A Software-based Approach to Identify Heavy Hitters in DNS Traffic - <AUTHOR> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/santiago_r_r_/a-software-based-approach-to-identify-heavy-hitters-in-dns-traffic <comment><USER2> I find sticky sampling and lossy counting to be useful for this kind of thing. In fact it's what I use to identify heavy hitters of my high traffic DNS servers.

[http://www.vldb.org/conf/2002/S10P03.pdf](http://www.vldb.org/conf/2002/S10P03.pdf)

<comment><USER3> This is a good choice, thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you haven't already, I recommend getting one of their probes from the Atlas program: [https://atlas.ripe.net/landing/get- involved/](https://atlas.ripe.net/landing/get-involved/)

It's basically a legal botnet where you can participate by installing one of their probes onto your network. The probe itself is free and you get credits for running it, which you can use to do network measurements like pings to various locations.

Did I mention that it's free and really cool?

</comment><comment><USER5> Why not take samples and process that instead? No need to look at all of it.

<comment><USER6> I think it depends on how big you think each thing you want to identify is. If a heavy hitter contains 10% or 50% of traffic, then sampling is absolutely a great approach. Since we're talking about DNS traffic here (very small packets), a "significant" increase in queries for one domain could be e.g. 0.01% or less, which could be much easier to miss with sampling.</comment></comment>


What Math Equations Look Like in 3-D - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/06/math-equations-models/

<comment><USER2> "It's one thing to check that the derivatives of a function are zero and another to feel the plaster taper to a sharp point."

Those are two very different things. A sharp point is not differentiable. A derivative of zero indicates a possible minimum or maximum of the function.

<comment><USER3> No, they are the same thing. What this sentence is referring to is the vanishing of the Jacobian determinant [1] (which is defined using the derivatives of the defining equations).

A simple example is the equations y^3 - x^2 = 0. This is a "cusp" (use wolfram alpha to see what it looks like) and has a singularity at the origin.

The jacobian is the matrix:

[ -2x, 3y^2 ]

This has rank 1 unless x and y are zero in which case it has rank zero. The fact that the rank is less than 1 indicates a singularity.

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)#Algeb...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_\(mathematics\)#Algebraic_geometry_and_commutative_algebra)

<comment><USER2> This seems to explain the sentence. Thank you, now I have something to read about for the next few hours.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fixed headline: "This is what 3d graphs of math equations look like".</comment>


I fear my life may have peaked. On Tuesday, I picked up Donald Knuth. - <AUTHOR> http://www.flickr.com/photos/conicalflask/5431821675/sizes/m/in/set-72157626014676300/

<comment><USER2> Until you pick up Woz I think you've got something to live for.

</comment><comment><USER3> How to pick up Donald Knuth is something computer scientists rarely talk about.</comment>


Explosion rocks Beirut, injuring thousands across Lebanese capital - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/middleeast/beirut-explosion-port-intl/ <comment><USER2> A reddit thread [1] collected 10 different angles of the explosion:

Angle 1: [https://streamable.com/xmmoa7](https://streamable.com/xmmoa7)

Angle 2: [https://streamable.com/nscx9m](https://streamable.com/nscx9m)

Angle 3: [https://streamable.com/zbjj5f](https://streamable.com/zbjj5f)

Angle 4: [https://streamable.com/saoafz](https://streamable.com/saoafz)

Angle 5: [https://streamable.com/4ga1vb](https://streamable.com/4ga1vb)

Angle 6: [https://streamable.com/lmivb2](https://streamable.com/lmivb2)

Angle 7: [https://streamable.com/mcy82f](https://streamable.com/mcy82f)

Angle 8: [https://streamable.com/zg9oal](https://streamable.com/zg9oal)

Angle 9: [https://streamable.com/zykkj6](https://streamable.com/zykkj6)

Angle 10: [https://streamable.com/22e152](https://streamable.com/22e152)

[1] [https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/i3mb1v/large_bla...](https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/i3mb1v/large_blast_in_beirut_port_area_rocks_lebanons/g0cc3uw/)

</comment><comment><USER3> It seems to have been confiscated ammonium nitrate. It had been in storage there since 2014.

<comment><USER4> Might be the hindsight talking, but, it seems so reckless to store it in a city for so long. Do other port authorities do this?

<comment><USER5> The list of reckless things our leaders do seems to be endless. This isn't really surprising to me.

<comment><USER6> Every day I understand Musk's desire for Mars more. I hope I'll be able to get a ticket. I don't think Earth can survive the next 100 years without a _serious_ change - and the "leaders" and other "elites" are trying their best to hold on to power.

<comment><USER7> It'll take much less recklessness tough, to take out a mars colony, once there is one. And a mars colony which can survive w/o regular support from earth is not even on the horizon.

<comment><USER6> Which could lead to elevated responses to recklessness that we are unable to get here on Earth. Same as with other kinds of death, the faster it is, the stronger the reaction, and vice versa.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is conflicting report about the cause of the explosion. Some say the warehouse that caught fire was storing fireworks, others state the warehouse was storage for confiscated highly explosive materials.

The Footage of the explosion looks like what a layman like me would expect a low yield nuclear explosion to look like.

In any case, sad to see this happen.

<comment> java-man It _does not_ look like a low yield nuclear explosion.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHiihPD7bLM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHiihPD7bLM)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u3xywbrHS8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u3xywbrHS8) 1:43 mark

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This was a pretty huge explosion. It reminded me of the Thiokol rocket engine factory explosion in Henderson NV.

Given how visible the shockwave is in the videos, I would guess you could get a nominal estimate of the explosion energy by calculating shockwave volume over time. The video rate of the camera would give you time between measurements, and google maps could probably provide the building distances.

<comment><USER3> Locals have found news from few years back that says 2,750 tons of NOX. was confiscated and stored in the port.

<comment><USER9> Wow, if that pans out it would be exceptionally negligent to store that stuff like that.

One of the things about being a military brat was that I got to see a number of ammunition storage locations which are easily recognized by their subterranean reinforced bunkers separated by distance :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Feel bad for the Lebanese. Can't catch a break.</comment>


John Taylor 'punched the FAA in the face': recreational drone registration gone - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPVT6XV7O0g <comment><AUTHOR> Media:

[https://www.suasnews.com/2017/05/john-taylor-defeats-faa- reg...](https://www.suasnews.com/2017/05/john-taylor-defeats-faa-registration- rule-model-aircraft/)

[https://www.recode.net/2017/5/19/15663436/us-drone- registrat...](https://www.recode.net/2017/5/19/15663436/us-drone-registration- rules-faa)

[https://www.geekwire.com/2017/hobbyist-faa-drone- registratio...](https://www.geekwire.com/2017/hobbyist-faa-drone- registration/)

and Bruce, wow! what a legend! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTvSINcnQ6s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTvSINcnQ6s)

if you have the time, listen to John stating his original case and totally pwning the FAA lawyer! [https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings2017.nsf/...](https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings2017.nsf/469F0B57EDA3C53A852580E300577ED7/$file/15-1495.mp3)</comment>


Why are the best runners from one small kenyan group? - <AUTHOR> http://www.radiolab.org/story/runners/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a new explanation to me. And if true, a good example of how "Nature vs. Nurture" is a false dichotomy. In most interesting cases, both are important, and interact in complex ways.</comment>


Nobody Planned This, Nobody Expected It - <AUTHOR> http://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/nobody-planned-this-nobody-expected-it/ <comment><AUTHOR> You can imagine their disbelief. This almost certainly never crossed their minds. What kind of tank designer thinks about mouse protection? Nobody planned this, nobody expected it.

But these things happen all the time.

Risk does not like prophets. It's not even fond of historians. You can plan for every risk except the things that are too crazy to cross your mind. And those crazy things do the most harm, because they happen more often than you think and you have no plan for how to deal with them.

Risk in most professions is managed by studying what's common. Maybe 10 topics and their solutions, said slightly differently, dominate business and investing books.

The problem is that historical risks you can study are dwarfed by risks you actually experience. There are a zillion treacherous risks, but most on their own are not common enough to take seriously or collect data on. Like mice destroying tanks.

Search the New York Times' archives, and you'll find that the word "unprecedented" has been published once for about every ten instances of the word "common." Which is a lot. Stanford professor Scott Sagan nailed this when he said, "Things that have never happened before happen all the time."</comment>


Science Fiction Interfaces (2017) - <AUTHOR> http://sciencefictioninterfaces.tumblr.com/ <comment><USER2> If you like stuff like this I recommend searching "FUI" on Pinterest[0]. It gives you some great ideas, and people have already created awesome boards[1].

[0]: [https://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=fui](https://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=fui)

[1]: [https://www.pinterest.com/akupunkturgurke/fui/](https://www.pinterest.com/akupunkturgurke/fui/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Original submit from 17 months ago, 130+ points:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14272795](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14272795)

<comment><USER4> The first time this was submitted was 2015.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sciencefictioninterfa...](https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sciencefictioninterfaces.tumblr.com)

But I don't mind, personally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> beautiful UIs but good luck teaching someone how to use any of those, maybe fictional users are much more sophisticated?

<comment><USER6> Apparently in the future an epidemic has killed off all UX designers. The result is that the UIs present all the information and actions in a single glance, and are 10x more powerful than the ones we're accustomed to.

<comment><USER7> Nah, I'd look at the UI in this movie about starship and aliens stuck in South Africa (don't remember the name, sorry), you'll see that the guy in the end has to go through bunch of swipes and dig deep into nested UI in order to manage the ship.

<comment><USER8> I think the movie you are referring to is District 9.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The image quality on this site is impressive.</comment>


Ask HN: Invite manager? - <AUTHOR>

Hey all-
So today, I was setting up a beta invite program, and I thought to myself "what a pain in the ass this is."  The next steps I realized are also pains, get the right people using them, collect bugs, get proper feedback etc.  So then I thought SWEET, uber successful startup $$$$ here I come.  And then I looked around, and found launchset, which looks pretty sucky.  So what do you guys think?  Viable product, micro isv, or just a lark.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> It's a good idea. The compelling part is that you could add additional complementary services over time, as you figure out what makes sense. Biggest drawback is that startups probably make demanding customers for a product that is fundamentally software plus configuration.

</comment><comment><USER3> Have you looked at <http://prefinery.com>?

<comment><AUTHOR> I had not. This is a little different from what I had mind. Also, seeing how many people view my invites and how many people request invites doesn't really live up to the "powerful analytics" they promise. I was thinking more along the lines of a product in which first-adopters sign up generally, and list their interests. Then as sites sign up, beta sign up pages are produced (ie. everything that is going on at prefinery) as well as bringing in some ringers who might be interested. Then you can gather feedback from participating members, and if they give feedback, we give them more betas to try.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://www.performable.com/>

</comment><comment><USER5> Niche product with customers who are broke?

Hmmmm.

</comment><comment><USER6> I would be concerned that doing something full time that you describe as "a pain in the ass" might get to be something you dread.</comment>


Ask HN: Advice about possible extortion? - <AUTHOR>

I am posting this on behalf of another HN member with less karma.
Someone close to me operates a medical practice in a fairly densely populated area of a very large city. Over the last few months, very negative reviews started appearing on review sites (like Yelp and Yahoo reviews) from users with no review history. The negative reviews are interspersed with others, which are a mixed bag (but tend towards the very positive) and probably valid. Normally I'd assume she's just getting negative reviews and move on, but she's received a fax from someone saying they're aware of the problem and can help her fix it, with a return phone number and an address that's geographically on the other side of the country. I'm assuming as soon as she contacts them they'll ask for money (or worse) to take them down. In my opinion, this is a terrible precedent to set.
I remember hearing about Yelp doing this themselves, but never a third party. Googling for the problem also lead to few similar situations. Given that the practice has very few reviews as it is, it is tarnishing her image quite a bit and she has noticed a downturn in the number of patients she's been seeing.
So far, we've been advising, under no circumstances, to reach out to this person.
Does anyone have any experience with situations like this or can offer advice? <comment><USER2> Please whatever you do and no matter how much it may hurt in the short term: completely and utterly ignore these people.

Once they figure you're vulnerable they will start to work on your account 'overtime'.

Yelp is a bunch of scum (for not verifying that a relation between reviewer and reviewee exists) and I wouldn't be surprised if they were involved directly or indirectly, the temptation must be huge. A negative review system should be run based on verified ID of the reviewer, anything less is simply setting up a vehicle for blackmail. Apparently one of Yelps income streams is to influence the sort order for paying customers, positive reviews on top. Of course that only works when there are negative reviews.

Blackmailers are cowards and as a rule they move to the softest targets, any kind of response that they've been noticed is going to backfire big time.

good luck with this

<comment><USER3> Very good advice. We had something, not quite the same but relating to some negative posts on forums, where our lawyers suggested we go after them. I spoke to a friend of a friend who is a litigator, who told me (in a friendly capacity) that "principals can be expensive things" and that I should just continue doing a good job. We did that and it went away thanks to our own user-base coming to our aid. Turned out that it was one competitor (in our case) who decided to talk negatively about us. As an aside though, we now monitor forums and social media that relate to us. The added benefit of this is that we can provide better customer service in an event where someone has a gripe and they express it publicly, rather than via our own support channels.

Anyway, I'd agree with the above advice. Tell your friend good luck. Maybe she should find a way to help her customers to be more vocal about her business

<comment><USER4> "Principles can be expensive things"...

You had me confused there.

<comment><USER3> lol. Sorry, spelling has never been my strong point :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I suggest calling your local FBI field office, and discussing your best course of action with an agent.

Most likely they'll tell you that you're on your own, but you never know. The level of loss is far below what normally interests them, but if you could show that this is widespread, that could change things.

<comment><USER6> Really think its a better idea to find out what this is first -- really could just be marketing (albeit dumb marketing). Unless there was a direct threat (wording would need to be shared here by original poster), sounds like there's not much of a case for involving law enforcement, at least at this point.

<comment><USER5> You're absolutely right; I jumped to conclusions a little too hastily.

That said, I just did a check on online reviews for a doctor I know well and whom I know has been one the most loved and respected doctors in the community for decades. I also know his reviews were excellent 6 months ago. However, today, there are now some 1 star reviews.

Hmmm...

<comment><USER7> Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Here's the thing with review sites; the reviews are not made by people qualified to write reviews. I've seen one-star reviews on Amazon because the person bought the wrong item and they didn't like the return policy. I've seen one-star reviews on Yelp because the restaurant didn't use recyclable takeout forks.

It's really dumb to put any value into the star-rating system, and yet people do it. I only look at the stars if there are 40 or more reviews. Then at least a few people with some common sense got a chance to weigh in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here is a previous discussion about Yelp's practices:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1148458>

</comment><comment><USER8> Hi, my name is Rob Frappier and I am the Community Manager for ReputationDefender. Our company focuses on helping individuals and businesses protect their reputations online.

Unfortunately, there are a variety of companies that operate under the extortionate business model that the original poster discusses. They offer "solutions" to the problems that they themselves have created. The fact that most consumer review sites do not require individuals to disclose their actual identity makes it difficult for business owners to determine the validity of reviews and to pursue legal action in the case of defamation.

In our experience, the best solution to mitigate damage done by inaccurate or defamatory online reviews is to focus on proactive reputation management efforts. Increasingly, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are turning to social media tools to help build their brands online. This provides the dual benefit of protecting against reputation damage while also creating positive content for Google and other search engines.

At ReputationDefender, we offer solutions to help business owners get started on a proactive reputation management campaign. However, there are steps that your friend can take to help repair the damage on her own. Here is some advice from our Online Resource Center tailored for medical professionals - [http://www.reputationdefender.com/how_to/online- reputation-m...](http://www.reputationdefender.com/how_to/online-reputation- management-tips-for-doctors/).

On a related note, Yelp co-founder Jeremy Stoppelman recently did an interview with Mashable.com to discuss how Yelp has added new features to try and deal with false and malicious reviews in the wake of multiple class-action lawsuits against the company. Here's a link to the interview - [http://mashable.com/2010/10/28/jeremy-stoppelman-yelp- interv...](http://mashable.com/2010/10/28/jeremy-stoppelman-yelp-interview/).

Best regards, Rob

</comment><comment><USER9> I think the review scene is going to be open to data mining for fraud detection (or some kind of karma), and I think the HN community should pay attention to this as a problem that needs fixing.

In your case, I would rally friends to place positive reviews to counter- balance the forces of evil. Involve the patients of the practitioner (usually works when the operation is smaller and the relationships are stronger).

</comment><comment><USER6> I suspect this is marketing more than anything. There are companies out there that specialize in cleaning up online reputations. Perhaps that's just how they market -- look up companies, then try to reach out to do it -- but not in a very good way, it sounds like.

Have you done a reverse look-up on the numbers (phone # provided and fax)?

</comment><comment><USER10> A simple solution is to append a request for feedback on Yelp / Yahoo to the bottom of all receipts or invoices:

Our goal at [Name of Medical Office] is to provide you with the best care possible. If you liked your experience today, please let us know by leaving a review on our Yelp [url] or Yahoo [url] review pages.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think that it would be a great time to start encouraging current patients to leave reviews online. I know there are some startups that automate this kind of thing. It's a good thing to do anyway, and it especially makes sense in this situation.

</comment><comment><USER12> I would reach out to them, though only to get their contact info. Anything that may be personally identifiable would be great. I'd also record the conversation. Then I'd take it all to the FBI. I'd also send it into Yelp, they'll probably remove the offending posts if you've gotten all that.

Extortion is just as illegal on Yelp as anywhere else.

Of course as many mentioned here, don't pay. They'll just do it to you again if you do.

<comment><USER2> > They'll just do it to you again if you do.

And to others too. Don't forget that a blackmailer that is successful is encouraged that 'the formula' works. If people en-bloc refuse to give in it will eventually stop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Record the call (if it is legal to do so), when they start asking for money, send the tape to the FBI.

<comment><USER14> Don't play police. Get real police involved and let them drive.

They know what they're doing. You're not going to do it any better and you might do it significantly worse.</comment></comment>


Getting kids on the right track with early science education - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/getting-kids-on-the-right-track-with-early-science-education.ars <comment><USER2> This article is written by someone with no professional training in education or the learning sciences or instructional design or psychology or teaching. I don't mean that as ad hominem, but everyone thinks they're an expert in education, especially when they've read one article on the topic, unaware of the decades of history and debate and disagreement and biases that are hidden in it.

The author is just accepting as fact whatever the article says (direct instruction is best), and then argues that if we had better quantitative measures of "curiosity" perhaps we could show that more student-centered methods of instruction are better.

There already are many measures of transfer, understanding, engagement, self- efficacy, and so forth that show the advantages of more student-centered and constructivist techniques of instruction in science education such as simulations, games, problem and project-based learning, interactive engagement, predict-observe-explain activities, and so forth. For whatever reason, many researchers and conservative education activists choose to ignore or dismiss those thousands of studies and focus more on studies that show the advantages of traditional instructional techniques like lecture, demonstrations, or word problems. You can cherry pick studies to support any conclusion you want. You can design and implement a study in education to show what you want to see - by using intentionally deprived (very sub-optimal) learning environments, for example. Typically, studies in favor of traditional techniques are very short, involve simplistic learning measures, and involve unmotivated students working in a sequestered problem solving environment that is nothing like the real world or even the classroom.

See the book How People Learn for a primer on this stuff - here's the chapter on Learning and Transfer (with examples that directly contradict Klahr): [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9853&page=51](http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9853&page=51)</comment>


Medium cuts team by one third - eliminates 50 jobs - <AUTHOR> https://blog.medium.com/renewing-mediums-focus-98f374a960be#.97ij4shsx <comment><USER2> Previous: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=renewing-mediums- focus&sort=by...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=renewing-mediums- focus&sort=byPopularity&dateRange=all&type=story)

Discussion at: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13321322](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13321322)</comment>


The CIO's lament: 20-something techies who quit after 1 year - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/122311-outlook-staffing-quit-254362.html <comment><USER2> Obvious link bait, but they call it bait because it works...

Seriously, fuck these people. Every month it seems that the WSJ or Fortune or Forbes is running some article about how 20-somethings are not willing to give 110% for the company. Well, you know what? Management is the whiniest bunch of entitled pricks to ever walk the Earth.

They feel entitled to developers' labor. They think that we should feel honored for the opportunity to work on their legacy Java in-house apps that have been ravaged by years of turnover, failed projects, arbitrary management requirements, low quality devs, and outsourcing. But it's an insult to their own egos for a lowly developer to ask to be paid as much as them or, quelle horreur, more!

Fun story: first job out of college, I was working in exactly this environment. It was terrible: ridiculous hours, low pay, boring projects, and lack of respect from management. After six months, I got another job offer for a company whose primary product is software, offering twice as much pay and better benefits. I went to HR, asked them to match it if they wanted me to stay, and they pretty much told me to fuck myself. Their counteroffer was a raise of around $5k and tons of opportunities for advancement.

A year later, the senior developer, who had worked for the company for 15 years and was in his 50s with a wife and kids, was fired. Not because of any performance reasons--he was pretty damn good at what he did--but because he was the highest paid person in the department and management wanted to cut costs for some kind of valuation or another. Yeah, he was quite the cost center at $90k a year. They were doing him a favor: now he's freelancing, working less, making more, and far, far happier.

Maybe in a different era it would make sense for a developer to be loyal to the company she works for. But we don't live in that world anymore. Management has done its damnedest to commodify labor and has more or less succeeded. So, let's be commodities! But if management wants to burn us like oil, they should expect to pay the market rate for it.

<comment><USER3> Obviously somewhat off-topic, but I'm irritated by this usage trend I see taking the internet by storm.

"Entitled" means "having a legal right to something", not "having a (spurious) sense of entitlement". Perhaps there's a one-word slur that means what you're trying to say, but "entitled" isn't it.

<comment><USER2> Hmm, good catch, didn't know that. Though, I think the usage is common enough to be colloquial. The article itself talks about the sense of entitlement that developers have, for instance.

Maybe a word like arrogated would work? It isn't totally right, though, and it'd be sacrificing communication for the sake of formal correctness. I'm guessing entitled has taken on its contemporary meaning through a need for a word that didn't exist.

<comment><USER3> The other point I was passive-aggressively hoping to make by grammar nitpicking is that maybe we can do without a one-word slur meaning that, since its primary purpose is for one side in a negotiation to call the other side a bunch of big fat pussies in an attempt to shame them into weakening their demands.

I imagine we don't have one word that means "having a spurious sense of entitlement" because up until recently (the last one or two hundred years) it was generally crystal clear whether your station allowed you to demand something of someone else or not, so that you'd simply throw someone's station in their face instead of trying to make a sense of entitlement into a character flaw.

<comment><USER2> Oh, totally picked up on the other point. By pointedly ignoring it, I hinting that my original comment was purposefully made to be more polemic than rational argument, in case the "fuck these people" didn't give it away, and focus on linguistic nerddom which is more interesting anyway =)

I don't see it so much as a negotiating tool, though. Analyzing it, I'd say it's more an attempt to raise the relative status of the HN tribe by putting down the status of middle managers than anything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Or, reading between the lines, "how to speak the language of value to a line- of-business-apps CIO during a negotiation". Instead of of sharpening your hackles (or whatever) when you read stuff like this, try instead (a) appreciating that _everyone on HN agrees with you about this guy's worldview_ , and (b) distilling out the guy's pain points and thinking of palatable ways to target them to make way more money than the average dumbfuck kid who signs away a _year_ of his life simply to "learn Java programming" at below-market wages.

You guys are supposed to be entrepreneurs. Here is a guy with lots of money who obviously does not understand why the world is changing, spelling out for all of us what his business pain points are. If you're going to write snarky comments about him, try first as an exercise taking out your checkbook, putting it on the table in front of you, and conducting a two-minutes hate at it. Take that, money! You don't know software development! Ha!

 _Stop berating people like this and get busy taking all their moneys._

<comment><USER5> At the end of the day, I treat entrepreneurship very differently than a day job. When I'm running a business, my goal is to make the absolute most money I can with the minimum of effort; generally that means producing something of high value and getting it into the hands of as many people as possible. When I'm wearing my day job hat, my goal is very different: how do I do cool things while making a sizable chunk of cash? Note the ordering there -- I personally am not (highly) motivated by money in something that I'm doing on a daily basis.

This guy is great for entrepreneurs -- a virtual goldmine ready to be tapped by the first person that figures out how to solve a couple of his issues in a way that can bring in the money; he's terrible for employees who want to have a fun and challenging work environment while making good money. No amount of negotiation is going to fix that, in my opinion.

<comment><USER4> I'm not at all challenging your assessment of this guy's worldview. I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that a better title for this article might have been something like "what to say in an interview for a line-of-biz dev job interview to add 20% to your annual salary".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Let me save you a lot of money and time; I call this The 20-something techie's lament: CIOs that don't understand why I'm leaving. (Note: this is largely a work of fiction based on my own experiences and desires, as well as the experiences of others.)

I work on your legacy applications, but you pay me new development wages, generally below what I can get elsewhere. You don't challenge me enough, so I end up watching cat videos to spend time between bursts of getting things done, because there's just not enough actual work to be done. When I come to you with problems, you talk about how you'll get some people together to look into it; I've never heard back.

When Google contacts me, they treat me like a human that wants to grow, learn, and expand beyond the walls of the company, not just inside it. I don't want to play politics. I want to build cool stuff, make money, and learn something new every day. You don't give me that, so I'm leaving.

<comment><USER6> Odd - when Google contacted me their recruiters were rude.

<comment><USER5> I just threw that out there since Google is one of the big fish. Feel free to substitute for any trendy employer you wish.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Even when CIOs promote 20- and 30-somethings, they often don't have loyalty to the organization, Mok says.... They will stay with you as long as they see certain things, including personal growth or personal value enhancement, whether that's financial reward or career aspirations."

Employers fire or lay people off when it is no longer worth it to keep them around. And employees absolutely should leave when it is no longer worthwhile for them to stay. Loyalty doesn't come into it. If you aren't fulfilling their "personal growth, value enhancement, financial reward or career aspirations" THAT is why they are leaving. Fix that. Don't just complain about the youngsters these days.

<comment><USER8> I totally agree. Getting laid off once will shift your world view. The company is generally going to act in its best interest, and so should you. I love my current company and feel 'loyal' in a general sense, but that's because they treat me exceptionally well and constantly throw cool projects at me.

Here's what I don't get. All of my contracts so far have been for 'at will' employment -- meaning either party can terminate employment at any time. If you want to keep someone around a while, why not have them sign a 3 year contract? I would consider signing such a contract if the incentives were right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think it's interesting that he (implicitly) laments the lack of loyalty. Current corporate culture is predicated on completely at-will employment: you can get laid off whenever management thinks it's important to "downsize" and "go lean"—how on earth do they expect their developers not to pick up and move as soon as things look better elsewhere? Loyalty works both ways.

Sure, providing challenges and better pay might help, but fundamentally, people (not just developers) will look at working for a company as only a job unless one of three things happens:

1\. The company _as a company_ is doing something the employee genuinely believes in. (Apple might be an example of that.) 2\. The company has a good work atmosphere and a proven track record of loyalty. (Google comes to mind.) 3\. The employee has a financial interest in the company. (Startups.)

Short of that, lamenting lack of loyalty is lamenting the fact that your removable cogs are willing and able to remove themselves.

</comment><comment><USER10> HN's response so far to this is disappointing.

It's easy to read the first page (or just the headline) and come up with the "you're not paying enough/your problems aren't interesting enough" response. That's what pretty much everyone who's posted here so far has said. (And that's what my initial reaction was, too.)

But that's not a terribly _useful_ reaction, and it's especially not a terribly useful one to be posting here, where pretty much everyone agrees with you already.

First, this guy understands (or at least claims to understand) a lot of the points you're all making already, and describes some of the steps he's taking to address them. (Mostly on pages 2 and 3.) Maybe it'll work for him, maybe it won't; I know far too little about the details to have any idea. In either case though, repeating the same "more money/interesting problems" thing over and over doesn't really have any effect.

Second, some of the problems he's having are actually real problems. Any company that's been around more than a few months is going to have existing systems, and it often doesn't make sense to rewrite the entire thing every time you need a new feature...even if the existing system is a bit ugly. As a programmer, that's an important thing to understand, and it's something people who don't have a lot of practical programming experience aren't necessarily going to understand. Knowing that this is a potential issue is something that can help you both as an employer and as an employee.

edit: I'm not saying that this guy actually knows what he's talking about, and that the things he's doing will actually fix the problems he's having. I'm saying that reactionary "this sucks" responses aren't very useful, especially here.

<comment><USER11> I don't know what is disappointing, I read the full thing, it sounds like your regular IT sweatshop if you read between the lines. Things like:

1) Giving the new guy an entire module to own (written by someone else). Ok, so it's an entire module, no one explains htf it works? Every job I've been to, this is how it works, and it sucks. When I write something and someone new comes along to work on it, I try and give them some help. Otherwise, you get the "We should rewrite this from scratch", because it's probably crappy looking code. New guy might make more crappy looking code, but that's the natural reaction most people have to 'a pile of code'.

2) Back in his 'day' IT guys worked around-the-clock. Seems like the shortage today is in labor, not in jobs. We no longer work around the clock because WE DON'T HAVE TO.

3) And I quote " They don't have the same notion that you go to one place and you stay there for five, 10 or 15 years. But the incentives to do that aren't there anymore because there are fewer pension plans and less profit sharing." This. So much this. I often joke about becoming a school teacher so I get a retirement package.

I'm a mercenary for hire to the highest bidder. Until I find a company that can demonstrate some kind of loyalty towards me, that's how it is. I don't particularly like it, but I have a wife/kids/mortgage and can't take a year off to start my own company at this point.

<comment><USER12> I know I'll get downvoted since HN frowns upon culture and fun, but 'qdog: code mercenary' has a nice ring to it. Get someone to make a webcomic about your exploits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I had job similar to this. I was doing a rights management console for Universal Music to control usage rights on YouTube and Vimeo. My previous two jobs I stayed over 4 years at both. I last 9 months and the CTO yelled at me when I quit.

I did not enjoy the work. I did not feel I was creating anything of use. When friends asked what I did at work I had to say "You know when you try and watch a YouTube video and it's blocked in your country? I do that." It's hard to be proud of that. I found it hard to work when I thought what I was doing was stupid.

The music industry is bizarre. There are so many layers and different people in charge it's impossible to make a descision. Even if they wanted to change with the times I don't think they could.

25% more money and working from home wasn't enough to make me stay.

<comment><USER14> I understand your feelings. One thing I always want to do in my work is to do something useful. It does not have to be much or useful for many, but it has to be useful.

Regional blocking for videos is almost the very opposite to useful in my view. SO I would not stay long if I ever started working on a such company almost no matter the pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The main reason for this kind of turnover is that work in most companies - especially the larger ones - is completely broken.

Employees are paid for the time they waste while being chained to a desk where rather they should be paid for actual work accomplished. Many companies actually value the enforcement of ridiculous 9 to 5 schedules and the requirement of working on site (rather than at least partially remotely) higher than the work you do. In many settings you can easily get away with virtually doing nothing at all as long as you do it during fixed office hours.

What we describe as work today basically is cargo cult from the Industrial Age. We're working with computers and the Internet, yet work is still organized as if we were standing at an assembly line working piece rate.

It's quite telling the article doesn't even mention the possibility of remote or otherwise more flexible working conditions. If they want to retain developers CIOs have to realize they need to forego some control in exchange for more flexible, happier and hence more efficient workers.

As for Harry Fox Agency, music licensing today is - thanks to the outrageous behaviour by the music industry - a somewhat seedy business that probably doesn't appeal too much to ethical, idealistic and loyal people.

</comment><comment><USER16> The only thing that will keep a good developer is interesting problems. If your problems are not interesting, they'll go away. The article also mentions they leave for better pay, so, I suspect they should be paying more.

Remember - being trained to work in their internal product is not really training they can use elsewhere. The company isn't doing them a favor by training them.

Also, if their programmers think building the system again from scratch is a good idea, perhaps they should consider it. "we have invested so-and-so millions in this system and we won't scrap it regardless of how obsolete it is" is sure to drive talent away.

</comment><comment><USER17> It's totally unsurprising that it's hard to keep smart hackers engaged in building custom Java software for music business rules and digital rights managZZZZzzzz

</comment><comment><USER18> > Do you find that younger IT professionals suffer from the not-invented-here > syndrome?

> They don't want to deal with something that's existing. Our systems > are...not off-the-shelf; everything is custom. Younger workers get > frustrated by these applications. They don't understand why the program does > this. They want to just write something fresh. But when we've invested in a > system as large as this, we're not just going to scrap it. The crux of the > problem is that they want to create and own their own application. They > don't want to inherit and have to be responsible for somebody else's work.

Could it be NIH that influenced the creation of system in the first place? In my experience, managers request custom in-house applications to be created for all of their custom "needs" all the time. It's a disease that young and old are susceptible to.

</comment><comment><USER19> FTA: " _No sooner does he hire a Java programmer and train him in the company's music industry niche, than the programmer is recruited away for a higher salary._ "

Pro tip: if the salary wasn't higher, the programmer couldn't have been recruited away for a higher salary.

There's nothing wrong with the programmer. You're just not paying her enough.

And yes, this is endemic to the industry. No one (outside the Big Tech Giants anyway) gives raises remotely close to what the employee could get by quitting. They only want to pay market wage at hiring time. And the employees aren't dumb.

Really the only notable thing here is that someone decided to write a news article whining about it.

</comment><comment><USER20> Its been my personal experience that a huge number of companies (all types not just 'startups') tank after a while (~5 years). When I look back if I had stayed with any of my companies I would have been out of a job anyways. Therefore, I'm quick to move on when things start to have indications of going south. Loyalty way back when was probably a good means of 'survival' in that it resulted in moving up the chain into a secure job but these days I find loyalty to be the most sure fire way to being shafted.

</comment><comment><USER21> Let's not fall for this obvious bait article. Networkworld thinks we are stupid:

"No sooner does he hire a Java programmer and train him in the company's music industry niche, than the programmer is recruited away for a higher salary. Indeed, everyone on Trebino's six-person Java development team has less than one year of experience with HFA, which is the nation's leading provider of rights management, licensing and royalty services for the music industry."

Also small article requiring 3 page views.

</comment><comment><USER22> Every time I hear somebody complain about how disloyal/lazy/demanding "Generation-Y" is, I wonder if would we would be more "loyal" if we had not seen on a first hand basis how big companies treated our parents with layoffs, cutting back benefits, etc.

</comment><comment><USER23> The CIO put it in his own words - if people are leaving for other firms, he isn't paying a market wage. You have to earn the loyalty of 20somethings. They've seen large companies lay off hordes of people for dumb reasons. You can't pay someone with short ye time horizons a sub-market wage. Pay up foe your people as they get experience, or pay up to find stable people or pay up to retrain new hires every year.

</comment><comment><USER24> Welcome to the other side of the supply/demand curve. Tech talent is in massive demand right now, finding good/great talent is particularly difficult as there's just not enough to go around.

Hence, real talent commands an ever increasing pricetag.

And I love it.

<comment><USER6> The talent is out there, and finding it is easy.

Try finding a quality company where you don't end up working for a d-bag is the difficult part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've been managing the development team at my startup for 3 years now and have had zero engineer turnover. I follow a fairly simple process:

1\. Make sure that people are learning.

2\. Let people use new technologies and give them interesting challenges.

3\. Make sure that people are paid above average salaries.

4\. Keep the hiring bar high so that smart people get to work with smart people.

5\. Demand that code quality stays high so that you don't have to work on a pile of shit.

Every time that I see an article like this I want to send the writer this list of things so that they can put it on their wall and look at it every day. It's really not that hard.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think this is due to the speed at which techies' skills rot. You stay in the same place doing the same thing for 5 years and you have a skill set that no exciting employer (incuding your current one) is going to want. That's why we all do side projects. That's why we do stay in jobs that let us constantly improve ourselves. It's not that we're fickle, our tools and skills are fickle.

</comment><comment><USER27> On page 1 this seems like a simple issue of money, then on the 2nd and 3rd page seems like it may be about a little more. But ultimately I think it really is just about the money.

I spent several years working as a developer in the insurance and healthcare industries and I can say confidently that there's plenty of developers who would love this job and would have no problems sticking around for a while. There are plenty of people who either don't want the roller coaster of a startup or else they've already done that for years and now want stability for themselves and their family.

Of course you have to pay a higher wage for these people. This guys seems like he plans to solve his staffing problem by creating interesting problems for the younger guys. I don't think his luck will be any better in 2012.

</comment><comment><USER28> TL;DR I'm losing all my programmers because I'm not paying them enough.

<comment><USER29> Exactly. If it's so easy for them to find a significantly better offer elsewhere, then he's probably paying them below the market rate. And if it costs him so much trouble to train new people to replace them, then he should be doing more to try to retain the people he has (competitive salary, decent working conditions, career path, etc.). But yeah, it's so much easier to bitch about uncommitted employees than to be a competent manager.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Pay is just part of this issue. I've seen places that paid peanuts, but treated people really well in other ways or had a mission that was particularly compelling or noble. They managed to retain folks surprisingly well.

The bigger issue is the place sounds like it is run like a feudal estate. Take the 1:1 people:system ratio. So say I "own" system X, the system is troubled for various reasons and I fix the thing.

What happens next?

My guess is that you are going to be stuck with "maintaining" this system until the end of time, just like the overachievers over in the RPG group. Or, you may get lucky and get laid off, because those 2% annual raises have made you the highest paid Java programmer.

</comment><comment><USER31> Phew, lot's of testosterone out there. There's some fundamental principles at play here. First in the economics of Supply and Demand, there's a shortage of good developers programmers, generally in the marketplace. The CIO doesn't sound like he's aware of this, obviously in such a climate, there's money to be had, if you're good? Second, Being "older" and "looking in" from the outside, there's an increasing "penchant" amongst the rising up generation, and I'm going mildly stereotypical here, "I want to create, design and make", which doesn't really gel with older traditional businesses that want to maintain codebases, that, that are key to their enterprise. Yes, they could shift with the times, and kill off decades of codebase and start again in Ruby on Rails, or similar, but at what cost? The whole iT industry goes through cycles like this every 10-20 years. Ironically, you either lose people to more innovative technology OR, later, you end paying more because it's gone to legacy and no-one around "does that anymore". Look at COBOL (before most of you were born). I love the IT industry, it's constantly changing which always creates opportunity, some struggle with this concept. Last, I think the CIO needs to recognize these and changes and adjust his approach, if you were him, with financial constraints, what would you suggest he do in recruiting?

</comment><comment><USER32> This guy has some interesting points, and does seem to be addressing the problem. I was one of those 20-something techies who quit after a year (not at his company, though).

Legacy code base, of course is not as much fun. Dual ownership of projects is a really good idea. At my old job, I was thrown into the code base with no support, and told to figure it out. I did, but it's not much fun scratching your head for a month and then writing 100 lines of code. Especially after a few rounds of this, with no feedback.

The 9-5 thing is interesting, but I don't think I could do a 9-5 shop. That might be great if you are established, have a family, and are working on a known problem, but for me, I find that I'm either 100% in, or 0% in, and there's not much in between. I think I'd get bored in an environment like that pretty quick (that's not to say that they're wrong, just that it's not for me).

As for working from home, not sure that it's too important. I mean, hopefully if you have a package or a doctor's appointment you can VPN in for the day, but as a whole, don't really care.

Ultimately though, money is a big part. At my old job, I got a stellar performance review, and a 2% raise for the year. They also bumped the baseline for new collage hires to more than it was when I joined (so I was now making less than the new college hires). I said that this was unacceptable, that my rent had gone up more than that, and that I wanted 5%. They said no, but that next year I'd be in for a promotion. I said goodbye, and they offered me $20,000 to stay. That's just broken. I left.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm one of those guys that has to fight like hell to retain talented developers, so I understand where this guy is coming from. However....

He admits it's usually about money. Well duh. Then he has to pay them more. If you want to hire great talent to work on your legacy Java app then guess what? You're gonna be shelling out a lot of money.

In our business, we work on both new, cool functionality but also have legacy code that has to be maintained. Naturally, nobody wants to work on that, but it has to be done. The trick is to balance a developers workload so that they aren't always stuck in doing legacy work. If one of our developers was forced to work on maintaining legacy code for any great length of time, then I would fully expect them to leave.

tl;dr; Pay your developers well and find ways to give them opportunities to work on cool new stuff. Neglect either of those and they will leave you. It's really not that hard...

</comment><comment><USER34> Lack of purpose|mastery|autonomy: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc> , also low salaries and being treated like a commodity in this case probably.

</comment><comment><USER35> These guys make DRM. Who wants to work on that, except possibly as a i-need- money-now-but-i'll-take-the-first-non-douchy-job-that-comes-up play?

It's like a land-mine CEO complaining that it's hard to find smart, well- educated workers.

</comment><comment><USER36> The amount of loyalty ANY employee should give their employer should be the same amount that their employer gives them - which is NONE.

My job is just a contractual agreement. No more, no less. Loyalty has nothing to do with this. Think about it, if the economy is down and they want to lay you off, where is this loyalty? If a re-org is done and you are moved elsewhere, where is this loyalty?

It's not there because it never was there. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble or sound negative. I'm not. I'm just trying to be honest. Understand this, and you'll be much happier with your career and your life.

</comment><comment><USER37> In addition to the issues raised before, I'm curious about one thing:

 _How does he treat his developers?_

For example, the guy mentions that it's mostly 9-5. Does that mean that the boss expects 20 hours days for 3-4 days for a weekend to ship the latest version of their software (for the "big X.Y release")? Do 2 or 3 of these weekends and developers see a pattern, and look for less crazy places.

Likewise, how is the development process managed? Is it chaos: "OMG GOTTA PUT OUT THIS FIRE, DROP EVERYTHING?", or does it have some planning and order to it? (I don't care if it's waterfall, Agile, Kanban or Scrum - is there some order to the system so managers know the status of the system?)

How is their status reporting? I _really_ don't like being asked every 15 minutes how Ticket 29 is coming along. Daily standups are great (and usually the best frequency. I've also done two daily standups per day, and it felt nanny-ish).

Yes, turnover is a hard problem. Sometimes it involves being generous with the benefits if you can't be generous with the salary. Sometimes it involves changing your development process.

Sometimes it involves changing _your_ expectations: engineers don't expect to be around for 5-10-15 years at a company because that's not how jobs work any more. I almost laugh when I hear the "where do you expect to be in 5 years" question, because, odds are, I'll be one or two jobs removed. (This is not just a tech sector problem: the national average job length seems to be 3-5 years).

</comment><comment> UK-Al05 I don't know why companies complain about loyalty. If it was the other way, and had no use for you, they would not think twice about letting go excess costs.

</comment><comment><USER38> I've worked in a place like this, and quit after little less than a year. They don't tell you upfront about all their crazy legacy software. The database is the Api for their applications, and the IT department gets to decide that you have to use Windows for development. The salary is average. My advice is to not take a job outside the software industry . I've never seen a place that was not broken.

<comment><USER29> A lot of people would be willing to deal with crazy software and shitty development environments if the salary and working conditions were really good. (Many consultants specialize in maintaining toxic legacy software that nobody else would want to touch.) But if the salary is just average (or below), there would be many better places to go.

<comment><USER14> Indeed, with the right team and right working environment deciphering legacy application can even be fun. So the problem is not the legacy code alone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> As soon as I saw "RPG" I no longer needed to know why they had problems...

</comment><comment><USER40> At it's simplest: The first "people" to walk out on "job security" and careers were the companies. So, fuck their incessant whining. (As yea sow, so shall yea reap.)

</comment><comment><USER41> Perhaps the CIO has gotten the product for which he was willing to pay. If he paid market rates to mature 30 year olds with 10 years of industry experience, he wouldn't have this problem.

</comment><comment><USER42> We can't pay our developers minimum wage.... Somebody call the wambulance. If you are a dev and see a manager or cio type trying to guilt you into working for less than 120k/year because that is just ridiculous. Smile and pee on his desk on your way out. These guys make 150 to 500k/year and contribute LESS.

It is intimidation, you are a tool to these guys and they will not hesitate to throw you under the bus if it saves them some cash for executive bonuses.

Its business. Supply and demand. Pay me what I am worth or im leaving. That is it. They are Borg and you will be eaten when you lose your power.

<comment><USER6> I know developers with government clearances that would be happy to make half that.

Where are there mythical high paying jobs? FantasyLand?

<comment><USER43> Maybe I'm stereotyping you as one of the LockMart/Boeing/Raytheon new hires. I know a good dozen personally. They have problems.

* underpaid

* false promises of a career track to avoid giving you real compensation like stock options or bonuses

* deep cuts when the winds of politics aren't blowing your way

* poor workplace ergonomics

The mythical high paying jobs are in the "private sector."

<comment><USER6> I continue to work for the governments larger contracting companies. Top 50 [http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2011....](http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2011.aspx)

<comment><USER43> I omitted Northrop Grumman intentionally; they seem to still value engineering prowess.

Please don't misunderstand me - there are awesome opportunities working for a US government contractor. However, the "golden days" of the cold war are long gone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That CIO is selling smoke and mirrors.

| "We invest in training people and bringing them up to speed to where they need to be, and boom they're gone"

Straight from the article - they invest NOTHING in retention. It's a separate process altogether.

| "Even when CIOs promote 20- and 30-somethings, they often don't have loyalty to the organization, Mok says."

So he's changed HR titles from "Software Engineer I" to "Software Engineer II". No change in compensation package, responsibility, or goals. Nothing that has any weight and no light at the end of the tunnel.

| "Where I think these guys would be very energized, they get almost disincentivized. The way our projects work, we bring in a developer to work on a module. These guys own a system from start to finish. To me, that's a great opportunity."

Poster child for delusional. The developer doesn't own it, the company does. He's just trying to guilt trip them

| "There have been a number of cases where we have had a system that runs into issues, bugs, defects or a major change requirement. We thought it would be a challenge for a developer to own it. But their first reaction is to want to scrap it and start over. There's a whole different mindset."

You can't hang a pine tree from your 1972 Gremlin and pass the car off as new.

| "Secondly, we're working more closely with folks to determine their strengths and desires and align them to the right systems."

If he's doing this with employees he's already too late. This should be done during the interview and assessment process before they get hired. If you just hired someone and you're first thought is "I wonder what to do with them", then duh - they're going to start looking elsewhere.

| "Third, as new developers come in, we are teaming them with a business partner to help them understand the impact of their system on the business. "

Guild trip model. After all, you've been working with CustomerX for a year now... don't you like them? don't you want to help them? don't you want them to be happy?

| "We're trying to get them more invested in the strategy. We're trying to engage them in where the company is going. "

So he doesn't want their input. This is perhaps the biggest reason people are leaving.

So he underpays, refuses to change, and doesn't want their input - and he wonders why he can't retain people?

<comment><USER32> I think that's a very cynical misreading of the article.

| Poster child for delusional. The developer doesn't own it, the company does. He's just trying to guilt trip them

Owning a project means that you get to drive the direction of it, not that you own the IP. This is very important, it makes people feel in control and that their work is meaningful.

| You can't hang a pine tree from your 1972 Gremlin and pass the car off as new.

Legacy code however is a reality of the software world, and a responsible software developer has to know how to deal with it. I'm sure that Facebook and Google have lots of old, forgotten and important code, but they didn't get to where they are by rewriting things every time they could be a little bit nicer. That said, the company has to make this as painless as possible for people.

| If he's doing this with employees he's already too late. This should be done during the interview and assessment process before they get hired. If you just hired someone and you're first thought is "I wonder what to do with them", then duh - they're going to start looking elsewhere.

Determining strengths and weaknesses is part of growing in a company. Most people out of college are smart, but mostly directionless. Very few have experience with distributed systems, UI/UX, concurrency, etc., and part of growing is to give them the opportunity to see what's out there, and try new things. If people feel like they're stagnating, they'll leave. Since I graduated, I've been exposed to things that I didn't even have the slightest clue existed.

<comment><USER6> The employees are not in control and their input isn't wanted. If the argument centers around making them "feel" a certain way, then that's called delusion.

Throughout the article there's no mention of anything tangible done for retention.

Combine that with the lack of interest in exploring a retention model and I (and seemingly most other contributors here) have little sympathy for someone crying "I can't keep anyone".

Quality people are easy to find, they're out there in droves. Finding a quality company is the difficult part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> "loyalty to the organization" why would anyone be loyal to an organization that is underpaying them? We know from watching the actions of every fortune 500 that the lowest price for labour is what they are after, employees have no loyalty because it is never reciprocal.

If the value walking out the door is so much why not pay more?

He should be congratulated on finding so many smart devs who know their value. Maybe start by thinking of people as people instead of human resources.

</comment><comment><USER45> A clueless CIO doesn't understand why people leave and refuses to pay more, make the environment more friendly, and projects more interesting. Money alone can save that problem.</comment>


Wikileaks credit card donation is back - <AUTHOR> http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate#dccard <comment><USER2> I really want to donate but honestly feel like I'll be put on a U.S. Government list somewhere of nefarious individuals who support terrorism which might have consequences in the future. Anyone else feel that too? I should just mail them some cash anonymously.

<comment><USER3> Since your name is in your profile. Let me donate in your name then, it will put your name on the list, you'll know it is there, and you won't worry about it from now on, just keep donating.

</kidding>

But on a serious note. Besides 'terrorists winning' in this game. You know who else won? Every little vindictive pest that you could run into in your daily life. Your neighbor hates your lawn? -- He can report your for suspicious behavior or just donate $5 to Wikileaks in your name.

You got a bigger bonus than your co-worker? He puts a nasty comment about the president on a liberal forum somewhere.

Possibilities for abuse abound. Once the collection of data has been enabled, data will be siphoned through. It could be decades before a court case, a new employment opportunity or overseas travel all of the sudden will trigger a search and will open that archived file and all this stuff will be there. No way to correct it. You would have forgotten about that one incident with your neighbor 20 years ago, but it will be there.

What I fear will happen is that one of the triggers to open and inspect that file will be you participating in any kind of protest. It will be a Constitutionally legal thing to do. However, once you do it, you end up on a list, and now that 'ol file gets opened again and all these things from the past start appearing. You get pulled for random searches in airport. You miss every single flight you book. Every time you enter the country you get interrogated for an hour. All your electronic devices get confiscated.

Basically, once the government is acting irrationally it opens the door for others to exploit that -- angry neighbors, scorned lover, upset employees. How do I know? This is what happened in the Soviet Union. It was for a while common for neighbor to denounce each other for 'anti-Soviet' activities, if they didn't get along. In the best case and best times, those get ignored, in the worst time, whole families disappeared overnight.

<comment><USER4> One profound concern I have is for "denouncing for terrorist activities" to become a common thing in the US as a way of dealing with unpleasant others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Despite Visa and Mastercard cutting off payments to WikiLeaks, we have found some ways around the banking blockade, at least for now. We currently have a way around the blockade with FDNN who are using the French banking system Carte Bleue to accept donations for us using your Visa and MasterCard."

AFAIK Visa and Mastercard still auth/capture the card and they've just changed their gateway provider. So if the US govt does manage to designate them as a foreign terrorist organization then it will be illegal for any US company to process funds for them.

From 2010 re trying to get wikileaks designated FTO: <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023941-38.html>

<comment><USER6> This is all Greek to me. What is FDNN? And why is this possible now, but wasn't done before? If it's just changing a gateway provider, why did this take so long? Basically, what has changed, and how is MasterCard/Visa allowing this now?

<comment><USER7> FDNN[1] is a french association created by La Quadrature Du Net[2] ("an advocacy group defending the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet"). FDNN's goal is "to collect money and fund actions and projects whose goal is to defend and promote net neutrality, and more widely free speech on the Internet".

Why it took so long, I don't know, I guess FDNN is not used to such a big case as wikileaks.

As for why visa/mastercard accept this now, they don't, all payment are actually processed by "Carte Bleue"[3], which is 100% compatible with Visa (they get their license from the european Visa company, which despite the same name has nothing to do with the american company, they only license the brand). Those license (Visa US => Visa EU, and Visa EU => Carte Bleue) are mostly irrevocable, and getting the french banking system to "ban" you because someone high up doesn't like you is much harder than what they did in the US with wikileaks.

I do not know about the mastercard situation, but the cards are accepted pretty much anywhere here so I wouldn't be surprised if Carte Bleue had the same sort of deal with them (but every Carte Bleue is not a Mastercard, unlike Visa).

Not an expert on the subject so I might be wrong on some things, but I hope it helps clear things up.

[1]: <http://www.fdn2.org/> [2]: <http://www.laquadrature.net/en/who-are-we> [3]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carte_Bleue>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> An article that also mentions Wikileaks' current financial situation - apparently they need 1 million euro immediately:

<http://wlcentral.org/node/2734>

<comment><USER9> But... why?

Is WikiLeaks really _doing_ enough to need such a large budget?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Using the same logic as is being used in the prosecution of Bradley Manning: supplying copies of diplomatic cables to Wikileaks is knowingly "aiding the enemy", a capital crime, thus giving money to Wikileaks is "aiding the enemy".

So if you are a US citizen, what chance do you think there will be that you will be prosecuted for treason if you donate to Wikileaks?

Note: I am not expressing an opinion here, merely following the logic of the recent court case against Bradley Manning.

And if you doubt the link between supplying mere money (as opposed to information) and aiding a terrorist organisation, note that an Icelandic bank was declared a terrorist organisation by the UK Govt:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7688560.stm>

Also recall that US senators have in the past called for Wikileaks to be branded a terrorist organisation:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks- te...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks-terrorists- says-leading-US-congressman-Peter-King.html)

<comment> mh- Manning is being charged under the UCMJ. He was/is an enlisted soldier. He waived certain rights, and is subject to codes and laws that civilians are not.

I'm not sure if people don't understand this or skip over it for the purposes of hyperbole..

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Edit: ooops, page loading now...I see the bitcoin donation link. Disregard this comment

This page was down when I clicked the link. Not sure what the deal is? As others have said this not a solution to being able to safely support the organization from a personal perspective.

Why are they not accepting Bitcoin donations? If they have a bank working with them it should be trivial for them to setup a Mt. ox or other merchant account to turn the bitcoins into money. I feel like this coudl solve several problems.

Can anybody comment on why they (Wikileaks) would be opposed to accepting bitcoin? Maybe a major bitcoin exchange or merchant (which already has some trust among the bitcoin community) could set up a way to do proxy donations? I see the possibility for fraud out there, but there has been successful bitcoin fundraising in the past...

</comment><comment><USER12> This is excellent news. Does anyone know if this has to do with the recent Icelandic court ruling in favor of Wikileaks [1]?

Also, anyone who hasn't already checked out assange.rt.com should! JA has been producing high quality interviews with some of the most interesting world leaders while under house arrest.

[1] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/12/wikileaks- court-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/12/wikileaks-court- victory-visa)

</comment><comment><USER13> I can confirm this works, just made a donation using my Visa card. Wikileaks is dangerously low on cash, please, if you believe in their ideals of openness, consider donating.

</comment><comment><USER14> Does Wikileaks do any evaluation of the danger of releasing specific classified information? For example, the leak (by the Obama Administration, not by Wikileaks) of the name of the Pakistani doctor that provided the key information for the Osama Bin Laden raid was arrested, tortured and imprisoned for 30 years because of a leak.

I don't understand the value of the entire world being able to read secret diplomatic and intelligence communications between nations. If we disagree with a specific national policy or ideology, then we should be donating instead to political candidates that support our worldview rather than short circuiting a process that has led to deaths and substantial disruption.

For example, as a direct result of Wikileaks, Iranian Majid Jamali Fashi was executed by Tehran for his role in disrupting the Iranian nuclear program. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran- han...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-hangs-mossad- spy-majid-jamali-fashi-for-killing-scientist-7754332.html)

The same people supporting Wikileaks are ostensibly against US/British/French/Israeli nuclear armament or anti-terrorism efforts, yet sabotage efforts to prevent these weapons from reaching the hands of rogue actors. It seems like the Wikileaks crowd is often the same crowd that blocks the Brooklyn Bridge for their own vanity, yet ignores the unintended consequences of their actions (for example, a worker being hours late for his job.) The 1% would just use their helicopters. The real power isn't affected by childish acts, despite the childish miscreants hoping otherwise.

It isn't much different than a spoiled child throwing a tantrum. Perhaps not surprisingly, the same crowd complains about copyrights and have no problem with illegal downloads. Rather than working to change the system legitimately (or through the courts,) they instead ignore the law simply because they don't like it. I don't like paying $1800 per month in taxes so my neighbors living rent free in Section 8 housing can stay up until 3am having parties while I'm trying to sleep for work the next day. But I'm not firebombing the IRS because of it -- I simply vote for the candidates who most support my views. Firebombing gets headlines, but it doesn't catalyze change. Voting does, contributing to political campaigns does, volunteering to knock on doors does.

It just seems incredibly selfish that some people feel like they have a right to every piece of information or have a right to steal any content they want without any regard for the consequences or the effects of this "freedom" on the people that produce the information. You right to information shouldn't override a person's right to not get killed because of it.

It seems like the people most passionate about Wikileaks are people that have little experience with the nature of classified information and the consequences of releasing sources and methods to the general public. Perhaps if more people spent time in public service rather than public criticism, we could really improve the governments of our respective countries. When was the last time anyone here on HN ran for a local school board election or even went to a city council meeting? When was the last time anyone here wrote and mailed their congressman an actual letter? How many people here have applied to work in the Foreign Service, the military or even the Peace Corps? I know for a fact that CIA, NSA and FBI would be salivating over the qualifications of many of you here, yet many of you would never even consider those careers because of a jaded anger or indifference towards the government, yet, the government is us. If we don't step up, things will never change. You can't achieve justice from the outside looking in. You can vandalize, steal or threaten your way to a better world.

I do agree, however, that there is a large amount of information that is classified for reasons other than protecting sources or methods, but is instead classified for political purposes. For example, the Fast and Furious documents are being protected under "Executive Privilege" for the sole reason of protecting politicians from the scrutiny of voters. The 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations files, for example, are classified not because of national security concerns, but political ones; the same goes for many 1960s-era East-Germany operations, as well Vietnam-War era documents. However, we should be pressuring politicians to evaluate the rules of classification or appoint an independent FOIA commission to evaluate document requests objectively instead of through the current lens of political expediency.

I expect to get down voted into oblivion, but hopefully, someone will get it.

<comment><USER15> They do do some evaluation and have said so. It's true a few people might die for any particular leak, but you don't seem to weigh the potential benefits to its release either. It's possible the release of information could save more lives than it takes.

Governments have proven over and over and over again throughout history that they cannot be trusted with much power, and knowledge is one of the greatest powers. I find your overall authoritarian point of view disturbing, as if government (and its cronies) are sitting around thinking what they can do for us, instead of how to get more from us, or how to cover their own asses.

I agree with your point that there are good people working in govt but I fail to see how the abundance of secrecy helps them do their jobs better. I hope one day in the future that govts are fully transparent in everything they do because technology allows everyone to be a spy.

<comment><USER16> "I agree with your point that there are good people working in govt but I fail to see how the abundance of secrecy helps them do their jobs better."

Then I don't think you really understand statecraft or warfare. Two essential components of any sovereign nation. No offense meant. Just saying, secrecy are central tenants of both of those, and they are two of the most important functions of government.

<comment><USER15> I was arguing a bit at the extreme, in reaction to the other extreme. No doubt some secrecy will continue, but it would be preferable if there were a lot less than there is now. You imply that the state/military would collapse without secrecy but haven't given any concrete reason why except perhaps, "that's how it's done." Tenets also implies belief. The world is changing and people will need to adjust regardless of what they believe in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 115 points... no discussion... Has anyone donated yet? What is the state of wikileaks? Is it beyond repair? I haven't kept up with it in the news at all really.

</comment><comment><USER18> I guess their "transparency report" does not look very transparent to me only.

<comment><USER19> I wonder if ironically you get enough down votes, thus making your post transparent? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Wow, Paypal is ok with wikileaks now.

<comment><USER21> It's not Wikileaks but FDNN. FDNN is a french non-profit and can decide what they do with their funds.

<comment><USER7> Also, for the record, in Europe Paypal is a registered bank (unlike in the US where from what I understand its status is more fuzzier)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What's with all the spelling errors? I find them quite distracting.</comment>


Codecademy Adds HTML And CSS To Curriculum - <AUTHOR> http://www.codecademy.com/curricula/code-year/units/13/?auth_token=pjYOG45ARoKTT4qG17Ub&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Code%20Year%20HTML%20focus&utm_campaign=Week%2013%20-%20Disengaged%20Users

<comment><USER2> It appears the link you provided authenticates anyone who clicks it as you, is that intentional?

The user email addres is: berhanero...@gmail.com (obfuscated here for obvious reasons)

And the account in question is fully editable.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, the auth token is in the url. You should get rid of that. Fun to see the utm params as well. I guess you are a "Disengaged User."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You might want to delete this as the link is wired to your account and allows people to change your password, etc.</comment>