Steve Jobs personally asked Eric Schmidt to stop poaching employees - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini

<comment><USER3> The problem is not just that the employees have less options where to find a job. The real problem is that the employees don't know about the agreement!

If I work at Pixar and prospect Intel for a job, they will tell my boss and my carreer at Pixar will be messed for ever.

I had a boss that liked to fire employees who he knew were searching for jobs elsewhere. He would announce in job sites good offers asking for candidates with the skills used in his company, and didn't disclosed the company name. When he got answers from his own employees, he would fire them in the best opportunity. A great way to create a culture of fear.

<comment><USER4> So who stayed to work for that boss?

<comment><USER5> Exactly. That's the real problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can only imagine how hard it is to have fair negotiations when a prospective employee applies at a competing company only to be told "no thanks" simply because of a hush hush agreement between the executives of said companies.

This flies counter with Google's "do no evil" statement and certainly doesn't paint a positive posthumous picture of Jobs.

<comment><USER7> I'm tired of people bringing up 'don't do evil' EVERY time Google does something they dislike. New search results using personal targeting - EVIL! Anti-poaching agreement with Apple - EVIL! Closed down a bagel cafe next to my cubicle - EVIL!

Can we all agree that the word Evil has a more sinister use - ie knowing endangering lives, environmental damage, maybe closing press freedoms? And, therefore, we should be more selective in its application?

This is turning into another version of the Godwin's law - whereby it only takes so long before Google is accused of being evil (by breaking the not-be- evil pledge).

<comment><USER8> No. The "do no evil" was a way of saying let's not be like Microsoft and allow ourself to engage in unfair business practices.

Google is now like Microsoft.

<comment><USER7> "That's like..your opinion, man" :)

So if someone wants to say that Google is becoming like MSFT - say that (incidentally regarding MST being evil I recently read this: [http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/antitrust_kills....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/antitrust_kills.html))

But I think that we should not dilute the definition of Evil.

<comment><USER9> _But I think that we should not dilute the definition of Evil._

Tell that to the employee who was "terminated within the hour."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> CEO to the Board: I am indispensable; therefore I need the 10s of millions of dollars as compensation.

CEO to the employee: You are indispensable; therefore you can't leave for a better paying job.

<comment><USER11> CEO to the Board: please give me 1 dollar in compensation.

<comment><USER12> Salary is not the same thing as total compensation.

<comment><USER11> Very true.

Unless we are talking about Steve Jobs.

<comment><USER12> Jobs was given millions of dollars in stock options. His total compensation was far far beyond $1/year.

<comment><USER11> The last time he took options was 2003. His total compensation for the last 8 years has been $1/year.

<comment><USER10> Since 1997, he was paid $1/year in salary. But he certainly wasn't living in the poor house.

In 2001, the company gifted him a $90 million Gulfstream jet, and paid for all related expenses.

According to Apple's proxy statement from February 2011, Jobs owned about 5.5-million shares of Apple stock. In addition, he owned about $5 Billion of Disney stock, which gave him an annual dividend of about $50 Million.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "If a Pixar employee applies to Intel without being recruited by Intel, contact Pat Gelsinger and explain to him a Pixar employee (provide the candidates name) has applied to Intel without being recruited and he will contact the CEO of Pixar for approval to hire"

Scary.

<comment><USER14> I'm surprised that people in these threads say "I'm not at all surprised by this behavior" - It's a sad state of affairs when we, as employees, wholly expect this behavior between the few leading companies in this area.

<comment><USER15> We have to work among the group of people for which this behavior is standard procedure. We are reminded daily of how insane, sociopathic, and child-like middle managers can be and that it only gets worse (far worse) the further up the chain. If I were working at a place where someone didn't expect this behavior I would think that person was very inexperienced. If I found a company where management didn't behave like this, maybe because it is relatively young, I would expect them to start misbehaving within a few years as the sociopaths start working their way into the corporate structure.

<comment><USER14> I'm sorry, I just have a problem with this mentality.

Things are fucked up, so we should expect it to continue being fucked up, and now that it is expected, we shall deem it acceptable...

> It's a sad state of affairs when we, as employees, wholly expect this > behavior...

<comment><USER15> Just because something is expected doesn't mean that it is acceptable. On the contrary, if someone fucks up, like they always do, and you EXPECT it, you can act on it. In this case, thousands of people are about to have a payday because some evil execs who probably don't even know how email works fucked up. Someone, somewhere expected it, got the evidence nailed down, and went after them. After this settles, there's going to be lots of people (and many lawyers) expecting this behavior and actively looking for it.

<comment><USER14> hmmm...

Well, this isn't an attack against you personally, or a tit-for-tat sort of comment, but...

> We have to work among the group of people for which this behavior is > standard procedure.

You ARE saying that this is acceptable, since "we have to" work among them, and I just don't agree :)

<comment><USER15> Well, the alternative is homelessness and early death.

<comment><USER14> I believe comments like this is why I'm constantly finding disagreement with what you say. You have a very hard slant. Personally, I've found, and seen others having, a wide array of alternatives available to them.

If "we" don't show that this behavior is wrong, through our actions, it will continue...

<comment><USER15> Rank and file workers work among middle managers who would see no problem with illegal collusion with other companies, but they themselves lack the power to actually organize something like this. The general population is pretty much on par with middle managers culture wise, and would drive the average worker into the ground so their couple shares of GOOG stock can go up 1%. So it doesn't rise to something that would make a person quit, and since the general population are ok with and identify with middle management practices, its unlikely the situation would be better elsewhere.

As far my views on alternatives there is: unemployment: bankruptcy, couch surfing or living in a shelter self funded startup: doesn't pay and likely to fail. without external factors like connections or rich uncle, probably won't get off the ground before bankruptcy. small team of equal partners: doesn't pay, requires capital to pay in, "equal" partners will probably try to push each other out. incubator: pays very bad, greeks bearing gifts, silly patronizing, reality tv-like environment. angel investor: can't find these unless you're famous, have well-connected family, or already successful. small company/startup: founders will shit all over your day. will take everything personally (including payday) and want you to conform to their values. Don't like golf? Not a drinker?, gtfo. pay is shit. big evil company: Half a dozen middle managers are trying to figure out how screwing you improves their situation. ceo is probably doing bad things. pay is good.

So, yeah, if you take the financial aspect out of work, there are a wide array of alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The one argument I get sick of hearing bandied around in cases like these is: "but those companies invested a lot of money in training their employees. How would you like it if you owned a business and trained someone only to have them poached?"

In the words of Dwight Shrute: "False!". Most of the employees in question in this case and probably every other case where poaching is worthwhile are autodidacts. These employees are valuable precisely because they work hard to increase their own value. They know that, and they deserve to be paid accordingly by shopping themselves around.

It is in the market for autodidacts where actions like these are most damaging to the individuals affected.

<comment><USER17> When most people make investments they take steps to protect those investments, if they don't want to lose the investment they should match the salary of the competitor.

<comment><USER18> Matching the salary of the competitor is pretty easy when the competitor has an agreement with you not to offer a higher salary for your employees.

<comment><USER17> Which is exactly why they are before the courts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This seems like a pretty poor strategy for the involved companies.

1) It makes other companies (not involved in the agreement) more attractive, as their salaries will be closer to the salaries offered by the companies involved in the cartel.

2) This means that the pool of potential employees is reduced due the agreement, which means that the companies involved in the cartel will have to bear higher recruiting costs.

3) These recruiting costs make a mistake in hiring more costly. It gets harder to "test" employees and let them go when they are a bad fit, because expenditures from your HR budget are shifted to the front (on the promise of savings down the line).

4) Further, when the cartel breaks (as it will, each company has an incentive to cheat on the other members) the payoff of this inflated recruiting "investment" disappears.

<comment><USER20> Yes the free market can work - if the employee knows to discount an offer from one of the cartel companies because they will not be able to move to another cartel member.

<comment><USER21> A hiring cartel basically acts like super-duper large company doesn't it? So by that logic we would discount offers from large companies compared to ones from smaller companies. Oh wait, we do, as large company pay > startup pay. ;) But is it for this reason?!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It is getting clearer and cleared that Google is just as any big corporation which will do any illegal and un-ethical thing as long as they are not caught.

Now, many of companies started with excellent ethical standards, but that is getting slowly lost as companies grow.

I wonder if there is some similar work as "Innovators Dilemma" but about company's ethical standards: explaining why and when a company's become very prone to "fuck ethics" approach.

</comment><comment><USER23> Everyone is commenting on the "no evil" thing, so I want to give my take on that.

Yes, companies are large entities that maximize shareholder profit and therefore talking about "good companies" or "bad companies" is meaningless. But I always understood the "no evil" slogan to be accepting of that. To me, "do no evil" was the mentality that no matter how corporate the company may become, the humans who are part of it wont let anything blatantly horrible happen. The company might become a giant corporate machine, but the human cogs will always retain enough power to stop horrible mistakes.

Increasingly, I'm starting to believe that every company mutates into the same corporate mass given enough time. Pick a large corporation with dirty business practices. If you look far back enough in history, it was probably a wonderful place to work with great work ethics.

<comment><USER24> To quote another poster in this thread:

Tell that to the employee who was "terminated within the hour."

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Please make a public example of this termination with the group."

Yikes. Sounds positively medieval.

<comment><USER26> That quote stood out for me as well. I now have an association with "Shona Brown" and evil sociopath. What a sick woman.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It just occurred to me that when I told Intel I wouldn't be returning after my internship, HR was very pushy about where I was going. I'm glad I was going to a company outside the agreement or I would probably have had no job.

<comment><USER27> Now that I have been thinking about this comment that I posted earlier, I am infuriated.

<comment><USER28> I don't want to sound cynical, so please respond. I'm willing to see both sides the issue. I have known some great people in HR, as well.

I worked for Intel. Their HR is a nightmare. Be careful about telling them anything (more than what you are legally obligated).

When they get pushy, push back. Intel has deep enough pockets to handle a little push-back from their employees.

<comment><USER27> They systematically ruined people's lives and systematically reduced market pay. They rely on paying market wages and site that in their negotiations. I was able to make 40% more at the other company. The only other side should be removing all HR employees and rehiring. Someone should have been a whistle blower and any and all HR people at those companies who did not say something should be ashamed of themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> imagine how fast Congress would get involved if something like this were revealed to exist between basketball or football teams for free agents. If these companies don't want employees to leave they are free to sign long term contracts to lock them up. This is plainly illegal

<comment><USER16> "Hire slow. Fire fast."

Would fast firing even be possible with long-term contracts? Firing fast isn't something that is done for the sake of saving money. It is done for the sake of avoiding the damaging effects of keeping someone on the team that hurts the productivity of the other team members.

<comment><USER20> You have never heard of a football player being cut from a team? Or being offered a one year contract?

I am saying there are legal ways to prevent an employee from leaving a company but it costs the company money to have that privilege.

<comment><USER16> One year is a long time to have someone on a team that turns out to be a wrong hire. You normally figure out that someone isn't working out within the first 1-3 months. I've made a wrong hire before and it impacted the work of 5 other people. I and any other manager has an obligation to get rid of that one person if they are having a net negative effect on the work of others. To do otherwise would be a failure in my responsibilities to others on the team.

It's not like a manager can just "bench" an employee that isn't working out for them.

What would make sense, especially in a market where there is a crunch for talent is a guarantee from the company that if it doesn't work out, that the applicant, would get 1-2 months salary after being cut to look for another place to work.

(Also, to the person who down voted me: This is HN, not Reddit. You don't down vote because you disagree with what was said. You down vote them because their detracting from the conversation, such as trolling.)

<comment><USER29> I'm a hockey fan. Specifically the Montreal Canadiens. There's a guy on that team right now that makes 8MM/year and the whole team has a 55MM cap they can spend on their "employees".

He's 8 days away from not having scored a single goal in an entire calendar year.

And his contract is for 2 more years.

And you know what? The team is still going to pay him. Because that was the contract that was signed. If you think having a software guy around for a year when he wasn't a great hire is a long time what about having someone around for 5+ years that not only isn't any good but (due to the cap) actively hinders the team's ability to get anyone better to replace him.

And yet the sports world seems to get along just fine this way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm the CEO of the fastest growing tech company in my geographical region ( off the beaten path ) and I get calls by other CEOs asking for stuff like this very very often. In our case it's because those other CEOs don't want to compete on perk and benefits with us which makes it even more sad.

This happens everywhere and at all levels.

</comment><comment><USER31> Once again I am happy that non-competes are generally not enforced in California. Otherwise, the companies involved wouldn't even need to reach illegal agreements to interfere with the employment free market.

</comment><comment><USER32> In east Asia, poaching is viewed as bad taste and disloyal. A person has to leave a job first before looking for next job. A company tries to recruit employees from other companies gets blacklisted for a period.

But despite of distaste, people does it.

</comment><comment><USER33> Summary of [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-apple- lawsuit-i...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-apple-lawsuit- idUSTRE80Q27420120127)

Kind of ironic that The AOL Way was supposed to be the reason The Verge guys _left_ to start a new blog. It looks like the only thing they were tired of was Engadget's layout. The AOL Way doesn't deserve traffic.

<comment><USER34> The Verge article consists almost entirely of quotes from the source document. They did nothing wrong here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> somewhat related. Last week a friend of mine that is growing his recruiting business tried to put me in contact with someone at this firm in NYC, for a position that sounds ideal for me and my background. Once he got to the HR department, and as soon as they saw where i currently work, they told him that they have some agreement about not hiring people from my current company and that was it. They didn't even seem to want to explain the details of said agreement. Now, i definitely didn't sign a contract forbidding me from going to that place. Is this even legal?

<comment><USER36> It is not legal. That is precisely why Apple, Google, etc. are being sued.

<comment><USER37> The defendants are claiming bi-lateral agreements are legal, and only bi- lateral agreements existed rather than a 3+ party conspiracy. Whether either claim is true, I have no idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm surprised just how ruthlessly this was enforced. When Jobs complained to Schmidt, the person who contacted an Apple employee was "terminated within the hour." A Senior Google VP replied: "Appropriate response, thank you. Please make a public example of this termination with the group."

Mind you, they have a great incentive. Only a handful of companies recognise 10x (or 100x) developers and they would like to continue paying just 2x for them.

<comment><USER39> Which companies recognize 10x or 100x developers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Gee, I didn't know that employees were akin to the King's game, making it a Bad Thing to poach them.

In my world, poaching employees == offering them better options in exchange for the value generating capabilities that they bring to the table. Quid pro quo, and if someone else offers a better quo...

<comment><USER41> Really. I always considered "to poach" to be a slightly whimsical way to refer to recruiting employees. It never occurred to me that a colluding cartel might be using it as intentional language engineering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> That is what is funny about all those people that treat ¨conspiracy theories¨ as nuts. Is like corruption must have a limit just because they have not seen it first hand.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is 100% why you shouldn't work for a big corporation. You're a resource rather than an employee.

<comment><USER44> Same in small companies. In our company of 14 people, my last HR meeting had the officer dismissing my mention of doing 30-60 minutes unpaid daily overtime as 'it's a small company, that happens'.

They were trying to nail me into a contract doing even more unpaid work: 'Sometimes that happens in a small company' -> 'Yes, I do the in-house IT, and it's part of the job, but I'm letting you know that it's every day' -> 'Yes, sometimes that happens' -> 'Every day is 'sometimes'?' -> 'Yes, sometimes that happens...'.

The other great comment was 'You have to expect a little overtime when you're on a good salary'. My salary is right on the national average wage - <USER2> good nor bad by definition.

<comment><USER45> ...you have HR meetings in a company of 14? It sounds like the culture is what's causing that, not the company size. I've worked in companies of 50 that don't have "HR" people (of course, they have people who cut checks, etc. but they didn't create and enforce crazy policies like that!).

<comment><USER44> We have an HR 'consultant' that does half a day a week

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> According to [http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/921674/In_Re_High- Tech_Emp...](http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/921674/In_Re_High- Tech_Employee_Antitrust_-_Unredacted.pdf), the source pdf, defendants are:

* Apple

* Lucasfilm

* Adobe

* Intuit

* Google

* Intel

* Pixar

Good to know. I shall follow this case with interest.

<comment><USER26> I'm curious if the list is exhaustive, or if it is just the ones who got caught.

<comment><USER47> Heh heh, that's what discovery is for.

Of course, they might settle to avoid among other things more dirty laundry coming out or being solidly confirmed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I am surprised that people are surprised by this.

Who do VCs spend their skiing trips with: ramen-fed, sleep-deprived startup founders, or other VCs? Of course, they hang out with each other.

Same with executives at large companies. They might be nominally "competitors", but they've already learned that they have more in common with one another than with employees in the companies they run.

<comment><USER23> We are surprised by the blatant disregard for employee rights and that they would do something so illegal.

<comment><USER48> I guess I'm cynical, but I'm not surprised. I wouldn't have expected some specific individuals (I thought more of Eric Schmidt; I always liked him) to be involved but the behavior is not shocking. Yes, it's shitty and illegal. No, it's not at all surprising.

Let's say that you're talking to an investor and you tell him that you're being courted by another VC and that he needs to act fast. What's the first thing he'll do, if he takes you seriously? Pick up the phone and call the guy (they were classmates in business school, and it's "bros before schmos", man.) If there was proper competition, that sort of thing would never happen.

Social class is an ugly reality and people in higher social classes _always_ look out for each other first. The _real_ competition is insiders vs. outsiders. Human societies are naturally conspiratorial. I don't know what the solution to this problem is (other than, individually, to just keep working hard and trying to be awesome enough that the general wankbasketry of humanity doesn't matter) but it's obvious that our current regulatory machinery is too thin.

<comment><USER49> Actually I am shit surprised. Is there any chance of this becoming criminal?

<comment><USER50> It already is, hence the lawsuits.

<comment><USER23> No it isn't. IANAL, but I believe class action lawsuits deal with civil, not criminal, offenses.

Don't be so fast to downvote the grandparent if you didn't understand the question.

<comment><USER51> Yes, it is illegal in a criminal way, thus the original DOJ investigation and settlement between these companies and the DOJ.

<comment><USER52> That's not what "criminal" means under law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Serious question: if an accelerator asks participating startups to not hire employees from one another, does it violate laws governing fair competition?

<comment><USER54> Even if it isn't illegal, it's probably contrary to the interests of the accelerator: if one of your startups needs somebody more than another--enough for an increase of pay or some other benefits--then, for the whole program, having that person move is probably better than artificially forcing him to stay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I would be curios to see a LinkedIn graph showing (and proactively finding) evidence of this whole saga. That is, I would expect to see less movement of employees with certain talents, between conspiring companies.

<comment><USER27> Absolutely. I bet there is a huge statistical relationship there.

<comment><USER55> Is there a way to get this information off of LinkedIn?

I am guessing it would be possible to pull it out of Google+ profile pages, but I am not sure it has historical data, or been around long enough for that matter.

Facebook would surely have it but I doubt this information is accessible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think this Betabeat article is really relevant since it shows that this is happening at the startup level in NYC as well:

[http://www.betabeat.com/2011/11/17/poaching-etiquette-how- to...](http://www.betabeat.com/2011/11/17/poaching-etiquette-how-to-love-thy- startup-neighbor-while-coveting-their-devs/)

This is important because it means that new hires are probably getting less equity than they should be getting. Equity and belief in what the company is building should be enough to not require anti-poaching agreements.

</comment><comment><USER56> To hell with this "nobody will know so let's do this" mentality - it's twenty fucking twelve in case you haven't noticed, the year when the "all seeing eye" becomes public property.

</comment><comment><USER57> Why does it seem like everybody cowed to Apple in this case?

Would they have engaged in collusion without Jobs at the center?

</comment><comment><USER49> So is any of this criminal that one or more of these execs may goto prison?

</comment><comment><USER18> Unionize.

</comment><comment><USER58> Great way to keep employee salaries low.

</comment><comment><USER59> Gates = Great person, despicable businessman. Jobs = Despicable person, great businessman.

</comment><comment><USER60> Here is a different perspective.

As an entreppreneur, I would not want my employees poached. I do not miind them seeking out other opportunities, but I would want them to make the move, not an external entity. Poaching can create artificial demand.

A satisfied employee an become unsatisfied overnight if he is offered a higher salary elsewhere which you don't/can't match.

If I had the way to stop poaching, I will. If my employee wants to seek new opportunities, I will not stop him.

The sacking of the person that was doing the recruiting is totally unacceptable to me. He was just doiing his job

<comment><USER61> In what way does poaching create artificial demand? If your employee is valuable enough that another company wants to recruit them, that's not artificial demand, it's real demand. If you won't or can't match a salary somebody else is willing to pay, you deserve to lose that employee.

If your employee can't do the tasks you require of him, you fire him. If you can't pay your employees what they are worth, they go elsewhere. That's the way the world works.

<comment><USER60> Lets take a scenario. You Hire a guy and pay him $120 K a year. Within 6 months you spend say $60k training him. He now theoretically becomes worth $120K per year.

Would you be happy if someone just came and offered that much? Considering the time taken to recruit and money to train him.

In essence, Facebook (or big spenders) can make a small talented startup their official recruiting arm.

As the guy being recruited, it is great. As an employer, it sucks.

I reiterate, if the employee wants to leave and initiates the process, I would not have a problem it that. However, I would not want my employees or business unsettled.

<comment><USER62> Money is only a small factor. If that's all you focus on as an employer I can understand why your employees leave for another company when they offer to match their salary.

You may not like it but guess what, tough shit. Suck it up and offer your employees more incentive to stay other than salary.

<comment><USER60> You are right. Money is only a small factor. And an employee that gets swayed by money only might not deserve be bet on.

===

On a tangential note, I am worried about the groupthink of HNers (I am not talking about you). the one directional thinking is astounding sometimes.

Is there a problem looking at a situation from an alternative view point?

<comment><USER34> Ignore the downvotes. You started a good conversation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> So let's say I am running a startup with two employees. A friend of mine is also running a startup and needs to hire people. Is it wrong for me to ask him not to hire my employees?

<comment><USER64> there is a good article by Ben Horowitz to this point. [http://bhorowitz.com/2011/02/23/is-it-ok-to-hire-people- from...](http://bhorowitz.com/2011/02/23/is-it-ok-to-hire-people-from-your- friend's-company/)

what happened here is much bigger than a deal that goes between two friends who run a startup. it by all means seems like collusion by the overlords to ensure the minions are kept where they are to 'serve' them ( a minor exaggeration). Parts of this story is revolting, like firing and making an example of the recruiter who poached a google employee.This sickens me and is surprising , probably cause, I am not cynical enough..

<comment><USER63> An interesting article - thanks for the link.

In summary, these practices are extremely common, and Ben Horowitz recommends them. However, they are technically illegal in California.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I think anyone whose opinion of Steve Jobs is changed by this knowledge needs to take a good look in the mirror and ask if they are not the hypocrite. Jobs always was a consumate businessman. Before Apple, even, he was scheming his way through a job, getting Wozniak to do his work and going back on his word to split profits.

But isn't that what America is all about? Aren't your shoes, clothes, electronics, etc. made by low wage workers at companies run by men and women who are willing to do anything for an extra dollar? Isn't that capitalism? Isn't that their "fiduciary duty to the shareholders"?

In the world of engineering, engineers are a resource just as oil is a resource for an oil company. Do you also get angry when oil companies hire lobbyists to wine-and-dine politicians until they give favorable exploration rights on federal lands to those companies? How is this any different, morally?

Ultimately, the really hard question is: would we have the iPod, iPhone, MacBook Air, iPad if Jobs had _not_ done what he did?

<comment><USER66> You're invoking a tired ends justifies the means argument for ... consumer devices? Not societal survival, not space travel, not some other grand enterprise, but ... iPods?

<comment><USER65> I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm merely pointing out that there is a mythos surrounding Jobs that he was some sort of design god or product messiah. The only thing he ever was was a businessman. If your opinion of him changes knowing that he colluded to keep his cost of engineering low (much the same as he manipulated the market for flash memory to keep those prices low), then you probably didn't pay enough attention in the first place.

Of course, that's the danger in a cult of personality, isn't it?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN:  Will I find glory in the arena? - <AUTHOR>

I do not yet bear the mark of Technical Co-Founder yet my fight rises to wage battle in the arena.  I am a gladiator. My mind not empty of thoughts yet coin still fails to fill my purse.  Allow me to strip thoughts from mind and tongue as I seek to gain advantage in my quest for honor, glory and freedom.<p>http://fishtaank.com <comment><AUTHOR> clickable <http://fishtaank.com></comment>


Bloomberg search clones Google c. 2005 - <AUTHOR> http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=wtf

<comment><AUTHOR> Part of my project requires me to look at how different websites do search. Some websites (ridiculously) don't allow you to access their search without doing a POST (allmusic.com). Other sites do, but tag along 1,000 different GET parameters. For these sites, I usually strip off all the unnecessary stuff and see what happens.

For Bloomberg, this is what I got. It looks like they've cloned Google Search from 2005, bit for bit, and injected their own search results inside of it. Any ideas why?

<comment><USER2> Maybe they have a Google Search Appliance? (I don't really know. Just wild ass guessing. I'm pretty sure the appliance has been around that long, though.)

<comment><USER3> HTTP headers suggest GWS/2.1 (Google Web Server 2.1). The GSA seems like a pretty keen estimation.</comment></comment></comment>


The Best Books I Read in 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Best-Books-2014 <comment><USER2> I'm more interested in the impact on sale numbers of these books — Seems like his lists are getting more buzz than NYT's bestsellers in recent months.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd like to think Gates produces/films/creates his own little videos.

<comment><USER2> Movie Maker doesn't support stop-motion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When I saw that Bill Gates called Business Adventures by John Brooks his favorite business book ever back in July, I figured he must have some deal with the publisher who was reprinting it.

According to the Forbes article linked below, they saw his blog post and rushed to reprint it based on the demand he created.

Source: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/07/28/how- bil...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/07/28/how-bill-gates- and-a-media-start-up-made-an-ancient-book-a-modern-best-seller/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I kind of expected to see some good fiction there. Does Bill not read any fiction?

<comment><USER6> hmm, his list includes "The Rosie Effect".

<comment><USER5> and so it does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think he should have picked books he liked less but were written by people other than white men so there was more diversity in the list.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not that I think he's biased (I have no idea), but perhaps he should have read more diverse authors to begin with, to have a more diverse pool to choose from.

I prefer to know what he actually likes, rather than what he thinks would look best if he claimed to like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 5 books, 5 white men. _sigh_

<comment><USER9> While JeorgR's point isn't well articulated, it's sad that almost any suggestion of racial discrimination appears to be reflexively downvoted and shouted down. So far we're unable to discuss the issue intelligently, which is what our society most needs.

Racial discrimination is widespread, and often unconsciously. For example, one of the first things you learn about hiring is that people instinctively hire employees like themselves. That's why comments like JeorgR's are valuable, to bring it to our attention.

If ~33% of the U.S. population (I'm guessing at the proportion of white males) dominate so much of our reading, our government, business, entertainment, technology, etc. -- just looking at the data, it raises serious (and what should be intellectually interesting) questions about how that happens, and about justice and fairness for the 66% whose opportunities are apparently much reduced.

EDIT: added a bit to the last sentence

<comment><USER10> _While JeorgR 's point isn't well articulated_

There is no point being articulated at all in the above comment. It's an vague insinuation meant to derail. Please don't prop up his shitposting just because you think you might agree with something he might have meant.

If you're not here to tell us that (e.g.) you think Bill Gates is racist because of the books he read this year then what do you really even have to say? White guilt platitudes? Come on. That's not a conversation, that's an insult.

If you (et alia) actually believe it's an important issue, then you would actually be selective about when the subject is broached, so that actual intelligent conversations between willing and engaged participants could actually happen. Injecting "awareness" at every opportunity just debases the whole topic and turns into a sick game of making appearances and gestures. Nobody wants to talk about the supposedly important subject because everybody's tired of getting yelled at by the deafly intolerant and inflexible blowhards that keep bringing it up.

<comment><USER9> OT: It's so unfortunate to read comments like this. Where on the Internet is there a forum where people adhere to some standard of behavior?

I would be much happier if HN would kill any comments that are not civil, no matter what else is in them. This kind of comment significantly reduces the value of HN; imagine the quality if they were all removed.

<comment><USER10> I find it difficult to believe that you're truly concerned with 'the value of HN'.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: There are 100s of similar Monitor Arms so I built this - <AUTHOR> https://monitorarms.co/?hn=true&version=2.3&fixed=true <comment><USER2> I see you have another website for LED lights with the same format.

Does the affiliate revenue you get from these sites make building them worthwhile?

Thank you!

<comment><AUTHOR> These two are my weekend projects, both started as my own spread sheets for 100 % personal use. Then I wondered if it would be beneficial to other people as well.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't really answer the question.

<comment><USER2> Yeah.. still wondering about affiliate revenue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like this. But it lacks an option for local markets, like .de, .uk, .fr, .ca and so on.

[https://diskprices.com/](https://diskprices.com/) which i got recently from here (i think?) has this. Which is very convenient ;-)

Edit: Ah yes, there it is: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22156292](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22156292)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN, I know I have posted this couple of times earlier, however there were couple issues with the site that I noticed after posting it on here. mobile was not working, 404s etc.

This tool was valuable to me, and I really wanted to share it with all of you. Sorry about posting multiple times. I hope you find this helpful.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very nice - do any of the manufacturers provide info on arm reach / length? I'm trying to mount a drawing tablet display so I can use it sitting on the sofa and flip it to the side when not in use, but I'm having trouble finding an arm that has sufficient reach.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is neat, wish I had it six months ago. Is it curated or what? Could it be generalized?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! Curated, basically I started creating a spread sheet for myself it kinda got out of hand :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Stands for 3 monitors should be broken down by whether or not the middle one is fully adjustable.

Do you know why there are no wall mounted 3 monitor stands?

<comment><AUTHOR> Great suggestion. Thank you!

I will need to look into that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is great, I was looking at mounts some time ago and found it strangely difficult to find something that matched what I needed.

</comment><comment><USER9> Oh man, I wish there was something like this, but for eGPUs.

<comment><USER10> If you ask for it, someone will build it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Really like it. Thank you for putting this all together.

</comment><comment><USER12> Useful, but needs a permalink to the results.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This post has been hell-banned from the front-page, with no explanation whatsoever. It is very frustrating!

<comment><USER13> You can email the mods via the contact link in the footer to ask what's up. You _have_ posted this a number of times (5 by my count), including getting some traction 4 days ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22167651](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22167651)

<comment><AUTHOR> What is the email? They put it back and just banned it again. This is very frustrating for something I worked long nights for.

<comment><USER13> > "via the contact link in the footer" of the page: email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Just emailed. Thanks for the direction</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is the star rating system a good indicator of restaurant quality? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Nope. What you generally want is good recommendations. Star systems are just a rough initial estimate that often combines info you don't care about.

<comment><AUTHOR> When you say "recommendations", do you mean word of mouth or personalized based on your preferences?

<comment><USER2> I don't really care how they're computed, right? All I want is someone to tell me where to eat and be good at it.

It could be based on my preferences, and how I've rated things before, it could be based on social data, it could be based on a conversation with a chatbot. It could be a combination of all of the above.

The way the information is derived is really unimportant, the important thing is that I am happy with where you tell me to go.</comment></comment></comment>


Ex-Google engineer describing the company's role in China censorship - <AUTHOR> https://threader.app/thread/1051725524064591872 <comment><USER2> > 6/ The other thing I find disturbing, after all these years, is the > willingness of my former colleagues to not only comply with the censorship > but their enthusiasm in rationalizing it. It is not a coincidence that the > rationale they give was the same one management had given them

This is the really disgusting thing. Are they "just" sucking up to management or are they maybe the only ones who buy the propaganda?

Or is this some kind of self-justification process that protects them from their dying sense of guilt?

<comment><USER3> I really don't understand what people are upset about. Whether or not Google rolls out a censored search engine in China has no influence at all whatsoever in any way shape or form over whether or not the communist party will continue to enforce censorship. If Google backs out for political reasons, it's not like the party is going to suddenly see the error of their ways and do an about face on censorship.

It's just business. Americans has been doing business with China, and the Chinese people for decades. In spite of the fact that the west and China are beholden to very different identities, we can still cooperate on things to the benefit of everyone.

People are 99% the same everywhere, but the 1% that makes us different are matters of identity, and that's what we gripe about and go to war over. It's kind of stupid if you ask me, but then again, no one in the history of the world has ever come up with a reliable solution for human nature.

<comment><USER4> > I really don't understand what people are upset about. Whether or not Google > rolls out a censored search engine in China has no influence at all > whatsoever in any way shape or form over whether or not the communist party > will continue to enforce censorship.

I'll list out _some_ of the issues:

1\. The view the censorship is immoral. The argument that "we should help them because we can profit and they'll do it with or without us" has some _very serious flaws_ that can be easily shown by a few thought experiments.

For instance: your colleague is going to rob a bank and there's nothing you can do to stop him, is it right for you to volunteer to drive the getaway car since he'll pay you handsomely if you do? If you don't drive, someone else will, and you'll be leaving money on the table.

> It's just business. Americans has been doing business with China, and the > Chinese people for decades. In spite of the fact that the west and China are > beholden to very different identities, we can still cooperate on things to > the benefit of everyone.

2\. Doing business with China gives the Communist Party leverage to influence corporate operations elsewhere for ideological reasons. They've shown increasing willingness to use that influence to push their political views (for a recent example, see the recent situation with how foreign airlines represent Taiwan on their foreign-language websites).

Imagine, ten years from now, Google because popular and profitable in mainland China. The Communist Party wants to manage Western perceptions of an issue (say Tibet) and gives Google an ultimatum: derank all pro-Tibet independence websites from the top 20 results of certain Tibet-related searches, or they'll shutdown their Chinese operations. What choice do you think the shareholder- value maximizing corporation is going to make?

This article tackles the topic from a different angle: [https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/11/if-the-u-s-doesnt- contr...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/11/if-the-u-s-doesnt-control- corporate-power-china-will/)

<comment><USER3> It's funny, we get upset that China censors the free and open exchange of ideas until the subject of intellectual property comes up, and then we get upset because China doesn't respect the fact that we like to keep ideas under lock and key. Once you get under all the bullshit it's as simple as America believing that it should win and China should lose. The problem is, that by merit of demographics, and China's stable political and economic system, they're on track to become the dominant and economic power in the world, and there's not a lot you can do about it.

You can worry that China could have too much leverage over Google if they become dependent on profits earned in China. It's corroborated in the article you provided:

>a deeply conservative Pence sounded like liberal stalwart Sen. Elizabeth Warren in arguing the Chinese are using America's own short-term-oriented financial system against it.

Our shareholder value short-term oriented financial system is a problem in our own backyard, something we can do something about rather than fearmongering against China. It remains a strict hypothetical that that Google would kowtow to China's demands and censor it's domestic search engine. I don't think they'll do that, but even if they did, we can cross that bridge when we get to it, until then it's just a hypothetical worst case scenario. If Google has a dangerous amount of control over the flow of information, that's because it's the service that most Americans choose to use, which is kind of the shitty thing about a free and open society. In China if they decide something is a net negative, they can stop it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > 13/ I encourage employees of Google who have been asked to work on censored > products to stand up against these requests, as I did in 2006, and make it > known that Google's willingness to censor is immoral.

I'd rather formulate it this way:

 _I encourage employees of Google who have been asked to work on censored products to take a look from different perspectives, apply their values and morale, make an informed decision on whether they want to support what they 're asked to work on - and have the spine to follow through with their decision._

The reason why I disagree with the original statement is that it feels like people are forcing their own moral decisions on others. "I'm convinced it's bad, so you have to agree and act like it".

<comment><USER6> I would try to simplify it like this: "would you be able to look the people China will suppress with your technology in the eye and tell them 'I built the tools China use'?"

edit: reformulated it to something less loaded

<comment><USER5> That's pretty loaded. Try to reformulate it with less of your own bias.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It is an odd thing that a company can on the one hand become known as the one firing an engineer who tried to open an honest discussion on a hot subject like 'gender discrimination' because that engineer was deemed to lack a moral compass, while on the other hand bending over backwards to assist an oppressive - but lucrative - dictatorship in implementing a real-life version of Oceania's Ingsoc [1] [2]. As if these people are so blind-sided by their own ideology that they do not recognise their own moral compasses twirling as if they're in the Bermuda triangle and the 'no' being struck from their previous motto of 'do no evil'.

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

[2] [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/china-social- credit-a...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/china-social-credit-a- model-citizen-in-a-digital-dictatorship/10200278)

<comment><USER8> It's not about a moral compass, it's about attracting top talent. The universities push this ideology, so if you want to get the alumni from the universities to work for you, you have to abide by the tenets.

<comment><USER9> Except that the notion of "top talent" appears to be a myth.

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent- myt...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth)

<comment><USER10> Interesting link, I just skimmed it but I don't think it quite showed top talent is a myth, but rather that our ways of measuring that talent is flawed, this syncs up with ideas from Moneyball as well. We know that pitching is a talent, but we struggle to project who will be the future star due to our preconcieved biases.

So in the story they found a stronger correlation between tacit knowledge than simply IQ for instance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _9 / For many people there is little difference between what is legal and what is moral. This mindset is especially dangerous when it is held by people in power, such as Google's executives. The mindset is: if it's a legal requirement to censor, then we should do it. _

Except when standing on a moral pedestal does not hurt your bottom line. Then apparently it's ok to dictate what is moral and what is not, what is good and what is evil and use your power to force your agenda. It's not google's (or any company's) version of morality that gets me, it's always the hypocrisy

<comment><USER12> The free market does have a tendency of weeding out those companies that act morally beyond legality, because less moral competitors can outcompete them. So as a survival bias, less moral companies are just more likely to be left standing. Likewise, morality beyond legality is much more likely if it doesn't yield any ground to competitors (ie effect the bottom line), so what you see as hypocrisy might again just be survival bias in a free market.

<comment><USER13> Don't know why you single out free markets there. A lack of scruples can be advantageous in economically closed environments as well.

<comment><USER12> Survival bias applies to a lot of situations. For example, in a system where corruption is endemic, non-corrupt officials won't get promoted (because they have no dirt higher ups can use against them and/or don't bribe the right people), leaving only corrupt officials. Do non-corrupt officials exist? Yes, but they are not likely to survive to he noticed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Honest question: Should a company like google take the lesser evil route and still provide neutered service simply because target audience is huge? Google could still bring a lot of good to the people. Sure it doesn't exactly subscribe to the Western ideals, but is distancing from China throwing baby out with the bathwater?

<comment><USER15> It's not simply about the first-order effects. Making a large investment in the Chinese market controlled by the CPC means putting up great value at risk that the CPC can leverage to assert influence. Evil influence spreads into the company and it becomes even more evil.

Considering the history of their actions against even their own people, and the words they say, 'evil' is not an understatement.

Yes, other states are also evil, but their evil is deeper and more fundamental. For example, they actively censor the history of their own misdeeds, including massacre of their own people from a few decades ago in 1989, and because of the strong censorship, who knows what else they are doing nowadays that's hidden?

A concrete example of what may happen is that after making a huge investment in China, Google gets a request to do more than just censor, an offer it cannot refuse. It is asked to spread malware to dissidents, or extend the censorship to other countries like Taiwan, or something nefarious like that. If it refuses, it'll be kicked out of China for some bullshit reason. Getting kicked out means incurring a big loss because of the huge investment. What will it do then? If it can't say 'no' now, it will not be able to say 'no' then. This country does not have "rule of law", but it has "rule by law". There is no independent judiciary. The state can say F U and there's nothing you can do about it.

<comment><USER16> > A concrete example of what may happen is that after making a huge investment > in China, Google gets a request to do more than just censor, an offer it > cannot refuse.

It's possible that the opposite could happen too. China's leverage over Google is that they can pull the plug on google.com, but I don't know (correct me) if there are a lot of employees that they can throw in jail. So if Google builds up a lot of brand capital over 5 or 10 years, and pulling the plug becomes an unpopular move for the government, it could be that Google ends up with some leverage of its own about what to do with search results.

This isn't my area, so I'm just making all this up, but I notice that the tone of the thread is "something something I thought they said don't be evil," and I'm imagining that the reality is more complicated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't get Google. The cost of switching to competitor's products are near- zero, Google's public image is its most valuable asset. Is the Chinese search market - and other evil products - really worth the risk?

I have switched to DDGG 3 weeks ago and I am seriously testing Firefox.

<comment><USER18> The cost of switching from Google was low when Search was their only product. They have their hooks a lot deeeper in users these days. Android, Gmail, Docs, and others are harder to switch away from.

<comment><USER19> It's more pervasive than that, they have hooks in the entire contemporary Internet ecosystem (DoubleClick, Google Analytics, etc.) So they don't care if you never touch a Google-branded site, they can collect and sell data on you. And Mozilla is largely funded by Google.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> why do people write whole blogposts on twitter?

<comment><USER21> You go where your customers are, or audience iin this case

<comment><USER22> Reaching a large audience can be useful, but it might not be worth the cost of using an established medium. From the forward - which was probably written by Marshall McLuhan - to Edmund Snow Carpenter's book "They became what they beheld":

> If you address yourself to an audience, you accept at the outset the basic > premises that unite the audience. You put on the audience, repeating cliches > familiar to it.

> Utilizing existing channels can wipe out a statement. There is a widely > accepted misconception that media merely serve as neutral packages for the > dissemination of raw facts. Photographers once thought that by getting their > photographs published in _Life_ , they wo9uld thereby reach large audiences. > Gradually they discovered that the only message that came through was _Life_ > magazine itself and that their pictures had become but bits & pieces of that > message. Unwittingly they contributed to a message far removed from the one > they intended.

Twitter may actually be a useful tool for reaching large audiences for _some_ messages, but "the medium is the message" and using Twitter as your medium clearly involves diluting your message with the "Twitter style".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> There are many Google mirror sites, most of which are blocked in China. If the Chinese government decides to work with some of the mirror sites to deliver Google search results in China, on the condition that the mirror sites must censor the search results, what would happen? I could think of three reactions from Google:

1\. Block those mirror sites from accessing Google search results, but this may be technically difficult.

2\. Do nothing. Effectively a censored Google becomes available in China but people can hardly blame google for not blocking the mirror sites.

3\. Work with the mirror sites (e.g. require them to display Google ads). This is pretty much dragonfly.

It seems that Dragonfly doesn't really change anything about China's censorship after all?

<comment><USER24> 4\. Feed the mirror sites mis-leading information that causes them to be less effective than Baidu and/or works past their filter and informs Chinese users.

<comment><USER23> How? Google may accidentally feed misleading information to some real users, and this may cause a huge backfire like what happened to FB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If Dragonfly should be launched yet fail to fly, whether for political or for business reasons, Google may perhaps fall back on Sergey Brin.

Just as Twitter has cycled through its founders as CEO, after their serious mis-steps and failed initiatives.

</comment><comment><USER26> > As I previously tweeted, Sergey Brin is a notable exception to this > temptation, and he is reported to be the reason that Google left China in > 2010

Dear digital spin doctors of HN,

What are the likely online tactics that will be used to neutralize Brin's on- the-record statements and previous action regarding China?

It must be a drag to practice those dark arts of digital public manipulation in secret all the time. So c'mon, make some public predictions with a throwaway and let us follow along at home!

Edit: wording

</comment><comment><USER27> On the other note: Google's new 'research centre' in Beijing looks to be much more than it should be, much more like a smallish campus.

</comment><comment><USER5> The person posting this left Google in 2007 [1]. The screenshot indicates the emails took place in February 2016 and October 2018 [2]. The conversation seems focused around events before 2008 (e.g. the selection of holding the Olympic games in Beijing). (Other people pointed it out as well [3]).

Were the dates in the emails faked? What's going on?

[1] [https://www.linkedin.com/in/vijayboyapati](https://www.linkedin.com/in/vijayboyapati)

[2] [https://twitter.com/real_vijay/status/1051725529512964096](https://twitter.com/real_vijay/status/1051725529512964096)

[3] [https://twitter.com/wiretapped/status/1051739819121016832](https://twitter.com/wiretapped/status/1051739819121016832)

</comment><comment><USER28> Time to flood this [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=google%20tell%20me%20h...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=google%20tell%20me%20how%20to%20stop%20using%20google)

</comment><comment><USER29> > because in the digital era, the suppression of information acessibilty is > incompatible with free-market productivity

LOL. This video is not available in your country.

China is just a giant corp intranet with a huge ass firewall.

</comment><comment><USER30> Google is a creatively and morally bankrupt company. The original spark is long gone and it's just another soul-less big company now.

</comment><comment><USER31> What happens to Google in 10 years if they don't move into the China market? Can Google survive without moving into China? Will some upstart move in there and dominate the market? Will the stock market punish Google for not moving into China?

Why is it OK to have all our devices, etc. manufactured in China, but it's not OK for Google to offer services there?

<comment><USER32> > Why is it OK to have all our devices, etc. manufactured in China, but it's > not OK for Google to offer services there?

This is a great angle. I have no idea, why there is such a huge disparity there, but I have three possible explanations:

1\. People do not understand supply chain management (myself included). There is nothing inherently evil about employing people in a foreign country, and not many people are aware that cost of production is lower in China because of (sometimes) horrible working conditions.

2\. Google branded itself on "Don't be evil". More or less everyone in western countries would agree that facilitating censorship on a massive scale for the benefit of government officials is "bad".

3\. Hypocrisy. Our way of life depends on low wage labour (read: explotiation of the poor) in foreign countries. Our morals follow our wallet.

<comment><USER33> 4\. Global consumerism is built on global labor arbitrage (read: exploitation of the poor). People are somewhat aware it but politicians only care about large companies making big profits.

<comment><USER32> How is this the fault of government?

<comment><USER33> Of out 5 countries described as "communist", the US government flattened N. Korea, invaded Vietnam, embargoed Cuba and developed China into one of the biggest world economies and a techno-dictatorship.

Clearly the US government has the power to decide the destiny of less powerful countries.

Compared to that, setting up trade agreements with China to ensure human rights, worker safety, environment protection and so on is pretty doable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> So china wanted google news and google search censored. Honestly, what's the big deal?

Google news and google search is also censored in the US, Europe, Middle East and everywhere.

Why is it that so many vocal ex-employees are against censorship in china, but demand censorship in the US?

I'm against censorship everywhere but the self-righteousness of these people when it comes to china is getting to be unbearable.

These ex-employees are saying google has to censor news and search because the internet is "too toxic" and causing too much division. This is precisely what the chinese authorities say to justify censorship.

And with the recent revelations of how politically driven and manipulative google is ( and has been ), I highly doubt the chinese or any country would allow google in without certain restrictions.

<comment><USER13> China is doing something different entirely here. Denying facts to keep the population under control, for instance. That is different entirely from what the typical Western country censors: advertising illegal drugs, child porn, hate speech, etc.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/words-china-banned-from- sear...](https://www.businessinsider.com/words-china-banned-from-search- engines-after-tiananmen-square-2014-6)

<comment><USER34> > Denying facts to keep the population under control, for instance.

This is different from us how?

> That is different entirely from what the typical Western country censors: > advertising illegal drugs, child porn, hate speech, etc.

China also censors illegal drugs, child porn, "hate speech", etc.

You are right. China censors for the good of their own citizens and our censors do so for the good of us. Oh wait, that sounds exactly the same.

I love people who conflate "hate speech" with child porn and illegal drugs. Is physics "hate speech" to flat earthers? Should we censor physics? What's next? Hate thought? Should we monitor people's brain for hate thought. Science itself is hate speech to religious people. Should we censor science?

There are lots of facts that people on both sides consider "hate speech". For example, I consider your support of censorship hate speech. Should you be censored?

Just as I said, these people love censorship in the US but hate censorship in china. Makes me wonder who and what is pushing and funding such anti-liberal and anti-western "hate speech" in the US. In all my time on the internet, I haven't come across such openly fascistic and anti-liberal "hate speech" until fairly recently.

<comment><USER35> > Is physics "hate speech"

If it's somehow an incitement to an immediate illegal action then it may be. Otherwise it's not.

In the US, hate speech isn't like being offended, it's not in the eye of the beholder. It's been covered a number of times by the Supreme Court.

And China is quite different from the US wrt free speech. US courts take a very dim view of restrictions to political free speech. It's quite a stretch to say the same about China. In fact, I'd argue that there are plenty of Western democracies who are less lenient in that regard than the US.

<comment><USER34> > If it's somehow an incitement to an immediate illegal action then it may be. > Otherwise it's not.

So it's not.

> In the US, hate speech isn't like being offended, it's not in the eye of the > beholder. It's been covered a number of times by the Supreme Court.

I know. The point is that these people want hate speech to be illegal like it is in many other western nations. They want more censorship for the US, less in china.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Aside: I found the final sentence of the article (injected by Threader) interesting. "Enjoy Threader? Tell @jack."

I wonder if Twitter will eventually branch out into more long form content like this.

</comment><comment><USER37> Google is clearly evil now. Will anyone do anything about it?

<comment><USER38> Like what? Will anyone do anything about China? How about the US?

"Will anyone do anything about it" is classic bystander effect by the way - what are you doing about it?

<comment><USER39> To be fair, HN is probably the biggest single forum of people building alternatives to Google products (aside from internal MS/Apple etc. forums, one presumes).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The real risk of Google entering China, and possibly succeeding, is the a reverse-effect happening with regard to censorship globally. The theory is, by Google operating in China, it will help liberalize and open things up, that may have worked in the Deng Xiaoping era when, but after the hardliners took power, and especially with Xi, things are going in the opposite direction of the "End of History" folks predictions. Economic well being did not bring an appetite for Democracy, it brought an appetite for not "rocking the boat"/"don't mess with a good thing"

By reverse-effect, I mean, let's say Google is hugely successful in China. It proves a censored search engine works and is good business, first of all. So economic arguments about the harm will be delegitimatized. Other states will ask for more censorship, and Google can't reply 'this is too costly or harmful to our business' because China would be an example of how to make it work. So the end result might be that Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, and Indonesia, Brazil, Zimbabwe, etc will all of a sudden be asking for their own forks of Dragonfly. (I just picked those countries at random, with no specific example of censorship in mind)

Secondly, if they become hugely successful in China, it compromises them just like Apple. The revenue stream will become a golden goose and too valuable to risk the anger of the government. So you'll have Google executives having to embarrass themselves like Tim Cook by praising China's "open" internet ([https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/04...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/04/apple- ceo-backs-chinas-vision-of-an-open-internet-as-censorship-reaches-new- heights/?utm_term=.5cabb9e90812))

Third, Google made one of the few brave moral decisions leaving China. Perhaps you don't believe Brin did it for the reasons claimed, but your belief isn't important, what is important is what many people believe this, especially politically repressed people who need to believe in heroic actions. This undercuts that decision. If the world's most popular company for organizing information not only fails to fight censorship, but actively helps regimes that wants to implement state level censorship, it will be a big loss of a beacon in the constant struggle between censorship and anti-censorship forces. Having the world's largest companies, even if they're only doing it for economic reasons, on the side of anti-censorship is better than having the world's largest companies on the side of censorship (for economic reasons)

And fourth, Google can't change China. The idea that a SV tech company can trigger improvements in the politics and openness of a powerful country like China is quite simply hubris. We're not smart enough to do this, and intelligence isn't even the factor. China's future will be written by its people and internal events.

If they want an uncensored search engine, then one day, the political winds will change, and they will demand it. But until they do so powerfully enough for the current government to change its behavior, the actions of foreign firms won't do anything. I'm not sure we should involve ourselves in this fight other than through NGOs that already fight these things (e.g. Amnesty International) or offering anti-firewall/anti-censorship tools.

There's only one argument for doing business in China as a search engine, and it is a legitimate one, just not a moral one: the shareholder argument.

</comment><comment><USER41> Do we have any valuable resources like this, but from 2018?

</comment><comment><USER42> The only morality of the global economy is growth.

</comment><comment><USER43> Not sure about the conditions of employment with Google, but if he has archives of emails long after he's left the company, could a lawsuit be forthcoming?

</comment><comment><USER44> Is authoritarianism in China getting better or worse? If it's getting better than what it used to be under actual communist rule then perhaps there's still some hope for economic prosperity bringing democracy to China.

<comment><USER45> It's still actual communist rule -- by the Communist Party of China, no less.

<comment><USER46> It's rule by people who use the brand "communist", but they aren't actually communists in any meaningful sense, not even as in what the word meant to the Soviets. China is very authoritarian, but it is not communist or even socialist. Fascism would be an accurate description, though, as Mussolini himself defined it ("Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.")

<comment><USER45> > It's rule by people who use the brand "communist", but they aren't actually > communists in any meaningful sense, not even as in what the word meant to > the Soviets. China is very authoritarian, but it is not communist or even > socialist.

What does this even mean? The government and the people who run it are the direct political descendants of Mao and the Communists who overthrew the Chinese government in the '40s. They are Communists. Full stop. If the people who call themselves "Communist" and have run the most populous nation in the world for the last 75 years can't be the very definition of "communist," then words have no meaning.

<comment><USER47> >If the people who call themselves "Communist"

North Korea confirmed to be a democracy?

<comment><USER45> Clearly not. They are ruled by the Workers' Party of Korea, and it is a self- described revolutionary and socialist state.

And since we were originally talking about Chinese communists, it's interesting to note that they have been the chief supporters of North Korea's government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> ... on the other note: Madurai - a city where Sundar was born, is known to be a communist enclave in otherwise nationalist dominated state of Tamil Nadu.

 _Check out his father 's background and 'the labour activism'..._

</comment><comment><USER48> Google was doing no evil till Sundar Pichai happened.

</comment><comment><USER49> This is the real world.

Google and the US are better off being present in China that being left out.

<comment><USER50> Why?

<comment><USER51> Thought experiment: If Google doesn't move in, someone else will eventually fill the vacuum. Who?

Suppose that Chinese-born-and-bred search-engine-and-advertising-company, through virtue of having access to a massive economic resource, succeeds broadly and then enters the western markets. What then?

Not trying to justify any of this, but it's worth discussing.

<comment><USER46> > If Google doesn't move in, someone else will eventually fill the vacuum. > Who?

Someone with less skills and expertise, who will hopefully make more mistakes implementing censorship? Or maybe someone with more skin in the game (e.g. locals) who might actually be more motivated to sabotage it?

But, conversely, Google implementing such a thing in China - and justifying it as moral there by these arguments - would also give them skills and expertise to do it US in the future, and a canned excuse as to why it's okay.

> Suppose that Chinese-born-and-bred search-engine-and-advertising-company, > through virtue of having access to a massive economic resource, succeeds > broadly and then enters the western markets. What then?

Then we engage in protectionism ourselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> The CEO is not a founder. He's beholden to the shareholders without any leverage for pushback.

<comment><USER53> I am not familiar how this things work, is there some kind of a vote where shareholders debate if this(censorship) is a good idea or not? Or there are only a few people that can decide it.

<comment><USER54> It's implicit, the CEO must deliver value to the shareholders or be replaced. Capitalism doesn't leave a lot of room for moral standing.

<comment><USER55> Large shareholders have corporate values (ethical, etc) that they will push onto companies they own shares in.

Blackrock[1] has said social responsibility is important to them.

Companies looking for investment need to operate with principles aligned with investors or investors will look for alternatives.

[1] - [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/blackrocks-push-for- social-r...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/blackrocks-push-for-social- responsibility-shows-shift-in-companies.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I get the hoopla but what's the alternative? It's not that Chinese customers are clamoring for any of the Google services. Without Google, China will continue to develop their home grown services with far more surveillance than Google would put in. There are zero nations in the world which will stand up against China and dare to ask them do things differently. Some scholars even believe that Chinese culture is predisposed to this kind of government and westerners are simply not "getting it". I personally don't get either Britain's tendencies to put person in charge of declaring wars and face on their currency because of no other reason than that person being born in certain family.</comment>


People who are less willing to apologize also tend to be less self-compassionate - <AUTHOR> https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/paqjdk/why-people-never-apologize <comment><USER2> Kinda related: it's occurred to that I've only ever witnessed _anyone_ in my life genuinely apologize for something a handful of times. Weird to think about. People really seem to struggle with this.

<comment><USER3> A lot of things really don't warrant an actual apology (bumping into someone, forgetting something) - there isn't a lot you could have done to prevent it. Or you are forced to apologized, even though you weren't actually regretful. Or we are forced to apologize for things we aren't actually sorry for: words that were said instead of apologizing for your contribution to the situation that led up to the words or for the situation the words caused.

If polite society doesn't allow folks to express how we actually feel and expects a lot of empty apologies for politeness sake, the genuine apologies are going to be much more rare. It isn't so much a struggle with apologies as a struggle with the expectations of others and the society we live in.

To be fair, this is mostly about American culture as I'm more familiar with it. They don't seem as necessary here in Norway for such little offenses (bumping into someone on the bus is a wordless thing, for example).

<comment> racer-v One of the first phrases I try to learn when visiting a foreign country is how to apologize for bumping somone, or ask someone to move aside. "Excuse me" in English, "entschuldigen" in German, "jièguāng" in Mandarin. It's so much less awkward being when you can communicate with words. Is there a phrase you would use for this in Norwegian, or would you just clear your throat and tap your foot?

<comment><USER3> Most of the time, you'd just make eye contact if that. granted, i'm talking about small bumps and things that Americans apologize for daily, but are a normal part of life. Things change a little if you actually get someone to lose balance or fall down. "unnskyld meg" \- a form of "excuse me" \- same thing someone says if they want me to move. More importantly, make sure the other person is OK. Help them pick up stuff if dropped. Mostly, it just more seems like that sort of thing isn't as big of a deal here because it is part of life, especially on crowded buses.

Don't get me wrong, I find society really nice on the whole. If I fall down on the ice, folks make sure to ask if I'm OK. People help children (and children stop random folks to talk... they are on public buses at school age by themselves). Most people have been really patient with the language barrier - more so than I saw in the US - and people are happy I try instead of being upset that I have an accent. And granted, I was taught some of this from my Norwegian spouse and through language/civics classes required for my immigration.

I honestly hear apologies and the like more from other immigrants, and Americans seem overly polite and fake happy/apologetic in comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> racer-v It's also crucial to consider the motivations of the person you're apologizing to. If that person is interested in moving forward and (re)building the relationship, do it. But if the "offended" party is still resentful, they may use your apology as an "admission of guilt" and try to twist your words against you.

Moral: don't apologize to a truly toxic person - instead remove them from your life immediately.

<comment><USER4> What do you mean by "toxic"?

<comment> racer-v By "toxic" I mean someone who essentially sees social situations as a way to play out their inner sadistic tendencies - for example by passive-aggressively seeking conflicts so they can play the victim, or constantly looking for "enemies" and trying to ruin their reputations. A person who has unresolved inner conflict or trauma which they try to rectify (or distract themselves from) by projecting issues onto others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Honest apologies are good but I see a lot of people that apologize all the time but don't change their behavior. They probably think it's OK as long as they apologize.

<comment><USER6> This is standard behavior for abusive people. It is so standard that it makes you wonder if it is Chapter One of some guidebook on _How to be an Abusive Asshole_.

It is another reason I am not fond of apologies. If all you do is apologize and you don't change and don't try to make things right, you can get the fuck out of my life.

<comment><USER4> While that is annoying, I think we should clarify that it is not abuse. I hesitate to even consider it manipulation. Maybe I am missing something. Could you give an example?

It sounds dishonorable at most, but not offensive. To be honest, my first thought is that an insinuation of this being abuse is more qualified manipulation than the behavior you're critiquing.

You can always just let the person out of your life. It sounds likely they are merely not meeting your standards because humans are irrational, weird, biological and well, human.

<comment><USER6> You seem to be misreading my point.

People who are abusive very often apologize for it. For example, men who beat their wives routinely apologize afterwards and even swear they will stop. But they don't. They escalate. The beatings get worse.

Habitual empty apologies don't constitute abuse per se. There are people with, for example, low self esteem who just apologize for everything all the time. This is annoying, but not abusive.

But abusive people who actually do terrible things also apologize a lot. However, they don't change and they don't make amends.

These are not people I want in my life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I keep getting redirected to [https://www.vice.com/en_au](https://www.vice.com/en_au) whenever I click on this link.

Looking on the en/AU variation of the site, I can't seem to find the article.

Does Vice seem to think Australians shouldn't have access to this article? Or is geofencing dumb, outdated and broken? I'm leaning towards the latter.

<comment><USER8> The AU version is here:

[https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/wj48nz/people-who- never-a...](https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/wj48nz/people-who-never- apologize-probably-arent-nice-to-themselves-either)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Apologies are not always needed. When you really mess up its usually pretty obvious and saying youre sorry doesnt do all that much. "Sorry I introduced a bug that causes the system to crash once a week" doesn't really help anyone, of course you're going to be sorry. I heard this from someone and it stuck with me: "Don't apologize, fix it."

Edit: I made a mistake while writing this, I am trying to say be objective about your mistakes but many people took that to mean don't admit your mistakes. I should have been more specific with my terminology.

<comment><USER10> Acknowledging that you know you caused the problem has important social function: it provides sympathy to others who may be annoyed at you ("they are annoyed at themselves too, so I shouldn't be so hard on them") and signals that you are aware of your actions so are less likely to screw up in future.

But yes, you should clean up your messes.

<comment><USER11> Acknowledgement of your shortcomings is not the same as an apology.

In my experience apologies are not making things better, but saying yeah that's my fault and moving forward does.

<comment><USER12> They're the same as far as I'm concerned. Whether you say "I'm sorry" or "oops. my bad" doesn't matter as long as you acknowledge that you did something that may have fucked up someone's morning/day/weekend.

<comment><USER9> Okay then it's just semantics. I admit mistakes but I try to be objective about it. If that's considered an apology then I do apologize.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Off topic question. A few years ago I started a heated, short-lived debate on an online forum. Soon after, however, I realized my arguments were flawed. Is it creepy to send an apology to a few users after such a long time? I don't know them in real life, but I regret my rushed judgment to this day. I would like my online behaviour to be consistent with my real-life behaviour regardless of circumstances.

<comment><USER14> I wouldn't find it creepy at all, though obviously depends on the exact context. I admire people who change their minds and who follow up to tie off loose threads. Others might feel differently, but I'd encourage you to reach out if you're considering it. Generally I think reaching out to others is worthwhile. And just doing it usually takes less time than pondering whether you should do it or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Putting aside for discussion's sake the question of the very existence of any merits at all of compassion... why particularly should I ever be _self_ -compassionate?

A person cannot control other people's actions the way they can control their own; and that's one of the few reasons I can't berate other people for their mistakes to the extent that I can berate myself for my own. Indeed, for that same reason, when I make mistakes, my response to myself is little more than the vilest of fury: the ability to act correctly (including the ability to learn it) was within my own nervous system, yet I clearly neglected to use it.

(For example: previously this comment contained several typographical errors. Rereading the comment repeatedly, revealed each typo ... but there's no excuse for any of them to have even escaped the keyboard.)

<comment><USER16> I don't agree with this. You don't have as much control over yourself as you think you do. Your genes and your environment play a huge role on how you act and behave. Of course I am not saying that you shouldn't take responsibility for your actions--you should. You should see where you went wrong and try your best so that it doesn't happen again. If you observe your emotions closely, you might find that berating yourself is often a way to 'feel good' (oh look how self aware I am, how virtuous I am for recognizing my mistakes) without actually accomplishing anything. And research backs this up. People who berate themselves over mistakes are less likely to implement behavioural changes.

It is inevitable that you'll make mistakes. You'll make mistakes everyday. So it is best to accept this and get over yourself--to focus on improving yourself. I like to think of it as treating yourself as you would your best friend. If your best friend makes a mistake you wouldn't berate him, nor would you encourage him to keep making the same mistakes. You would instead, with compassion and respect try to help him out.

Disclaimer: this post might sound kind of righteous and condescending. But that's not my intention. This is based on my experience with my own self. YMMV

<comment><USER15> > best friend

Far from it! After the kinds of procrastination that I've done previously in undergraduate, I think of myself as my _worst enemy_.

(Or at best, sometimes, as a worst-enemy who has been defeated and is paying reparations a la Versailles.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am an advocate of apologies and have to actively practice not apologizing too much. I really believe in the value that _can_ come of them, but that value is also dependent on how they are responded to. There is no hard rule, of course. It's delicate. But, I see apologies punished and taken advantage of most of the time they are given, especially in "professional" environments. When someone apologizes, the response should probably be difficult. If it's easy, it may be worth thinking about it a little longer.

Thankfully, I think I have learned what best works for me: don't befriend or work with others who do not share my values. It's almost impossible but it gets much easier with time.

</comment><comment><USER17> Interesting to note that the original meaning of "apology" was far closer to "excuse" or "defence" than the present "acknowledgement" or "atonement".

[https://www.etymonline.com/word/apology](https://www.etymonline.com/word/apology)

[http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=apo...](http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=apology)

</comment><comment><USER18> Note that the inverse is _not_ true.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm sorry, but, I wish studies like these would share at least the sample size without having to pay for it, considering every hack publication will report on it as "fact." Not that I disagree with the study, I'm just curious how they did the test.

<comment><USER20> The sample size isn't by itself enough to conclude much.

<comment><USER21> I agree that large enough sample size is not a sufficient condition to reach a correct conclusion, however I will argue that it's a required one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> To all the people saying apologies are worthless, you probably feel that way because you get too many worthless apologies.

Personally, I don't count it as an apology unless they acknowledge how they've hurt you, expressed remorse, and made a commitment to change. I've known many people who can only manage the first two (at best), and it drives me insane.

</comment><comment><USER23> this seems to vary a lot between countries.

Also, it's interesting looking at web sites that have comment sections with voting. Often admitting a mistake will attract more negative votes than stupidly insisting that a bad comment is ok. (which i think is a terrible commentary on the tech industry or the blood thirstiness of web site comments).

</comment><comment><USER24> In other news people who are less willing to smile also tend to be less friendly.

<comment><USER10> That's not really parallel to what the article says.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> You mean like narcissists?

</comment><comment><USER26> This article is clickbait garbage.

</comment><comment><USER27> NSFW due to language... but obligatory: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwfuUyTMpVY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwfuUyTMpVY)

</comment><comment><USER28> Apologizing is a selfish act, so this make sense on the title alone.

<comment><USER29> Apologizing is only selfish until you want one yourself. Then they can be extremely meaningful.

The culture of over-apologizing should not be confused with the ability to admit serious mistakes and acknowledge their impact--this is simply accepting responsibility in a social context.

This doesn't add much to the conversation unless you care to explain how a social interaction can be reduced to a character flaw in all cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Honestly I don't understand the purpose of an apology. They also seem inherently dishonest (you're sorry, and you did it? that makes no sense).

I've also never felt better after being apologized to, and I've never had an apology improve my situation or anybody else's, at any point in my life, ever.

I have however had it be construed as an admission of guilt that exacerbates things. So at least apologies have that going for them!

Apologies are childish. I think they're something adults force on children because they want to believe their children are remorseful and still "good."

Anyone have a good pro-apology argument? I can't think of one.

<comment><USER31> Is this comment a satire?

<comment><USER32> No, you're on HN</comment></comment></comment>


Why Agile Is Dead: Long Live the Code Review - <AUTHOR> https://simpleprogrammer.com/2017/02/17/agile-is-dead-code-review/ <comment><USER2> Agile != Scrum.

Code review is as much a part of ensuring quality as automated testing. Be agile - if your Scrum rules don't let it happen, throw them away.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. And with Git and pull requests, it seems that code reviews are part of every programmers daily routine.

<comment><USER4> I agree that they can be but based on my experiences, git or Github do not mean code reviews even if pull requests are used.

<comment><USER3> I understand, but that was not what I was saying. What I was saying was that Git, with Pull Requests, give a solid foundation for code reviews. It's easier than ever to do code reviews, and there are more code reviews than ever before in my opinion. I review code all the time in my team, and so are my teammates. So while Git and pull requests do not mean necessarily that there was a code review, what I meant was that there were more code reviews than ever. In the Open Source community, I am pretty convinced that most pull requests are code reviewed. Otherwise, the community could not survive.

So in conclusion, what I was trying to say is, code reviews are absolutely nothing new. Just look at the results of this survey: [https://www.slideshare.net/SmartBear_Software/2014-state- of-...](https://www.slideshare.net/SmartBear_Software/2014-state-of-code- review-survey-results-final)

And as for the article "Why Agile Is Dead: Long Live The Code Review!", I think it's trying to talk about a problem that is not really there. For me, personally, there is no problem with Agile. And there is no problem having code reviews in a Agile environment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > "So Agile is dead."

What? Just because the way the author is doing agile doesn't allow code reviews, it is not dead. If you want code reviews, you could even do them constantly: pair programming</comment>


Math: Your Secret Weapon Against Wall Street and the NSA - <AUTHOR> http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/inquiring-minds-edward-frenkel-math-doesnt-suck

<comment><USER2> If anyone is interested in learning some of those secret weapons, I'm actively writing a lengthy series on elliptic curve cryptography. In particular, I'm implementing the algorithms in Python (with an emphasis on human readability over efficiency).

[http://jeremykun.com/2014/02/08/introducing-elliptic- curves/](http://jeremykun.com/2014/02/08/introducing-elliptic-curves/)

</comment><comment><USER3> As much as I like this guy and his work, I'd downvote this if I could since the article contains almost no content that supports the title. It's just a blanent PR plug.

<comment><USER4> Can't say I was disappointed by this article, because I've grown to expect so little from the press: Unfortunately, media coverage tends to be sensational and topical. Here we see an example of a sensational headline followed by a topical article.

For a couple of years in college, I worked as a senior reporter at a newspaper, wrote hundreds of published articles, and never wrote a headline: Copy editors write headlines. Besides writing the headline and correcting spelling and grammar, editors also rearrange paragraphs, delete stuff, re- write whatever suits them, decide what page the article will appear on (front page...buried on the fiftieth page) and decide whether or not to print the story at all. Headlines themselves are written in a domain-specific language called "Headlinese." The American Copy Editors Society has an annual "Headline Contest": [http://www.copydesk.org/programs/contests/headlines/](http://www.copydesk.org/programs/contests/headlines/)

WRT the headline's boast of using math as a "secret weapon against wall st," the article said "Frenkel blames the global economic crisis of 2008-09 on inadequate mathematical models used by bankers and traders to predict the financial markets..." My reading of this is that if people weren't so math illiterate, they could have seen the crash coming and perhaps taken steps to protect themselves.

Hmm. As both a mathematician and a former vp at a wall st bank, I have a different POV on the 2008 financial crash: Massive premeditated fraud on savers and retirees perpetrated by a handful of TBTF banks, enabled by lax government regulation and an "easy money" policy by the Fed. I didn't need my math skills to see this crash coming four years in advance, and my math skills didn't give me any "secret weapons" to stop it or defend myself--it was kinda like being caught in a tidal wave, except this was a tidal wave of greed and corruption.

Journalists say, "A picture is worth a thousand words." William Schiesser said: "An equation is worth a thousand pictures." I wish there were more equations and more coverage of STEM in the popular press. It would be great if journalists proved their conclusions logically, step by step, from their premises.

But the sad truth is that _journalism is nothing but a form of entertainment_. And there are so few of us who find math entertaining that journalism (other than niche journalism) will never cater to us.

<comment><USER5> > WRT the headline's boast of using math as a "secret weapon against wall st," > the article said "Frenkel blames the global economic crisis of 2008-09 on > inadequate mathematical models used by bankers and traders to predict the > financial markets..." My reading of this is that if people weren't so math > illiterate, they could have seen the crash coming and perhaps taken steps to > protect themselves.

Yes, and to be more specific, if decisionmakers and stockholders at financial institutions were more math-literate, they would have realized their institutions were taking huge risks based on sloppy mathematical reasoning. A higher general level of mathematical knowledge and skill would likely have prevented a crisis in which the entire economy teetered on a foundation of unsustainable mortgage debt -- obligations in which the property borrowed against was worth less than the debt, encouraging the borrower to simply walk away.</comment></comment></comment>