Why slow thinking wins - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/07/25/the-power-slow-thinking/ToZbzYl7rG0yVMCtsZ7WnJ/story.html <comment><USER2> In my last job we hired a guy who had won TopCoder competitions. I expected him to pump out code fast. Instead he turned out to be the most careful, painstaking programmer I have ever worked with. Sometimes it seemed like he was taking longer than necessary, but in two years, as far as we knew, he never shipped a bug. Seriously: no bug was ever found in code he had signed off on.

It depends on the situation, of course. Sometimes you have to "move fast and (risk that you might) break things". I think the "compleat" programmer should be able to work anywhere on the spectrum from fast to careful, depending on the task. But I certainly spend most of my time on the careful end, and I generally prefer to work with others who do too.

<comment><USER3> I'm young so this may get better with time but I've had a hard time finding environments that support the slower style. It's often derided as being the "waterfall" method.

<comment><USER4> "slower" and "waterfall" are orthogonal.

Waterfall is a theoretical idea that sounds nice, but fails miserably in practice - the key problem being the assumption that if you are diligent enough at collecting the requirements and constraints, you can resolve them at the design and implementation stage. The reality is that there is never enough time/information/budget/knowledge/resources to map the requirements and constraints, and furthermore, those change all the time so even in the unlikely case that you have managed to map the territory, by the time you deliver the solution, the territory has changed.

One can argue theoretically for waterfall as much as they want (and in fact some people do), but the collective experience with waterfall is so abysmal that whoever wants to waterfall needs to argue against the failures, rather than for the method.

<comment><USER5> I think more _large_ _scale_ projects have succeeded using waterfall than Agile.

<comment><USER4> I'm not aware of any _large scale_ projects that were attempted using Agile. Are you? FWIW, I don't think Agile is the answer - there's a continuum between (and beyond) waterfall and agile, and it's not one-method-fits-all anyway.

For that matter, I can hardly think of _large scale_ software projects that succeeded in the sense that they were on time, on budget, and satisfied the requirements a-posteriori, regardless of methodology.

Regardless, how many projects that people here are involved in are really _large scale_ ?

<comment><USER5> [http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/05/25/139218/worlds- bigges...](http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/05/25/139218/worlds-biggest- agile-software-project-close-to-failure)

<comment><USER4> I'm not defending agile, but what is described in the abstract cannot fit with what I am familiar with as "agile" \- an almost defining quality of an agile process (as I was introduced to it) is that at any given moment, the status of the project is transparent and well known by all stakeholders. Thus, if you discover all of a sudden that the project is late and over budget, you have been sleeping at the wheel.

(Note: This is not a "no true scottsman" argument. And I honestly think agile is only a good match for some projects, and not e.g. infrastructure. Nevertheless, this does not sound like the "agile" I know).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Daniel Kahneman's and Gary Klein's (two of the experts usually seen on opposing sides of the conversation) article "A Failure to Disagree" is worth a read [1]:

"This article reports on an effort to explore the differences between two approaches to intuition and expertise that are often viewed as conflicting: heuristics and biases (HB) and naturalistic decision making (NDM). Starting from the obvious fact that professional intuition is sometimes marvelous and sometimes flawed, the authors attempt to map the boundary conditions that separate true intuitive skill from overconfident and biased impressions. They conclude that evaluating the likely quality of an intuitive judgment requires an assessment of the predictability of the environment in which the judgment is made and of the individual's opportunity to learn the regularities of that environment. Subjective experience is not a reliable indicator of judgment accuracy."

They agree on almost every point, they disagree on the usefulness of checklists on low-validity environments and on "whether there's more to be gained by listening to intuitions or by stifling them until you have a chance to get all the information." [2]

[1] 2009, Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree., Kahneman, Klein. [http://www.fiddlemath.net/stuff/conditions-for-intuitive- exp...](http://www.fiddlemath.net/stuff/conditions-for-intuitive- expertise.pdf) [2] Strategic decisions: When can you trust your gut? [http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/strategic_decision...](http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/strategic_decisions_when_can_you_trust_your_gut)

</comment><comment><USER7> I've worked with beginning programmers before and one of the characteristics I see with the most struggling ones is that they have a tendency to repeatedly make small, almost random changes to code and run it until they get something which seems to work. Their code looks like a mess and almost always fails edge cases - when questioned on the behaviour of their solution on such, they often have no idea what it'll do, and only vaguely understand the code they wrote. I wonder if this is an example of them using the "fast thinking" path almost exclusively.

I've had success with forcing them to use pencil and paper, or a whiteboard, to design their algorithm and writing the code, before ever touching a computer to test it. This is a way to force them into the "slow thinking" mode, because there is no immediate feedback and they'll have to think more carefully about it. Put them in front of an IDE, however, and they just get tempted into writing code without thinking much about what it's doing.

<comment><USER8> Perhaps I'm just begging to be flamed, but I've noticed this quite a bit with TDD. It's easy to write a test case, jiggle around the code until it works, and then call it "ready".

In an ideal world, the jiggling around would be followed by a review of the relevant codebase and a good refactoring, but this step is pretty universally missed in my experience. Additionally, the thinking should be occurring in the "build the tests" phase, but it's not. Or rather, only the "happy path" tests are built; the corner cases and error cases are missed or outright skipped.

I noticed this in myself first, and slowing down has definitely helped. As has spelling out the test cases before touching any code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Everyone remembers the story of the tortoise and the hare, but no one seems to have learned the lesson it teaches:_

Uh, no. I'm pretty sure everyone learned the apparent lesson that "slow-and- steady wins the race". Of course, that lesson is seriously incorrect since almost every race is won by the fastest. The real lesson is that pride goes before a fall. That is not what the article is suggesting.

 _Daniel Kahneman, the only non-economist to be awarded the Nobel Prize in economics._

Uh, no. John Nash, the only economics "Nobel prize" winner most people could actually name, is also not an economist.

And then the article goes on to suggest that brain teasers and their ability to tease brains--even MIT brains--have real-world implications. Okay, whatever.

</comment><comment><USER10> 3 interesting/fun word problems from TFA:

1) A bat and a ball cost $1.10. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? ____cents

2) If it takes five machines five minutes to make five widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? ____minutes

3) In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? ____days

How did you do? (see article for answers)

<comment><USER11> I have to wonder if #3 isn't a quick thinking/pattern match for people with a CS background. Instant trigger/right for me. I'd think that people who work algorithmically should do better than a control group. I'm defensive with that statement because there's quite a few "people studying the subject do no better than the average" experiments (in economic) but I think there's a difference between academic knowledge and applied knowledge so if you think about complexity problems often you should do better on this one.

The interesting takeaway for me is that environment probably matters. If I take a test like this in a very relaxed environment I'm probably slowing down automatically.

<comment><USER12> All three of them were a pattern match for me. The first one was an obvious "Subtract the difference, split the remainder" problem. The second one I immediately thought "What's the rate?", did a little math, and figured out that in both cases one machine builds one widget, so it'll still be 5 min/widget. The third one is a classic exponential growth problem.

<comment><USER13> I suspect that they are a lot easier when you are primed with the idea that they are trick questions.

<comment><USER12> Probably yes, but the point is that if you've seen similar problems before, the fact that they _are_ counterintuitive trick questions is part of your pattern-match, and so you jump to a problem-solving strategy that manipulates the data you're provided in a way that's accurate rather than one that's not.

It's the same way you build expertise in any domain: proceed with your initial hypothesis, but then once experience proves you wrong, build a new, more accurate mental model. That new model will give right answers in a greater percentage of cases, but inevitably _it 's_ wrong too, and so you repeat the process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This advice seems to be in stark contrast to the "speed as a habit" thread that everyone got excited about: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9923239](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9923239)

Speed as a habit seems like it would ruin the ability to slow-think. Is there a dichotomy here or can we do both?

<comment><USER15> Copying my reply from that thread:

Speed is important. Patience is important. Stepping back and smelling the flowers is important. It's not about fast or slow. It's about right, and you can't be right all the time if you're stuck in the habit of zooming along all the time.

I remember how many __years__ it took Apple to figure out how to do right- click properly while their competitors were speeding along with that silly second button.

<comment><USER16> I honestly didn't realize that Apple ever figured that out. I started out on Macs (Mac+), but haven't had one since the '90s. I used one earlier this year trying to do stuff for my cousin on her machine. That mouse was truly _bizarre_. You'd accidentally touch it a certain way and weird shit would happen.

I'm sure it's great once you learn it and get used to it, but not exactly intuitive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I high school I went to extra lessons in physics. The teacher gave out a problem that he said it had a simple end result but he never seen an elegant way to solve it. An other guy the next class solved it with one really well designed figure and like three line of simple equations, it was awesome. I know he was a slow thinker, he wasn't really good at timed competitions However there was a competition where you had to solve problems from a journal monthly and send them back, he was really good at it.

</comment><comment><USER18> First time I came across this idea was in Ed DeBono's "DeBono's Thinking Course" which (paraphrasing) said "the sheer physical speed of the clever mind leads it to find an immediate solution. But not necessarily the correct, or best solution." The book is full of excellent methods of improving thinking, and I believe he's put out a few other books since then.

<comment><USER11> I really like his "thinking hats" book. Seems a bit gimmicky but I really enjoy applying it every now and then. I even got colored baseball hats for it :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> >> Daniel Kahneman, the only non-economist to be awarded the Nobel Prize in economics

John Nash (mathematician) also won the econ Nobel

<comment><USER4> As did Kenneth Arrow[0], Merton&Scholes[1] (Fisher Black had already died at that point, and they don't award it posthumously), and Aumann[2].

These three are off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others as well. Also, it's not a real Nobel[3] - it's a later addition (although it is awarded by the same committee at the same ceremony).

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

[1] [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic- sciences/lau...](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic- sciences/laureates/1997/press.html)

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

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's funny how even after reading the answer to the bat-ball question months ago and forgetting it, I got it wrong again. I even took some time to think.

How can we make slow thinking less forgetful?

<comment><USER21> I've thought about this often and the only solution I can come up with is to disallow myself to think quickly when solving problems, even when I believe that I should reliably be able to do so[0].

I've noticed that when I take the time to think slowly through problems, although the initial activation energy is higher, that I end up saving time in the long run. Also, I tend to end up with a higher percentage of correct answers. This trend tends to increase with the complexity of the problem.

Yes, you probably lose some time on the easy problems, but I look at it as a method of gaining net time over days, weeks, etc.

This, unfortunately, is tough to stick with. It's tempting to skip the easy steps along the way (and let our System 1 do all the work, leaving System 2 to collect dust).

[0] - This is still a working hypothesis that I will undoubtedly go back and forth on for the years to come.

<comment><USER22> At least for those problems, I don't think it's about trying to slow down. It's about trying to poke holes in your answer and make sure it holds up to some testing.

The intuitive answer to the first problem is $.10 but if you take time to double check and add a dollar to that, you see it's wrong.

I don't think this is too different from programming... the time you take to re-read some code you just wrote and think like a compiler and mentally execute the edge cases, etc.

<comment><USER5> For me it was a case of reading the question properly, rather than skimming it and assuming you knew what it was asking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Because fast thinking isn't really _thinking_.

</comment><comment><USER24> > Odeh has watched this idea transform his students' behavior over the course > of the school year: "I've seen students in the program in the hallway > pulling their fellow students away from the start of a fight, just repeating > and reminding them, 'Warrior energy, warrior energy.' "

This was the most significant bit for me. Getting their thinking and behavioral pattern to change and creating a social enforcement around it. Inarguably, this is what school should be about; because so many kids do not get the right kind of nurturing they need at home, and lead destructive broken lives as a result, only perpetuating things further in their own children, and so on.

</comment><comment><USER25> I would call it "thoroughly thinking" and "ignorant thinking" instead of fast and slow.

<comment><USER26> ... then you would miss the core concept of Kahneman's thesis.

His book is very thorough in defining these systems, how they interact, and what situations each are a good fit for.

Fast thinking is important for low cost, instantaneous decisions. It's important so that your type 2 system isn't engaged all day, because that system consumes more energy and takes more effort to kick in.

The problem is that erroneous heuristics are frequently encoded in type 1. That doesn't mean it's useless -- there is an intuitive expertise that can be developed by correctly providing feedback to your type 1.

Try not to think of it like "good" versus "bad" thinking. Type I is incredibly powerful, but has all these gotchas.

The way I think of it is type 1 is like an associative or probabilistic cache. Lookups aren't always perfect -- sometimes type 1 answers an easier question rather than the one it asked -- but the idea is that you wouldn't be able to function if every single decision or interpretation had to be run through type 2.

In other words, type 1 is a shortcut to prevent your type 2 from being overloaded.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If you only ever read one of my HN posts, I recommend reading this one (because reading the book quoted in the article - "Thinking, Fast and Slow" \- has changed my views on decision making and the human brain).

</comment><comment><USER27> Good things take time.

The race towards performance doesn't really exist in nature, it's mostly made up, and only works well for sport entertainments. There really exists a culture of performance which is silly.

</comment><comment><USER28> It's not so much slow thinking as deliberate thinking, and forcing oneself to consider problems from more than one angle, eliminating ego from the solution. Pretty Platonic, if you ask me.

</comment><comment><USER29> So how does one train in slow thinking?

<comment><USER30> One part is mentioned in the article. You need to be aware of your automatic reactions to various situations. Don't be satisfied with the first solution that comes to your mind. There might be things you have missed or your impulses are just wrong.

In programming, I think of myself as a slow thinker, but quite fast programmer. I very often find myself writing some code, re-reading it and throwing it away, because I realized it doesn't really work the way it should work. I do the same things with emails. Whenever I write a long email, the first version is most likely going to be discarded, but it still helps me organize my thoughts.

When solving a problem, always make sure you understand the root cause of it. Don't be satisfied with fixing the symptoms. If things don't work as you expect, make sure you completely understand why it is so.

Eventually, it becomes a habit to think twice before committing to something. You might still experiment, draw things on a whiteboard, do whatever helps you think, but you should not consider the side-products of that process to be the result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I got the questions right! I'm not even an MIT student, heck, not even a university student!

<comment><AUTHOR> The questions in the article are only a taster of what Daniel Kahneman explored in his research -- and it's amazing such simple ideas took so long to be realized!</comment></comment>


How eBay could help Wikimedia Commons get more open-licensed images - <AUTHOR> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/ebay-could-help-wikimedia-commons-open-licensed-images/

<comment><USER2> I need to disclaim this post with the comment that Andy and I really don't see eye to eye over many things on Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Commons :) (mainly to do with his tone; _after discussion with me and the Wikimedia community_ ).

But I really think this idea is at best a pipe dream and at worst a licensing disaster.

To highlight this lets look at Flickr. That lets you choose a free (Creative Commons) license for your material. So Commons regularly grabs useful images from there to host. And; we still get people complaining that they didn't understand this meant you could take their image and upload it somewhere else.

And this is from a site where the whole point is to upload images.

Now lets imagine Ebay implemented this; the idea that most of that sites users would comprehend the extent of a little tick box is, I feel, minimal.

I obviously am 100% behind freely licensing content - and do a lot of the sort of work he mentions in getting image/content releases by email. But I also dislike the idea of essentially misleading people and then telling them they have no way to go back on the license (yes, this happens).

I might be an outlier here in my criticism. But Commons, in my experience, tends to treat non-Commons people (especially image copyright owners) like crap. That is what needs to be fixed first, before any pressure is applied to companies like Ebay...

<comment><USER3> > But Commons, in my experience, tends to treat non-Commons people (especially > image copyright owners) like crap.

I feel this is unfair. They treat _everybody_ like crap.

On the other hand, they are very scrupulous about obeying licenses.

Anyway, the underlying assumption of the OP is that Wikimedia Commons actually wants more images. Surprisingly, this is not the case, at least, it's not a universal sentiment among Commons volunteers. Many of them believe they are curating a set of the best free images, not making an indiscriminate collection. Some see Commons as just a set of images to illustrate Wikipedia with, and don't believe it has a separate mission to collect other free imagery.

Also, Commons is already overwhelmed policing the content that gets uploaded. Unlike Flickr or other image hosts, there's no mission of self-expression there; instead, they believe every image must be correctly licensed, well categorized, and useful to someone else (and not spam or otherwise inappropriate). What's needed right now are more community tools for managing the influx.

You're right that there's no way we can explain CC licensing to eBayers. We can't even get that right on Flickr, and there are significant problems even on Wikimedia Commons itself. No matter what you tell people, make them click on, whatever, they persist in a primitive folk belief - by creating the image, they get to control who does what with it in perpetuity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a great idea, but...

One of the big problem with many of the eBay auctions is that they don't use original material - for example, if you're selling a copy of a game or movie, often you won't bother to take a picture of your copy - you'll search online and find the best one you can, slap it in the auction and call it a day.

This happens all the time, and as auctions are very time limited, it often doesn't raise the ire of the original source of the media.

If they had some sort of dedupe/anti-"stock photo"/anti-"professional product shot" thing in there, this could probably work.

<comment><USER5> Presumably someone wanting to use the image could use something like Google's image search to check if it was posted in other places that pre-date it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cool idea, but this would never happen because sellers would hate it. One of the main reasons eBay sellers brand their images with obnoxious image graffiti (overlayed text and/or styling) is that competitors have no qualms about stealing images. eBay plans to formally restricts the use of image graffiti later this fall ([http://pages.ebay.com/sellerinformation/news/newlistingrequi...](http://pages.ebay.com/sellerinformation/news/newlistingrequirements.html#pic)). I doubt that a seller who takes product photography seriously would like to hear that their competitors are legally entitled to use their photos, regardless of whether or not the practice is opt-in.</comment>


How to reject a job candidate without being an asshole - <AUTHOR> http://nathanmarz.com/blog/how-to-reject-a-job-candidate-without-being-an-asshole.html <comment><USER2> The reason many places don't do this is not so much to avoid feeling like an a-hole but to avoid accidental liability.

There are so many things you can't say or ask in an interview, that a lot of companies that are big enough to have an HR person or department will require a very generic rejection letter just to be sure they don't provide grounds for a lawsuit.

<comment><USER3> Avoiding a lawsuit is as easy as not citing illegal reasons for not hiring someone. E.g. "You're a woman," "you're Indian," "we're uncertain how your disability will effect our workplace," or "you're too old." (Or their codeword equivalents.) I think the author is just being civil and I commend him for it.

<comment><USER4> No. All you have to do is interview someone in a protected hiring class, and then say something in the rejection that contradicts or is in any way inconsistent with anything you have said or the candidate can claim you have said. Litigious candidates don't have to play to win the lawsuit, either; they can play to settle.

<comment><USER5> Litigious candidates can sue regardless of what you do. I refuse to let shysters, either opposing or my own counsel, determine how I interact with people.

<comment><USER4> You're a braver man than I!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One time I got a rejection letter from a company that included a list of reasons that people are usually rejected. One of the reasons was spelling or grammar errors in their cover letter or resume.

As it happened, this letter that they sent out contained both a spelling error and a grammatical error. In retrospect, this was perhaps a little too snarky, but I wrote back to them and pointed this out. They contacted me again, asking if I would be interested in another position they had available.

<comment><USER7> Did they happen to mention that the position had become available as a result of your email?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> You don't have any company lawyers do you?

Most companies in the land of the lawyer don't even send rejection letters, just in case the candidate decides that it contains some grounds to sue you over.

It doesn't even have to be good grounds - they just need a sleazy enough lawyer. The more info you give them the more ammo they have.

Yes it sucks to simply not hear from a company, and it leads to negative recomendations about them to friends /colleagues /potential other recruits. You can still be friendly in the letter but I would be careful about telling someone why they aren't hired.

<comment><USER9> >Most companies in the land of the lawyer don't even send rejection letters, just in case the candidate decides that it contains some grounds to sue you over.

There are so many reasons I am glad I don't live in the usa anymore.

<comment><USER10> Still, our labor market is fantastically liquid compared to a whole bunch of other nations.

It's easy to not get hired, it's easy to get fired ... which also means it's easy to get hired.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I interviewed at a bunch of places and only got two offers. One of the places I interviewed and failed was Microsoft. They had the interviews throughout the day (about 4 of them), and then after that they had an HR person give you the good or bad news.

(It's worth saying that the developers I interviewed with were really outstanding. They were in the Dev Tools group (CLR, Visual Studio, etc.) and were really sharp).

Anyway, I got pulled out, and the woman gave me "the bad news," and the typical HR lines about "not a good fit at this time," and, "we encourage you to apply again later." And then, out of nowhere, she throws out "And you should definitely take a close look at yourself to figure out how you could be better."

The reason I tell this story is to point out that "helpful feedback" is absolutely useless when not actually helpful. Having an HR person (who had, up to that point, been totally disconnected from the whole process), come and give me some "helpful tips" wasted her time and mine.

I also interviewed with Meebo (which was actually a pretty interesting interview, and the people there were pretty cool). I met with the HR guy at the end of the day, and he tried to talk me into doing an internship instead, because I'd be competing with people with "years of experience." I told him I already had some offers and I wasn't interested in an internship. Later, when he emailed to "give me the bad news," he said "we're going with another candidate, but enjoy your summer at Company X!" I'd say this loosely qualifies as rejecting me like an asshole.

I ended up with offers from Facebook and Google though, so life goes on :)

<comment><USER12> > he emailed to "give me the bad news," he said "we're going with another > candidate, but enjoy your summer at Company X!" I'd say this loosely > qualifies as rejecting me like an asshole.

Really? Wow. I'd have interpreted that as an attempt at being "friendly", showing at least some personal interest and wishing you well.

I guess that goes to show it's difficult to predict how other people will interpret things. :)

<comment><USER13> The implication is either that the candidate is actually going to end up as an intern (rather than full-time position) at Company X, or is only going to last a few months at Company X, or possibly that only Company X would accept such a candidate (depending on whether or not the candidate told him which companies had offered).

All the implications seem insulting to me, based on the story as told (that the guy wasn't interested in an internship).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've got rejected a couple of times with good, useful feedback, and a couple of times with "We can't afford to hire anyone else for a while". In both cases, I end up happy for the feedback, not pissed I didn't get the position. I want to work for the company more than I did before. I follow the companies with interest, and feel a vague sense of attachment to them. If I saw the people who rejected me at some kind of conference, I would go up and say hi. I would recommend them to my friends.

So - please do this. Unless you don't care about my opinion of you. You may not.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think the most frequent complaint of mine is unprofessionalism on the end of the company in getting back to the candidates. It's pretty much being an asshole to not get back to the candidate who takes the time to come and interview with them. I understand that they may have many a people applying for positions and this and that but there are some common courtesies. And I'm not even talking about a hyper competitive job where hundreds apply for a few positions. This has happened when I was one of the 2 people considered for the position and what not. This one time I got an email from HR after a couple of months of interviewing asking me if I was still interested in the position etc.

<comment><USER16> Completely agree - take the time, even if it's a standard no thank you email, to get back to the candidate. There are plenty of companies that do this, and while I can take the rejection without any hard feelings if that is the outcome, I will lose respect for the company when no response is given.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> For all the people claiming that this is likely to end in a lawsuit where is your evidence? Do you have any actual cases where a company was sued because they gave legitimate feedback? How much money did the company lose because of this suit? How many lawsuits are there per rejected candidate? Do you know the text of the laws that specifically address this?

<comment><USER18> I get the feeling that the "avoiding a lawsuit" justification for not supplying feedback is a result of cargo cult thinking, not actual evidence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If 1 in 1000 candidates would sue you, causing $100k in costs for a drawn-out legal battle, then your practice has a very expensive expected value, but in a way you won't notice until shit hits the proverbial fan.

<comment><USER8> Of course there is a flip side, if you interview 100 programmers in a small high tech town and piss off 99 of them by not even sending a 'no thanks' letter.

And each of them tell all their friends that you are an a-hole, then when every potential hire in Cambridge/ NYC/ Stanford etc has heard that XYZ software are a-holes you are going to have one hell of a job hiring.

<comment><USER20> fwiw, and this is certainly not my forte, i'd rather be an asshole than a defendant in a lawsuit like that

<comment><USER8> Depends who you are. If you're MSFT, IBM, etc then you don't even send a no thanks letter, you have nobody who isn't a certified HR person talk to a candidate and you don't allow any off the cuff remarks. The lawyer target cross section is too high.

If you are a small startup in a high tech hub trying to attract people, and especially if you are in a market where the programers you reject might be future customers then you're risk is different.

Companies often forget that the people they reject don't disappear. It used to be a big thing in merchant banks in the last boom to really grind and humiliate candidates - you aren't smart enough to work here etc. What they forgot is that those people went to work for companies that might need a merchant bank and that the victim is suddenly the customer.

<comment><USER21> MSFT will actually send a rejection letter. It's predictably dull.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Legal problems aside, I love this philosophy.

One of the things I hate most about the current interview process is that I take time off from work to do phone screens, maybe a whole day to do an onsite, and in the end I get these empty letters.

I'm always trying to improve myself, so having no feedback leaves me feeling bewildered. To be honest I don't know if I bombed the coding question. I came to an answer, maybe I had a couple hints - but was that it?

</comment><comment><USER23> Many of the comments below talk about potential legal liability from rejecting a candidate in an inappropriate way. Would someone care to clarify the sort of problems that can arise?

<comment><USER24> There are a lot of problems that can happen.

For instance if you complain about hygiene and the person has a medical condition that causes them to stink (don't laugh, this happens), you can be sued for discrimination. If the person had a thick accent and you didn't want to hire because of the communication issue (I've seen candidates rejected for this reason), they could decide that you're racist and sue you. If the candidate is older and you say a wide variety of things (that they are over- qualified, their skillset is dated, poor cultural fit, etc), you can be sued for ageism.

The upshot is that it is virtually impossible to figure out what comment will hit a hot button. And there are a lot of legitimate reasons to reject someone, which aren't illegal, that they can take as evidence of discrimination.

Even if it is an open and shut case that you're going to win, they can still make it cost a substantial amount of lawyer's fees. And you, personally, don't benefit from telling them this, so there is no percentage in going there.

Or so every HR department in the USA will tell you. And every lawyer they get advice from.

<comment><USER25> The other problem is that, if you tell Candidate X that you are not hiring her because of e.g. insufficiently experience with SQL, and it develops that you have previously hired a non-Q developer who didn't do SQL either, you now get to answer a lawsuit alleging discrimination against Q candidates. (We all know people are package deals, but if you put in writing that you hung your hat on a particular detail, then you're going to look like you're lying to cover your antiQist biases.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I like this philosophy. In general, people should learn how to give and take feedback. I've been in the position where I wish I had known why I didn't get a certain job or opportunity. Knowing the reason not only softens the disappointment but lets one learn and improve for next time.

</comment><comment><USER27> On the flip side, is it considered okay to simply stop contacting a candidate after three or four interviews, never send a rejection notice, and refuse to answer an email or phone call about the situation?

I've had this happen to me three times in the last five years -- mostly for positions within a marketing department, where you would think communication would matter.

Unfortunately, fear of retaliation or blacklisting keeps applicants like myself from disclosing specific company or hiring manager names...I feel it's disrespectful to not at least send an FOD note of 10 words or less if you've spent hours with them.

</comment><comment><USER28> The only time when I had a bad feeling about such an email was when I felt that I got positive feedback during the interview, got no "warning" signs during it and so on, yet on the other day, I was told almost exactly this.

Otherwise, it's quite ok. Make it short, who wants to read ton of shit just to hear no? If you can list one (or more) serious reason (lack of experience, education, whatever, once, I was told that I was simply too pesimistic, but that was on phone), fine, but still, keep it short. And well, don't expect much feedback.

</comment><comment><USER29> For an all day interview, sure some feedback would be nice.

For a phone interview, I'd probably think you're a bigger asshole if you went into details about how I failed the interview, what's wrong with me, why I'm unqualified, and how I can go about improving myself. Imagine someone going into the details about why we won't be going out on a second date.

<comment><USER30> In my less socially adept days, I would have _loved_ that. A sort of dating exit interview? Yes please.

<comment><USER31> You'd have heard a lot of incorrect information. People have no idea what attracts them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> At the end of interviews when they ask "Do you have any questions for me" I make a point of asking what they felt was good about my interview and how they think I could have improved it. Most of the time, they refuse to answer that question. I think it's probably a bad idea for me to do this.

<comment><USER9> Yes that is a bad idea because you are moving the focus from the job to the interview

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> A lot of big companies do give feedback on request though especially for developer roles where you can give specific factual feedback (candidate was weak in multi-threading, etc.)

It's one of the big advantages of technical interviews. You don't have to rely purely on subjective human judgement.

<comment><USER34> _You don't have to rely purely on subjective human judgement._

And yet (aside from mega deal-breakers, like clearly overstating competence in some category) that's pretty much what hiring decisions come down to: "Are they for real? Can I rely on them? Will I get along with them?" -- the battery of contrived, essentially "objective" assessment that get thrown at candidates notwithstanding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Frankly, just doing the actual rejection makes you less of an asshole than pretty much everyone else. I've applied for a handful of positions over the last few years, and the fraction of people who actually bothered to tell me I was rejected is 0. The only exception was the supreme asshole who hired me one day, then called me the next day to tell me that I wasn't hired after all. He didn't really have a choice.

</comment><comment><USER36> How about the opposite?

A company I turned down a job offer for has been contacting me every about every three months asking if I had changed my mind.

I just recently told them to please stop contacting me and I'll contact them if I change my mind in the future.

It felt a bit assholish asking them to stop contacting me like that, but I can't decide if that's just my personality having difficulty with it or if there was a better of way of telling them "No".

</comment><comment><USER37> This sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen to me.

<comment><USER38> Only in the United States.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'd love to get rejected by somebody in this way. :)

Really, you're above average if you bother to contact the person at all once you've decided not to hire.

A lot of people are pointing out liability issues with this approach, and sadly, they're probably right. But I bet there are constructive things you could tell rejected applicants that would be still be safe from lawsuit.

</comment><comment><USER40> Reality check -- sometimes you reject a candidate for less than scientific reasons. Either you didn't "click" with them, or there was something that you just didn't like. Shallow? Maybe. But when I've hired people in the past, I've made the mistake of overlooking someone's personality in favor of what looked like a superior skillset. Several magnificent failures later, I won't do that again.

The reality is that you have to look at someone's personality and whether they'll mesh with your team as much as their skills. That's a fact, and nobody -- repeat NOBODY -- wants to hear that they come off arrogant, ageist, misogynist, etc.

</comment><comment><USER41> If the reason your not offering someone a job is because they messed up technical questions, I think its a good idea to give them candid feedback on the spot. Its objective. If you are having to choose among several qualified candidates, then I think this is asking for trouble, since there isnt an objective clear reason for the person not getting the job.</comment>


A list of books recommended by Bryan Johnson - <AUTHOR> https://www.mostrecommendedbooks.com/recommender/Bryan%20Johnson <comment><USER2> Just another daily collection of Amazon affiliate links with no added content (tag=mostrecommendedbooks-20). reply</comment>


Forget Google and unicorns, Asian dragons are going to dominate robotics - <AUTHOR> http://robohub.org/forget-google-and-unicorns-asian-dragons-are-going-to-dominate-robotics/

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure if I can buy into the hyperbole but I do believe that we're going to see some really interesting robots in the near future. In particular the availability of video and language interpretation as inexpensive APIs will allow for much more interesting interactions.

</comment><comment><USER3> Pepper is a French robot developed and built by a company called Aldebaran. The Japanese are only the investors because they were the only ones to realize the potential of it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Softbank for software, Foxconn for hardware and Alibaba for market - it's a massive new robotics partnership.</comment>


Key to Innovation: Becoming an Observer - <AUTHOR> http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/key-to-innovation-becoming-an-observer.html <comment><USER2> I think that observing is certainly a key to innovation, but not the only one. Equally important is the ability to quickly discard your proposed solutions.

I often find myself thinking about trivial problems and the solutions to them. Not a day will go by without thinking up at least a dozen solutions to all sorts of problems, ranging from how to make a better modding system for websites (which was recently discussed here) to how to shorten the lines in my local supermarket without using more resources. The solutions that I gin up are for the most part totally ridiculous or undoable - but that's fine, as long as I have the good sense to discard them quickly and think of another one. After a while you become quite good at it, and can come up with a dozen ideas to a given problem, think all of them through, discard the ones that won't work and iterate on the ones that might in a few minutes.

I recently saw a study of innovative people, and what made them innovative. The result was that they didn't have ideas that were particularly great, they simply had many many more of them. And they were quick to discard the ones that would not work.

Another important trait of innovative people is that they have a pretty broad spectrum of knowledge. Often innovation comes from coupling ideas or systems from different fields.

just my two cents ;-)</comment>


Ask HN: What to know before traveling around the world? - <AUTHOR>

Hey, I'm an 18 year old european programmer that wants to travel round the world for a year as soon as I get out of high school (1.5 yrs).
Currently I'm saving up my money, but still I think I will couchsurf all the way.
What should I get ready for? Are there any materials (books/videos/articles) that I could read that could benefit me? What should I be doing now to be ready for the trip? Is there anything I could learn that could benefit me a lot?
Sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker. Thanks for the tips! <comment><USER2> If you bring an iPod or mp3 player, use the ear phones only in private. The hordes of people I see wandering exotic locales with their earphones in baffles me! They may see the sites, but they totally miss the total experience which includes the sounds of speech, nature, traffic, people, or even local cops trying to stop you.

Also, in SE Asia, for some reason many expats seem to slowly descend into some sort of hippy state of clothing and hair styles, complete with dreds and such. This appearance may signify to like-minded expats how cool or laid back you are, but to the nationals there it is more evidence of how different you are, resulting in less interaction with the real scene. There are always nationals ready to accommodate these types of expats, but overall this scene is a very small part of any country/city/culture.

As someone else here suggested about listening more, then talk; watch more, then do likewise. This goes for physical appearance.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a pretty seasoned traveller and I'll give you one bit of advice if you want to meet people: go to your local bar early when it is pretty much the bartenders and you. Likely they are bored and will have a chat with you. Mention that you are a tourist ask some questions and soon they will be introducing you to the locals.

It is a great way for meeting people and having a great time. I've used it many times. Last week I was in the pacific for work and by night's end was invited to a BBQ for the next day. It turned out to be a great BBQ and a unique insight into the lifestyle of the island.

When I visited Paris I made friends with the local bartender and was receiving free drinks by nights end and invites left, right and centre to join people on little adventures.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Only there's a small problem - I'm not a drinker. Perhaps I will try cafes.

<comment><USER3> Probably doesn't matter too much. I go to bars and read books. I'm sure going to a bar and ordering a coffee is less conspicuous and accepted. In fact last year I contracted an eye disease and was on all sorts of medication. I was out at bars drinking teas while my friends were drinking alcohol. Doing slightly off standard stuff like that tends to draw attention and people spark up conversations with you.

I'm sure the main point is go when the staff have some downtime and the business is a social business. I can't remember where it was but I've gone to a cafe for a tea and ended up playing backgammon with some old guys. Many countries seem to have a strong cafe culture where old men sit around playing board games (Middle East and Central America; chess and backgammon).

Best of luck. If you find it hard to socialise now I am sure after travelling for a while you will be much more comfortable with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I traveled Asia during 8 months and I don't think there is anything that prepared me for my trip. I learned through experience and by meeting other world travelers on the road. Reading is an important part of world traveling, since you have lots of down time in trains or hostels, so an e-Reader would be handy to carry lots of books. The backpack weight is an issue as well, so keep you're belongings to a minimum. For me the iPod was a must. A computer is optional, it's an unnecessary valuable item to worry about for me so I don't carry one, there are internet shops everywhere, but I understand some people cannot live without it. Camera is a must, with a few SD cards for backups. Get you're money figured out, how you're going to get your cash. I used to carry a couple of ATM cards, but there are other options you might want to explore. World traveling is the best thing I've done in my life and I'm 33, so I wish you good luck, leave all your fears behind and tackle the world!

<comment><USER4> oh! and IMHO Malaria pills are a scam, so don't fall for it. I carried a mosquito net in my backpack and slept in it whenever I was in a "high risk" area. Malaria mosquitoes come out at night.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Finding a host on couchsurfing can be difficult in big cities at peak times. I was getting five requests per day at times. Try to bring something to the table where you surf rather than giving a potential host the impression that you're only in it for the free accommodation. One great way to do this is to increase your commuity value by hosting some people before you leave.

also check out WOOFing. You can stay for free on farms and such in return for some work, not necessarily farming, sure there would be plenty of opportunities for web design or SEO work

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm not really a fan of Reddit, but the local area subreddits would likely be an invaluable resource for quick-time networking and intelligence information.

</comment><comment><USER7> Learn about a few common scams. Just to stay safe. It's obviously better to be aware of these things than to fall prey to them.

Have a key ring with a small powerful torch and a bottle opener. A smart phone with two batteries would be convenient. Make sure you have an app that can locate and remotely disable your phone in case you lose it. A kindle would be great too.

And finally.. a good pair of shoes.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is really good: <http://tynan.com/lifenomadic>

</comment><comment><USER9> The best advice I can offer you is this: No matter where you go in your travels always observe and listen before ever opening your mouth. Wherever you are you will be new there and will not know the customs, mores, or etiquette.

<comment><USER10> Don't take the above reply lightly. It's probably one of the hardest to get it right :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Be sure to get appropriate visas for each country ahead of time. For certain countries it can take a while

</comment><comment><USER12> I think backpacking is overrated... working and living somewhere is a much more genuine experience IMO.</comment>


The Solution for Open Office Frustration - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161128-the-solution-for-open-office-frustration <comment><USER2> Don't bother reading this article. The "solution"presented is to install red/green lights at your desk to signal to people not to walk up and interrupt you.

That isn't the problem. The problem is NOISE, NOISE EVERYWHERE!

<comment><USER3> The solution is to penalize the offenders, in a nice way.

I interned at Goldman Sachs on an FX trading floor (very open plan). We had an Interrupter Jar. Everytime someone interupted another person, the interrupter was required to put 20$ (yes 20$, it's chump change for FX Traders) into it. When it filled up, we'd go out and buy beers for the entire team.

It worked quite well until we had a fratboy from Boston College. He would interrupt me just so he can fill up the jar and we go drinking.

<comment><USER4> > He would interrupt me just so he can fill up the jar and we go drinking.

Now that's a pathological case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've got an amazing idea.

Go away from open plan offices. I'm really baffled that that wasn't one of the solutions in the article. Red and Green coloured cubes? Lights? Ugly attempts to mask the symptoms, rather than fix the real problem: Open plan offices suck for productivity.

<comment><USER6> That's what I was thinking, especially reading this line:

> With the vast majority of us now working in open concept offices — some > studies have said that 70% of US workers work in this kind of environment — > companies are being forced to come up with novel ways to ensure we stay > productive and don't find ourselves driven delirious from the noise and > chaos.

They are being _forced_. Who chose the open office concept in the first place!?

<comment><USER7> they're being 'forced' insofar as they're usually locked in to continuing to occupying their current office.

<comment><USER8> Cubicle walls are cheap and you can keep the current office.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't care about people coming up to talk to me. It usually means they have something they need help with or an answer to. What bothers me is the noise, and no noise cancellation set of headsets work because they block out white noise _but not people talking_. In fact, noise cancellation headphones tend to _enhance_ voices, since there is no background noise to dull it.

Lights don't solve this. Hats don't solve this. Walls and space solve this.

<comment><USER10> I've got beats in-ear headphones. They manage to block out enough noise for me not to unwillingly listen to someone else's conversation. How many consecutive hours can you wear headphones though? I don't think that having something stuck in your ear for 40+ hours a week brings any health benefits.

<comment><USER11> For me, it brought on tinnitus....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am getting so sick of open office plans. I have a colored light (a Blink(1), for those curious), and I have keyboard shortcuts for turning the light red/green, with a large sign next to the light that says "If light is red, I'm busy." I also wear very visible (and expensive) noise-cancelling headphones.

Even these very direct techniques don't work--people ignore the light and interrupt me anyway. It's gotten to the point where I straight up tell them that they're being rude and interrupting me, and to just ping me on IRC or email. They continue interrupting.

It's really sad that one of my main motivations for getting promoted is so I can get an office and avoid all these completely avoidable distractions.

Between the ops culture's endless interruptions, "Agile" ceremony, and open office plans, I don't know how we manage to get _anything_ done.

<comment><USER4> It sounds like a cultural solution might be more helpful than a tech solution in this case. Something like a standardized headphones policy. Or separating the people whose work is mostly quiet vs mostly talkative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The best solution is to never even use open office layouts.

Realistically, though, interruptions happen when they are unplanned. Need many meetings? Set the time slots and schedules.

</comment><comment><USER14> _Some workers take to building their own symbolic barriers for privacy_

At Google. somebody went as far as to build a little hut around his cube using cardboard boxes that he'd glued together. I wish I had a picture..

<comment><USER3> > build a little hut around his cube using cardboard boxes that he'd glued > together.

Like this => [https://s-media-cache- ak0.pinimg.com/564x/bc/17/61/bc17615c9...](https://s-media-cache- ak0.pinimg.com/564x/bc/17/61/bc17615c92b9920407fa184c8e9d0a54.jpg)

<comment><USER14> No, not nearly that nice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Based entirely on the title, I thought i was about to read about markdown and/or google docs.

Since it's the other kind of open office, I suggest noise-cancelling headphones and the freedom to publicly shame loud eaters without reprisal.

<comment><USER16> That reminds me of the novel jPod. Anybody who brought McDonalds (also known as 'the taint') into the office was shunned for the day.

<comment><USER15> reheating fish in a microwave is another classic horror.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I echo every other "stop building open floor plans" comment in here.

It's kind of hard to overstate the sad hilarity of so many orgs with vast resources being constitutionally incapable of using technology like _walls and doors_. There are few more concise arguments for the intellectual bankruptcy of cool-kid business practice.

</comment><comment><USER18> I thought mainstream media was finally going to recommend OpenOffice users to move to LibreOffice.

</comment><comment><USER19> The solution for open plans offices is to give everyone a real office.

<comment><USER20> I think the pendulum still has a way to swing yet. Quite a few places I know of are touting their new "activity based working" arrangements - which is HR/PR/Marketing speak for "hot desking, because rent is too expensive to even give you all your own desk in an open plan office, so you get to share desks and fight over what's left whenever you run late".

Many of the people I know who I consider to be in the "10x developer/PM/designer" category start picking up all the recruiter calls as soon as that's announced. I _strongly_ suspect whoever got "implement ABW to reduce real estate costs" as one of their KPIs also snuck "reduce renumeration costs by organically cutting headcount" written into their end-of-year-bonus goals, while explicitly leaving out anything to do with productivity (or more likely, ensuring the "productivity" KPI got dropped onto a career-ladder- rival...)

<comment><USER8> I could see hot desking work for companies that are mostly work from home. For some reason (probably the ones you listed) it gets cargo culted by companies that don't allow remote work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Carpenter says that the red-green block has made a huge difference. [...] > "It's amazing. Just by flipping something I can say I'm busy," he says. "And > I need that."

I'm not convinced this article isn't satire.

</comment><comment><USER22> _> The Solution for Open Office Frustration_

Offices.

</comment><comment><USER23> There's no solution here. Red lights, seriously?

<comment><USER24> Such a bad solution. The guy is complaining about a loud sales team, his team making phone calls and talking and a goddamn gong. The red light solves none of those problems. Sound travels regardless of whether or not you have a red light on or not. Headphones only go so far too. I don't WANT to listen to music or have my ears covered all day!

<comment><USER25> Agree on not wanting to listen to music all day. I listen to music for pleasure and not work, I can't listen to my music as I find myself drifting into the music and not work. The only think I've found that works for a reasonable period is an app called white noise that I play a storm with thunder rolling through it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Has anyone worked in a place that used transparent office partitions to kill the noise while keeping some light around?

Like these: [https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/transparent-office- partitio...](https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/transparent-office- partition.html)

Or has anyone been able to actually choose such things because they had enough power in their organisation?

They would still enable lots of people to be packed in but noise could be cut substantially.

</comment><comment><USER27> This does nothing about being visible from behind, nor the insane surveillance culture that programmers have to endure these days.

It seems like another case of engineering types addressing the symptom (noise) rather than the underlying problem, which is the low social status that got programmers into open plan cattle pens in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER28> Is there anyone reading this who has been involved/got the inside scoop in implementation of an open office plan. Was the change in productivity an issue? Did it happen? Was cost savings the only driving force?

<comment><USER29> Working in Arch firms, I have had conversations with business owners about ambient noise and I've never met one who cared - once the conversation moves to estimates.

Yes, cost is the major driving force, Lead time/schedule isn't really an issue... outside of coordinating power, lan, HVAC, and server racks. The ADA, IBC, NFPA, and life-safety codes require slightly larger spaces than you might expect in an office setting (e.g. 36" doors and 60" wide hallways typ.) When you compare how many people 'fit' into the open space vs walls, you might be a bit underwhelmed as an owner.

Basically, doors are only for those who need closed-door conversations or security.

<comment><USER28> Aha - so the building codes force a company to use considerably more floorspace for a group of people if those people are divided by walls? I hadn't really thought of that before - I thought someone was saving just the price of walls and the difficulty of organizing people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why not simply implement the policy: Only say a word while in the open office if it is an emergency that is a matter of life and death (say fire). Whoever violates this policy must put a significant amount of money into the kitty for each violation (say, 50 €/$ per violation - it really should not be cheap). This should reduce the noise problem by a lot.

<comment><USER31> When the first offender will be asked to put the money down, he will laugh it off, everyone will look at each other, crack some jokes, and the kitty will just become a paperweight.

If you could actually coordinate well enough in the office to enforce such a rule, you wouldn't need the kitty - a gentlemen's agreement would be enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Why would I ever want to make my light green?

And how does a red light on my desk stop noise?

</comment><comment><USER33> I have a solution.

Give people offices, or proper cubicles.

Holy shit I'm a genius.</comment>


U.S.-Russian Satellite Collision Sends Debris Flying - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/science/space/12satellite.html?_r=1&hp <comment><USER2> I wonder how fast the debris will be pulled downward and if it will damage other satellites, which will damage even more satellites.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, a chain reaction up there is a significant threat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's been a few posts in the last few days about business models. If someone can develop a way to clear debris from orbit, you have a business.

<comment><USER5> The lawyers and insurance companies would stop you.

This isn't a new idea, and the early satellites used a lot of gold in them. However, all those satellites have an owner, and those owners are not willing to let you _take_ the satellites away for "recycling" without getting a profit-eliminating payment.

Before satellite removal could become a viable business, one would have to change the Outer Space Treaties in order to make it work. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty>

<comment><USER6> Someone should extend the salvage law (as currently applied to boats) to also apply to failed satellites and space junk.</comment></comment></comment>


ZeroCater (YC W11) Takes the Pain Out of Ordering Your Company Lunch - <AUTHOR> http://www.7x7.com/tech-gadgets/zerocater-takes-pain-our-ordering-your-company-lunch

<comment><USER2> I have no experience with ZeroCater but I can tell you that providing food on any regular schedule for my 60 person company is a nightmare.

We don't want to provide catered lunch every day, but on any given day there are probably 2 different lunch meetings that order food in to try and make a meeting more bearable. Coordinating it, paying for it, ordering and all the other details are painful.

I absolutely welcome any service which aims to make this better and can actually do it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been eating ZeroCater provided food for the last two weeks, they offer a great selection and it's always of a high grade.

I highly recommend them.

</comment><comment><USER4> At my incubator the organizers used ZeroCater and I've heard great reviews.

<comment><USER5> really?

<comment><USER4> Yeah, worked very well. Delicious lunch and dinner every day.</comment></comment></comment>


Web Based Rich Text Editors Compared - <AUTHOR> http://bulletproofbox.com/web-based-rich-text-editors-compared/ <comment><USER2> TinyMCE is not viable if users will be pasting content from Word documents, and generally does a terrible job of dealing with pasted styles...nearly impossible to override, so you end up pasting into Notepad, etc. etc. At my job, we're going to migrate our pilot Drupal sites from TinyMCe to FCKEditor due to this reason alone: To our users (content editors/admins who were stuck in Contribute before), this makes the Drupal software as a whole look bad. Even with the "Word Paste" plugin installed for TinyMCE, users have to click a special "Word Paste" button. This is silly, in FCKEditor you just paste normally.

One of my least computer-savvy clients for whom I built a Drupal site in the spring had absolutely no trouble using FCKEditor, while even I have a hard time wrangling some content in TinyMCE.

In short, TinyMCE's time has come and gone. It's still a decent RTE, but FCK has definitely surpassed it.

<comment><USER3> Even FCK occasionally has issues with pasting content from Word. Plus it's slow to load. It has improved over time, though, and is generally a reliable component. Considering the insane constraints rich text editors must operate under, it does an admirable job.

I tried creating a home-grown editor once. It was hard. Making one that's simple, predictable, and end-user friendly is nigh impossible.

<comment><USER2> I'm working on a jQuery-based one right now (with a matching Drupal module, which would make it light-weight, as Drupal bundles jQuery). Once you understand the nuances of designMode/contentEditable, things get easier, but I know what you mean about how much you need to consider. It might feel like wasted time when CKEditor 3 (smart name change, in my opinion), which looks like the real deal, is released on December 1st.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> TinyMCE in Joomla = atrocious.

WordPress also has a surprisingly bad text editor, considering how long they've been around.

<comment><AUTHOR> Think they use this in the Confluence (popular commercial Wiki)... Wasn't impressed either - table handling could be a bit random.

<comment><USER2> That has as much to do with how bad Confluence Wiki Markup is as anything else. It doesn't allow _any_ nesting of elements because an open tag is the same as a close tag:

      {panel}
      Content
      {panel} <- Close tag!

WTF? The same goes for tables:

      ||Header||Header||
      |Cel1|Cell|
      |Cell|Cell|

Terrible design for any markup language. Of course, we're talking about the same software that doesn't have templating (unless you count dumping form values into a fully editable page), doesn't support customization (yes, I've repeatedly been told this by customer service), doesn't support a custom homepage, or damn near anything else.

I can work with Confluence pretty well now, but I'm still bitter we chose it ata my job over something more flexible like MediaWiki.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah - it is pretty flakey.

Part of the power is all the macros you can put in, but it becomes so complex that it approaches cranking out HTML...

So the confluence wiki quickly got full of these complex pages that only the author could edit without breaking - sort of went against the point of a wiki.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would have liked a use comparison, not just a setup comparison.

</comment><comment><USER6> But these have to be embedded by the webmasters, why doesn't someone make a rich text editor plugin for firefox, which would transform a regular textbox on any website to a decent editor (emacs, vim, etc.)

<comment><USER7> <http://vimperator.mozdev.org/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I made this guy <http://utilitymill.com/utility/HTML_Tag_Matcher_andor_fixer> to fix the crap tinyMCE in WordPress puts out. How can it manage to not match its divs anyway?

</comment><comment><USER9> Several additional products mentioned in the comments. In particular, this commentor points to a separate review he wrote that addresses some different products:

[http://bulletproofbox.com/web-based-rich-text-editors- compar...](http://bulletproofbox.com/web-based-rich-text-editors- compared/#comment-191)

</comment><comment><USER10> This is quite useful, as I'm building a custom CMS for my company right now. I thought we'd go with a heavily restricted tinyMCE,but it looks like WidgEditor is more along the lines of what I need. Small, light, and with just the right amount of features.

</comment><comment><USER11> How about web based rich IDE's? :)

<comment><USER12> How about leaving text as it is and add some useful features?

<comment><USER13> How about leaving the web as it is and not trying to make it do things it shouldn't and doesn't need to?</comment></comment></comment>


Building Night Vision Goggles for $100 with Raspberry Pi - <AUTHOR> https://blog.hackster.io/build-the-night-vision-goggles-youve-always-wanted-for-100-with-raspberry-pi-e54777799a7b?source <comment><USER2> Nice build, but the night vision goggles I've always wanted use either light amplification (like in Jurassic Park) or thermal imaging. You're not likely to build those for $100, but that's why this seemed an interesting click. Infrared LEDs plus a near infrared camera is rather humdrum (it's built into my laptop for instance) and can be built for far less than $100, albeit with a bit less polish.

<comment><USER3> You can get a FLIR Lepton 3 thermal sensor for about $150-180 used, typically in the form of an older FLIR One 2nd Gen iOS/Android dongle (eBay).

160x120 resolution isn't _great_ (320x240 is generally the "good enough for casual night imaging" resolution), but those are the best you can do before stepping up to a minimum of $500+ per image sensor (seek compact pro).

Here's an image set of a cat walking around a fenced-in deck next to a tree: [https://imgur.com/a/WmuQ1lA](https://imgur.com/a/WmuQ1lA)

If you look carefully in one image, you can see the heat from the paw prints remaining visible as a line in the grass. You can't see the actual prints at that resolution, but the sensor is absolutely good enough to see trails like that, especially indoors with footprints.

And in terms of intensifier tubes, you can do reasonably well picking up one of the Gen 1 monoculars sold all over the place, somewhere around $150-200 per eye, though you have to be careful as some of them are better than others.

<comment><USER4> Yeah if you've ever used proper thermal cameras, "not great" is an understatement. Plus I assume they are limited to 9 FPS which sucks.

Someone really needs to challenge FLIR's monopoly.

<comment><USER3> The Lepton modules you can buy are limited to 9fps, yes. They do seem to make some that are higher frame rate, but they aren't advertised anywhere.

FLIR and other companies like Seek[1] are selling 15/30fps imagers that are not much more expensive, though not in modules for DIY use.

The Seek Compact Pro[2][3] does a pretty good job for the ~$500 price tag

[1] [https://support.thermal.com/hc/en- us/articles/208377803-What...](https://support.thermal.com/hc/en- us/articles/208377803-What-is-FastFrame-)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgyr-4u06FU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgyr-4u06FU)

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [https://www.reddit.com/r/raspberry_pi/comments/95n7fd/night_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/raspberry_pi/comments/95n7fd/night_vision_zero_night_vision_goggles_for_less/)

Direct link for those who are interested..

<comment><USER5> [http://imgur.com/a/F2QMhwE](http://imgur.com/a/F2QMhwE)

Sorry forgot to include the galley link

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Surely connecting a camera directly to the goggles would give much better latency? An IR sensitive camera is just a normal CCD/CMOS camera with the IR filter removed (sometimes with a visible light filter instead).

<comment><USER7> AHD might be the answer. Analog, so virtually no latency and much higher resolution than traditional analog systems. It's becoming widely used in surveillance and security so that cameras and DVRs prices dropped in the last year.

A quick search brought this camera module, but so far it appears nobody has made an AHD pair of goggles.

[https://aliexpress.com/item/1-3MP-960P-AHD-M-Camera- Module-B...](https://aliexpress.com/item/1-3MP-960P-AHD-M-Camera-Module-Board- PCB-Circuit-with-AR0130-CMOS-Sensor-for-CCTV/32672241651.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The question is, though, does it make that ramping up squeal/whine sound when you click them on. That would be cool.

</comment><comment><USER9> Using Sonar + thermal imaging + laser probing and using machine learning to identify different material/distance/texture then using it to create realistic frames seems better to me.

<comment><USER10> Can I assume you have build blog somewhere for this? Or are you just saying shit for fun?</comment></comment>


Using SSL Certificates with HAProxy 1.5 - <AUTHOR> http://serversforhackers.com/editions/2014/07/29/haproxy-ssl-termation-pass-through/

<comment><AUTHOR> After the last edition on using HAProxy 1.5, many asked about using it with SSL certificates, so I've written up the process on both SSL Termination and SSL Pass-Through.

<comment><USER2> Thanks, a very well written tutorial

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> See also [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS#Haproxy](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS#Haproxy) and [https://jve.linuxwall.info/ressources/taf/haproxy- aws/](https://jve.linuxwall.info/ressources/taf/haproxy-aws/)

</comment><comment><USER4> This is great, we had to switch to HAProxy 1.5 during the beta for SSL support. Your blog post would have come in handy then!</comment>


Meteor chat app - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/zquestz/simplechat

<comment><USER2> It worries me that security is still not a big part of this. I hope most people don't miss the fact that it's simple because it's insecure? Good luck to them solving it without ruining what's a nice idea.

Sample, in your console type:

Messages.remove({})

or

Users.remove({})

<comment><USER3> Eh, that issue is not really an issue. Server-side functions are actually a surprisingly elegant way of handling security. Basically, instead of calling Users.remove({}), .insert(), .update(), etc., you create functions on the server that are called from the client. That way, the server controls what you can and can't edit. The end result is still very simple, because you're just calling functions like user_login(), send_message(), etc. instead of operating on the database directly on the client-side.

<comment><USER4> According to the FAQ they're still working on a built-in user authentication.

If you have to implement a separate, server-side CRUD security check by hand, then I don't see why I would choose Meteor over say Rails or Express plus Backbone.

<comment><AUTHOR> You wouldn't get. I use backbone every day for my main job, and it's a great tool. Just imagine when frameworks like Meteor are complete and you can minimize a bunch of your boilerplate code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Having used Meteor for a few weeks, I'm always impressed with how much time it is saving me.

One of the unfortunate things about Meteor at the moment is there aren't many open projects to learn from. For others trying to gain insights to best practices through this projects, here are some suggestions I may offer:

Users.find({last_seen: {$lt: (now - 60 * 1000)}}).forEach(function (user) { Users.remove(user._id); });

-> Users.remove({ last_seen: { $lt: (now - 60 * 1000) } });

and

Messages.find({date: {$gt: new Date()}}).forEach(function (message) { Messages.update(message._id, {$set: {date: new Date()}}); });

-> Messages.update({date: {$gt: new Date()}}, { $set: {+new Date() }})

Excellent work otherwise though. I'd love to see more open source projects released with Meteor if anything for others to learn from!

<comment><USER6> A quick search through github, i found there are so many open projects out already, you just have to know how to search. for example, <https://github.com/Maedi/CometHop> <https://github.com/jonathanKingston/britto> <https://github.com/chris- ramon/minitrello> <https://github.com/maeharin/dokoiru> <https://github.com/tomsoderlund/MathPlay> <https://github.com/philippkueng/rock-paper-scissors>

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just for a quick update. I have made a few commits to address the security problems people noted below. You can no longer reset any collections from the client, or spoof messages from a different user. If people still see issues in the code, you can let me know and I can patch those up too. =)

</comment><comment><USER7> heres mine from a while ago: <http://instachat.meteor.com/>

source: <https://github.com/spicytuna/InstaChat>

you can create rooms like this: <http://instachat.meteor.com/room/HackerNews>

<comment><AUTHOR> I saw your app on the made with meteor site. You still upgrading it?

<comment><USER7> Haven't made any commits in a while. Waiting for more features from meteor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wasn't able to see my messages. Something is broken?

<comment><AUTHOR> It auto deletes any messages that have a date greater than the server. Make sure your clock is set right. =)

<comment><USER8> Hmm, strange. I'll check it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I added some variance and pushed a hotfix. It now allows for about 10 seconds of fluxuation.

<comment><USER9> Or you could just have a message pushing and time-handling facility that isn't pants-on-head retarded.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed, timestamps are all handled by the server now. No more trusting clients. Also keep in mind this was pushed to HN about 2 hours after development started.

<comment><USER9> Then stop prematurely promoting half-assed code?

This is like back when Rails was new and everybody was showing off their poorly made CMS that had security issues baked in from the start.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah because it is a tech demo, not a shippable product. There is a huge difference. Sometimes people want to get their feet wet and just play with something. They offer others a chance to follow their commits, and see where the product evolves. This leads to better knowledge sharing, and finding like minded people in the community. Your nick really doesn't reflect your personality in this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> is it possible to generate a non-hackable secret token on the client and validate it on the server ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Other way around. Server generates the token and passes it to the client on login.</comment></comment>


25-year old Indian bootstrapper goes up against billion dollar Demand Media - <AUTHOR> http://www.wordfaire.com/sj/131002/

<comment><USER2> I'd rather have seen features, screenshots, and examples on why this blogging platform is better than the rest. Who cares that you're Indian? What's your angle there? Link bait titles and sensationalist headlines might get you mad props on HN, but they aren't going to get you any respect for your platform.

As far as I'm concerned, you haven't actually done anything yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough. I'm not really expecting any respect for the platform from a post on HN. I prefer that to come from people who actually use it and like it.

My angle is to

1\. Show that there are people in Chennai who actually do things like this. There are very few startups here, and the kind of programmers who'd be willing to work in one are a very small minority.

2\. Attract other people in the region to me. Right now I'm doing this alone and it's not easy. I want to work with someone, and looking around and meeting people isn't working out. People who read HN self select themselves into being the kind of people I want to work with.

I understand that you think this was a publicity stunt, and yes, I did want people to see it. But I think that stating it that way misses the point.

<comment><USER2> My point is, if it was a publicity stunt, it was very poor.

When you launch a product, tell me why it's awesome and provide me with some minimal friction to get in there and try it. When I'm like "Whoa that's cool." then I'll care more about the creators.

If you're looking for people to help you out then say that outright. If I was a programmer looking to work at a startup, I'd have already glossed over this whole thing and moved on.

I'm not hating on you or anything. I'm trying to help you out. Another word of advice - don't write people off from a basic meeting with them. I didn't even know about HN until I was already working for a startup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Pet peeve: Creating a linkbait title and then apologizing for it. You're only allowed to apologize for things you are sorry about.

<comment><AUTHOR> At the risk of making the same mistake again, sorry :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why not just write a WordPress plugin that does the same thing and focus on building out the membership?

<comment><AUTHOR> Because not all blogs run WP... wanted it to be platfrom agnostic.</comment></comment>


Ticketmaster: Rocking The Most Hated Brand In America - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/157/ticketmaster-nathan-hubbard-most-hated-brand

<comment><USER2> I talked to the old CEO of TicketMaster years ago about the fees and when I found out that most of the service fees are kicked back to the venues, I found them far less evil. They take all the blame that should be directed at venue owners.

<comment><USER3> That supports my theory that TicketMaster's primary reason for existence is to be a scapegoat. Venues want to charge market-clearing prices, but don't want to be accused of "gouging" customers. So they bring in TicketMaster to take the reputation hit, in exchange for splitting the profits.

<comment><USER4> In my time there, I would agree with that. My theory was Ticketmaster did well for theory reasons:

1) Venue relationships 2) Taking the fall on fees 3) Ability to scale

People are often surprised by #3. Having seen many startups try & fail (as well as large entities like LiveNation), ticketing is a hard problem.

In my time at Yahoo & Google, I believe they have the technology to build a ticketing company, but beyond on that, most -- startups to large entities such as LiveNation & CTS -- had big problems handling onsales for large U2-sized events. In fact, it always made me think "Good luck with that" when people would talk about the design of ticketing systems using relational DBs. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The thing that irks me the most about Ticketmaster is their absolute monopoly on this market. There's no denying just how crappy of a product they have, which is likely due to not having an incentive or need to innovate as there are no competitors.

Having the unfortunate experience of dealing with them every time I (attempt to) buy football tickets for my college, I really am bothered by the simple lack of innovation in this field. A friend summarized it really well in a tweet a while back:

 _@Ticketmaster you have absolutely the worst product imaginable. Your employees should be ashamed of the company they work for._

<comment><USER6> You (the consumer) are not Ticketmaster's primary customer.

Ticketmaster's primary customers are the venues and promoters.

The product is actually the best one available, which is a system in place designed to sell large amounts of tickets, in some cases very quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well, I'd like to take this time to recommend Brown Paper Tickets (out of Seattle). They do a fantastic job, and it's very common to see them used in Seattle. A great, ethical service with minimal fees. Especially for small, local events. Even cooler: if your event is free, their service is free.

<comment><USER8> I second to Brown Paper Tickets, i love their perspective in ticketing business. Please take time to read this old article: [http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/14/ta...](http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/14/taking_aim_at_ticketmaster)

And here is the details from BPT website: <http://www.brownpapertickets.com/faq.html>

Ticketmaster is evil, and it's not just in America, it has lots of child companies all around world and doing the same unfair and awful business model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Reddit has an interesting comment on Ticketmaster: [http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/gmyhv/over_ten_d...](http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/gmyhv/over_ten_dollars_in_fees_including_a_455_delivery/c1ortyh)

</comment><comment><USER10> This Hubbard guy sounds really smart. My favorite quote was "If we don't disrupt ourselves, someone else will." It seems like a lot of big business failures would have been prevented if the companies had the courage to disrupt their own business model. Microsoft and their foot-dragging on the web comes to mind. Obviously they haven't failed yet, but wouldn't they be healthier if they had embraced the change and pushed it forward instead of trying to hold their position against it?

Anyway, I hope Hubbard has what it takes to pull off his vision.

<comment><USER11> A great book explaining exactly this: The Innovator's Dilemma ([http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Technologies- Cause-...](http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Technologies-Cause- ebook/dp/B004OC07GM/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2) \-- I don't make money from this link)

I think every entrepreneur should read and understand the theories illustrated in the book. It made me realize a lot of things, and understand better why old/established businesses are often replaced by startups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The LiveNation merger certainly did seem to spark them to update parts of their product, but the user experience is awful. Unfortunately, there's no real major competitor now on that scale. Sure, there are solutions like AudienceView and Tessi but they don't fit the same business model.

And who'd want to compete? LiveNation is owning more and more venues by the minute.

</comment><comment><USER13> If you like going to the rock show, wrestling with algorithms that deal with high currency, social media analysis on a crazy complete data chain versus the regular induced douchebaggery, building a credible alternative to TicketMaster, or just run-on-sentences, you should come join our team of pirates at Ticketfly in SF.

</comment><comment><USER14> No big surprise with that. When you have a dominating monopoly on most of the major venues in America, you probably don't lose any sleep at night worry about user experience. The only way that is ever going to change is if people vote with their wallets and stop going to Ticketmaster events...

<comment><USER15> The problem is that those events are "Ticketmaster events" they are "events I want to attend that are only handled by Ticketmaster."

So it really comes down to accepting the Ticketmaster model or pretty much not going to any live concert or sporting events.

Of course the other annoying thing that the article didn't mention was TM's habit of "sharing" your email address with partners (which you couldn't opt out of) and then leaving it up to the individual to remove themselves from the subsequent spam lists. I bought a ticket to an NFL game a couple of years back and then spent the next six months trying to get TM partners to stop spamming me.

<comment><USER16> _So it really comes down to accepting the Ticketmaster model or pretty much not going to any live concert or sporting events._

I haven't paid a TicketMaster fee in _years_ , and I go to live music events all the time.

How, you ask? Indie music. It is alive and well, and the best bands working right now are not playing in arenas. In any major city in the country on any given night (and at least once or twice a week in most mid-sized cities), you can see a great band for five to fifteen bucks. They'll be _ecstatic_ that you showed up, you'll probably be able to sit or stand within spitting distance of the band if you want, and you'll share a unique experience with 50-300 like- minded individuals. You'll also meet more interesting people, be able to drink good beer (not that swill they serve at arenas for 9 bucks a pop), and you can do it all again the next night, and the next, if you want, without breaking the bank.

I swore off of arena shows for reasons unrelated to TicketMaster, but it's an equally valid reason to opt out of the bullshit commercial entertainment industry and instead focus on artists for whom the work is the important thing, and not merely the money they're paid to do the work.

<comment><USER17> Ticketmaster runs tons of stuff that isn't arena scale. Warfield/Grand Regency Ballroom/Fillmore in SF come to mind.

<comment><USER18> A number of the venues allow you to buy tickets directly from the ticket window without the extra fees. (The Fillmore allows this during restricted times, e.g.) I will usually try to do this as a way of not supporting the Master--but, come to think of it, I actually don't know how the money is divided when I purchase like this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's a CEO Speedwagon! The story is a nice antidote to the Pearl Jammed version of Ticketmaster's evilness. There's lots of nuance. And, though it might have made a grab for fees early on, Ticketmaster--and Live Nation-- finally seem to be innovating, creating services that actually make concerts better.

</comment><comment><USER20> It's perplexing that they charge such a large premium when the industry must be saving many millions of dollars a year in printing costs, box office attendants, and sales.

<comment><USER21> One thing in this article that I found extremely interesting was that the infamous charge to print your own tickets -- essentially charging the customer for saving Ticketmaster and the box offices money -- is apparently driven largely by the venues. It claims that Hubbard has been successful in getting a third of their partners to drop the fee, which suggests that two-thirds of venues are holding out, and more responsible for some of the egregious fees than Ticketmaster themselves are.

I definitely came away with the impression that Hubbard may be the right guy for the job. It seems clear he understands exactly what consumers hate about Ticketmaster, and appears to be trying to address it as best he can.

<comment><USER22> I find it even stranger that they don't simply raise the price of the ticket and hide the cost of the fee that way. If a ticket is $25 and then it has a $5 fee I would be upset, but I wouldn't notice if it was just a $30 ticket.

<comment><USER13> It's because the promoter pays the band based on the face price of the ticket, not on the total price with fees.

At an incredibly high level, there are two historical economic forces at play:

1) The Irving Deal, which states that the goal of the band is to get 90% of all earnings of any event, including concessions, popcorn, tickets, etc. Obviously a very tough proposition in the event promotion business when some of your events make you money, but most break even and some you lose quite a bit on.

2) The Fred Deal, which is what transformed TicketMaster from being a company that cost promoters money (you pay us $.50 for every ticket we sell for you) to one that made them money (we'll charge the customer an extra $10 and give you $8 of it, but you need to sign a multiyear contract and we sell ALL your tickets).

If you're keenly interested in this, you should read the very excellent and recently published book Ticket Masters goes through all of the history and mechanics in great detail. Immediately upon finishing you should come work for me at Ticketfly in San Francisco where we're solving these sorts of problems on a daily basis. ;)

<comment><USER23> Thanks for the book recommendation. Ordered.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>