Employers Find 'Soft Skills' Like Critical Thinking in Short Supply - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/employers-find-soft-skills-like-critical-thinking-in-short-supply-1472549400?mod=e2fb <comment><USER2> Thank god the Wall Street Journal is encouraging critical thinking, and more importantly fostering the discussion by putting articles like this out for everybody to read /s

On a more serious note, I don't believe this is true. In every place I've been, school, university, corporate jobs, the "critical thinkers" always got marginalised. This was the case even if they were truly nice people who cared - i.e. not abrasive and argumentative, just different. This is often called "difficult", because most managers and HR can't be bothered to actually engage with that person. So isn't that people can't do it, just the lesson is "you're better off if you don't say it". Political correctness also doesn't help IMO.

I feel like one of my favorite Mitchell and Webb sketches, "Kill the poor", describes this quite well: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg)

<comment><USER3> Creativity and critical thinking. In subordinate position it gets you labelled a dreamer, a weirdo, or an idiot.

In executive position, visionary, maverick, multidisciplinary thinker, etc.

You can only truly creative in a position with autonomy, so you either climb the ladder or start your own thing.

<comment><USER4> nailed it. corporations can't handle grassroots change, so the values which promote grassroots change are denigrated even when those same values are enshrined at higher positions.

<comment><USER5> I think you're absolutely right. What I find really funny about this, at least in software development, is the "adoption" of the "agile" process they want to strive for which puts the majority of authority into the hands of the people doing the work. In the meetings talking about how wonderful it is, they are all on board, until they realize when they try to put it in place, and suddenly they realize they aren't in control. Then, they blame the process for failing them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There seems to be a trend in management towards an unwarranted belief in the effectiveness and importance of superficial quantitative analysis, and two complementary myths that go along with the trend: a) any number you can assign to something is significant; b) anything you cannot assign a number to is not significant.

Anyone approaching recruiting with this mindset is neither using critical thinking, nor likely to hire people who can.

<comment><USER3> What gets measured gets managed.

<comment><USER7> And often there are titanic struggles to manage noise. I mean changes of 1% with sample sizes of 200 or so (education). I especially cherish 'business systems' that produce percentages accurate to two decimal places.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article, especially some of the examples, seems abusive to low-wage employees. How many of us would give a job description that said 'this is not a preparation for a slow motion contest' a second glance?

The meat and potatoes of the article is mostly just complaints to be honest. A lack of candidates is always the go-to excuse for managers and executives when explaining poor productivity or vacancies. Job seekers will gladly tell you that the pay stinks or that they just flat out don't want to work for a company.

Dig deeper and ask the managers and executives to show how they reward and retain employees with these skills.

<comment><USER9> I work for a >10,000 employee health care system as a physician. What I have seen is that the front line workers are considered disposable, and should be grateful for a job. The superstars ( always nice, compassionate, and excellent at their jobs) are not recognized by management and so when raises are given, everyone gets them, including the lazy ones. This disappoints the worker bees, and leads to incredible turnover and more frustration for us physicians. Unfortunately, a lot of the attributes of a great employee cannot be quantified on a spreadsheet so the MBAs running my organization have no clue how to compensate people. Instead, they just lump everyone in the same pile so the workers get frustrated bc they work twice as hard as the lazies, but make the same amount.

I've tried to talk to executives about this, but I think it's essentially to deaf ears - bottom line is the most important, so they can get their bonuses.

It leads to disenchantment and then, over many years, inability to get hardworking / intelligent people to enter front line professions.

Smart people will recognize that their hard work will never be acknowledged, so they switch careers. Others, who cannot get jobs elsewhere, or pivot, are stuck working there.

Not sure what the solution is, but it's just an observation.

<comment><USER10> I _really_ don't give a shit if I'm being paid more than my fellows, hard- working or no. The only thing I care about in my pay level is: am I making enough to support my family in a decent lifestyle? This means I'm comparing against the cost of living, NOT what my coworkers make - I only care about my relative wage insofar as it indicates how most people are getting by.

What I'm more interested in, as a smart person, is that my work is recognized as valuable, given the resources it needs to succeed, encouraged, improved upon, aided.

<comment><USER11> Merit raises are an effect of recognition. The fact everyone got the same raise meant there was no recognition for hard work. It's the wrong job for someone who wants to do better than bare minimum. I'll speculate and suggest that the department is doing good enough and they're not paying attention to performance metrics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> See Isaac Asimov's classic science fiction story about education, "Profession", featuring the "House for the Feeble Minded", [http://www.inf.ufpr.br/renato/profession.html](http://www.inf.ufpr.br/renato/profession.html)

 _" For most of the first eighteen years of his life, George Platen had headed firmly in one direction, that of Registered Computer Programmer. There were those in his crowd who spoke wisely of Spationautics, Refrigeration Technology, Transportation Control, and even Administration. But George held firm. He argued relative merits as vigorously as any of them, and why not? Education Day loomed ahead of them and was the great fact of their existence. It approached steadily, as fixed and certain as the calendar – the first day of November of the year following one's eighteenth birthday. After that day, there were other topics of conversation."_

<comment><USER13> One of my favourite Asimov short stories.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think this is a dangerous and fruitless line of reasoning. It halts the conversation. It makes it harder for management to be introspective. If you look at critical or creative thinking as an inherent skill [1] rather than as a measurable outcome of the right kind of environment and incentives, how can you create and improve a workplace in which your people think critically? [2]

I find that bad managers sometimes use the 'lacks critical thinking' criticism as an out for their own ineffectiveness. It's certainly not wrong for managers to delegate, to expect a high level of performance from their employees, to ask for creativity and mental agility in the face of a respectful amount of uncertainty. But when you combine vague goals and sparse planning with ego, bad managers wrongly attribute an employee's failure to correctly 'guess their will' to poor critical thinking skills.

It's natural for managers (myself included) to go into self-preservation mode when they've failed to give their employees enough direction, but the reality is that it's a relationship. There is, and there should be, push and pull. Sometimes the manager doesn't give enough direction or doesn't plan well. Sometimes the employee does some lazy thinking. Each needs to have enough humility and honesty to say, "I screwed up. How do we solve this and what can we do better in the future?"

If you want to make every decision from the top so that your employees never have to divine your will, you better be a planning savant. If you're a mortal like the rest of us, you need to figure out how to give your people just enough guidance to do their best work, and sometimes that means admitting you haven't given enough.

1\. It may be inherent, but that's kind of beside the point. Wouldn't you want to keep the door open to improvement anyway?

2\. Actually, the only way to do it is addressed in the article: search for 'critical thinkers,' whatever that means to you, in your hiring process.

<comment><USER15> > It's natural for managers (myself included) to go into self-preservation > mode when they've failed to give their employees enough direction, but the > reality is that it's a relationship.

It is for people who's #1 priority is themselves and not the team or the company at large, and doing the right thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is purely anecdotal, but I've seen a shift in behaviour where even people with these soft skills appear less willing to take the risk of using them. Too much focus of "must look like I'm working hard", so rush things through without sense checking and that type of thing. Getting away with it often then means it becomes a way of working so the skills don't develop and people (one assumes) hope for the best in regards to getting caught!

</comment><comment><USER17> Employers don't want critical thinking, they want compliance and results. They might say they want more soft skills, but what they mean is they want someone to solve their problems and make them look good.

Usually, that means a yes man. This kind of article is delusional naval gazing.

<comment><USER18> Surprising talk on a forum dedicated to startup capitalism. Culturally, this forum is aligned towards BEING the employers.

<comment><USER17> 90% of the people on this forum will never start a startup or possibly even work at a startup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I work for a fortune 100 and critical thinking is highly valued on my team. One thing that I've observed is that expressing critical thinking without communication skill comes across as being argumentative. If you find yourself frequently arguing a point but no one is convinced, assuming you are actually correct on the issue, then you probably just have weak communication skills.

<comment><USER20> Another thing I've noticed is that no matter how compelling the argument it's also near impossible to get people to take action to change things that are deeply entrenched even if they agree with you.

<comment><USER18> I have seen this too. I have a theory about it.

Most organizations only recognize negative intercessions as praiseworthy, and categorize positive intercession as "business as usual" to be expected, even if sometimes the positive intercession is much harder.

"No!" moments are much valued in corporate culture these days.

People think this promotes the propagation of critical thinking across an organization. Perhaps ironically, the opposite is true. By tuning everyone to say, "No!" and rewarding them as such, it actually limits the impact of the actual important "No!" moments because everyone is competing for these accolades.

Most corporate culture does not reward people for following orders or improving upon someone else's idea. It's a legacy of the strict hierarchy all our organizations descend from (or a consequence of the apathy that more modern "matrixed" organizations breeds in its mid-grade baseline employees, who are taught not to overly invest in a given project).

<comment><USER21> My experience is mostly in the other direction. While C-level executives out of their depth (which seems to be most of the time when it comes to technology) tend to have quite a few 'No!' moments, maybe because it gives them a sense of control, they don't like hearing No from anyone else.

In fact, expressing doubts about the wisdom of pushing ahead with a project, even one already failing, is seen as very poor behaviour, like you have just farted in front of everyone. Likewise, identifying risks is often seen as negativity, rather than a foundation principle of review.

People who subsequently roll out one of these failed ideas are often publicly rewarded. In contrast, the people who develop the alternate system that is actually used tend to be ignored.

<comment><USER18> My observation is not applicable to C-levels and other people in positions of extreme power. It really only occurs when an org develops a middle-strata of management and executors with finely-cut responsibilities. Truly big companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Strange - I usually associate "soft skills" more with leadership, people skills etc.

And yeah they are in short supply because you can't teach them directly. The employees sorta need to pick them up from experience.

<comment><USER23> > And yeah they are in short supply because you can't teach them directly.

If you can think critically are you going to get past the HR filters and convince them you are the recruit willing to take a deal that will descend into just a little worse than unemployment? (So your empty shell of a life after they spit you out is devoid of any unused benefits.)

If you want to openly think critically in corporate employment, step 1 is becoming irreplaceable so they can't replace you when you become inconvenient at step 2.

An easier tactic, (employed by the best corporate game theorists that I've encountered) is following directions like a total Svejk, this leads employers to think you lack critical thinking skills. Then more resources are allocated and eventually you have a whole empire of minions.

<comment><USER21> > step 1 is becoming irreplaceable so they can't replace you when you become > inconvenient

It is a hard lesson, but no-one is irreplaceable. Even if it means an entire product/group fails, if you are inconvenient you are gone. Organisations are not rational actors.

> following directions like a total Svejk

I love that book. It would be nice to seen a version in a corporate setting. Instead of a war it could be some behemoth company doing a massive pivot to the cloud, rewriting every bit of business logic in ruby, etc, and its lowly minion who is forever avoiding work with mandatory training courses, and who never pays for lunch because they appear at the smallest meeting which has corporate catering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> One of the classic examples was Joe Sutter[0]. He was the Boeing 747 program lead & engineer who sadly died a few days ago.

Boeing management was putting pressure to cut 1,000 engineers from the program. He knew that would cause the program to fail, and he really needed 1,000 more engineers. He thought he was going to get fired that day, but still said what he believed.

The 747 became one of the most successful airliners in history.

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

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm an employer myself, buy frankly the same can be said about most other employers. Critical thinking seems to be in short supply there as well.

</comment><comment><USER26> I agree with the following commenter that critical thinking is not a soft skill.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12426545](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12426545)

Definition from Wikipedia:

"The Collins English Dictionary defines the term "soft skills" as "desirable qualities for certain forms of employment that do not depend on acquired knowledge: they include common sense, the ability to deal with people, and a positive flexible attitude.""

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

I think economics is an important part of thinking critically. Does philanthropy do more good than bad? Does affirmative action always get the desired results? Does equality of opportunity lead to equality of outcome? What should be the role of government and how to fund it?

My views on a lot of subjects changed after getting just a rudimentary understanding of economics. While I cannot claim I am a very critical thinker, I am probably a more critical thinker after I learnt economics. And in my view, economics is more science than non-science, and you can grasp it better with more acquired knowledge.

</comment><comment><USER27> It turns out that enforcing political correctness has costs.

</comment><comment><USER28> Presentism in 99% of cases what employers say they want and what they actually want are quite different.

<comment><USER29> And when they say they want "critical thinkers" what they mean is that they want people who can criticize their coworkers while thoughtfully praising their managers' foresight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Generally a firm can get workers if they are willing to locate in an area that the workers want to live, that they treat the workers well, and that they offer above market rates in salary.

But, even wealthy firms such as Apple and Google which both have huge profits have conspired to keep engineering and technical wage rates low. There was recently a settlement for the collusion. It had nothing to do with the amount of money the firms had or could spend for talent, just that they wanted to keep the costs down.

So, generally be suspect of these kinds of articles.

</comment><comment><USER31> For my entire I've been listening to organisations purporting to represent employers slag of the education system for not being sufficiently vocationally-focused - for not just eternally chasing a narrow range of whatever skills will turn out good little technicians at no cost to employers - while denigrating anything outside that narrow focus as basket-weaving. And the political landscape in the English-speaking world has largely gone along with that.

They have what they asked for. Whoops.

</comment><comment><USER32> I think it is great that this question is asked by the wsj. Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall. Can someone with access please summarize the article?

<comment><USER33> Google the headline, click link from Google results, see paywall disappear. At least worked for me ;)

<comment><USER34> It doesn't work for me on mobile. I'm not sure why pay walled links continue to be posted to HN. They should be banned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> It is not my experience that we are lacking critical thinking, what we are lacking is creative / constructive thinking.

There are plenty of great critical thinkers out there. The real challenge is to figure out the next step.

Thats' what entrepreneurs do.

</comment><comment><USER36> If we're relying on all critical thinking skills to come as an unstated side effect of teaching math and elementary science that is sometimes taught alongside creationism then the results are obviously going to be watery.

If on the other hand students were taught just a few formal fallacies and led to analyze just a few arguments and just touched on formal logic while in high school, the nation would be transformed (but I imagine the flyover states would yell bloody murder)

</comment><comment><USER37> Do the personality tests most companies rely on during the hiring process even account for critical thinking?

<comment><USER38> Intelligence testing is considered to be illegal. On the other hand, figuring out how to game a personality test is, in a sense, a test of critical thinking

<comment><USER39> > On the other hand, figuring out how to game a personality test is, in a > sense, a test of critical thinking

Rather not applying at companies that use scientifically-unfounded personality tests is a test of critical thinking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Funny, i also find critical thinking in short supply.

</comment><comment><USER41> Obviously we need more STEM funding. Music, humanities, and sports have never improved anyone's critical thinking skills and personality traits.

<comment><USER42> Interesting to compare to the "Math Myth" (previous discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12418788](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12418788) )</comment></comment>


Show HN: Find an Expert on Hacker News - <AUTHOR> https://hnprofile.com/ <comment><USER2> I like this idea as a startup. It could use multiple data sources, link identities across websites (medium, reddit, hn, quora, irc, github). And be used as a new product for finding potential hires. I really like that product idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> Also why I applied to YC :)

Although different idea slightly..

Theres also our website: [https://projectpiglet.com](https://projectpiglet.com)

Which uses this data to find insiders in companies and suggests short term trades on that info (we also have a long term algorithm I use, up 100% yoy).

There's actually a ton of applications, our focus is Enterprise search at the moment.

However, it's setup so what ever you send to the ingestion end point is captured (so you could send all customer engagements, or Reddit, or medium). Basically, using the system how you want.

<comment><USER3> Does this really work? Do you have a backtests? I trade primarily options and I came across another service that tracks google trends compared to the stock price as well. There was an employee of TSLA who tweeted they hit the numbers goal before, and if you had gotten in on short term optionos, you would have gotten destroyed, even though he was correct. A lot of the times, the news is FUD when it comes to the markets.

I've seen many people post they scrape employee lists from LinkedIn, then follow them on social networks and compile a list of posts based on companies and then bet on that. I haven't seen trade results though.

Edit: Just went through a video and you mentioned prediction of earnings at 80%. Will have to investigate this.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've personally used it as a tool, and the automated algorithms do very well. With the addition of my insights I've been doing 100%+ yoy. Something like 300%+ 2017 and 250%+ so far 2018. The website itself doesn't publish the algorithm I'm using as testing it requires years.

Yes everything is back tested from 2008 forward, unfortunately although the earnings appear high - it's still not fool proof. If something changed in 2018 that broke my method.. then it doesn't matter how much back testing was done.

<comment><USER3> Was this with Crypto or stocks?

<comment><AUTHOR> Combination, I typically hold 5 assets at once for my long term investments. Rebalancing every 12 months. Last year I was holding Litecoin, Ethereum, Amazon, AMD (been holding that for 3 years now..), and TMobile.

This year it is Amazon, AMD, Discover Financial, PayPal, and Heritage-Crystal Clean (just because it trends oil, but also has assets, algorithm wasn't specific).

I've successful made over 100% yoy, since 2013 though. Again, take that with a grain of salt. Who the knows if it'll work next year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I do not find people I would expect for some topics and the same people come up for several topics. Is this also factoring in karma? If so, results will be skewed.

<comment><AUTHOR> It does not use karma at all, only comments and the context of said comments. Basically, it ingests comments and from that identifies experts, creates a search graph, etc.

The accuracy would be higher, but there are limited number of comments on HN.

<comment><USER5> > The accuracy would be higher, but there are limited number of comments on > HN.

Could you elaborate on that?

<comment><AUTHOR> The more comments from a user, the more accurate the system. In the case of HN, many people make less than 10 comments and the majority are shirt responses (i.e. contains minimal data).

If you try "postgresql" or something, there are enough people who have discussed it to provide good results. If you type "hnprofile", likely only these comments will show up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I guess, generally I'm pretty positive on Hacker News :)

Wish I could see the which comments caused the mood change(s).

</comment><comment><USER7> _This topic hasn 't been discussed on Hacker news, we missed it, or you found a bug!_

So, I'm wondering how you are determining what gets discussed here.

Also, although you say you don't use karma at all, I am guessing you use something else that closely approximates karma, like frequency or number of comments including the term because my old handle, which has 25k karma, comes up in the #2 position for the term "health" though I haven't posted under it in 9 months and, so far, I haven't seen my current handle.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can check out: [https://hnprofile.com/learn- more](https://hnprofile.com/learn-more)

What it does is compare your "expertise" (loosely defined as how often you discuss a topic with technical aptitude), against other users "expertise".

It doesn't matter at all how much or often you discuss a topic only whether or not your aptitude in discussing it is high; when discussing it.

There is a limiting factor, however, if you discuss various topics too often; it'll drop your lower scoring topics you have "expertise" in. This is a storage saving mechanism.

Regarding the handles, I just have the criteria it has to have posted within the last 1 year. Time does not degrade the expertise, only discussing other topics does (I believe there are 25 top topics the system tracks per user).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting. When i searched for docker i ended in Solomon Hykes's profile. Dude created docker!!</comment>


British adventurer's re-education in China - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24231904

<comment><USER2> There was recently an article posted on HN which discussed something similar for the US troops who where captured during their adventures in South East Asia and Korea. (Tried to find it and failed.) The Chinese were, and probably are, experts in subtly breaking down your barriers, simply by asking for small things to manipulate your mind and eventually brainwash you.</comment>


Discuss: Wikipedia Wont Show Adds - Isn't Begging A Form Of Advertising? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> For the service they provide they can beg as much as they want, and I will help. Also, as the ad says if everyone would help they would need to keep it up just one hour. I think an ad would be much much worse.</comment>


LabCorp's at-home Covid-19 test kit is the first to be authorized by the FDA - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/21/labcorps-at-home-covid-19-test-kit-is-the-first-to-be-authorized-by-the-fda/ <comment><USER2> $119 [0], since it's not mentioned in the article.

Also, not yet available to the masses:

> With limited quantities of kits available, Pixel by LabCorp is currently > prioritizing healthcare workers and first responders, consistent with > guidance from the CDC. We plan to make kits more broadly available soon so > please check back.

[0][https://www.pixel.labcorp.com/](https://www.pixel.labcorp.com/)

<comment><USER3> Anyone know if that $119 at cost? LabCorp is going to make a killing of this crisis...

<comment><USER2> Likely not "at cost", since a for-profit company should be expected to be making a profit, but probably close, considering the herculean effort to get these things to market, despite the red tape.

<comment><USER4> The Labcorp Pixel covid kit is a mail-in sample swap for a PCR test. The variable cost is magnitudes lower than $119.

<comment><USER5> Right, but isn't there capital costs associated with being able to run them?

<comment><USER6> You realize that the only reason this kit is so expensive is because the FDA previously shut down a bunch of at home testing companies products right?

In case people forgot the first step of the FDA was to shut down at home testing. Then they fast tracked Roche and Thermo Fischer.

Now a month later they approve an expensive at home testing kit. You take your own conclusions of this behaviour.

[https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/23/updated-fda- covid-19-testi...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/23/updated-fda- covid-19-testing-guidelines-specifically-disallows-at-home-sample- colllection/)

<comment><USER7> Note that most of the initial tests required a nasopharyngeal swab which has to go back into your nose several inches. I'm not surprised that the FDA doubts that people would be able to do that reliably on their own given that even trained people seem to get it wrong a lot (1).

The LabCorp test uses a swab that doesn't go anywhere near as deep (2). For a test kit to be widely distributed, you need to have it be drop dead simple to run perfectly.

Given all this, I'm not sure we should jump to corruption as the reason this is the first at-home test.

1.) [https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-testing- fal...](https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-testing-false- negatives.html)

2.) [https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/labcorp-s-at-home- coro...](https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/labcorp-s-at-home-coronavirus- testing-kit-authorized-by-fda)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What is the expectation people will actually get the swab far enough back to collect a meaningful sample? Having been on the receiving end of a nasal collected flu test, it was a pretty deep probing. I'm kind of doubtful most people can do it to themself properly without some prompting to 'go deeper'.

<comment><USER9> You only need to swab the edge of your nostril for this test.

[https://www.pixel.labcorp.com/covid-19-sample- collection](https://www.pixel.labcorp.com/covid-19-sample-collection)

<comment><USER10> It was my understanding, that its easy to get false negatives with this kind of test because the virus moves down the respiratory track as time goes on. Too early, its not sensitive enough. Too late, nothing there. It has to be in a specific window of opportunity. Can somebody jump in and correct me if I am wrong?

<comment><USER11> It does move down the respiratory tract, but nasal epithelial tissue can still contain/produce the virus for awhile even after it "moves". For me, I was able to physically feel the inflammation move down from my throat to lungs to abdomen, but that was 5 weeks ago, and I just tested positive on a deep nose swab rtPCR given yesterday. A lot of people are testing positive for surprisingly long time.

I wouldn't be surprised if a light nasal swab like being discussed here doesn't pick up anything post-symptoms, whereas PCR with the deep nasal swab may still be detectable for a longer time after primary symptoms have faded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Pixel by LabCorp™ is not available in NY, NJ, MD, or RI due to restrictions > on how laboratory tests may be ordered. Please talk with your healthcare > provider about options for getting tested.

Ah wonderful, so this rules out states accounting for 45% of the confirmed cases.

<comment><USER13> I remember when they banned 23andme in MD, I researched it and it turns out the health insurance companies successfully lobbied against it with the argument that information asymmetry may lead to loss of profits.

I'm still salty and I think this is part of the same scenario.

Having said that, I think Governor Hogan is one of the best governors out there wrt state level response to Covid. Right up there with Newsom and Cuomo.

<comment><USER14> > Right up there with Newsom and Cuomo.

Cuomo cut Medicaid funding by $6 billion _during_ the pandemic. He dragged his feet on issuing a stay-at-home order for a week after the city government had asked for one (the governor has the sole authority to authorize one in NY). San Francisco beat Cuomo to the punch by nearly a week, even though New York had been hit earlier and harder with COVID-19 cases. Cuomo also fought against closing NYC schools even after the city and teachers were already on board with the idea. As a result of New York's sluggish response, community spread of COVID-19 happened much more rapidly than it did in other urbanized areas of the country (most notably San Francisco), so hospitals were already overloaded even before the stay-at-home order had been issued. On top of that, Cuomo also expanded pretrial detention for nonviolent drug offenders during the pandemic, which puts even more people in unnecessary close contact. [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/cuomo-has-learned- no...](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/cuomo-has-learned-nothing-from- the-catastrophe-at-rikers.html)

As of today, 1 in 1000 New Yorkers who were alive a month ago are now dead. Cuomo might not be the only person responsible for the current situation in New York, but it's clear that things would be better in New York had Cuomo taken action instead of fighting public health officials at every turn.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I don't know why people heap praise on Cuomo. Dude dragged his feet compared to Newsom and the California local authorities.

<comment><USER16> Everyone loves a hero. California just kept things under control. No fires to fight = no heroes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does "At Home" mean at home, or send the kit from your home to their lab? It looks like I have to ship my DNA to them. That is not "at home".

LabCorp has been hacked enough times for me to stay far away from them. I was also not impressed with their Lab setup. I had to help other customers input their sensitive data into LabCorp's Kiosk systems because their 2 employees were overloaded. I am happy I left before giving them my data.

No thanks.

<comment><USER18> You send your DNA to someone every time you post an envelope. LabCorp is the largest provider doing tests, when you are tested at hospital for example, most likely they will send your sample to them, so there is no difference with doing it at home.

<comment><USER19> Nit: I dampen a towel for use with envelopes and stamps. Who wants to lick that stuff?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is there a possibility of us getting an FDA sanctioned OTC antibody test in the near future so we can find out if we already had the virus?

<comment><USER21> There's one available in Richmond, CA for $125: [https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/COVID-19-antibody- tes...](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/COVID-19-antibody-testing- available-in-Richmond-15206098.php)

<comment><USER16> It's $199 (+taxes).

<comment><USER21> It literally says $125 in the opening paragraph of the article I linked. Do you have updated information?

<comment><USER16> Yes, the lab itself. [https://app.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php?owner=19381748](https://app.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php?owner=19381748)

<comment><USER21> That seems very odd considering the SFGate article was published yesterday, and I presume they asked the lab how much it costs. I sent the lab an email to clarify. Let's see what they send back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Found this:

[https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download](https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download)

> Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used > as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Negative results must be > combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological > information.

Here's a brief article that explains why observed symptoms are more important than a test:

[https://asiatimes.com/2020/04/how-accurate-are- coronavirus-t...](https://asiatimes.com/2020/04/how-accurate-are-coronavirus- tests/)

</comment><comment><USER23> As a childhood sufferer of semi-regular strep throat infections, I have a hard time believing people are going to willingly jam the swab back to where it needs to go. To me, it seems like this will just generate false negatives.

<comment><USER24> jacobriis pointed out you only have to swab to the edge of your nostril [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22935617](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22935617)

Strep tests are just a pain. Had one or two every year of high school.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Any idea what the false positive / false negative rate is?

<comment><USER25> Yeah, haven't false negatives been a scourge of at-home testing kits released in other countries?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> how does this help? if you can test at home, so what? how does that change anything? it's not being tracked, can you trust results, etc.

<comment><USER27> It won't do much for most people - which is why healthcare workers and first responders are being prioritized.

My wife is a doctor and cared for our county's first COVID-positive patient before he was formally diagnosed (took 11 days to get test results). She was on self-isolation for 3 weeks for late March/early April. Two weeks for the initial exposure, 1 more week because of a low-grade fever. We're still not certain if she had it (I got symptoms about 5 days after she did) because it was extremely difficult to get her tested.

The challenge now is monitoring her with likely exposure when she'll be working in-patient for the month of June. While these tests aren't perfect, they can give us some direction on how we need handle things at home. The price is reasonable enough that we can simply order the test for her directly without having to call 20 different people across 3 different hospital systems to get the sign-off on testing.

A negative doesn't tell us much (as she could still have it), but a positive is a strong indication that she should be avoiding patient interactions and likely self-isolating at home.

<comment><USER28> > A negative doesn't tell us much (as she could still have it), but a positive > is a strong indication that she should be avoiding patient interactions and > likely self-isolating at home.

Doesn't it only tell you if you should now be immune once your sickness is over? Otherwise you have to act like you have it if you have the symptoms regardless of the test. Avoiding patient interactions and self isolating should happen regardless, shouldn't it?

<comment><USER27> In theory, yes. Sensitivity and Specificity should be considered. In practice, there's a lot of BS going on in the healthcare system right now - these tests are often taken at face value.

It's unfortunate, but somewhat understandable given the extreme circumstances of our health care environment. If everyone with mild symptoms (likely not COVID related) had to self-isolate for two weeks, we wouldn't have any healthcare workers left to care for people.

This seems to be a "good enough" approach for most healthcare systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> So if I get one of these tests, and it comes back negative, what does that mean?

<comment><USER28> That'll you need more testing through the rest of the pandemic until it's either over or you come back positive.

<comment><USER29> Sounds like a positive test would be a relief then.

<comment><USER30> I'd say it's a relief if you test positive and then 14 days pass and you experience no or mild symptoms. But I know for me, personally, I'd be a nervous wreck during that period waiting for the symptoms to come (but I also have an underlying respiratory condition so that's a big part of my anxiety).

<comment><USER28> My concern here is why did you pay over $100 when you felt fine? How often would someone sample themselves without symptoms?

<comment><USER30> That's a fair question. I do think some people may buy and take the test if they've been in an area where the potential for exposure is high and they worry they are an asymptomatic or presymptomatic carrier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Expecting profit during a catastrophe is exactly why the sitaution is as shit as it is right now.

<comment><USER32> How have you been foregoing profit for your work during this calamitous time? Have you been laid off like many people or are you simply returning the cheques that your employer sends you?

Personally I've been continuing to show up for work despite my employer not having sufficient funds to pay me but I understand that every situation is different.

<comment><USER33> Profit != wages. A company profiting off a test is not the same as a worker being paid for their labor. Something being made at cost would price in the cost of labor, while profit is in excess of that (and all other expenses).

<comment><USER34> I would say anything above your costs of living would be profit in a wage, no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> So this has you take a sample and ship it to their lab. How is this going to deal with the risk of biohazard for parcel delivery personnel?

<comment><USER2> It's no more risky than anything else an already infected person may ship, which is why the parcel delivery companies likely already have sufficient mitigation efforts in place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Well, it's three months and 40,000 deaths late but it's a start.

But there needs to be anonymous antibody testing at home like a pregnancy test.

BTW also needs the post office properly funded and saved from bankruptcy. WTF are we bailing out cruise ships and not the post office?

<comment><USER16> Well considering it's been three months and 40k deaths and you have given us nothing, I'm going to go with the guy who gave me something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Before people get excited that the FDA approved something, how much testing have the FDA done on this product and how many other tests have they declined to authorize?

Right now, FDA approved means about as much as Probably not immediately lethal.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it possible to write without pain? - <AUTHOR> I was always told that writing becomes easier with practice. But I have found myself in the opposite situation, where my resentment towards the material and the process grows over time. Would really appreciate advices and opinions. P.S. I am mostly doing academic writing in ML, if that changes anything. <comment><USER2> If you are in pain, some part of your mind does not like what you are writing or doing. Instead of suppressing it, you might try to ask it why it is not happy with what you are doing. Pain comes from inner conflict. Maybe that unconscious part of your mind sees something that you can't consciously see. Maybe it sees something that it doesn't like.</comment>


Researchers "heal" destructive dendrite growth in lithium-metal batteries - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/researchers-heal-destructive-dendrite-growth-in-lithium-metal-batteries/?amp=1 <comment><AUTHOR> This is a really interesting development as this is the major reason for battery degradation over time if they solved it.</comment>


Man arrested in Russia for building a fake border and charging $11K to cross it - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Full title: A man arrested in Russia is accused of building a fake border with Finland 15 miles from the real one and charging migrants $11,000 to cross it

[https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-finland-fake- border-c...](https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-finland-fake-border- conman-charged-migrants-2019-12?r=US&IR=T)

<comment><USER2> A bogus border wall, migrants, fraud... Will he be sanctioned for the interference in the US election?</comment></comment>


DHS compiled intelligence reports on journalists who published leaked documents - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/dhs-compiled-intelligence-reports-on-journalists-who-published-leaked-documents/2020/07/30/5be5ec9e-d25b-11ea-9038-af089b63ac21_story.html <comment><USER2> Non-paywall version: [http://archive.today/UJuvj](http://archive.today/UJuvj)</comment>


Keyboardio October update: we're getting close! - <AUTHOR> http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=664e58d3dc8a03fda94fdf943&id=3b7e042855

<comment><USER2> I'd rather have upgradable board than wood honestly. Was really looking forward to this keyboard but starting to get worried about the cost. :(</comment>


Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are asking staff to work from home - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/5/21166686/coronavirus-amazon-google-facebook-microsoft-twitter-seattle-staff-remote-work <comment><USER2> This is a massive accidental experiment on the effectiveness of fully remote teams. Most of these companies are fairly reticent to have even a few workers remote, let alone entire teams/orgs.

It'll be interesting to see if teams push for something closer to full remote wherever it worked well (or if some employees will want it, having not realized what it was like).

Plausibly teams that it works well for will have greater ammunition to push for it, since they have the past experience with it.

<comment><USER3> If this works well I will eat my hat. This represents: companies with no remote-work culture (thus systems that are not fully documented, etc.), forcing employees into this suddenly (so they will not have a proper space at home set up for this... some of them will be in the same room as a crying baby), while their spouse may also be working from home due to the virus, while everyone is also thinking about getting a deadly virus every time they leave the house. I really don't expect much "work" to get done at all.

<comment><USER4> > while everyone is also thinking about getting a deadly virus every time they > leave the house

Am I the only person who isn't worried about the coronavirus? I'm not exaggerating when I say it hasn't effected my life at all, except for the effort it took me to write this comment. I live in San Francisco, if it matters.

<comment><USER5> _I 'm not exaggerating when I say it hasn't effected my life at all, except for the effort it took me to write this comment. I live in San Francisco, if it matters. _

San Francisco just reported its first cases today, but there's definitely been panic shopping. The city closed down Lowell today as a precautionary measure (but that leaves nearly 200 campuses open).

Even if you don't suffer any health or financial effects (unlikely) you'll still be effected if:

\- More schools close, even more if parents have to take time off from work en masse

\- Public transit becomes a big vector and BART or Muni try to shut down or reduce service

\- People continue to panic shop. NPR had a photo from a Marin Target with shelves bare of disinfectant wipes. Rainbow in the city was almost completely out of canned tomatoes on Monday.

\- On a federal level, if our idiot president succeeds in closing the Mexican border you'll definitely feel some pain

<comment><USER6> > if our idiot president succeeds in closing the Mexican border

Wait, is he trying to do that? Why is that his solution to everything?

<comment><USER7> He just got given a new excuse to close some borders. It would surprise me if he didn't make use of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My employer dislikes remote work, many will disagree, but I'll explain why…

The company makes video games and as you can probably guess being creative is very important. Working from home reduces the creativity of every employee not just because the existing tools for telecommute are insufficient to create a good work environment but also because it prevents people from socializing with spontaneity. Add to this the fact that many of the game developers and designers need special hardware _(different game consoles, VPN routers, high speed Internet, interactive pen displays, additional software licenses, etc)_ that the company would have to buy for every single person to maintain the quality and development speed they have from working on-site.

The founders were forced, due to CORVID-19, to implement an emergency protocol in case we have to move all operations off-site. The IT department was already tasked to setup VPN access for all employees, to buy a bunch of expensive equipment, to spend countless of hours training senior programmers and artists in the arts of online meetings, network troubleshooting, activation of software licenses and who knows what else.

I worked for a remote-first company for roughly five years and it was great, but the business was completely different. My team was responsible for the provisioning and management of different cloud services, in fact all our products were Software as a Service (SaaS) so having a reliable Internet connection and a good enough computer was enough to do our job including leadership, management, marketing, engineering, sales, support, etc.

I cannot see this happening in a game studio, it just doesn't work. I may be wrong but I think there is not a single game studio in the industry with a fully remote work policy. If there are, I bet their success cannot compare with studios of the same size working all on-site.

<comment><USER9> > many of the game developers and designers need special hardware (different > game consoles, VPN routers, high speed Internet, interactive pen displays, > additional software licenses, etc) that the company would have to buy for > every single person to maintain the quality and development speed they have > from working on-site.

Buying individuals what they need is likely still cheaper than maintaining a large office space. Likely much cheaper.

> Working from home reduces the creativity of every employee not just because > the existing tools for telecommute are insufficient to create a good work > environment but also because it prevents people from socializing with > spontaneity.

The tools are not insufficient, people's use of them are. The tools will allow you to do most anything you could in an office, management must facilitate processes to produce to desired output. If team creativity is the aim you can organize situations that maximize spontaneity and interaction.

I've not worked for a game studio so I certainly can't speak to the nuances therein, however the reasons you've given here for not working remote aren't compelling. People always give a host of reasons that ultimately boil down to a lack of proper process and management, which is needed in office just as much as out of office.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure the stimulation of creativity can be improved much with process and management. Just like bouncing off ideas, brainstorms etc. works best in- person. Physical contact is something that is hard to replicate or work around with technology. Everyone has experienced the difference between webconferencing and real person meeting and can tell that one has more weight than the other. Maybe VR could be of use here since it helps lift that imaginary barrier that gives weight to conversations.

<comment><USER9> > Just like bouncing off ideas, brainstorms etc. works best in-person.

You seem set on this notion, but I very much disagree. Bouncing ideas and brainstorming can be just as productive remotely. In fact creativity can be stronger when your can more freely choose when to isolate yourself from other noise and when to socialize.

> Everyone has experienced the difference between webconferencing and real > person meeting and can tell that one has more weight than the other.

You sure about everyone? I can tell you I personally think most in person meetings are unnecessary and distracting, and would've been better conferenced or even better not had at all. Even meetings that need to take place, I actually value in person less than conference, as it comes with various baggage of posturing and appearances.

This sounds like you just have a preference for in person, likely because it's just more comfortable for you from an interpersonal standpoint. And that's fine, but don't mistake that preference for blanket effectiveness measures for the rest of your team, company, or industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Dropbox is too[1] and what I like about this is that their main motive (I think, based on the kind of person I've seen Drew being) isn't just not their employees getting sick, or it spreading inside Dropbox, but also to make their tiny contribution to it spreading less in the world in general. And in the article it mentions it's only in Seattle that these other companies are instituting work from home, and it seems like it's only because some of their employees are already infected! If everyone in the world that could would just work from home for a while and limit physical contact, then the trajectory of the spread would be much different and maybe we could nip it in the bud.

[1] [https://twitter.com/drewhouston/status/1235747829307437056?s...](https://twitter.com/drewhouston/status/1235747829307437056?s=21)

<comment><USER12> I work in a Japanese office of one of these companies and we have been able to work from home since January due to COVID-19 based on our own risk assessment, with advisories being sent via internal email.

So this article is wrong/misleading at least in that respect, probably because if is focused on the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> As an Italian Milan-based employee of one these corporations, I have been working from home for the last 2 weeks with personal plans to work from home at least until the end of March. I really appreciate the flexibility and feel extremely privileged to be able to do this. Unfortunately not everyone can or has the company infrastructure (e.g. laptops) to be able to work from home. I hope this shock snaps low-tech Italian SMEs into being more remote-friendly, and slowly indirectly improve the flexibility and work-life balance of employees. And of course, most hands-on jobs can't be done remotely, but most office jobs can.

</comment><comment><USER14> The article is a bit out of date, it's not only Seattle. Facebook and Google announced tonight that all employees in the Bay Area can work from home. Microsoft/Linkedin announced all employees on the west coast can work from home.

<comment><USER15> Plenty of London tech companies have too

<comment><USER16> Can confirm, haven't been to the London office in 2 weeks and have no intention to go for the next month or so.

The idea of getting a tube at 8:30am isn't a pleasant one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > _" at least 70 confirmed cases and 10 deaths."_

This low number of confirmed cases combined with the high number of deaths, suggests there are hundreds of undiscovered cases still out there. Most countries seem to have a death rate closer to 2%, but in the US it appears to be a lot higher, which suggests many cases are not represented in these numbers. That, or it's become a lot more deadly. Neither is good.

<comment><USER17> The us is totally unprepared for this. Similar to our all out other public infrastructure, we've been neglecting it for years.

<comment><USER18> Which country was totally prepared for this?

<comment><USER19> Probably none of the countries that push "don't use masks" propaganda.

<comment><USER18> Well that rules out Norway then... thanks Trump!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Microsoft is going further for employees who literally can't work from home.

Title: Microsoft will pay hourly workers regularly even if they spend less time on the clock because of coronavirus

[https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/05/microsoft-will-pay-hourly- wo...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/05/microsoft-will-pay-hourly-workers- regularly-as-it-faces-coronavirus.html)

"The policy applies to people who work for other companies but provide services like bus rides or food service to Microsoft."

</comment><comment><USER21> I've worked remote very often and ive always felt that the current open plan offices are way too much of a distraction to get work done. This is the right change and remote working needs this change to happen despite the whining by the usual suspects of people sitting in office until late for no other reason than pleasing their bosses.

Hopefully, the focus will no move to tangible results being delivered than what dress you wear and how much time you spend at office.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is a massive accidental experiment on the effectiveness of remote work in general.

A lot of entities (here in .it, besides companies: public administration workers and education workers) are turning to remote working, either willingly or unwillingly.

I really hope we'll all do a good retrospective after this emergency is solved and can finally challenge our own assumptions.</comment>


O1 VISA for Entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> I am a minority owner of my business. I obtained my O1 visa last year and I need to file extension now. For some reasons, we cannot hire the attorney who filed our case last year. Instead, we found a new one. The new attorney insisted that I need to get W-2 for this year and pay stubs. We are a LLC. Our accountant suggested I pay self-employ tax at the beginning of the year. Therefore, we cannot provide that. What do you suggest we talk to our attorney, if you have filed O1 before as an self-employee? <comment><USER2> This question is best directed at your lawyer and accountant. Do initial consults with 2-3 more lawyers and accountants if you need, they'll generally do short first calls for free and then you can both get info and decide who to hire.</comment>


Why Good People Leave Good Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_08_17/caredit.a1200093

<comment><USER2> "I see a lot of CVs. For years, I've noticed that some people—a lot of people, actually—don't stay very long at their first jobs. They may accept the job intending to retire there in 30 or 40 years, but instead they leave quickly, adding an early blemish to their CVs."

Leaving your job is considered an early blemish? Give me a break

<comment><USER3> I think it's very different in other fields. Software developers (especially in the Bay Area) seem to switch jobs fairly often and it's definitely an accepted practice. Other fields expect you to keep a job for a far longer time.

<comment><USER4> I'll go even further and say it also differs by economic climate.

Take today's environment. Companies can't fault people for leaving their first job when they might've landed it only after several months of searching. Chances are that job isn't a good fit for the candidate, but if you're a new grad you have to pay those loans somehow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The problem with most workplaces is that they are so big one or more persons efforts go unnoticed. I worked at a fairly large media conglomerate a while back and there were 4 people in the front-end development team, 3 people in the systems administrators team and 4 people in the backend development team. The issue with the front-end team I was in was that the guy who had been there the longest and had reached a point where he would delegate most of the work to people did nothing but got all of the credit. Occasionally some of us "other" devs would get a collective thank you, but this one developer who wasn't very good and had been there for 4 years prior got the special treatment and it caused the entire team to continuously reshuffle and it continues to do so long after I've been there (so I hear).

There are two things employers need to do to keep good workers: pay them what they're worth, if they're doing a great job and contributing to the business pay them for their dedication and hard-work, make their life easier (especially if they have a mortgage and family to feed). And lastly, make your employees feel trusted and valued. It's not always about money, but it is 50% of the total equation that equals a happy employee.

</comment><comment><USER6> _a series of 1- or 2-year stays will still hurt you. Five to 7 years at a company is a good run. Consider 2 to 3 years the minimum commitment when accepting a new job._

Is this statement accurate? At first glance it seems to be a little conservative. I ask as a potential career changer with 2.5 years in my first position, and 1.5 into my second.

<comment><USER7> I think it depends on the candidate's situation. If they had a series of 1-2 year stints at companies that were interrupted by the company going out of business I wouldn't hold that against them because it could just be bad luck.

If they were laid off repeatedly (with the company still surviving) it would make me question why their name always seemed to make it onto the layoff list.

If they changed jobs repeatedly every 1-2 years because they were bored then I'd be leery because I wouldn't be able to trust that I could give them responsibility or factor them into long range plans without them getting bored and leaving.

As a manager I would consider two years to be the minimum commitment for full time employment. If you (the candidate, in general) leave before then without extenuating circumstances I would probably skip over your resume the next time it landed on my desk down the road regardless of how much of a rock star you were.

Searching for candidates is an expensive, time-consuming process, I don't want to do it when I wasn't expecting to. Especially to fill a position that I recently filled.

<comment><USER8> Thanks. An interesting perspective from a manager.

I have a question. It stands to reason that one would want to avoid searching for candidates because it is expensive and time-consuming. But why especially to fill a position that one recently filled? Is it just sunk cost fallacy? I mean, it doesn't seem to change anything from what I can see.

<comment><USER7> There are two reasons. The first is that presumably I passed on all the other candidates to go with my selection for a reason. Now that the best candidate for the position has decided to leave I must now go back and likely revisit those who I passed over.

The time is also a big one too. It takes a long time sometimes to fill roles so the group is going to be a man down until a new person is hired.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "you'll earn the job-hopper label"

What? In the year 2012? I assume this is being written about the USA? His comment seems to come straight out of the 1980s. I remember my parents telling me stuff like this when I was a kid. But what is the actual reality in 2012? Many companies are afraid to hire and ask that people work some sort of trial period. If you do programming, most companies in New York will offer you a 90 day contract, and see if you work out. If you want to get into editorial work, a lot of magazines are insisting that you work an internship first.

The unwillingness of companies to commit to people means it is only fair if people are unwilling to commit to companies.

Besides all that, during the last 12 years I have not worked anywhere continuously for more than 18 months. I'm still flooded with offers. I suppose working for small, new firms is different than working from large ones, but I've worked for some large ones as well.

I do not doubt that there are still some large, conservative organizations in the USA that still are worried about "job hoppers" but clearly the era where this was a predominate concern is now several decades in the past.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is complete rubbish. Take a look at my LinkedIn profile: linkedin.com/in/jonathanconway.

Virtually nothing but 3/7/12-month stints.

I'm now making more money (and having more fun!) than ever before in my career!

The key is to keep your skills fresh and relevant to the job market, have an excellent C.V. and interview well.

Unfortunately a lot of people take on the mindset of "employees"/serfs and don't realize that every individual is a mini-business, which can benefit and profit from doing excellent work and marketing properly.

I'm going to keep up my contracting gig for as long as I can, because this is what I love doing, and I don't ever intend to "belong" to any employer.

</comment><comment><USER11> Sigh... I think my job hits just about all of them. Although I think that would disqualify it from being a "good job".

Follow up needs to be "Why Good People Stay at Bad Jobs".

<comment><USER2> agree

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> OP is a wanker. Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them.

People should leave jobs as soon as they realize they aren't going to learn or grow where they are. This can happen after 8 years, or 3 months. Companies don't promise to employ people for 3 years regardless of whether they are any good, so why should an employee be expected to pay dues in a job that's obviously not going to lead anywhere?

The "job hopper" stigma is perpetuated by people who only want the side of "at will" that benefits them.

I will say that most 22-year-olds need to be better at figuring out when a job is worth leaving, because I've seen error on both sides. Everyone gets grunt work when they start out, but there are chef's apprentices (who still get grunt work, but are being primed for something better) and there are dishwashers, and it's important to figure out, in an entry-level job, which of these you are. That's a separate matter altogether. I've known a few job hoppers and they're not all people with bad judgment.

That said, people should generally go into jobs with the intention and hope of being there for at least 2 years, but I think that goes without saying.

<comment><USER4> Hey Mike! Hope you're doing well.

 _Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them._

I think you're misrepresenting OP's argument here. He's arguing that younger people with repeated job jumps may raise flags at prospective employers.

I tend to agree with OP, too. Jumping between gigs can be a problem, especially for people with little experience, since shorter job stints mean you don't get a chance to work with multiple people in the company or work on increasingly complex projects. Both can be problematic from a career development point of view.

I agree with your point about young 20-somethings, though: most probably don't know how to evaluate offers -- compensation, benefits, culture, and their bosses -- well enough when they graduate. I know I didn't.

<comment><USER12> Hey! How are you doing? I just sent you an email. Are you still at the same company?

I know what the OP's saying, and I'm probably exaggerating my normal reaction. I just feel like this idea that "job hoppers" are the problem rather than a symptom is a bit ridiculous. I don't know anyone who goes into a job intending to bolt after 1 year.

I think one of the most perverse things about the job market is that it's, in almost all companies, a lot harder to get a transfer (much less promotion) than to get a new job. Job hopping exists because companies impose timetables based on the average.

I've actually known people to look for jobs within their own companies using external recruiters because it's easier to do it that way than through the official transfer process, which often has bureaucracy and political overhead attached.

<comment><USER13> _I think one of the most perverse things about the job market is that it's, in almost all companies, a lot harder to get a transfer (much less promotion) than to get a new job. Job hopping exists because companies impose timetables based on the average._

That was the driving reason I ultimately left my first company. I had success in the first several years either getting promoted or new internal positions, but hit a wall about 3 years ago in a position that slowly made me miserable. I got negative progress in my efforts to find another internal position.[1]

 _I've actually known people to look for jobs within their own companies using external recruiters because it's easier to do it that way than through the official transfer process, which often has bureaucracy and political overhead attached._

I never did that, but I thought about it a couple times.

[1] I was basically labelled "disloyal" for wanting to find a new position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> >a series of 1- or 2-year stays will still hurt you

At my last job I helped in the process of interviewing for an embedded USB developer position. It was extremely difficult to find people with that expertise. I remember one candidate in particular had 13 jobs over a 20 year career with the most time spent at one company being just under five years. When we all gathered at the end of the day to discuss the candidate I brought this up and my manager and he admitted he noticed this but filling the position was so difficult he didn't care. My takeaway from this was if you have a sought-after skill no one cares how long you stayed at previous jobs.

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't think the author mentioned personal reasons.

There are definitely important reasons to leave a good job that are not related to the job at all.

We still have personal lives.

</comment><comment><USER16> Why is that question interesting? To me, it's like asking why water is wet. "Good people" leave "good jobs" for an unimaginably large array of reasons. I've left good jobs to go back to school, to start a company, to take time off, because I was bored, etc.

</comment><comment><USER8> I guess other things being equal, employers would prefer employees who they think will stay with them longer. I mean I would if I were an employer. But other things are not equal, and I am not sure how important this consideration is.

</comment><comment><USER17> Ive heard people making hiring decisions at various companies make the statement "oh, this guys been at company X for 5 years and didn't move around even in the company? He's probably not any good"

Moral of the story, who cares what's the "right" amount of time to be at a job. Enjoy what you do, do it well, and it will reflect on you accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER18> Title seems misleading. The actual reasons listed are more like, why people leave bad jobs.

<comment><USER19> I think the sub-text is why they leave "jobs that look good on paper".

"When does a high-status / high-pay position become a 'bad job'?"

Its hard to make a blanket statemnet. The value of the article is it dimensionalizes the problem a bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> One benefit of having many different jobs is that you meet a lot of awesome people in your field. And if you actually are good, then these ex-colleagues will probably invite you to new opportunities when they hop themselves.</comment>


Killing Pandora: The Genius of iTunes Genius & iTunes Match - <AUTHOR> http://www.mattkiser.com/post/31085398018/how-apple-will-inadvertently-kill-pandora-the-genius

<comment><AUTHOR> Would love to hear what people think about Genius+Match vs Pandora or any of the other streaming services.</comment>


Absolute zero is no longer absolute zero - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/4/3834914/scientists-breach-absolute-zero-barrier <comment><USER2> Not really: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5008111></comment>


Making the Grades - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensleyclancy/inside-the-school-that-abolished-the-f-and-raked-in-the-cash <comment><USER2> why single this school out from the rest of their peers? i.e. Phoenix.

the entire system has incentives completely mis-aligned at every level. it you look at how the subsystems of immigration, finance/loans, for-profit education, and corporate sponsorship interact, how could you expect anything other than the corrupt clusterfuck we see today?

<comment><USER3> Right or wrong, I think it might have to do with NPU being a non-profit. There've been plenty of articles on the scumminess of for-profit universities; far fewer on non-profits. Plus, the immigration angle is an item with high public interest today. I think the focus on NPU here (though perhaps warranted given the seriousness of these allegations) is also part of Buzzfeed's pattern of desire for high-profile stories.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like they built something users love.

</comment><comment><USER5> "Those false credentials are all the students need to stay in the country. Many seek jobs in the tech industry, and their degrees allow them to remain working in the U.S. for years..."

This quote says more to me about the companies hiring them and about degrees from any university than it does about NPU.

If they aren't giving an education and people can still get jobs "for years" what exactly is the point of $200k education again?

<comment><USER6> >If they aren't giving an education and people can still get jobs "for years" what exactly is the point of $200k education again?

Its purpose is more symbolic than realistic. Symbols are easily faked. An example of this is how Frank Abagnale was able to fake having gone to medical, law, and flight school, among many other things.

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

<comment><USER7> Yeah, but Abagnale never tried to fly an airplane.

<comment><USER8> Wikipedia says he was sometimes invited by the actual pilot to take the controls. Presumably that was just holding it steady. Apparently, he knew enough to switch it to autopilot.

He also didn't do a very good job as a doctor (supervising the residents doing the actual work). Wikipedia mentions that a baby nearly died because he didn't understand what the nurse was talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ethics aside, what a great way to leverage market demands/incentives.

</comment><comment><USER10> This article rambles a bit and seems a little thin.

There's a lot on the accusation side to spin up uncertainty and doubt about the school, but I was expecting some hard hitting evidence behind the story outside of the line items on their 990.</comment>


Ask HN: Does this exist? If not, why not? - <AUTHOR> tl;dr: Does the mint.com of food exist? If not, why not?
I'm a firm believer that great products solve real life problems and pain points. One of the largest pain points in my wife and my daily lives is meal planning, grocery shopping and cooking. Their are a whole bunch of inputs including budget restrictions, dietary restrictions, nutritional information and personal taste which go into the process. It is as lot of work to manually balance these different inputs and come up with an optimal grocery shopping/cooking plan.
I want a product that I can give all of these inputs to and it then gives me a list of recipes that I can drag and drop into a meal plan. I can manually input my own recipes from books that I have purchased. I can modify existing recipes to fit my diet/budget needs. This custom meal plan then gets automatically turned into a set of grocery lists with optimal shopping dates for ingredients that are perishable and calculates estimated costs. It could also suggest ways to modify my meal plan to make it more healthy, cheaper or both. What I want is the Mint.com of food.
I know there are a bunch of good food related sites out there but it doesn't seem like anyone has brought it all together in the way that mint was able to do with personal finances. Can anyone point me to the closest thing to this that currently exists? If it's not out there someone should build it, cause if it was built correctly, it could be tremendously successful. I know I would pay a subscription to this service if it was built correctly. The list of ways to extend a service like this are endless once you have a nice API and data set.
I would love to build this myself but I'm not currently in a place where I have the time/resources to undertake such a project. Maybe if I can find enough support for the project I would make it a priority or I would be happy to cheer on/support someone else who could solve this problem for me. <comment><USER2> All Mint.com really did for 90%+ of people is display pretty charts of their finances in a completely automated way. The "big idea" they had of helping people transform their financial lives was mostly bullshit and never realized IMHO.

It was really: enter your bank account credentials and get instant visualization of what you spend your money on. Useful, but hardly life altering for most people. "Wow, I spend a lot on eating out. I should cook at home more."

If you really want to be the Mint.com of food you would create an iPhone app that OCRs your restaurant and grocery receipts and displays cool charts of what types of food you eat. "Wow, I eat a lot of unhealthy food, I should cook at home more."

I suspect the solution to the problem you've identified doesn't look anything like Mint.com. The startups that are delivering pre-made meals are probably closer to the mark.

It should be possible to affordably deliver quality food to people's houses on a bi-weekly basis. You could take into account all requirements you specified.

You get a package, open it up, drop the meals into a pot/microwave and instantly get a fresh healthy meal. That's the only _real_ "drag and drop" solution.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough critique of Mint. What Mint did for me was track all of my different incoming and outgoing money and display them in the a very pretty, intuitive and easy to understand way. You are correct that the product I'm describing is a lot more complex than Mint.com. The comparison I made was based purely on the fact that the visualization mint gives me transformed my financial life in the way I would hope this product would transform my eating life.

Also, the product you described is interesting but it has serveral problems. One, it's going to be more expensive than doing the shopping on my own and keeping cost down of my food budget is one of my primary goals. Two, being able to shop locally at Farmer's markets, etc... is going to be important for a lot of users including myself.

Anyways, thanks for the feedback. You do make some good points about Mint and why it's not a 1 to 1 comparison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> My wife uses Kraft sometimes and when you select some of their recipes you can say add it to your shopping list. It then breaks it down into categories like, dairy. of what you would need but that's about it. I guarantee you if something like what you are asking about existed my wife would use it in a heartbeat but she has not found anything yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. Thanks for the feedback. The way I'm envisioning this product working would be super slick. Also, super expensive to build. :) I'm sure someone will do it sometime if there really is a demand for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A lot of the (paying) dieting sites offer similar functionality. Because of the way the dieting industry works (sign up in January, drop out 2 months later), the focus is usually not on improving the UX but on improving signups, so I don't think any of them are very good.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've used DailyBurn.com for much of what you are talking about, as far as tracking what I eat. But I haven't used the specific mail planning feature as I am not a paid member.

<comment><AUTHOR> DailyBurn does have a lot of what I'm desiring. I might have to give it a go. I've heard a lot about it but figured it was a lot more about exercise with some healthy eating built in rather than managing my food life. Maybe it has some of the tools I'm wanting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "if I can find enough support for the project I would make it a priority" -> it tends to work the other way round :)

</comment><comment><USER6> Check out this site: <http://www.livestrong.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I am familiar with livestrong and it is definitely a super valuable resource. Not quite the smooth drag and drop simplify my life product that I'm envisioning but certainly a fantastic resource for working towards a healthy life.</comment></comment>


Convertible notes, standard deal docs, valuations - The Super Angel debate - <AUTHOR> http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2010/09/ron-conway-dave-mcclure-and-the-angel-investor-story.html

<comment><USER2> Geez it's rough when Don Dodge drops off the "new" page without so much as an upvote, and it was a good post too!

<comment><USER3> If you say "not a big deal -- move on" -- it's definitely not as exciting read as if you claim potential conspiracy.</comment></comment>


Is Diaspora too late? - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/is-diaspora-too-late/7877

<comment><USER2> wow, two posts with the "is it too late" theme. looks like a meme in the making.

it's worth reading but i'm not sure i agree with this article's basic framing:

"The real question is how Diaspora might seek to monetize itself, without creating the privacy trips that some say tripped up Facebook."

well they raised $200K early this year and i'm sure they could raise more easily enough so i'm not convinced that monetization is the most important question right how. what i'm looking at is more things like will it be usable enough for a broad population of users? have they hit a sweet spot in functionality or at least a MVP? can they make progress on security? how will they interact with the community? focusing too much on monetization prematurely could get in the way of addressing those issues.</comment>


Want to Fool Apple's App Store? Plant an Easter Egg - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/05/appstoreeasteregg <comment><USER2> About 3 months ago when we made a novelty app that turned your phone into a massager, it was originally called "Happy Ending". They rejected it for the sexual innuendo so we changed the name to Pocket Massage (lol), which was consistent with an exercise app we made called Pocket Workout.

Long story short, we tried leaving the Happy Ending name in japanese and in tiny detail on the app icon but it was rejected again. Certainly not the same as a well hidden easter egg, but I was surprised they took the time to translate the small details considering some of things that have made it through.

<comment><USER3> Wasn't it still rejected because you aren't allowed to use vibrate for a prolonged time? (not sure where I read that, but I did).

<comment><USER2> I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case pre-December 2008. In December, Apple lifted the gate on farting apps for all the flack it was receiving for rejecting them. Around the same time about ~6 massage apps landed on the store.

AppStore Mkting Hint: We toggle our massage app between FREE and .99, it's a great little promotional tool. Every time we switch back to free, all the Twitter bots and web tracking services pickup the price decrease and we get a massive influx of downloads and web traffic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The number one take away from this, for those who didn't know, is that Apple disallowed an application that displays lyrics, just because some lyrics contain profanity.

Yeah.

This is a significant abuse of corporate gatekeeping power. Why are people accepting this? Are the majority of people that lethargic so as to ignore such significant limits on their ability to use and create content and applications for devices?

Would it be acceptable if Apple just out and out banned the music that contains the profanities? That's pretty close to what they are doing. I'm really struggling here to understand how people lie down and take this.

Loss of freedom in the name of commerce is disgusting, despicable, and most importantly, unethical, and needs to be stopped.

<comment><USER5> > Why are people accepting this?

Because Apple _has no competition._ At least, not in the smart-phone market. It has "competition" - pseudo-rivals who manufacture absolute crap, which is more often than not a slavish (and poor) imitation of Apple products.

Anyone who insists on a well-designed, consistent user interface is currently at Apple's mercy.

<comment><USER4> The familiar "only the market can resolve this" viewpoint.

Regulation is also a powerful tool for resolving issues like this. The usual tripe about profits suffering and everything made worse can now be cued up and played...now!

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure exactly how regulators could force non-Apple smartphone makers to produce non-junk. Or should Apple be nationalized and turned into a government bureaucracy? That hasn't worked well historically, either.

<comment><USER4> No, it's nothing about forcing production of new devices. It's simply about rejecting constraints on the legal software that may run on those devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a monumentally-stupid idea.

Do you want people to actually _use_ your app's functionality? If and when they start, and word spreads, Apple will delete your app. Given their history, they might not even pay you what you're owed. All of your efforts will have been wasted.

</comment><comment><USER6> Great. Now Apple's going to take even longer to approve my apps. Thanks jerks.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm still surprised Apple went down the app-store road myself. A big strategic mistake IMHO.

Does anyone else just see it as a stop gap fad until we have free wifi all over the globe?

<comment><USER8> I doubt it. Steam does pretty well on PCs, and one could argue that the Ubuntu (or other Linux) ecosystem is a successful "centralized moderated software collection". If anything, I think we'll see a growth of App Store-like systems on other platforms. I'm a little surprised Microsoft and Apple haven't tried to roll something like this to their desktops yet.

<comment><USER9> Microsoft included Digital Locker with Vista allowing you to purchase applications from 3rd parties via Windows Marketplace, but it has since shutdown, presumably due to lack of popularity.</comment></comment></comment>


Guide for Laravel CRUD Ajax Applications - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/the94air/laravel-ajax-crud <comment><AUTHOR> I have created a tutorial to make a single page application for CRUD operation using Laravel 5.8, Vue 2, Tailwindcss, Vue-router, Laravel Ziggy, and Axios (A even more great stuff).

Tutorial: [https://github.com/the94air/laravel-ajax- crud/blob/master/st...](https://github.com/the94air/laravel-ajax- crud/blob/master/steps.md) Demo: [https://laravel-ajax- crud.herokuapp.com](https://laravel-ajax-crud.herokuapp.com) GitHub: [https://github.com/the94air/laravel-ajax- crud](https://github.com/the94air/laravel-ajax-crud)</comment>


Show HN: Paced Email Extension for Google Chrome - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/paced-email/ebefdbfinfikmdalikkpbjfijkglgeid/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey folks, I spent a few hours putting together a new Chrome Extension for helping utilise Paced Email while browsing the web.

The extension allows you to quickly copy existing Paced Email aliases and create new ones on the go if you forget the alias format. It's particularly useful when signing up to new services or newsletters. Paced Email will send you a single email at the end of the day, week or month according to your settings for each inbox you create.

For more info on the product and the extension:

[https://www.paced.email](https://www.paced.email) [https://www.paced.email/blog/google-chrome- extension](https://www.paced.email/blog/google-chrome-extension)

Let me know if you have any questions! Rikki</comment>


China's Operating Manuals for Mass Internment and Arrest by Algorithm - <AUTHOR> https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-cables/exposed-chinas-operating-manuals-for-mass-internment-and-arrest-by-algorithm/ <comment><USER2> See also:

> Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21560871](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21560871)

> Data leak reveals how China 'brainwashes' Uighurs in prison camps:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622138](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622138)

</comment><comment><USER3> I was at the store today and was looking at two different brands. As soon as I saw that one was not made in China, it was an easy decision.

</comment><comment><USER4> journalist's thread: [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1198663008152621057.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1198663008152621057.html)

>The China Cables provide inside details about what all the mass surveillance and data collection is FOR. It is fed into IJOP, which learns from the data and uses it to produce lists of names, sometimes 1000s at a time, for police to detain.

>For example, in a seven-day period in June 2017, IJOP flagged 24,412 names as "suspicious." In that week alone, Xinjiang security officials rounded up 15,683 of those people and placed them in internment camps.

>And the rest of that particular intelligence briefing was dedicated to analyzing why police hadn't been able to detain even more of the original list. (Some reasons included: the person was dead, they could not be located, or they were a govt official).

<comment><USER4> another recent PRC story: [https://thediplomat.com/2019/11/how-china- influences-media-i...](https://thediplomat.com/2019/11/how-china-influences- media-in-central-and-eastern-europe/)

>How China Influences Media in Central and Eastern Europe

>China has successfully planted its narratives on topics like the Hong Kong protests into major news outlets across Central and Eastern Europe.

>…

>… Moreover, interviews with journalists in Estonia uncovered that op-ed published in Estonian Postimees was allegedly facilitated by a PR company hired by the Chinese Embassy. …

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> When Minority Report and 1984 combine. Absolutely chilling.

The leaked reports present a master plan for managing mass internment, including details on how to "prevent escapes." This proves, in the Chinese government's very own words, that detainees are held in the camps against their own will.

If you wonder why Hong Kong civilians are risking their lives to resist Beijing, this is the reason.

<comment><USER6> > This proves, in the Chinese government's very own words, that detainees are > held in the camps against their own will.

They've said as much in unclassified documents much earlier, e.g. this whitepaper dated 2019-03-18: [http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2019-03/18/c_1124247196.ht...](http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2019-03/18/c_1124247196.htm)

What's new in those classified documents are only the details on organization and logistics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> 21st century concentration camp, where technology is not used as a means of security but as psychological weapon to weed out the 'undesirables' and the 'non-conformists'.

</comment><comment><USER8> This bit at the end...

> Among the acts deemed unlawful were the man's urging of co-workers to avoid > pornography, to pray and to avoid socializing with those who don't pray, > including "Han Chinese kafirs" (kafir is an Arabic word meaning infidel or > nonbeliever). The witnesses to the alleged offenses were co-workers, with > Uighur names, with whom he had spoken.

> The court document indicates the defendant's lawyer asked the court for > leniency, stating that this was the man's first offense and that because of > his "low legal awareness and education level, he was easily susceptible to > being misguided and committing crimes."

> He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.</comment>