired that changed. Honesty is your best policy here because hiding anything will be a red flag to anyone who scrutinizes your experience.

Not very original, but I hope it helps.

</comment><comment><USER32> Don't be afraid of blowing the interview at Amazon. It's a massive company that's very hungry for developer talent, so if you can code I'm sure you can eventually find some team that will take you. Definitely keep practicing your data structures/algorithms puzzles, but know that even if you bomb out the first one, it won't be that hard to get more chances.

</comment><comment><USER33> Years ago early in my career I took a job that I realized during the first week was a mistake. It wasn't until I got embedded with my team that I realized how toxic the environment was and no real work was getting done at all. Everyone just sat around doing -- I don't know -- it was pre-web so I really don't know what everyone was doing with their time. I was going nuts just sitting there.

I told my boss at the end of that week I couldn't do this. He pleaded with me to stay another week. I did and it was no better so I left and didn't come back.

I wasn't sure what to do either, so I left it off my resume. I don't even recall the name of the company anymore. As you would expect they ended up going bust.

Nowadays I bring this story up in interviews if possible and I find most everyone has a similar experience if they've been doing this work for awhile.

If you can afford it I'd say just quit and get looking. The job market seems pretty hot right now if all the recruiter spam I get is any sort of measure.

</comment><comment><USER34> You were mislead, perhaps intentionally. Be professional but find another (better) job and get on with your life.

A lot of people who work or worked for crappy companies will tell you that you have to "pay your dues". After all, if _they_ had to, it's only "fair" that you should to. I disagree with that premise.

While it is certainly common to have to "pay your dues", _I_ have never had to. Work for a small young company with pressing software needs and there will be lots of "green field" work even for the "new" guys. Work for the Amazons of the world and your chances are much slimmer I think.

Just this week, I was about to tell a company that I would work with them "if they had a challenging project". When my friend saw what I'd written he said: "No, no, don't write that. Just tell them you'll take the job. Sometimes you need to take work that isn't fun."

I told him" "Well, maybe _you_ do." :-)

</comment><comment><USER35> Start looking for work, but keep your current job if you can stand it. Leave them before your boredom effects your performance and they leave you. You have a great explanation when interviewing at a new place as to why you want to leave your current job.

I once took a job doing server development -- hired by the CEO to sort out all the problems and technical debt surrounding the companies backend.

The VP of Engineering returned from pat leave and ordered me unto front end work while the CEO was on leave. I had no interest in that work and had to learn while doing using their crazy framework that was an absolute mess. I regret not walking 2 weeks into that, but stayed another 5 months resulting in total burnout.

Do you think there was an effort to deceive you? In my case I believe there was (after seeing how the company went about business). Chances are if they lied to you about the job description, they'll lie to you about other things.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is your first job out of college. There is absolutely nothing unusual about your situation.

Welcome to the workforce.

<comment><USER37> Amen. One of the best things a college career counselor can do is make sure kids know they aren't special little snowflakes, or super rock-star A+++ awesome. It should not be a shock that an entry-level position is doing entry- level work.

<comment><USER36> Agreed. From what I read, career counselors (maybe others) are pretty horrible at managing expectations.

The fact that you nailed a well paying job out of college should be considered a blessing/miracle/massive gift...not a burden.

Work your ass off for several years and prove your worth. In reality, a degree means almost nothing in the workforce...it's just the price of admission.

Real world experience is worth more than gold.

Prove you have what it takes over the long term - and THEN start bitching about not being on cool projects :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> _I would practice but at the end of the day I 'm so burnt out from boredom and repetitive work that I can barely stay awake._

You've had a tough break but the only way you're going to get through it is with effort on your part.

Decide where you want to be in six months and come up with a plan to get there. Then just work it, work it, work it.

If you can't move directly into another position then start a project on the side that you find interesting and can be shown to prospective employers or may turn into something you can grow.

You need to avoid feeling sorry for yourself. It's not going to help. It's only going to weigh you down and make you a drag to be around. Prospective employers and partners will pick up on that and will be turned off by it.

</comment><comment><USER39> In your free time, do customer support. Improve projects. Do code review. Build tools for other workers. Go see human ressources and ask to see what software they use. Read up on the best softwares, research them, and present them to your boss. Do things that you can assign to yourself on your own.

You won't be able to assign yourself to interesting projects (the seniors are as bored as you and will have priority). But you WILL be able to assign yourself to interesting tasks.

You need to watch out for depression and burning out from feeling meaningless. I was in such a position a while back and it wrecked a lot of parts of my life. Hard work is hard for you, but no work is even worst (when you are forced to stay in office).

</comment><comment><USER40> At first I was going to write a "Stick with it until you can hop to another job, leaving this one off the resume" comment, but then I saw you'd be writing Java Swing applications, and now I just want to convey my condolences.

</comment><comment><USER41> Just a word of caution: in interviewing be sure to frame your reason for leaving as only that you were deceived as to the product the hiring manager develops. It would hurt you if people view you as a person who quits when things get boring (which if you're not careful in your explanation is how it could come off).

Also I would not try to hide that you have this job (e.g., in interviews). But a resume need not include this job.

Some commenters here don't sympathize with you so much. I think they are wrong and that the employer misrepresented the job intentionally. That might even run afoul of employment law. Sorry to hear about this.

</comment><comment><USER42> Well, I'd say getting out of your "burnt out from boredom and repetitive work that I can barely stay awake" is important. Having a normal life after work is good for you. Don't go home and go to bed.

Perhaps exercise a bit to get your energy levels up. Sensible dinner (no junk food) and maybe after that you have some energy to work on things that you care about.

Perhaps if you can breeze through your day and not let it bother you since you have student debt you could spend your evenings coding or a projects that truly interests you.

If you really want the challenging problems at work I'd say you do need to find a new job.

</comment><comment><USER43> I had to cut my teeth on test scripts when I left Uni. Coding at Uni and coding in the real world are very different beasts. One is one hackathon after another gaming the content based on project scoring guidelines. The other is making boring software ;)

Now is the time to spend an hour a day developing your own skills on your own pet project.

You also have quite a few years before I would consider yourself a 'good' developer. Even 21 years later I'm still learning new stuff almost daily.

Challenge yourself. If work isn't challenging, then it's your responsibility.

</comment><comment><USER44> I was in a similar situation. My first job out of college was a dud (I was literally being paid to sit around and do nothing).

On the plus side, you get to be paid while searching for the job you really want. This means you can take your time to find the right job, and your current position (and salary) gives you a better negotiating position.

I wouldn't worry about hiding your current position. The fact that you want a new job for more challenging work should be seen as a good thing by the right employer.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'd also try to network with the sister office. Perhaps they are willing to work with you if they realize your qualifications.

</comment><comment><USER46> > I would practice but at the end of the day I'm so burnt out from boredom and > repetitive work that I can barely stay awake.

Easy: get up early and practice. You don't have to wait until after work to practice.

I spent some time in the mid-1990s building a product from 5-7am, and then going and doing an office job to pay bills for the day. It works.

</comment><comment><USER47> > I'm looking for other jobs already. I could omit my current position from > my resume but then I'll be forced to reveal it if I get an interviews during > regular office hours.

I'm not understanding this part. If you land an interview can't you take a day off for it?

<comment><USER48> I think he's more concerned about appearing like a flake. I.e., why is he looking just a month after starting somewhere?

<comment><USER47> I don't understand why he has to tell the new company that he's employed, or tell his employer that he's interviewing, whichever is the concern.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> First world problems</comment>


Final Fantasy VII – Past and Future - <AUTHOR> https://www.joyfreak.com/articles/final-fantasy-vii-%E2%80%93-past-and-future.81/ <comment><USER2> I'm ready to dump far too much of my disposable income on chasing the feelings this game gave me when I was a kid. This is the game that turned me into a gamer.</comment>


Hardware manufacturers are removing game brand names from AMD products - <AUTHOR> https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Ftweakers.net%2Fnieuws%2F136477%2Fhardwarefabrikanten-lijken-gamemerknamen-weg-te-halen-bij-amd-producten.html&edit-text= <comment><AUTHOR> I'm quite outraged by this!

Offtopic: Tweakers is one of the most respected news site in the Netherlands and Belgium for Dutch IT news. That's why i used Google Translate, but kept the link.</comment>


Moondust Could Cloud Our Lunar Ambitions - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/moondust-nasa-lunar-ambitions/ <comment><USER2> Apollo 17's Eugene Cernan, "upon returning from his last moonwalk, vowed, 'I ain't going to do much more dusting after I leave here. Ever.'"</comment>


Ask HN: Would it be valuable to you to receive 'Like' notifications by email? - <AUTHOR> A couple of years ago, I built a relatively straightforward web app that emails you every time your Facebook posts receive a "Like" (or any of the other reactjis).
The emails come at a maximum frequency of 5 minutes, which is overkill for a lot of people, but I've been using the app for more than two years and the frequency doesn't bother me.  I could also make the maximum frequency configurable, with little effort.
Personally, I really enjoy getting notification emails not only for comments (which come directly from Facebook) but also for reactions (which come from my app).
At one point, I made a half-hearted effort to sell subscriptions to the app (at about $2/mo.) but had to abandon that project when something of higher priority came up.
Now that I've got more time available, I'm trying to decide whether it's a valuable enough service to a large enough number of people that it's worth it to give it a full-fledged effort as a subscription service; or whether I should just open-source it; or whether I should abandon the project entirely, except for my own personal use.
So, a few questions:
Would you find this service valuable?
If not, can you think of a market segment to whom this might appeal?
At which price do you think the app would generate the most revenue?
Do you know of any other existing services that do something similar? <comment><USER2> Does your service only integrate with Facebook?

The way you describe it, it doesn't seem to offer too much value-add over existing notifications, or simply logging in to Facebook and relying on their timeline and notification history to summarize what happened since you last logged in.

However, if you were to make the frequency configurable for every signup, your users could set how often they wish to be notified -- so everyone could find their own sweet spot between 'right now' and 'when I next log in'.

How do you envision the content of the email? A concatenation of all reaction events in the time window, or some sort of report or digest that has been processed to condense and categorize the information? I believe the latter is more valuable.

<comment><USER2> Also, there are power users, 'influencers', who are trying to cultivate an audience, often across multiple social networks, and they are looking for the ability to schedule posts ahead of time, and receive metrics and basic analytics on what sorts of impressions they reach. Products like this exist: search 'social media scheduling' or 'social media management'.

I'm not convinced that your solution as your describe would be an effective competition to more full-featured tools, but at the right price point you may be able to attract customers who don't need all the features that those solutions provide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For a second, I misunderstood your title and thought you wanted to implement `Likes` to email ("I like this email, let me go ahead and press this button"). Thank god it's not that.</comment>


Show HN: Simple website to play Chess – what do you think? - <AUTHOR> http://www.funnode.com/games/chess

<comment><USER2> Looks good! I like playing long format chess games, one move or so a day. May be this can be done through tweeting moves, that links to the game board at funnode. Just sayin..

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, that's certainly a cool idea. I guess players would have to link their twitter accounts to their FunNode account, and then we can have a script monitoring tweets for moves. Certainly doable. If there's demand for it, we'll add it :) Thanks for checking out the site. Btw, we do have 24-hours-per-move matches - only for signed-in players though.</comment></comment>


Adventures in running a free public API - <AUTHOR> http://www.cambus.net/adventures-in-running-a-free-public-api/ <comment><USER2> Malware using the service really sucks. Especially without any accountability - someone could actually target you with legal action for enabling the software.</comment>


Security audit finds vulnerabilities across Bitcoin forks - <AUTHOR> https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/03/01/bitcoin-sv-security-audit-helps-resolve-multiple-vulnerabilities-across-different-bitcoin-blockchains/ <comment><USER2> As stated currently, the attacks are all DoS (but perhaps they downplay the severity before the full nature of attacks will be disclosed to the public?)

        The three vulnerabilities have been rated as medium
        severity with low difficulty to exploit and expose the
        Bitcoin node software to Denial of Service attacks
        resulting in a high overall risk rating.

<comment><USER3> Would a DOS attack enable someone to do a double spend by taking honest nodes offline?

<comment><USER4> Yeah I think that's the problem: an attacker can gain a majority of dishonest nodes.

<comment><USER5> That isn't the case here.

(also, in Bitcoin "majority of nodes" doesn't do much to aid attacks)

<comment><USER6> Why not?

If you have a sizeable percentage of the mining power, and you can DDoS enough other miners to leave you with 51% of the mining power, doesn't that allow you to double-spend?

Edit: After reading other comments, I take it the answer to "why not?" is "because this isn't actually a DDoS".

<comment><USER5> Also because if it were, what you'd have to DDOS is hashpower not nodes-- and lots (hopefully most) hashpower is not directly inbound reachable: it connects outward, and only gets inbound connections via backup nodes at other locations.

This makes it harder to DOS attack since you don't know where it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is just propaganda against other forms, by a well know conman who claims to be Satoshi. Someone should check the accounts to set I'd the positive comments are from him or bots.

</comment><comment> gjsman-1000 Bitcoin SV is not Bitcoin. Just Curious, who actually owns the Bitcoin trademark?

</comment><comment><USER8> The great thing about cryptocurrency being FOSS is that this can and likely will be fixed across all Bitcoin forks.

</comment><comment><USER9> > CVE-2018-1000891 – Uncontrolled resource consumption when receiving messages > with invalid checksums

This is really just a bandwidth DoS, which no client can protect against.

> CVE-2018-1000892 – Uncontrolled resource consumption when receiving > sendheaders messages

This is really just a bandwidth DoS, which no client can protect against.

> CVE-2018-1000893 – Uncontrolled resource consumption when deserializing > transactions

This is why the buffer is smaller in bitcoin than in these scamcoins.

Edit: Seems I made the scammers mad.

<comment><USER2> > This is really just a bandwidth DoS, which no client can protect against.

Couldn't the client just find and blacklist misbehaving nodes? (Which Bitcoin already does, right?)

<comment><USER5> > Couldn't the client just find and blacklist misbehaving nodes? (Which > Bitcoin already does, right?)

That particular report is essentially "if you send a message with an invalid checksum, the peer just ignores the message and carries on instead of banning you and thereby wastes bandwidth and cpu time".

But this is kind of a pointless report (of a sort all too often produced by paid auditors :( ) -- the same "attacker" can simply send the same messages with a _valid_ checksum at no more cost to them, using the same resources, but totally bypassing the ban. So why bother?

There may be good or bad reasons to disconnect or ban a peer that does something incorrect or unexpected-- depending on the nature of the incorrect action--, but bans that can be evaded by sending one constant instead of another with the same resource usage are not useful protections against denial of service. A downside of this particular ban is that you'll ban hosts that are guilty of the crime of being behind an overactive NAT or idiotic censorware proxy...

[In fact, a lot of the motivation of the checksum is simply to avoid inappropriately banning peers whos messages were invalid simply due to the network corrupting their traffic. Banning on an invalid checksum defeats much of the purpose of the checksum in the first place.]

Bitcoin is moving away from bans more or less completely because of their minimal utility (over otherwise necessary anti-isolation handling) compared to the amount that they amplify the negative effects of simple misconfigration (or even, have themselves resulted in attacks).

The earlier poster's comment about bandwidth usage attacks is probably referring to the fact that no matter what your bitcoin software does a third party can still chew up inbound bandwidth by e.g. sending ICMP echo requests, SYNs, etc.</comment></comment></comment>


This is what happens when you let programmers design interfaces (PNG) - <AUTHOR> http://www.codeproject.com/KB/applications/todolist2/todolist.png

<comment><USER2> I think this is overly harsh. As far as I can tell, this is a program made by a single person in their spare time and was then open sourced. This is what happens when someone develops an application for themselves based around their own needs and then decided other people might want to use it - I'm sure the developer didn't set out to create a "great user experience".

Controversially, despite its ugliness and widget abuse, it does have some things going for it - it's largely self-explanatory and unambiguous and is probably incredibly quick to use due to its general lack of reliance on tabs and submenus.

A better example of a truly bad interface is Lotus Notes 7 - its UI was an utter disaster yet the application remained popular. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ln7.jpg> \- thankfully much, much improved with Lotus Notes 8 (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lotus_Notes_8_home.png>)

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I have used this app off and on for years. A very nice contribution on the part of the developer. I see the UI of this app as being more a symptom of the target audience. It is targeted to other software developers (I assume) since it is a project on Code Project. It is targeted to the power user elite. Every option is no more than a mouse click away and many are a keystroke or two away.

Your point is taken about bad UI design, though. There are many exemplary instances. I find that bad UI design can come from any number of functional roles.

Many programmers I know (myself included) have been around good and bad designers for so long, and have used apps similarly, that a sensibility has developed within us. Some of us also know about user experience and usability testing. If you seek elegance in code, you will often want the UI of your product to be similarly elegant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "This is what happens when you let someone who is lousy at designing interfaces, design interfaces."

Fixed that for you.

<comment><USER5> Yah this pretty much is what you want to say. I know many programmers, including myself strive to be great at UI design :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It doesn't look too bad. Seems like some sort of bug tracking or issue tracking software. The middle section displays bugs. The top section lets you select what bugs to display. The bottom section displays information about the bug. The bit green "+" is used to add new bugs. It's not beautiful, but it gets the job done.

Edit: For comparison, look at these screenshots of FogBugz and Bugzilla

[http://www.lazygray.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2007/04/prev...](http://www.lazygray.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2007/04/preview.jpg) <http://www.mozilla.org/frontpage/productShotBugzilla.jpg>

Software needs to be functional before it's beautiful. Ideally, you have both, but sometimes you need to prioritize.

<comment><USER2> I think Bugzilla is an example of a web application with an extremely badly designed user interface - I find it very frustrating to use in general with unclear navigation and excessive clutter.

Compare it to trac, an application that has basically the same functionality yet is a joy to use (e.g <http://trac.edgewall.org/ticket/6614>)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The worst example I've ever seen:

<http://www.gisinfo.ru/images/map2005_desk.gif>

Count just the flashlight icons, there's 16 of them. And three Help icons next to each other. But the best part is the vertical sequence of icon mutations in the lower left center.

<comment><USER8> Thanks, cousin_it. Off to the optometrist tomorrow. My eyes still hurt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's really easy to judge but without context it's rather pointless. If that is a consumer app then yes, it's far too complex. If however it's a specialist app to be used by a trained operator then that may well be the perfect, most optimal and efficient display of the information they (the trained operator) want.

Just thought I'd mention that although I agree with your general point speaking as an engineer that has created some crimes against HID and been saved by a designer.

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't think this one was designed by a programmer:

<http://www.goladus.com/_.jpg>

In I don't think it's fair to say the UI was actually _designed_ at all. This is what's leftover from what committees and executives decided the application needed to do with no thought whatsoever to anyone who would actually be using it. Notice how the most relevant information for the technician is on the fourth tab over, in a tiny unsizeable window next to a massive expanse of empty space. Note that several of the tabs seem to be describing the same thing. Where do you go to find out what you have to do? 'description?' 'instructions?' 'sub-tasks?' 'change details?' Why not 'general?'

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. This thing was an enormous, slow, resource-hogging java applet that required internet explorer. It no offline mode yet booted you off every 15 minutes which sometimes made you close out of IE and clear the cache or else you couldn't log back in. The boot-off process involved the entire application leaping into the foreground interrupting anything else you might have been doing.

</comment><comment><USER11> The mother of all bad UI <http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Enter_The_Matrix.aspx>

<comment><USER12> Wow, at least the other one had some sense of grouping/visual hierarcdhy.

This one uses the same colors everywhere, so the user can barely recognize the logical groups on the page! Yikes.

Here's a tip -- the squint test. If when looking at your UI, you can't squint to see logical groupings (regions of activity that are related), then you don't have a good visual hierarchy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whew! Close one. I was worried they were going to show one of my projects.

<comment><USER14> I was expecting a link to Git.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wow, that's pretty brutal...

I think that an engineer can learn design, however. Certainly a standard CS education doesn't necessarily teach you those skills, but one can definitely develop them over time. It takes a good design sense and a good engineering capability to build great user experiences. Often you can't get that in one person, but when you can, one can accomplish that much more.

<comment><USER15> Isn't KISS always the key?

<comment><USER16> Very often it is. But it's not as simple as that.

Try to turn things around - there are a lot of designers (and kids and grandpas) that code something up. This usually ends up as a horrible mess, not following any programming paradigms, spaghetti code, non-existing security, etc. We've all seen it happen. But you only see this if you're a professional programmer. Non-professionals don't see the detail, the design decisions, the security measures, the scalability, etc. They just see a slow or buggy site. Or worst-case they see their credit cards exposed.

Design is the same, just to a larger degree - everyone thinks they can do it, because well done design seems so simple. When they try to do their own, however, it is never quite as good and they don't understand why. The reason is the exact same as why novice programmers create crappy programs. To do a great and simple design you need a lot of experience and a lot of knowledge. Certain things need to align, some colors match others don't, certain design elements send certain signals to the user, etc. Have you ever noticed the drop-shadow on the logo on Google's homepage? Chances are you haven't, but it is a core part of their design - you don't notice it, but it holds up the whole page.

As a novice designer you can only get so far until you start running into problems that require expert knowledge and experience. Just like programming.

And when you start talking about usability (which I think the flaws in the linked pic are) things get even worse. Read Jakob Nielsens useit(<http://www.useit.com>) if you want to learn more about it.

<comment><USER15> You're right, the shadow does give a sense of substance to their simple design, and the same idea is used in google maps. I can imagine how amateur the site would look without the shadow.

Are there more fundamental design principles, or is it more a matter of experimentation and experience?

<comment><USER16> I'm not a designer, so I'm probably not the right one to ask - but for what it's worth I think that it is like everything else in life: a little talent and a lot of work will get you the experience needed to do good design.

When I work with designers I notice that the finished result is often very far away from the initial idea, and that the intermediate steps are obviously experiments in some direction. It is apparent that a lot of time goes into trying things out that are never seen in the finished product. It's probably a lot like writing essays: write a lot and throw away the 90% you don't really need.

So in short: I think there are no shortcuts, it's about experience and hard work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It is kind of unfair to say all programmers are bad at designing interfaces. I've never personally met one that was actually bad, and know several that are quite good- to the point where they could be professional UI designers if they wanted.

I've noticed a trend where hackers with good design sensibilities have migrated to working on web earlier than other developers. That might have something to do with it.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't think it's for want of design ability - as rantfoil said a standard CS education just doesn't educate an engineer about how to design better. I think the lack of UCD emphasis is pretty strange really, it's not like even just _considering_ the user requires graphic design skills or anything...

<comment><USER19> The lack of emphasis on usability in a CS degree program isn't surprising at all. In a software engineering program, it would be entirely appropriate, but in computer science, the focus is intended to be, well, the science of computer software (and to a lesser degree, hardware), not how to develop real- world software projects effectively.

<comment><USER18> I completed a computer engineering degree in embedded systems. Everything I have worked on has benefited from the courses I took during my PhD program in user centered and participatory design. How are people going to use their CS skills? I think it's very rare for someone's hacking not to have an effect on _someone_ else even if it's just fellow engineers...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sometimes the rule is even broader: this is what happens when you let your company design the UI (before bringing in a HCI/Ux (user-experience) consultancy to fix/transform it).

Aside from griping with them about the backend machinations/magic required to transform some of their wireframe mock-ups into running code, working with a well-known HCI/Ux firm made our product's UI cohesive, _usable_ , and functional. They also helped us build reusable common UI components. This was a high-profile, multi-million dollar new product launch so the ($$$) money the firm cost was well invested.

</comment><comment><USER21> People who aren't specialists design interfaces they think they'd like. Programmers, therefore, design interfaces for programmers. This is going to suck for consumer apps, of course, because most people aren't programmers - but this is actually a good thing for other programmers. Take a look at Emacs or Vi - is there ANY way they can get more confusing and badly designed from a consumer-app point of view? Yet they're perfect for the programmer.

<comment><USER22> Indeed, bad design is bad design, but just because the dash and controls of an industrial lift crane are 'more confusing' than a Dodge Neon, doesn't mean the crane's designers sucked.

Being a UI designer has it's pluses, but while I've on occasion been lectured by a geeky accountant or sales guy on the pros and cons of multicore processing or platform independence or something, I've found that almost everyone in the company has strong opinions on why the UI designer's work sucks. It seems that 95% of the public are really "artists" (not that you could tell from anything other than the passion of the aesthetic opinions) just working to pay the rent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I really don't see what the big problem with the interface is. It is not very pretty, but seems very functional, which is the most important thing in an interface.

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't think someone who want to be good designer would go far without also being a (good) programmer.</comment>


Halloween Nerd Projects - <AUTHOR> https://tylercipriani.com/blog/2018/10/30/halloween-nerd-projects/ <comment><USER2> Cool!

That sounds like a really fun side-project :D I was hoping to see some Halloween themed projects appear here on HN actually. Thanks ;-)</comment>


What Social Skills I Learn From The HN Community - <AUTHOR> http://www.lifeasparesh.co.cc/2010/07/what-social-skills-i-learn-from-hn.html <comment><USER2> HN's Karma score has partially helped me better understand myself in the social context. With time I've learned to realize which types of responses/opinions people generally prefer and how to word the same sentence so that it relates to people up to a point.

I'm the nerdy type, with some social mis-alignments and I don't often realize how I represent my opinions and it's hard to look at yourself from a 3rd perspective.

So Karma has actually helped me understand my place better. I'm not a Karma whore by any means but I really like paying attention to which responses work well and I even try to apply the same approach in every day life.

Another thing that has also helped me: Twitter. I actually believe I write better since I started using Twitter because I'm more used to cramming more information to a smaller amount of words.

At least, that's how I see it.

<comment><USER2> Ironically. That response got downvoted and I have no idea why.

<comment><USER3> It's your community; if you feel a comment was unfairly down voted, up vote it. I often make "correction" up votes.

<comment><USER4> He referred to his own comment. He cannot upvote it.

Regarding down votes: some people click them because they disagree, some because they think the post may be irrelevant. Sometimes it is not clear which is the case.

<comment><USER3> Ah, my mistake. I thought it was a different person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In my opinion, the best part of HN is that even when you are having a boring day, you might learn something interesting of short or long-term value.

In my opinion, the second-best part is that if you are isolated IRL whether by choice and/or circumstance (e.g. because you have too much work to do for a client commitment that you don't go out with friends) - it makes you feel connected/better when your comments impact or contribute to a discussion.

In brief, HN is an escape from routine that still is (even though it may be classified as a routine, for many of us). Thanks, pg!

<comment><USER6> > _"you might learn something interesting of short or long-term value"_

This is a common attitude among HN readers: we want to learn things of value. That's why we keep coming back here. This community makes a habit of saying things of value, and of recognizing things of value and (through voting algorithms) giving them a place of prominence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _If you look at my submissions to HN you will notice that most of them are of the Ask HN type. At first I did this because I had nothing to submit. My main source of information still is HN._

I can identify with this general sentiment but I really suck at posting questions. This was true long before I found HN and will likely remain mostly true in spite of me actively working on this issue. So I think what a particular individual learns will depend in part on where they are coming from. I come from a non-coding background, I'm female and have spent lots of time in female-majority environments. For me, one of the big obvious lessons on HN is that men communicate and interact differently from women. In some ways, I find myself more comfortable with that and in other ways less comfortable.

<comment><USER8> _For me, one of the big obvious lessons on HN is that men communicate and interact differently from women._

Can you elaborate on this? I'd love to learn what you notice from your perspective.

<comment><USER7> Probably the most obvious is that men are less touchy-feely. I find that in female-majority environments, there is much more lie-to-your-face while stabbing you in the back type behavior. I'm a real blunt individual, which often goes over poorly with women (my dad and ex-husband are both career military and my mom is foreign -- so, to be fair, lots of Americans find me hard to take/hard to really understand, not just women). The flip side of that is that people here seem to make less effort to understand my admittedly "alien" perspective. It feels to me more like it is on me to work at communicating effectively. I'm okay with that because I find that pat-you-on- the-head and be nice to you stuff often doesn't really result in better communication. Like a pain killer, it often just masks the fact there is a big problem. Men seem to be better about bluntly letting you know it's an issue -- which can be very uncomfortable to face but, in the long run, is usually more productive.

Of course, since I am female, I find that when I do the exact same thing a man would do, it is often interpreted by other people as "overly aggressive". So time will tell if I will be able to take the lessons learned here and put them to constructive use in my life.

<comment><USER8> _Probably the most obvious is that men are less touchy-feely._

Yes, I can believe that as being true. This may have little correlation, but I distinctly remember a trip to a completely female run dental office. This was for oral surgery, and I had every confidence in the doctor, but there were times during the procedure (as my gums were being cut open) when I noticed her being, how can I say, respectful or dainty, with my mouth, and I was thinking to myself just get in there and do what you have to do! I'm pretty numb here! lol (the work was top notch) but I guess it did make the overall experience a bit nicer. :)

 _I find that in female-majority environments, there is much more lie-to-your- face while stabbing you in the back type behavior._

Wow.

 _The flip side of that is that people here seem to make less effort to understand my admittedly "alien" perspective._

Sadly, I think Americans can be guilty of this in general, often times, including myself.

Thanks for sharing. :)

<comment><USER7> I read this some time ago and have been feeling vaguely like there was probably a miscommunication somewhere. For sake of clarification, to me it "goes without saying" (which is why I didn't say it) that people who are more touchy-feely are also highly likely to be the type to lie (say nice things) to your face while stabbing you in the back. Both things tend to be rooted in or related to a dislike of confrontation. People who place an inordinately high value on the (superficially) feel-good experience are, obviously (at least to me), the same type that will make nice while doing you serious harm. Can't have people (ie THEMSELVES) be uncomfortable while we burn them, now can we?

And if you got that the first time: nevermind. :)

<comment><USER8> Hrm... I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying there is a correlation for being touchy-feely with backstabbing? I thought you meant touchy-feely as a definition for "a woman's touch" so to speak. In other words, being more sensitive. For example, my mom is quite compassionate and empathetic, so she would be more "touchy-feely" about some topics than I might be, but she is the last person that would ever intentionally be a backstabber. I'm not sure if this makes sense, and we may still have some miscommunication. I'm just trying to get more insight into the female perspective, but I think you are saying that often times females may be quicker to be deceitful when talking with one another, whereas males will be blunt and upfront, even if it means offending someone. Perhaps you are intending "touchy-feely" to mean non-genuine? That may be our miscommunication.

<comment><USER7> I don't think it is accurate to say women (or anyone who is touchy-feely) are more backstabbing. I do think it is accurate to say that touchy-feely types are generally inclined to be less direct (what you characterized as "deceitful") in the face of something socially unpleasant -- they seem to expect others to read between the lines, infer and so on. When such subtleties fail, they often don't deal well with the ugliness which ensues. Having written my above paragraph, it occurred to me that although I am a conflict- avoider and will go out of my way to avoid fighting with people, I seem more comfortable with direct confrontation than most women and that is probably one of the things that makes many people uncomfortable with me. People find me "combative" although I really don't like to fight with people. But if there is an issue, I generally prefer to be direct and prefer people being direct with me -- assuming there is no malice on both sides. Where there is real malice, best to know when to shut up.

FWIW: My experience has been that extremely suave, charming men are typically also untrustworthy. They generally know how to manipulate people and usually don't hesitate to do so. Of course, people who are both charming and have a strong sense of integrity make wonderful company. But if I have to choose one or the other, I prefer integrity to charm.

 _Perhaps you are intending "touchy-feely" to mean non-genuine?_

No, but I think there is some correlation between the two things. People who want very much to make nice are inclined to tell "little white lies", which puts one on a slippery slope. I wish my experiences indicated otherwise.

I hope that is clearer.

Thanks.

<comment><USER8> Yes, that does seem clearer. Thanks for the clarification. LOL on the "extremely suave, charming men" as it might describe one of my brothers. My mom says he could "charm a nun out of some stuff" ;) And I do think he is a bit manipulative (of my parents at least, he's the baby boy), but I do think he tries to maintain some sense of integrity. Hopefully he notices how straightforward I try to be, and that has some influence. I agree little white lies can put anyone on a slippery slope. It's interesting to imagine those may be more attributable to women than men, in general.

<comment><USER7> _It's interesting to imagine those may be more attributable to women than men, in general._

I think there is some truth to that. I suspect that it's not "genetic" (or whatever) so much as economic (for lack of a better word). But that's probably a very long, controversial, off-topic discussion. :-D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Good rule if you want to be popular or socially successful: talk less.

the amount of times at parties, at networking events, whenever when I'll be listening to someone and simply thinking "please stop talking now"

you could patch that rule with "listen more" == "talk less, listen more" eg: ask questions.

a cardinal sin when networking is to dive into what you do and talk and talk without bothering to ask the listener any questions.

i promise this will make you 10x more popular. and if you are talking, think about how you can cut to the chase with fewer words.

<comment><AUTHOR> It kinda already had made me very popular. My colleagues and friends now come to more for advice more often and give more gravity to what I have to say, because they know whatever I say would be well thought out and efficiently said (more than anyone else they can turn to, anyway). Also they know I would listen to there questions and try to improve (customise rather?) my advice to their unique position.

<comment><USER10> Quick tip: "I would listen to there questions" should be "I would listen to their questions". Saw the mistake in your blog post several times and thought I'd point it out as nobody has yet and it makes an otherwise good article appear amateurish.

Mastering the difference between there/their/they're is a good skill to have :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _Ask Obvious But Good Questions_

It actually irritates me that you can almost count on karma for saying something like "prove it" to a post that may present fairly good evidence already or that is clearly personal opinion not really subject to proof.

But I'm not wholly concerned with Karma. 6 points for something controversial probably implies more impact than 20 point for something simplistic, since the controversial point probably is going to generate a good deal of mod-downs too.

<comment><USER12> I don't see why the questions should be obvious, there simply are no stupid questions and if someone asks a question they deserve an answer, not an automatic upmod.

Comments like 'citation needed', 'prove it' are fortunately rare enough on HN that it's not a big problem.

<comment><USER13> I find many times I've asked questions related to an article that someone involved closer in whatever the topic of the article is could answer I have got up votes but less often answers. I guess it's a form of me to, others interested in an answer to but have nothing to add will up vote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I identify with the author. After getting comments down-voted for various reasons, I've felt the need to better scrutinize my thoughts and to carefully form my sentences when they have been worth submitting at all.

</comment><comment><USER15> _Write In a Formal Style_

Formal style is boring. I think he meant _conversational style_. Write as if you are having a nice, friendly conversation with your peers. This produces persuasive writing.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is a good way to approach classes you are involved in to, in high school, college, or otherwise. Seek to learn, seek to teach.

<comment><USER17> > Seek to teach

I often notice people getting offended if you try to teach them anything directly though, in a social environment (even if you're known to be one to be open to being taught)

<comment><USER5> Consider why you are trying to teach. Is it to jockey for position/gain the upper hand?

If you truly want to make a better impression, have people teach _you_. The classic female 'Can you help me with my homework'. Really, no one likes a know-it-all. And if you win an intellectual argument, are you really winning? Show some interest in learning, genuine interest, from other people's experiences or knowledge.

Teaching is one of the harder disciplines because it is not about the teacher teaching but about the teacher learning how to teach from their students.

<comment><USER17> Good points. I really like the analogy with the female common by-phrase you brought up, which surprisingly I hadn't thought of. Of course, this helps you in some ways, but still doesn't address how to teach properly when the opportunity arises.

> And if you win an intellectual argument, are you really winning?

I've come to believe that unless you're in a debate team somewhere or are a teacher/prof at a school, the answer to that question is almost always 'No'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Be careful with the last one. Overly formalized language is probably a lot worse than underly formalized language.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is why I had a strike through for formal in the last sentence. I realized what I actually meant was an effective way. There is a difference between effective and formal. Sometimes meaning is lost in too much of jargon and too perfect a grammar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've learned not to take things at face value and provide evidence (and demand evidence) of why what's said makes sense, is credible, etc. People here are always calling others out for what amounts to "anecdotal evidence" and I know find myself doing that IRL much to the dismay of some people--coworkers, for example--who like to put forth flimsy ideas and evidence of different things as gospel. The average person doesn't ask questions (or just doesn't care as much), but I've learned from being here not to be like that. I imagine it's pissed some people off that I know, but it keeps misinformation down and thus, everybody benefits.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've often thought that being involved in a variety of online communities over the years has really increased my ability to think critically about a topic. By now, I've seen and had so many arguments on such a wide range of topics that I'm able to recognize similar patterns in new information that I come across, and make better decisions because of it.

While debating certain things over and over does get old, at least you've thought things through in a very thorough manner.

</comment><comment><USER21> "Speak Only When You Have Something New To Add"

A better rule IMHO is "Don't talk unless you're selling something."

That is, don't talk unless you're trying to change someone.</comment>


The laws of Australia will trump the laws of mathematics: Turnbull - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-laws-of-australia-will-trump-the-laws-of-mathematics-turnbull/ <comment><USER2> Just another way to exert control over the populace. As far as I can tell most terror attacks are coordinated in plain text and the security services still can't (or don't?) stop them.</comment>


Building Decision Trees in Python - <AUTHOR> http://onlamp.com/pub/a/python/2006/02/09/ai_decision_trees.html

<comment><USER2> In "Programming Collective Intelligence" there are other examples if someone is interested.

<http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596529321>

</comment><comment><USER3> As one-page article <http://onlamp.com/lpt/a/6464>

</comment><comment><USER4> A 2006 article on implementing this machine learning algorithm.</comment>


Show HN: Open-source (Go) proxy for sensitive data protection: encrypt/tokenize - <AUTHOR> https://vaulty.co <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN!

I've built Vaulty ([https://vaulty.co](https://vaulty.co)) - open source (Go) forward/rewerse proxy that encrypt/pseudonymize/tokenize/mask/hash data between two systems talking HTTP(S):

\- browser -> backend API \- backend -> API of 3rd party service \- backend <-> backend

It transforms specific attributes/fields of JSON/XML/Form transparently for sender and receiver (no code changes needed) based on transformation rules. Using Vaulty you can:

\- prevent developers from accessing sensitive customer data \- protect sensitive data before it reaches your backend \- reduce compliance scope (e.g., PCI DSS) \- contain personal information within a country's borders \- and just make your systems more secure :D

Here are two cookbooks (demos) to show how Vaulty may be used:

\- [https://docs.vaulty.co/cookbooks/safe-sensitive-data- import](https://docs.vaulty.co/cookbooks/safe-sensitive-data-import)

\- [https://docs.vaulty.co/cookbooks/email-list-with- protected-e...](https://docs.vaulty.co/cookbooks/email-list-with-protected- emails)

I would appreciate your feedback! If you see how you may use Vaulty, let me know! I'll help you with Vaulty adoption.</comment>


China VC has overtaken Silicon Valley, but do aggregates tell the whole story? - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/05/china-vc-has-overtaken-silicon-valley/ <comment><USER2> There are several factors at work here. First, China is extremely protectionist. A lot of the Chinese tech companies are reimplementations of American companies where they get to learn from history and their counterpart's IP. This means that even if China was not developing any new products or technologies, they would still be spending a huge amount of money to replicate the US tech companies. Supposedly economists should be lambasting this wasteful protectionism, but that kind of negativity isn't commonly applied to China yet.

Secondly, American companies have received enormous pushback when they do attempt expansion overseas. Some of this pushback is valid, and some is not. But often American companies are hit hard for stupid reasons because they don't have the political cover that Chinese companies ostensibly possess.

Which leads to the next point which is that Tencent, Alibaba and Baidu (which are the biggest Chinese tech players) are effectively government sponsored entities. Baidu especially was created after the Chinese government ran Google out of the country. This gives them much more political firepower when working out deals with other countries.

American anti-corruption laws are some of the strongest in the world, which is a good thing, but this does mean that American companies are operating at a big disadvantage when working in countries and industries where bribery is practically required. Russia, Brazil and Mexico are often problem countries for example. To get away with the backroom shenanigans required for dealing in those countries, you need the kind of political clout that companies like Exxon possess, and nobody in the tech industry wields that kind of power.

American companies operate under a number of "disadvantages." Some of these are disadvantages are good and some are not, but it does mean Chinese tech companies have much wider latitude to act and have much closer access to the political levers of their country. The biggest question here (as always with China) is how much do metrics that are developed for a free market actually matter when applied to a country that is not a free market but is pretending to be one when it suits their needs. The west faced a similar problem with the USSR during the cold war. The only news the west had access to was news that made the USSR look good, so we were constantly panicking at how powerful the Soviet Union seemed to be while they ineptly blundered from one error to another.

</comment><comment><USER3> The Total Addressable Market is huge in any developing country. The only problem was that the previously internet penetration was very low and not many people had computers to get online. Cheaper and more mature smartphones has changed all that. Now with the huge and growing "online" population it is not surprising that this is happening.

But, I must add that China's notorious protectionism is also playing it's part. No international company can take money from Silicon VC and then pump it in China to build their brand. Uber tried and failed. This is in complete contrast to India. If you look at it ecom saw bigger and bigger deals for Flipkart until Amazon happened. Same with Uber holding it's ground against Ola. I am sure if India had similar protectionism, we might have seen similar headlines for them too, maybe not at the same time but couple of years give or take.

</comment><comment><USER4> China is an interesting case because many of the startups are directly backed by government interests. This is also true for SV but not to the extent that it is in China. Most SV firms are backed by private capital with a few notable exceptions (In-Q-Tel).

It's not really an apples to apples comparison. Massive government funding is providing huge amounts of capital to make this happen and there is speculation on bubbles forming by cheap credit with few strings attached.

Links:

[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-07/28/content_302...](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-07/28/content_30275307.htm)

[https://news.crunchbase.com/news/one-china-based-vc- backed-g...](https://news.crunchbase.com/news/one-china-based-vc-backed- government-invests-home-abroad/)

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-tech-startup-funding- the...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-tech-startup-funding-the-wild- west-in-the-far-east-1513248609)

<comment><USER5> This is not true. In fact, most of the startups are avoiding government interested related projects because China government can easily shutdown or take control of your startups for FREE.

That's why there is no SpaceX or anything that can used in weapon area.

<comment><USER6> China has a bunch of orbital rocket launcher startups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> We[0] are currently raising Series A and are based in China. Notes from our experience to date:

(1) Very few VCs here speak fluent English. I have had to pitch in Mandarin many times, even to partners at local branches of leading international firms.

(2) Many mainland VC firms now run USD denominated funds, some are explicitly looking out of China, especially to Southeast Asia.

(3) A great place to be for VC next week is RISE in Hong Kong, [http://riseconf.com/](http://riseconf.com/) ... please reach out with an email if you are attending.

(4) Many companies here seem open to partnership deals. I suspect that non- equity sources of funding may have a greater influence here than elsewhere.

(5) An environment of extreme capital availability combined with a huge largely homogeneously regulated market definitely affects business model and growth strategy. It would be interesting to see aggregate research in this space.

[0] [http://infinite-food.com](http://infinite-food.com)

</comment><comment><USER8> Adjusted for purchasing power it probably looks even worse for Silicon Valley. How much is an office and a good developer in a big city in China?

<comment><USER9> Chinese real estate prices are SV level already in some cities that are popular with tech. However, they lean more on dense open offices and even converted underground shopping malls. They also tend to put development centers way out in the suburbs away from expensive city centers (well, it depends, for every Lenovo that is almost out to changping, there is a Microsoft in the heart of Zhongguancun).

High office prices only applies to Shenzhen, Beijing, and Shanghai (and maybe GZ and HZ).

As for labor, good programmers and managers are definitely not cheap in China, even if cheaper than SV.

<comment><USER10> I'd argue its still easier than SV, I'm seeing SV employees move back to China and start their own things due to:

a) The VC funding b) The overall startup environment c) Cheaper worker wages

Theres definitely communist red tape but right now tech startups are in vogue unless they directly/indirectly interfere with communist or harmonious society guidelines.

<comment><USER11> Building start-ups in China is great, if you're primarily interested in the China market. Chinese tech companies are overwhelmingly domestic capture entities, they can't get outside the country very easily.

The state now very openly controls all companies in China, directly or indirectly. They dictate what you can do, what you can build, what you can say, what you can sell, where you can sell, what you can do outside of the domestic market, how much capital you can move internationally, when you can move it, who can own your business, how much of your business foreigners can own, etc. You're not allowed to cross their edicts under any circumstances. If you fall out of favor for any reason, at any time, they will destroy you personally.

SV start-ups get the entire rest of the planet as a playground, almost entirely unencumbered by the type of highly restrictive state policies that Chinese tech companies constantly deal with. That's why Baidu was never able to go global and challenge Google. It's why China can never fully go global with most of their social products. They can never compete properly on the international stage with Google, Facebook, Instagram, Amazon, Reddit, Github, Snapchat, Twitter, Salesforce, Workday, Oracle, Windows, iOS, Android, MacOS and countless other types of companies and product categories. It's why WhatsApp & FB captured the world, and WeChat primarily owns China, but does not - and will never - own the rest of the world: aggressive state censorship sucks.

If I want to say that Xi looks like Winnie the Pooh, I can do that on WhatsApp. If I want to make jokes the Communist Party dislikes, I can do that on WhatsApp. If I want to mock Mao, I can do that on WhatsApp (or Reddit, or Twitter, etc). You can't do that in any ecosystem controlled by China (note, those are intentionally non-serious, illustrative examples, China's restrictions are far more smothering and comprehensive).

SV can't get into China. China mostly can't get outside of China. SV wins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Comparing a country of 1.4 billion people to a metro area of 2 million people? Stupid.

</comment><comment><USER13> > China has its money where the action is.

This has been absurdly obvious for about 3-5 years now. The knowledge of actual hardware creation & manufacturing has largely migrated to China (hello outsourcing). Costs of living in reasonably stable environments (required for broad innovation) in the US is absurdly high. Government support and funding for innovation - _which is required for high value research_ \- has been gutted since the Cold War. These things have a long-term effect.

All of the above are USA policies driven by politics. They can all be 100% fixed with political muscle and will. Much like our infrastructure. We can fix it: _we choose not to_.

China's government is not stupid; they can watch the US hamstring itself via libertarian policies and work to avoid such approaches. I don't _like_ their approach to human rights, but they are working very hard to fund innovation and infrastructure.

<comment><USER14> What do you mean by reasonably stable. Suburban Ohio is literally an order of magnitude cheaper than say San Francisco and Cleveland isn't that much more expensive or for that matter unstable.

<comment><USER15> >Suburban Ohio is literally an order of magnitude cheaper than say San Francisco and Cleveland isn't that much more expensive or for that matter unstable.

Do you know what else is within 300 miles of Cleveland Ohio?

Absolutely nothing.

<comment><USER16> > Do you know what else is within 300 miles of Cleveland Ohio?

~50 million people live within 300 miles of Cleveland vs about ~16 million within 300 miles of SF.

[https://www.freemaptools.com/find- population.htm](https://www.freemaptools.com/find-population.htm)

<comment><USER15> A circular radius of Cleveland is meaningless because half the circle is in Canada. A large portion of that population would be metro Toronto. On top of that the absolute numbers don't matter at all; it's about density.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Aggregate ROI is the true story.

</comment><comment><USER18> The most populous country in the world has invested more in startups than a small region of the US.

Honestly, why is this news?

<comment><USER19> It also invested more than US+Canada

[https://news.crunchbase.com/news/in-q2-2018-global-vc- scales...](https://news.crunchbase.com/news/in-q2-2018-global-vc-scales- tipped-in-favor-chinese-startups-over-north-america/)

<comment><USER18> Now _this_ I consider news.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Of course they do! China has 4x the people. I don't understand these kinds of articles when they dont adjust per capita.

IMO this is the meat of the article:

      The U.S. can't continue to look inward and expect the high
      rates of growth we have seen in the tech sector over the
      past two decades. Only new, global markets are going to be
      the driver of prosperity, and right now, China has its
      money where the action is.

<comment><USER21> Why would population be the correct normalizer? Would we expect Nigeria to have 57% of the startup funding that the US does?

<comment><USER22> I guess the premise of the parent comment is that China, at least in the tech sector, is considered as "developed" as the US. If that assumption holds true, what the parent comment isn't far off. But that's an assumption that may or may not be true, depending on who you ask at least.

<comment><USER21> Sure, that's reasonable. I guess my point was there are likely better naive correlates for amount of startup funding than population. Perhaps number of STEM or college educated adults, perhaps levels of general economic growth, perhaps GDP, perhaps levels of business freedom, perhaps population (I'm not ruling it out).

Also Nigeria was a particularly bad example because they're developing spectacularly well, should have picked a large population country with a poor business climate.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Nvidia datacentre revenues surpasses gaming for first time - <AUTHOR> https://www.anandtech.com/show/16013/nvidia-reports-q2-fy2021-earnings-datacenter-revenue-surpasses-gaming-for-the-first-time <comment><USER2> Isn't this more that they announced new cards coming later this year, and also started swapping over their production capacity for the 20 series over to the 30 series? Datacenter growth is important, but we're in the waning stage of the Nvidia GPU cycle right now. Datacenter growth has some more ground to cover before this breakdown is convincing.

<comment><USER3> > we're in the waning stage of the Nvidia GPU cycle right now

The current product cycle, or overall? It seems to me that they've got nowhere else to go but up.

<comment><USER2> Current production cycle. At the end of a Nvidia production cycle for a gpu iteration, their gaming sales numbers historically decrease before their new card series is released. I'm not sure about the factors at play that lead into that, but I assume less marketing, lower availability, and high market saturation.

The point of my first comment is that the timing of this breakdown doesn't encapsulate the full picture, and getting a handle on their relative numbers would mean looking at a few cycles over a longer period. I agree that they have "nowhere else to go but up", but the comparison in the article listed is a bit shallow.</comment></comment></comment>


I believe "noreply" is bad customer service - <AUTHOR> http://stevetbutler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/noreply-is-terrible-customer-service.html

<comment><USER2> Typically, noreply addresses are used as a blackhole for mail that probably won't be replied to, and any replies are either auto-generated (e.g. mail delivery failure notices), spam, or other undesirable mail.

I have seen a good compromise for this, though: a piece of software I use sets the sending address to "email@example.com"; if you want to reply to the message (and you aren't a spammer or mailer-daemon), you simply delete the "noreply." from the beginning.

<comment><AUTHOR> That sounds like a good idea. In general I think for companies who are fairly substantial in size and have people who would otherwise respond to e-mails sent to the relevant department, having a form of "e-mail switchboard" seems like a vast improvement in customer service.

Of course there is always the problem of spamming but there are plenty of third party filtering services which I'm sure could help with that.

It's unfortunate that auto-generated spam and so on has become such a problem because the flexibility and freedom of the e-mail protocol is why it's stood the test of time as a communication platform between companies.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Apologies if this doesn't belong here, I thought the community might find it an interesting topic of discussion though.</comment>