Coding Boot Camps Get the Boot: Why the Industry Is Shutting Down - <AUTHOR> https://thetechladder.com/story/coding-boot-camps-get-boot-industry-shutting/ <comment><USER2> "While coding boot camps had many course listings on JavaScript, Ruby, and web development, they had none that covered product management, wireframing, cloud computing, DevOps, or Agile methodologies"

I have a 4 year computer science degree and I didn't learn any of the listed topics either, so I'm not sure if the article is implying that other institutions do prepare new grads for these topics. The main advantage I see from bootcamps is that you basically code intensely for 4 months, learn the most important stuff to be productive (at least in small scale) right away, and then you're able to tackle more in depth topics by yourself.

<comment><USER3> Ditto on the CS Degree. Closest thing I learned to the above skills that was part of the curriculum was Waterfall, UML, and making ERDs. Had to teach myself git.

<comment><USER4> You joking right? I got my cs degree 15 years ago and back then i learned Waterfall, UML, and making ERDs...

<comment><USER5> It is still the same people teaching the courses probably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it's a big leap from "two large bootcamps have closed" to "the bootcamp industry is shutting down".

Like anything else, there was a big race to capture the market once Dev Bootcamp proved it could work, and now the market is correcting itself. No reason to think bootcamps are going to stop existing altogether.

<comment><USER7> Exactly. There's good bootcamps and bad bootcamps, of course some will shut down. What other industry would cause this headline?

A grocery store down the street from me closed, I guess supermarkets are all dying!

<comment><USER8> If there were zero supermarkets ten years ago then this analogy might make sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think that bootcamps actually can work well for people who already have highly honed analytical and logical reasoning skills, but for whatever reason haven't gotten involved in programming. For instance, a linguistics or philosophy major, or maybe a pure math major, who hasn't done any programming. For example, in a math class on graph theory, we essentially did DFS and BFS, but through proof, not through code.

I think one of the reasons bootcamps may be closing is there just aren't enough people like this to train. 6 weeks can do amazing things for people who come in with years of intense analytical training, but it's not a curriculum that can create that core skill in 6 weeks - that takes years - actually, decades.

<comment><USER10> I completely agree. I did my undergrad and grad studies in philosophy, specifically focusing on contemporary and symbolic logic, before joining a six month bootcamp. Before the bootcamp, I had at least six months of development experience. Would I do it again? Absolutely, the bootcamp gave me discipline, a network, and a schedule to fill the gaps in my development experience. Did it teach me computer science? No way. We spent a week on it and hardly covered bubble sort, quick sort, and binary search. Although I have only touched the surface of computer science, I view it as an extension of my training in logic, and philosophy as an abstraction of pure mathematics. I know that if I want better jobs I will have to continue to learn algorithms, data structures, architecture, etc.

Bootcamps can direct an analytical inclination, but rarely, if ever, create it. I am not at all sure that the conclusion is that bootcamps are ineffective. The issue is not with bootcamps as such, but with those who believe that the hard work is done by just showing up for lecture or doing the minimum in homework. I like to think that bootcamps are just an extension or tool to employ as an autodidact.

There has always been a divide between those jobs which require a more rigorous foundation and jobs which need someone to bang out some semi-workable code for a website. Bootcamp grads are often under the wrong impression that they are qualified for the first type without some experience doing menial tasks.

<comment><USER11> Just like most things in life, you get out of it what you put into it.

> I like to think that bootcamps are just an extension or tool to employ as an > autodidact.

If you are an autodidact, a bootcamp isn't even required. The Internet is chock full of resources for learning programming that makes it extremely simple to learn on your own. I look at a bootcamp as paying for connections. A Bootcamp should help get you in touch with prospective employers or connect you with other developers with similar goals. Learning how to program is the easy part when compared to learning the soft skills required to be part of or build a successful company.

<comment><USER10> That's true. I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's easy. One of the biggest difficulties when learning programming is just knowing where to start. Looking for mentors or resources isn't difficult. On the contrary, you are inundated with varying opinions. Making decisions about which technology to employ is an exercise in futility. A bootcamp helped me to not only learn technologies, but also how to make what at first seems like arbitrary choices. I credit this to my world-class instructor. It doesn't sound like everyone was so lucky.

Without initial guidance and a firm commitment, we end up with questions like, "Should I learn Java or Javascript?" or "Can I learn Go in a week?" Is it possible to self teach completely? Yes. But you would need both discipline and analytical rigor as well as the humility to find help when you run into issues. I went into the bootcamp looking for both a mentor, which I found, and connections, which I also found.

<comment><USER11> > That's true. I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's easy.

I assume you mean the self teaching part? Agreed. That's why I said simple. I should have been more clear.

> Without initial guidance and a firm commitment, we end up with questions > like, "Should I learn Java or Javascript?" or "Can I learn Go in a week?" Is > it possible to self teach completely? Yes. But you would need both > discipline and analytical rigor as well as the humility to find help when > you run into issues. I went into the bootcamp looking for both a mentor, > which I found, and connections, which I also found.

I think this is a good way to look at it. I'm personally 100% self taught. I actually dropped out of college(financial issues), but I'm glad I did. I was able to learn so much more on my own. I can understand how a lot of people wouldn't be able to do what I did because they just don't see things the way I do I guess. For the type of people who require guidance from the more experienced, I think what you said above makes a lot of sense.

I would, however, caution anyone who is an autodidact from going to a bootcamp simply on the premise of it being extremely expensive. If you have the ability to teach yourself these skills, there's really no good reason to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a bootcamp to learn at a pace dictated by your peers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm glad they're going away.

> While coding boot camps had many course listings on JavaScript, Ruby, and > web development, they had none that covered product management, wireframing, > cloud computing, DevOps, or Agile methodologies. In other words, they don't > teach students the other important entrepreneurial tech skills. This makes > sense seeing how their focus is coding. But as I stated in my last article, > many recruiters are not just looking for engineers, but DevOps engineers – > those who have strong leadership, communication, and team-building skills. > Being a coding god is one skill set, but knowing how to work collaboratively > on a technical team and manage a product is another skill set in itself.

This type of belief in what "coding" is, is hugely responsible for both the rise and fall of these horribly designed, while possibly well-intended, "bootcamps."

Being a good software developer has absolutely _nothing_ to do with "important entrepreneurial tech skills." Knowing how to tackle problems, envision loops and algorithms, write pseudocode, understand the basics of how requests on the Internet work, or how your computer accesses databases or files; these are skills of a good software developer.

The end goal of being a software developer is not CEO.

"many recruiters are not just looking for engineers, but DevOps engineers"

No, recruiters all over the world are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year because they can't find any competent programmers anymore. There are hundreds of people who were taught how to write a conditional in Ruby on Rails available, but ask them to tackle a problem like: "how would you store 1 million strings, search through them while caching results, and make sure only certain individuals can access certain strings," and you get a deer in the headlights look. So recruiters don't ask questions like that anymore. They ask questions that can be simply memorized and regurgitated.

When there's no difference between cramming for your History 101 mid-term and a technical interview for a software developer, we're not in a good spot.

The sooner we can dispel the myth that programming and software is just "coding," "hustling," and "entrepreneurial skills" the sooner companies won't have to pony up over $150k/yr to find a competent software developer.

<comment><USER13> LOL!

So your argument that what makes a person a good software engineer is the whiteboard coding algorithms?

That stuff is EASIER to learn than actual software engineering skills. All you got to do is spend a couple months cramming from the book cracking the code interview.

You learn that stuff in a singular CS class, that's called data structures and algorithms.

You are right about one thing though, if we are in a state where you can cram for your interview, that is a bad spot. And that is precisely the problem with the CS algorithms type questions!

The "hard" stuff in software engineering is about how you design maintainable code, how you design high level architecture, and generally all the skills that go into coding in a TEAM as opposed to be a programming superstar individual.

<comment><USER14> > So your argument that what makes a person a good software engineer is the > whiteboard coding algorithms?

No, his argument is that what makes a person a good software engineer is the ability to think about an abstract problem and come up with a solution to it.

<comment><USER15> That may be his argument, but his example is exactly the kind of "whiteboard coding algorithms" trivia that people mistake for engineering in this industry.

I'd agree with his argument if that's what it is, just not his example.

<comment><USER12> > I'd agree with his argument if that's what it is, just not his example.

I guess I wasn't very clear, then. The parent is correct, my argument did include: "ability to think about an abstract problem and come up with a solution to it."

I was trying to use a bit of brevity in my example but these responses make me believe I oversimplified an actual recent problem I had in mind (which is what I believe make the best interview questions). I do try to attach more business needs to the questions I've asked during interviews. Instead of:

"how would you store 1 million strings, search through them while caching results, and make sure only certain individuals can access certain strings"

What I really had in my head was: "We have tens of thousands of PDFs that we need to extract text from to make available. That text needs to be normalized. Only certain members of certain teams should have access to different types of text. Additionally, this is going to produce millions of strings. How would you get the PDFs to a place you could use them, extract the necessary text, normalize it, store it, utilize caching to make retrieving it snappy, and ensure correct access?"

Technical interviews should be more full of questions that spark conversations where additional inquiries come naturally. What kind of software? What version? What framework? Could you do that faster? And so on. Rattling off whiteboard questions is definitely what I was trying to make an example of avoiding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> So I think this is completely wrong. Bootcamps are providing a route to jobs that doesn't involve taking another for years it for a university degree; it's a massive gain in efficiency.

By being smaller, bootcamps should have more ability to pivot content to match market demands, and give students advice on directions to persue. Front end development needs for entry level people are getting satisfied, so it's time to how some new teachers and refocus curriculum. Camps need to market as great learning spaces, rather than throwing their whole rep behind a single specially.

The notion that the space is overcrowded is bullshit; it just depends where you set your sights. I don't think we would call university education an overcrowded space, in spite of serving many orders of magnitude more students than the bootcamps currently are... One can argue that there are too many law schools, charging to much to create too many entry level lawyers. Hand wringing about these two camps closing is like worrying that there are too many law schools specializing in bankruptcy law.

Ultimately I think the closures are more about these two companies failing to adapt than any kind of general lesson about bootcamp education.

<comment><USER17> University education is absolutely an overcrowded space. Most colleges do not live up to their cost. Students are starting to notice and choose other options.

It's also well known theres too many law schools and too many lawyers. It's a bad market to enter into now.

<comment><USER18> How many STEM PhDs/year vs tenure track positions?

As as a civilisation we massively over-educate, but under-train...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> These bootcamps are too basic for starters. They never take you beyond the basics. Secondly, the industry has changed. You need to know more things than you did previously. Even computer science grads aren't necessarily "ready" for the workforce. Education is behind in general instead of ingrained into the community with which it wishes to operate. They are always lagging behind or even way behind.

On some level I feel as though businesses need to get real and just pick someone for the job even entry level. There is nothing wrong with a business investing in its talent rather than expecting everyone to come in with prepackaged with everything you want them to know. Most of the people hiring these days didn't know how to do any of the stuff people are doing when they come out of bootcamp when they started their careers.

<comment><USER20> I feel the idea of coding "bootcamps" is incomplete. Military training doesn't stop at bootcamp- it's just the beginning. Everyone in the military starts in bootcamp, but move on to more specialized skills and a different level of training.

Coding bootcamps are an incomplete idea. You need a program that takes you from Bootcamp to the coding equivalent of Navy Seals, and everything in between. And just as in the metaphor, for the 100 in bootcamp, maybe 1 makes it to the Seals- through years of training and real world experience.

<comment><USER16> The bootcamp is followed by years of hands on experience at an actual job. Which, hopefully, has good opportunities learning and mentorship within it's own ecosystem.

(Meanwhile, there are a handful of Stanfords cranking out what are supposed to be the Navy seals, and not meeting demand...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why do people think a 12 week course will make a non-technical person ready for a junior developer role? Most developers I know have years of deep experience with computers before becoming professional programmers. (Things like fixing driver issues, installing linux, patching games etc).

I have several friends who went to bootcamps had no deep technical interest beforehand. They just heard that computer programming was good money, and they enrolled. To me, the ideal bootcamp student would be the person who dabbles with programming or programming-tangential technologies on the side, but just needs that little extra boost. That is a very small number of people if experience is any guide.

I just don't think it's reasonable to go from 0 to junior developer in 12 weeks if you don't have that technical history. It's why you can't become a doctor in 12 weeks, generally. The four year degree programs force exposure to programming and programming-thinking for 4 dedicated years. This is enough to close the gap for non-technical people, but 12 weeks is surely not.

<comment><USER22> >>They just heard that computer programming was good money, and they enrolled.

I think this is the biggest possible problem with them. I've known a few people who've gone through it and done well. The different between them and others is that they want to be programmers. The 12 week course didn't teach them everything, but it taught them enough to go and figure out what questions to ask and search for. Those people who are in it for the money are going to burn out, because it takes a lot more dedication than a 12 week course.

When I interview interns for the upcoming summer, I always ask the same question, "Why do you want to do this?" They always get this puzzled look on their face, and then I explain to them that dollar per hour, this is one of the lowest paid fields if they want to be successful. You'll end up working nights and weekends, not because of the company you work for (although maybe), but because a lot of developers want to know more. They go home and think about what they did and how to make it better. People who are strictly in it for the money won't do this, and so many of them won't succeed.

<comment><USER23> Many students don't understand why they go into their chosen fields at first. They say it is "passion for---" when really, it just seems like a stable, responsible profession that their parents approve of. Along the way, hopefully, with the help of fantastic teachers, a true love of the subject emerges, deeper interests within it are explored and uncovered, and a great doctor or lawyer is made. (My own PCP and another surgeon of mine and my dentist are some of these amazing people) There are other versions of this. Artists and musicians who realize they won't make it go into medicine to make money, at their last available second before their ship goes down. The thing is, they learned something from their previous profession... they learned how to really get into a lifelong pursuit with rigor and intensity and invention and purpose. One never loses the need for that once it is activated. These bootcamps are flooded with folks like this- those who crave actual content to sink their mental teeth into, with Actual Masters in the field to help guide them in a more financially (but no less interesting and intellectually worthy) rewarding/viable direction than the direction they had been going in as a performance artist or Morris dancer (the profession they chose as pre-teens). I kid, but seriously. And what do they find at these bootcamps? Decidedly Not That. —No real masters in the field, no deeply engaging content on par with Morris dancing (or Russian Literature, or Political Science, or The Classics, History, or Art), and no hope for anything but the same disrespect upon leaving these "camps" from future employers than they got as Classics MAs or PHDs. They get spat upon like they presented themselves as puppeteers or mimes. This is why the money just isn't coming into these bootcamps anymore. Smart folks hide the bootcamp from their resume, which means they need to hide the associating GitHub repositories (lots of work here, folks). These graduates talk to one another. A lot. They talk about how they are treated at interviews, or even before interviews. They just don't have the money and time to fart around in their new garrett deleting work they have done that might associate them with a bootcamp, making huge portfolios of visually pleasing apps and deeply meaningful contributions to opensource software projects(not that they would not love to do just that, mind you). They need jobs. And they see other barely competent folks working jobs in tech companies who had nothing resembling their education and even coding ability getting paychecks because they got there sooner. That is why they aren't buying the snake oil anymore. It just isn't the "on ramp" these camps make it out to be anymore, even though it seems to have been for a short time.

After this thread ages for a day or so, head over to the Twitter feeds of bootcamp CEOs and directors to hear how they describe this thread as being "all anecdotal evidence of a few who "Don't Really Know What IS Going On"" instead of taking this information in... in a meaningful way and making actual change for the students they already have and the ones they hope to get in the future. That costs too much money and time. Money and time they would prefer the students spend. So these students are squeezed on both sides- by the camps who false promise and the employers who want them to arrive job-ready out of the gate. Jumping up and down and saying it ain't so isn't going to make this un-so.

I think we need to stop degrading people for wanting a job and calling that "just in it for the money". Everyone does a job "for the money". Why should a worker not want compensation for hard work? Come on! We call those people "artists" don't we? And we know how much they get paid. This isn't heading in a good direction. Let's show some vision.

<comment><USER24> I tend to hold the opposing view, but appreciate that you made this point. It's definitely my experience that people who worked mastering at the performing arts, classics/literature, or even professional gaming have something that helps them persevere and navigate through a new field.

However the idea that "a true love of the subject emerges", "the help of fantastic teachers".. I don't think I've ever met anyone who had that path to excellence AFTER entering a field, find it difficult to imagine, and I've always disliked the uncritical use of "passion for x stable, responsible profession that their parents approve of". But I might be weird and blinded and I'm going to try to notice if such people exist. It probably doesn't help that most of these professions are made of people that have never done anything else.

<comment><USER23> One "enters the field" of the arts, classics, history, law, medicine, and computer science often as children. The difference in paths taken is this: when one enters the arts or literature or history, there is a good chance one will have to leave it at some point. Many lawyers are former "writers" who while in law school get inspired by a great constitutional law professor or who while in the early days of their profession get inspired by a colleague who becomes a mentor and helps them form a new identity as writer who is also really really into law...and as I said, many doctors I know were former artists and musicians who bring that same drive toward innovation they learned in the arts to medicine. Most of those people encounter a great mentor while in their residency who helps them find a new inspiration. But a great teacher can be the content itself, or an innovator one learns about. Then, they are on that path to excellence, and even more so than someone who just did medicine the whole time. They have a depth and breadth that other doctors lack, which is why med schools have started to include literature courses these days. (i'll look for a good link on this) My point is, no one is studying actual Dijkstra in a bootcamp and he doesn't work in one either. There may be possible future Dijkstras or the like attending the bootcamp, but they often feel like they jumped into the intellectual equivalent of a quick Happy Meal when they really wanted a quick plate of gorgeous figs. Still quick, but somehow more inspiring...more nutritious.

Computer scientists often begin as children (like the others) but never have to leave their field because after all the gaming and taking stuff apart and building, they go on to be computer scientists who have excellent money making prospects when compared to literature majors.

<comment><USER24> Fair enough. I myself tried to transition to software, but went through Hacker School, now known as the Recurse Center. They're rather closer to a good meal, and are tuition-free.

I do know that medical schools have been trying to attract individuals with other backgrounds -- was recruited myself, and admissions committee members told me one reason is that doctors have the impression they may have screwed themselves by being monoculturally ignorant of economic forces, technology, etc. So they're encouraging people who aren't from the traditional biological sciences backgrounds.

I'd expect the med school literature courses to have about as much effect as med school statistics courses, though -- little to none. Plus, there's been interest in shortening med school.

<comment><USER23> >I'd expect the med school literature courses to have about as much effect as med school statistics courses, though -- little to none. Plus, there's been interest in shortening med school.

I agree with you there about the lit courses. And shortening med school is a great idea, as is allowing residents to sleep full nights on a regular basis.

The Recurse Center: It seems like a great place! I would not include it in any bootcamp discussion because it is more of a retreat than anything else-- an artist colony for programmers or something more akin to Yaddo or McDowell for coders without the snobbery. I think they might be the only ones who have gotten it right. And I agree that they are closer to a good meal. I think a transitioning person would have a good chance of finding inspiration there among its participants due to the flexibility and internal/self motivation that is emphasized and selected for.

And...no one would ever need to hide the Recurse Center (or any related GitHub repositories) from their résumé—they would highlight it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I noticed a couple (4) "No agencies, recent bootcamp grads, or visa candidates." on this month's "who is hiring?" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15148885](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15148885)

<comment><USER26> I count 5, and at least two of those are quite clear about looking to fill a senior position.

The other 3 are companies that have a bit of a reputation and I wouldn't even consider working at anyway.

<comment><USER27> > The other 3 are companies that have a bit of a reputation and I wouldn't > even consider working at anyway.

How is that relevant in this context? Regardless of company it's obviously a trend to refuse bootcamp graduates.

<comment><USER26> 3 out of 923 comments is a trend now?

I think you need to reevaluate what you consider obvious/significant.

<comment><USER28> 4 explicitly say it which is in a way kind of them.

Many others probably just drop the resume right in the trash.

<comment><USER26> You're just assuming that though. You don't have producible evidence of this. It's the conclusion that you want to draw, so anything that might provide your conclusion evidence, you take as evidence.

What I can tell you is that I know many, many bootcamp grads and virtually all of them got good jobs, at good companies and not always junior. I still don't take that as proof of anything and am willing to take evidence to the contrary where it exists though.

<comment><USER28> So you think it's likely the number of "will not hire fresh from bootcamps" is limited to the 5 which explicitly state?

No, of course it isn't. The only question is how much larger the number is. That is not assuming but extrapolating and is how statistics works.

You know some bootcamp grads that got jobs. Great. That isn't in dispute though. Perhaps some bootcamp grads getting jobs is what led to the "will not hire from bootcamp" policies. Now _that_ is an assumption. Or rather speculation.

<comment><USER26> And some companies hire bootcamp grads and only want to hire more.

There's no evidence for an industry trend here, just people letting their personal biases get the better of them (all around).

<comment><USER28> Agreed there isn't evidence of a trend.

I'm just saying the number who will not is likely larger than the number who state they will not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm not all that surprised. The biggest advantage to a Coding Boot Camp is the intense, focused study for the duration of the program - and possibly any industry experience any of the teachers bring (although I'm sure the quality of that experience varies greatly from camp to camp).

The biggest downfall I see in the idea behind the Boot Camps is that they are great at pumping out entry level coders, but don't seem to offer much in terms of career growth or learn trajectory outside of the basics. I'd be much more inclined to pay for one of these programs (which is another issue when you add the cost of tuition on top of regular living expenses + time away from work) if they offered some sort of career mentor-ship for a designated time period after landing that first role. They could offer counseling for career growth, additional classes, etc. I think that would create more return on invested from a student prospective.

Overall I think the boot camp space got way too crowed too quickly, which is understandable considering the amount of people trying to land that entry level paycheck.

<comment><USER30> Check out [https://outco.io](https://outco.io) which sounds like to covers the parts you find lacking.

<comment><USER31> This looks like every other boot camp out there. Uses buzzwords like 'pair programming' and stereotypical whiteboard background video. How do you think this differentiates itself from other boot camps? Online/Onsite is not unique.

<comment><USER30> My understanding is their curriculum covers soft skills in addition to algorithms and data structures. For example students are trained on how to communicate well, verbally and non-verbally, while white boarding, as well as how to present their experiences in best possible light in relation to the job description and what the interviewer is looking for.

I'd say that overall they focus more on the interview phase, though I see a potential to extend the curriculum to get engineers ready for promotion or a management role.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm not surprised that Google would turn down applicants from boot-camps with less than 3 years of experience. they turn down qualified engineers with over 15+ years of relevant experience.

<comment><USER33> I suspect turning down engineers with 15+ years of experience is explainable via Google's age-ism, not the actual underlying experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> We've found that coding boot camps do not produce highly skilled devs. They output over priced junior talent who believe they're all of a suddenly highly sought after "full stack engineers" worthy of $70k+ salaries because the boot camps tell them that's what their worth - and then they take a 20% recuiting fee. If we see a candidate apply that has a coding camp on their resume it's almost always a pass.

</comment><comment><USER35> The reason why boot camps are shutting down is because money is drying up. They are either predicting we are about to head into recession and/or that the hiring of entry level developers is going to dry up in the coming months/years.

Go back to 2004-2007. There were tons of "training schools" for developers. They all cashed out right around the time of the financial crisis.

Then around 2012, they all resurfaced as "boot camps".

Rising interest rates, saturated employment environment and 10 years of insane growth probably means that they don't see much room for growth in the near term so they are closing shop.

They'll be back in a few years under different branding once the environment changes.

</comment><comment><USER36> Bootcamps are just too short.

I think the sweet spot for a coursework in programming is a year to two years. That's essentially how long my university degree was if you remove the non-CS required classes.

<comment><USER37> More like 5 if people want to use the term "engineer" on their CV.

<comment><USER38> Disagree. Engineer here - I did a 6 week bootcamp and immediately got hired at Amazon. $150k+, the most I've ever been paid. Still learning tons but my experience was quite positive.

<comment><USER39> I've been interviewing a lot of people when I was in Amazon and the company had a much, much higher bar.

<comment><USER31> It was also likely a much, much smaller company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Bootcamps rode a wave of phenomenal publicity at their inception. Articles in the NYTimes and the like made me aware of Flatiron / General Assembly as alternatives to grad school, which I had just enrolled in at the time.

These "Bootcamps Are Dead" stories will to some degree be self-fulfilling. Regardless of any realities in the junior dev job market, exposure to this wave of (sinking?) submarining would give me great pause were I making the same school decision today.

</comment><comment><USER41> The article fails to mention that both dev boot camp and iron yard were acquired by some large for profit cos. The discussion on HN regarding their closure seemed to highlight that both companies had their quality of teaching severely cut post acquisition which no doubt aided their demise. Also, many of their boot camps were in secondary locations that could not support on-going employment for all their grads

</comment><comment><USER42> I think this is for the best. These have typically struck me as analogous to people taking an overpriced amateur cooking class and then hoping that qualifies them for work in a gourmet restaurant.

And it's hardly a new idea, but why pay when a quick Google search provides a mountain of free training material? Self-taught coders are a bit more impressive.

</comment><comment><USER43> I believe boot camps got a bit of traction because of the price point compared to a college degree. Once people realized they didn't learn enough and didn't get that sweet three figure silicon valley job, the hype started to fade.

We don't see the same trends in Europe, where university degrees are mostly cheap or free.

<comment><USER44> There isn't the same demand for European software engineers though. Obviously part of it is the value proposition, but I think a lot of said proposition is about the time just as much as the cost

I didn't want to waste 2-3 years getting an additional degree, and a bootcamp filled in nicely (simply a personal anecdote but it worked fine for me)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Map draws `closing` on top of `still open`, hiding reality.

<comment><USER46> You are totally correct. The default view makes it looks like Chicago had 1 closing and no openings. Zooming in reveals multiple openings in Chicago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Learning to code in 3 months != properly trained engineers

</comment><comment><USER48> "While coding boot camps had many course listings on JavaScript, Ruby, and web development, they had none that covered product management, wireframing, cloud computing, DevOps, or Agile methodologies"

As a bootcamp grad (Hack Reactor) this is only partially true; while you can easily skate by without needing to learn any of these things there are many who elect into them.

Anecdotally, from my cohort:

* Testing and version control were a part of the entire curriculum from the first sprint to our capstone code freeze. Basic git was drilled into us, as well as exploration of more involved git workflows when we began our project phase. We learned about TDD and BDD and had a sprint dedicated to setting up our own tests (with tests against our tests).

* People could elect to take product management/scrum master roles in their project teams (of which there were 3); some people elected to take these positions every project, some avoided them, but most served in a managerial capacity at least once.

* Deployment (admittedly most to Heroku, only one to AWS) was a soft requirement of every project and it was part of one of our sprints.

Outside of my cohort, many people spent extensive time working with things that weren't a core part of what we did. During my database sprint my partner and I decided against the offered MySQL sprint and wrote our own Postgres branch. Many people took deep dives into algorithms and data structures - bloom filters, red-black/b-trees, various sort implementations, etc. Some project teams built CI pipelines and deployed on AWS/GCS/Azure. Overall, while these things aren't a part of the core curriculum you'll find many people electively choose to take on far more than what's mentioned.

And I learned _none_ of that in my _full year_ of CS.

</comment><comment><USER49> Wow, they cost $26K!!?? For what they offer that seems like an outrageous amount -- and largely unaffordable for most of the target customer base.

Since the for-profit education industry had rushed in, I assume they just went for their typical milk-the-student-loan-system scam

<comment><USER31> I paid less than a third of that. The good ones are either affordable or they make you pay % of salary once you are employed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> > Bloomberg ran an article stating many students were still not prepared for > the tech industry even after their extensive training.

If you look at bootcamps as an education/career on a platter, sure. But they're no different than how a typical school should work; you get as much out of the experience as you put in. My experience at Dev Bootcamp was that those who put in the effort and had the right perspective were the ones who made it into the field after their graduation. Some people, actually many, simply don't have what it takes to be a programmer, and that shouldn't be seen as a failure on the part of bootcamps. It'd be one thing if few to none of the graduates from bootcamps succeeded in their profession, but that's simply not the case. I and many people I know wouldn't be where we are now if we didn't have the kind of bootcamp style education where we could dedicate our time to educating ourselves and hacking on shit. Yes, yes... we might have been able to do that without paying a bootcamp, for "free", yet we'd be paying the overhead of organizing people, consistently getting people together to spend time hacking on projects, etc. I was lucky enough to get one other person to hack on a project with me after bootcamp – everyone else was either too busy or out to make money from the free work of others. I'd much rather spend $20k to go to Dev Bootcamp and be able to hack with people on Node.js & Ruby projects, be in the bay area, and go to hack-a-thons every other night than spend far more than that sitting through a bunch of non-tech classes I hate to come out with some abysmally outdated skills in PHP & Java.

Just because some bootcamps have shut down doesn't mean that the model itself is a failure. Though I had some minimal experience coding on my own prior to bootcamp(let's just say I could make Hangman in Python but had no idea what object-orientation was), I was able to become proficient enough to build a live YouTube chat(before YouTube had that) with shared video controls... as a result of the experiences I had through Dev Bootcamp. You CAN learn to code in a few months, but you have to want it enough. Strange as it may seem, not everyone wants to succeed as much as others. Even if 80% of bootcamp graduates didn't become programmers after the course, that's no reason to see the bootcamp model as a failure. Not everyone is cut out for it, and yet it has changed the lives of numerous people. Though I'm sad that Dev Bootcamp is no more(which I'd still argue is a result of terrible management both prior to and after the Kaplan acquisition), I hope the idea of coding bootcamps can evolve to be more successful.

</comment><comment><USER51> "Shutting down" or "consolidating"?

</comment><comment><USER52> It's funny, until recently I thought boot camps were for people who already were working in a field who wanted to sharpen a particular skill in that field.

At least, the few my work paid for some years back were essentially that.

From the sounds of it though a lot of places are abusing these to create micro IIT Techs that hand out near worthless certificates.

<comment><USER53> > I thought boot camps were for people who already were working in a field who > wanted to sharpen a particular skill in that field

The name 'boot camp' doesn't really imply that they would be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> As someone who went to a boot camp, this doesn't surprise me at all. I don't think it's worth it for most people. BUT, I don't see them going away entirely. I'm thrilled with the boot camp I went to, and would do it all over again. Hear me out...

> Are Coding Boot Camps Worth It?

\- If the first time you're touching code is at a boot camp, it's not worth it. By the time I had started a boot camp, I had been reading books and doing tutorials on and off for 2 years. Thinking in terms of product life cycle, and your programming skills are the product, you want to go to a boot camp at the beginning of the growth phase.

\- If your instructor or TA is a graduate of the program, it's not worth it. We had instructors who had worked at F500 tech firms and a small class size. To me the real value was having 3 months worth of access to someone who in many cases made hiring decisions at those companies.

\- If the boot camp focuses more on their curriculum more than their people, it's not worth it. Curriculums are garbage, it doesn't matter what language you learn, you should be learning how to think like a developer. It's not all about focusing on the instructors too, if you've been self-studying for 2 years, and your peer doesn't know how to open a text editor, they're going to hold you back. You want a boot camp that is selective with their applicants.

\- If you're doing it for money, it's not worth it. You're not going to make an average salary right out of the school. In fact, you probably won't even be a full-time employee, plan on being a contractor for the first year. If you don't know how to find work on your own or research how to, knowing how to program isn't going to change anything.

\- You're starting at the bottom, every opportunity good or bad is an opportunity to learn. Paid or unpaid take it, eventually, you will have enough opportunities to start saying no to less valuable opportunities, but until you're 100% booked, you're a yes man or yes woman. In fact don't wait until graduation.

\- If you can't afford to take 6 months off and devote them entirely to programming, it's not worth it. I had saved for 2 years, paid off my debt, and instead of using the remaining money for a down payment on a house, I paid for tuition/living expenses to dedicate 3 months of uninterrupted time. I know I was fortunate enough to have this opportunity, but if you're going to do it, you need the resources to do it right. Otherwise, continue with self-study and find a mentor at a meetup.

\- If you're not in a tech hub, it's not worth it. San Francisco, Seattle, Austin, Portland, Chicago, New York, Toronto, Vancouver, Denver, or Montreal are good. Maybe Boston or Atlanta, don't know enough about the tech scenes there.

\- If you have medical/family issues, it's not worth it. It is stressful if you have any other things going on in your life sort them out first.

I've seen a lot of people fail, but it is still very much worth it for some people. I went to a boot camp to accelerate something I was already doing. What is said about boot camps applies to education in the broader sense as well. In many cases college isn't worth it, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't go.

<comment><USER54> which did you go to?

<comment><USER31> [https://pdxcodeguild.com/](https://pdxcodeguild.com/) They have a great community.

I was also seriously considering [https://www.appacademy.io/](https://www.appacademy.io/), I was impressed by their interview process and what they expected you to do prior to getting there, but don't know anything else about the school.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Anyone have any boot camps they think are "best-in-class"?

<comment><USER56> Recurse Center, née Hacker School, emphasizes that they are not a "boot camp", but they at least started with the best reputation.

I'm not sure where they are now in terms of reputation, though.

I think it may be that there was an unserved pool of natural talent that the first boot camps quickly served to train, and now we're down to the trickle of trainable talent that thinks boot camps are the way to go.

And as schools like NYU (where I'm currently teaching a fairly new Python certificate program) begin to grab market share as substitutes to boot camps, with their stellar reputations, the bootcamp niche will become even more difficult to compete in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> how do people feel about specialized bootcamps like data science? has anyone done them?</comment>


How about a YC for high school? - <AUTHOR> How about a YC for high school kids, and use it as a tool to change the game rules of education? <comment><USER2> Imagine a scenario when 99% of kids would fail and 1% would be extremely successful.

Personally, I do not think that children deserve that kind of mess when they have to learn and spend their time developing relationships.

Of course, you may want to send your kid to that kind of school, so YMMV.</comment>


Ask HN: What is today's equivalent of knowing how to set dip switches and IRQs? - <AUTHOR> Since the thought of anyone not having access to a fully formed idea of what was a dream for computers back in the day, what is today's niche knowledge equivalent for a teenage nerd to know which would he on par with knowing dip switch settings for an IRQ to get something to work? <comment><USER2> There is a lot of diy spirit in single board computers. The other day I helped a local tv station utilize a raspberry pi 3 as a video stream mirror. The $35 dollar computer can replace a dedicated machine marketed for this purpose costing $900 dollars. It only took about 12 lines of bash to make it work.

</comment><comment><USER3> Computers today are almost always networked but not many know just how that happens. The equivalent today I'd say is knowing about ethernet, TCP/IP, http, wifi, bluetooth and being able to connect things. IoT will make this feel like dip switches again.

</comment><comment><USER4> That world doesn't exist anymore. Computers in the 80s was far smaller a field and had less societal impact. Today, pretty much every human in the developed one has access to a computer (a cell phone). The ecosystems are lot more closed today than they used to be.

I like what the other person posted (webpage) but it isn't obscure. I'd say compiling your own Android image and putting it on a phone.

</comment><comment><USER5> Maybe HardMod or SoftMod of a games console to run homebrew and play pirate games. That's usually a one off process though.

Some of the emulators have some settings that people can noodle around with, and so if you're running it on limited hardware (RPi, RPi Zero) they can be useful to get better performance.

</comment><comment><USER6> Building a webpage, or programming if any kind.</comment>


Announcing Kubernetes 1.3: Bridging Cloud Native and Enterprise Workloads - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kubernetes.io/2016/07/kubernetes-1.3-bridging-cloud-native-and-enterprise-workloads.html <comment><USER3> Here's the changelog [https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/CHANGEL...](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md/#v130)

I'm confused as to whether scheduled jobs is in this release. Great work k8s team.

edit: I see it got pushed to 1.4 [https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/28496](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/28496). Too bad, I was really looking forward to that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, JUST missed it :(

Fortunately, we're on 3 month release cycles, so you won't have to wait long :)

Disclosure: I work at Google on Kubernetes.

<comment><USER4> Then it'll be just in time for my birthday!

Keep up the great work guys, Kubernetes is amazing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We have to thank the community for the amazing work in this release - <USER2> application support, laptop development in one command and cross cluster service federation. Onward and upward!

Disclosure: I work at Google on Kubernetes.

</comment><comment><USER5> Previous discussion when the release was tagged on GitHub late last week: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12022215](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12022215)

</comment><comment><USER6> Minikube is great for finally providing a reasonable toes-in-the-water experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep! For those that haven't seen it - [https://github.com/kubernetes/minikube](https://github.com/kubernetes/minikube) It's really cool - even runs a FULL UI locally (minikube dashboard), and supports xhyve, virtualbox, KVM and VMWare Fusion.

TL;DR

      # For Mac
      $ curl -Lo minikube https://storage.googleapis.com/minikube/releases/v0.4.0/minikube-darwin-amd64 && chmod +x minikube && sudo mv minikube /usr/local/bin/
      # For Linux
      curl -Lo minikube https://storage.googleapis.com/minikube/releases/v0.4.0/minikube-linux-amd64 && chmod +x minikube && sudo mv minikube /usr/local/bin/
      $ minikube start
      $ (99% of regular kubernetes commands here)

Disclosure: I work at Google on Kubernetes.

<comment><USER7> Why does minikube use a VM layer on Linux? Is it just for flexibility and not using the local docker daemon?

<comment><USER8> We mainly use the VM to provide a well-known and tested environment for Kubernetes to run in. Running inside a Docker container on Linux would have similar benefits, but there are still a few bugs with running some of the Kubernetes components inside containers.

We'll probably add a "native" option for Linux at some point. See this issue: [https://github.com/kubernetes/minikube/issues/261](https://github.com/kubernetes/minikube/issues/261) for a little more conversation.

Disclosure: I work at Google, on Minikube.

<comment><USER9> This is very cool, finally I don't need a datacentre to test some things :)

thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Has the documentation website been updated? I'm still seeing a lot of things that link directly to "release-1.2" and I can't find any information about RBAC. Kubernetes is great, but the docs have never been treated as a first- class citizen. I'd love to see the docs be considered part of the deliverable that is a release.

</comment><comment><USER11> Two questions:

1) Does kubernetes have checkpoint/restore on its roadmap? We'd like to restore from a checkpoint instead of a fullblown docker run...

2) Is it possible to get hired directly onto the kubernetes team?

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) Can you say more what you're looking for? Specifically image checkpoint/restore? Something else? 2) Yes! We're hiring :) However, you can start working on k8s wherever you are - we're 100% open source.

Disclosure: I work at Google on Kubernetes.

<comment><USER12> Is the open source work on Kubernetes at Google being done directly on the GitHub repo or is there an internal mirror where work is first done and internal issues tracked separately, similar to Android?

<comment><USER13> 100% open (there is no mirror repo that I'm aware of). There's certainly internal discussion, particularly when some members of the team don't want to be "seen in public", but this isn't like other projects where it's sync'ed from a hidden internal repo.

Disclaimer: while I work at Google on Cloud, and know the K8s folks, I've never even committed any changes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can't get the hello world to run... something is amiss in the instructions. I get to here, using windows:

C:\Users\kkss\hellonode>docker build -t gcr.io/<HIDDEN>/hello-node:v1 .

An error occurred trying to connect: Post [http://%2F%2F.%2Fpipe%2Fdocker_engine/v1.23/build?buildargs=...](http://%2F%2F.%2Fpipe%2Fdocker_engine/v1.23/build?buildargs=%7B%7D&cgroupparent=&cpuperiod=0&cpuquota=0&cpusetcpus=&cp) usetmems=&cpushares=0&dockerfile=Dockerfile&labels=%7B%7D&memory=0&memswap=0&rm=1&shmsize=0&t=gcr.io%2F<HIDDEN>%2Fhello- node%3Av1&ulimits=null: open //./pipe/docker_engine: The system cannot find the file specified.

<comment><USER15> Looks like you need to set up `docker-machine`, or use the new Docker for Windows distribution [1], which abstractly includes it.

1: [https://docs.docker.com/engine/installation/windows/](https://docs.docker.com/engine/installation/windows/)

<comment><USER14> The instruction that I needed to run 'Docker Quickstart' (as Administrator) was not obvious.

I guess it is difficult to describe the steps when there is a major difference between platform methods (windows 7 and Docker Toolbox vs win 10 with Docker).

After that I am up and running. Thanks for the pointer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have a cluster that I'm looking to upgrade on AWS and was holding off for some information on upgrade procedures but I see this "Instructions coming soon" under "Known Issues and Important Steps before Upgrading".

<comment><USER10> There is some information here: [http://kubernetes.io/docs/admin/cluster- management/](http://kubernetes.io/docs/admin/cluster-management/)

I've had a lot of bad experiences with the Kubernetes docs being misleading, outdated, or incomplete, so be relying on anything there.

<comment><AUTHOR> We have a brand new repo for fixing these things - [https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io) \- but that said, if you EVER run into something misleading, outdated or incomplete, please ping immediately!

Disclosure: I work at Google on Kubernetes.

<comment><USER10> Thanks! I'm aware of that repo. I think the problem is much deeper than can be fixed by creating more issues in the repo. The docs for k8s really need to be approached holistically by a technical writer or someone else who works on it full time. What's there now, and the approach the project has taken towards docs thus far, has resulted in information that is inconsistent, not well organized, and not well maintained. I think comprehensive documentation should be considered a requirement for a release—just as important as the code or the test suite. Software is only useful if people can figure out how to use it, and it's very hard to do that when it's so difficult to find high quality information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How does Kubernetes compare with Docker? Does it compete with swarm, or which parts of the docker tools does it overlap with?

<comment><USER18> Docker Swarm (built into Docker 1.2) is in the same econiche as Kubernetes, but is not as mature. It is still catching up, and probably more on par with pre-1.0 Kubernetes feature-wise. Kubernetes is what Docker will be when it grows up.

Note: I don't work for Docker or on the Kubernetes team. I have put things into production with Docker, Docker Compose, AWS ECS, and Kubernetes 1.1 on AWS for the past two years and have built tools on top of K8S.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Maybe this is off topic, but how do you pronounce Kubernetes. Is the last 'es' silent?

<comment><USER20> koo-ber-net-ees [1]

[1] [https://twitter.com/brendandburns/status/585479466648018944](https://twitter.com/brendandburns/status/585479466648018944)</comment></comment>


Say Hello to My Little Friend (the Tony Montana of the internet) - <AUTHOR> http://tweetagewasteland.com/2010/06/say-hello-to-my-little-friend/

<comment><USER2> That is so right on the money it's not even funny.

I have recently tried to only check mail twice a day, check twitter twice a day. I can't however get myself to not check HN many times a day.

We are slaves of the feed as I wrote in a post a while back. There are too much information and too little bandwidth to consume it all. We have become bottle necks, yet we suck it up and dream of a better future where information is consumed and screened just as effortlessly and critically as when we look around the room.

This is not the real time we've been looking for.

<comment><USER3> Slaves we are, information is the soma of the gilded age.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Accurate in some ways, an overreaction in others. What did we do while waiting in bank lines before we had cellphones? At best, we brought a dead-trees book. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not inherently better.

Checking your email while playing with your kids or cuddling with your wife is one thing. Skimming the news on the bus or in a grocery checkout line is something else entirely.

<comment><USER5> Spot-on.

I have come to appreciate the easily-accessible airplane mode on most modern smartphones as much more than a setting to accommodate FAA requirements—it's an extremely valuable social tool.

With a few swipes, you can concentrate on what's around you, who you're talking with, and nothing else. When you're done, you can go back to the cloud.

<comment><USER6> I'm always surprised at how productive I am in the plane when I'm not distracted by the net. I read better, absorb info better, program faster, etc. And my thought process goes much deeper into problems when I've just got a pen and paper.

Hm, I should try airplane mode for my computer when I'm not on the airplane.

<comment><USER7> Actually, I've been kind of doing that in the past couple of weeks: I'm working on a project for which I don't really need the net (except for reference/doc sometimes) but I get distracted with Facebook, Twitter, HN, back to Facebook…

So, instead of Starbucks, I started to go to our building's TV room where I can't get Internet access. It helps a lot. In case I really need to look up something, I still have my iPhone, but EDGE speed is a good deterrent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The lotus eaters are among us and surely we shall be them in short order.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus-eaters>

</comment><comment><USER9> I will forever remember the prophetic warning in the preface of Zen and the Art of the Internet:

"One warning is perhaps in order -- this territory we are entering can become a fantastic time-sink. Hours can slip by, people can come and go, and you'll be locked into Cyberspace. Remember to do your work!"

</comment><comment><USER10> My kids went from asking what my iphone was to asking if they could play with it to asking me to put it away.

<comment><USER11> Man that sounds familiar

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I had this idea for a "swear jar" for the internet. Every time you go to a site like news.ycombinator.com or click your gmail tab, it puts 50c in the "swear jar". And you get the money back at the end of the month.

Users would be able to choose the list of sites, and the disincentive (50c, $1, $2 etc) for each one. The aim would be to subtly change your thinking patterns from: "I'm bored, check _x_ " to "Maybe I should use this time for constructive thinking".

I'd like to build a company based on this idea...the company makes a profit from investing the money in users' swear jars.

<comment><USER13> Not much of a penalty if you get the money back. Have it donate to an organisation or political party you cannot stand instead - you'll have a stronger incentive to minimise the damage if every dollar goes to the enemy.

<comment><USER12> Good point.

However, if done right, it's feasible that users could end up having $50 or thereabouts perpetually in the swear jar...which (at least for me) would be a big disincentive.

If the penalty is immediate, obvious and doesn't explicitly remind you that you will get your money back, then I contend the brain's instinct is to cringe.

Maybe you get the money back in 3 months rather than 1 month: you see a browser plugin displaying how much you've already spent on HN and you think "ouch...I'm not getting that back for a while".

<comment><USER13> For people who weren't necessarily good at saving money, it might prove to be an effective savings technique ("Oh $50, just in time to pay the water bill!') rather than a disincentive. You need to lose the money, even if it's just to your wife to spend on shoes.

<comment><USER12> Yup, good point...you could be right. Only one way to find out...I'm going to give it a try, (and will probably be my entry to the next round of YC).

<comment><USER13> Have heard of it before so I suspect it's already been done at some level though I think it related to longer-term goals (e.g., quit smoking by date x or lose your 'bond' to some nutbag political org).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Say what you will, the majority of us can totally relate to at least one of his paragraphs.

The more access I have to information, the more I find myself thirsting and craving for it. As with anything, it requires serious discipline to control it. But these little data and information pushing devices are exactly what makes it so difficult!

</comment><comment><USER11> "I went from being the Tony Montana who came to Miami with nothing and worked his way to the top through a combination of sheer will, toughness and a knack for avoiding chainsaws, to being the Tony Montana who was unconsciously fantasizing about his sister and yelling obscenities to an empty room while soaking neck-deep in a cocaine-fueled bubble bath."

Yup. There's an App for That.

<comment><USER15> All of the apps are for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I grew up hearing my mother say, "My cell phone is for my convenience, not yours," and "If it's important, they can leave a message." Do not let constant connection tyrannize your attention. Do not let trivia distract you from important things. Let it ring. If you're doing something cool, they'll understand.

Also, your mental appetites are like your physical appetites: you crave what you eat. If you eat a lot of chocolate, you'll crave chocolate; soda and soda; tomatoes and tomatoes. The more you check your Facebook, the more you'll want to. Do it hourly and you'll follow every link, tag every photo, reply to every comment. Go without it for a couple days, and when you return your visit will be quick and non-compulsive, skimming the good stuff and going back to other things.

</comment><comment><USER17>
      #/etc/hosts
      #127.0.0.1     www.facebook.com
      #127.0.0.1     news.ycombinator.com
      #127.0.0.1     www.reddit.com

      #!/bin/sh
      #/usr/local/bin/startwork
      bash -c "awk '{sub(/#127/, "127")};{print}' /etc/hosts > /etc/hosts.new; mv /etc/hosts.new /etc/hosts;"

</comment><comment><USER18> I wish you well and hope you become whatever you think is 'better'. People make fun of me because I talk to random strangers when in lines or waiting for someone at dinner. Yet the people with me are doing the same thing, just on their phones through text messages and super pokes. One of them made a comment today while waiting in line to order for lunch, "it is ok, most of my friends I really only talk to through IM anyways." We were discussing how difficult it was (not very apparently) to live out of your country. How awesome is that?

</comment><comment><USER19> Related: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html?pa...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html?pagewanted=all)

</comment><comment><USER20> This is why I read only HN, avoid Facebook, etc., and own a mobile phone which isn't useful for anything except phone calls.

<comment><USER21> This site is a time sink as much as any other.

<comment><USER20> The more time sinks you follow, the larger the net drain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think the last few lines in the correct order should read:

You gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the iPhone. Then you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.

</comment><comment><USER23> Reading this blog now - great observations!

</comment><comment><USER24> I got rid of my cellphone for one month. I felt bad at times, but not as much as I thought.</comment>


Pebble's E-Paper Watch Exceeds $10 Million Raised On Kickstarter - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/backers

<comment><USER2> Just to make it clear for everyone, it's _not_ e-ink display. It's a transflective LCD display, which isn't the same thing and it's not nearly as efficient as e-ink either (although I have no idea if e-ink would even work properly on a watch). My guess is it's around 2x more energy efficient than a color LCD watch. This is what they're using for Pebble:

<http://www.sharpmemorylcd.com/1-26-inch-memory-lcd.html>

<comment><USER3> With e-ink, how would one at a glance know wether the battery is dead or not?

<comment><USER4> E-ink Kindles write a "Your battery is empty" message to the screen shortly before the battery becomes completely discharged.

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickbilton/3636447946/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Alternate title: Kickstarter raises $500K in Pebble funding round

</comment><comment><USER6> Maybe what we're in isn't a funding bubble, but a trust bubble?

Edit: I don't mean to say that Pebble will not deliver, and in fact I think they will, but at some point one of these high-profile kickstarters is going to fail to deliver (possibly at no fault of their own) and that is going to be unfortunate for everyone involved, and will probably cause a big stir. Hopefully Kickstarter handles it well.

<comment><USER7> Here are two projects which are having trouble delivering. [oh, the pens have shipped, and people are very happy with them.]

([http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cwandt/pen-type-a-a- mini...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cwandt/pen-type-a-a-minimal-pen))

([http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/527051507/hexbright- an-o...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/527051507/hexbright-an-open- source-light))

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm just learning that they're renting a billboard along 101 in San Francisco: [http://www.businessinsider.com/pebble-buys-san-francisco- bil...](http://www.businessinsider.com/pebble-buys-san-francisco- billboard-2012-5#comments)

According to some comments on Business Insider, such a billboard is… well, pricey, and they would get the KickStarter money only after May 18th. (I haven't confirmed that part)

Could one speculate from there that they have been raising money from yet-to- be-announced traditional investors? Considering their new position (i.e. demonstrated demand), it wouldn't be that surprising.

<comment><USER9> Sure, I can speculate:

They could very well be _Factoring_ [1].

Since the Kickstarter payout is pretty much guaranteed at such-and-such date, they could quite easily "unlock" (factor) some of their future Accounts Receivable for a small percentage discount.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoring_(finance)>

<comment><USER10> One thing I hate about finance is how every little trick is named by borrowing the name from an existing concept in mathematics which only barely relates to the financial trickery.

<comment><USER11> That Wikipedia page says the practice originated before 1400, so it could be that mathematics stole the word from finance.

<comment><USER12> Are you saying Mathematicians did not know how to factor before 1400? hmmm ;)

<comment><USER11> No, but I bet they used a different word.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This site lets you track the funding progress of Kickstarter projects:

[http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper- wa...](http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for- iphone-and-android/)

</comment><comment><USER14> There are apparently less than 400 Pebbles left[1] before they sell out at 85,000 watches[2]. If you wanted one and haven't ordered it yet, your opportunity is almost gone!

EDIT: (30 minutes later) There are only about 150 left.

EDIT: (60 minutes later) They're past 85,000, but the announcement they made said "around 85,000 Pebbles"[2] and not _exactly_ 85,000. They could disable the preorders at any time, but there's no way to predict exactly when they're officially sold out.

EDIT: (70 minutes later) They've just created a $1 tier that provides 0 watches, and they set all the other tiers to eventually run out.

[1] <http://computingeureka.com/pebble/>

[2] [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e- paper...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch- for-iphone-and-android/posts)

<comment><USER15> Is there a name for this kind of behavior? I've known about the project since day one and didn't feel like buying one, but now that there's only a few watches left, I bit the bullet and gave them my credit card.

<comment><USER16> Marketing types call it the "Bandwagon Effect".

<http://www.marketing91.com/bandwagon-effect/>

84,600 customers _all_ can't be wrong, right? The project is a guaranteed success (or so you would believe) and if you don't buy now, you will literally miss the wagon...

<comment><USER17> Sorry to be pedantic but you made a common mistake that always bothers me. Don't say "literally miss the wagon" when you mean a figurative wagon.

Not attacking you or anything. Just trying to help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Assuming that the Pebble will cost $150 once (if) it becomes available for retail, and factoring in the fact that some of these watches might never actually ship, I'd rather invest an extra $40 once the watch comes out and I know the quality rather than risk $115 now to save $40.

</comment><comment><USER19> In my mind this shows that crowdsourced funding + low cost prototyping (eg arduino) and manufacturing (eg 3d printing) could really disrupt consumer electronics. It'd be really cool to see the next must have smartphone/tablet built by a few guys in their basement and sold to millions of consumers.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is this funding or working capital? Most watches come at cost through KS. They would need to seriously ramp up the supply chain to fulfill the orders in the promised timescale. And that would need expensive resources - some of which cannot be met via the $10mm (as most of it might get consumed in manufacturing). Though further traditional funding should be the least of their problems - bet the VCs are clamoring for a piece now.

Hope they can find a Foxconn to manufacture everything in time and they can ramp up their operations team. My best wishes to them - really hope they nail it. I bet next few months would see war scale efforts from them.

</comment><comment><USER21> Wow and I had expected it to take a while to break the $3.3 million record that doublefine set on the site. It's honestly amazing what some of these are doing financially.

<comment><USER22> My question is, will they actually be able to meet anyones expectations?

<comment><USER23> That will be very interesting to see. Statistically, it's likely that there will be disappointed people— but what if the product just plain sucks? It's unlikely, but very much possible.

<comment><USER24> The expectations are much higher now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Just published another story here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3950628>

Pebble has now been closed on KickStarter. You cannot pick up any from the KickStarter project.

If you wanted to "pre order" you will have to go through GetPebble.com when they get made available.

</comment><comment><USER26> insane

</comment><comment><USER27> The end result better come out good.</comment>


Computers I have known - <AUTHOR> http://jacquesmattheij.com/computers-I-have-known

<comment><USER3> _Programming the PC (after the ST with its linear memory space) really felt like a step back in many ways._

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt this way. It actively put me off from programming for a good while (that and Doom) because it was such a hassle, it felt so needless. Why make things harder than they should be, or why fail so bad at making hardware? (Remember this was an arrogant 16-year old thinking.)

Needless to say, I came across such situations a lot more once confronted with the real world.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting to see the KIM-1 in there. Some time around 1984 I used one of those to build a prototype replacement for the large electromechanical controls on a machine that placed labels on bottles (shampoo etc.).

To program it I wrote the control program (which used the I/O ports to interface with the machine to read the speed bottles were moving and adjust the labeler appropriately) on paper in assembly language, debugged it there by hand and then converted it to machine code and entered it on the KIM-1 keyboard.

The display was enough to output information about the program's operation and using a microprocessor meant that the machine could get new functionality quickly (such as spotting that there was a missing label on the spool of labels and accelerating the labeler so that it skipped the missing label and didn't skip a bottle).

<comment><AUTHOR> I bought my KIM off the doorman of the bank where I worked (in the mailroom). He mentioned he had a computer for sale on the message board in the hallway and I went with him (on the back of a rickety old motorcycle, scariest thing I've ever done) to his house in Almere, came back home by train with a bag full of bits.

This particular KIM-1 was sold as a kit which had been partially completed and some of the parts were installed the wrong way. So I got to practice double sided PCB parts extraction for a while before being able to program it.

The FSK chip eventually got cannibalized to do duty in a home-brew modem for the BBC (which had a dedicated serial port).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> People don't understand just how expensive computing used to be.

Here are some old issues of infoworld from the '80s.

([http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aj4EAAAAMBAJ&printsec...](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aj4EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false))

Dot matrix printer, 63 lines per minute, 80 columns == $740 (cable an extra $35). ($750 adjusted to today is $2,000)

"Tape Solves Winchester Backup Crunch" - talks about the trouble of backup up 10 million bytes; about the drop from $20,000 to $3,000 making winchester technology available to the 'average advanced individual businessman". (1980 $3,000 = $8,300 in 2013).

([http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0DAEAAAAMBAJ&printsec...](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0DAEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&lr=&rview=1#v=onepage&q&f=false))

<comment><AUTHOR> There is nothing sadder than old computer hardware and what you paid for it.

I shudder to think what I paid for my first portable PC (the size of a very large toaster), my first laptop and my first > 100 MB hard drive.

64Kbit of ram, cost $50/chip (bits, not bytes) and it needed an awful lot of them to populate a motherboard, cache chips were even more expensive.

For one project I hacked together a memory expansion that held a full page of data to be sent to a laser printer as a bitmap at 300 dpi, weeks of wire wrapping and a bill for the memory that you could easily buy a very nice car for. (But it _did_ give me the ability to do grayscale printing when everybody else was still stuck with dithering :) ). Operating on an in-warranty $10K or so laser printer to be able to modulate the laser in real time as it lights up the drum is lots of fun.

387s, Weiteks, DSP boards, now FPGAs and GPUs and an endless lists of expensive goodies at the bleeding edge of computing (bleeding edge as far as ordinary mortals were concerned). I still have a bunch of Indys laying in the basement that I paid ~$10K a piece for, they're worth next to nothing now. The funnies bit about those computers is that today - a good 15 years later - <USER2> still use their keyboards, through a ps/2 to USB dongle. Those keyboards are both fantastic to type on and practically indestructible.

We bought a PDP-11 off NikHef for scrap in the 80's and used it to design electronics and route PCBs, it had cost a small fortune new.

<comment><USER5> Old computers have an odd mix of brilliant and awful keyboards.

Proper hardware switches (the IBM keyboard is well known) were reasonably common.

But the membrane keyboard of the Sinclair ZX 81; the rubber squidgy buttons of the Sinclair Spectrum; the square layout and keycaps of the Sharp MZ80k; there were many terrible keyboards.

ZX81 : ([http://www.nightfallcrew.com/27/11/2012/sinclair- zx81-person...](http://www.nightfallcrew.com/27/11/2012/sinclair- zx81-personal-computer-boxed/)) -- The awful keyboard meant you had to push hard, which would wobble the machine, which would case the attached RAMPack to wobble and thus need the machine to be rebooted.

Sharp MZ80K: ([http://www.old- computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=174&s...](http://www.old- computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=174&st=1))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You can rekindle those 8-bit days when you knew _everything_ about how your machine's software and hardware worked with a microcontroller such as Arduino.

[http://blog.jgc.org/2009/08/just-give-me-simple-cpu-and- few-...](http://blog.jgc.org/2009/08/just-give-me-simple-cpu-and-few-io.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> The ones I have worked so far:

Timex 2068 (My first computer)

ZX Spectrum 48+ (2nd computer)

ZX Spectrum +2A and +3 (at friend's place)

Amstrad PC1512 (at school)

Amiga 500 (at friend's place)

PC Compatible 386SX, P75, P166 MMX, AMD K-7, ...

AS/400, Aix, HP-UX, Solaris Workstations (At work)

<comment><USER7> I previously left a nostalgic list of the computers I owned on a HN comment last year - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4052679>

One thing I didn't previously mention is that the first computer I saw & used was a Sinclair ZX-81. It was my best friends but he couldn't make head and tail of it. So when I visited he left it mainly for me to use and that started my addiction to programming :)

<comment><USER6> Nice list.

If I am not mistaken, we started with the same Linux distribution.

<comment><USER7> Thanks.

If I include computers used at work & friends then we overlap a bit more...

\- Commodore 64 & Amiga (?) - both friends

\- Prime minicomputer (primos)

\- PDP (11?) server

\- Vax/VMS server

\- SCO Unix & Xenix servers (my first taste of Unix - 1994)

\- SCO OpenServer (first server I setup & managed at work)

\- Sparcstation (SunOS), Sun Blade & couple of Sun Ultra workstations (all running Solaris)

\- Tiny bit of AS/400 & HP-UX

\- Lots of Intel servers running Linux! (SuSE, Redhat & Ubuntu)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Fun read. Though, at least here in the US, the 520 was the first ST and the 260ST was a very limited run that came after the 520. I think the 260 was intended for the European market, but I still believe it was released after the 520 as a lower-cost alternative.

I personally had a 520STFM and then a 1040STE. Fantastic computers for their time.

</comment><comment><USER9> 48T of attached storage for your current computer? Why so much?

<comment><AUTHOR> Large dataset addiction :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice nostalgia. Now, where is my 100-core CPU?</comment>


Isaac Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong (1989) - <AUTHOR> http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm <comment><USER2> This _is_ a truly brilliant essay on the scientific method, clearly showing why Asimov was regarded as one of the best writers popularized and explained scientific concepts. His "Please Explain" should be required reading.

However, I think he has misclassified the error of the English Lit correspondent in this essay. Since I have witnessed this misunderstanding many times (and I want to postpone writing my C++ thread pool code), let me elaborate. There are basically three areas of intellectual endeavor, classified by how they go about investigating the truth of the statements: One is scientific, where questions are handled using the scientific approach, so well described by Asimov. The other is group is axiomatic systems, like mathematics (and heraldry), where statements are mostly _proven_ rather than checked through experiments. Given a statement, e.g. "there are infinitely many primes", one does not go about making measurements in the real world to check its truth (although sometimes real-world models can help, pioneered by Archimedes in the "Sand Reckoner").

Then, there's a third category of questions where these two approaches fail. In fact, when asked a question of this type, one does not immediately know how to go about proceeding to investigate it, e.g. "What is truth, Is there a God", etc. This, of course, is the realm of philosophy with somewhat different techniques of tackling problems then the previous two.

With this (rather simplistic) classification, we can see the impedance mismatch between Asimov and the Lit guy. Asimov is the scientist par excellence and is talking about the scientific method. However, the Lit guy's letter (truth is relative, etc.) is the culmination of a certain philosophy that is still the accepted standard in liberal arts school and may be summed up as moral relativism. The guy's obvious error is to apply this approach to the scientific realm. But mind you, this is very common with people of this background. If you don't believe me, just find a liberal arts major and talk for 10mins. He/she will be dumbstruck that you think otherwise. A common example with such people is how Newton's theory was "wrong" and Einstein's theory "corrected" it, clearly showing there's no absolute truth. Years ago, my professor in graduate level Syntax course gave this very example with the same conclusion that the Lit guy arrived.

But apart from its misapplication to scientific matters (such as the shape of the earth), is the moral relativistic approach a useful one, despite its acceptance as an axiom in a lot of universities? Now, that is a long debate.

<comment><USER3> _A common example with such people is how Newton's theory was "wrong" and Einstein's theory "corrected" it, clearly showing there's no absolute truth._

An example that's so wrong that it's not even wrong.

Newton's theory wasn't wrong, because it's a theory that describes observed reality pretty well, which is the main criterion for a proper scientific theory.

Einstein's theory isn't an approximation to, or correction of, Newtons theory. Rather, it is a completely new theory, because it completely overthrows fundamental concepts. 'Mass' and 'simultaneity' are not nearly the same thing in Einstein's and Newton's theories. That they give nearly identical results in a certain domain doesn't mean the theories are nearly identical. They just give the same results, because they are both good scientific theories of that domain.

Completely apart from that, there is no absolute truth. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein destroyed what remained of that possibility.

<comment><USER4> "Completely apart from that, there is no absolute truth. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein destroyed what remained of that possibility."

O, well, that's that then.

<comment><USER3> Yes, that's pretty much that. It's strange how few people seem to understand and accept that.

If you're going to argue P == NP, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the evidence suggests P != NP. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument.

If you are going to argue the universe can be described by local theories, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the evidence suggests the universe is non-local. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument.

If you are going to argue there is an absolute truth, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the knowledge we have suggests that the concept in itself doesn't even make sense. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument.

For most people, arguing there is an absolute truth, is like arguing you can make Houdini-like escapes. You can't and you'd drown. You know that, so you accept the consequence: you don't try an Houdini-like escape. In exactly the same way, people shouldn't try to argue there is absolute truth: it only leads to more confusion about truth and reality.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps you should define what you mean by "absolute truth," because to me it seems you are arguing against either _universal_ truths or possibly specifically considering "a truth" to be a statement made by some observer, rather than an actual state or condition?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is also included in a collection of essays by Asimov. [http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Wrong-Isaac- Asimov/dp/15756...](http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Wrong-Isaac- Asimov/dp/1575660083) <\-- non-affiliate

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a brilliant essay, and one that fundamentally changed the way I look at things like right and wrong, and all that goes with it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Reading about the flaws of a binary notion of right/wrong reminded me of the 10% rule, that I've noticed is not as prevalent in software as it should be:

For details that fit the 10% rule: 1) Only 10% of people will notice 2) Only 10% of those who notice will care.

Don't spend your time on these details until everything that does not fit the rule is fixed.

</comment><comment> alan-crowe This doesn't tackle the issue head on. The problem that emerged in the 20th Century was a lay perspective on science that looked at the old theory of Newtonian Mechanics and compared it to the new theories of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity and saw the differences but not the similarities.

Science consists of both theory and experiment. The old theory does a reasonable job of explaining the old data that came from the old experiments. Along come new experiments producing new data that the old theory cannot explain.

To understand science you must contrast it with folk-wisdom. Folk-wisdom comes up with a three part explanation of the new data. It is conservative in that it keeps the old theory, as its explanation of the old data. It comes up with a new theory that explains the new data, but not the old data. Thirdly it offers an ad hoc guidance as to which theory applies.

Science is also conservative, but with a different vision of what this means. Scientific conservatism lies in the high esteem granted to the old experiments. The new theory cannot merely explain the new data, it must do pretty well on the old data. Experimental error is important and we must at first cut the new theory some slack as experimenters are prone to optimism about the accuracy of their experiments especially when they agree with established theory. But not for very long. Old experiments can be redone with greater accuracy, and the new theory is expected to win both on the new experiments and on the most accurate versions of the old experiments.

Notice my gradual build up to the central dilemma. A good theory has a degree of inevitability about it. Newton's Law of Gravity is an inverse square law. Distance raised to the power of 2. Perhaps we can get a better fit to the orbit of Mercury with 2.00036, but that would be silly. Inevitability implies brittleness. If new data contradicts the theory there may be no way to adjust the theory.

If the old theory is a good one, but new experiments contradict it, folk wisdom can accommodate this straight forwardly by keeping the good old theory as the folk account of the old experiments. Scientists however have a serious problem. The good old theory breaks when they try to bend it to fit the new data, and the new theory has to agree with the old data, even though the old data appear to force one to believe in the old theory as the unique good fit.

Scientists are caught in a trap. Their conservatism with respect to old experiments forces them to be radical with respect to new theory. The new theory cannot just beat the old theory on the new data, it has to beat the old theory on the old data, the very data that gave rise to the old theory! This requires radical new ideas. As [Lampedusa says](<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leopard>) "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change."

Hence the 20th century phenomenon of lay people reading popular accounts of Quantum Mechanics and of Relativity and coming away with the impression that scientific truth is prone to dramatic changes. Is there any antidote? I recommend A Quantum Mechanics Primer, by D.T. Gillespie. This slim, clear book reaches Ehrenfest's equations on page 111, allowing the interested layman to see how Quantum Mechanics leads to F=ma and beats Newtonian dynamics on its home ground. But the book requires single variable calculus and a good enough grasp of three dimensional vector spaces to realise that nothing goes too horribly wrong when we add more dimensions. Is it really accessible to a layman?

Ehrenfest's equations symbolism a new paradigm of total backwards compatibility through radical change. Asimov ably covers the data side of this, but wimps out of trying to explain the implications for theory.

<comment><USER9> >The new theory cannot just beat the old theory on the new data, it has to beat the old theory on the old data,

Erm, yes - if you come up with a new theory of gravity, it had better explain the current orbits of the planets.

Suppose I have a wonderful new theory of gravity, it doesn't work for anything on earth, or anything you can measure in space - but that's ok because that's old data and doesn't count.

<comment><USER4> "The new theory cannot _just_ beat the old theory on the new data..." (emphasis mine)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very similar topic to this post from today: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1147767>

<comment><USER11> I immediately thought of Asimov's essay when I read that too, so I'm not surprised someone else posted it.

Of the two, I think Asimov's is much better (if only because the Fallacy of Grey relies too much on analogy).

<comment><USER12> Asimov's essay is explicitly referenced at the end of Yudkowsky's, so I'm _really_ not surprised someone else posted it.

<comment><USER13> Yes, that generally seems to be the case with HN postings. I've noticed that interesting links from articles or comments in those articles posted on HN often become new HN postings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's interesting that Asimov chose not to engage someone of his own statute, like of Kuhn or Feyerabend; but instead picked on a nameless English major.</comment>


Kenyan girls who code: Mentors spur African tech innovations - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37489006 <comment><USER2> I want to remind everyone of the article we had some time ago about men failing out of society in the west because they are too lazy and play video games all they. Then predictable we get another article and then another about changing society to better fit women.

The outcome for men is determined by their choices (= they are subjects, actors). The outcome for women is determined by how society acts towards them (=they are passive objects). That dualism is objectifying of women.

<comment><USER3> the women in this article we are commenting on (both the mentors and the students) have agency, and this is clearly conveyed by the article.

in many societies - traditional and modern - we observe structural discrimination against women. so "outcomes" for women are more heavily constrained by society than "outcomes" for men. if i look up the definition of "objectification" i find one aspect of it as "denial of autonomy – treating the person as lacking in autonomy or self-determination". so it might be a stretch to say that society objectifies women according to this definition, but i'd certainly agree that society tends to restrict/limit the autonomy / self-determination of women more than it does men.

under that interpretation i roughly agree with your statement of "that dualism is objectifying of women", in the sense of that being a crudely accurate description of the reality of what society does, and i'd go further and claim that is not acceptable, and something we should endeavour to change, by changing society: "affirmative action", "positive discrimination", etc.

was this the point you were trying to make, or were you trying to argue the opposite conclusion?

edit: would it make any difference if it were women who were driving the changes to society that would benefit them and other women? would that be acceptable or would that be a case of women objectifying themselves and denying their own agency by taking action?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It would be interesting, and great, if in this culture women did the math. Women used to have the role of doing calculations in the U.S. (and elsewhere in the West), back in the 30s and 40s before computers.

As an example of how gender roles can vary, I was in the Himalayas and in the local culture, the women did the physical labor. They carried our (heavy) bags where we stayed, and I regularly saw them carrying massive loads of firewood, on their backs, bent double, up and down mountain trails. I'm not sure what the men did; I only saw them playing cards and drinking (tea?).

</comment><comment><USER5> Are there similar programs for engineering? I'd imagine many of the challenges in the developing world require technological innovations that involve engineering challenges, not just mobile apps.

<comment><USER6> There's this [http://imgur.com/a/livAB](http://imgur.com/a/livAB) . They go around schools and get kids to work on simple electronics projects. Just started and only concentrating on primary schools, but I think they plan to expand to high schools(and thus engineering & programming) if they get funding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Often a talk about better startups coming from a genuine need that started with someone's aggravation about an unnecessary problem. I think people getting robbed during unnecessary queues is an unusual and great example. From a security background, I'm not sure that this would eliminate the problem as crooks might adapt or focus more. It was a really, good attempt. I could see it taking off just from increased convenience and reduced risk of opportunistic robberies. Too bad that team didn't win.

<comment><USER8> One of the big selling points for mpesa - the mobile money service in Kenya - is that it allows transferring money made in the city back to family in the countryside without risking robbery on the travel home. (And makes the transfer much faster, too.) Reducing queues to prevent robbery is a great motivation for building and using the app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is excellent.. with more people here (Kenya) getting internet at home due to falling prices and affordable wifi hotspots cropping up in various locations, I'm sure the next few years are going to be very interesting for tech in Kenya.

</comment><comment><USER10> We have spent years trying to get gender equality in the West and now as colonials we expect it just to happen in country X.

How about we start by getting a ecosystem of coders first as 'we' did then specialise on working on gender and other equalities.

I know it doesn't make people feel good but it worked for us.

<comment><USER11> While we're at it, we should introduce some diversity to Kenya, black people are overrepresented there at almost all jobs.</comment></comment>