Show HN: LazyMeter is the only to-do list you'll finish every day - <AUTHOR> http://www.lazymeter.com LazyMeter is the first task manager built on the premise that how you feel is more important than how much you do. It is faster than pen-and-paper, and more rewarding.
By helping you focus on one day at a time, LazyMeter ensures you know what to do and – more importantly – when you're done. A visual meter shows your progress throughout the day, and the drag-and-drop interface makes it easy to prioritize and reschedule while you work. The simple design offers subtle feedback so users are more motivated and less likely to procrastinate.
LazyMeter is the only to-do list you'll finish every day. In addition to allowing you to check off a task, it also gives you a pause button, which pushes a task to tomorrow. The goal is to process your day, either checking off or pausing your tasks. When today's list is empty, your work is done, and you're free to enjoy the rest of the day without worrying that you've forgotten something.
Like pen and paper, all you need to add a task is a title. Tell LazyMeter when you want to think about something again, and it will ensure you remember. A task can have multiple reminders, so you can check it off when today's work is done, and continue it later. <comment><USER3> Having used a whole bunch of different TODO systems I have found there is only one that actually works.

1\. Have a huge whiteboard on your wall so you can't not look at it

2\. Write down all your tasks for the day

3\. Estimate how many pomodoros each task will take

4\. Cross off every task as it's done

This seems to work mostly because it's impossible to hide the TODO. It's not an app you close, it's not a website that gets buried in tabs, it's not a notebook you flip to a different page.

It's just simply always there. Judging you. Encouraging you.

Plus it's really really satisfying when you get to cross off an item and even moreso when you get to see the whole whiteboard crossed off at the end of the day.

<comment><USER4> I've been fantasizing for months (if not years) about a wall-sized display that I could sync with my digital todo list. I don't care if it's monochrome, if it takes 5 seconds to refresh, or has pixels you can see from across the room. It just needs to be big and legible. Anyone have any clever ideas for building such a display?

<comment><USER5> I've thought about buying a cheap Android tablet and mounting it on my wall for the same purpose. It'll probably be 5-8" display, but it'll have touch screen.

It'd be easy enough to write my own TODO app and just have the tablet display that webpage with auto-refresh and have big text and buttons like 'complete' or 'snooze' a task.

I've also been developing my own sensor network around the apartment, so it'd be nice to display that. No more needing to look at the small master display or check webpage on computer.

<comment><USER6> A colleague at my previous job hacked a digital photo frame to display his calendar. It had about a 6 inch display as I recall. I don't remember if it had a touchscreen but it did have next/previous buttons which was good enough for the task.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a little confused by how this works. The introduction just confuses me more - <http://blog.lazymeter.com/tour/introduction/>

The stop sign stands for "save" and "unscheduled"? Pause is "planned" and "scheduled"? Huh?

I just need a simple daily to-do list, and <http://teuxdeux.com> works for me because it _is_ really simple and clear. I like the direction LazyMeter is going in, but I don't like having to learn and remember all sorts of symbols and what they do.

<comment><AUTHOR> We optimized for long-term time savings. The side effect is that it takes 5-10 minutes to learn. We know we need to add a video to the site - there's a 2-minute intro video in our user guide here: <http://blog.lazymeter.com/getting-started/>

We're using an analogy to a music player. A playing task means you have to think about it today. A paused task means it's scheduled for the future. A stopped task means it's saved for "one day". This analogy is what enables us to make task management so fast.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> On my iPhone, it redirects to a mobile version login page. No option to register, or to see what your app is about.

Now I've got to get off my lazy ass and turn on my PC to even see what the hubbub is about.

Please consider giving mobile visitors an option.

P.S. You better be pretty freakin awesome to make me switch from Nozbe.

<comment><AUTHOR> Point noted - we've added a work item to support new users on the mobile version.

You'll find us very different from Nozbe. Nozbe follows Getting Things Done, while we have developed a totally new workflow. LazyMeter isn't just a tool, it's an alternative to GTD. Our workflow is intended to be much closer to how the mind naturally processes tasks.

<comment><USER9> Added a work item to.. your own LazyMeter account? Now anyone here with a smartphone can see just how effective your service is!

<comment><AUTHOR> to... our redmine. Actually, you make a good point. We are not project management or group collaboration. We never said we were. There's a difference between task management and project management that is very frequently misunderstood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a good landing page (in my very, very humble opinion) but the blog post "LazyMeter: Not Another Task Manager"

[http://blog.lazymeter.com/2011/07/31/lazymeter-not- another-t...](http://blog.lazymeter.com/2011/07/31/lazymeter-not-another-task- manager/)

seems to do a good job of explaining the philosophy of the service.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, it's challenging to present the product in a short and sweet way, while also making details about our philosophy discoverable. Working on this.

<comment><USER11> Question: It seems (to me) that a lot of landing pages look very similar - I'm not a designed, so is there a template out there that could be used, or are all of these built individually, from scratch?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Offtopic: does anyone know any easy to use task scheduler software?

It's like a to-do list/task manager software, but allows you to create "relations" between each task, the whole dependency is a Directed Acyclic Graph, then the app automatically do a topology sort and tell me where to start, tell me the most important task node, and find the optimal route. A Gantt chart is a plus

Both desktop/web app would be OK. TIA

</comment><comment><USER13> This is eerily similar to the system I built and personally use. I never got around to polishing it off enough to release to the public. It is also based on a pen and paper to-do list, and taking things one day at a time.

In fact, your tagline is almost identical to mine. Instead of "Your To-Do List, One Day At A Time" mine is "Helping You Get Things Done, One Day At A Time."

It's not a surprise, and clearly your execution was better. Your landing page is great, as is the tour. The design does a great job of being simple and staying out of the way. I had a similar problem as you of most to-do list applications being really intrusive.

I also like the Productivity Stats, which is something I had not seen many other systems do. My program has very similar functionality. I also coded in the ability to estimate how long a time will take and track your actual time spent on it, giving one more data point to analyze.

Kudos to you for a great product and for launching! I'm definitely going to play with it for awhile, if nothing else than to get some inspiration to finish off my app. ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the careful review - we'd love your feedback since you've obviously thought a lot about the topic. So glad you like the landing page - <USER2> conversion rate is over 33%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have used todoist for a while and really like it, and just started using <http://tomorrow.do/> and love how simple it is. However with both of them I've had issues of downtime and/or the app crashing... so it makes me wonder if trusting someone else with my task lists really even makes sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> You certainly point out a good opportunity for someone to win the space on uptime. We're built on appengine so we've been really stable so far, even when 10,000+ lifehacker readers hit us last week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This looks like a good step in the right direction, but I prefer TaskWarrior for Linux (<http://www.taskwarrior.org>). It's the only to-do application on the desktop or on the web that I've found to really get the job done.

I've found it to be much more effective as a console application than many of the GUI to-do applications I've seen. Adding a new task is as simple as 'task add "Do foobar"', and marking one as done is as simple as 'task X done' (where X is the task ID number). I'm even using it on Windows machines at work with Cygwin. It also has the benefit of being easy to share my tasks with colleagues - 'task > tasks.txt'.

</comment><comment><USER16> I really like this idea, but it's the sort of thing I'd want to put in the corner of my screen while I work. As it is, it seems to require a browser window to be at least 1010 pixels wide to show all the content, which means that, however irrational this might be, I'm not going to use it because it's too overwhelming to have open all the time.

Also - a nitpick - the progress meter overlapping the vertical stripe at the left of the task list is driving a piece of my brain crazy. I expect it's a deliberate part of the design, but it looks incongruous to me (this is not /nearly/ as important to me as my first point - just thought I'd mention it too).

</comment><comment><USER17> I like the idea of LazyMeter but for me personally, you can't beat the simplicity of <http://workflowy.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> I love workflowy too, but it didn't work for me for tasks. We wanted to build something to process tasks and not just manage them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> People hate registering an account. Considering using Facebook connect or not requiring login to use the basic functionality.

During the first SaaS I put together I was convinced that forcing the user to register was providing some value. But ultimately it lead to a huge bounce rate. I probably could have had more registrations if I didn't have the main product behind a login and forced registration later on in the process.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. We had planned to allow use of the product before registration, but had (and still have) higher priority features. You're right that we should at least add Facebook connect ASAP. But we have had a pretty crazy conversion rate around 1/3 (to date, I'm not sure if hacker news traffic will convert at the same rate since it's less qualified).

<comment><USER19> The tool should be the homepage. It should just start asking me to fill in TODOs when i got to lazymeter.com. None of this registration stuff. Just super cookie me and then say "click here to link to facebook to save your list".

<comment><USER20> Absolutely agree. Why would I sign up without having first seen how it could benefit my life?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Looks cool, but you might want to move your signup bar up over the twitter line, which would put all the important stuff above the fold on an iPad.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm not sure that I see anything new or (edit:) _more_ useful here, which is obviously critical in the landscape of to-do apps. What am I missing?

Like most people, I struggle to stick with one method and revert to pen and paper more often than not. One app I've had some success with is <http://teuxdeux.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> LazyMeter is specifically built for people that keep returning to pen and paper after trying the various task managers. We are faster than pen and paper, and more rewarding. The problem with to-do lists is they're overwhelming. No matter how much you do, there's more to be done. We've built an experience around feeling better at the end of the day. We show you how much you do, and we provide a method to complete your to-do list every day. The secret is in the pause button, which pushes a task to tomorrow. LazyMeter is also simple: we don't ask for fields like priority, context or deadline.

<comment><USER22> So the progress bar is the main point of difference?

<comment><AUTHOR> We have a full list of what makes us different here: [http://blog.lazymeter.com/2011/07/31/lazymeter-not- another-t...](http://blog.lazymeter.com/2011/07/31/lazymeter-not-another-task- manager/)

Other key differentiators are the pause button, so you clear your to-do list each day, and the ability to add multiple reminders, so you can check something off for today and continue it on another day (most tasks aren't simply to-do versus done).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The landing site tells me _nothing_ about what makes LazyMeter better than the million other todo lists out there. It makes a huge claim that's really hard to believe, and doesn't back it up with anything.

I haven't actually tested the app—but you've really got to take a second look at your marketing site. It's a huge turn-off for me. A big let down.

</comment><comment><USER24> It's awesome. Will you ever have a native OSX client? I'd be way more inclined to use it with one.

</comment><comment><USER25> Dude, Laura love it tonight when you showed it to her at <http://www.hackersandfounders.com/> tonight. Kudos. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Great to hear! Thanks for the note.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Looks cool.

One thing i noticed: I would maybe put a "Sign up" button at the top with Home, Tour, etc. My first though was to look for it there because i didn't see it down below.

</comment><comment><USER27> All I get when going there on my mobile is a login form.

<comment><AUTHOR> We redirect mobile devices to our mobile web version, which doesn't have marketing info or even registration. We'll work on this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The tagline is really good.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, it took us a long time to get to it. We quit our jobs at Microsoft over a year ago. We knew task management needed to be fixed, but we also knew we had to develop something profoundly different than the many other options available. The key was helping people focus on one day at a time, and feel better at the end of the day.</comment></comment>


Nsync - A command-line tool for NSA's free backup services - <AUTHOR> http://iopanic.com/post/59201148142/introducing-nsync-a-command-line-tool-for-nsas-free

<comment><USER2> sends a tarball to email@example.com, would be better if it circularly routed the data from A to A

<comment><USER3> I meant to mod this up but missed the touch target. I'm sorry.

<comment><USER4> I modded it back up

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _slow clap_

Well-played.

</comment><comment><USER6> Government Builds Free Cloud-Based Backup for an Ungrateful Nation: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6012941](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6012941)

</comment><comment><USER7> "You'll never have to say 'Bye Bye Bye' to your data."

<comment><AUTHOR> We've incorporated this important statement into nsync's official docs: [https://github.com/marianzange/nsync/issues/3](https://github.com/marianzange/nsync/issues/3)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is this actually emailing the files?

> mail -s "NSYNC Backup" firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Only tested on Mac, but should work on Linux as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well just let me know when you implement a restore feature.

</comment><comment><USER10> Now we need a FOIA Request API wrapper for data recovery.</comment>


Seven reasons you should use Java again - <AUTHOR> http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/07/7-reasons-to-use-java.html

<comment><USER2> #5 seems like a very poor reason, but it depends on what your goals are.

I liked this story a lot: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2728167> (or, direct link: <http://dirkriehle.com/2011/06/30/the-java-ip-story/>)

If you're fine with using a tightly-controlled, patent-littered language environment, then yeah, Java is great! :D

<comment><AUTHOR> #5 is a catchy way of saying there's an excellent complement of open source libraries and support. Though I sure get that for many HN readers the fact that many people are doing something is a cause to question, not follow!</comment></comment>


Grids From Typography - <AUTHOR> http://blog.weare1910.com/post/72755990718/grids-from-typography <comment><USER2> Lots of hate for this here, but I have to say I actually like this blog. +1 from me.

<comment><USER3> I also like their design a lot, that's why I work with Stellan from 1910 on HypedSound.com :)

Oh and I enjoy their blog too. Love their tumblr weare1910.tumblr.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm really happy when I see bigger fonts promoted. I zoom in on most pages no matter if I'm on my big monitor on my phone.

<comment> tech-no-logical I'm not, I'm always zooming out on those hipster sites. So I guess both paradigms are incorrect.

<comment><USER5> I guess the correct paradigm is to have a format that [ed: allows] simple semantic markup and simple aesthetic markup to combine with user preferences. Like html, css and user styles in browsers. We had it good there, for a few years around y2k.

People don't distribute letters and books for consumption in Eclipse and Visual Studio, I don't see why we should distribute blogs and web sites that way, just because a small percentage of sites are more like applications than just a collection of hypermedia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ironically enough, I was reading the article on my iPad and I immediately moved the display to an arms-distance to ease the reading of such a futilely big font. Ok, hipster typography. I get it. Then I read this:

"The idea is that since text is meant to be read, our task is to make the process of reading it as comfortable as possible. This means that whoever reading should be able to do so without straining their eyes or having to move closer to (or further from) the screen. Just as if they were comfortably reading a book from their favorite armchair."

Enough with this bullshit. If you make an assertion this bold, you back it up. For real. I completely lost interest in what the essay was really about and left.

<comment><USER7> No design will please everybody of course. For me it was just about right.

So the question becomes - what is the best for the majority. What makes a useful default.

Over the years doing usability tests I've seen _far_ more complaints about text being too small, along with no complaints but obvious problems (watching people move their head closer to the screen, etc.).

Putting that together with the fact that almost nobody in the "real world" knows how to zoom in or out. That there are lots and lots of people whose eyesight is not even close 20/20\. That as age your pupil size decreases and you just get less light into the eye (see [http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/EHSL-Moran- Ne...](http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/EHSL-Moran-Neuro- opth/id/105) for example). That a bunch of research work on font size and legibility has been done (see the sources on [http://guidelines.usability.gov/guidelines/113](http://guidelines.usability.gov/guidelines/113) for example.)... and I'd rather err on the size of slightly too large than slightly too small.

Again and again I come across designs put together by a designer in their twenties with 20/20 or better vision that just fails miserably when used by "normal" people.

And it will certainly not please everybody. No design pleases everybody. There's a huge amount of non-utilitarian stuff around how people react to designs. Just having things be different from "normal" can cause folk to react badly against something.

I sometimes wonder if the approach some developers have to typography is driven from us spending so much time looking at code full of of long lines where getting the most text possible on the page is utilitarian in ways unrelated to just reading from top-to-bottom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> »Currently we find between 18 and 22 px to be reasonable for desktop webpages«

\- and why is that? Sounds like a horrible reading experience. Browsers "default" to 16px.

<comment><USER9> For how long have browsers defaulted to 16px? By how much has the average resolution increased in that time? I agree that it's best to leave the base font size at the default, but I also think there's an argument for that default to be increased.

<comment><USER8> That might be true, but I have yet to find a compelling argument for it. Personally, I dislike reading at that size (> 18px), and every time I ran tests, the users were more inclined towards using a smaller font size, usually at around 14/16px.

In the end, I suppose it's more about using a proper baseline, and making sure the grid hold up, when users feel compelled to enlarge the text size themselves.

Opinion pieces:

[http://ia.net/blog/100e2r](http://ia.net/blog/100e2r) & [http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/10/07/16-pixels-body- co...](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/10/07/16-pixels-body-copy- anything-less-costly-mistake/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you use Firefox and use the page zoom feature a lot, I recommend the add-on NoSquint ([https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/nosquint/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/nosquint/)). It gives you more control over zooming, most significantly the ability to choose between text zoom and full-page zoom on a per-site basis.

</comment><comment><USER11> I get that it can be a bit easier in the eye, but for me this style doesn't work on many levels.

1) You have to scroll a lot, and scrolling means a tiny pause, move to the next point and resume reading; which done regularly becomes distracting.

2) You see the text in pretty tiny amounts. Maybe it's fine for a short and simple blog post like this one, but if it was displaying a complex text in longform this style would make it harder for you to understand it.

3) Finally, from a purely aesthetic and subjective point of view, a text with a very big font, lineheight and short lines looks like a book for children.

I think the optimal the solution is easy, let the user at least choose the font size he prefers. Line-height and width would be great, but just the font size should be enough. Of course, having a good default is very nice, but an opinionated design which gives you no way to tweak it is a nightmare when you feel uncomfortable with it.</comment>


Ask HN:  When does the new $150k Start Fund investment kick in? - <AUTHOR>

Does it kick in at the beginning or end of the YC program? <comment><USER2> At the end from my understanding. You get the seed amount in the beginning.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, cd. does anyone know for sure?</comment></comment>


Meet The 10 Patents Yahoo Is Using To Sue Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://paidcontent.org/article/419-meet-the-10-patents-yahoo-is-using-to-sue-facebook/

<comment><USER2> I. Am. Speechless.

I'm no patent expert but to me... these patents are so vague and so obvious that I cannot believe they've been granted in the first place. And secondly, that Yahoo is actually delusional enough to think they'll hold up in court. These are "glitter patents" at best. Things you patent to look strong in front of investors. But they amount to nothing when it comes to actually trying to enforce them. Then again, with our "great patent system with terrible enforcement of rules" who knows...</comment>


Google Staffers Share Stories of 'Systemic' Retaliation - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/google-staffers-share-350-stories-of-systemic-retaliation <comment><USER2> Perhaps I'm still too naive and innocent, but I don't think this represents the overall reality of the company. A lot of people participated in the protests mentioned and only two statements of retaliations were given (edit: or at least leaked to the media), with "more than a dozen" shared during the meeting in question. Given the sheer size of the company, if there was "systemic" retaliation I'd expect these to be in the order of a few hundreds, or many dozens at the least.

In addition, we're only seeing this from the perspective of those who feel they were retaliated against because of those protests, with absolutely no additional context or perspective of the managers/execs/peers (which I think we will never obtain for rather obvious reasons).

Personally, I have found Google to have a really open culture of communication. You're generally free to give your opinion. I'd be much more afraid of retaliation from peers due to something I said being considered offensive by some of them, than by an executive or my manager due to speaking out against the way the company does things (which happens all the time and by large amounts of employees). Of course that's just one experience and I may have been lucky with my own team.

disclaimer: I recently joined Google but I'm only aware of these incidents from media publications such as this and everything above is just my personal opinion on the incident.

Edit: Added that "more than a dozen" other stories were shared in the meeting according to the article, as I had originally missed that.

<comment><USER3> For each reporter - how many people do you think did not report? Do you honestly think ALL people reported? If its not dozens unreported per one report (or more) I'd eat my hat.

In my history of corporations, almost all bad behavior goes unreported because those in power are doing the bad thing. It seems like Google is not different in this respect.

<comment><USER4> > For each reporter - how many people do you think did not report?

For group discussions with no negative impact, there tends to be a 1-9-90 rule. 1% of the group is highly active, 9% are somewhat active, 90% are passive.

I believe it's safe to assume that similar ratios can be found in incidents like this - 1% or fewer will go public, 9% will go to their colleagues, and 90% will suffer in silence.

<comment><USER5> > _For group discussions with no negative impact_

And remember, we're talking about _cases of negative impact_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Google workers again showing that they do not plan to understand how google really makes money because their salaries depend on not understanding it.

<comment><USER7> ...or they are trying to convince Google to find a different means of making money.

<comment><USER8> And will destroy the company in the process.

They already sunk a large military contract and are setting their sights on AI in general. If Google accedes to all the various pet issues of individuals working there then they won't have a business anymore.

This is the risk of appeasement. Google (and every company for that matter) should try a new stance: If you fundamentally disagree with the areas and methods that our leadership has chosen for our business, then find a new place to work. Working for a company while using it as a staging ground for a coup against it is unacceptable.

<comment><USER9>
        > Google (and every company for that matter) should try a new stance...

The "stance" you describe is not a new stance at all. It is a very old one-- as old as working-for-the-man itself.

Perhaps it was pipe dream to actually believe the "don't be evil" pledge?

Whatever the case, the outrage of the dissents does seem cloyingly naive and I find it difficult to feel sorry for them. Maybe it's time for people to learn that "mega-corps" aren't exactly the best place for idealists after all.

It might be a good thing for google to shed some talent to the wind and see what comes of it. Who knows, it might lower housing cost and seed many more start-ups and small businesses with new people.

<comment><USER10> New stance _for Google_.

As for "don't be evil" that became useless a long time ago, it was just an invitation for everyone to describe their pet hate as "evil" even when that was clearly over the top. When I worked there I routinely saw trivial things like reskins of Gmail be described as evil (because we're ignoring feedback from users who didn't like it!). The word became debased to the point that it was worthless to even have such a slogan.

All the current issues are morally debatable at best, and simply not evil at worst. Even if you consider the US military hopelessly bloated, for example, is their view that the USA shouldn't have an army to defend itself at all? If not, why not, and how is it consistent with wanting Google to not be involved in such matters?

<comment><USER9> I come to a similar conclusion as you but from an opposite side.

It really is morally indefensible that Google provide technology for military drone warfare (for example). If someone working at Google finds that ghoulish, it is their responsibility to speak up about it and leave (or be fired) if that's what it comes down to. Lucky for them, they probably have plenty of job prospects and don't "need" Google.

Similarly for the military, they're perfectly capable of funding and staffing their own research centers on novel ways to incinerate human beings. Does a surveillance capitalism platform really need to do that for them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't know the specifics here but I wonder if this is a correlation/causation issue. If a bunch of people walked out, and afterwards some of them feel mistreated for whatever reason, it seems easy to assume it's retaliation. It could very well be some completely separate issue (reorg, change in priorities, etc..). Google management is really in a bind here.

<comment><USER12> How often does a reorganization or "change in priorities" cause management to force healthy and capable employees to take sick leave? Particularly at a company with an unlimited sick leave policy.

It seems to me they're trying to "encourage" these people to leave rather than fire them because that _would_ look like retaliation. Google management isn't in bind, they're using the same playbook that has gotten them into trouble time and again.

<comment><USER13> About half the ex Google employees I've spoken to recently talk about projects starting and getting cancelled frequently and often with little warning. It would be suspicious if these events were limited to the people that protested, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Not to mention, while raising complaints about sexual assault would be protected, criticizing Google's decisions to do military contracts and open in China are not. If the company doesn't like what you're saying, and it's not specifically in one of those protected categories, then the company can fire you.

<comment><USER12> You're absolutely correct that a company can fire you for expressing an opinion but I think there's an important distinction that's often missed in the discussion because these are white collar employees.

If an employee had simply made a public statement critical of government contracts they could be fired for cause and it would be a non-issue (from a legal perspective, at least). But where Google runs into retaliation trouble isn't with _what_ the employees have said but with _how_ they're saying it: in a group.

Employees have an affirmative _right_ under the NLRA to join together and engage in "concerted activity" to advocate for their interests and to do so _without interference or coercion_ from their employer.

It doesn't matter whether the employees are critical of sexual harassment or the food in the cafeteria, if two or more of them are making the statement jointly then the matter is far more complicated because the employees have additional rights.

<comment><USER13> > Employees have an affirmative _right_ under the NLRA to join together and > engage in "concerted activity" to advocate for their interests and to do so > without interference or coercion from their employer.

For discussing working conditions like better pay, better benefits, etc. Not for getting on a soapbox and proclaiming that your employer is being morally bad. Yes, it absolutely does matter whether the employees are talking about sexual harassment vs. making moral criticisms of Google.

<comment><USER12> > Not for getting on a soapbox and proclaiming that your employer is being > morally bad.

Criticizing management (for example, for soliciting and accepting government contracts) and advocating for change to company policy (for example, to no longer sell controversial technology to government entities) is well- established protected concerted activity.

Additionally, political speech (for example, "we don't support selling controversial technology to government entities") is also protected when there is a direct nexus between the political speech and the employees' interests "as employees." (The NLRB was feeling lazy the day they came up with that definition...)

Recently the NLRB ruled that a company wrongfully fired employees in retaliation for missing work to attend a pro-immigration protest. IIRC the company hadn't even taken any actions against the employees (or in general) that could be considered "anti immigration" but their group attendance of the protest was protected concerted activity.[1] And the employees in that case missed their shifts at work (generally a fireable offense) _and_ they weren't even criticizing management - they were criticizing the federal government.

[1] [PDF Download] [https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d458270d0e8](https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d458270d0e8)

<comment><USER13> You should read your link in greater detail. The NRLB recommended taking the employer to court in that case, but we'd have to see how that case plays out to know whether firing employees for skipping work to attend a protest is not legal. The NRLB is quasi-judicial, their word is not law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm sure Google has never been perfect, but it used to sound like a great place to work free from much of the bullshit that goes on in other companies. I envied those that got to work there for that reason. I'm sure it's still a long way from turning into an Amazon or Microsoft, but I hope it takes some active measures to avoid sliding down that slope.

<comment><USER15> Is Microsoft still a bad place to work? My impression was that they've gotten their act together over the past decade, and they're near the top of my list for the next time I look for a job. Their strategy and execution seem a lot better from the outside, but I don't personally know any employees to verify what it's like to work there.

(I can personally attest to Google being a demoralizing catastrophe of mismanagement, and many of the colleagues I most respected while I was there have left in frustration or in protest.)

<comment><USER14> It definitely improved over the past few years. But a lot of the people who made it to the top under the old system of bullying and undercutting your peers are still in positions managing people, so you can still see a lot of capriciousness, bullying, politicians hiring politicians, retaliation, so on. Stack ranking is meant to be long gone but you still see managers handing out zero ratings to teammates that clearly don't deserve it.

<comment><USER16> A few millennial classmates of mine (graduated '15 or so) say similar things about the company culture. The previous systems in place and the existing old guard have affected their experience working there too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> That's what happens When Google hired Wall Street executives to manage their actual business: all sort of politics and purging. Reducing cost by most primitive capitalism means(just look at the quality downturn of google cafeteria)

<comment><USER18> Google's Cafe food has actually increased over last 4 years I've been at Google.

MK Snacks are better. Coffee Better.

Its less cost cutting and more about logistics. You can't buy Mom & Pop created chocolate for 60k Bay area employees spread across 100 offices. We'd be consuming > 100% their supply. Most of the changes are around streamlining our logistics in the bay area to single suppliers.

As for w-street's changes, its not all negative. E.g. When I First joined google I heard of a team spending 10mil on an experiment by buying custom hardware to test form factor...the same experiment could have been done with a 1000$ foam/clay/3d printed mockup. People like Ruth have tought many teams in google to be more frugal.

<comment><USER19> Dear cobookman. You are batshit insane. I haven't seen a snack in an MK that I actually wanted to eat in over a year. I am pretty sure many of the same packages have been there for that entire year. I may start marking them with a sharpie to confirm my suspicions.

<comment><USER18> What office? Main campus in MTV is meh. But SFO / snv / the few smaller offices in redwood City and Palo Alto have some great snacks.

I'd also recommend checking out the playa Vista office in the spruce goose hanger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's troubling that individuals developing AI applications at Google don't have a voice to raise ethical flags or whistleblow.

<comment><USER20> Well, forget about AI ethics.

I actually personally know someone who was retaliated at Google for raising a basic OSHA violation..

<comment><USER21> > I actually personally know someone who was retaliated at Google for raising > a basic OSHA violation..

People are still complaining about not enough bathroom stalls? That issue has gone on for so long that I feel like the original person that decided that was an OSHA violation might be wrong. OSHA has had plenty of time to step in and assess penalties, their lack of action is suspicious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There's a key difference being over-looked here.

Rank-and-file employees have strong legal protections against retaliation for unionization efforts. Employees in management roles do not.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Google to attempt to transition union organizers out of a management role.

Of course, "management" is a term that is extremely vague inside Google; at least historically "Tech Leads" would not have been considered managers, so there could be an extremely low proportion of the company in a managerial role.

<comment><USER23> > I think it's perfectly reasonable for Google to attempt to transition union > organizers out of a management role

I wouldn't have thought managers would be welcome in a union in the first place? Doesn't a union represent workers _against_ management?

<comment><USER24> In established US unions often anyone in a management role is not allowed in the union.

Having said that unionizing activities are widely protected so ... talking about a union and such is allowed broadly so it would come down to what the actual established union rules would be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's shocking to me that Googlers are using internal/workplace email to organize. These discussions should be moved to a place that is outside Google's reach—have them on Signal, Slack, ProtonMail, whatever. This in is the 0.1% of cases where it's really ill-advised to be using Google tools for organizing.

<comment><USER26> Can anyone think of a reason the organizers would have decided to use workplace email for this?

<comment><USER27> It's honest. It's transparent. It's trusting. And it's protected by the law and could easily accounted for during discovery for a lawsuit (not a lawyer, do not play one on tv either).

<comment><USER25> Being transparent and trusting towards your employer is fine as long as your efforts are ineffective. Once they start to have an impact, it helps not to be totally reliant on your opponent for your ability to hurt them.

Legal protections are not very helpful in a context where the other party has unlimited legal resources and time is not on your side.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I know this isn't a popular opinion here, but the reality is that Google has created a hotbed for activism, espoused very political opinions internally, hired Twitter activists, played with identity politics, fired people for right of center political discussion...

Now they are having their dirty laundry aired in the media (the same media that is aligned with the social activists they've been courting). This was the inevitable outcome of playing these games and they have absolutely reaped what they've sown. Hopefully this will be a lesson other companies can learn from and we'll start to see a return to "business" instead of "activism+business+social media outrage".

</comment><comment><USER29> > the company's lawyers urged the U.S. government to give companies more > leeway to reign in rebellious employees from organizing over workplace > email.

I'm all for tech workers organizing (or dare I say "unionizing"), but it seems like a no-brainer to use non-work email. There are plenty of other free options, including Gmail. If Google retaliated against an employee for something they sent from a personal Gmail account, they would be in a whole lot more trouble.

<comment><USER30> It's likely you're missing why they're using work email: It's a way to broadcast and promote the concerns to people who aren't already part of their organized action. From what I've read, there's an incredibly large number of not-work-related email lists internally at Google, they have somewhat of their own private little Internet world there.

So "organizing" with their work email wasn't about "the organizers talking to each other", it was about getting people to join the Walkout.

<comment><USER29> You're right, I was forgetting about how Google is its own internet world. The meat-space protections for labor organizers could reasonably apply to email lists, and sending a message to some internal list is easier than putting up flyers in the cafeterias.

Still, internal not-work-related mailing lists seem like a bad idea for all involved. For an example that cut the other way, see jwz's "Bad Attitude" list at Netscape, which got subpoenaed by Microsoft:

[http://www.wired.com/1998/09/microsoft-subpoenas-bad- attitud...](http://www.wired.com/1998/09/microsoft-subpoenas-bad-attitude/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is old news. Wasn't there a prominent case of a Google developer alleging that they were fired in retaliation for protected activity relating to political beliefs as well as work conditions? I'm happy that this kind of stuff is being taken more seriously this time around, but let's acknowledge priority and credit, where credit is due.

<comment><USER32> that was my first thought as well

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Unionize ! Unions are not just about pay. They are also an effective shield against retaliation by management.

<comment><USER34> Indeed. I never tire of the hypocrisy in how these allegedly "progressive" and "left-leaning" tech companies resist unionization.

<comment><USER35> Are they allegedly progressive and left leaning? I thought libertarianism was the unofficial state religion of the SV elite.

<comment><USER34> The top brass are probably as you say. The rank and file, at least as I read, are quite sympathetic to causes and issues we'd generally say are politically supportive of union formation. Why haven't we seen any serious effort from within? Maybe it's not so bad over there. Maybe these "retaliation" stories are few and far between, and we're only hear the employee's side of the story.

<comment><USER36> SV in itself is this: I support things as long as it benefits me or doesn't change my life.

e.g. Let the immigrants in! (But don't build any housing because then they could afford it here) Global warming is real and we should do something! (Ok - let's mandate solar panels on all /newly/ built homes) etc.

People here are very much self interested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It sounds like the issue is people in some sort of management or leadership role who are also leading protests in the same area (AI ethics)? This isn't exactly a conflict of interest, but it sounds like a conflict of something?

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm not sure this is a problem. Of course a company is going to retaliate against employees that are protesting instead of working. What did the protestors honestly expect? That they would get promoted?

If I ran a company, and my employees were protesting decisions that I thought were in the best interest of shareholders, I would first listen to them. If after listening I still believed the course of action was correct I would have no other choice but to punish/fire them. It's not the protestors' job or responsibility to go around the company again and again instead of proper channels.

At some point, your morality and the morality of corporations and capitalism will always conflict. Is Google going into China a decision I like. No, it's not. Would I maybe be upset if I was a developer on a censored search engine? Of course.

But is it the right thing to do for the shareholders? Yes! Of course. China is a huge market and represents massive potential for Google. They have a moral responsibility to maximize profits for their investors and that should always be the primary mandate for companies (unless they are a B corp, like Etsy).

This will naturally conflict with personal morality, as it should, but cognitive dissonance is always a given. The only question is whether you recognize and accept or deny it's constant presence in everything.

<comment><USER39> The company also has a legal responsibility not to retaliate against workers for engaging in concerted action. The obligation to maximize profit is subordinate to the obligation to follow labor laws.

<comment><USER38> Only when following those laws in more profitable than breaking them.

<comment><USER39> Absolutely not. There is no precedent for a corporation being legally required to maximize profits to the extent of breaking the law.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Food Truck STL - Mobile Food Dashboard for St. Loui - <AUTHOR> http://foodtruckstl.org

<comment><AUTHOR> Story of me building it here:

<http://philipithomas.com/2012/06/introducing-food-truck-stl/>

Basically, I was hungry and wanted an easier way to find my food trucks. Consider it a 'weekday project.'

I know that loading takes a little time, but running this many twitter queries server-side was a pain in the butt and the caching so it wouldn't crash was proving to be annoying, so I currently have it set to render client-side with JQuery. I'll update it to cached server-side api calls if anybody uses it.

</comment><comment><USER2> Cool, would appreciate one for Los Angeles. I think it would look better if the lines matched up.</comment>


A 4 year progression of startup offices - <AUTHOR> http://www.xobni.com/blog/2010/01/14/our-new-digs/

<comment><USER2> Xobni Basic is crippled compared to Xobni Plus in a way that doesn't turn me off completely to the light version and has gotten me to convince the boss that Xobni Pro is worth them coughing up $29.95. Although the free version should at least allow search operators: AND, OR, "", etc.

<comment><USER3> I think we'd all agree that it's pretty difficult to get away with naked market segmentation -- why domnmod a guy for complimenting a successful implementation that _worked on him_?

<comment><USER4> Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual article?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Neat post, but I would have loved to see full-res pics instead of the little ones. I enjoy seeing the small details in everyone's setup.

<comment><USER6> You can find a slightly better (although not full-res) set here: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/xobni/sets/72157623087041573/>

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the link, but I was talking more so about the earlier versions of their "office" and not so much about the most recent.

<comment><USER6> Understood. On a related note, you may enjoy Officeal - a showcase of creative workspaces: <http://officeal.com/>.

<comment><USER5> I usually go to Deskography.com :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Crystal Tower may be great, but it's a total eyesore for everyone else in the area. Anyone know why it was allowed to be 2-3x taller than the other buildings in the vicinity?

</comment><comment><USER8> I had a meeting there when Twitter was still laying carpet. Never saw it completely finished - it's pretty sweet looking!

If you have lots of log files to manage and are open to squatters, give me a holler! ;)

</comment><comment><USER9> time to update the career page then:

 _Located near Union Square in beautiful San Francisco. Our office occupies a full floor with a ton of windows at the corner of Kearny and Sutter St_

congrats guys.

<comment><USER10> It would be funny if showing up at the correct place for an onsite interview was part of the weed-out process of candidates who don't read the company blog!

<comment><USER11> Why would you care if prospective employies read the blog?</comment></comment></comment>


750 whp from 1 liter - <AUTHOR> http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1575817

<comment><USER2> i thought this was going to be about a bike motor. 750whp _per_ liter would be a more accurate description.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some well-designed domain name checking tools? - <AUTHOR>

Yesterday I read this post from HN: http://semmyfun.blogspot.com/2010/09/get-that-4-letter-domain-youve-always.html<p>And in the comments somebody mentioned two sites that check the availability of domain names.  However, the author has since removed that comment, because he himself owns a site that provides a similar service (but is down for me right now).  Does anybody remember what the two linked sites were, or can somebody point me in the direction of some well-designed and comprehensive domain name checking sites? <comment><AUTHOR> Thanks guys! Wordoid was one of the two mentioned. The other one had a better interface than any of the ones listed so far, and would automatically check queries as you were typing across all domains, and would then remember and list the queries. I don't know if that's a helpful description at all.. Regardless, the ones icey listen should more than suffice as they all do the same thing essentially

</comment><comment><USER2> I use:

<http://instantdomainsearch.com/>

<http://domai.nr/>

<http://bustaname.com/>

<http://wordoid.com/>

<http://nxdom.com/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Found it!

<https://domize.com/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Since the post focused on brevity, was it possibly <http://domai.nr/>?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Another pretty one:

<http://www.namechecklist.com/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If it helps, the second site had some unique "startup-y" name to it as well..

</comment><comment><USER4> I think they were talking about <http://wordoid.com> and <http://domize.com>

</comment><comment><USER5> domai.nr

</comment><comment><USER6> I use <http://ajaxWhois.com> for my domain name searches.</comment>


TIL: Andreessen, Thiel, Cuban, IBM, Intel Are Against Net Neutrality - <AUTHOR> I haven't see any friends, Democrats, or Republicans (including comments on Fox News Facebook posts that I've seen) that weren't pro Net Neutrality. Curious, I searched to see who was against it beyond AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast.
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_against): Individuals who oppose net neutrality include TCP/IP inventor Bob Kahn,[172][173], Marc Andreessen,[174] Scott McNealy,[175] Peter Thiel,[168] David Farber,[176] Nicholas Negroponte,[177] Rajeev Suri,[178] Jeff Pulver,[179] John Perry Barlow,[180] Mark Cuban[181] and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.
Corporate opponents of this measure include Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Nokia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Juniper, D-Link, Wintel, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Panasonic, Ericsson, and others.[85][166][167] <comment><USER2> Cuban's an entertaining guy, but he deludes himself into thinking he's well- educated on all technology-related issues because he was a business guy lucky enough to latch on to a start-up that exploded in the early days of the web.

He's mostly a libertarian, so he's a die-hard proponent of free markets. He honestly thinks the pre-net neutrality telecom/ISP market was a free market. It was and still is a captive market where a few bad actors control everything.

</comment><comment><USER3> Are the examples listed actually against Net Neutrality as a concept, or the revised legislation regarding it's implementation? I don't think it's fair to lump both together.

Reason.com seems to be the only place that collects argument defending the overturn: [http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/05/no-the-fcc-isnt- overturnin...](http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/05/no-the-fcc-isnt-overturning- net-neutrali)

<comment><AUTHOR> That link doesn't contain any information on who's _for_ overturning it so I'm not sure how it's related to this TIL.

Also, reason.com is funded by the Koch brothers, who also funded brigading FCC comments with anti-net neutrality posts. [https://gizmodo.com/half-of-anti- net-neutrality-comments-cam...](https://gizmodo.com/half-of-anti-net- neutrality-comments-came-from-shadowy-1672248771)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So are most economists.

Net Neutrality allows the government to control the internet. Many of us believe that the internet should remain free and unregulated.

We all agree that ISP monopolies are a problem, and that's what should be tackled. It's much better to give monopolies competition that to force them to be fair.

Here's more people opposing Net Neutrality: [https://www.reddit.com/r/NoNetNeutrality/](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoNetNeutrality/)

<comment><USER5> > Net Neutrality allows the government to control the internet.

Well... Net Neutrality allows the government to prohibit certain actions on the internet. That's a form of control, true, but it's a long way from "control the internet". (See the Great Firewall of China, or worse, North Korea for what "controlling the internet" can _really_ mean.)

Governments - even free governments - always prohibit a subset of actions. We have freedom of speech, for example, but not freedom to falsely advertise.

> We all agree that ISP monopolies are a problem, and that's what should be > tackled. It's much better to give monopolies competition that to force them > to be fair.

Here I will agree with you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the issue may be the idea of net neutrality and regulation trying to promote and enforce net neutrality.

The rules being overturned now are fairly new and weren't very good when implemented. The answer should be to reform, not remove entirely.

But just saying all of these people are against net neutrality is not accurate and can especially be misconstrued currently as the world divides into simplified pro/anti groups.

</comment><comment><USER7> Amazing, an account created 5 days ago posts something about net neutrality.. shocker.. who's behind this account called "please_choose" ?? ???!?

</comment><comment><USER8> I think this could be an interesting post, but I'd rather see it in the form of a longer blog-or-Medium-like post.

If you feel like it, you should write something up about it like that and share it out.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why would it be better as a medium post?

<comment><USER8> Blog or Medium post. Medium has an advantage that it is a bit more capable in virality out of the gate as Medium will recommend posts to users based on their interests. A posting on an obscure blog I won't see, but a Medium post might get recommended to me the next time I'm bored and pop open the app.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Name of current web design trends (with more whitespaces and white)? - johnx123-up For example, https://www.clickbank.com/ & https://statickit.com/ have more white color and whitespaces <comment><AUTHOR> This seems to be cutting edge web design. You would need to follow the trendsetters directly to get a name. They may not have even named it yet. Try emailing the websites admins.

<comment> johnx123-up Thank you

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> It's called copy-cat culture. It exists in just about every facet of human society.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Inspired by Bootstrap"</comment>


Apple just had its first annual revenue decline since 2001 - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/25/13410020/apple-annual-revenue-decline-first-2001 <comment><AUTHOR> Thought it was an interesting antithesis to Tesla's announcement</comment>


What it's like to wait in line for new iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/iphone-5s-5c-launch-recap-2284480

<comment><AUTHOR> this is really cool - i used to work above the apple store.</comment>


Millions of workers believe they are bound by non-binding contracts - <AUTHOR> http://thespeakernewsjournal.com/business/millions-of-workers-are-bound-by-non-binding-contracts/ <comment><USER2> There are other ways in which the papers you sign might not be as binding as you think. Story time.

A while back, the startup I worked at was acquired by a large company known for its aggressive legal department. Everyone had to sign an agreement, including both intellectual property and non-compete clauses, or be fired. One guy actually did refuse, and was fired. A few years later, I left that big company to work for another startup. I was concerned about that non-compete, so I did a bit of checking and found that it was NOT A CONTRACT as far as the law was concerned. You see, a contract by definition requires consideration on both sides. The relevant courts had repeatedly found that an offer of _initial_ employment counted as consideration, but an offer of _continued_ employment did not. Thus, what I had signed was not a contract. Legally, it wasn't a non-binding or unenforceable contract. It was a non-entity. A piece of paper with some irrelevant squiggles on it.

I've heard that other ex-employees (and their lawyers and the courts) reaching the same conclusion is the reason that the big company in question adopted a policy of technically firing everyone from any startup they acquired, and then re-hiring them immediately under the same terms. The sole effect was to turn that continued employment into initial employment, non-consideration into consideration, validating the rest of the contract. It's now standard practice throughout the industry.

<comment><USER3> -A former employer nagged me into signing a rather draconian agreement - basically, anything and everything I came up with, be it within their business area or outside it, be it on my time off or whatever, while I was employed by them or for a period of 12 months after I had left them, belonged to them.

I signed it 'Juul E. Nissen' (the equivalent of S. Anta Claus')

Nobody bothered to verify the signature. I wonder how that would have held up in court.

<comment><USER4> Signatures are a modern thing. It used to be you 'made your mark' on a document -- many people couldn't write. So the question is, would you perjure yourself when asked "Is this your mark on the contract?". After all, many signatures bear only a slight resemblance to a printed name.

Did they ask you to sign this contract after you had accepted their offer, or after you had already started working for them? Or was it provided as part of the job offer? Did you receive any additional compensation (consideration) for signing this contract?

<comment><USER5> not sure about the OP's experience, but typically 'all your brain belong to us' forms are presented during the first day orientation, many days after the offer letter is received and accepted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It doesn't need to be enforceable, as far as the minimum wage class is concerned- if the spurious suit alone would have the defendant summoned to court multiple times over months, and likely unemployed during that time, it's just as destructive as a real, successful suit would be for an ex-Googler, if not moreso. Without wages they can't pay rent or feed their family (because this class is rarely able to accumulate savings.). If they _can_ get a job before the suit resolves, having to move shifts around to get to court appointments could make them lose it again. And that's assuming they have complete faith, somehow, that the law would rule in their favor- when they're fighting a corporation, have minimal legal resources if their own, they would have to be _very_ sure they live in a no-enforcement state- because a successful suit would end their financial life.

<comment><USER7> Justice only for the rich.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can't find it now, but there was a case that was talked about on the Mic Dicta legal podcast about this false idea that contracts are a negotiation with the employer. They're not and shouldn't even be though of contracts in the traditional sense.

You sign it if you want the job. You disagree with it: there is no negotiation. I have always refused to sign non-competes and wrote this post about it:

[https://penguindreams.org/blog/why-i-dont-sign-non- competes/](https://penguindreams.org/blog/why-i-dont-sign-non-competes/)

Usually it hasn't been a problem, but this past year I had to walk away from two jobs because they wouldn't adjust the contracts. I'm a skilled worker though, and I have that ability due to my line of work. The average labourer does not.

Even if these contracts are not enforceable, if a company sees that you have a previous employer that is a competitor and knows they make workers sign those contracts, they are less likely to hire you because they don't want to get into a court case.

California prohibits non-compete clauses in their contracts and nullifies the enforceability of non-competes from other states for workers who take jobs in California. The Federal government needs to go the same route. No employer has a right to your loyalty after you leave a company, unless they're willing to be like Germany where they pay your wages during the period of the non- compete.

<comment><USER2> I went back and forth several times with one employer over some parts of the employee agreement, all very cordial, and ended up never signing it. When I later resigned, the admin emailed me saying that they didn't seem to have a signed agreement on file so could I please sign the one she'd attached. I explained as nicely as I could that the ball had been in their court when it got dropped, and that I wouldn't be signing any version of the document at that point.

I'm not sure I'd recommend that as a deliberate strategy, but it worked out OK for me that time.

<comment><USER9> I've done this too. There have been many situations where I kinda bypass the HR stuff - kinda don't acknowledge it happened or whatever, and just continue my discussions with the people interested in getting me employed. works great. HR doesn't win those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I find it strange that one can put anything in a contract with a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it is "enforceable to the fullest extant of federal and local law" knowing what is enforceable. This is misleading at best. In my opinion such contracts should be entirely null and void, not just the unenforceable parts.

I do admit that were I in an even remotely close position to changing the law around this it would probably disproportionally affect workers, some penalty would need to be levied against the infringing party, but where would that end?

<comment><USER11> You can make an unenforceable contract in good faith though. How would you protect those circumstances?

<comment><USER12> You have a lawyer review the contract and they are held responsible if they are approving known-unenforceable agreements.

<comment><USER13> What about the case where the contract is enforceable at the time of signing but the law changes after it's been signed?

<comment><USER14> What about it? At the time it was signed, it was enforceable. So the lawyer would be fine.

<comment><USER13> Should the entire contract then become void when one subclause becomes unenforceable?

If not, how is this different from the case where a previously unenforceable clause becomes enforceable?

<comment><USER12> No. There are standard, specific clauses in contracts to prevent this. If one clause is deemed void, the rest of the contract stays as is.

<comment><USER14> But that's the problem that we've got now. Being able to have such a blanket clause encourages putting in all kinds of crap to see what sticks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I find it strange that having people sign contracts you know (or should know) are invalid isn't considered fraud. It seems to me that this is lying for monetary gain at the expense of the other party and should result in both civil damages and criminal charges in a sane legal system.

<comment><USER16> Unenforceable and invalid are not the same thing.

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

More generally, contracts can have moral weight (by the lights of the signing parties) even if the state declines to enforce it in court.

<comment><USER17> That moral weight is part of the problem. If the State did go through the bother of taking an style of clause apart, pointing into it and saying "look, you can't do this", it's because there is a moral problem with that style.

People pushing unenforceable contracts are exerting some immoral power into other people, expecting them to comply due to those others' morality.

<comment><USER16> > If the State did go through the bother of taking an style of clause apart, > pointing into it and saying "look, you can't do this", it's because there is > a moral problem with that style.

It says something about the moral assessments of the people forming the political system (plus something about non-moral political factors), but that doesn't mean that the parties signing the contract don't find the clause moral by their own lights. (And likewise, if you're a moral objectivist, the clause can continue to be moral even as the political system is making a moral mistake.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Does anyone know if my understanding is correct? The way I understand it, if you have an unenforceable contract, then as soon as the law changes to allow its enforcement, you're bound by it. Whereas if that clause wasn't there, then you wouldn't be. Hence even having unenforceable terms is a risk. Is this correct?

<comment><USER19> In the United States, a law cannot apply to anything before it was passed. This is in the constitution. I am not aware of any case where what you claim happened.

<comment><USER18> I meant that the instant such a law comes into effect, it applies to all existing contracts from that point onward, right? So any violations from that point onward could be enforced based on a past contract, even though that contract used to be unenforceable. The contract wouldn't need to be renegotiated, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Discussing wages with other employees, by the way, is something employers cannot prohibit in the US.[1] Although many employers try.

[1] [https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/pay_secrecy.pdf](https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/pay_secrecy.pdf)

<comment><USER21> I have been a strong advocate for spreading this fact to both my direct reports and to my colleagues. I will never discuss other people's salary (especially my directs', that's against company policy) but I will discuss my salary and encourage others to do the same.

If the guy next to you is making 1.x times your salary and you think he's dead weight, time to discuss it with your boss or move on. You have to be your own advocate, and you're actively hindering others from being their own advocates if you keep to that anti-union, salary secrecy bullshit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Lawyers who regularly engage in this should be disbarred.

It is abuse of the law, to intimidate, restrict, and silence. Abuse of the law should be _and is_ grounds for disbarment.

Having a degree and passing a test does not give you the _right_ to work. No more so than all the degreed people who are "under-employed".

The law holds lawyers to standards. Unfortunately, the current administration of the law severely curtails actually enforcing those.

P.S. U.S. perspective, although I expect this is not restricted to the U.S.

</comment><comment><USER23> Amazon famously did this to their warehouse workers: [https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/26/8280309/amazon- warehouse-...](https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/26/8280309/amazon-warehouse- jobs-exclusive-noncompete-contracts)

Some of the workers most affected by this sort of tactic are those that have the least understanding of the contracts' enforceability. Feels like there should be some kind of recourse for this kind of thing.

<comment><USER24> When Twitch/Amazon acquired Curse through Twitch they made everyone in the Alabama office sign very broad non-complete contracts as a condition of continued employment, but the California office was spared. When someone spoke up in the meeting with Amazon HR onboarding about the issue the representative spoke up, "Because it's legal to do so here.". The rest of the meeting was uncomfortably quiet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It probably doesn't help the murky legality question when some non-compete contracts are somehow enforceable even in the event that the employee is fired.

</comment><comment><USER26> As a practical matter, they're not wrong. If you can't afford to litigate a contract, it doesn't matter that the terms are unenforceable.

The only real solution is to outlaw even the utterance of such terms, to be enforced by the Feds. Compare, for example, how a clause like "only Caucasians will be considered for this position" would be treated.

</comment><comment><USER27> Education, I feel like many are screaming. If only they knew more about this stuff, then they wouldn't fall into this trap. But isn't this an arms race? If workers got smarter, wouldn't industry find something else to exploit, giving workers just as little leverage as before (possibly exploiting the fact that workers have to trade away something to have time to learn more)?

<comment><USER28> This depends on what you mean by "workers getting smarter". If it relates to a specific legal clause, you are correct that more knowledge of that clause would just lead to a new clause that benefits the corporation. If it relates to systematic worker protections through legislation, we might see different consequences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> If you think a non-compete is bad, look at something like a non-disparagement clause.

I'd recommend anyone who encounters a Non-disparagement clause (in this case strictly in a employment agreement) in a contract walk away from said contract.

I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice.

<comment><USER30> I walked away from such a contract because I thought it would seem to limit my freedom of speech. And I didn't want to work for people who in essence said I could never criticize them in any way. That's a form of abuse, of mental slavery.

Now I understand a contract that says some things should be kept confidential. But say what if your employer commits a crime and you contract says you are not allowed to talk about it?

<comment><USER31> Contracts involving illegal acts are not enforceable.

And I'm with you - I've never been shy with my viewpoints and refuse to start now. There's no way I'd sign a non-disparagement.

In fact, it would be interesting to compile a list of companies that do. It would increase both job-market efficiency and help rectify a bit of consumer informational asymmetry. (If I know former employees are gagged, I'm going to discount company claims on the assumption that they wanted the gags for a reason.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Besides California, is there some map or list of states and how they handle non-competes?

</comment><comment><USER33> It's unfair that companies, who have extremely high power in the relationship, can load their contracts up with one-sided and often unenforceable stuff. Employees, who are the party with low power, must accept the terms or GTFO. Then the onus is on them to spend their time and money fighting the legal battle to invalidate these unenforceable bits.

Wouldn't it be fairer if the party with all the power, and who dictates the content of the contract, must convince a judge that it's enforceable before a defendant has to lift a finger or shell out money?

Currently contracts seem to be nothing more than one-sided weapons that powerful companies use to get vulnerable people to do things that they otherwise wouldn't and can't afford to fight. Let's not pretend that more than a small fraction of employees out there actually get to meaningfully alter the contracts under which they work.

<comment><USER34> Why do you think employees have less power? Both parties have exactly the same power: to kill the deal. Contracts only happen by mutual consent.

<comment><USER35> Employers have a much larger pool from which to choose employees than the pool of employers from which any one employee may choose.

In addition, the majority of employers have (either by coincidence or agreement) landed on a similar set of crappy and unreasonable contracts. For the vast number of employees out there, it's either submit to the contract or remain unemployed.

<comment><USER33> Yes, and yes, and don't forget: employers tend to have ready access to legal advice which is too expensive for the average employee. Our legal system gives strong advantages to entities the more they can afford.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> digression: What an interesting non-news news site. If you want to give the impression that you are a 'fake news' site, this might be one way to do it. No contacts have been filled out, the site has been under reconstruction since 2013, and the stories don't have bylines or other information that would let you know who wrote them.

That said, it would not surprise me in the least if people felt bound by such contracts because they are at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to litigation. I did not see the call for better unions at the end (I may have missed it) or legislation that would provide a financial defense for people improperly accused of violating an unenforcable contract (something like an Anti-SLAPP law[1] for working contracts)

[1] [http://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment- la...](http://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law- resources/statutes/)

</comment><comment><USER37> As others have mentioned it doesn't matter whether or not the contract is binding. The fact that the company could use that contract regardless to take someone to court and drag their reputation/banking accounts through the mud is the reason why they exist.

It's intimidation.

</comment><comment><USER38> Are they enforceable in New York? I am finding conflicting information in Google.

<comment><USER39> In general, restrictive covenants are enforceable in New York to the extent that they protect the employer's "legitimate business interests". The leading case in NY last time I checked, a few years ago, was BDO Seidman, if you want to look that up on Google scholar.

Usually if there's a noncompete case, there is also a trade secret misappropriation claim at the same time. So unfortunately there is little chance that a complaint based on overly broad noncompete would just be dismissed as a matter of law in NY, regardless of how stupid the thing is.

<comment><USER40> Here's another case.

International Business Machines Corp. v. Papermaster

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Business_Machine...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Business_Machines_Corp._v._Papermaster)

<comment><USER39> Oh, that's a good one!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Can we have

#include <stdcontract> #include <boost-clause>

int main() { specialCase = "we fire you for any reason whatsoever and eat your baby"; return 0; }

And then it's much more clear? More directly, can we have libraries of contracts, i.e. convert spaghetti legal code into properly factored legal programs?

Or are we doomed to copy and pasted, IOCC winning EULAs that say that you can only use Apple if you don't nuke stuff.

Dude I just want to program a thingy, without reading 1000 pages of "WE OWN YOUR SOUL", trying to figure out which percentages of my soul may or may not be enforceably eatable.

Fuck off.</comment>


Two new subatomic particles discovered at CERN - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/2-new-subatomic-particles-discovered-at-cern-1.2840199?cmp=rss

<comment><USER2> In case people are wondering about the impact of this, it's not very interesting (to non particle physcists) unless something unexpected about these particles is found later, as these particles were predicted by the Standard Model. The exact mass splittings, of course, are useful to validate (and further improve) theoretical models of QCD.

What I find more interesting is that LHCb is licensing their eprint as CC- BY-4.0. I wonder how PRL feels about this.

<comment><USER3> Are the particles found first and retrofitted into the Standard Model? Or does the model act as a map of sorts by telling us where to look? If latter, does that mean we're not looking for particles outside of the standard model?

<comment><USER4> The Standard Model is a list of fundamental particles (electron, muon, tau, their corresponding neutrinos, and 6 flavors of quarks: up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom) as well as their interactions (electroweak force & strong nuclear force). The input to the SM are around 20 numbers controlling the masses of these particles and the strengths of the interactions, as well as a few Higgs parameters. After that, everything is fixed, so that the SM makes definite predictions about where to look to find new baryons and mesons (things made out of quarks). It's not quite so simple as "add up the masses of the constituent quarks" because the strong interactions translate into mass (essentially via E=mc^2)---exactly how big an effect the strong force has requires calculation.

So the SM is a map telling you where to look, but a very sneaky kind of map. In the sector where the strong force matters, it's as if someone encrypted a map, and for every new destination you want to find out about, you have to expend computational resources to decrypt it. In principle, you have all the information, but in practice it is hard to extract predictions from the theory. That is a very peculiar situation for scientists to be in: to have a definite, precise theory, and the opportunity to do experiments, but to struggle to compare the two!

Anyway, these particles are predicted by the SM, where "predicted by" means after expending a lot of computation to understand the strong dynamics one finds out that these particles (which are quarks held together by gluons) should be there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I suppose this is the particle physics equivalent of 'discovering' heavier and heavier elements in the periodic table -- good evidence towards existing theory, but effectively these are artificial constructions that exist only briefly and never (?) outside lab conditions.

<comment><USER2> It's more akin to 'discovering' new nuclear isomers that are predicted but have never been observed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> More technical details here: [http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2014/11/lhcb- observes-...](http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2014/11/lhcb-observes-two- new-baryon-particles)

</comment><comment><USER7> A bit off-topic, but I was recently recommended the documentary "Particle Fever" by someone here on HN. I can now highly, highly recommend it as well. Really puts this whole thing in perspective!

<comment><USER8> I just finished watching it a few minutes ago. Great documentary,

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why does nobody include the particle name in the heading? Supersymmetry?!? Click. Nope, some pseudo particle or a bunch of quarks.

<comment><USER10> "0b" [that's a copy paste, the Xi doesn't appear, the super and subscript letters do, the pi doesn't show] I'm going to guess that is why?

Though the OP does say "The discovery of the particles, known as Xi_b'\- and Xi_b*-, were announced by CERN [...]"

𝛯′⁻ works in unicode, but I can't get the subscript b nor superscript asterisk in there (cf. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_superscr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts)).

<comment><USER11> I don't see a subscript-b in Unicode anywhere.

<comment><USER10> No, me neither, nor a superscript asterisk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's the paper in question: [http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4849](http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4849)

</comment><comment> ezequiel-garzon If I may, [http://xkcd.com/1437/](http://xkcd.com/1437/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Must be good being a particle physicist these days. :)</comment>