Ask HN: Any good resources for finding software jobs abroad? - <AUTHOR> Just wondering. No real reason to ask. (Completely serious question, however) <comment><USER2> A man was walking along a river bank when he saw another man on the opposite side. "Hello!" he called out, "how do you get to the other side of the river?"

The man called out in response, "you are on the other side of the river!"

<comment><USER3> A similar joke I've heard has the opposite moral, so to speak:

The man on the other side responds: "Don't ask me. I was born here."

<comment><USER4> I call this "there must be a name for this type of paradox" paradox.

<comment><USER5> Any more examples?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Norway: [http://m.finn.no/job/fulltime/search.html?occupation=0.23&fi...](http://m.finn.no/job/fulltime/search.html?occupation=0.23&filters=)

281 java positions, 182 c#, 91 c++

New ones coming in every day.

There is a lot of demand here for skilled developers, most positions are not for startups, but established business.

Software developer salary is typically lower than in the US, but then again, cost of living (as far as apartment rent goes(in Oslo)) is lower than in SV. C#/Java back-end salary usually range from 600,000 NOK (73 188 dollar, at the low end, not much experience, poor resume) to 1,000,000 NOK (121 980 dollar, senior).

The average developer salary in Oslo is at 106k (dollar). National average is 82k, most attractive jobs, and salaries, tend to be in Oslo.

<comment><USER7> What about the language barrier? Would English be enough?

<comment><USER8> I am from Sweden and basically everyone here (except some immigrants) speak english very fluently. You would have no issues living in any Nordic country with only English.

I worked at a pretty international company before where there was several individuals whom had lived in Sweden for several years without even bothering to learn the language.

Don't be that guy or gal though, Swedes don't like it when you live here for years without learning anything. Norway is the same, same with Finland and Denmark.

You are welcome, if you ever consider moving I could probably give you some tips of potential employers!

<comment><USER9> I've been strongly considering moving since spending a semester abroad. Any potential employers or leads you think I should consider? Email's in profile so feel free to pm

<comment><USER8> You can check some work at [https://www.uptrail.com/](https://www.uptrail.com/) for example.

I am actually in the making of a swedish job site for developers. But you will have to wait for that one though.

Otherwise, you can search for your language of choice at [https://www.arbetsformedlingen.se/](https://www.arbetsformedlingen.se/). I am sure lots of jobs will turn up, at least in Stockholm. What you want to do is probably to use Google Translate on that webpage or something because their english version sucks ass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You could try freelance work for clients remotely. That would give you a lot of freedom to choose where to live.

I am an American living, working (as a freelance programmer) in Czech Republic -- good economy (especially Prague), low crime rate, low cost of living. Happy to answer questions.

<comment><USER11> I lived in Prague for a short while as a digital nomad. It's a great city and I'm considering coming back more long-term and buying property there. Not only is the economy great, but it's a very walkable city with fantastic public transportation and is generally very clean. All of this was helpful in making each day I woke up a happy day, something that's hard to capture and definitely not the norm for most cities in the world.

So if you do get your remote work job, this is another +1 for Prague being amazing.

<comment><USER12> Any chance you checked out the coworking scene while you were there?

<comment><USER10> There are several co-working spaces in Prague:

* PaperHub at Paralelni Polis - [https://www.paralelnipolis.cz/koncepty/coworking/](https://www.paralelnipolis.cz/koncepty/coworking/)

* ImpactHub - [http://www.hubpraha.cz/en/](http://www.hubpraha.cz/en/)

* Node5 - [http://node5.cz/#about](http://node5.cz/#about)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The country you currently live in defines what this "Abroad" is. At least specify if you're American or non-American.

<comment><USER14> Lets take a wild guess -- Which one of those groups suddenly wants to flee their country?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> You still have to pay for Trump's wall.

For me, it's not worth moving. I was born here, and as a result I'm somewhat responsible for the actions my country takes as a whole. Moving doesn't change that. The grass looks greener on the other side, but other countries aren't really doing that well with human rights, LGBT issues, affordable housing, or constitutionally-protected free speech. No matter where you move, you're trading one bag of shit for another.

It's weird.

<comment><USER16> I'm mostly just curious. There is a lot written about immigration to the US but not too much about emigration from it. I agree that moving away doesn't really solve the problem and that despite our flaws I believe we have an advantage in many respects.

Democracy isn't perfect, and sometimes it means you lose. It means you need to talk to people who disagree with you and persuade them, and I think this cycle shows that the left hasn't been doing too well on that front.

<comment><USER17> Unlike most countries, the U.S. still taxes non-resident citizens which probably does something to put people off emigrating the US.

<comment><USER18> It's like an economic wall that prevents highly skilled people from leaving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The company I work for, Xeneta (startup in sea freight industry), is hiring developers in Norway: [https://www.xeneta.com/careers](https://www.xeneta.com/careers)

Otherwise, apply for jobs in Norwegian startups through this site:

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

</comment><comment><USER20> We at SUSE Linux will be happy to relocate all the suitable specialists (development, QA, support, management... 66 positions are open) to Germany or Czech: [https://jobs.suse.com](https://jobs.suse.com)

You can filter by location, we have a couple of positions in Provo, Utah as well...

<comment><USER21> As a self taught, inexperienced programmer, I hope you don't mind answering a question. Looking through the list of jobs it seems that I could perform the Junior QA. However, since I am probably suffering from imposter syndrome, I'm somewhat unsure. A bit about my background: My interest is in full stack development. I'm comfortable with python, html5 and am currently re-learning CSS, which I have found harder to understand than programming, but I am getting there. My workflow is mostly through the CLI (basic commands) and have some experience with git. I've toyed around with a few languages, racket and js come to mind. I could conclude by asking, if I'm currently not fit for that position, what else would I need to learn?

<comment><USER22> As a self-taught, formerly inexperienced programmer, my advice to you is to apply. In the early stages of a programming career, you want to try to get a job you're underqualified for. That's where you will grow the most. Don't be scared off by what it says in the job posting. I've never met all the qualifications of any job I've ever gotten.

<comment><USER21> Thanks :)

<comment><USER20> "Just apply and let us sort that out" was exactly the advice I was going to give you.

Basically: you never know what exactly the team on the other side is looking for. They might try to convey that the best possible way in those 2-3 paragraphs the "Typical Job Description" format allows them, and still fail. Or they might even not try that, because of some weird internal political reasons, or just a lack of job-posting skill, or plain unwillingness to bother.

So, consequently, the only reliable way for you to know if they're looking for a person with your skillset or not — is to apply.

<comment><USER21> Thanks. Perhaps it's a matter of rolling dice to see what life has in store for me. Thanks for the reply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm curious too. I live in New Zealand. How can I get a software job abroad - say in the United States?

<comment><USER24> By most accounts you're like in literally the best place on planet earth right now, why would you want to move?

<comment><USER23> America has several advantages:

\- higher salaries

\- electronics, groceries, cars etc are all _much_ cheaper

\- lower rent if you compare towns and cities of similar sizes

\- world leaders in computing for the past 50 years

Have you been to NZ? Why do you think it's so great? Do you like poorly built, overpriced housing, expensive groceries, lower wages and anti-American sentiment?

<comment><USER12> Housing prices vary so radically across states and cities in the US. It can be ~5x going from a mid-size midwestern city to San Francisco or NYC for a 1-bedroom apartment, for example.

I think getting paid by an American company but working remotely and living in NZ or Oz might be the holy grail.

<comment><USER23> Why would you want to be a remote worker in a place with a higher cost of living?!

<comment><USER12> Cost of renting a small apartment (in Wellington at least) is cheaper than most U.S. tech hubs.

<comment><USER23> Wellington City has 207,000 people. Which US tech hub could it be compared to?

<comment><USER12> That's kind of my point! The arbitrage of working for a company in a US tech hub while living outside of a US tech hub. It could be done living domestically here too, but abroad is more interesting. (However, given the discussion, maybe this is just a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side".)

<comment><USER23> I am not being clear. Why live in an NZ city of 200,000 when you could live in an American one of the same size and enjoy a lower cost of living, and cheaper rent?

<comment><USER12> I don't think one can find the same quality of life in a comparable US city for a lower cost of living.

Portland, Oregon might be the closest counterexample that comes to mind, but it is an order of magnitude bigger — population of the greater metropolitan area is 2.4 million.

There is a fair amount of inexpensive housing here but not in areas with the same cultural values. (Perhaps Wellingotn wasn't the best example, but it's in the only NZ city I've been to firsthand.)

Feel free to shoot me an email (in profile) if you'd like to discuss more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I recently made the move (US->UK) and am happy to give people advice. My email is in my profile.

<comment><USER16> Would you be willing to write a general post on it? I don't agree or disagree with the idea of emigrating due to the election but it would be engaging to read - I don't see much stuff from people moving that direction.

<comment><USER25> I've currently got a draft of it 1/3rd done. But I am better at talking and answering questions than at writing.

<comment><USER16> Well if you ever finish it, please be sure to post it here!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've found a job abroad (im from portugal) twice, once in UK and recently netherlands, both through LinkedIn Jobs (coincidently or not). Had other contacts through HN Who's Hiring posts as well.

Ps: SanomaNL is hiring in the Netherlands (senior fronted/backend python but Golang is creeping up/devops): [https://github.com/sanoma/jobs/blob/master/README.md](https://github.com/sanoma/jobs/blob/master/README.md)

</comment><comment><USER27> This is a good resources if you want to work in Asia. [https://www.techinasia.com/jobs](https://www.techinasia.com/jobs)

<comment><USER27> but rising temperature on equator will be a problem. Not to mention rising sea level.

<comment><USER28> Buy real estate soon to be ocean shore?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If you're interested in moving to Switzerland then the lad who wrote the post below is semi-frequently on HN iirc. I had a brief email back-and-forth with him which was pretty useful and informative (though I ended up staying put).

[https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i- moved-t...](https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i-moved-to- switzerland-to-work-in-it-c7ac18af4f90#.duib7t2lm)

</comment><comment><USER30> I think the problem is not about finding resources but about culture of the country and their work culture

I'm French, long time ago as long as I was looking from France to work in the UK, about 9 out of 10 recruiters ignored me.

Once I landed in London and did the same search of jobs, interviews piled on me.

I'm not saying you can not find anything from remote and online, just saying it seems much much easier to find something once you are already in the country.

<comment><USER31> Similar thing happened to me with a much shorter move: central NJ to Philadelphia suburbs. Once I started using an address local to my job search I had no issues getting interviews. Before that was rough and the distance was only 100 miles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I recruit in Japan and we use DaiJob, Indeed, and GaijinPot. There are also quite a few on linkedIn (they seem to pay a lot better as well)

<comment><USER33> Is "GaijinPot" really what it is called?

<comment><USER32> yes, really sad. DaiJob is also a really dumb name if you pronounce it in katakana.

<comment><USER34> I'd say it's an OK name... ;)

<comment><USER32> It actually didn't register until my co-workers laughed at the name. I was just thinking 大job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The standard website for New Zealand listings is seek.co.nz.

If you are interested in the startup scene, the best recruiters would probably be Talent Army

</comment><comment><USER36> If you're looking for a job in Paris, Lyon, London or Berlin -> [https://www.talent.io/](https://www.talent.io/)

Just signup, get a call with a talent advocate so they know what you're looking for, and as soon as the next monday you're in. You will receive from 5 to 15 tailored job offers in less than 2 weeks. That's the easiest way around.

</comment><comment><USER37> [https://whoishiring.io](https://whoishiring.io) has jobs aggregated from few sources including Hacker News Who is Hiring thread.

</comment><comment><USER38> I was able to find a job rather quickly on berlinstartupjobs.com if you'd like to consider Germany as an option.

Germany is a rather good option for working abroad as getting a visa is pretty easy if you have a college degree and make a certain amount of money. They're pretty liberal about handing out something called the EU Blue Card. That's what I had when I was over there. You don't even need to do anything before you get there. All the paperwork happens when you're in the country. The trickiest part of the whole process is making sure you end up at a place when you get there that you can register at with the local government as you have to show your registration confirmation as part of the Blue Card process. If you can get registered and receive mail wherever you stay initially everything is pretty easy.

</comment><comment><USER39> For EU citizens you could just go on Jobserve.com and find an IT job in the UK or Switzerland (or maybe else where) that interests you and apply. Many jobs will only take people with the right to work, but there may be others who would sponsor a permit from outside the EU.

</comment><comment><USER40> In Europe simply buy a train ticket and go.

I am assuming however this is leaving the US for ... not-US locations

My suggestion would be to stay where you are, look for remote work opportunities that will give you the ability to losslessly change jobs until you found the work culture that suits.

And it also gives you opportunity to get involved in your local or state politics where you can make a genuine difference.

Just as Europe has a free-to-move labour force (for now!) the US has strong and increasingly independent States that look more and more like the engines of progressive change. California just approved marijuana for example.

Let the countries of the world deal with any changing trade and defence agreements. It's why they have diplomats.

NB - I am not meaning to be as patronising as I may be coming across

</comment><comment><USER41> I made this for anyone looking to become a dev in Ireland: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DevelEire/wiki/index](https://www.reddit.com/r/DevelEire/wiki/index)

</comment><comment><USER42> Indeed.com of the specific country is the easiest way to find open positions in your target country.

Easy Expat < This site contains international classified advertisements, discussion forums, and job listings for expatriates all over the world.

</comment><comment><USER43> [http://jobserve.com](http://jobserve.com)

Very good for medium-long term consulting gigs in Europe

</comment><comment><USER44> Hacker News? "Who's hiring?" & "Who wants to be hired?" posts every month.

</comment><comment><USER45> There is a platform [https://hitcontract.lt/](https://hitcontract.lt/) for IT jobs/contracts in Scandinavian and Baltic countries. If registered you may get all the projects that suits your skills and experience precisely. Also, project managers can invite you to their projects. It's absolutely free for Developers. Please have a look.

</comment><comment><USER46> [http://www.jobserve.com/](http://www.jobserve.com/)

They will start you just about any Western Europe country on your first job / contract. After that rely on your network as agencies advertising there are not 1st tier in the supplier chain

</comment><comment><USER47> All Startup Jobs in Barcelona (Europe) here: www.jobsbcn.com

Startup Jobs in Madrid here: www.jobsmad.com

</comment><comment><USER48> I have written a bit about working abroad, working remotely from abroad, and how to emigrate to germany and finding jobs in Berlin. Let me know if you find any of this information useful!

[http://notanomadblog.com/categories/work- abroad/](http://notanomadblog.com/categories/work-abroad/)

Specifically, this posts on working remotely from abroad, but most of the resources listed also have jobs in-person, too.

[http://notanomadblog.com/how-to-move-abroad-by-working- remot...](http://notanomadblog.com/how-to-move-abroad-by-working-remotely/)

</comment><comment><USER49> Are there any country outside U.S. that pay more for software job? I've looked before, but I didn't find any, so you'll have to figure out a way to quantify quality of live improvement in dollar figures.

<comment><USER50> Australia is pretty good if you live in a good spot.

<comment><USER51> Yet is extremely more expensive in terms of cost of living.

It cheaper to fly to Los Angeles, buy Adobe Suite ( the old one when discs were still around) and arrive back to Australia rather than buying it in Australia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> If you're upset with the way things seem to be going with US politics, I would urge you to not flee and look for a software engineering job in another country, but rather look for domestic software jobs that will put your skills to good use.

Maybe this means civic tech organizations like Code for America that explicitly work on public sector projects. Maybe it means working for a political advocacy group like the EFF, or someone working on privacy-related projects to help protect our civil liberties. Either way, helping improve things domestically seems like a nobler option than running away.

</comment><comment><USER53> [https://jobbatical.com/](https://jobbatical.com/) is great, not just for short contracts, i found an amazing permanent job with it.

</comment><comment><USER54> StackOverflow Jobs site is used quite a bit at least in Europe. [https://stackoverflow.com/jobs](https://stackoverflow.com/jobs)

It's relatively easy to Google for expat websites for any specific country. The salaries are generally lower, but so is the cost of housing.

Our company Smartly.io is also hiring. 3-year-old startup, 100 employees, 30+ engineers, profitable, some real scalability issues to be solved (already 200+ servers), and based in Helsinki. :)

</comment><comment><USER42> Any specific country ? Even though there is huge shortage for skilled IT labor in USA, you have a better chance of finding another job in Australia / New Zealand region.

</comment><comment><USER55> Look through this article [http://relocateme.eu/blog/life-hacks-for-software- developers...](http://relocateme.eu/blog/life-hacks-for-software-developers- how-to-find-a-job-with-relocation-to-europe/). I find it really helpful. It's like a special resource guide for job relocation to Europe (where and how to look for).

</comment><comment><USER56> If you are interested in AI and want to work in an international environment in a startup in Japan, this company (in which I work) is probably your best bet: [http://www.reactive.co.jp/home-en](http://www.reactive.co.jp/home-en)

We are focused on AI and deep learning, and we are hiring research scientists, research software engineers, devops engineers, etc.

<comment><USER57> And if you are interested in a soul crushing job with Salesforce.com that pays peanuts, I have positions at Coca-Cola East Japan.

(But yeah, I've used the guys at Reactive and they are great too - nice office as well)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> If you're looking for a job in Paris, Lyon, London or Berlin -> [https://www.talent.io/](https://www.talent.io/)

Just signup, get a call with a talent advocate so they know what you're looking for, then you'll receive from 5 to 15 tailored job offers in less than 2 weeks. That's the easiest way around.

</comment><comment><USER58> Yelp is hiring backend/fullstack engineers in Hamburg, Germany. [https://www.yelp.com/careers/job- openings?location=Hamburg%2...](https://www.yelp.com/careers/job- openings?location=Hamburg%2C+Germany)

I moved here last year, as an internal transfer. It's been pretty good overall.

</comment><comment><USER59> Came across this lately for DE/NL jobs:

[http://relocateme.eu/jobs/](http://relocateme.eu/jobs/)

Also StackOverflow Jobs has a number of openings across whole world, many of them with salaries.

However some big companies with lazy HRs mainly put job offers on their own websites and nowhere else.

<comment><USER55> I've also heard about these cool guys from RelocateMe. Apart from a diverse number of IT jobs ([http://relocateme.eu/jobs/](http://relocateme.eu/jobs/)), they also provide comprehensive relocation support to candidates and their families.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Many companies in Europe: [http://landing.jobs](http://landing.jobs)

<comment><USER61> I was going to write landing.jobs as well.. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> We're looking maybe one or too developers to a senior team in Berlin. C++/Clojure/Rust.

<comment><USER63> The bad thing in Berlin is that 60K is a ceiling for senior engineers...

<comment><USER64> Compared to the Bay Area you'll pay 1/2-1/4th of the rent/mortgage and soon 1 EUR will be 2 USD, so I'd say it might not be so clear cut. Add in cheaper childcare and medical expenses. Also California taxes might actually be higher than German taxes (or at least in the same ballpark).

<comment><USER65> "Compared to the Bay Area you'll pay 1/2-1/4th of the rent/mortgage and soon 1 EUR will be 2 USD"

1 Euro is currently ~ $1.10 US. Are you being facetious?

I agree with you on everything else though. Everything in Berlin seems reasonably priced. And it seems like a good quality of life there for a city. People seem pretty relaxed.

<comment><USER63> I believe US election results will have consequences for USD...

<comment><USER65> Can you elaborate? In what way? The Federal Reserve sets the monetary policy not the President.

<comment><USER28> Fiscal policy is much more likely to raise velocity of money than "excess reserves" are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I'd firstly pick a country and then look at job boards for that location. For example, assuming you mean abroad relative to the US, then I run [https://cleanwebjobs.com](https://cleanwebjobs.com), which is mostly UK based.

</comment><comment><USER67> I'm with a MarTech company based in Berlin and we're having a few vacancies atm.

We're also happy to support with relocation.

[https://crossengage-jobs.personio.de/?language=en#all](https://crossengage- jobs.personio.de/?language=en#all)

</comment><comment><USER68> I'm part of a recruitment firm that specializes in overseas jobs, mostly Asia as we're based in HK. (Our name is Terminal 1 even.)

Please contact me (email in profile) if you're interested in moving out here.

</comment><comment><USER69> Someone should post a 'Who is Hiring Outside of America' thread.

</comment><comment><USER70> There is such thing: www.techmeabroad.com

It only lists Tech job offers from companies willing to recruit internationally and to sponsor working visa if necessary. It's free. I co- created that website. Enjoy :)

</comment><comment><USER71> We can help, www.vanhack.com, our focus is helping international tech talent get jobs in Canada.

Check out our jobs board: app.vanhack.com/jobboard and shoot me an email with any questions: email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER72> When I worked in Japan, they did already have job search boards setup for software developers setup (forkwell.com). I would imagine some of the other countries might have something similar.

</comment><comment><USER73> I'm looking now too.

</comment><comment><USER74> If you're looking for a job in France (only in French though): [https://www.linuxjobs.fr](https://www.linuxjobs.fr)

<comment><USER75> Nothing when I type the keyword C# ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Networking.

Seriously, ask your social network contacts in the countries that interest you. Demand for good developers is high everywhere, odds are there are openings at their companies.

Don't just go and browse job offers on random websites, that's inefficient and a lot of good offers are not there anyway. Another option would be to subscribe to something like [https://www.talent.io/](https://www.talent.io/). Or, if you know some, just get in touch with headhunters in the country. They often have very good offers nobody knows about.

<comment><USER77> The head hunters in European countries are particularly good at placing engineers across borders. I have worked with English head hunters placing engineers in Germany.

</comment></comment><comment> Pirate-of-SV For Sweden: LinkedIn and Stack Overflow Careers will take you pretty far in the job search.

</comment><comment><USER78> My girlfriend found a job in Sydney when we were living in the US through Hired

</comment><comment><USER79> TechMeAbroad is a website that is basically what you're asking for.

</comment><comment><USER80> Who is Hiring posts offers jobs for a wide range of countries

</comment><comment><USER81> No real reason, other than Trump becoming our next president maybe?

</comment><comment><USER82> whoishiring.io

<comment><USER82> If I remember correctly, it started as a pet project of some guy who wanted to tech himself some techniques. It is a great aggregation of sources that is first filtered by geo (also holds remote positions), and then can be filtered deeper on other criteria such as skills/languages or visa-supporting employers.

Highly recommended.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> I found a couple that seem ok. They let you filter by country and job type.

[http://jobs.goabroad.com/](http://jobs.goabroad.com/)

[http://www.overseasjobs.com/](http://www.overseasjobs.com/)

</comment><comment><USER84> How are the immigration processes in various countries ?

US is awful visa-wise, considering that much of the cap is filled up in a day by Indian body shops; ensuring thus that one can at best start in October, and set out on this magical journey 6-12 months ahead.</comment>


San Francisco's Seismic Gamble - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/17/us/san-francisco-earthquake-seismic-gamble.html <comment><USER2> There are always ways to build the tall buildings safely- they're just more expensive. These buildings aren't unsafe because there's no choice, they're unsafe because the builders wanted to save money and the building code was too loose to stop them.

Japan is a highly volitile region, tectonically speaking, yet they've managed to build lots of tall buildings safely. How? By having some of the strictest building codes in the world, yet allowing development within those rules.

Meanwhile, outside of SF itself, the Bay area refuses to build any real density that's desperately needed, using earthquakes as (one of many) excuses for NIMBYism and entrenched interests of landlords.

<comment><USER3> As an architect in San Francisco, I would definitely prefer to be in a modern high rise here over other buildings for safety purposes during an earthquake. I am highly skeptical of this article as I have in depth knowledge of seismic engineering, the building code and the updates after every earthquake around the world to the code and engineering practices.

The leaning building across from my office, for example, has nothing to do with seismic issues but basic design/engineering/construction flaws in not extending the pile footings deep enough to solid ground as others in the area have such as the new Salesforce tower.

<comment><USER4> Your comment seems to echo that of another architect quoted in the article.

 _Ron Klemencic, the chief executive of Magnusson Klemencic Associates, the company that did the structural engineering for Salesforce Tower, says he agrees that water and sewage systems need higher strength requirements, but not high rises. "Buildings falling on top of other buildings — that's not going to happen," Mr. Klemencic said._

They never explained why Klemencic's reasoning. Care to explain why _" buildings falling on top of other buildings — that's not going to happen"_?

<comment><USER5> My understanding is that the way buildings collapse in Hollywood is not how they collapse in reality. If the base of the structure begins to fail, it doesn't fall over as a tower, but crumbles into itself.

<comment><USER6> The Twin Towers took out the blocks surrounding them. Literally they fell on top of other buildings, even though they "collapsed into themselves."

I am very skeptical of anybody, no matter how experienced, that gets on the news and says "that'll never happen," regardless of what the "that" is.

Has he considered a skilled terrorist cell lacing only the east side of Salesforce Tower with explosives?

<comment><USER7> Wouldn't there be bigger concerns, terrorist attacks really don't happen that often.

It'd be like constantly worrying about protecting yourself from lightning.

<comment><USER6> You're right, but over the course of a building's lifespan, the "chance" is greater, right? So the chance of a terrorist attack against salesforce tower this year is less than the chance it might happen sometime in the next 30 years. I'm not good at statistics, though.

Anyway, this is why we have a lot of earthquake preparedness, though the chance is 5% in the next 30 years.

It's not a "constant worry," so much as a plan. There's non-negligible chance of terrorist attack, so they architect in such a way to prevent it being catastrophic. There's a non-negligible chance of your office catching fire, so they put green exit signs at the door. That sort of thing.

<comment><USER8> > though the chance is 5% in the next 30 years.

Not even close. USGS estimates over the next 30 years are: 72% probability of a M6.7 or higher 51% probability of a M7.0 or higher 20% probability of a M7.5 or higher

Source: [https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf](https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf)

<comment><USER9> And?? California building codes have improved alot since the 1980s or so. I remember the 1989 LA earthquake as I drove through the aftermath to visit my grandma about 2 weeks after, I live on the Central coast.

All in all not since 1933 has CA lost more than 100 lives in an earthquake: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Calif...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_California)

That tells me our building codes are pretty damn good.

I work at ucsb and the catilina islands recently had a 5.2 about 2 weeks ago and the building shook abit. But all in all unless we suffer an 8.0+ I'm not terribly worried (knock on wood). To put that another way, realistically for any moderate sized earthquake CA is generally well prepared in terms of architecture, unless the big one hits ... In which case just kiss your butt goodbye.

I do wish, even for the big one, that CA invested in an early warning system like Japan has ... Imagine a 5-50 seconds _warning_ of an earthquake, that would save lives, not stricter building codes: [https://youtu.be/OXXZouxPT7U](https://youtu.be/OXXZouxPT7U)

Here is a better, live example of the early warning: [https://youtu.be/n-FMpNBfna8](https://youtu.be/n-FMpNBfna8)

<comment><USER10> An early warning system might be nice, but stricter building codes are what is going to save lives. Japan has those too.

It's also worth pointing out that there has arguably not been a large quake close to a major city center in California since 1906 (for some values of "large" and "close"). The 1994 Northridge quake, which did some $15B in damage, was probably the best recent preview we have. Loma Prieta certainly did serious damage, despite being (as I recall) some 75 miles from San Francisco.

The real test is when the Calaveras Fault that runs up the east side of the SF Bay breaks. The last time was 1868, when there wasn't much there; estimated magnitude was 6.3 to 6.7. A quake of that size on that fault now — and it's getting to be likely, in the next two or three decades — is going to make a hell of a mess. We'll find out then how well a lot of things hold up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Weird that the word "Japan" occurs 0 times in an article about skyscrapers and earthquakes.

I realize the focus of the article is SF, but when the author elaborates on our lack of experience with skyscrapers in earthquakes, with no mention at all of Japan, it makes me think that this is just a clueless scare piece rather than any kind of thoughtful analysis.

<comment><USER12> Funny, earlier today I just happened to see this Tokyo earthquake footage of skyscrapers swaying violently:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACKMPD6MySs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACKMPD6MySs)

Then, in the article, I read about San Fransisco:

"the issue of seismic safety of high rises was "never a factor" in the redevelopment plans"

I can not imagine any positive outcome here.

<comment><USER13> > Funny, earlier today I just happened to see this Tokyo earthquake footage of > skyscrapers swaying violently

It's unclear from your comment, so I wanted to clarify for other people who may not know: skyscrapers are intentionally built such that they sway, as that helps to disperse the energy more than a rigid structure.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/earthquake-resistant- building...](http://www.businessinsider.com/earthquake-resistant- buildings-2011-3#the-e-defense-table-is-a-shifting-base-intended-to-simulate- an-earthquake-7)

[https://earlywarninglabs.com/old/ewl/skyscraper- safety/](https://earlywarninglabs.com/old/ewl/skyscraper-safety/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Those of you actually living / working in the Bay Area, I highly recommend looking into "NERT" \- Neighborhood Emergency Response Team[1].

It's about 18 hours of training on disaster preparedness, earthquake safety, triage, and search and rescue. The idea is twofold - the more citizens that can handle themselves and their families for the first 72 hours of a disaster, the more people that have a 72 hour timeline to death (trapped, injured) the professionals can find and rescue.

The second is that there is literally no city in the world that has the fire department resources to handle a catastrophic disaster (>8 earthquake, tsunami) without "significant loss," and so trained volunteers can do a great deal to "fill the gap."

In the 1989 earthquake untrained volunteers were critical in helping the SFFD get water into hoses [2] when the mains went down. Last count I heard is that there's about 2,000 NERTs now trained in the city. Imagine having 2,000 basic- trained volunteers helping out in a disaster. Incredible. To put it in perspective, there's only about 1,500 employees of the SFFD.

There's a city-wide drill this weekend, actually, and they need victim volunteers. If you want to get painted with gruesome injuries and scream at people in green hardhats, it could make for a great time! [4]

If you aren't in the bay area, check out the FEMA equivalent, "CERT." [3]

[1] [http://sf-fire.org/neighborhood-emergency-response-team-nert](http://sf- fire.org/neighborhood-emergency-response-team-nert)

[2] [http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/349779_128...](http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/349779_1280x720.jpg)

[3] [https://www.ready.gov/community-emergency-response- team](https://www.ready.gov/community-emergency-response-team)

[4] [https://www.eventbrite.com/e/victims-needed-volunteer-for- th...](https://www.eventbrite.com/e/victims-needed-volunteer-for-the-nert- citywide-drill-tickets-44821250567)

edit- by the way, this training is free, and comes at no obligation to actually run into burning buildings should a disaster happen (they want you to take care of your home, family, and neighbors before anything else)

</comment><comment><USER14> _" Right now the code says a structure must be engineered to have a 90 percent chance of avoiding total collapse. But many experts believe that is not enough.

"Ten percent of buildings will collapse," said Lucy Jones, the former leader of natural hazards research at the United States Geological Survey who is leading a campaign to make building codes in California stronger. "I don't understand why that's acceptable.""_

One way that reads to me is that an event over some threshold has a high probability to cause the complete collapse all of those buildings. 90% doesn't seem like a very high threshold either, if it corresponds straight out to a 1-in-10 event that seems quite bad. If it's a 90% chance of survival in a 1-in-100 event, that's better, but not great.

<comment><USER15> Current building codes are intended to design to a 10% probability of collapse in the "Maximum Considered Earthquake", which is roughly a 2475-year event. The 2475-year event has a 2% chance of occurring during the (assumed 50 year) lifetime of a building.

<comment><USER16> >the (assumed 50 year) lifetime of a building

what happens afterwards? is the building supposed to be torn down?

<comment><USER15> Nah, the building is (mostly) just as good at the end of that time. It's just a convenience to make the probabilities easier to conceptualize. If we designed buildings such that the design earthquake had a 5e-6 daily chance of occurring, we'd just be confused.

<comment><USER17> This reminds me of my favorite unit of measurement: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort)

If there is a 10% chance of collapse every 2475 years, that is ~1.1/10million per day chance, or 0.11 micromorts. That assumes 100% death during a collapse, and that the person spends all day in one of these buildings.

0.11 micromorts/day is very low, which makes the design criteria reasonable. Of course, I suspect our ability to predict infrequent events with any degree of accuracy is unlikely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This got me wondering what the Salesforce tower's builders countermeasures were for the soil and seismic issues. Surely they tried to do something.

Here's an article about what they did. (Skip the fluff in first third, it does get down to details later.)

[http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11635](http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11635)

<comment><USER19> Because of soil issues, the Transbay Terminal (Salesforce) builders had to anchor the foundations in the bedrock, which is unfortunately deep under layers of landfill and soft sand. But this fill and sand is exactly what will get liquified during a big one, so they didn't have much choice.

But what's weird, IMO, is that some of the shorter highrises like the Millennium Tower were approved to be built not anchored, but on pylons floating in the soil layer:

[https://sf.curbed.com/2016/9/16/12945600/why-millennium- towe...](https://sf.curbed.com/2016/9/16/12945600/why-millennium-tower- sinking)

[https://sf.curbed.com/2016/9/15/12930402/millennium- towner-s...](https://sf.curbed.com/2016/9/15/12930402/millennium-towner- sinking-foundation-buildings)

I mean, sure, as long as things are stable, the weight of the building will keep it in place. But I don't think anyone knows how the soft layer underneath most of SOMA will behave, when a big earthquake comes. People know it will undergo liquification, but by how much, and what will it do to buildings on "floating" foundations, that's not certain...

<comment><USER20> You assume, based on the journalists' innuendo, that friction piles are per se not seismically safe. That's wrong. Friction piles are well studied and used for tall towers in seismic zones all around the world, including Japan.

That the Millennium Tower is sinking asymmetrically doesn't necessarily mean the design was flawed, even in a high-risk earthquake zone. It could be flawed, but the very fact that it's sinking doesn't tell us that. It could merely be that out of the hundreds of towers constructed globally each year, Millennium Tower was the unlucky outlier which defied the otherwise carefully weighed odds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Witnesses on the morning of April 18, 1906, described the city's streets as rising and falling like a ribbon carried by the wind."

"one out of every four buildings in the Bay Area might not be usable after a magnitude 7 earthquake"

"At a time when the average price of a home in San Francisco is above $1.2 million..."

Why aren't people pricing in an earthquake discount? This is so totally irrational, housing in SF should be cheaper given the certain risk of an earthquake and consequent large probability of severe damage. And even if your house isn't destroyed, good luck finding a contractor post-earthquake. Even now contractors are so hard to find, over priced, and many do shoddy work, I can't imagine why people don't see this coming and stop paying this much for something that may fall down any day now.

<comment><USER21> > _Why aren 't people pricing in an earthquake discount?_

Because it's a matter of insurance, and thus reduced to a recurring premium bill.

Why not price all maintenance costs and electricity too? Living in this house for the next fifty years will cost you all these utility bills; you should get a discount from the purchase price to reflect that! :)

<comment><USER22> Lol nobody has earthquake insurance. It's exorbitantly priced.

<comment><USER23> 11% of homeowners have earthquake coverage in CA.

[http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-agenda-earthquake- insu...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-agenda-earthquake- insurance-20171002-story.html)

Like all insurance, the price reflects the risk vs the number of buyers. If more people had it, the price would be less exorbitant.

<comment><USER24> I'd think that 11% of CA homeowners is large enough that you have already hit the economies of scale and the price is largely a factor of risk. Quintupling that number is not going to reduce the price.

<comment><USER21> The number won't quintuple __unless __the price is reduced. Of course if 89% of the people were cheerfully willing to pay what the 11% are paying, then the price wouldn 't change. And in that imaginary world, 89% would be covered.

The question is why don't the insurance people work a bit harder to broaden the coverage; they could make more money even at a lower price point.

Perhaps, those who are not covered are too resistant; they are not willing to get the coverage even at a reasonable price because of the way they perceive the risk/benefit. So that is to say, maybe it's a "hard sell".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Love every opportunity to link to this story: [http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_t...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_tower_design_flaw_that_could_have_wiped_out_the_skyscraper.html)

The Citigroup building in NYC had a fundamental design flaw that could cause it to collapse.

<comment><USER26> That story is pretty well known in Engineering circles - we used it as an ethics case study at my Australian University.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Apparently South Michigan is the safest place to live from natural disasters: [https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-safest-place-to-live-in- th...](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-safest-place-to-live-in-the-USA-that- is-least-likely-to-be-effected-by-earthquakes-tsunamis-volcanic-eruptions-or- similar-events#!n=12)

<comment><USER28> IIRC, Las Vegas is also pretty high on that list, hence the data centers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > The goal of the code, say proponents of a stronger one, should be the > survival of cities — strengthening water systems, electrical grids and > cellular networks — not just individual buildings.

I'm not sure how you'd prevent water & sewer lines from breaking during an earthquake - they're surrounded by earth (or secured along concrete walls in buried vaults) so they're going to get motion & shear all along their length - so not much room to flex. Assuming they were made of a flexible material and not cast iron.

One of the reasons why the 1906 earthquake was so devastating were the fires afterwards, where the fire companies couldn't get water.

<comment><USER30> After the 1906 earthquake, SF started adding large, distributed cisterns to store water throughout the city. I'd imagine there are lots of similar sorts of tweaks you could make - more a focus on a distributed, resilient _grid_ than preventing pipe breaks entirely.

<comment><USER6> Even in 1989 they couldn't get water, they had to suck it out of the bay.

<comment><USER30> That appears to be part of the water supply plan (makes a lot of sense to use the water they've got there), and the cistern system appears to have partially functioned: [http://www.sfmuseum.net/quake/revawss.html](http://www.sfmuseum.net/quake/revawss.html)

> The upper zone of the AWSS, however, functioned normally through the > earthquake period, and was used to suppress earthquake-caused fires.

Looks like they're building more: [http://abc7news.com/news/over-30-cisterns- to-be-built-in-sf-...](http://abc7news.com/news/over-30-cisterns-to-be-built- in-sf-to-prepare-for-earthquake/68515/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Of all the natural disasters, I seem to shudder at earthquakes the most. May be because I am biased by witnessing the destruction brought by the 2001 earthquake in India. The thought that at any moment, without warning, the safe abode you are in might come crashing down on you is pretty scary.

I wonder with human population increasing and with the shortage of urban land needing highrises, what is the long term solution to this.

<comment><USER32> The long term solution would be having enough energy to modify the earth enough in order to prevent earthquakes.

From [http://mkaku.org/home/articles/the-physics-of- extraterrestri...](http://mkaku.org/home/articles/the-physics-of- extraterrestrial-civilizations/) :

"For example, a Type I civilization is a truly planetary one, which has mastered most forms of planetary energy. Their energy output may be on the order of thousands to millions of times our current planetary output. Mark Twain once said, "Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it." This may change with a Type I civilization, which has enough energy to modify the weather. They also have enough energy to alter the course of earthquakes, volcanoes, and build cities on their oceans."

<comment><USER33> It seems a lot easier to build floating cities than to cool Earth's core enough to stop earthquakes.

<comment><USER34> That would be a very stupid thing to do because it would also stop the Earth magnetic field which helps to shield us from cosmic radiation.

<comment><USER33> When we have the technology to cool Earths core(!), we'll also be able to make our own magnetic field.

<comment><USER35> Stopping plate tectonics also has longterm consequences for the deep carbon cycle and climate which we'd better be prepared to handle. Though we probably have to tackle that particular problem way before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Great/Scary article. Has anyone worked in the tilting building? Are there cracks in the walls? Is the soil compaction expected to stop (some max density type thing)? I think they stopped the tower of Pisa tilting by injecting concrete under it. It must be difficult to not exasperate they problem at the start of the injection (I am guessing they have to remove some material first).

<comment><USER37> I knew someone who lived in the building, and while she didn't report cracks in the walls, she did say that things would reliably roll toward one corner of her apartment if they weren't secured.

<comment><USER38> 14 inches over 58 stories works out to 0.10 degrees. That doesn't seem like enough to make anything roll. You might have to shim your billiard table.

<comment><USER39> Your math is wrong. The relevant angle is not 14 inches over 58 stories, it is 14 inches over the horizontal length of the building.

I'm not sure what this. Guessing maybe 120 feet, e.g., gives a tilt of 180/pi * arctan(14/12/120) = 0.56 degrees.

<comment><USER40> Sorry, you are the one with the wrong math. The building is out 14 inches at the top. You divide that by the height to get the angle. What you calculated is the lean for a building which sank 14 inches on one side. That would be way worse - an excursion of [edit] 6 feet at the top.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Very one sided article and full of scaremongering.

There is no comparison with building codes of other countries which are earthquake prone (such as JP or TW), only example is provided (Millennium Tower) and it is unclear if liquifaction will only affect skyscrapers or 1-2 storey buildings too.

</comment><comment><USER42> >Previous earthquakes have revealed flaws with some skyscrapers. A widely used welding technique was found to rupture during the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles. (Many buildings in San Francisco and Los Angeles have not been retrofitted.)

That statement really boggles the mind.

How do you own some of the most valuable property in the world, and not maintain it in the simplest of ways against something that could literally destroy your investment? After 24 years of knowing that your building was in danger?

</comment><comment><USER43> I thought the massive water tank at the top of One Rincon Hill , to control swaying in the event of earthquakes, was interesting: [https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/One-Rincon-tower- feat...](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/One-Rincon-tower-features- water-tank-on-top-to-3299035.php)

<comment><USER44> Straight from the article:

> The damper system has no connection with the seismic safety of One Rincon. > It is always a challenge to build a tall structure in earthquake country, > and One Rincon's engineering response was to use outriggers, tall reinforced > concrete columns built around the core of the building.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> > For years the city restricted building height to 500 feet in most > neighborhoods.

Surely that's a typo? Because that is kind of insane.

<comment><USER46> Why? That's about a 50 story building.

<comment><USER47> Yes, which is way higher than I'd expect, given SF's general opposition to high-rises. According to Google, the actual limit is 40 feet.

Example article I found: [https://recklesslyoptimistic.com/san-franciscos- height-restr...](https://recklesslyoptimistic.com/san-franciscos-height- restrictions-and-the-city-s-dark-future-c7796fafb07c)

<comment><USER46> Here's another article cutting a height restriction near 500 feet.

[http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11635](http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11635)

There are probably more height restrictions in different areas, and a 500 foot limit is actually quite restrictive. It would have prevented Salesforce Tower. The Empire State Building is over 100 floors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> It's not an if, it's a when. You couldn't pay me enough to live in SF.

</comment><comment><USER49> This presentation is absolutely fantastic. Hard to remember a better example of digital journalism well used. No gimmicks - just relevant information intuitively presented. Excellent!

<comment><USER50> My mileage aired from yours: I would have been happier simply wth pitctures rather than something that hijacked the scrolling and interrupted the flow of reading. Reading on an iPad fwiw.

<comment><USER49> I actually went and tried it out on an iPad too. I admit it's not as nice an experience - in fact it almost seems buggy, scrolling up past the top of the viewport before the JS notices and suddenly pushes it back down. They could improve that. At least make it less jarring.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Reason no. 42614 not to live in the San Francisco Bay Area.

<comment><USER6> Don't live in Houston because hurricanes and flooding.

Don't live in New York or Chicago because cold.

Don't live in Seattle because rain.

Don't live in Taipei because earthquakes and a bunch of cruise missiles pointed at it.

Don't live in Seoul because artillery and a dictator across the street.

Don't live in Miami because hurricanes.

Don't live in Madison, WI because tornadoes.

Don't live in Hill Country because ambulance will take 20 minutes to get to you when you step on a rusty barn nail.

<comment><USER52> Cold and rain seem like they don't belong on that list unless you're homeless.

<comment><USER6> There is a reason I moved from cold and rain to an earthquake risk city.

Some people will take death over ever having to shovel again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> It seems shockingly irresponsible that it is allowed to build high rises in areas that can undergo liquefaction.

No matter how strong the building is if the ground gives up it must fall over.

<comment><USER54> IIRC the proper way to handle that is by anchoring the foundation of the building to the bedrock underneath the layers which can undergo liquefaction. That's done by means of drilling as deep as necessary to put the foundation and then adding pylons on which the building rests.

Depending on how deep the liquefaction-prone layers go, that's could be an option that's realistic _only_ for a high rise.

<comment><USER53> And how does that relate to Millennium tower which has already "sunk a foot and a half"?

What if high rise building is anchored through all liquefaction-prone layers but the layers start to shift (they are on slight incline) when they get liquified? I am not expert but I can imagine it is possible that, if the structural support is long enough, just few inches of lateral movement may completely compromise the support.

<comment><USER55> Because the millennium tower did NOT do the correct thing, and did not anchor it to bedrock.

They would be having problems if they did it the right way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Shameless plug: At my company, tensorflight.com, we use computer vision on satellite/aerial/street view imagery to extract factors used for predicting the earthquake damage. For example, construction type or the number of stories mentioned in the article.

Given factors extracted by us, to get the full picture you may use open source catastrophe modelling software, Hazus released by FEMA.</comment>


Ask HN: Crowd funding with equity, good or bad idea? - <AUTHOR>

I am curious to know everyone's thoughts on equity-based crowd-funding.  In traditional crowd-funding platforms (such as Kickstarter), users do not get equity from their investment (their only potential return is the product/related swag).  The reason equity is not offered is because it is currently illegal to sell equity without being an accredited investor in the US, however very soon it may be legal.  See:
http://www.earlyshares.com/learn/jobs-act
I know I would personally love to be able to give something more back than just a product, but I am aware of the danger/complications of selling securities with little governance.  Also most VCs (perhaps rightfully) are not very interested in investing in the risky kinds of products that I would enjoy working on, but I feel if the risk were heavily distributed people might be more confident in investing.
What are your thoughts on this? <comment><USER2> Equity gives shareholders legal rights and creates an opportunity for mischief. A well funded competitor could tie your company up in court for a few dollars via something as simple as alleging a fraudulent practice.

Unlike professional investors, lay persons tend to have wildly unrealistic expectations about the return from a small equity stake in a business.

To me, the burden of managing small unsophisticated shareholders - and lots of them - is likely to take more energy than it is worth.</comment>


Help. RSS 2 POST? Is there one? - <AUTHOR>

I am looking for a RSS reader that checks for changes if changes found it will send a post request.<p>Preferably in Python. Is there anything that does this that you know of? <comment><USER2> <http://www.feedparser.org/> will help you make light work of that</comment>


Life's Work: Salman Khan - <AUTHOR> http://hbr.org/2014/01/salman-khan/ar/pr <comment><USER2> > _I set hard lines. Weekends are for my family. I do not touch the computer > unless it is an absolute emergency. When I come back on Monday, I'm > refreshed and productive. The same goes for evenings. I've been up on stage > at speaking events and said, "I have to go give my kids a bath now," and > everyone is shocked. But if I can't have dinner with my kids, give them a > bath, and read them a book before bed, something is wrong in my life._

This should be expressed more often and by a lot more people. Great to hear this from someone I already admire.

</comment><comment><USER3> _Curiosity is a hard thing to squash, but the traditional model of education manages pretty well: Listen to lectures, take notes, feed back what you learned, and then forget it all. You're not allowed to go beyond the curriculum. Khan Academy is all about giving more breathing room. You want to go deep? Go deep. I had this to some degree at the public school I went to in Louisiana, where there were gifted programs. Every day, starting in second grade, they took me out of class for an hour, and I would go to another room, with a mixed age group. The first time I went, I thought it was the biggest racket. I walked up to Miss Rouselle's desk, and she asked, "What do you like to do?" I was like, I'm seven years old—shouldn't you be telling me what to do? But I said, "I like to draw. I like puzzles." She said, "OK, have you used oil paints? Have you done Mind Benders?" Soon I looked forward to that hour more than I did to spending the night at my friend's house. And I learned more that applies to what I do today than in the five other hours of the day combined._

In NYC, they start prepping kids for admissions testing before they are 3. By pre-K they are teaching kids to sit still for written exams. "Experts" discourage kids from learning multiple languages since some K admissions exams test vocabulary. "Experts" discourage kids from prematurely learning to read because most K admissions exams only test aural reasoning.

Salman's points about the system destroying curiosity is 100% absolutely true. I don't have a good solution other than to find a way to improve all the schools in the system. Nobody has shown how to do this yet.

<comment><USER4> Wow, that sounds incredibly bad. Back to the dark ages instead of looking to the future!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _All of them, even though they sit on top of empires, go deep and try to understand things themselves. They're very hands-on. And they're incredibly curious._

Well a great piece of advice for everyone. The more you are curious, the more you will love your job, the better you perform, more fulfilled life you live.

</comment><comment><USER6> Being an entrepreneurial educator myself, it's so good to read about Khan's ideas and experiences. This article has inspired me to work harder and have a go at video delivery.

Hopefully I can make a positive difference in the world like Khan has.</comment>


You shall judge by the code alone - <AUTHOR> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7516 <comment><USER2> Interesting comments there. I don't know much about this case, but Larry Garfield actually doesn't seem to have done anything much except hold unpopular opinions. I wonder how esr's ideology would cover a case like ReiserFS (a linux file system by a man who murdered his wife) or a much worse case.</comment>


Using GitHub for Push-to-Deploy to Google App Engine - <AUTHOR> http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2014/04/using-github-for-push-to-deploy.html

<comment><USER2> Is there any option to run a test suite before deploying? Otherwise this is about as dangerous as fixing code on a production server.

<comment><USER3> You typically will only be pushing in to master once the changes have passed through a CI system where you'd run all of your tests.

<comment><USER4> Most people pass their code to a CI system _after_ it's been pushed. Run your unit tests locally, push your code, run it through your CI system (integration and unit tests, anything else), then push goldbits to production.

<comment> robinson-wall Yes, but on a different branch. CI runs tests then merges to master (or whatever branch triggers deployment) and pushes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm the tech lead for the GitHub integration, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

<comment><USER6> Is it possible to do custom builds on the GCE instance thats building and deploying your code? I.e. run scripts to minify JS, etc? Or is this something you would do locally and make sure the artifacts were checked into git?

Similarly if you run full functional tests (selenium in a browser), can these be started on the gce instance and be part of the "test" step?

<comment><USER5> We discourage checking in artifacts (e.g., minified JS) into source control because it defeats the purpose in a lot of ways.

Currently there is no support for custom build/test steps but the builds that are done for Java apps are done using Jenkins so you can imagine that in the fullness of time anything Jenkins supports would also be supported as a pre- deploy step. I don't have any specific details though, as my work has been focused on the GitHub integration.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> at Codeship (I'm one of the founders) you can run your tests and use our app engine integration to push whenever your tests pass. Setup takes a minute. let me know if you have any questions at firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>