Fitbit will lay off 110 employees amid challenges in wearable market - happy-go-lucky http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/30/14439028/fibit-layoffs-q4-earnings-report-weak-holiday-sales <comment><AUTHOR> I've said it before and I'll say it again: A big part of Fitbit's problem is the poor hardware quality of their products, especially considering the high price. A lot of people, me included, will never buy another Fitbit after having been burned.

Their warranty only lasts one year, yet I've had to replace both Fitbit devices I've had twice within that one year. I'm now Fitbit-less because the latest, a Charge HR, failed for the third time, and it's out of that one year warranty.

To give you an idea of how bad the Charge HR is, its charging plug attaches with metal prongs, but it plugs into a slim plastic housing that is only glued to the rest of the device. The obvious result is that the plastic housing eventually gets pulled off with the plug. That's how two of my three Charge HRs have died. It'd be like if your laptop were ruined within four months because the power cable pulled off an essential piece of the laptop housing rather than detaching cleanly, and now it won't attach in order to charge. The third Charge HR bricked itself during an unprompted firmware update, which started randomly and then I guess got interrupted midway through when I moved my phone too far from the device. It never recovered.

I don't know what the hell they're optimizing for over at Fitbit HQ, but they're trying to sell $10 throw-away quality devices for >$100. It's outrageous. I actively discourage everyone I know from ever buying anything from them, and many other people I know have also completely sworn them off for the same reason. Their product just sucks.

<comment><USER2> Is your experience emblematic of the that for most customers? Some of the things you mention seem like fundamental design flaws, so I'm curious if most customers have issues?

<comment><USER3> Been using Fitbit devices since 2010, and using a Charge HR since it came out. Never had a problem like OP's.

<comment><USER4> I've had mine for more than a year and a half -- my charge hr hasn't failed yet. But my cousins' have, which leads me to wonder what if the issue is user- caused.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wasn't rough on it. I wore it 24/7, except in showers/water and when charging it. I don't tend to break anything else in my normal life; I'm not one of those people who's rough on things. I just had repeated Fitbit failures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So long, farewell! Don't let the door hit you on the butt.

Fitbit totally killed itself for me when it decided to launch its own ecosystem without integrating itself into HealthKit and Google Fit. I understand that they thought they were creating an ecosystem for their users but by choosing to ignore the platforms that the major OS manufacturers had created, they essentially locked everyone out of integration with non-Fitbit devices. I bought a Fitbit Aria scale and a Fitbit device and was furious when I found out that I couldn't integrate that data with MyFitnessPal or RunKeeper or Strava without buying another app to allow syncing to the Fitbit website.

Now I have an Apple Watch and we traded our scale for a Withings scale that works with HealthKit and Google Fit and everyone in the family is happy whether they're on Android or iOS. Walled gardens are fine but not if they're locked, walled gardens.

<comment><USER6> > Fitbit totally killed itself for me when it decided to launch its own > ecosystem without integrating itself into HealthKit and Google Fit.

They launched their own ecosystem before both HealthKit and Google Fit existed; there was nothing for them to integrate with.

<comment><USER5> While that may be true, Fitbit was one of the launch partners for HealthKit and debuted their web interface at the Apple Keynote where HealthKit was first shown. Google had info online that Fitbit was working with them from the start to include integrations. They pulled out of both _after_ they had already had a functional integration.

Edit: Fitbit launched their web integration in 2012 and there are mentions of a partnership from both Google and Apple from the same year. It doesn't sound like your statement is as truthful as you may think.

<comment><USER7> The lack of HealthKit integration and needing to use half-assed hacks like the sync apps on the iOS AppStore really turned me off fitbit. Since their API doesn't let you pull anything but basic data like steps walked you were effectively locked into their little garden with your data.

I'm much happier with my Apple Watch as a fitness tracker, I wish the battery was better and it had sleep tracking support because that's the one feature I seriously miss from my Charge HR.

<comment><USER8> Fairly confident there's sleep tracker software available. People have had success in charging it for ~15 minutes at night before bed, then charging it in the morning while getting going.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nine months ago I had an offer to join Fitbit's engineering team. When I first started interviewing I didn't even realize the company had gone public a six months before. I guess I missed the news.

Looking at the stock price and talking a little with the employees, it was hard to get excited. It had gone from an initial surge of $47/share to $14/share. It looked like an overeager IPO to raise funds for a company that really hadn't quite figured out its market yet. We've seen them many times, but I'm not yet sure what the commonality is. Not having a lasting market? Not having the growth potential?

Most people at the company had an optimistic outlook, but it would be hard to work there and do recruiting otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER10> Wearables only have 2 "killer applications", so far: notifications and fitness. To broaden their appeal they need to find others. I don't think that will happen this year.

The next likely killer application for wearables is probably automation, authentication and interaction with other devices. However the problem in this area is that the standards are too fragmented (AllJoyn, Homekit, Google's Brillo, etc) and the devices didn't reach critical mass, yet.

But you can be sure wearable devices won't fade away.

<comment><USER11> The Apple Watch can do authentication to some extent: Authy has an Apple Watch app, and there's Apple Pay. This is the kind of stuff I don't think Fitbit can easily duplicate, which is why I think they're going to struggle in the future.

<comment><USER12> _The Apple Watch can do authentication to some extent: Authy has an Apple Watch app, and there 's Apple Pay._

I'd love it if I could securely store all of my passwords on an Apple Watch, which would require my fingerprint to unlock. But only if there was Bluetooth integration for macOS and USB devices for integration with random computers.

<comment><USER13> 1Password has an Apple Watch app, and you can choose the passwords you want to have on your watch. With a PIN on the watch that locks it when taken off one's wrist, I'm pretty happy with that sort of security.

Another step would be a extra 1Password pin, of some other kind of something you know code. A 4 pad touch screen that could use a combination of short press, long press, force-touch press as a combination would be pretty cool, come to think of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So buying Pebble was nothing but their previous try at surviving in a challenging wearable market? It's really difficult to wrap my head around these two recent moves in a way that makes sense.

<comment><USER15> I think its pretty easy, Pebble adds some additional "watch" market, and if you lay off the people you've added more customers without adding a lot of additional cost.

Long before it was 'trendy' the monitoring your hearbeat etc market was there for serious athletes. That is, and continues to be a niche market. So there are too many players chasing too few customers who aren't going to upgrade their equipment every year and aren't willing to pay a monthly service charge for reading that equipment so the market seems quite a bit smaller than it once appeared.

<comment><USER16> At the same time, you've got disgruntled Pebble fans such as myself who were dying for the Pebble Time 2, and majorly upset about not getting it.

Unless they actually launch a revised Time 2 under a different name, I'm flummoxed as to how they'll capture my interest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have bought my share of fitbit, Band etc. The only way to make wearables tolerable is making them less smart and more accurate.

Accurately measure my heart rate and stop bugging me about a stupid text!

<comment><USER18> This is why I've been eyeing a Garmin Vivoactive HR. I know people slam Garmin because they feel behind but if there is one thing they know it's accuracy. There's a reason they're the goto brand for cyclists, runners and triathletes. It's because they work reliably.

<comment><USER19> Consider also the Fenix 3 - it was plagued with software bugs when launched but the firmware is now stable and delivers what it says on the tin. You get a nice smartwatch and fitness tracker with GPS/GLONASS and good integration to other sensors (Bluetooth and ANT).

Plus, as the icing on the cake: you can easily get a week or more of use with a single charge, if you don't use the GPS.

<comment><USER20> I have a Fenix 3 HR, and unfortunately I couldn't disagree more. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Automatic sleep tracking is abysmal (regularly off by >4 hours, sometimes more). The wrist heart rate monitor tends to have inaccurate spikes at least once a day, and when the watch doesn't detect motion the wrist heart rate sensor is essentially turned off (sampling rate goes to greater than once every 30 minutes). Resting heart rate is calculated in at least 3 different ways in various parts of the UI (and none of them seem accurate). And then there's the tons and tons of bugs (and terrible iOS companion app).

Honestly the hardware is ok, but I get the impression that Garmin just hasn't invested in (or doesn't know how to do) software. It's not worth the (very high) asking price in my opinion.

<comment><USER21> I have the Fenix 3 HR, and I couldn't disagree with you more.

It works almost flawlessly. GPS pickup is less than 30 seconds in nearly all situations. The wrist-based HR is accurate to within 1-2 BPM during activities when measured against Wahoo Tickr and Polar heart-rate straps (but the flaw: it's slow to pick up sudden jumps in HR, such as during intervals). The battery lasts at least a week with 2 hours of active GPS use a day (and almost 2 weeks with battery saving features enabled and GLONASS off). I've dropped it on asphalt, concrete, and rock and it doesn't even have a scratch.

My guess is that most of your problems are on the iOS end. Apple is notorious for breaking interoperability with wearables through iOS "updates" since the iWatch was released. Polar and Suunto watches also seem to have issues for iPhone users that don't crop up for people syncing their watches with their computers or Androids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Even if you are a premium fitbit user and use their customer API you don't have access to some data point for heart rate, cardio time-frames and performance stats. They not only need to catch-up but also provide people their own health data forget HealthKit and Google Fit integration that is like step 2.

<comment><USER7> They don't _WANT_ to provide people their own health data, I'm guessing. They demoed a full integration with HealthKit years ago but canned it, I'm guessing for the exact same reason.

And honestly, I think this is exactly why Fitbit ended up failing. They tried to create a walled garden where you would collect all your data into their service, the hardware wasn't what they wanted to sell you, but their premium services.

<comment><USER22> I am a developer and I was a fitbit premium user for long time but I cancelled my subscription. I went over all their APIs but failed to get data where I can export my detailed workout and cardio stats. My main purpose was train myself for even more intense workout looking at the data. It was just a very disappointing experience.

<comment><USER23> FWIW, I set up IFTTT to export to a Google Sheet daily. Not sure if it will give you the level of detail unless the API is already providing it though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> After 3 Fitbit Charge HRs dying on me within a year, I've left FitBit and moved on to Garmin. It's a shame because my Flex was solid for multiple years.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've had the exact same problem both with the Flex and then with the Charge HR. Their hardware quality is just terrible, especially given that they're expected you to pay >$100 on their devices! I now go out of my way to actively dis-recommend Fitbit (as I've done in this comments thread).

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Bummer, I hope they can recover from this. I just got my wife a Charge 2, and she really likes it. It definitely does a better job at tracking things and encouraging fitness than any of the other devices we've owned (Flex, Charge, Apple Watch, Huawei Watch).

I can't comment too much on quality yet, but the charging cable now grips the entire device, so that should help avoid some of the issues they've had in the past.

</comment><comment><USER26> What is the most programmable wearable?

I'd love to have access to my watches display, sensor, and communications features.

<comment><USER10> Android Wear is very open, it is very much the same api as normal Android. The main limitations are on the UI and a few specific issues like bluetooth advertising. Tbh, even Pebble didn't allow you so much access as Android Wear (e.g.: Pebble's bluetooth api was very limited).

Samsung's Tizen and Garmin's ANT seem quite open too, but I just studied the documentation, didn't actually wrote code for them.

Xiaomi's Mi band, FitBit and Apple Watch are very restricted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Relevant to those mentioning the build quality of Fitbit devices:

FWIW, my wife and I used several generations of Jawbone UP over a few years and, we roughly go through 1 every 3-6 months. It's certainly not Fitbit only.

Compared to the Apple watch, we have a pair of 1st gens, one of them's battery and display spoilt after 12-13 months, the other is still going strong at ~14/15 months.

</comment><comment><USER28> I always thought this was simply nothing more than an overpriced step counter and nothing changed the perception for me - if anything, the glorified marketing felt quite deceptive. Strangely, on the contrary, I find myself addicted to the "step counter" on my Galaxy S6 everytime I go for a run.

<comment><USER29> I have a Fitbit for exactly two reasons: sleep tracking and heart rate. The step counter is _interesting_ , but I wouldn't have bought a device just for that.

<comment><USER4> I have a charge hr -- mostly for silent alarms to wake me up without disturbing my roommates, and timer function in case I need to track something. Oddly enough I don't care about the step counter or the heartrate sensor.

<comment><USER29> They used to say that most people only used 40% (or 80% or whatever) of Microsoft Word's features, but that each person used a different 40%.

I suspect that fitness trackers and smartwatches are like that, too, but that it's more like 20% of the features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> To me it looks like only big Internet companies or companies in CE space can pull of in this space. Because both have an unbelievable advantage in terms of ecosystem. If outsider fails to integrate into this existing space - there is likelihood of they not making into longer runs.

</comment><comment><USER31> I am quite curious to see what will happen with Android Wear devices and Apple Watch, as the weareable hype is kinda declining (and once it was "the next big thing").

<comment><USER32> My impression is that Fitbit is seeing a lot of pressure from devices like the Apple Watch. Though I've encountered people who still like and use a Fitbit even after purchasing an Apple Watch, I can see that declining in the future. I think wrist devices like the Apple Watch and similar Android devices are here to stay, especially as they get smaller, have added features, and the UX improves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm surprised. It seems like for the last several months I've been noticing fitbits on the wrist of several prominent people.

Maybe their product is just too simple and does it's job too well. Judging by trends in the market, people won't be satisfied until their watches have about 8h of battery life and are privy to all the 0-days of android.

Ignore my grumbling, I'm just an old fossil who wants phones to at least be phones and watches to at least be watches. Call quality on my phone seems to drop every year, and my wife's $500 smart watch barfs on syncing her music library.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm not surprised. fitness wearables turned out to be pretty bad quality. sold only because of the buzz.

</comment><comment><USER35> I just saw job ads from them last week. WTF?

</comment><comment><USER36> Well, that was fun while it lasted.

</comment><comment><USER37> Why not let people work but for fewer hours instead of laying them off? This is ridiculous.</comment>


I got shipped to California to date tech guys - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/05/shipped-to-california.html <comment> jack-r-abbit I'm not rich or single so I am really not the target market here. But something about this feels really gross. I can't figure out how this was allowed. I've lost all sense of what is and isn't acceptable these days. It seems to change daily. It feels like not too long ago a couple guys lost their job for making a joke about dongles and forking. I fail to see how that was worse than this.

<comment><USER2> > But something about this feels really gross. I can't figure out how this was > allowed. I've lost all sense of what is and isn't acceptable these days.

My slow path to conservatism.

<comment><USER3> Solve the problem by making the list of acceptable behavior so small that you can remember it?

<comment><USER4> maybe he means this

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle)

<comment><USER3> I thought you were joking (and maybe you are) but now that I think about it, that's a really good life philosophy. Tolerate behavior in others beyond what you would engage in yourself.

Of course, this works better for social conventions like "call me by my last name" or "pay for your date's dinner" than for stuff like "don't be gay", which is sadly what's more associated with conservatism in this country.

<comment><USER5> That's how I try to operate. Everybody should get a break but me. There's a word for giving yourself a break for bad behavior: rationalization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is not without precedent:

February 3 [1849]: The Raleigh Register runs an advertisement for women to go to the Gold Rush and get a rich husband, titled "A Chance FOR A LADY." Other efforts to encourage women to go to California include Mrs. Eliza Farnham of New York's attempt to organize a ship of intelligent women over the age of 25 to sail to San Francisco to meet miners. Editors in the east praised her efforts, but the plan failed.

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldrush/timeline/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldrush/timeline/)

There was one that succeeded that I read about but I don't remember the details and don't have the time to look it up. It was either in The Barbary Coast or Rebecca Solnit's book about Muybridge.

</comment><comment><USER7> On a weirdness scale of 1 to 10, I think it sounds like this idea is hitting a solid 6 or so. Possibly some extra points for the glorified prostitution model of "Pay a ton to fly NYC girls, selected for their desire to spend 5 days out of town meeting rich men, to SF to meet super-rich tech founders"

<comment><USER8> Sadly, this is just the next link in a long line of similar attempts every time there is a boom where the guys per girl ratio gets above 1. Read some articles about the oil boom in North Dakota, although they don't fly them in from NYC.

<comment><USER9> Ratios close to 1 are tolerated, the real problem is when that ratio approaches numbers like 2:1 (~66% male).

It's hard to have a happy town when a third of your population will wind up alone.

<comment><USER8> I seem to remember as countries get near 2:1 you get wars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> SF is nothing like this. The article is poorly written--little more than we- did-this-then-we-did-that. The author is painfully lacking in self-awareness or humility. The only insight to be gained from the article is about the author, a caricature of severe narcissism played out through speed dating the few men in San Francisco bored and desperate enough to participate. I think this paints a worse picture of New York than it does of San Francisco.

<comment><USER11> No, it just paints a picture of that individual, or those individuals that partook in this particular venture.

It says absolutely nothing about New York or San Francisco or any appreciable fraction of their residents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm moving to SF in August, but reading articles like this makes me want to stay put. I know YC is just an incubator in the end, but I really wish they'd advise their companies against sleazy stunts like this.

I feel like all of these ridiculous startups are forgetting: just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

<comment><USER13> Why is this a sleazy stunt? What about this story is sleazy? A bunch of girls flew to SF to go out, socialize, and have a good time. Sounds like everyone involved had fun.

<comment><USER14> They are having fun wrong! (C) Sheldon Cooper

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I honestly can't tell if this is satire or not.

<comment><USER16> "Any publicity is good publicity."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some investors are getting quite desperate to get 'ring-side-seats' (pun intended) to the YC classes:

"I meet an angel investor who admits he gave to the Crowdtilt to butter up CEO Lauren Kay so she'd accept his money. "With these Y Combinator companies, sometimes so many people want to invest that they end up turning down money," he explained. He'd given money to the Dating Ring to secure the chance to give even more money to the Dating Ring. He wouldn't tell me how much he invested, but did mention a desire to buy an airplane."

And how about this:

"Today's daytime activity is a picnic in the park. I find Lisa and tell her it's time to do as the San Franciscans have done since before the dawn of personal computing: get high. She goes to Dolores Park to seek weed from strangers, while I return to the hotel and initiate a texting phone tree. Twenty minutes later, as a white guy with dreadlocks is dumping vegan brownies onto the bed, there is a knock on the door and the Nightline film crew is standing there with a camera and a giant light. "Just a minute!" I shout through a crack in the door. When the dealer exits, I wonder if Nightline thinks I boned him."

</comment><comment><USER17> I guess "I volunteered to travel to California to date tech guys" isn't quite as catchy.

</comment><comment><USER18> Ugh, this sounds so cringeworthy. Something about the commodification of those women, even if it was done willingly.

<comment><USER19> It sounded fun, honestly. Props to her for getting her own medicine too. That's the one thing I always cringe at - when an SF date off craigslist, often an out of town person passing through like a stewardess, wants a hookup like that. I don't keep any on me, so it's always a pain in the ass catering to that need.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "'We're doing shots! This will be great B-roll!' I scream into Lisa's boob."

Reading this article made me very uncomfortable.

</comment><comment><USER21> I see nothing wrong with this at all. In fact I have suggested to men that they will have an easier time dating and finding love in NYC and to women that they will have an easier time dating and finding love in SF or the Bay Area. Because of the ratios of men to women and vice versa. What's wrong with that exactly?

When I was dating myself years ago I had a trivially easy time getting really good looking women (that I would never meet locally) by driving a bit to NYC. I remember thinking "I need to move here even if this relationship (the women that I met doing this) breaks up".

The name for this is a "target rich environment". It's as much about supply and demand as it is about other issues.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'll admit, I wasn't initially sure this was relevant to HN, but this is a participant (customer?) perspective of a YCombinator startup.

<comment><USER23> it is also seems to be in line with the core business idea of the other startups frequenting HN - Uber, AirBNB, etc... - identifying and putting to use/brokering access to underutilized resources.

Though it is really an open question whether the underutilized resource like male techies of SV can be efficiently made into business inventory desirable by the potential customers. The article doesn't sound optimistic here.

<comment> jack-r-abbit > _underutilized resource like male techies of SV_

To me it felt more like the underutilized resource was the hot women in NYC. But that would be too degrading to the women. So they couldn't possibly take that angle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have no problem with the ethics of any part of this, but this sounds like a great way to grab a bunch of self-selecting people with significant combinations of personality defects, poor interpersonal skills, and overly- high estimation of their own worth. No personal judgment of them here, I recognize such defects in myself, I'm just saying why the whole thing feels 'wrong'.

<comment><USER25> This is exactly my thought. It's the same thing with meeting someone on The Bachelor or something. I don't care if you want to date 25 people and winnow them down in a rose ceremony, or if you want to televise your rushed courtship, but I'm very nearly 100% sure that I would never want to date anyone willing to participate in that particular spectacle. Same thing here - I don't care if you want to marry someone for their money or their body if that's what you're into. I'm pretty damn sure I want no part in it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Mailorder brides concept made hip. This moral grey zone is very blackish.

</comment><comment><USER27> This program is going to fail, for the reason outlined in a couple of sentences, that are possibly the most important sentences in this entire article.

"...which is a blessing, since gossiping about dates is more fun than actually going on them."

"We're doing shots! This will be great B-roll!" I scream...

Arranged matches are fine and have been working out fairly well for hundreds of years. But when one of the parties is more interested in making some sort of production out of the experience than in finding an actual relationship, the program is going to fall flat. They would do much better getting female participants on a volunteer basis, preferably not from a large metropolis, who are more interested in finding a relationship than in making a "B-roll".

<comment><USER28> >> who are more interested in finding a relationship than in making a "B-roll".

^^ THIS. There must be some pretty lonely guys out there. I can only hope the more genuine ones learned their lesson after it ended.

Best example: The poor fellow who left early to work for Yahoo at 8:00 am. He may have only understood the ethics that he had bought into after it ended.

Women who try and make anything off this crap are selfish to the point of degrading those around them. They're really horrible people to be around, let alone to sleep with -- because they're too self-absorbed with the money and free ride to factor in the precedent they're setting for the kind of interaction that's socially acceptable around potential mates.

DO WE REALLY want a society where people who work hard, are forced to compete financially to have an attractive mate fly in, do B-rolls, get high, and to demonstrate what a cold and mechanical interaction they actually want?

Women: How would you like it if this was the kind of world you had to live in to find affection from a man? Pay $1,000 to have him come in and show you that your money, work, and desire for affection is just as worthless as anyone else's.

Because THAT is what your actions convey.

I think I'm with my grandparents on this one: These women need to learn to treat others exactly how they expect to be treated. Otherwise nobody can be their friend, foe, or lover.

Because when we start pretending that relationships and affection can be bought -- we won't be buying real affection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> And YC wonders why it has an image problem among female founders.

Sam, what is this.

</comment><comment><USER30> I see nothing wrong with this. It's cringe-worthy, but not wrong morally, or legally.

More power to the women who wanted to give it a shot.

</comment><comment><USER31> OK, keeping an open mind, this sounds like a good idea for a startup: (i) try to solve an important problem that has bugged people for millennia and (ii) do so by exploiting inefficiencies of the system (different gender ratios in different geographical locations). The basic idea is nothing new, of course ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail- order_bride](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail-order_bride)).

Still, makes you think, why didn't it work out?

My simple explanation is that the organizers went for the dumb _Big Bang Theory_ thing: brainacs paired with dashing beauties. I would hypothesize that if you were to select _random_ 20 young women from NYC and paired them up with random men from SF (random within reason, of course) you would have had much less problems.

<comment><USER23> >(i) try to solve an important problem that has bugged people for millennia

1\. it has bugged almost everybody else for uncountable millennia before people :) So if it were a problem, the evolution would have already solved it. Which brings us to the next point :

2\. it isn't a problem really, it is the solution that evolution came up with to make sure that blobs of organic matter move their a&&es, tails, tentacles, ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Seems like encouraging more females to go into tech jobs and making training for them more available like RailsBridge's workshops would be a far better use of money and time.

If you want to simply stay on the dating side of things you could make a site designed for remote dates through web cam chats, cooperative games (anything from web based mini-games to co-op on Call of Duty depending on the interests of the players), IMing and texting. You don't need to be in the same physical place to get to know someone, thinking you do seems very backwards for a startup.

What's the plan here if two people do click? The service isn't going to pay for them to fly over for every date. It's the same situation as meeting someone online except that the initial date is face to face.

<comment><USER14> Better for what? I'm not sure how training women to work in tech and helping people from remote to date each other is related. Unless "women in tech" are viewed as a commodity that "we need more of" and these are considered as alternative ways for getting more of that commodity - which _would be_ kind of disgusting point of view to me. But if we ignore such point of view, I do not see any relation between the two and why they should be viewed as alternative ways of spending money instead of complimentary ways.

>>> You don't need to be in the same physical place to get to know someone, thinking you do seems very backwards for a startup.

Depends on your definition of "know", I guess. Ultimately, there are things between men and women that don't work well over chats ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'd love to see their YC application. I'm curious (in a genuine way) to understand what got them into YC.

</comment><comment><USER34> Why would they break opening links in new tabs? Whyyyyyyyy?

</comment><comment><USER35> > She goes to Dolores Park to seek weed from strangers, while I return to the > hotel and initiate a texting phone tree. Twenty minutes later, as a white > guy with dreadlocks is dumping vegan brownies onto the bed [...]

I'm not judging morally, even if stating that it's a good way "to evaluate men" makes me uncomfortable.

Still, is it legal to write down this in the US?

EDIT: rephrase

<comment><USER36> It's not illegal to write that you use weed.

But it could be used as evidence against you if the prosecutor were to get charges filed against you that you used weed.

Surely the prosecutors will be filing these charges any minute now, since the USA is now officially a police state.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Why are there so many bachelorettes in NYC?

EDIT: I don't know what people have against an honest (though perhaps naive?) question.

<comment><USER38> Interestingly, this only appears to be true in Manhattan. In New York City, single men aged 20-34 outnumber single women. And according to this site, single men aged 20-34 outnumber single women 20-34 in almost every city in the US: [http://jonathansoma.com/singles/](http://jonathansoma.com/singles/)

I have several hypotheses for Manhattan, but my best guess is that a major contributing factor is that the average age of marriage (and proportion of never-marrieds) is higher in Manhattan than outside. [http://nypost.com/2010/01/05/all-the-single-people-in- manhat...](http://nypost.com/2010/01/05/all-the-single-people-in-manhattan/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Is this a precursor to the first prostitution ring startup?

<comment><USER40> Such a startup already exists obviously: [http://www.thelocal.de/20140417/new- app-helps-johns-find-pro...](http://www.thelocal.de/20140417/new-app-helps- johns-find-prostitutes)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> If dating had to be like this, I'd become a monk in Tibet.

</comment><comment><USER42> Neither the idea nor this article seem to be helping to encourage girls in technology.

<comment><USER43> I don't believe that was point of the article based on the first paragraph "An online start-up (tech) was crowdfunding a shipment of single women from New York to San Francisco".</comment></comment>


Ask HN: You're on bathroom break, what productive phone app do you use? - <AUTHOR> Bonus:  What productive app do you use when you don't have internet access?<p>Note: Productive could be anything like learning, reading, planning, etc.  Not work-specific. <comment><USER2> I used WebMD to learn new health facts like how sitting in the toilet and using the smartphone can lead to hemorrhoids.

</comment><comment><USER3> The Sears Roebuck catalog.

Ref: [http://mentalfloss.com/article/23210/toilet-paper-history- ho...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/23210/toilet-paper-history-how-america- convinced-world-wipe)

</comment><comment><USER4> I solve half my coding problems on bathroom breaks so no distraction for me :)

</comment><comment><USER5> My normal bathroom breaks are very long when I'm home and I have my laptop with me, but I can't do that at work (small startup, one bathroom) so my breaks are short and I just sit there collecting my thoughts.

Bonus: Alkido. I've installed Alkido and read a bunch of books (epub) on my phone. I read during commute. I haven't found other apps that don't suck (they all ask for way too many permissions, access contacts and information like WiFi, etc, which I find ridiculous).

</comment><comment><USER6> I use anki, a Spaced Repetition flashcard app. When learning a new tool/framework/etc, I make flashcards asking why it does things a certain way. This helps me learn the mental model of the tool more quickly.

I also make a flashcard if I spend a long time debugging something so that I make sure to keep the knowledge that I gained from the bug hunt.

</comment><comment><USER7> Wow this thread is depressing..

</comment><comment><USER8> Well, not necessarily during a bathroom break (sometimes, I just don't multitask) but I use Cool Reader, which is an eReader app. My phone contains all of the books that I have, some of which I haven't read yet, and I use the app to resume reading.

</comment><comment><USER9> Helium IDE for BlackBerry10. ;-) In conjunction with Term48 terminal emulator and GCC. _crap and code_ [https://crackberry.com/helium- blackberry-10](https://crackberry.com/helium-blackberry-10)

</comment><comment><USER10> Forgive my cynicism, but why do you feel the need to be productive every second of the day? It's called a 'break' for a reason :)

</comment><comment><USER11> Brilliant. Math problems that can be done without a calculator; separated by domains such as probability, group theory, number theory, physics, AI, etc. Wonderfully stimulating really.

</comment><comment><USER12> True Skate for iPhone. I had a job that I hated and I played this game for fifteen minutes. It helped me relax.

</comment><comment><USER13> When in bathroom I play chess on my phone.

</comment><comment><USER14> Safari browser to read HN

</comment><comment><USER15> Pocket or Kindle</comment>


Quick and dirty user auth and roles for Flask apps: Flask-Security - <AUTHOR> http://packages.python.org/Flask-Security/

<comment><USER2> This looks great. I like that it implements authentication and authorization out of the box. I look forward to trying it out.</comment>


Show HN: CommitCal – View your commit history in calendar - <AUTHOR> http://commitcal.newsbee.io/

<comment><USER2> This is a pretty neat idea. I tend to think of and use my calendar to look forward, but every view I have of my calendar shows me some past content. Why not put some useful information there? I considered what my calendar would look like if I threw all of my emails at it but I figured it would get overwhelming unless I filtered them somehow. Maybe the Gmail API will make an email version of your project more feasible.

Anyway, I digress. Some notes:

\- I'm only seeing public commits; I realize you don't necessarily want to complicate things with authentication, but I have practically nothing going on publicly. I'd probably rather see what I'm actually up to rather than what the world sees (unless this is supposed to be a tool for me to watch other people's commits, in which case I guess public activity makes sense).

\- I might prefer to see activity of _repositories_ in which I'm working rather than individual activity. This is more complicated, but it'd be more worthwhile for me to see if someone else commits something (or many somethings) in the recent past to a project that I'm working on. It would especially give me a reminder that I need to pull in the morning and see what's new.

There are a few approaches to this, and depending on Github's API one might be easier than the other, but I imagine they'd all skin the cat at the end of the day.

Feel free to take or leave my suggestions; either way, cool weekend(?) project.</comment>


Ask HN: Programming on a stool - <AUTHOR> When I was younger, I used to have this very high stool (I am 6.2, or 1.90m) in front of my (musical) keyboard and I would stay perched there playing for 5-6 hours straight without even noticing.
Fast forward 20yrs and I don't really like working on a chair, nor standing. My legs just keep searching for the foot rest ring my old stool had underneath its seat.
Does any of you actually work perched on a stool? Is this a thing? Should I try it? <comment><USER2> I don't. But stools were quite common in drafting rooms during the days before everyone went CAD. These days you can get an Aeron in stool configuration or a more classic Mayline

[https://store.hermanmiller.com/office/stools/aeron-work- stoo...](https://store.hermanmiller.com/office/stools/aeron-work- stool/2197386.html?lang=en_US)

[https://www.mayline.com/product- detail.php?id=P1371](https://www.mayline.com/product-detail.php?id=P1371)

Even old school stools:

[https://www.grainger.com/category/material-handling/shop- fur...](https://www.grainger.com/category/material-handling/shop- furniture/shop-stools?redirect=stool&searchRedirect=stool&searchBar=true)

</comment><comment><USER3> When I do electronics work I usually sit at a bench on a stool. I use a computer, solder, draw etc.

At home, I also use a swiss ball instead of a chair.

The modern office chair is a bit of strangeness if you think about it. They aren't always that great for your spine either. But I've got a few ridiculously comfortable examples and I'd not part with them. You know you've got a bad chair when you get up and you're sore.

Mix it up. And try not to sit for more than two hours without a break. I'm not even sure we should be sitting for more than an hour at a desk come to think about it. But we probably all have. Flow is like that.

</comment><comment><USER4> There's quite a market for ergonomic non-sitting or "dynamic" chairs, including stools. You might have a look at the Varier store:

[https://www.varierfurniture.com/en_it/vores- stole](https://www.varierfurniture.com/en_it/vores-stole)

</comment><comment><USER5> I personally don't, nor have I ever seen any others at work doing this. But all power to you if you like it and you're productive doing so!</comment>


Up In Smoke: FBI Won't Change Rules On Pot Smoking Recruits - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/107525/up-in-smoke-fbi-wont-change-rules-on-pot-smoking-recruits/

<comment><AUTHOR> FBI Director Comey has been busy this week. Monday he was "grappling with the question" of how to amend the agency's marijuana policies, but by Wednesday he was "absolutely dead set against using marijuana," and "did not say I'm going to change that ban."

These might seem like contradictory statements, but perhaps they are haute politics. He drew in the first audience by admitting there is a recruitment problem due to a strict stance against weed. But for the Senate he claimed he is "against using" MJ, which of course leaves room for him to be against it while hiring people who are for it, as if he were a religiously straight man willing to hire gays. Or for him to be welcoming of people who smoked up last month so long as they promise not to do it again. Finally, maybe "he" is not going to change the ban, but he probably hopes someone will, because he does need to hire and the field is full of grass.

My bet: three years from now the FBI will hire you so long as you don't smoke weed after applying, and in a decade they won't care so long as you don't get high on the job (as with drink). There will continue to be recruitment issues, not because of weed but because the agency is not seen as a cool place for young people to work.</comment>


Seven Rules for Creative People - <AUTHOR> http://lancercreative.com/2013/04/seven-rules-for-creative-people/

<comment><USER2> Kudos on a hilarious response to a very stupid article by Harvard Business Review.</comment>


Object storage and databases in tandem to create a reliable data storage system - <AUTHOR> https://blog.minio.io/object-storage-in-practice-creating-a-reliable-data-store-9b424a22e8e#.1c46911ir <comment><USER2> I noticed this blog post is mostly marketing for their minio software, so I went to check it out (I guess the marketing worked).

I wish there was some documentation available. I understand it's an object store, it implements the S3 API and it's open source. It's hard to figure out much more than that.

This is not the first open source object store (Openstack Swift, Ceph, etc) so it's not clear what differentiates this from other options currently available.

Ignoring the competition, what is the design of it? I'm assuming it can scale out by adding more hosts, but the README doesn't mention how to do that. How does it cope with bit rot? Is this designed for read-mostly data or can it deal with a high percentage of writes effeciently?</comment>


Cloud Firewall: Google Cloud Armor vs. AWS WAF vs. Cloudflare WAF - <AUTHOR> https://www.chooseacloud.com/waf <comment><USER2> Cloudflare WAF is only available on the $20/Pro plan

<comment><AUTHOR> It is available for Free plan too, with DDOS protection, 1 rate limiting rules and 5,000 ip rules.</comment></comment>


Io.js – What You Need to Know - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/maxogden/d96123138522c84cdb25

<comment><USER2> From what I can see the main differences with node.js is pulling more regularly from V8 and using semantic versioning. Are there any more differences?

<comment><USER3> The trademark is in the public domain which means it can never be sold. A company such as Oracle acquiring Joyent (and thus owning NodeJS) is a very realistic possibility, if not inevitable. You don't need anyones permission to use "iojs". You may use it for a book title, conference, training course, or service without needing permission or paying anyone to use it.

iojs follows an open governance model which means that large US corporations have equal input to everyone else on the direction iojs heads. Not any more or any less.

Edit: I would like to clarify that my opinion is not in any way based on Joyent not fulfilling their duty to the public. I am a former employee at Joyent and I have nothing but respect and praise for the work they have done WRT NodeJS. I hope to see NodeJS continue to thrive under Joyent's guidance. That said, I am supportive of an open initiative that iojs is attempting to achieve. I believe there are some long term benefits to having a release that is completely sheltered from any corporate initiative. My view is not meant to be antagonistic toward Joyent nor any of the NodeJS contributors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The author seems like an optimist, but "many core contributors will help maintain both node.js and io.js" seems to disagree with reality, since indutny has been landing PRs to node only in the forks. He's a core contributor.

If he needs sign-off or whatever, it's not like he doesn't have friends in all the forks. I'm pre-emptively calling bullshit on anyone who invokes the Joyent bogeyman here; tons of PRs land without their involvement. What's the difference here.

That's pretty antagonistic IYAM.

<comment><USER5> I agree .. this is basically what Rocket is doing is response to the commercial support of Docker. I haven't seen what tangible value io.js or Rocket are going to add. It's basically 'we aren't a corporation' and that doesn't add value by itself. If they want to look at a good example of a clone that has added value they should look at Mono/Xamarin.

<comment><USER6> > I agree .. this is basically what Rocket is doing is response to the > commercial support of Docker.

What? That's what came away with? Even shykes didn't accuse them of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So can we say Joyent blew it with too much corporatism?

<comment><USER8> We could say that the community wants to "move fast and break things", and (they feel that?) Joyent doesn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does Io.js offer more performance than Node.js?

<comment><USER8> Although "more performance" doesn't mean much, the short answer is: maybe, yes.

They want to keep up to date with v8 better. Newer v8 could outperform older v8. node's is pretty old (2012) apparently.

<comment><USER9> So IO.js will update to V8 Turbofan when its released?

<comment><USER8> I thought you were being facetious! In case anyone else also thought that, turbofan is a real thing: " [1]

 _> Recently, Google engineers landed a new optimizing JavaScript compiler for V8, codenamed TurboFan. As the name implies, this is supposed to further improve JavaScript execution speed, likely to be better than its predecessor, Crankshaft. While TurboFan is still in its early stage, that doesn't mean we can't take a look at it._

I imagine that it has to get stable for v8 first before it is even considered, but that's exactly the example of potential "more performance" in io.js

[1] [http://ariya.ofilabs.com/2014/08/javascript- and-v8-turbofan....](http://ariya.ofilabs.com/2014/08/javascript- and-v8-turbofan.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Computer Programmers Should Stop Calling Themselves Engineers - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/programmers-should-not-call-themselves-engineers/414271/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> We are building billion dollar software products that take hundreds or thousands of "man years", with rigorous processes. So, respectfully, you can complain all you want but engineer is a fine title and description even if the software variety does not have the same gatekeepers you're used to in other engineering fields.

<comment><USER3> Yep. Not all computer programmers are software engineers, but there definitely are software engineers. Building high-scale systems that also achieve high- availability with no maintenance windows yadda yadda is a challenging problem that requires navigating tradeoffs using scientific principles in the same way as other branches of engineering.

Related: the article "They Write the Right Stuff", about the software engineers who worked on the Space Shuttle [1].

In the United States, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), which is the organization of engineering licensing boards in all states, recognizes Software Engineering as a discipline of Professional Engineering [2]. Our industry does not ordinarily require certification as a professional engineer, and it is not normally required by law; however, if you look at the topics that the certification exam covers [3] -- intended for people with 4 years minimum industry experience -- they are all ones that I'd expect senior software engineers to have down pat.

[1] [https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right- stuff](https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff)

[2] [https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/software/](https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/software/)

[3] [https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SWE- Apr-2013.pd...](https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SWE-Apr-2013.pdf)

<comment><USER4> NCEES is discontinuing the PE Software exam because fewer than 100 people have ever taken it. In my experience, maybe 10% of people in the field have even heard of it, and most of them think it's useless.

<comment><USER5> It's maybe just not cool to be a true engineer and true engineered products. It's more cool to participate in a startup and build crappy software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Agreed. 'Software engineers' are not actual engineers for the same reason that bridges and buildings don't come with an end-user license agreement that disclaims liability for a faulty product.

"BY SETTING FOOT ON THE BRIDGE YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE BRIDGE IS PROVIDED ON AN 'AS IS' BASIS AND THAT YOUR USE AND RELIANCE ON THE BRIDGE THEREBY IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND DISCRETION. COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATES, PARTNERS AND SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND GUARANTIES REGARDING THE BRIDGE WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. FURTHERMORE, COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATES, PARTNERS AND SUPPLIERS MAKE NO WARRANTY THAT (I) THE BRIDGE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS; (II) THE BRIDGE WILL BE STRUCTURALLY SOUND, RELIABLE, SECURE AND ERROR-FREE; (III) THE QUALITY OF THE BRIDGE WILL BE AS REPRESENTED OR MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS; OR (IV) ANY FAULTS IN THE BRIDGE WILL BE CORRECTED."

<comment><USER7> THE FOLLOWING SETS FORTH ATTRIBUTION NOTICES FOR THIRD PARTY COMPONENTS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED IN PORTIONS OF THIS BRIDGE. WE THANK THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY FOR ALL OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've written this a dozen times, but 'software engineer' has pretty much never been a sub-category of engineer. It's a title internal to the software industry, and need not have any relation to Engineering beyond a metaphor. I genuinely don't understand why people find the distiction between a title and a kind of engineer such a problem. Why doesn't 'software architect' get the same criticism for not being an architect? If you're at work, everyone knows what 'software engineer' means. If you're at an engineering convention, don't call yourself an engineer unless you have the credentials.

This title sometimes accompanies pretension toward traditional engineering, which is fine as far as it goes - usually not very far. I realize that there are some efforts in some jurisdictions to get something like engineering credentials for programmers. Ok, maybe that's not misguided, but I've yet to be convinced. It depends on how you conceptualize software. I don't think of it like engineering, I think of it like math. But more than that, I think of it as computer programming! If you think of it like engineering, I don't have a huge argument with that, but I have a hard time seeing is as more than an ill-fitting metaphor. I think that is one step better than the manufacturing metaphor.

<comment><USER9> > Why doesn't 'software architect' get the same criticism for not being an > architect?

I'm married to an Architect, it bugs them too.

In most states - Legally they can't call themselves Architects until they've passed the AREs. You can't take the AREs until you have enough IDP hours (which takes about 3 years). You can't start IDP unless you have a Masters (or more recently a "professional bachelors"). Oh, and you have to take a new test for every state / country you want to practice Architecture in (Reciprocity is getting better but not quickly)

So it's that sense that they have to scratch and claw to get the title where we can just sort of make it up that bugs them.

I think we should switch to a different title scheme. I'm going to be a Doctor of Site Reliability (you know since I'm already doing operations....)

<comment><USER8> Personally, I never call myself an engineer. Partly for the reason it annoys engineers, but partly because I don't think of what I do as engineering in the first place. And I think the reason for _that_ is I have studied the hell out of CS, programming, and math; but I have not studied a lick of engineering! Learning a few engineering approaches by needing to stress-test software, because it's too complicated to grok, does not qualify one as an engineer in my mind.

I do however wish that people were better able to make the distinction between titling oneself 'software architect' and claiming to be a sub-type of architect. Perhaps it's too subtle. What I mean is, 'software engineer' and 'software architect' are singular roles, peculiar to _this industry_ , that happen to be made of two words.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One theme in the article is that regulated, licensed engineers don't produce buggy designs. Of course they do. Deepwater Horizon, Fukishima, to name a couple. Engineers produce buggy, bad designs everywhere you look.

The reason bridges don't (usually) fall down is because most of them are copies of other successful designs, and because they are way overbuilt.

I seem to recall a bridge collapsed just a couple months ago squashing cars and killing people. It was a new design.

<comment><USER11> I am unsure about Fukushima being a buggy design. To me it has sounded more like mismanagement and negligence than anything else.

Case in point - the plant disaster happened because the tsunami was higher than what the sea walls had been designed for. From what I have learned, Japan has plenty of evidence that magnitude-9 earthquakes and the following tsunamis have happened in the past. The protections in Fukushima (and Daichii) were designed against less.

To fail under expected peak load is bad engineering. To ignore evidence and go with insufficient safety margins is something worse.

<comment><USER10> There were numerous design errors that enabled the flooding to destroy the plant. For example, venting the hydrogen gas into an enclosed area, which resulted in an inevitable explosion. There's plenty more, if you read a step- by-step account of the disaster.

Engineers iterate their designs based on past failures just like software engineers do. It's just that the life cycle is so much shorter for software, the iterations come thick and fast.

<comment><USER11> Thank you, those details definitely make a case of consistently bad engineering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is completely backwards to me. Instead of changing the name because it doesn't provide enough civic value, how about _provide more civic value_? Software is increasingly part of our infrastructure. The Internet is becoming utility.

There are engineering companies of all sorts that are only trying to make a (zillion) bucks and not interested in "an explicit responsibility to public safety and reliability". This isn't unique to software.

<comment><USER13> I really like this view. GetCalFresh[0] receives 30,000 applications for food stamps in 33 out of 58 counties in California _each month_. Not only is this absolutely a necessary utility but when it breaks or doesn't work the repercussions are far more sever than "somebody can't post a cat gif to reddit for a few hours".

Plug for Code for America[1], if you're interested in civic tech and want to contribute reach out. We're hiring, and there's almost guaranteed to be a local brigade working on cool stuff near you.

[0] [https://www.getcalfresh.org](https://www.getcalfresh.org) [1] [https://www.codeforamerica.org](https://www.codeforamerica.org)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The author seems to think that today's software is all created in short, barely-planned bursts of activity. They've heard of agile and scrum, and decided to lump everything together in there. The truth is there are high- assurance systems out there which go through extreme vetting and safety checks. Techniques like formal verification, model checking, and design by contract are all used to engineer safe systems.

There's no doubt that, at a certain level of quality assurance, what software developers do is truly engineering.

<comment><USER8> I'm generally opposed to the software-as-engineering metaphor, but I actually agree with what you're saying here. The problem is that in 20 years, I've never worked on a team that came within 100 miles of what you're describing. On every team I've been on, at software companies of all sizes, it goes like this:

"I like SOLID." "No, I don't like SOLID." "I think exceptions should only be thrown in truly exceptional circumstances." "No, I think you should throw at the faintest whiff of the unexpected." "I like short methods." "No, I like long methods. You can see the whole flow."

And so on. And the resulting standard for the team might as well be chosen by coin flips.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's true that software engineering doesn't require licenses like other engineers, and is not regulated unlike other engineering professions.

But after that the article goes off the rails trying to draw a distinction. Programming above a certain level _is_ engineering, just like being a mechanic above a certain level is engineering.

Unregulated, unlicensed software engineering has also produced stupendous advances in programming in the last few decades, not remotely matched by advances in other heavily regulated and licensed professions.

<comment><USER15> > just like being a mechanic above a certain level is engineering

And therein lies the confusion. There is no level at which a mechanic becomes an engineer. You can be both a mechanic and an engineer, but these are separate tracks with separate skills and training. A skilled mechanical engineer can be an inept mechanic, and vice versa. The fact that you don't understand traditional engineering shows why you consider programmers to be "engineers."

<comment><USER10> > you don't understand traditional engineering

The first rate engineers I've known were competent mechanics as well. A traditional engineering course of study involves lots of time in the shop.

A mechanic becomes an engineer when he goes beyond merely implementing "book" solutions - when he starts understanding the "book" solutions, why they work, and where they come from.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I completely agree with this. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering; however, I've chosen a career in technology. I've had titles like: systems engineer, devops engineer, build engineer, automation engineer. I've hated every one of those titles because I'm NOT an engineer. I explicitly chose not to follow the engineering path and instead start a career in technology. Funny thing is, any time I tell a coworker how I feel about being called an engineer, I just get a funny look.

<comment><USER17> Same boat. I'm still close friends with, and have mad respect for the folks who stuck with proper engineering when I realized that sort of work doesn't really align with the way I naturally think.

They've demonstrated years of diligence in earning that steel ring.

<comment><USER18> I also have friends who I have mad respect for who are proper engineers and have demonstrated years of diligence in earning that steel ring. But I also have lots of programmer friends who have demonstrated years of diligence without there being any steel ring at the end to save them from programming on a white board every time they apply for a job. I think our way is better for talented but inexperienced young folks just breaking in, but worse for experienced folks whose years of success would have earned them a universally- respected credential in pretty much every other profession.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Engineering claims an explicit responsibility to public safety and > reliability, even if it doesn't always deliver

I think this is really funny, because I worked with actual engineers on multiple projects. The 'real programmers', or however you want to call them, had to clean up their mess and introduce proper standards and processes. I also worked with some good engineers, so I'm not claiming they are all that bad. But stuff that I saw from real engineers:

\- Express distance in some unknown number (we called it 'werners' because that guy was called Werner). We introduced mm.

\- Instead of copy pasting parts of previous projects (going on for about 20 projects), we made a reusable library.

\- Disabled/circumvented safety system on a robot. We were all amazed.

\- Release things untested to end users. We tried to convince them to hire a tester, didn't work. So we tested our own stuff a bit better, but never officially got time for that.

So please leave the snarky comments that 'real engineers' are somehow better than us mortal coders. Any decent coder who worked with real engineers can tell you that the difference is not really there.

It's not the people or processes or whatever. Writing software cannot really be compared to anything else.

</comment><comment><USER20> The requirement that engineers be related to the public interest is wrong. No more than the petroleum engineer is obligated to think of the ecology or energy politics. And when there are big oil spills, I doubt it's extra criticism about engineering obligations that will do the trick, as opposed to billion dollar penalties.

Engineers often don't own priorities. So as long as the people who set company priorities don't care, nobody will either. Moral yelling won't disrupt a business model, and if neither consumers nor legislators punish companies for spilling externalities around, then what do companies care?

If the activity continues to be profitable...

</comment><comment><USER21> Related question: I was wondering about the origin of the usage of the term "build" when programmers describe what they do. To be clear, I am not referring to "build" as in compiling, assembling and linking to "build" binaries, but "build" as used in statements such as "I like to build stuff." I believe it may have originated from a 1993 book called "Code Complete". This book used a "construction" metaphor to describe programming. This is only a guess.

</comment><comment><USER22> There are Software Engineers but just because you are a Computer Programmer does not mean you are an Engineer. Engineers are defined as "individuals who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems." Most so-called engineers are software programmers.

But Language is fluid and changes with time, so at this time "Software Engineer" is the term so it's no good fighting it.

<comment><USER23> The difference here is that, while language is very fluid, ENGINEER is a legally controlled term.

Engineering as a profession has licensure- as does a doctor or nurse. There are potential legal consequences for calling oneself an engineer when one is not.

There should be some effort to fight ambiguity masquerading as fluidity. They are not the same thing. This ambiguity literally got a child decapitated recently.

<comment><USER24> > ENGINEER is a legally controlled term.

It's a classification, so I don't think that's so. "Driver" is an equivalent term.

<comment><USER23> I'm sorry, but this is incorrect.

[https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/resources/faq](https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/resources/faq)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_en...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering#United_States)

<comment><USER25> According to your Wikipedia link:

>Since regulation of the practice of engineering is performed by the individual states in the United States, areas of engineering involved in interstate commerce are essentially unregulated. These areas include much of mechanical, aerospace, and chemical engineering—and may be specifically exempted from regulation under an "industrial exemption." An industrial exemption covers engineers who design products such as automobiles that are sold (or have the potential to be sold) outside the state where they are produced, as well as the equipment used to produce the product.

According to the other:

>Engineering licensure constitutes an integral part of the program of professional development of many companies; so much so, in fact, that many progressive companies have specific policies encouraging licensure and providing concrete assistance to engineers taking their first steps toward licensure

This implies that they are engineers even before licensure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> What most programmers do isn't engineering. However, there are programmers that do engineering. Here's two that were used to make software that was consistently low-defect that sometimes came with warranties. I picked them since they had acceptable cost/timing vs the methods with full, formal verification.

[http://infohost.nmt.edu/~al/cseet- paper.html](http://infohost.nmt.edu/~al/cseet-paper.html)

[http://www.anthonyhall.org/c_by_c_secure_system.pdf](http://www.anthonyhall.org/c_by_c_secure_system.pdf)

<comment><USER5> Hi nickpsecurity, I always like your posts, that's why I bookmarked your comments page and check it every few days for changes.

What stands out, that these papers and articles are pretty old. It seems to me that these are pretty academic examples. I don't understand why we can't see a lot of software in the wild, following the state of the art practices of building secure software. Maybe these practices are still relatively impracticable to the average programmer.

Maybe research on secure software development should check their ideas more for psychological acceptability (Saltzer/Schröder).

<comment><USER26> Glad you enjoy it. If you like that kind of stuff, you should keep an eye on Lobste.rs since I submit most of the CompSci stuff there. Mainly because they like it more over there but some people occasionally build on it. Mostly about formal methods filtered down to most interesting work but also do other stuff here and there. Here's a link to my submissions if you want to go through them:

[https://lobste.rs/newest/nickpsecurity](https://lobste.rs/newest/nickpsecurity)

Far as old, it's important to remember that many things we're doing today started in some form a long time ago. Certain principles are timeless. For instance, the Burroughs B5000 was checking for overflows and argument matching on every operation at the CPU level back in 1961. That thing was immune to common, coding attacks until maybe when ROP was invented. The newer thing was C language designed for efficiency on weaker hardware. People still argue today if we can defeat the vulnerabilities in our legacy systems without realizing some in 60's-80's were immune to them. Occasionally, a current team will learn from or reinvent that older research to find it's still useful like crash-safe.org and Cambridge's CHERI did for secure CPU's w/ CHERI running FreeBSD. So, don't judge by age: look at what was done, why it worked, why it would/wouldn't today, if changes in context matter, and esp how practical it might be.

Far as that, Cleanroom worked even on first try on real projects for commercial teams and students. I just got the book recently where I'll be trying it sometime in near future. It looks pretty good so far with it just being careful structuring and thinking about things in algebraic way. Why did it disappear? Likely bandwagon effect where some New Great Method got popular like it did, displaced it as project managers wanted to look like they were doing something new, and now it's a relic of history. Lots of stuff like that. Happens more if there's big companies with enterprise tooling backing the newcomers like the 4GL's, UML, etc. Even more when tool promises to remove human from equation as much as possible vs Cleanroom that built on human talent (i.e. time).

Now, SPARK is entirely different. I got that book, too. :) It was always marketed at a niche group of people building stuff that should never fail. They have to be willing to spend a lot of time using specialist techniques to make that happen. They also must do it in non-mainstream language with proprietary tooling. Needless to say, adoption was small. However, AdaCore's site shows quite a few companies are using it in safety-critical work. I also have some case studies in my Lobsters submissions involving SPARK with keywords being "SPARK," "glider," and "cubesat" if you want to try to just Google them. Altran Praxis, who originally developed it, has been using it in government and commercial projects for one or two decades. The book supposedly makes it easier. I figure a combo of spec-based tests, automated solving, and runtime checks for what's left is still gonna be easiest approach.

Aside from those two, another nice example is Design-by-Contract which is quite accessible to average developer. It just says what the component expects to receive, maintain, and deliver. That can be turned into tests, runtime checks, or verification conditions for a prover. One can also combine the runtime checks with fuzzing like AFL to make it zero in on the specific error. Eiffel Method brought that to significant adoption in industry even though small in larger scheme of things. We have seen increased adoption of some of those principles with more contract implementations in mainstream languages and property-based testing getting popular. Anyway, here's a nice description of that I saved as much for managers as developers:

[https://www.win.tue.nl/~wstomv/edu/2ip30/references/design-b...](https://www.win.tue.nl/~wstomv/edu/2ip30/references/design- by-contract/index.html)

"Maybe research on secure software development should check their ideas more for psychological acceptability (Saltzer/Schröder)."

Oh, I've learned so much about this angle. I couldn't begin to tell you. Mostly pessimistic but there's some hope. We've been solving the wrong problems. Most of the security problem comes from political maneuverings through lobbyists, market preferences which rarely value security, and business incentives that are similar. There's strategies for each which have potential. My best hypothesis for now is to keep pushing methods that are productive with the tech designed for verification [later] with lightweight methods used up front. You sell the approach as much as possible on _non- security_ benefits with a certain amount of money funneled into improving security of the project or its dependencies. Rinse repeat. Also, better to invest in projects that improve security on things with same language, API, ISA, etc as things with huge, bandwagon effects. Gotta go with the flow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > "I'm not a programmer,[] —oh, engineer, in tech-bro speak. Though to me, > engineers are people who build bridges and follow pretty rigid processes for > a reason." His indictment touches a nerve.

No shit it touches a nerve. It's cliché both in sentiment and presentation. No laboratory could design a sentence more tailor-made to light up an American- left cultural-critic writer's brain.

It's almost a work of art that in so few words the speaker postured themselves, namecheked this week's scapegoat and even snuck in a bit of a humble-brag.

</comment><comment><USER28> Where software is highly regulated, it is of much higher quality. This article is so badly researched, they use the example of a late model car starting reliably as an example of good engineering. Well then, I suppose the people who wrote the millions of lines of code that run that car shouldn't be called engineers either. Or should they? Clearly the article's author is too stupid to understand the technology. What about people who write airplane software? If this idiotic author doesn't want bugs in his Google docs, he should be pushing to regulate such software in the same way that airplane software is regulated. Sure, it doesn't make sense to do that. What would make sense is to realize that regulations and laws are the only difference between flight software and some buggy internet app. If you remove regulations from flight software and car software, planes and cars will crash and kill. At least Google docs might only lose your document in the worst case scenario. And don't even get me started on the outrage of train engineers at their title being co-opted. /s

</comment><comment><USER29> Engineering is a discipline in which new endevours are undertaken with repeatable processes defined by the knowledge and experience learned from previous engineers' efforts in the same domain, codified in "professional standards."

For problem domains whose solutions are manifest in well-known artifacts, such as bridges and buildings, these standards have been established over several centuries. Still, failures persist which cause refinement in said standards, though at a low enough frequency where the failures now are seen as aberrant conditions.

Where software practitioners study the techniques and/or practices reified by accomplished predecessors, assimilate lessons learned from the practitioner's own efforts/failures, and refine a documented repeatable approach that incorporates the aforementioned, there is little cause to refute the title of "software engineer."

</comment><comment><USER30> The term "software engineer" I believe came out of the engineering schools of various universities taking on CS disciplines and naming majors in this way.

Anyway, by analogy to fintech and adtech, programmers should probably honestly style themselves as software technicians, unless they get themselves qualified as a real engineer.

</comment><comment><USER31> Why am I an Engineer ? Because my school, based in Europe, is accredited to deliver a proper recognized _engineering_ degree. Last time I check, I could get a P.Eng (proper engineer order here in Canada), but don't see the point forking the $400 annual subscription.

</comment><comment><USER30> And data scientists are not really scientists.

<comment><USER32> I call them Data Scientologists

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Most software "engineers" barely think about the societal consequences of their work, and CS students have no "do-no-harm" oath that engineers have to take. I would say that in comparison to engineers who build things for public interest (infrastructure that can kill people), physicists (history of the nuclear bomb), biologists (unethical medical experimentation from WWII), etc ... software engineers barely think about societal consequences of their actions the way other scientific professions do.

</comment><comment><USER34> Even though my degree certificate says "....Software Engineering", I usually refer to myself as a Software Developer. Mostly to avoid any tedious arguments with mystic folk that have sacred oaths and magic rings.

But it is noticeable that when a commercial lift/elevator or Espresso machine develops a fault, people quite casually say that "an engineer is on the way" and nobody bats an eyelid. Don't most software bugs require a much deeper diagnosis and more elaborate fix?

</comment><comment><USER35> The author arbitrarily decides on "number of failures" as their measure of reliability, as opposed to a much more reasonable "number of failures" * "mean cost of failure". There is also no attempt to correct for the confirmation bias of software being so popular, no attempt to present non-anecdotal evidence, and no attempt to provide comparative data for other engineering disciplines.

</comment><comment><USER36> This article climbs the HN ranks once every few months... I'm a "real" engineer who chose to make my career in software. There are obviously things that this author does not know about software engineering and there are things that software engineers don't know about "traditional" engineering. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Everybody chill out

</comment><comment><USER37> There are certainly developers that are not doing any "engineering", but as far as the software engineer title goes there are many cases where there is a distinction without a difference.

Are the people working on autonomous driving, vehicle safety, infrastructure management any less important than the guy who designed the plastic housing with the title mechanical engineer?

<comment><USER30> Not less important, but not held to the same standard, which is the point here.

<comment><USER37> That's changing rapidly. The VW engineer that was charged with implementing a software defeat, the current Tesla controversy is entirely based on software, as is the woman killed by an Uber vehicle.

As software becomes ever more a matter of life and death I think we'll see software engineer used maybe more specifically. Maybe some or many programmers and developers should stop calling themselves engineers?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I guess Atlantic doesn't need that website it software it runs to reliably help them do their business and make money...

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm not sure which is worse: "engineer", or "architect".

<comment><USER10> Who cares, what matters is which pays better :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> A programmer is a computer code writer. A software engineer aims to be a more efficient, elegant and scientific programmer.

</comment><comment><USER41> Why Journalists Should Stop Calling Themselves Writers

<comment><USER42> Why Academic Hacks Should Stop Calling Themselves Journalists</comment></comment>


Another OS bites the dust: Samsung to fold Bada into its Linux distro - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20120117/another-os-bites-the-dust-samsung-to-fold-bada-into-smartphone-linux-effort/

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess they overlooked the complexity of writing and maintaining a new OS. Even Android uses the Linux kernel.

<comment><USER2> I think now days it has less to do with the complexity and more to do with the fact that if you are not writing a research OS, then there are few reasons to reinvent the wheel, as it gains you very little. the Linux kernel, given it linage of supporting older, slower hardware, needs little adaptation to target it for lower powered mobile devices and it is mature. Given that the kernel is under the hood, it makes sense to use an off the shelf one that workes and focus development efforts on UI, workflow and ease of development for the platform. These are the areas where competition is still fierce and distinctions can be made. Many users will not be affected by the fact that the kernel is Linux, BSD or custom built kernel. Given that fact, it makes sense to leverage the momentum that is behind existing efforts and differentiate your product where the decision making process is happening for consumers.</comment></comment>


How to Do Code Reviews - <AUTHOR> https://www.notion.so/How-to-do-Code-Reviews-1c33cbf7597a4d61aeb3905b86844baf <comment><USER2> The title of the article is "How to do code reviews" yet all the content is around why code reviews are done and what the goals are. And the content itself is pretty light - the second half is just rehashing the first half, which are all bullet points.

I'm curious how it made it to the front page and if some of the folks who thought it was useful could comment about how it helped them understand _how_ to do a code review?

<comment><USER3> I agree and even then I think it misses some major goals of code reviews. For example, encouraging thinking about good coding style (as opposed to just "standards"), making use of the language's syntax sugar where it makes things more readable, and the underlying performance.

To give a pretty trivial example of syntax sugar, if someone has written in C#:

      var maxHeight = buildings.Select(b => b.Height).Max();

then I might point out that you can shorten it to

      var maxHeight = buildings.Max(b => b.Height);

whilst keeping it just as readable. Well, more readable because you need to read less characters to easily understand it. It seems pretty nitpicky but it's the kind of thing I'm delighted to be shown myself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a nice check-list.

A lot of people don't really know this stuff. It's nice to have a concise page to point them to.

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice list but for me missing the most difficult pieces

\- while giving a review, how to not focus on superficial details but instead really take the time to understand the problem and the solution. Making sure you can really understand why things were done the way they were and thinking about whether things could be made more clear, performant, follow best practices more closely, etc

\- when receiving a review learning that people are reviewing it your code not you, learning how to look forward to reviews because they make your final product better

Would love to see advice on the really difficult bits of code review

<comment><USER6> This, and especially the first point, is key to good reviews. It is also why good code reviews take time - sometimes (almost) as long as actually writing the code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article is more why than how, so I have a question for HN. Is it acceptable for a company to not do code review until late in the funding game (like series E/F)? Like move fast and break things to get MVP going and break a lot of best practices doing it, and at what point should that be reigned in?

Imagine you are at a unicorn with physical product already operating in public, and a C laughs at a suggestion of code review and says its too long, hard and expensive. What would you do?

</comment><comment><USER8> Good post on the what.

This one on the human/how: [https://dev.to/solidi/be-a-rockstar-at-pull- requests-1e4f](https://dev.to/solidi/be-a-rockstar-at-pull-requests-1e4f)

</comment><comment><USER9> This is more of a list of "why" you do code reviews rather than how to do them. In my opinion the way to do code reviews is to be didactic. The point is not _just_ to tell people that there are problems, but to explain why they are problems so that the developer can learn and avoid making similar problems in the future.

<comment><USER10> I try to have my team "teach not criticize" when it comes to code reviews. This helps shift the mindset from "what's wrong with this code" to "how can this code be better".

Its a subtle difference, but makes a difference in morale and code quality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Steals/Hijacks the back-button via option-left keys, which was quite unexpected.</comment>


Why do C++ folks make things so complicated? - <AUTHOR> http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/06/14/why-do-c-folks-make-things-so-complicated/ <comment><USER2> If you want to make such a distinction, Qt is probably what would come close to top-C++. It offers dynamic binding via signals/slots, Java-like iterators, simple multi-threading/parallelization, signal/slot-driven networking, database access, and some automatic memory management (deletion via parent widgets, and auto-pointers). It only misses the proposed compiler warnings to indicate that 'bottom-C++' is used.

Still, for the average programmar 'top-C++' makes a miserable language. Want to write a simple class? You have to make a separate header file and decide what methods to inline/make virtual, etc. Want (binary) compatibility? You'll have to worry about things such as PIMPL and d-pointers.

It's a low-level language, and low-level issues will always leak into higher- level subsets. And why should one go through the effort? The old mantra "write in a higher language, rewrite what is too slow in C/C++" works fine.

<comment><USER3> Performance is a cross-cutting concern, you should factor it into the design of the application and not remember it when doing field tests and noticing that the software is too slow.

This doesn't mean that you must use C or C++, but assuming that you can always rewrite the slow parts in C or C++ is inviting disaster.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't that go against all we have learned in CS? Early optimization being the root of all evil. And don't optimize what you think will be slow, but what you have measured to be slow?

<comment><USER5> If we had learned something, we'd have learned the FULL quote, wouldn't we?

"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil"

Note, "small" and "97%".

That means that you should make the right large-scale decisions _before_ you code. Or measure.

<comment><USER6> Yes. Another way to put this is that there's a difference between "designing to be sufficiently performant" and "optimization".

<comment><USER5> It also means "don't be boneheaded about local performance". That's the other 3%. I wish it didn't need to be said, but there are quite a few projects I've seen where people blatantly ruined performance, all the while quoting Knuth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> C++ already contains "top" and "bottom" C++. You can write boost-style code, with heavy use of smart_ptr and STL algorithms & functors, or you can stay pretty close to the "C with classes" layer.

<comment><USER8> That's the thing I like most about C++. I can do any type of programming in it (OOP, functional, procedural, templates, etc.). I can roll my own data structures or use the built-in STL containers while working with low-level C-like code. I'm not sure why so many people complain about it. Once I began using it, it quickly became my primary programing tool on Unix, Windows and Macs.

<comment><USER9> "Beware the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy." -- Alan Perlis

C++ is, for many people, a Turing Tarpit: Ask yourself why you wouldn't write something in assembly, and that's why they wouldn't write it in C++.

In specific, C++ doesn't have built-in support for real garbage collection. This means a lot of the idioms I take for granted in languages like Common Lisp and Haskell, to pick two very different languages that have true gc in common, are effectively impossible in C++.

For example, I can't reliably pass complex data structures around using function composition (think f(g(h(x)))) because I can't rely on them _existing_ from one function call to the next; an allocation may have failed somewhere up the line and now what? Adding in all the code needed to handle that isn't just a pain, it obscures the algorithm to the point I'm not programming the same way anymore. I'm not even _thinking_ the same way anymore.

Now for a purely personal anecdote: I quite like C. I can do certain things in C about as fast as I can think of them (mostly, things involving the POSIX API and no really complex data structures). I occasionally get the notion to add some C++ to my bag of tricks; not C-With-Classes, but C++ with Boost and the STL and whatever else g++ can handle these days. I might as well learn to swim by jumping in 500 feet upstream of Niagara Falls; there's "hitting the ground running", there's "hitting the ground doing back-flips and double- somersaults", and then there's "hitting the ground juggling sharpened sabres and gently convincing hungry wolves to not eviscerate you." Honestly, it wasn't this hard to learn how to write macros in Common Lisp. I don't know if the problem is just me or if it really is that bizarre in C++-land.

<comment><USER7> C++ is the wrong choice for many applications, and I'll reach for a higher- level language if I can, but if you need the low-level control of C and need _some_ tools for better abstraction C++ is your only real option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> C# comes to mind when he is talking about top/bottom C++. They got this right, plus added some neat high-level features.

<comment><USER11> Actually, the commenters are arguing about what languages are best used in those roles; e.g. C as "bottom C++", Python as "top C++" - or, indeed, C# as "Top C++".

C# is nice, but I wouldn't want to write a kernel in it.

<comment><USER12> _C# is nice, but I wouldn't want to write a kernel in it._

Why not? :)

<http://singularity.codeplex.com/>

When C# is combined with Code Contracts / static verification, you get fairly clean/performant code and strong safety guarantees. I think that'd be quite nice for kernel programming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think that the main reason that C++ is so complicated is because they've had to maintain compatibility with C's model. The declaration/definition and value/reference dichotomies double up a lot of work. When you add the fact that they wanted to base STL on pointeresque semantics (iterators) and people started using template meta-programming to deal with the lack of reflection, well, it all got complicated.

</comment><comment><USER14> Simply a combination of it's nature - it's C++, and It's been around a long time. It's easy to make messy stuff with it.</comment>


Technorati Confirms: Blogging Continues To Be Pitiless Work That Doesn't Pay - <AUTHOR> http://www.tekpopuli.com/2008/09/22/technorati-confirms-blogging-continues-to-be-pitiless-work-that-doesnt-pay/

<comment><USER2> It's quite amusing how different the TechCrunch's coverage is: [http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/22/technorati-survey- says-...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/22/technorati-survey-says-the- average-blog-makes-6000-a-year/)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you're doing it for thanks, pity, or money, you're doing it wrong (1) , anyway. Do it for what you can learn about the subjects on which you blog (be it programming, startups, yourself, ...). It could be quite painful for you if you are expecting a substantial emotional or monetary return.

(1) Unless you started for other reasons and progressed (through solid traffic) to one of the other things.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is a notable exception:

"Detailed revenue breakdown of a gadget blog ($61k in dec 2007)" <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=216960>

</comment><comment><USER5> I had no idea that anybody _expected_ to make money by blogging.

<comment><USER6> Yeah. Isn't it all about getting to express your ideas without censorship? What happened to freedom of expression.

My favorite moment with blogging in 3 years' writing was when my first entry made its way up Reddit and Hacker News, and people started TALKING about it. I like the feeling of people choosing to read my stuff. Not because I'm making MONEY from it, but because... it just feels nice. Nice in a youthful, innocent, look-at-me-I'm-blogging way. And that's the best kind of nice.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you ask a similarly-named company to change theirs? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
I run a company that makes a product called e.g FooBar.  We launched two years ago.
A company called BarFoo launched several months ago, selling services to the same market.
We're not competitors, but this has understandably caused some confusion - we got an email from one of our customers wondering about BarFoo, saying that "it seems like [BarFoo] is diluting or infringing on your outstanding Product".
I'd like to ask these guys to consider changing their name since we're older, more established, and as I understand it have dibs on the trademark (IANAL).
Anybody encounter asking another company to essentially change their name?  How did you handle it? <comment><USER2> First get a lawyer. If and only if your lawyer tells you to send the other party a letter; send them a letter. You will most likely need to apply for the Trademark protection you are wanting to enforce before you do so.

This is one of the areas where winging it is not an option. If you communicate with them in any way you run the risk of creating evidence that your claim to the trademark is not as strong as it should be and you could unknowingly give the other party what they would need to force YOU to change your company's name.

</comment><comment><USER3> > dibs on the trademark

My understanding (IANAL) is that while you could register the trademark, you can't use it to stop people who were already using it before then.</comment>


Hiring Jumping Jacks and Sleeping Santas - <AUTHOR> https://blog.codonomics.com/2019/02/jumping-jacks-and-sleeping-santas.html <comment><USER2> For me, two years is a pretty bright line for minimum duration on a resume. Less than that, I assume something bad happened. (And on my resume, that's very true.)</comment>


Verizon to end location data sales to brokers - <AUTHOR> https://apnews.com/8582857aff8146f8ac81d247533b2177/APNewsBreak:-Verizon-to-end-location-data-sales-to-brokers <comment><USER2> This is excellent news! I hope T-Mobile follows suit. I'm actually surprised they weren't in the lead on this, given their attempts to be the "un-carrier."</comment>


World's First Computer Art - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/the-never-before-told-story-of-the-worlds-first-computer-art-its-a-sexy-dame/267439/ <comment><AUTHOR> Or, "How to get the attention of 18 to 24 year old operators of mission- critical equipment"</comment>


Show HN: Cronicle, backup archives rotation triggered by cron - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Kraymer/cronicle <comment><AUTHOR> The idea behind cronicle is that because doing backups via cron is so common (like triggering a pg_dump), why not add a line to your cronfile to take care of the backups rotation once your dump is done ?

cronicle takes care of organizing the data in daily/weekly/etc directories, and deduplication too : all organization is done using symlinks, underlying dumps are deleted when no more symlinks point to it.

Scratched my own itch, but interested to know if it brings something new or if existing tools use same approach.</comment>


WorldCover (YC W16): Peer-To-Peer Funded Crop Insurance in the Developing World - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ycombinator.com/worldcover-yc-w16-provides-peer-to-peer-funded-crop-insurance-in-the-developing-world <comment><USER2> This is awesome. One more way the world is getting benefits from being connected.

> there is little to no social safety net to fall back on when the rains don't > come.

My uncle farmed a moderate-sized farm in Indiana. I was surprised to find out he had a million dollars in the bank even though he lived modestly driving around in a beat-up pickup. It turns out he needed that because there were years he lost money and needed the buffer.

<comment><USER3> Cool anecdote! I'm one of the co-founders. We'd love to do this in the US eventually. The gap is widest in the developing world, and the reliance is greatest on agriculture there for a family's food and income.</comment></comment>