How to detect a toxic customer - <AUTHOR> http://www.softwarebyrob.com/2010/12/09/how-to-detect-a-toxic-customer/ <comment><USER2> This detection process doesn't detect toxic customers, it detects corporate customers at large companies.

It's fine for a small startup to cater to small startups, but the big companies have big budgets, and eventually, you'll be making 80% of your money off of them, so learning how to deal with them can be helpful.

1\. Big companies often have purchasing departments actually do the purchase. They are trained to expect discounts and the people in the purchasing department know a lot more about asking for discounts than they know about software, because that is their specialized role in the organization. If you politely tell them that you have one price for everyone, they'll still purchase, because the purchasing department ususally doesn't have the power to stop the purchase.

2\. Those 80-question checklists usually come out of the following, typical corporate process:

* A team of people identifies a need for software

* The team meets to agree on everything they need

* The junior person on the team is tasked with evaluating 12 possible products to see which one is best

* That person makes up a spreadsheet and sends it to each of the vendors hoping that they will do his homework for him

* The vendors who have decent presales support or sales teams fill out the spreadsheets by marking everything as "Yes" or "Yes with a footnote" and get the deal.

This also explains the "multiple questions that can be answered from a website" -- it's a sign of a person who has been put in charge of evaluating multiple products, not a sign of a toxic customer.

3\. Multiple contacts through multiple channels are usually the sign of multiple interested parties at the client site. You can't sell to big companies without touching multiple people. One of a salesperson's most important jobs is helping the customer themselves get organized and make a purchase. A good salesperson helps the person who wants your software navigate their own corporate purchasing politics.

Summary: while it's fine to turn away truly toxic customers, and you are welcome to decide that you'd rather sell to the starving startup founders on Y-combinator who would rather spend 2 hours scouring your website than deal with a salesperson, the corporate customers turn out to be remarkably price- insensitive, once they make a purchase they will keep paying you maintenance for years long after the product is not even in use, and they're just as likely to leave you alone as the small guys, but they do have "multiple stakeholders" and if you want to sell to them you need a process that matches their reality.

<comment><USER3> My impression of the original article is that it suffers from overrationalization. The author knows, from empirical observation, that toxic customers exist. And he feels -- possibly accurately, but possibly due to the awesome power of hindsight -- that these customers should be detectable in advance.

And that may be true. But if so, it's not a scientific process. The warning signs do factor into it, but in the end it's a matter of gut feeling. (Perhaps because it's not necessarily the case that a given customer is universally _toxic_ , it's that they don't fit you, your company, or your product.)

But it's always embarrassing for an engineer to write a blog post like "how to detect toxic customers by going back and forth in conversation, trying various rhetorical strategies that you make up on the fly, and occasionally closing your eyes and trying to use the Force". So instead the author tried to invent a nice, rational checklist. It has the virtue of looking scientific. The only downside is that it may not actually work very well. It's not what the author is actually using, either. You can't do sales, especially corporate sales, with an algorithm unless you're willing to leave money on the table, maybe a lot of money.

<comment><USER4> Gut feeling is the only real way of separating things out.

Asking huge numbers of questions can be a sign of a customer support nightmare or a person/company/entity doing their homework. Following up can be a sign of high expectations or them being keen to make a decision asap. Asking for a discount is sometimes a buying signal. Conversely, whilst rudeness isn't a good thing, some of the customers that will be a really bad fit are the ones who are really making the effort to be polite and charming.

The one almost universal red flag would be constant inappropriate reference to price. Asking for discounts is to be expected. Asking if there are cheaper, slimmed-down alternatives, or freebies for volume purchases is reasonable. Constantly referencing the price whilst raising unrelated issues or requests is a sign that something's amiss. Whenever you hear something like "I'm surprised to hear you haven't added xyz considering you're charging £xxx" or "so before I starting paying £xxx, would you...?" it's a pretty good sign that they're either rationalisig a decision to _not_ spend the money with you or have an inflated sense of how far up your priority queue their spending pushes you. Then again, you can suspend that rule for businesses that are likely to pay enough to push themselves up your priority queue too..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am convinced there exists a breed of customer who needs to feel a human is in the loop to buy something. I mean, "Yes ma'am, it _does_ make bingo cards." has made me three sales. They're not noticeably pathological customers.

(Those certainly exist, though. Charge more, and they'll mostly inflict themselves on your competitors instead.)

<comment><USER6> Poor people, they've been beaten into submission by bad software not to trust even the simplest of applications...

:/

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hey, funny, I think I've had that customer too!

I ended up referring him and his company to my worst sworn enemy competitor, haven't heard from him since.

<comment><USER8> careful about that, when he tells your competitor about the referal, then continues to be a major pain in the ass. They might just wait for an even bigger fool to refer back to you

<comment><USER9> A fool which... he wouldn't take?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I totally agree with this. I'm a very customer-oriented person, but there are a few customers that just aren't worth supporting. If you can reject them gracefully, it's in your best interest to do so.

One of the problems with that is that even jerks have friends. If you reject them, they'll tell those friends and you could lose even more customers.

In this case, when they were going to have to write a custom solution for this customer, it was definitely the way to go.

As a side note, my father asks for 'discounts' all the time. He almost never gets them, and doesn't act entitled when he doesn't, but it sometimes works. So he keeps doing it. I really have to start doing it myself to see what I get.

<comment><USER11> _even jerks have friends. If you reject them, they'll tell those friends and you could lose even more customers._

My experience having done several client management studies with clients, is that jerks have friends ... who are also jerks. (Generalising, of course, but if you've got a solid enough business model you won't mind losing a few good clients if it means not dealing with a larger number of toxic clients.)

Best case study I did was with a branding agency. We got a list of their clients (about 100) and had the owner mark them each as Up, Down, or Neutral in terms of energy. We then had the team explore where each of the 'Down' clients (about 15) came from - half were from the Yellow Pages (again, using my experience, more price-oriented than service or quality) ... and the other half were referrals from the clients who came through the Yellow Pages!

<comment><USER12> And did you find out how many of the up and neutral clients also came from the yellow pages? That bit of information is useful only if it draws a distinction, e.g. what if the agency only had one working form of advertising?

(Of course this almost goes without saying, and I don't doubt you thought of it, but this is such a common logic error that I thought it shouldn't be left hanging in a public forum.)

<comment><USER11> Yeah, sorry I didn't want to make my response longer than needed to be.

None of the Up or Neutral clients were Yellow Pages - most were referrals from the same level (ie, Up / great clients had been referred mostly by other Up clients, and similarly with Neutrals, plus some general networking). Which does reinforce the 'you are who you hang with' conclusion I've drawn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> /Warning Sign #1: Disrespectful or Abrupt/

I've found that people who email with no explanation or "sell" of their own but just immediate, terse requests like "What are your rates?" or "I need a copywriter. You available?" are typically NOT interested in finding the right person for themselves or their product; instead, they're looking to just outsource what they think they COULD do themselves, if only they had time/energy/desire.

People who know they're considering (hopefully carefully) how to add value to their product/life are the ones who will take the time to build trust from the beginning, will be honest about expectations, and are more likely to give the freedom and flexibility necessary to maintain a healthy working relationship over time.

</comment><comment><USER14> I pass on consulting work if I have any strong feelings that the customer and I are not a good fit. Many years ago, I had a potential new customer spend a _lot_ of time telling me about the problems he had with developers, mostly that they wanted to walk from his projects. I ended up accepting work from him anyway because he was a nice guy and interesting to talk with. It took me a few months to finish promised tasks and extricate myself from his project, becoming another "walker."

I have had experience of clearly being at fault also: twice I have let myself be talked into projects in tech areas where my experience was really thin, and within a short period of time, had to notify the two customers that I was not a good fit to their needs. I was very apologetic both times and obviously did not bill them, but they were out the time documenting the tasks for me.

<comment><USER15> If you are a people-pleaser (and this doesn't necessarily carry a negative connotation), then it's a good tactic for any employer to play the victim card by talking crap about previous "walkers" in order to instill loyalty. You don't want to be a "walker", do you? ;)

Actually, I think you should pay extra precaution when dealing with "trashtalking victims", because I think the risk of dealing with a toxic customer is greater than losing a bit of revenue from someone who was genuinely burned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I went through this process with a large company, and one of the interesting things that was done was a check with Dunn and Bradstreet (www.dnb.com). It seems they would not buy from someone without a D&B number and "sufficient" history.

</comment><comment><USER17> The timing of this is uncanny, we were just having a discussion about this internally. I've found that a great technique to dealing with difficult customers is to show them that you don't mind them taking their business elsewhere, as the OP mentions. It always amazes me at how quickly this disarms people and completely changes their attitude and approach.

And another example of toxic customers: people paying with Groupons.

</comment><comment><USER18> After poking around his site, I laughed a little after he described Emacs as a "stripped down, no frills text editor".

[http://www.softwarebyrob.com/2005/09/05/better-developer- don...](http://www.softwarebyrob.com/2005/09/05/better-developer-dont-use-a- dull-knife/)

<comment><USER19> If I didn't know better I'd think he was trolling. He goes on to compare emacs to COBOL. I don't even like emacs (I use vim, of course), but it shows an unbelievable level of ignorance of the current state of emacs to act as though it's "ancient" and clearly inferior to the Visual Studio editor.

<comment><USER20> It's pretty ancient. It's older than vi, and vi is from the 70s.

Yes, there's been some development, but using Emacs on TOPS-10 or ITS is an awful lot like using it under Linux in 2010.

<comment><USER19> "Yes, there's been some development, but using Emacs on TOPS-10 or ITS is an awful lot like using it under Linux in 2010."

That's a _huge_ stretch, and kinda like saying that using Linux is an awful lot like using SunOS 1.0. Sure, the basics of use are the same, and someone who used an ancient emacs version could pickup using a modern version reasonably easily, but syntax highlighting, auto-completion, X and GUI support, windowing, multi-file editing, etc. have been added over the years (and that's just stuff I know of, off the top of my head, and I don't even use emacs). The emacs distribution has grown by several orders of magnitude in size since those TOPS-10 and ITS implementations.

My point is that Emacs is every bit the editor that Visual Studio editor is, and contains pretty much all the same features, and a lot that Visual Studio will never have. And, more importantly, the most productive developers I've ever known used either emacs or vim...I can't think of a single _great_ developer that uses Visual Studio (I'm sure they exist, but I've yet to meet one). It's just idiotic to claim that emacs is an ineffective tool when the evidence is so strong that it is extremely effective for millions of developers.

<comment><USER20> Well sure, it's definitely a fantastic development environment. I loved Emacs well enough at one point, although eventually my hand started to ache from constant M-x'ing and buffer switching and I gave it up. I'm just pointing out that Emacs is quite old, and that someone used to the 40-year-old version wouldn't really have much trouble using the most recent version, at least for the basics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The moral of this story is not to detect toxic customers.

The moral is that he almost lost a sale, were it not for the other guy stepping in. The moral is that he should have asked to speak with someone else at the company to continue the selling process.

This guy almost blew it.

</comment><comment><USER22> Here's a faster way of telling if you're dealing with a toxic (corporate) customer: See how they react when you say "no" to something. This is them on their best behavior too; if the reaction is nasty then you have your answer.

</comment><comment><USER23> Don't you have forums for your product? If you're doing invoicing software this would make sense. I've had that for multiple products and almost all of these issues get hashed out in the forums, often by existing customers.

And in particular, if you're seeing people asking multiple questions that could answered from the website then there's probably something wrong with the site.

</comment><comment><USER24> _Warning Sign #2: Asks for a Discount (With No Reason)_

The funny part about this one, is I always ask for a discount for no real reason. Even if I am only buying a single piece of software. Why, because it lets me know up front if a vendor is going to be flexible with large volume purchases and OEM arrangements.

Funny story, I was evaluating some screen capture software for OSX not too long ago for a client of mine. I was building a web app for them and part of the work flow for their content was screen capture. Anyway, I emailed a company that had a reputable product and basically told them that I had no need for the pro version, would not be using the pro version for any commercial work but that I would like to use the pro version to teach my daughter about video editing. I then asked if they would consider selling me the pro version at the basic software packages rate. I framed the story in this fashion for several reasons. I had just told the developer/owner that I would be using it for non-commercial and educational purposes both of which usually get some form of pricing plan that is below the commercial mark-up lack of having a plan to deal with either tells me that they do not have a competent pricing structure, and quite possibly that they lack a formal sales organization and negotiating deals later on would be difficult due to lack of attention to pricing structure for the various fringe purchasing needs. Dealing with companies that do not have flexible pricing policies can be difficult when you are dropping large purchases in which no one realistically pays full price per seat.

Anyways, point is be careful of putting earmarks on customers, this small developer lost a $75,000 purchase (what we set aside for a site license) for seats on his product due to the fact that he showed that he was not flexible in his pricing structure. Allowing me to purchase the pro version at the basic version price would have cost him nothing and given the purpose it was purchased under "non-commercial and educational" there was a need to reduce price to be competitive. Instead, I got a dismissive response that the basic version was good enough for my needs and that if I wanted the pro version I would have to pay full price. Needless to say, his competitor was very happy with the $75,000 purchase order.

I guess, long story short, bargain shoppers are not always bad, some people negotiate over what seem to be inconsequential amounts because rather than haggling over dollars they are finding out up front whether a relationship with your company will be tenable.

<comment><USER25> Sorry I don't get it. May be its me, I'm not on Sales or purchasing.

You want to purchase a large quantity of licenses, and you want a discount for them. So you ask for just one and use it as a proxy to know if the Company is flexible in its pricing? Is this standard practice?

I must say that I was at a company where the purchasing guy was always asking for discounts up front. He often tried to deceive the salesmen (for example he asked for free ISDN-GSM gateways to a telecom guy who ignored its price and thought they would cost like a phone). For him it was "just bussiness" and the way it's played the game.

Were we a toxic customer? For the naivest of our providers, sure we were.

<comment><USER24> _Sorry I don't get it._

My position was that a vendor that treats a small one off customer with respect and generally tries to help is going to do the same for a large purchaser. I don't expect more than that, but I do expect flexibility as this particular pieces of software would for all intents and purposes be part of my solution, it would reflect on my orginization. Having a non-flexible vendor limits my ability to be flexible, a situation I have no interest in being in. When large portions of money are involved people change, but that does not mean they will stay changed. There is a likelihood that they will revert back to their standard culture on support. By evaluating their support of the smallest purchase and a fringe case, one gets an idea of what the support will be like once the luster of money has worn off. Quite honestly if the developer had politely declined my request, I may have still went ahead with the purchase but when he took a dismissive tone, without critically analyzing the request, it became apparent that he would not provide the level of tact and attentiveness that I would need to make an OEM purchase and use the product in my solution. Again, totally his prerogative and I hold nothing against him for doing so, I expected nothing from him and did not feel that I was entitled to a discount, but I have to defend my companies reputation and vendor selection is a big part of doing so, that being said, I look for vendors that go the extra mile, because I do the same with my clients, and by proxy their ability to support their software in every facet reflects on my organization once it becomes part of my organizations provided solution.

<comment><USER26> Sorry, the actual costs for 10 licenses is far less than 10x the support cost of 1 license. The support costs of 1 very penny pinchy person is often far in excess of a normal license sale. Many people choose not to pay that support cost intentionally.

It feels like you're asking for a discount, and having sour grapes when he said no. Tone is _very hard to read in text_. From the walls of text and the style of your post, I'm not sure you didn't start the cattiness in his mind.

<comment><USER24> _I'm not sure you didn't start the cattiness in his mind._

If I did, it was not my intention. The summation of my email to him was pretty much that I have a young daughter that I want to teach video production to. That I think it would be best for her if I could teach her some of the advanced features and I inquired if they had an educational discount program. The last line asked if they did not would they consider selling me a basic license and upgrade me to pro with the explicit agreement that it was to only be used for educational purposes. I feel that I am pretty good at regulating my tone and did not use words that would appear that I felt entitled to such an arrangement. I was polite in my request.

While, my tactic is debatable, I don't think the content or how I approached it was a factor. Further, I have said on multiple occasions that I did not walk away with sour grapes about the exchange, he was totally within his right, I was the one asking for a favor. That is not in dispute, and I was in no way shape or form upset about his decline. The only thing I walk away with was that I felt that I it was better that I had that exchange before a sum of money was involved.

<comment><USER26> Perhaps it's just hard to tell the "I outsmarted him" story when the people you're telling it to relate more to the antagonist (the guy) than the protagonist (you). It makes me want to ascribe more negative features to you than I have any rational basis to really do so.

<comment><USER24> Sure and I understand that, i ask that you don't see it as an "I outsmarted him" post that was not my intention (which has got kind of lost). My intention was to serve as a warning to how customers make decisions and that placing earmarks on customers can be dangerous. I am by no means disconnected from the realities of writing software, it is after all what I do for a living. Rather than bragging about outsmarting someone (which I never felt I did) I merely wanted to highlight the dangers of earmarking bargain shoppers as being difficult customers. Contrary to how I may be perceived in these posts, I am a developer first and for most and am very rational when it comes to dealing with other development organizations to my knowledge no one has ever seen me or my organization as a difficult customer. We may be critical of who we establish business relationships with, but after a relationship has been established they are generally amicable.

<comment><USER27> I consider potential clients who bring their personal software needs into the equation to be "difficult." Educational discounts mean and are used for a very specific purpose and typically have tax implications for the vendor, and a dad teaching his daughter is not part of it. Naturally, a retort would be that he doesn't think enough of his daughter's education to pay whatever it takes to get the tools to do so. You aren't a school and it's crazy to ask for an "educational discount" from a businessperson who is otherwise perfectly accomodating.

My general take from the approach you describe, paying attention to the "smallest" detail of a deal (and/or bringing ever-smaller details into the deal) is reaching for more and more tenuous reasons to neg the vendor. It's analogous to reducing your tip at a restaurant because your water glass was not promptly refilled, and then further when the silverware is not perfectly parallel..

<comment><USER24> _You aren't a school and it's crazy to ask for an "educational discount"_

That's the first that I have heard that it is crazy to negotiate. I have always though it was crazy to not negotiate. That is what sales is a negotiation. I understand that there is an amount of developers who do not like to negotiate. But that does not negate that for a good deal of business negotiation is business as usual.

 _Naturally, a retort would be that he doesn't think enough of his daughter's education to pay whatever it takes to get the tools to do so._

It's not a retort I would use or allow to come from my organization. Doing so could be seen a comment on ones character, an unnecessary one at that. I guess I see the world different from other developers. I see these kind of requests as the cost of doing business and they don't bother me. I also see the cost of reputation being valuable to me.

<comment><USER27> Well hold on now, "negotiation" is one thing, but I think it's disingenuous (or perhaps hyperbole) to call what you're asking for "an educational discount." I mean, I think I understand what you're doing, and of course negotiation is natural, but if you're going to exaggerate your terms by saying your personal software needs amount to institutional status, you risk being perceived as a bad-faith negotiator.

We all see the world differently, it's just that communication and, dare i say, negotiation depends on the participants operating with similar terms. In your example you're trying to tip the balance of perfect information by causing the provider to have to account for a question of how legitimate your discount request it. Which it really isn't, because you aren't really that kind of institution.

I hope I'm explaining myself well enough, it's just that it's not a good negotiation if people are exaggerating their terms. Sure, "ask for twice what you want so the compromise is closer to your target number," but this isn't a foolproof strategy.

<comment><USER24> Sure, point taken, I know that I did not represent a qualified educational discount, and I never directly called it an educational discount to them. I asked if they had a program and if they would consider applying it for my case, and secondly if they did not have an educational program would they consider upgrading me to the pro if I purchased the basic with an explicit agreement that we would never use it for commercial work. that is why I asked if he would consider it. I know that it was an out of the normal request, but there are some companies that will sell an educational version for any non- commercial use so it was not totally out of the norm. He was well within his right to say no based on the fact that I did not represent you typical case. In fact, the way I see it he is within his right to say no for whatever reason he sees fit, he wrote the software after all.

You never know unless you ask. His response was closer to no go to hell though (just to be clear, he did not tell me to go to hell) and that is what made me chose the path I did.

I am not put off by negotiations, and very much enjoy it when a client negotiates with me, so long as they don't become combative or disrespectful. It gives me an opportunity to show them in detail how much value I am providing for their money. I find that the client that negotiate with me and then see the value seem to be my best customers. The second vendor did just that, took time to show me their value and that is why I chose them. You learn a lot of valuable information about people in negotiations and that was really the point I was trying to drive home, that some times people don't negotiate just to get the best price. Sometimes they see it as a path to insightful information. It's the reason I always negotiate. If that makes me a toxic customer, so be it, but I like to know the paying field before I commit to anything in life.

As well just for the record on this one from your other post:

 _It's analogous to reducing your tip at a restaurant because your water glass was not promptly refilled, and then further when the silverware is not perfectly parallel.._

I have a friend, who does this and I get extremely mad when I am at dinner with him and he does. He does it as a way of rationalizing reducing his tip, he is very cheap and he is a multimillionaire. After several occasions I refused to eat dinner with him, unless I paid and covered tip. He is disconnected from the fact that not everyone has buckets of cash and that that money is a lot more valuable to someone on waiter wages than his principals should be to him. My friend is a good guy, his cheapness just gets the best of him, some times. Anyways, the point I was getting at, is I would never intentionally do that to someone.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Danish Court Transcript authorizing blocking of copyright infringing URLs [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://rettighedsalliancen.dk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Frederiksberg-District-Court-RA-v-TDC-5-December-2017-Popcorn-Time-EN.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> I was redirected to this when I tried to go to Opensubtitles.org, why did I want to go there? I wanted to bring a POC I developed a long time back up to date, the idea being that you can search for text in the subtitles and find the parts of the movie it was in and set the video forward to that part. Luckily I can of course get around the problem, but I thought it might be interesting for HN.</comment>


Ask HN: Heroku Replacement? - <AUTHOR> Now that Heroku is changing the way they price their service [1], it's no longer usable for small, infrequently used projects, which was my primary use case for it. Does anyone know of alternatives with similarly low or free pricing?<p>[1] https://blog.heroku.com/archives/2016/5/18/announcing_heroku_free_ssl_beta_and_flexible_dyno_hours <comment><USER2> I started using Dokku on Digital Ocean. They have a one-click install which makes it super easy to set up. Your projects can use the same buildpacks that you'd use on Heroku so there isn't much you will have to change within your project. You also deploy your code pushing your get repo to your dock server. There's even a letsencrypt plugin so you can easily generate SSL certs for your apps.

</comment><comment><USER3> What part of the change means that it's no longer suitable? The free dyno hours can be shared across several infrequently used apps, and apps will sleep after inactivity to prevent them using up the free hours.

</comment><comment><USER4> Running your own is the way to go if you want it cheap. Any hosted solutions are rather expensive.

</comment><comment><USER5> Dokku on own server :-)</comment>


80 Percent of Americans Want to Label Food That Contains DNA - <AUTHOR> http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/24/80-percent-of-americans-want-to-label-fo <comment><USER2> Usually, any issue is less one-dimensional than the headline suggests. Here's some background: [http://chemjobber.blogspot.com/2016/04/nucleotides-are- not-p...](http://chemjobber.blogspot.com/2016/04/nucleotides-are-not- permitted-in.html)</comment>


The Madness of Airline Élite Status - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-madness-of-airline-elite-status <comment><USER2> I liked the article. This madness is real.

I used to fly 110 times/year for work, internationally. I had gold status with several airlines at once. I did this for about 8 years (although the last two years I went down to about 80 flights/year).

I live in SF and, of course, I have to fly United if I don't want to make one connection every time I fly somewhere in the US. And I am a Premier 1k member.

I can confirm that the perks are almost useless; that this absurd race loses any meaning when everybody else is racing with you. How can Premier 1k be good, if I'm not among the top 1% (the only case in which automatic upgrades and such would actually be useful)?

All in all, I hate United. And I'm not the only one [0].

By the way, why does Google NOT provide this link when I search for "Untied"? [1]

[0]: [http://www.untied.com/main.shtml](http://www.untied.com/main.shtml)

[1]: [https://www.google.com/search?q=untied&oq=untied&aqs=chrome....](https://www.google.com/search?q=untied&oq=untied&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1192j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=untied.com)

<comment><USER3> I'll disagree that the perks are almost useless. But they can be a bit subtle. In comparison to people's typical experience flying, as a United 1K:

When I call the 800 number, a real human being picks up right away and helps me. If I'd like to catch an earlier or later flight, if it's within 24 hours, I can usually make the change with no charge. I use this perk dozens of times a year, and it even enables me to book cheaper flights because I'll usually be able to make adjustments on the day of travel. If I end up on the standby list, I'm put at the top (because it goes in order of highest status before first come first served). If I use miles to book a flight, I can cancel or change the flight at any time. This lets me speculatively book a vacation flight to Maui months ahead of time when availability is good, even if I'm not sure I'll be free then. My entire family gets free bags and free extra legroom seats when they travel with me. I get to sit in fancy lounges when traveling overseas. And the first class upgrades are a nice bonus.

<comment><USER4> Arguably, United is _intentionally_ providing a lower class of service to those that haven't reached your level. It's all relative - but you're not getting "good"; you're getting "not bad."

<comment><USER5> Airlines make no money. They can't afford to treat everyone like that.

<comment><USER6> Actually, that is a popular misconception. Airlines have been highly profitable for the past few years. It is directly related to the degraded consumer experience. More capacity discipline and new ancillary fees have really boosted margins. Also, the cost of fuel has plummeted.

<comment><USER5> United's average quarterly profit margin over the last 5 years is 4.37%.They've dipped into quarterly losses three times during that period. They're not "highly profitable"\--they're just not losing money for once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's pretty smart how these loyalty programs are designed. Much of the behavior hinges on flights being expensed, while it's the individual employee who reaps the benefits. It causes people to constantly overspend on flights because they aren't the ones paying.

<comment><USER8> As part of the UK civil service I'm not allowed to keep airmiles accrued during business flights: they have to be declared and donated back to the government.

<comment><USER9> Honestly, it's crazy this isn't true for all governments and businesses. Frequent flier programs are just transparent kickbacks. I'm not too worried about the redistribution (since ultimately people will count it as a perk when they are comparing jobs, so it's priced in), but there has got to be significant deadweight losses from inefficient compensation, and from the person booking the travel being insulated from various incentives.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I generally look at it as legitimate compensation rather than a kickback. Like: "As the sales manager for across the country you have to spend half the year away from your family, and we're not going to pay you any more than the guy that sits next to you, manages sales on this side of the country, and travels a lot less. But at least when it comes time for you to go on vacation, you'll get to fly for free."

Also, anecdote: I have a friend who works for an organization that employs many frequent flyers, and they have an organization policy of all flying the same airline for all flights because the benefits in terms of better rebooking in the event of flight problems for their frequent fliers are worth the added cost of not shopping around. They actually all switched, collectively, from United to American last year or the year before in response to changes to United's program.

<comment><USER11> Yes, I think big companies especially tend to view it that way. Governments have passed some of these rules about employee travel having to use the miles/points for official purposes mostly because it's politically popular to hammer "government waste", even using tools that aren't very efficient hammers. Companies tend to take a bigger-picture view when they're worried about travel budgets, instead of the relative penny-pinching of going after airline miles. For example when there's internal pressure to cut corporate travel budgets, two common policies are: 1) direct managers to reduce unnecessary travel, e.g. cut out 10% of trips entirely, and 2) institute a rule that employees have to book through the corporate travel agent and normally must pick one of the routes that's within x% of the cheapest business class fare.

The miles themselves, yeah, I think they just see as a minor compensation to employees for travel, since they don't pay them overtime or anything. Plus in some cases it's not precisely a kickback. Sometimes it is, but other times it's intended to incentivize the traveler to stick with their main airline even when the airline has worse routes to some cities. For example, you usually fly United, but today you want to fly to a city where American has a nonstop and United has only a 1-stop, for similar prices. Absent any kind of loyalty program, you'd pick American's nonstop for convenience. United's perks are supposed to encourage you to take the United 1-stop, even though it's a bit less convenient. This isn't precisely a kickback in the normal sense, because they aren't incentivizing you to buy a higher fare, and it's basically a wash from the employer's perspective. Instead they're incentivizing you to accept being personally inconvenienced with a worse flight, in return for receiving some personal perks.

<comment><USER12> I know people who do a lot of crazy routings to stay with their preferred carriers. As you suggest, it's not necessarily about spending more money but taking a less direct route. Personally, I won't do it for shorter trips; I spend too much time in planes as it is. But there are a couple more distant destinations where I could fly non-stop but usually will take my regular carrier with a stop instead.

<comment><USER13> >I know people who do a lot of crazy routings to stay with their preferred carriers. As you suggest, it's not necessarily about spending more money but taking a less direct route.

That generally doesn't work anymore. Almost all airlines now use a revenue model for milage awards, not distance.

<comment><USER14> With oneworld airlines (BA and AA, amongst many others) mileage doesn't affect status, it works on a different point system (tier points) that doesn't depend in cost, but largely can be gamed by breaking up a direct flight into a few stops in different "zones".

For instance, I flew LHR-CDG-DOH-KUL-PEN last year, business class, for less money that I would have spent in a more direct flight, but I got a lot of tier points for it.

Then I realised I was addicted to my BA gold status, and that I wasn't getting that many perks anyway. This year I'm opening myself up to other airlines.

<comment><USER13> AA's switch to a revenue model is already under way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The only thing better than business-class upgrades on your work-related travel is not having work-related travel.

<comment><USER16> I couldn't disagree more. Work-related travel means seeing the world on someone else's dime, and getting paid to do it.

<comment><USER17> >Work-related travel means seeing the world on someone else's dime, and getting paid to do it.

Thats the problem. You don't "get to see the world" in most cases. You're shuttled back & forth between some hotel and some office block. e.g. I was in Paris the other day & the only sightseeing I got to do is seeing the (far away) tip of the Eiffel tower from a fkin boardroom window. That kind of "seeing the world" gets old fast.

<comment><USER16> I went to London for work. I got to walk around an unfamiliar big city, go drinking in traditional English pubs, meet people from around the world, etc. My evenings were free, just like they are at my local office. Unless you are working 24 hours a day, traveling to exotic places for business can be great.

<comment><USER18> Yes, in London that would work great.

Now travel for work to an office in a suburban business park in greater Oklahoma City & report back on the experience.

<comment><USER16> My comment above yours specifically mentioned Paris. The one I was replying to initially didn't mention any city, and implied no work-related travel is better than any, full stop.

Where are you getting Oklahoma City from? You're moving the goalposts.

<comment><USER18> I agree that "traveling to exotic places for business __can__ be great".

Don't know why you think I'm arguing with you, just having a conversation. I'm not moving any goalposts, I'm talking about my own experience from work travel to less exciting places, that are sometimes not easily explorable in a couple free evenings without a car.

In places like Paris & London it should be easier to have some fun. Although still you might not always be able to - sometimes you only travel for a few days & want to get the most of that work session, or e.g. want to go back home as soon as you can so you can spend the weekend with your spouse/kids.

For example I had a colleague visiting here in Berlin for one week, that required 16h of travel either way. When he came on Sunday (flight took off on Saturday morning in his original time zone) he was tired from the long flight and his flight back home was the Sunday afterwards. During the week we worked like mad in order to get the most value from the visit, so he had some evenings and one Saturday, in which I think he got to see some of Berlin, but not much (simply due to not really having a lot of time + being tired).

In a city less accessible he would have seen next to nothing. When I did the reverse trip to a small Canadian town with a metropolitan population of less than 100k people & no transit, I've not managed to do much sight seeing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For better or worse, this just locks you in to crappy airlines.

I spent 7.5 years in a full-time travel job. The perks (other than occasional upgrades on redeyes) did very little for me. I wound up using miles just for last minute flights.

I did used to get a big laugh out of people (usually junior consultants) who confused airline status with real social status.

<comment><USER20> > I did used to get a big laugh out of people (usually junior consultants) who > confused airline status with real social status.

I see this a lot among consultants - they love to talk about airports, airport lounges, "horrifying" delays, rude customs agents, free upgrades, and seat pitches. Bizarre.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure it's so much about social status as shared "war stories" and experiences.

<comment><USER19> I've viewed some ghastly behavior, even worse than this -> [http://www.bigtimeconsulting.org/wp- content/uploads/cartoons...](http://www.bigtimeconsulting.org/wp- content/uploads/cartoons/2011-05-26_155644.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Fun article, and one which shows the dark side of gamification. If you provide points, levels, and leaderboards, people will sacrifice their lives to leveling up for stupid little perks like jumping the line, slightly larger seats, and liquor and snacks that you probably shouldn't have anyway.

I was one of these people years ago. I was doing a lot of international business class flights on behalf of a public software company, and had 1k and global services status. Then I burned out and quit, and spent the next several years barely making premier silver. It's no big deal once you get over your sense of entitlement. And United has put all the perks up for sale anyway, so you can now buy whatever perk that you can't live without.

A couple of months ago, I finally made million miler status, which is a kind of "emeritus" status: you (and a designated companion) get star alliance gold status for life. This is actually kind of awesome since now I don't have to worry about getting miles every year to make premier. I still accumulate points so that I can get free tickets, but being retired from the elite status rat race is very relaxing.

</comment><comment><USER22> My old boss discovered that there is a class higher than first with British Airways when he found himself on a flight with the research analyst from Goldman Sachs that covered the airline sector.

<comment><USER23> Whenever I try to imagine nilth class travelers, all I come up with is Hedonism-Bot from Futurama, giggling and eating grapes. Surrounded by giggling gynoid party-bots. In a solid gold hot tub filled with champagne. Entertained by a live string quartet. Plus Bootsy Collins on electric bass. As flakes of 99.995% pure cocaine gently fall from the ceiling, like snow.

As I don't ever get _de luxe_ accommodation, I simply have no basis for imagining _plus luxe_.

<comment><USER24> Prior to deregulation, American Airlines used to lug around a grand piano in their first class lounges on 747s.

<comment><USER12> Not a grand piano AFAIK (which might be difficult to get into the first class lounge on a 747--not sure what sort of access there is besides the staircase), but they did have a piano bar: [http://unroadwarrior.boardingarea.com/2010/07/21/the-747-pia...](http://unroadwarrior.boardingarea.com/2010/07/21/the-747-piano- bar/)

g

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In the early days of train travel (1840s), they quickly realised that the first class passengers arrived no faster than the cheaper passengers, somthey did the only sensible thing. They took the roof and Windows off the third class carriages and made you share them with cattle.

This way people paid extra to avoid the weather and cow shit

There is a hard upper limit to how good flying in a tin can at 35,000 feet can be made (1)

If airlines could strap economy class passengers to the wings they would

(1) actually an ad exec made an excellent point in a ted talk - instead of spending 4bn on reducing the time the high speed train went from London to Paris, spend 2bn on half naked super models handing out free champagne and no one will care how long the journey is. This is of course what airline stewardesses were supposed to be before all those pesky lawsuits.

</comment><comment><USER26> I have traveled some for work over my career, but I never paid any attention to any of these programs or miles or anything like that. I probably missed out on a free flight at some point, but the thought of keeping track of those things seems tedious and dreadful. The whole culture of travel is like that really, parsing the tiny differences between anonymous airports and roughly- identical airlines. People become obsessed with checking in online exactly 24 hours in advance, etc. Expending effort for the tiniest, tiniest morsels of difference and succor in an overall terrible experience. It's understandable of course, but I just accept that it's all bad and try to forget about it as soon as it's over.

<comment><USER27> You really don't have to spend hours min-maxing your miles like described in the article. Just spend two minutes creating an account online, and ten seconds inputting your member number when buying tickets or checking in. Then two years later check your balance and you might have a free ticket worth $500+. That's a huge return given the amount of time invested.

It's like credit cards. There are entire websites dedicated to min-maxing the hell out of credit card points, sign-up bonuses, etc. But you don't have to do that. You can just spend an hour getting a good credit card (assuming you can :/) and then reap massive benefits compared to the amount of time invested.

<comment><USER28> Until your points expire or the T&Cs change - thanks Qantas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > I then asked my wife for permission to spend five hundred and sixty dollars > for a flight that I already had a free ticket for.

Why would this make sense? Surely there wouldn't be a benefit worth more than $560?

<comment><USER30> If elite status results in a free upgrade on 20% of your flight segments, and you fly 50 segments per year: 10 upgrades to business class > $560

<comment><USER31> 20%? What airline you're with, for "elite" statuses it's generally less than 20% of the flights that _do not_ get upgraded. Obviously depends on availability on the specific flights though.

<comment><USER32> On a long haul international flight ? I doubt it. It's hard to find even mile redemption availability.

<comment><USER33> Depends on what you fly. I always used to fly first flight out of Newark preferentially compared to anything else out of Newark/LGA/JFK simply because I always got upgraded without fail. First flight out of Newark leaves before the mass transit gets running. So you can game the system to make sure there are seats to be upgraded to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Here is an alternative algorithm: fly with whichever airline is the cheapest, having a frequent flyer account on each airline. Accumulate miles separately.

It won't get you a elite status, just a status slightly better than the normal flyer -- and free tickets too.

It will prevent you from reaching the extremes of this mile madness, like spending money just to maintain your status.

Bonus: when airlines merge, you get a really nice status. It may not be that interesting now with so little airlines in competition, but around year 2000 that was something regular

<comment><USER35> If you are a frequent flier, you want elite status (at least equivalent to Gold), because the perks (especially priority access, Lounge, preferred seats etc) actually make travel better and more convenient. So not putting all eggs in one basket then simply does not do the job.

I'd argue that most of those who reach the extremes of mile madness actually love it, even if they sometimes might seem to be irrationally stressed due to pressure to maintain their status.

It's a hobby, and one that can get you to unexpected places of the world - even if the initial motivation might have been to chase some miles.

<comment><USER36> _> the perks (especially priority access, Lounge, preferred seats etc) actually make travel better and more convenient. So not putting all eggs in one basket then simply does not do the job._

For $1067, you can get a year of TSA Precheck, Economy Plus and United Club lounge access, which is about how much you might save by comparison shopping on just half a dozen flights. And if you are a "frequent flier" you are probably flying more than that.

<comment><USER37> If you're a frequent flier you will save a hell of a lot more than $1067 on the free upgrades alone.

TSA Precheck is rapidly becoming worth less and less, if it continues at this rate it will be the regular lines in a year or two. When grandma who flies once every 2 years can get it, it ruins the entire point. I've switched back to regular priority lines at some airports these days as they are faster.

The #1 perk any frequent flier will tell you matters the most is having competent people who pick up the phone instantly during IRROPS (e.g. weather/flight problems). Simply using this once a year trivially pays for itself by putting you so far ahead of the regular queue I still get amazed sometimes. Plus having them available for wonky changes/etc. due to rapidly changing schedules is great - 90% of the time they simply waive change fees for me.

I agree that the programs are becoming pretty gutted, but still barely hold enough value for me to keep "loyal" to my main airline. The experience flying Elite with them vs. plebe on other domestic carriers is night and day.

<comment><USER38> > The #1 perk any frequent flier will tell you matters the most is having > competent people who pick up the phone instantly during IRROPS (e.g. > weather/flight problems). Simply using this once a year trivially pays for > itself by putting you so far ahead of the regular queue I still get amazed > sometimes.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I get better service than you even when I don't have status. I can and do rebook my flights on my phone, with my preferred routing and timing before the rush for seats begin as other people go try and call someone or god forbid, walk up to a desk and stand in line to do it in person.

No status needed. Delta's app will definitely automatically recognize a delayed or diverted flight and allow you to rebook. It even allows you to browse flights to alternate destinations, so I have totally switched from a plane going arriving at OAK to one arriving at SFO while taxing at SLC.

Oh, I also regularly switch to better seats in the days before my flight. I switched from middle to window on my flight leaving tomorrow this morning and moved up seven rows on the return flight, all without needing to make a phone call.

<comment><USER37> Late reply, but I also am a Delta flier.

What you describe only works during regular operations, and it's spotty at best. 50% of the time the Android app fails at loading the seat map, for example. While Delta is considered the best IT in the business, it's still pretty atrocious - I use it multiple times per week.

You will never beat a Plat/Diamond for a confirmed seat during irrops. The problem isn't "can I rebook myself onto a plane with tons of open seats available" it's "can I bump the regular fliers from standby and get a seat on that entirely full aircraft".

Even when the app functions - it's still slower than calling the elite desk many times.

What you're describing is just normal access everyone gets. The elite fliers get even more options in the app (block the seats next to you, switch to economy comfort for free, etc.), but I guarantee you it's worthless when it all goes to shit :)

<comment><USER38> I've used it when ATL shut down. I don't know if there's a way Delta's routes can go to shit more than losing ATL and diverting flights to other entirely different airports.

And you're right. I am describing the normal access anyone can get. That's the point, elite status offerings just don't do as much as most people seem to think.

I don't know why every flier with status on this thread wants to insist to me that "it's worthless when it all goes to shit" when it clearly isn't. But I'm not surprised, 90% of fliers I know with elite status are incentivized to think they're getting something out of it that regular people can't access, even though they're saying things like how awesome it is to be able to call a phone number. Gag me with a stick, I'd rather use an app.

Y'all got it pretty bad.

(I have status sometimes too. It's nice when I have it, but I don't and won't do anything extra to get it, for me, flying without status is not that much different. It's certainly not worth being loyal to a domestic airline. The airlines we have in this country just suck. If I lived in SG or JP or even ID I'd totally go ahead and give some loyalty to an airline, SQ, ANA and Garuda are all great.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> > Absent posted guidelines, road-warrior message boards are filled with > speculation about why certain travellers receive Global Services. Is it a > measure of dollars spent? Segments flown? Behavior?

The fact that he actually tried to redeem his points for a free flight probably made him a target for infection with GS-MAD :)

</comment><comment><USER40> I've never been a business globe trotter, but I travelled every 2 weeks in 2014 between Ottawa, Toronto and Washington DC. That equalled about 10,000 "air" miles or about $50.

Whoopety doo.

In the mid-90's I was travelling about once a month between the midwest and the coasts. That was enough for a couple round trips in "air" miles.

These days it's barely worth it to be part of the programs (I am, but the "perks" are way less than they used to be).

</comment><comment><USER41> I flew two extra trips to Asia last year to get American Airlines Executive Platinum status.

After a year and getting all the nice lounge access and international long- haul upgrades, I think it's worth it!

Take my girlfriend and family around the world using a combination of miles / money and everything things I'm rich, when really I'm just a wannabe travel hacker.

</comment><comment><USER42> It's almost as if humans are primates, and so are inclined to pursue markers of social status all out of proportion to actual utility in a civilized setting.

</comment><comment><USER43> Casey Neistat of Youtube fame has a video illustrating the perks and perils of flying Executive Platinum with American Airlines. The perks seem pretty damn nice if you're already going to be flying that much anyways.

[https://youtu.be/3AeYIUyZXKE](https://youtu.be/3AeYIUyZXKE)

</comment><comment><USER44> I've never understood why airline miles follow each individual person rather than the company that's paying for the weekly business class seats.

Seems like the Senior Manager who just joined the firm should be bumped up to first class in front of the Junior Consultant that's been flying out weekly for a year.

<comment><USER11> They're designed as incentives for individuals, because at most companies individuals have a significant degree of leeway in booking flights. You might have to book through the corporate travel agent, but typically you can still choose that you want flight X instead of Y. So United (or whoever) giving the specific individual status/perks is designed to encourage them to keep choosing United tickets, even when sometimes a competitor might have a better or cheaper route.

It'd be possible to design a loyalty program aimed at entire companies, and there's a little bit of movement in that direction, especially targeting small and medium-sized businesses (e.g. United PerksPlus). The goal of those would be to encourage the whole company to standardize on one airline. Big companies tend not to want to do that, because their travel needs are too varied for it to make sense to require all their employees to use one airline. So the main target of the programs is the corporate traveler who is being reimbursed for travel: they have a choice in their travel arrangements (within reason), and since they're spending someone else's money, they're also relatively price- insensitive, which makes them especially lucrative. Hotel loyalty programs work similarly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> You guys may want to try this (haven't released anything yet, but looks promising): [http://www.pointimize.com/](http://www.pointimize.com/)

</comment><comment><USER46> For IT professionals, completely ignoring all points systems (hotel, flight, car rental, and credit card) will remove enough clutter from your mind to earn more than the points provide.

</comment><comment><USER47> Might have been posted before, but there's a rather interesting documentary on this madness:

[https://vimeo.com/7167640](https://vimeo.com/7167640)

</comment><comment><USER48> I can't stand that you can buy your way out of security with this status. Real security doesn't work like that.

<comment><USER49> GS doesn't bypass security. It bypasses the line of people waiting to start the security process. At every major United hub airport I've seen, the GS passengers get dropped at the front of the TSA precheck line but still go through the regular exercise of x-rays and magnetometers.

<comment><USER48> The agents working those machines and implementing the security protocol see that. And, they treat you differently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> If you care about your 'status' with a business, then you don't have much of a status.

</comment><comment><USER51> The only winning move is not to play.

</comment><comment><USER52> Moxie Marlinspike's advice comes to mind:

"... whenever I get on an airplane and walk past first class, I inevitably go through a familiar mental process. First, I'm envious ... then, I register who is sitting in those seats. It's usually almost all predominantly unhealthy looking ... men, who it is clear from a glance have spent literally hundreds of hours of their lives over the past year in these airplanes ... the bulk of the first class passengers resemble each other, just as there's a reason prison guards tend to act the same. I know that by making choices designed to land me in the first class cabin, it would be difficult to avoid also inheriting the dreariness associated with its current occupants."

[http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/career- advice/](http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/career-advice/)

<comment><USER53> I like Moxie, but I think he's a little off base here. I exclusively fly first class and I'm not a doughy businessman. I don't even fly for work-just pleasure. I see the flight as the beginning/ending of my journey and I see no reason to cram my legs into a seat in front of me. I want to have a pleasant flight-not flight designed to cripple me. Also, free alcohol and snacks.

<comment><USER54> In my experience, flying first class is not a 10% premium or a 50% premium over coach, it is a ~2x-3x or more premium. I wouldn't call the alcohol and snacks "free". If you look at it that way, then flying coach gives you a free meal at say, the French Laundry.

<comment><USER55> I mostly fly between Hong Kong and London.

Return flights are usually something like:

* economy 900USD

* premium 2000USD

* business 6,000USD

* first 10,000USD

So, I always go economy.

Not sure it's ever worth a month's wages (after tax) to have a bit of free champagne.

<comment><USER56> It comes down to the marginal utility of your money vs. the upgrade.

For example, I fly Singapore to Tokyo about once or twice a year, sometimes more often, always on Scoot, a budget airline run by Singapore Airlines. Upgrading from economy to ScootBiz costs as little as $80 with their "bid for biz" program. I always "bid for biz" and it's absolutely worth it: early boarding, free food, much more space (for yourself and your carry on), etc. So the marginal utility of the upgrade for me is worth more than $80.

At some level of net worth, flying First on a legacy airline to Tokyo, maybe Japan Airlines which I had to take in economy once for $1,500 vs the $200 or so Scoot can go down to, would have more utility to me than the $10,000 extra I'd have to fork out. I don't know what that net worth would be (probably north of 50 million), but I know that past perhaps a few million dollars in liquid assets, I would always fly business even at 3x the cost, and I know plenty of people in that situation doing exactly that. And there's people for whom flying SQ Suites [1] for $30,000 one way is a "discount" from flying the same route privately.

[1] reposting because such a fun read: [http://dereklow.co/what-its-like-to- fly-the-23000-singapore-...](http://dereklow.co/what-its-like-to-fly- the-23000-singapore-airlines-suites-class/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> It's nice being a United Global Service member--that "secret" level among 1K. It really helps when there's irops.

</comment><comment><USER58> Zero comments about ethics of contributing to climate change due to flying so much? Feels like people are missing the elephant in the room.

<comment><USER59> What elephant? Airplanes are insanely efficient, relative to cars...

<comment><USER60> Airplanes are not "insanely efficient" when it comes to greenhouse gasses. A plane emits roughly the same amount of greenhouse gasses per mile per person as a car. Maybe 50% if we assume an efficient plane and an inefficient car. And the number of miles travelled by plane is typically much more. Even one round trip flight from SF to europe is 10,000 miles, which is comparable to a year's worth of driving for one person.

<comment><USER59> > roughly the same amount of greenhouse gasses per mile per person as a car

I see. How much non-human cargo are these cars carrying? More to the point: how else do you propose one go from SF to Europe?

Reading between the lines, you're either suggesting people stay home or that they take a boat, both of which are absolute crazy talk.

EDIT: moreover, wikipedia's numbers suggest jetliners get roughly 70 to 110 passenger-miles/gallon ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Aircraft)). I have yet to come across a car that gets that kind of mileage _period_ , let alone per passenger.

Besides, gas turbine engines are pretty much the model of efficiency when it comes to hydrocarbon-consuming engines. I don't know where you people are getting your numbers but my BS detector is off the charts.

<comment><USER61> I don't think that turbine engines are the model of efficiency that you claim. On a BSFC basis, they're significantly worse than piston diesels or marine two-strokes. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumptio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption#Examples_of_values_of_BSFC_for_shaft_engines)

(That's for shaft engines, which a turbojet isn't, but the turboprop examples are jet engines with a gearbox and propellor mounted.) Jet engines are incredibly powerful (per unit of mass) and reliable, but I don't think they're incredibly efficient.

<comment><USER59> Perhaps I don't understand the measure (entirely possible!) but I think thrust-specific fuel consumption is a better indicator here. You need to account for the thrust required in these behemoths: replace the gas turbine engines with piston engines large enough to produce equivalent thrust and I doubt you'll retain the fuel economy.

Either way, this is an auxiliary point: the per-passenger fuel economy of airplanes is significantly higher than that of cars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I don't like making comments like this, but this is a prime candidate for something along the lines of "white people problems" with no additional remarks.

<comment><USER63> Do you mean first-world problems? I don't see what race has to do with frequent flier programs.</comment></comment>


"The Red Pill:" "The Online Radicalization We're Not Talking About" - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/05/the-online-radicalization-were-not-talking-about.html <comment><USER2> This kind of polemic would be more effective if they did some actual research instead of lumping every group they dislike into the same bucket.

The Breitbart guys I know are mostly standard-issue preppy Republicans. The Infowars guys are mostly conspiracy theorists, not white supremacists, and their political leanings are all over the place. The MRAs are usually old bearded white guys who are mad at the world because they didn't fare so well in divorce court. To me, these are all different things.

But hey, if you want to write a screed that they're all crypto-nazis because they don't harmonize with your upper-middle-class-seven-sisters-white-girl worldview, be my guest. Enjoy your second Trump term.

<comment><USER3> Has Breitbart changed recently? It always struck me as slightly racist but I guess it is a matter of opinion

<comment><USER2> I have no idea. I just know all of the basic bitch Republicans have it set as their homepage. It's like, "Finally! All my basic bitch Republican stuff in one place! And a gay British guy singing the lead! Only a matter of time now before those stupid libtards see the light..."

So yeah, it's probably slightly racist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> holy shit they aren't far right... laci green is talking about people like sargon of akkad and chris ray gun

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow. Just because I believe that the government is an immoral actor or believe in 'conspiracy theories' like 9-11 being an inside job does not make me a white supremacist. Actually this type of belief system is just as common, probably more common actually, among non-whites.

<comment><USER6> I was going to do a ton of research pointing to the correlation between people who believe the same things as you do and share the commonality of "red pill"/"alt-right" ideology

But I think the Duck Test applies here

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"

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

<comment><USER7> The argument above would seem to be a case of re-duck-tio ad hitlerum.</comment></comment></comment>


What Future Java Might Look Like - <AUTHOR> http://blog.codefx.org/java/dev/future-java-might-look-like/ <comment><USER2> The future of Java looks a lot like Kotlin. Aside from value classes, all of the mentioned features are present in Kotlin:

\- Data classes: [https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/data- classes.html](https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/data-classes.html)

\- Type inference: [https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/basic- types.html](https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/basic-types.html)

\- Switch as an expression: [https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/control- flow.html#when...](https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/control- flow.html#when-expression)

\- Destructuring: [https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/multi- declarations.htm...](https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/multi- declarations.html)

<comment><USER3> These existed long before Kotlin.

<comment><USER4> But was there source-level compatibility with Java?

<comment><USER3> What does that have to do with anything? My comment was mainly a protest of what appeared to be Kotlin fanboyism, which I see a lot lately on HN. There is nothing special about these features in Kotlin, they are common features in many popular languages preceding Kotlin, and have been on Java developers' radars long before Kotlin.

<comment><USER4> My point is that you can take an existing Java codebase, stick in a Kotlin file, and use those "future Java" features right now, in your Java project.

But the fact that those features might have existed in Haskell or Algol68 or whatever is largely irrelevant since we're taking about Java.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wish they would focus on making the underlying platform and bytecode more amenable to all the other, non-Java languages like Scala that compile to JVM bytecode. The real value is in the highly optimized, stable, and performant underlying JVM platform. If it was easier to create languages like Scala that were "compatible" with Java codebases and had the primitives they require in the underlying platform, then that would lead to an incredible amount of innovation I think. Nobody really cares that Java (on the language syntax level) is going to add some features in 5-10 years that other langs already had 10 years ago, that is ridiculous.

<comment><USER6> When looking at the common Java shops scattered all around the world, not the SV darlings, Java (the language) is the only option.

Why do you think Lightbend now offers Java services in addition to Scala ones?

Most of us only get to use Java, customers don't allow for anything else on JVM related projects.

<comment><USER7> Welcome to Sacramento :-(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While these would be welcome improvements to Java, the future of Java is not about these sorts of tweaks. What Java really needs to revitalize their ecosystem is a sustained focus on improving developer experience with modern applications.

That means elevating languages like Kotlin and Clojure, and producing modern libraries for basic web development so that there's a foundation of high quality components that people can build with, similar to .NET. Today, Java developers have to pick through a confusing mess of implementations for basic things with highly variable levels of quality and interopability (the biggest gap probably being security).

<comment><USER9> Its weird how far java has fallen behind C# (especially given that C# was, to put it kindly, originally just basically "microsoft java".) It would seem like Oracle could just follow the blueprint, so I'm sort of surprised they haven't

<comment><USER10> The falling-behind happened early, and fast. MS took full advantage of second- mover status to change fast and add features. They also targeted fewer platforms initially.

While the market niche was certainly aimed squarely at the same demographic as Java users, the language owes as least as much to Borland Object Pascal as it does to Java.

Speaking of Object Pascal, MS also got Anders Hejlsburg to design it.

Oracle/Sun, stuck with a huge, conservative enterprise user base, was shackled by backwards compatibility.

In hindsight, I don't think it weird that Java fell behind the way it did.

<comment><USER11> There was a huge gap of time where effectively there was no forward progress with Java. I learned Java 6 in high school - by the time I graduated college Java 7 still hadn't been released.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> To me, most of the JVM languages have 2 similar problems with the "defaults": references are optional, rather than mandatory; objects are mutable, rather than immutable.

It's past time for a language that makes it's references mandatory unless you explicitly indicate "optional" / "maybe" or whatever. Slapping "Optional<...>" on stuff when "mandatory" isn't enforced seems to just make things worse.

Similarly, classes/objects, methods, modules, packages should be side-effect free, unless there is a flag for mutation or other side effects.

We don't need Java 1.9, we need 2.0, with "breaking" (fixing) changes :-)

Scala shows some good ideas, but it doesn't go far enough. That, and I kind of liked Groovy, too, as I would like to be able to turn on and off strong/static type checking. (default on, but if you ask nicely...)

<comment><USER9> As much as I think immutable-by-default is a good idea for code correctness, it does have a really big performance penalty since it means a LOT of GC pressure (since you have to make a lot of allocations). Side effect free is great, but, at the moment anyway you can't really do it in real time systems where a GC pause is a huge problem

<comment><USER12> A lot of those deallocations should be easy to figure out by a compiler, though. Maybe the JVM can accommodate a delete instruction? If I say list(1,2,3).par.map(x=>x*x) there's a couple of intermediate objects that can immediately be deallocated. The GC shouldn't be bothered with cases that are so obvious.

<comment><USER7> Beside generational GC, I also forgot to mention escape analysis, which sounds like what you are leading up to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Languages cannot get better, only bigger, without dropping backwards compatibility. This is why Java needs to die. Not because it's particularly horrible, but because we can do better now.

<comment><USER13> By that standard every language needs to die. Or to put it another way, how long should languages be permitted to survive as we figure out better ways of doing things?

<comment><USER12> Very interesting question. The benefits of a new language has to be weighed against the learning that has to be done to use it and the load of maintaining things in different languages. It's not every 3 years or anything like that, but Java is 20 years old now, and it shows.

<comment><USER14> And another generation of programmers wastes time rewriting the same stuff in the language du jour.

<comment><USER15> This is going to happen anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Lombok already gives you some of this:

\- Data objects [https://projectlombok.org/features/Data.html](https://projectlombok.org/features/Data.html) That generate toString, getters, setters etc as required

\- Val for local variables [https://projectlombok.org/features/val.html](https://projectlombok.org/features/val.html) I don't start a new project without it.

And if you really want stripe down java checkout [http://jpad.io/](http://jpad.io/) a little program I made to make running java scripts/snippets extremely easy.

<comment><USER7> FWIW, I did a presentation on Lombok at the local Java user group recently:

[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XouaIJ5d3CaqEW87Fpup...](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XouaIJ5d3CaqEW87Fpup7YTcEQc4ZW3UF3hyrnDgx0M/edit#slide=id.p)

It's a nice tool.

<comment><USER17> I've seen many different codebases but have never run into Lombok. I really want to use it. Any practical gotchas I need to worry about?

<comment><USER18> The gotcha is that Lombok thinks classes should be structs, and will try to persuade you of that too.

A fundamental plank of good object-oriented design - which i admit that i rarely see or even practice - is information hiding. Lombok rips that up and burns it. And that may give you a warm feeling for a while, but at some point, you're going to fall through the floor.

<comment><USER7> Most java shops create a lot of "do nothing" scut work "beans". If that's what much of the work you are forced to do is, make short work of it.

Lombok of course doesn't help much for classes with "Actual Work" (TM) in them, but that's OK.

Was there something more subtle that I'm missing? (quite possible)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Brian went to great lengths to stress how very, > very speculative all of > the following is and how > much things might evolve or simply get dropped. > He > went so far to let everyone in the audience sign an > acknowledgment > thereof (just mentally but still) and > explicitly forbade any > sensationalist tweets.

> Well… first of all, this is no tweet and second of all, > I wasn't in that > audience.

Oh well. So they agree it's sensationalist and I won't hold my breath for those things to appear in the near future. For a recent new release of our library at work we dropped compatibility for Java < 8\. I actually tried finding out how far the value types proposal had progressed (since we convert the code from C# we actually _have_ value types that were turned into classes in Java again) to see whether we can do things _now_ that would integrate cleanly into a new Java language version later without drastic API changes on our part. Alas, nothing was to be found except for the original 2014 proposal.

Another point is the upgraded switch statement with pattern matching. The next version of C# is currently trying to add this and the current form looks a lot different from the initial proposal. I expect reality to change a fair bit of how those features will end up in Java eventually.

</comment><comment><USER20> So... scala with some boilerplate?

<comment><USER21> Exactly. That's the primary reason I use Scala these days - all that's good in Java (libraries, JVM) but with a much nicer surface language! The only thing that's missing, really, is fast for loops (either Java-like, or automatic optimisation when looping over things like arrays or ranges). Conversely, a major thing missing in the post above is some sort of implicits, or at least C#-like extension methods.

<comment><USER22> Is the excessive virtual dispatch still really slowing down simple for loops in Scala? I thought Paul Phillips did a special-case fix for that. That's very disappointing if that's still a problem.

When I programmed in Scala, I felt like this sort of thing showed that priorities weren't quite right in the leadership somehow. For-loops are pretty basic and their performance is important - simple ones shouldn't have ever been slower than the equivalent Java ones IMO.

Another instance of misplaced priorities (again IMO), was the problem that you couldn't have local/temporary variables in your class constructors (see for example [http://www.scala-lang.org/old/node/1198.html](http://www.scala- lang.org/old/node/1198.html)). Any values that you created inline in your class body (which is your primary constructor) could be used but would _implicitly_ become fields in your class instances even if they were never used in any methods. Sure you can make factory methods in a companion object etc but should have to do that always? That's _worse_ than Java and for no good reason! The "simplified" syntax of not having an explicit block representing scope for the actual constructor _code_ , separate from member declarations, really bites in this case.

An example of this was the gcd value in Oderski's rational number class which is one of the first examples in his book. The gcd value is needed to initialize the numerator and denominator values, and you want to save it after it's first computed temporarily so you don't have to compute it twice. But naming it at all made it an actual instance field, not just a temporary in the constructor. So every Rational would be carrying around this significant extra storage unbeknownst even to a programmer who would have reviewed the source code, unless they are in the habit of examining javap output for everything or already knew to watch for this issue.

I don't know if that's been fixed or not. The very fact that this could stand for so long, and how implicit the whole thing was about something so fundamental ( _object construction_!), really bothered me about Scala though.

<comment><USER23> You can have local variables in the constructor.

The discussion you linked to shows you how.

<comment><USER22> Which post # in the discussion did you have in mind? There's some misdirections in that thread with ideas that didn't survive the javap test (which I think rather makes my point). I may do Scala again in the future and would like to know how to avoid this (without factory methods as I mentioned).

If you mean Paul P/extempore's self described "if you can handle a little perversion" method then - "no thanks", that's pretty bad, I'd rather just do factories.

<comment><USER23>
        class Rational(n: Int, d: Int) {
          require(d != 0)

          val (numer, denom) = {
            val g = gcd(n.abs, d.abs)
            (n / g, d / g)
          }

          // ...
          private def gcd(a: Int, b: Int) = if (b == 0) a else gcd(b, a % b)
        }

Now `g` is a local variable.

<comment><USER22> As discussed in the thread, that doesn't work given that we're trying to avoid extra storage, it adds an extra tuple member to the class. It's still true as of the latest compiler just like it was in 2009:

        $ scalac -version
        Scala compiler version 2.12.1 -- Copyright 2002-2016, LAMP/EPFL and Lightbend, Inc.

        $ javap -private Rational
        Compiled from "Rational.scala"

        public class Rational {
          private final scala.Tuple2 x$1;
          private final int numer;
          private final int denom;
          public int numer();
          public int denom();
          private int gcd(int, int);
          public Rational(int, int);
        }

<comment><USER23> Sure, okay. But the point remains that "you couldn't have local/temporary variables in your class constructors" isn't quite true.

FYI, you could avoid that but not without giving up `final`.

This isn't exactly unusual. Lots of source languages (e.g., C) don't expose all the abilities of the target language (ASM).

I'm surprised you mention this shortcoming compared to Java. I would have mentioned the lack of a Java enumeration equivalent.

<comment><USER22> It was short for the explanation in the following paragraphs (OK I should have added "without unwanted storage side effects" which was the whole point though). WHich I still haven't seen resolved in a memorable/non-gross way (I do assume extempore's hack works). Even Martin's private[this] idea from that thread was apparently never implemented, I just tried it also.

I'm a Scala fan by the way, and this is a solvable problem (the private[this] solution would be fine I think). But it's currently a landmine IMO and an unfortunate because it's such an unforced error.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What I would personally like (and I'm kind of surprised all projects which tried to implement it died) is a Java -> static exe/elf compiler (sort of like Go) or at least java -> exe/elf +libjava.so .

I hate that deploying Java requires that everything has to be configured _exactly_ right, and write once run anywhere turns into write once debug everywhere.

<comment><USER18> That's been around since 2014:

[https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/deplo...](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/deploy/self- contained-packaging.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> So just like Kotlin then?

</comment><comment><USER26> I really started hating Java when I had to write a government office's Licence Management web application using Java.

The tooling is brain dead, except JetBrains IntelliJ. The dependency management system is braindead too (if not for IntelliJ's maven integration). The MVC architecture implementation using Struts and Spring annotations reminds me of PHP. The resulting applications are painful to step through, I don't know why since Visual Studio can easily step through .aspx or .cshtml files.

I then picked up ASP.NET MVC and haven't look back but unfortunately most of the jobs in my country (India) still use Java for legacy web applications.

</comment><comment><USER27> It'll look like this, except on Android. There, despite constantly being asked when newer improvements to Java would come, they still had to ask if people wanted them to update to Java 8, and why they'd want that.

<comment><USER6> It is because of this attitude that I side with Oracle.

Google just forked Java 6, and we only get cherry picked updates from newer versions, which will only get worse every time a new Java version gets released.

Looking at the current Java 8 half-backed support in Android 7, try to imagine writing Java 10 library with all these goodies that also needs an Android version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> still doesn't look bright imo

<comment><USER29> yes I feel that scala or clojure already offer all these advantages (depending on your preference of static vs dynamic typing) and have great java interop.

<comment><USER30> And Kotlin as well, with java interop considered a top priority.

<comment><USER31> Is anyone actually using Kotlin outside jetbrains? Seems like it doesn't have much mindshare or any high profile projects using it.

<comment><USER30> I'm not sure, but I know the Gradle people worked with Jetbrains to integrate it into Gradle, so you can use it instead of Groovy. SpringBoot initializer will allow you to choose Kotlin as a language (along with Java and Groovy). Corda (an open source distributed ledger was built with it) - not sure how many are using Corda since it's so new. Quasar (an JVM actor library) supports it. Here's an article about KeepSafe converting their Android app: [https://medium.com/keepsafe-engineering/lessons-from- convert...](https://medium.com/keepsafe-engineering/lessons-from-converting- an-app-to-100-kotlin-68984a05dcb6#.c6dnkag4h). There are several companies listed on the Kotlin website as well.

edit: The list of companies from the Kotlin website: [https://github.com/JetBrains/kotlin-web- site/blob/master/dat...](https://github.com/JetBrains/kotlin-web- site/blob/master/data/companies-using-kotlin.yml)

I guess my point is you can find people using it. I just wonder why anyone who is currently using Java doesn't at least consider it and try it out -- it's much more concise and nicer to develop in. But then again, I guess a much larger percentage of Java developers don't ever learn anything new and probably have never even heard of the name.

<comment><USER32> Kotlin's backed by Jetbrains which makes IntelliJ which many Java developers have heard of, whereas Apache Groovy was dropped by Pivotal which also still backs Spring. I imagine more and more software which enables Groovy for scripting will follow in the footsteps of Gradle and SpringBoot by allowing Kotlin to be used as well, such as Jenkins and maybe even Grails one day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Dead, finally? ..Ow, damn, false alarm! Just another vile article :(

<comment><USER34> You're being downvoted, but really, the only saving grace in Java is the occasionally useful tooling that can't be used in the other two actually good JVM languages: Kotlin and Scala.

And right now the only one I can think of is j2objc. Java _should_ absolutely die.

<comment><USER33> Isn't this upvote-downvote thing somehow linked to confirmation bias? I'm getting downvoted for having issued an opinion which opposes that of the others? This sounds so horribly wrong to me...

<comment><USER35> It is because you do not comment according to the guidelines, which encourage people to start conversation with reasoning etc.

Points done bad in your comments:

 _Avoid gratuitous negativity._

 _When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."_

 _Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them._

 _Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading._

<comment><USER36> > _It is because you do not comment according to the guidelines, which > encourage people to start conversation with reasoning_

Not strictly. The guidelines encourage people to start conversation with reasoning, but also encourage people to downvote for disagreeing.

So, there's some dissonance in there as it says, effectively: "make well- reasoned arguments with which everyone can agree."

<comment><USER35> We are going OT here, but one last comment in this thread to clarify what I meant.

Putting a comment saying just "Just another vile article", without any thoughts about why it is vile, is just completely against the guidelines (from the points mentioned in my previous comment). Even if you agree with its content or not.

Also, I do not believe the guidelines encourage people to down-vote for disagreeing (or at-least from my understanding). It is just in our nature and the consequence of the fact, that there is a down-vote button. (I have never tried it, still under 500 karma.. :) )

<comment><USER36> > _Putting a comment saying just "Just another vile article", without any > thoughts about why it is vile_

I agree that it doesn't add to the discussion, which might be a good reason for downvoting (i.e. as a form of "quality control"). OTOH, if you happen to agree with the statement, then the ethos is that it's cool to upvote it on that basis alone. Yet, it still adds no more to the discussion.

My overall point is that agreement/disagreement as a basis for surfacing (or submerging) people's comments/ideas is a poor choice in either direction, if it's stimulating, challenging discussion we want.

> _I have never tried it, still under 500 karma.._

Meh. It's overrated. Can't even remember the last time I downvoted a comment (as you might've guessed) :)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Infinite Grid of Resistors - <AUTHOR> http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath668/kmath668.htm

<comment><USER2> I remember a Google talk where Randall Munroe talked about working with his Professor for hours on a solution to this problem.

<comment><USER3> It was this one, starts at around 15 minutes.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJOS0sV2a24](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJOS0sV2a24)

Very good talk overall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The whole website [http://www.mathpages.com/home/](http://www.mathpages.com/home/) feels like euler project times itself

<comment><USER5> Indeed. Just a few looks and I realized that I needed to stop until I get home. I know I won't be getting much sleep tonight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I remember getting this as a homework problem in an undergraduate EE course. (bastards!) Only years later did I find out how to actually solve it.

<comment><USER7> Could be worse...I got this question on a mid-term in my Intro to Circuits class. The mathy folk all thought the test was awesome, and the systemsy folk all thought the professor was a jerk. :P

<comment><USER8> i had it as a homework in physics. and another similar of a cube with capacitors at each edge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Luckily the grid tends to infinite resistance in the limit.

Also interesting ->

Infinite grid of capacitors (tends to 0 at infinity):

[http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0054.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0054.pdf)

Infinite sphere resistance (tends to infinity):

[http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48439/resistance-...](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48439/resistance- between-two-points-in-an-infinite-metal-sphere-cube)</comment>


Show HN: Mashing up Hacker News headlines with Upworthy, Buzzfeed, and TMZ - <AUTHOR> http://headline-generator.herokuapp.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I stole the awesome headline generator made by gamegoblin yesterday ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6815282](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6815282)) and added mashups and built-in voting. (And Bootstrap!)

Some examples:

\- Your Grandma Might Have Lied About Having CS Degree

\- Stop validating Email Addresses With Your Mediocre Action Movie

\- My Latte Is Worth More Than The Entire Life Experience CAUGHT On Film In Under 4 Minutes Or Less

\- Google+ Can Now Legally Marry

\- The Most Meaningful Moments In Ryan Gosling's 33 Years On A Corporate programmer Salary</comment>


43% of millennials see themselves quitting their current job in less than 2y - <AUTHOR> https://blog.karmabot.chat/why-millennials-quit/?source=hn <comment><USER2> Millennial here. When I graduated I joined a small start up company. It was great in the beginning. The people were nice, we had decent parties, life was good. I was very loyal, pulling a lot of (unpaid) overtime and I saw myself there until at least their exit. It wasn't until I felt like the company may go under (salaries late, weekly/monthly parties being cancelled among other things) that I looked for a job and took the first offer I got with a multinational organisation. Figured I'd feel out the difference between start ups and large organisations.

It was when I got the offer that I'd been stupid. My new base salary, along with a much, much better overall package, was close to 40% jump. I did some research, and wherever I looked, it seemed people mentioned that job hopping a little is the best way to increase your salary.

So a year and a half later, I once again, changed jobs, and sure enough, once again, a decent overall package, but also a cool 15% pay-rise. In comparison, I had received a 1% pay-rise just 4 months prior.

And furthermore it's been equally great when it comes to the compensation and job hopping.

For me, this is just the beginning though. After a year or two you understand a lot of the tooling you work with and I've felt like there's nothing else to learn. Having changed jobs expands my knowledge by a great amount that later I can use to get even more compensation.

So why the hell would I stay at any specific company when my compensation is not necessarily bad, but it can be better. But also, I get to learn new things. I get to meet new people.

I'm sure I'll get to a point in life where finding new jobs will be harder due to age and whatnot, but I'll keep doing this till I hit that roadblock.

In addition, as I've grown, I've realised no company really fully cares for you. At the end of the day, you're just a resource, and if shit hits the fan, you may be one if the first to go. So they don't care about you, so why should I care about them. Give me the right compensation and I'll stay, mess that up, and I'm gone.

<comment><USER3> This bears repeating:

> _In addition, as I 've grown, I've realised no company really fully cares > for you. At the end of the day, you're just a resource, and if shit hits the > fan, you may be one if the first to go. So they don't care about you, so why > should I care about them. Give me the right compensation and I'll stay, mess > that up, and I'm gone._

Congratulations on having learned this truth so quickly. It took me a whole lot longer to figure this out.

One thing to add: This is true whether you're a developer in the trenches or a senior VP or a C-level executive. Even founders of companies frequently get pushed out by the board if the company has grown beyond their ability to manage it. (This famously happened to Steve Jobs in 1985.)</comment></comment>