The Real Truth About the STEM Shortage - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-truth-about-the-stem-shortage-that-americans-dont-want-to-hear-2013-5

<comment><USER2> I just always assumed this was the case, since everyone talks about wanting to hire only "A" engineers.

But I'm not so sure we Americans should be "offended" by this. This article says:

> _The view from Silicon Valley is that a lot of the US talent, while > bountiful in number, just doesn't stack up. But Silicon Valley doesn't want > to just come out and say this, since it will sound offensive to a lot of > American-born grads._

I mean, of course, only 5% of American engineers are going to be in the top 5% of American engineers, for example. It's not a national failure. It's not offensive. That's the entire conversation about "A" engineers. _Any_ country needs to look outside its borders for additional top engineers.

Then, the article goes on to paraphrase Silicon Valley:

> _"Hey America, please raise the visa limit. There's a shortage of STEM > talent that is willing to work for what we'll pay that also meets our high > standards._

I'm not really convinced that pay has anything to do with it. The general problem really seems to genuinely be finding engineers that are good enough, just in the recruitment process period -- at least in many cases.

The article tries to use statistics to show that some STEM majors go on to other fields. But saying that 18.7% of CS majors aren't working in their field because of pay/promotion/working conditions doesn't strike me as unreasonable at all. I mean, maybe they're the "C" engineers or something, and they decided they're better at something else. Or they just _enjoy_ something else more. The article certainly isn't proving that they're the "A" engineers everybody wants, and that they've gone on to brain surgery instead because that's more lucrative and has better working conditions.

<comment><USER3> It's very definitely a pay issue. It's also a hiring issue: most of Silicon Valley deliberately makes it as difficult as possible to pass the hiring bar.

There is one company with whom I've interviewed once, gotten an offer, and then been rejected when I applied later in a separate round after a year and a half doing other things. There's another company where I interviewed once, got an offer, did something else, interviewed later, got rejected, was recommended for an internship later, got put through such a bureaucratic fuck-up that I didn't even receive a technical interview before they'd selected interns for all their slots for the year, and they _still_ regularly try to recruit me every few months (including this past month), despite my being a grad-student right now. Then there's a third company that keeps continually sending recruiters my way every so often despite rejecting me with no reason given _every single time_.

I'm not naming names, but these are _big, famous_ companies. Literally everyone on this entire board knows these companies and "knows" about their _absolutely ravening_ hunger for engineers, "knows" about their six-figure offers for new college grads (I never got one of those, but I graduated in 2011).

If these are the recruiting, filtering, and hiring practices at three of the world's largest technology companies, then I have to declare, fuck it, there's no shortage of "talent", aka: skilled labor. There's a shortage of top-5% skilled labor willing to jump through the right hoops, with the right Luck Bonus stat on their character sheet to get through the outright _random_ filters, who are willing to take the salaries on offer after all the crap they just went through to find a job.

By contrast, I'll tell you how I found my (No evil eye /spits!) internship for this summer. I checked the "Who's Hiring" thread on Hacker News for interesting internship positions, sent a bunch of cover letters, had one Skype interview with the CTO of a very nice company, received the initial offer, negotiated a bit (nothing too heavy, it's an internship after all, but a slightly nicer deal on tax status and travel expense), and accepted the offer. As far as I can tell (again, No evil eye /spits!), they're a very nice company doing highly interesting work that could even potentially inspire me towards new research directions in my grad work, and I'll be pretty glad to spend my summer vacation with them.

And _at no point whatsoever_ did I have to recite the definition of a red- black tree, figure out how to jump out of a spinning blender when I've been miniaturized, or solve an Advanced Algorithms exam problem.

<comment><USER4> > It's very definitely a pay issue.

How do you know this? From my own experience trying to hire in this economy, and from talking to other people hiring, the problem is finding good engineers that are hirable at all [edit: local or remote, for any amount of money]. When I've lost a candidate due to him taking another offer, the reasons have always been unrelated to money. Things like "The other company's problems are more interesting to me" or "I'd prefer to work locally in my current city, rather than move to SF or work remotely".

<comment><USER3> And in my experience, if you are willing to pay the price, either in salary or in training investment, you _will_ find yourself an engineer. Note that I didn't _just_ say salary. Compensation includes the whole package, _including_ , yes, the locality whose cost of living you're paying for, and _especially_ the skills training you can provide, which is often not nearly as expensive as you think it is.

Not to say there aren't _some_ limits. There are obviously a limited number of people with expertise in kernel-level scheduler algorithms at any given time, for example. But as several of us have said below: if your business model _relies_ on consistently finding and hiring unicorns, _that is your problem_. Either stop relying on unicorns or move your corporate HQ to the magical land of Equestria.

Still, the BigCos almost all hire people right out of college and _actually relocate and train them_ in the industrial environment, so I wouldn't call it a labor shortage until I've tried competing with that.

(None of this is to say that I'm not trying to take advantage from my side by deliberately getting as close as I can to Unicorn-level expertise. Of course I am! But most of the time _a well-run company built to grow_ should want my hardworking front-end, back-end, every-end web-dev friend who's less egotistical and doesn't rant on Hacker News, _not_ a unicorn.)

<comment><USER4> Who said I wasn't willing to pay the price? Again, this is about just _talking_ to engineers that 1) I would enjoy working with 2) that are currently hirable. Offers and negotiating on price hasn't entered the conversation at all. Even that is hard.

<comment><USER3> What about all the ones you're _not_ talking to?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From the article:

"There is a different kind of shortage, but the American people won't like to admit it.

"What there is is a shortage of ultra-elite American-born talent, and Silicon Valley wants to hire the very best in the world. The view from Silicon Valley is that a lot of the US talent, while bountiful in number, just doesn't stack up."

That is the nub of the issue. Several of the leading companies in high-tech industry believe that "hire the best" is the most successful way to compete with other companies, and that requires hiring from a worldwide pool of job applicants. An immigration lawyer might point out that the "outstanding ability" O-1 temporary worker visa category

<http://minsk.usembassy.gov/temporary_workers.html>

<http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c3/c3s5.htm>

allows people who are truly world-class experts to enter the United States to work. (If I remember correctly, that is how Fields medalist Terence Tao was able to gain his faculty position at UCLA as a citizen of Australia, although his visa status may have changed meanwhile.) But, yes, demonstrating that a person meets the O-1 visa requirements is difficult for an employer, and even at that only allows temporary residence (not a "green card").

That American graduates of STEM programs vary wildly in quality of preparation for demanding work is why any smart company will hire workers on the basis of work-sample tests rather than on the basis of college degree requirements.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613543>

Until companies in general emphasize actual job task performance rather than school credentials in hiring, visa regulation reform won't do the whole job of helping companies meet their hiring needs.

<comment><USER6> _What there is is a shortage of ultra-elite American-born talent, and Silicon Valley wants to hire the very best in the world. The view from Silicon Valley is that a lot of the US talent, while bountiful in number, just doesn't stack up._

That's a tautology. By definition, there's always going to be a shortage of ultra-elite talent. If we had a surplus of job candidates with that level of talent, it wouldn't be considered elite anymore.

SV wants easier access to the entire world's pool of ultra-elite talent, not just the US's. They want more selection _and_ lower prices.

I don't blame them, but I don't think what they want is necessarily what's best for America. I think we would be better off if companies went back to the old-school method of "hire smart people locally and train them for the specific job skills." Because you have to train people anyway, no one is _really_ a plug-and-play hire.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Pro competition Economist Milton Friedman dismissed H-1B as a subsidy ... [[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/72848/H_1B_Is_Just_An...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/72848/H_1B_Is_Just_Another_Gov_t._Subsidy) ]

'Nobel economist Milton Friedman scoffs at the idea of the government stocking a farm system for the likes of Microsoft and Intel. "There is no doubt," he says, "that the [H-1B] program is a benefit to their employers, enabling them to get workers at a lower wage, and to that extent, it is a subsidy." '

<comment><USER4> That's specifically about H1-Bs, as opposed to a hypothetical "no limits" visa.

He also said "There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state". Compared to "free and open immigration", yes, H1-Bs are a subsidy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's a big problem with the bar graph in the article. They are lumping Engineering Technology together with Engineering and Information sciences in with Computer Science. Engineering Technology is completely different from Engineering, just like CIS is completely different from Computer Science.

Grouping those together is like grouping employment numbers for electrical engineers and electricians just because they have the same root word in their titles.

The article also talks about "foreign born students... crushing the homegrown talent." If they're talking about foreign born students at US universities I wouldn't say they are "crushing" US students at all. From what I've seen the reason so many foreign students are accepted has more to do with them paying _way_ more tuition than in-state students than anything else.

<comment><USER9> I have an MIS degree and have had no trouble working alongside CS grads my entire career. Likewise for my family member with an Engineering Technology degree. I don't think there is that huge of a gap. It is still about getting your foot in the door and doing things on the job.

<comment><USER8> >I have an MIS degree and have had no trouble working alongside CS grads my entire career.

Sure, but how much of that has anything to do with your MIS degree.

Sure there are CIS majors who can program, and there are high school dropouts who can program as well. But CS degrees teach you how to program while CIS degrees do not. They prepare you for two completely different fields. Employment figures for Software developers and IT people are very different.

>Likewise for my family member with an Engineering Technology degree

Engineering Technology is also a different field. Again, sure there are people with engineering tech degrees that work as engineers and are paid like engineers, but the vast majority do not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is amazingly bad statistics.

The author is using self-reported surveys of STEM majors who didn't work for an SV company to answer the question of what SV companies are looking for. There are giant assumptions: 1) they wanted to work for an SV company 2) they're not deluding themselves about why they didn't get offered an SV job. A much better source would be to actually ask the SV companies why they didn't hire someone.

As someone who has been actively hiring for the last six months, trying to grow our team from 5 to 10, hiring is really damned hard. You'll get a mountain of crappy resumes, and a few really good resumes. Some of the really good resumes will turn out to be really good people, some of them will accept offers somewhere else, and some of the people that initially appeared great will test poorly, or you won't click with them personally, or something else.

Aside from technical ability, startups also need to look for a certain personality. At my own company, we're strongly influenced by the Valve Handbook. We like to hire people that understand the problem on their own and say "I think this is the most important thing to work on". Not every STEM major has that capability. We also like to hire generalists, or people who aren't afraid of learning how to do the things that need to get done. Both of these reduce our hiring pool.

I know founders of funded SV companies who aren't in the country legally. One in particular has a pHD, published papers, and is quite literally creating jobs. The O visa is a possibility, but it's a ton of paperwork. The H1B is tricky to use for founders, because the visa requires that their "boss" be able to fire them. Also, the H1B window is short, and the next opportunity to hire someone on an H1 is something like Fall 2014.

I've not given offers to candidates because their visa situation was too risky. As in "I'm in the country legally today, but I have to go back home for a few weeks, and I may or may not be able to get back in".

Every company I've talked to is in a similar situation, in terms of being desperate for hirable, highly skilled engineers, at any price.

<comment><USER10> I'm more of an observer to the field, so I'm curious, what does a "bad" resume look like? And what kinds of things do you find on those few good ones?

My assumptions are that everyone is applying with decent CS background and at least a BS in the field, or is that off?

<comment><USER4> The assumption that you can distinguish good and bad engineers through their resume is flawed. Some of the better engineers I've worked with didn't go to school. Some of the worst engineers I've worked with got advanced degrees at reputable schools.

The biggest secret in software is that we simply don't know how to teach software. Half of all graduates in all relevant programs, at all universities, are simply unhirable. Talented, second-year interns are more valuable than the median graduate.

We know how to take talented students and make them better, but we don't know how to identify talented students early, and we don't know how to make untalented students even barely competent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Believe you me, if the big immigration reform effort in Washington were just about bringing in new STEM workers via an expanded or reformed visa system, it would be done by now. Certainly a majority of Republicans and Democrats are for it in the abstract. Mitt Romney wanted to "staple a green card" to every STEM graduate's diploma.

But that's not what the debate's about, and it's fairly silly to claim otherwise. The debate is whether or not any immigration reform will be "comprehensive", the Washington euphemism for amnesty and normalization of the existing illegal population. There is a not insignificant block of both Democrats and Republicans who will not allow anything short of a "comprehensive" bill to pass because they believe it's the only shot to achieve such normalization. There's also a reasonable argument often made that opening the doors to STEM graduates and other "desirable" workers while forcing the existing illegal population to continue to skirt the law is de facto discriminatory, because of the way the demographics of those two groups line up.

Zuck & Co. are taking the reverse position: They're pushing for the STEM reform they want just in case this time reform really does make it over the hump, and are happy to push for normalization as well, since it is the only likely path to that result.

Anyway, I don't know how I feel about normalization, but I do know that any nation that has skilled workers who will contribute much, much more than they take lining up to get in would be crazy not to let them in.

</comment><comment><USER12> My take on this is that anywhere you look, most developers are poor to mediocre. The problem isn't specific to America. What is [mostly] unique to America is that immigration restrictions is the only thing stopping them from swooping up above-average talent from other countries (in no small part thanks to good salaries and the near-mythical nature of the valley)

In other words, Portugal (as a random example) has the same shitty breakdown of poor/average/good developers as the US, but a not-insignificant number of the good ones are hirable.

<comment><USER13> One company I worked for _didn't_ look for and hire rockstar talent. They had a shop in India with lots of diligent guys who followed instructions, a decidedly inelegant architecture with lots of "repeating yourself," and a good position in an industry where just getting data from one place to another and usefully aggregating it made you tons of money.

Don't underestimate the value of being in the right market and simply knowing how to manage people.

<comment><USER14> That is probably one of the most difficult things for the 'average engineer' to understand.

Solve a person's problem and you'll profit, doesn't matter if it is the worse hack ever invented, if it's reasonably easy to use and/or fulfills a need it gets the money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There was an article going around here some time ago about a company in the described position that was literally flabbergasted about not being able to hire all the top engineering talent that they wanted in the US ... at $14/hour pay.

That pretty much summed up the real issue for me.

</comment><comment><USER16> This article is needlessly sensationalistic and the claim that there is a "shortage" of ultra-elite engineers illustrates a basic misunderstanding of math. But it does show us what a red herring the phrase "STEM" is.

Let's not get bogged-down in STEM, or the differences between Engineering and Computer Science. There are massive differences both in the curriculum and quality of instruction even inside the field of CS.

I believe there is a massive shortage of people who are capable of programming in mainstream languages and platforms. The tool chains that have been developed to solve problems for online retail, advertising, travel, media, entertainment, etc are now in the process of being applied to virtually every other industry.

I think the failure of our industry (post-2000) to attract more people to this field is sad. I think the emphasis on ultra-elite SV talent ignores the broader application of programming to the world at large, and perpetuates an attitude that people who program are special, as opposed to simply being passionate practitioners of an increasingly creative trade.

Below are some interesting links I've picked up on this subject:

<http://braythwayt.com/2013/04/29/calling-all-hackers.html>

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/why- scien...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/why-science- majors-change-their-mind-its-just-so-darn-hard.html?_r=2)

[http://readwrite.com/2012/05/17/computer-programming-for- all...](http://readwrite.com/2012/05/17/computer-programming-for-all-a-new- standard-of-literacy)

<comment><USER17> Hey, I'm a CS grad who can write / has written a lot of C, C++, Java, C#, Python, and Javascript all pretty well (though I've been mostly using C++ / Python / JS so I'm rusty on the others) but I'm still job hunting after a year out of my BS mainly because I went to a small private school and I'm not the A talent this article talks about.

If people needed bodies that can just write (or test, or comment, document) mainstream languages, I shouldn't have this much resistance to job hunting in Philly and NY (I live in the middle of nowhere PA, which doesn't help) even when I offer to come visit in person.

I do think it is a maligned pipe dream amongst hiring departments of getting one of two things - 1. A 5+ year veteran a couple pay grades below what they are worth or 2. A rockstar supergenius savant that gradated college at 16 and knows every language from Cobol to Clojure. Going with someone like me (and I like to think of myself as an average SE) seems like settling to them, and they don't _really_ need the work right now, they just want to exploit the productivity of a rockstar below their pay grade.

<comment><USER16> I'm bummed to hear you're still looking for a job, especially based on everything I'm hearing about the opportunities in New York. Are you willing to relocate, or are you specifically looking for a remote role.

In any case, I'm certainly not making the case that it's easy to get a job. Virtually every step in the process is broken, from education to vocational training to job placement to recruiting. I think it's fair to say that companies have really not figured out how to hire. The current solution reminds me of overengineering: you hire an 9, even though you only need a 6 because you know there's a +/- 3 margin of error.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is no tech labor shortage.

[ source : <http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b.html> ]

If there was a labor shortage, wouldn't real U.S. wages have been going up?

If I want a $5 Prime Rib Eye steak, and can't find it, is there a beef shortage?

Raise wages, and the talent will come.

<comment><USER18> If I want a $1,000,000,000 unicorn, and can't find it, is it because I'm not paying enough?

The fact that many SV companies want mythical beings to solve their engineering problems is an entirely different issue, but this does not invalidate their claims of a "shortage." It just means that they have failed to come up with a business that is capable of being worked on by the existing talent pool.

<comment><USER15> > If I want a $1,000,000,000 unicorn, and can't find it, is it because I'm not > paying enough?

To be fair with the analogy, that should rather read...

> If I want a $1,000,000,000 unicorn, one out of the 100 that are in > existence, and I can't find someone to sell it, is it because I'm not paying > enough?

The answer then becomes - Yes.

Top engineers in the US are not mythical creatures, they do exists. Hence why the original analogy is disingenuous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Of course if Silicon Valley CEOs were smart about immigration they wouldn't try jumping on the "comprehensive immigration reform" bandwagon. Or even pushing for an increase in the number of visas.

Instead they should be pushing for a H1B salary floor in the 90k-100k range. This would allow them to claim the majority of the existing H1B pool, and it's hard to argue that jobs like "Food Service Manager" are jobs America vitally need foreign workers to fill.

<comment><USER20> This would never fly politically. "They want to give IMMIGRANTS six-figure jobs while Americans are unemployed???"

<comment><USER21> Australia's 457 visa program requires employers to pay foreign workers the same amount as a local worker, specifically to prevent downward pressure on wages.

Still, the politics are still fraught with TOOK EHR JERBS stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think a significant part of SV's problem, is that there's an "old boy" mentality, just with different trappings. I bet a lot of the actual people who lived in the milieu portrayed in Mad Men believed they were living a sort of heightened humanity and were helping to make the world a better place. I also think that is exactly what many in SV and the Bay Area actually do; that's not a justification to look down on and prejudge fellow human beings, however. Sometimes, I wonder if I'm getting a little flavor of what pre-revolutionary Paris was like.

</comment><comment><USER22> the part they missed is that they also want indentured workers as well, as in, workers that can't switch jobs for 3-4 years while they get their green card.

<comment><USER23> Yes, this is extremely relevant.

Note that 1 in 5 STEMs don't work in software because of pay or working conditions (we can assume that means, for instance, long hours).

But if you're scared of being fired (and therefore deported), startups have a free hand to exploit you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There is a shortage of good people willing to work for peanuts. There is no shortage of good people.

Offer 500k/year, you'll have more people than you can manage.

<comment><USER20> Yes, but this reasoning only goes so far. In order to pay all your engineers 500k/year, you'd have to absurdly profitable. Maybe MS and Google could pull that off, but most companies could not.

<comment><USER24> Then those other companies are not competitive and will wither away in a Capitalist economy.

Problem solved.

tl;dr: paying high salaries is becoming a competitive advantage.

<comment><USER25> Anti-poaching agreements between top tech giants notably Steve Jobs' Apple, Google, Adobe, Intel, Pixar, etc. clearly showed that the industry was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to prevent/minimize bidding wars against one another.

<comment><USER24> Then they ask for more H-1Bs

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Except that this isn't the truth. H1B imported engineers aren't the best in their field, working for top wages. They're middling-low, working for below- average wages. They pull down wages for the entire software engineering field by about 6%, say the studies.

If H1B's are really the best software engineers in the world, why are they being hired for less than the average wages in the U.S. for average engineers?

I appreciate that there's a persistent media myth that H1B is about getting "top" engineers, but this has been thoroughly, totally debunked and should be roundly mocked whenever it shows up.

<comment><USER27> Truly world-class engineers can be brought to the US on O visas. H1Bs are trying to fill a need for good or even great, but not amazing, engineers. Which is why it's a tragedy that so many of the spots go to shitty outsourcing firms for mediocre wages.

<comment><USER28> Depending on the field getting an O visa can be exceptionally hard as they are intended for exceptional people. One of my clients has four or five employees with O visas and these people are all top of their field including a nobel laureate. You could easily be in the top 5% of your field and get rejected for an O.

<comment><USER27> Yes, that's the idea.

<comment><USER28> Sure, but most people here are not really talking about world class engineers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Maybe the real problem, is the quality of the recruiters and HR and business people? Sure, technical people find it very easy to dismiss non-technical folks (_especially recruiters_) out of egoism, but maybe there's some truth to it?

I keep hearing about "rockstar" this and that, but aren't actual rockstars (rather than professional musicians) known for being unrealistic assholes?

</comment><comment><USER30> Let's see:

1\. Companies want to pay as little salary as possible

2\. Programmers want to get paid as high a salary as possible

It's almost as if supply and demand was more than a theoretical concept!

</comment><comment><USER31> I have a lot of problems with this article.

> What there is is a shortage of ultra-elite American-born talent, and Silicon > Valley wants to hire the very best in the world. The view from Silicon > Valley is that a lot of the US talent, while bountiful in number, just > doesn't stack up.

So you're saying that the US has a shortage of the world's best talent? And that Silicon Valley wants to be able to hire the world's best? Those 2 suppositions seem too obvious to bear mentioning. Are we supposed to expect the majority of the ultra-elite of anything to come out of the US?

Then the article looks at average salaries for STEM workers over time to "prove" that there's no shortage based on "the fundamental laws of supply and demand." OK, but average price would only rise if the supply-to-demand ratio was also shrinking, not if it was relatively constant. I don't see this brought up in the article.

<comment><USER32> I have a huge issue with what the article says because we constantly also hear about how foreign scientists and engineers aren't as creative, innovative, or competitive and how countries like Japan, China and India have issues fostering creativity, independence, innovation, individualism, etc., which are _supposedly_ exactly what we need in developers.

Likewise the most talented scientists, engineers, and developers I know are always the ones who have a harder time finding work. Why? Because they can intimidate potential bosses and co-workers without meaning to. Because they're indifferent a lot of marketing schlock or the jargon flavor of the month. And because _really smart people constantly undersell themselves._ In fact, smart people who don't are most likely narcissistic. (Yes, this means most 'rockstar' 'talent' is neither.)

The average person, regardless of what hip SV types spouting the kool-aid say, is unlikely to feel comfortable hiring someone who makes them feel threatened, confused, or inferior. Even with the best intent to hire people 'more talented' than the manager or existing developers, there're many other divides that preclude there being more than a small difference in skill.

<comment><USER25> Richard Feynman's account of his experience teaching in Brazil speaks to your first point. Focusing purely on test scores, fact regurgitation, and formulaic problem solving misses far more important abilities such as grasping underlying fundamental concepts and applying them to novel situations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The main argument of the article is 'If there was a shortage in STEM salaries would rise'.

Comparing the salary ranges in London and Silicon Valley on the two recent polls on HN seems like a pretty flagrant sign that the salary may not have risen recently but developers definitely commend a good bit more money in the US than in London. ( the mode for london seems to be between LBP 30k and 50k, which is $45k-$75k, whereas bay area salary mode is between $120k and $130k )

Disclosure: While having my salary multiplied by 3 was not the main reason for me to move from academia in france to industry in the US, it certainly was a plus.

</comment><comment><USER34> There isn't just a shortage of ultra-elite local talent, there's even a shortage of halfway competent local talent.

I've done a lot of hiring, mostly from colleges, and I can tell you that there are some schools that should just shut down their CS departments. You know there's a problem when you've given someone a 4 year degree, and they can't even get through a for loop. There's a reason fizz buzz is an interview question.

I refuse to outright ignore any school because I believe great people can go to any school (or no school at all), but some schools I have experience with are definitely a strike against you on your resume.

<comment><USER7> "There isn't just a shortage of ultra-elite local talent, there's even a shortage of halfway competent local talent."

Don't all businesses and consumers complain about finding quality on the cheap? This is not special to tech nor specific to a region, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I joined Silicon Valley as a grad student at Stanford in 2007, and I've been on both sides of hiring multiple times. I'm now the recruiting committee chair for an ambitious startup. The key to the article is: "What we may have is a 'STEM majors who have the skills that Silicon Valley prefers' shortage."

For me the issue is not that schools don't teach a certain algorithm or design pattern, but it takes a lot of searching to find someone smart who is also diligent, dedicated, hard-working, and responsible.

Every university should ask their students to read the short essay "A Message to Garcia" (<http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17195/17195-h/17195-h.htm>) that tells the story of the dependable servant Garcia. The author exclaims: "By the Eternal! there is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college of the land. It is not book-learning young men need, nor instruction about this and that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies: do the thing"

</comment><comment><USER36> I have a problem with "If supply of workers is short of demand, price should go up". In a very basic view this makes sense. But not in even slightly more sophisticated models.

A company makes a certain "marginal" revenue off the employee. It's not always easy or even possible to compute the exact amount, but the salary is limited by this marginal revenue. The difference between marginal revenue and salary is the marginal profit. If that profit is too small, management might not be able to get the money to even hire this employee.

Supply and demand in the labor market is a very fickle thing, and I am certainly no expert. But adding job opportunities and subtracting immigrants is not going to fly.

<comment><USER37> [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=revenue+per+employee+ap...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=revenue+per+employee+apple,+google,+microsoft,+amazon)

Seems likely to be a pretty safe margin

<comment><USER20> You realize that's revenue, not net income or profit, right?

<comment><USER37> [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=profit+per+employee+goo...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=profit+per+employee+google%2C+apple%2C+microsoft%2C+amazon)

<comment><USER3> Or in words: each of Google, Apple, and Microsoft make enough _profit per man- year_ that they could _double_ their salaries without becoming unprofitable.

<comment><USER36> If you assume that they can hire for example a 1000 more engineers and receive the same about of "profit per employee", then this is correct.

But in reality "hire more people, increase revenue/profit" isn't remotely as simple...

<comment><USER3> No, I was assuming they can raise salaries for their _current_ employees without affecting productivity levels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I find it utterly ridiculous that people are complaining about a "talent shortage" when a typical 35-year-old software engineer can't buy a house in the Bay Area.

You tell a shortage by price signals, and useless bikeshedding executives out- earn engineers by quite a bit, but no one takes this (I hope) to mean that there's a useless-meddling-executive shortage.

This concept of a "talent shortage" is hereby banned until we're seeing 25-year-old software engineers buying third homes. When we're at that point, we can start worrying about this so-called "shortage".

There is a shortage of talented people doing _useful_ things for society, but that's more of a job shortage than a people shortage.

<comment><USER39> That's a Bay Area problem, not an industry problem. I don't hear the same housing complaints from people in Austin and Seattle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Of course large corporations want immigration reform!

They don't want to pay for mediocre talent in the US when they can get someone just as good overseas. The reality is that technology is eating the world and there aren't enough good engineers to create everything we need.

I think some reform is definitely necessary. The need for top engineer talent is just going to get worse (and not just in the US...all the countries will need them). If immigrants want to come to the US I feel we should welcome them.

</comment><comment><USER41> Where in this article is it acknowledged that the mechanics of supply and demand are radically impacted during a recession?

Where in this article is the rate of employment and remuneration of STEM workers compared to the mean employment rate and remuneration of all American works?

</comment><comment><USER21> Given that immigration laws are import quotas, that the free market will fix things is a confused argument. There's no such free market in software engineering labour.

<comment><USER42> > There's no such free market in software engineering labour.

Can you explain this a little bit? Not trying to sound combative, just would like to hear your thoughts!

<comment><USER21> Well to sabotage myself, there's no free market in anything. "Free market" is a fuzzy set.

Import quotas are well studied. When you limit the number of foreign cars, foreign commodities etc that can enter your country, you drive up the price. Local suppliers of those goods will benefit at the expense of local consumers of those goods.

But humans, unlike cars or bananas, come with lasting and deep impacts on a local society. It is a very human thing to wish to control who belongs to your ingroup, even if that ingroup is an abstraction of continental scope and with hundreds of millions of existing members.

But the fact the immigration restrictions arises from ancient social logic doesn't change its _economic_ nature, its economic morphology if you will. And immigration restrictions are isomorphic onto any other import quota. They artificially raise the price of local suppliers (US citizens) at the expense of local consumers (US companies).

As an Australian this is less of a problem for me. We have a special secret backdoor into the US engineering market in the form of the E-3 visa.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The EPI study keeps misleading people. Key points to remember:

(1) The EPI is a unionized-labor think tank with strong anti-immigration views. Its research – its selection of figures and spin – will always be in service of that goal.

(2) This latest EPI report, like a similar one before it, uses industry-wide and degree-wide averages with no adjustment for cohorts of experience/age. It is thus possible for the 'average' to go down if there is an in-rush of new younger workers (or equivalently, less-experienced career-changers at starting salaries).

As a simple contrived example, assume an 'industry' starting with two workers, a entry-level worker at $50K a year, a senior worker at $100K a year. The average is $75K.

A year passes. Business is booming and there's a shortage of well-qualified workers. The senior worker gets a raise to $125K. The now-junior worker gets a raise to $62.5K. The company would like to hire more senior stars, but they're all already doing well in other industries (or other countries and deterred from working domestically by immigration barriers). Still, the sector is growing so they hire two new promising entry-level workers at $50K each, one recent graduate and one career-switcher, who were both making just $40K last year in non-STEM work. Maybe one of them will be a domain-specific star, with salary to match, once trained-up in a year or so.

Every single person in this scenario got a 25% year-over-year raise... but the 'industry average' compensation dropped from $75K to $71.9K, split over a larger and earlier-in-career base.

If you live in the simpleminded, interchangeable-STEM-laborer world of the EPI analysis, this is a crisis. There are plenty of "STEM workers" because every "STEM worker" is just like every other "STEM worker" and the new entrants haven't magically started making the old $75K average simply by putting on a STEM-worker-jumpsuit. But really, everyone's doing better, the industry _is_ talent-constrained and responding with _both_ salary increases and legally- allowed hiring, and would be able to expand more if other truly 'senior' industry-skilled people were available.

(3) The EPI report uses wordcrafting like "[f]or every two students that U.S. colleges graduate with STEM degrees, only one is hired into a STEM job" to create the impression many STEM graduates are left without a desired job. But there's plenty of evidence (including in their own report) that STEM-graduate unemployment remains low, and lots of workers happily go into non-STEM jobs with STEM degrees, or into STEM jobs with non-STEM degrees. (In particular, many STEM graduates prefer the pay and challenges of other fields – law, finance, consulting, even many sales and small-business roles – and may have taken their STEM degree simply out of intellectual interest, not as strict occupational training.)

So the healthy churn of matching of people with jobs where they, individually, thrive gets spun by EPI as implying we have more STEM graduates as we need. They seem to think of a STEM degree as if it were chiefly a 'union card' giving you the right to work in some rationed job role... and if not everyone with these cards takes those jobs, too many cards were issued. Cut back on the STEM worker supply, from schools and immigration, pronto!

That's the kind of fixed-pie, world-oblivious analysis that did wonders for the big-three US auto industry... don't let the EPI port that thinking into the high-tech world.

We need as many smart, trained workers - from schools _and_ career-changers, foreign _and_ domestic – as we can get.

</comment><comment><USER44> In short: they want people with more than a C+ in C++.

<comment><USER29> Silicon Valley may be different, but for most of today's software development, you just need someone who can write managed code that's maintainable.

I'm willing to tackle any sort of technology project, but do we really need to reinvent the system bus? (A friend tells me about 6 months of meetings with the team arguing over piddling details in a simple system bus implementation that will probably get scrapped when the next team comes in.)</comment></comment>


Reddit's secret plan for world domination - <AUTHOR> http://de.slideshare.net/MikeCole1/reddit-secret-planforworlddomination-21258371?ref=http://www.digiday.com/platforms/reddits-pitch-to-advertisers/

<comment><USER2> Funny pitch, it actually enticed me to try to advertise there, only to find out that you cannot pay with a credit card if you're not in the US, UK or Canada.

</comment><comment><USER3> previous discussion: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5727518></comment>


NASA Scientists Are on a Mission to Break the Speed of Light - <AUTHOR> http://bigthink.com/think-tank/nasa-scientists-are-on-a-mission-to-break-the-speed-of-light <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6085768](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6085768)</comment>


After Instagram Breakup, Twitter Adds Photo Editing and Filters - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/12/after-instagram-break-up-twitter-adds-photo-editing-and-filtering-to-app/ <comment><USER2> The thing that I think is lost here is the core of Instagram. Systrom has stated repeatedly that the filters aren't the secret sauce of Instagram. It's the speed of upload, distribution model (able to send to several networks simultaneously), and user interface. I don't think simply adding filters is going to do much for Twitter. Think Facebook Camera (which I believe has filters as well). When you say filtered pictures, no one thinks of Facebook Camera, even though it has filters built in. Not really sure what Twitter's trying to accomplish with this one.

<comment><USER3> Aviary's filters are actually quite bad (I've done a bunch of research on this because we open sourced a live filter camera picker for iOS) so I'm not sure what Twitter is trying to accomplish with this either.

That being said, I think good filters are quite powerful. Instagram's filter offering is much better than most free filter apps. While not the secret sauce anymore, originally I do believe it was a huge part of it. If you look at Facebook Camera and compare the quality of the filters, maybe you'll see what I mean.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In order to use the filters, one will have to use the Twitter app, and not 3rd party apps. I always found part of the incentive to use Instagram is the social network. I wonder if Twitter use will go up for some with the ability to alter the filters directly in the app. Regardless, this move is a defensive move that puts Twitter on par with the abilities of Instagram. It makes Twitter, not a leader, but a follower. Will Twitter take ideas from other social networks, when it feels threatened?

</comment><comment><USER5> Color me surprised that instagram gets to build a web property that is outside of the Facebook ecosystem. I didn't expect their mobile app to go anywhere but actually staffing to build their own web presence is a bit of a surprise.

What does Facebook end up getting out of having instagram in it's own ecosystem?

<comment><USER6> >What does Facebook end up getting out of having instagram in it's own ecosystem?

A good sleep at night thinking it can pull the cord on instagram at any moment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really hope Twitter can capture the popular appeal with this.

Because at the moment, the person on the street only knows Facebook and Instagram as their social networking.

Which isn't very social, when you think about it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Nice use of AT&T Park as a product example. Not sure if that was the intention but if you have been to the park you know it.</comment>


I've deleted my Dropbox account - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2011/07/03/imDeletingMyDropboxAccount.html

<comment><USER2> The Dropbox case is an excellent learning opportunity.

They have created a long needed seamless service, approaching quickly a huge number of people praising them nearly religiously, as well as exceptionally good press. Then, surprisingly, it took them few months to revert their perception completely.

To put aside whether they should receive so harsh words now, I think that all startup founders, and managers, should try to understand what happened, in order to avoid similar mistakes.

I do not have a clear answer but I do not think it is only a matter of unclear Terms of Service, or blog posts. If I would have to guess, they have overpromised hugely.

For everyone with a basic understanding of security, it's obvious that no remote storage can be both extremely secure and so easy to use on so many channels. The idea of managing encryption private keys is beyond regular users' intuition.

If I'm right, the best thing they could have done was stating clearly, from the beggining, that the data is as secure as possile, and they do their best to ensure (as I'm sure they do), but it will not be a military grade. The latest authentication bug did not help, too.

With the previous bold security statements, likely slightly misunderstood by a less tech savvy folks, it's not a suprirse that some of their users feel angry and feel somehow cheated.

What is very odd, the security itself was never Dropbox's the most important feature. The easy to use interface, and seamless synchronization between on many channels, was.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's a pretty knee-jerk reaction given the reason those terms were added. If you are going to provide a service that publishes content for other people, you better have the right to publish that content.

And sharing your folder or document to somebody else on the web is Dropbox publishing your content for you.

There are lots of reasons to drop your Dropbox account. This is not one of them.

<comment><USER4> I agree. Seems a little impetuous given what we know at this point, but maybe I'm naive in my tendency to trust the Dropbox leadership thus far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's surprising he'd be so naive as to think this is anything other than the sort of boilerplate companies always put in their TOS.

<comment><USER6> Given his history and employment, I'd say he isn't. I suspect it's less about him dropping Dropbox than him letting everyone KNOW he dropped Dropbox.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like Dropbox, and I can tolerate Dave. But why this is important?

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't own the copyright to everything in my Dropbox drive, and therefore cannot license it to Dropbox. I'd imagine most of their users are in the same boat.

<comment><USER9> That's right.</comment></comment>


/I Considered Harmful - <AUTHOR> https://blog.pentesterlab.com/i-considered-harmful-6e20936ea65f <comment><USER2> On the topic of case and unicode, it's also important to remember that, somewhat surprisingly, the number of characters can change when a change in case occurs:

      $ irb
      >> puts RUBY_VERSION
      2.6.5
      >> "ß".chars.size
      => 1
      >> "ß".upcase.chars.size
      => 2</comment>


Ask HN: Help me retrieve my (past away) friend Google account - <AUTHOR>

My friend past away two months ago from a heart seisure and his wife has tried to retrieve his Google account with no success. She does know his password but he had that phone thing activated where you receive a code on you phone. She doesn't have his phone anymore as it was a subscription and was canceled shortly after his death.<p>My request is that someone from here (as I know people from Google lurk here) lend me a hand with this. I'm happy to answer any questions regarding him and his account. <comment><USER2> Open an estate under the probate laws of your state. Appoint an executor. Subpoena all files that Google has with respect to the decedent. Done.

</comment><comment><USER3> Follow the instructions here:

[https://support.google.com/mail/answer/14300?hl=en](https://support.google.com/mail/answer/14300?hl=en)

Google has ~1 billion users, this isn't a terribly uncommon problem.

<comment><USER2> Would you trust Google to decide based on some unwritten standard? Why, when we have courts for that? Going to court short-circuits this process and prevents Google from destroying records.

<comment><USER3> > Would you trust Google to decide based on some unwritten standard?

Yeah probably. Nearly every company has policies and procedures in place to sort this stuff out after death, they have no incentive to destroy records or make it hard on you.

> Why, when we have courts for that?

Because it's much easier (and cheaper) than getting lawyers involved.

<comment><USER2> If Google were to reliably accede to your request, sure. If it was just a question of filling out a form, sure. But if there's a single hiccup, you're lost. You are completely dependent on Google's goodwill. They have no incentive to destroy records? They don't, but Google has no incentive to comply with individual requests either. Have you tried to reach Google customer service lately? Oh wait, they don't have customer service. Or they sorta kinda do, if you're buying advertising.

But the issue is greater than just Google--the issue is the disposition of digital assets after death. Why should digital assets be treated differently from any other asset? If you think that banks gleefully return money to a decedent's family after death you haven't dealt with this issue much. Having the power to issue court orders tends to enforce the rights of the heirs.

Or you can just hide from those terrible lawyers, mail forms to Google (or e-mail them, everyone knows e-mails always arrive) and hope for the best.

I hope it works out for you.

<comment><USER3> This is a surprisingly strong response.. I mean no disrespect to lawyers but they're expensive and often unnecessary for simple matters. If for whatever reason Google gives you the run around, by all means, get a lawyer involved -- it's not like there's a deadline to retrieve your data.

> If you think that banks gleefully return money to a decedent's family after > death you haven't dealt with this issue much.

I actually just went through this and to be honest, it was completely painless. Maybe it was a good bank compared to most, and it was definitely a small-balance account, but a single form verifying next-of-kin faxed with a copy of the death certificate was enough to get access to the account.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


My First LLVM Compiler (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wilfred.me.uk/blog/2015/02/21/my-first-llvm-compiler/ <comment><USER2> I recently wrote a brainfuck compiler using Rust [0], but I targeted x86-64 asm directly. I implemented some very basic optimization (as you show at the bottom of your post), but I'd imagine llvm is able to take things much further. I'd be curious to see a performance comparison.

[0]: [https://github.com/JoshMcguigan/nerve](https://github.com/JoshMcguigan/nerve)

<comment><USER3> State of the art compilers are ridiculously clever sometimes, so I imagine quite a lot.

I wonder how good they are at extracting information from code generated from BF however.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So why did he use gcc to link the program at the end?

<comment> daniel-levin I imagine it is because gcc -o is a convenient way to call the linker such that it correctly links the binary and libc. Doing this manually with ld would require several (non-portable) command line arguments that would be distracting from the main point of the post.</comment></comment>


Keybase introduces new Wallet and sent me $1.92 USD - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> I can't seem to find any related information for now.</comment>


Review: Photo Hunter (iPhone/iPod Touch game) - <AUTHOR> http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=293743439&mt=8

<comment><AUTHOR> Please review the latest game my partner and I developed for the iPhone.

We've also uploaded a video to YouTube with a simple walkthrough of the game located at: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0duLzHe9aMM>

</comment><comment><USER2> more reviews here [http://app- store.appspot.com/?url=viewSoftware%3Fid%3D293743...](http://app- store.appspot.com/?url=viewSoftware%3Fid%3D293743439%26mt%3D8)

</comment><comment><USER3> How long did it take you to program that? Is it in cocoa?</comment>


The Reaction of the Left to Lockdown – Darren Allen - <AUTHOR> https://expressiveegg.org/2020/08/09/the-reaction-of-the-left-to-lockdown/ <comment><USER2> If we can't agree that the scientific community generally gets the facts correct most of the time, then there's nothing to discuss or debate.

I flip it around on you. How do I know the stock market didn't do better under covid? what if there's global conspiracy to put out false stock market numbers.

There for using my logic the shutdown actually improved the economy.</comment>


Would You Shoot Your Neighbor's Drone? - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/would-you-shoot-your-neighbors-drone <comment><USER2> It has already happened: [http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Flying- Camera-From...](http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Flying-Camera-From- Animal-Rights-Group-Shot-Down-at-Pigeon-Shoot-Cops-179983451.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Definitely. Those things are pretty nippy. It would give my BB turret a good workout.</comment>


The Great Stink - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink <comment><USER2> Good "off the beaten path" visit for mechanical enthusiast visitors to London: Crossness Pumping Station, which would once have been an essential part of the solution to the Great Stink but is now a museum. They have a complete restored (but be sure to check schedules to visit when it's actually running) steam pump plus exhibits about how this works and they've restored the highly decorated Victorian building the pump is installed into.

Far more rarely open to visitors, but worth it if the stars align and you're into infrastructure: Its sister Abbey Mills is still a working sewage pump site, now run off much more modern and thus in some sense "boring" electrical pumps but still really fascinating if you're an infrastructure nerd.

<comment><USER3> Definitely agree with this, quite a remarkable place. Although highly decorated rather underplays expectation I think. It's more a Victorian cathedral of engineering. Crossness is of the era that was perhaps the height of Victorian confidence, and it showed in the attention to detail and aesthetic in something seen by so few.

<comment><USER4> Engineering drawings of that era where works of art - carefully coloured and shaded.

<comment><USER5> And I have always wondered, why? Why not just straight lines and pure utilitarianism? Granted, I love looking at that sort of thing, so I'm glad they made it as they did. But why?

Was it just a given that you would put art into anything you built?

<comment><USER6> The Victorian engineers took pride in engineering, it was an era when progress was been made month on month they applied sheer craftsmanship to a lot of what they did (in a similar way to the famous quote from Steve Jobs[1]).

[1] - "When you're a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you're not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You'll know it's there, so you're going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through." - Steve Jobs

If you go to the Manchester Museum of Science and Technology, they have cotton looms that have doric columns - there is no earthly reason for that (indeed today we'd use tubular or box section) other than the sheer joy of _doing it_.

It must have been a hell of a thing to have been alive from 1860 to 1930 (if we exclude all the negatives).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One alternative is that society has to oscillate around these kind of things. [x] The waste problem has to get so bad that people agree to do something. Then when it's fixed, future generations can start to question why their tax money has to go for something like this, since it's not a problem.

x: depends on the control theory dynamics of the system. It can also reach a stable state.

<comment><USER8> With climate change, we still have to get to the stage where the problem becomes so bad that most people agree to do something about it. The question is if it will still be possible to "fix it" at that point...

<comment><USER7> The problem with long delays in your feedback loops.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Fun fact: London dumped its shit into the north sea until 1998, by boat.

"In the 1880s further fears over possible health concerns because of the outfalls led to the MBW purifying sewage at Crossness and Beckton, rather than dumping the untreated waste into the river,[90] and a series of six sludge boats were ordered to ship effluent into the North Sea for dumping. The first boat commissioned in 1887 was named the SS Bazalgette; the procedure remained in service until December 1998, when the dumping stopped and an incinerator was used to dispose of the waste."

<comment><USER10> I really hope the other five boats had more creative names. Cheeky names for things is a longstanding tradition in the sanitation industry (though I don't know if it dates all the way back to Victorian England).

SS Floater would have been a good one.

<comment><USER11> I really hope one was ShittyMcShitface[1].

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> See also: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River)

Another interesting note of history in the United states, specifically, the Cuyahoga river was so polluted that it caught fire at least a dozen times. The resulting damage was significant enough that it became a rallying point for the creation of the EPA in the 60s/70s.

</comment><comment><USER13> Bazalgette is a great hero of civil engineering. The so-called interceptor sewers he designed are a model for pretty much all present-day sanitary sewers. His Crossness Pumping Station (powered by steam engines from James Watt's company) functioned for 90 years before it was replaced by newer equipment.

90 years, dear Hacker News colleagues. That's engineering. Is the stuff you and I did today going to last that long?

<comment><USER14> I drew an interesting parallel to this story with John Snow's cholera well analysis: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_ou...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak)

This is widely considered to be one of the first modern geospatial analayses to be conducted. It's interesting how urban problems in London have led to advancement in various scientific fields.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Some of the streets in central London really stink up in the heat of summer. One's that come to mind are Moorgate, Barbian and some of Bank.

Fun times walking between Old Street and Farringdon...

<comment><USER16> I don't know in London but these days many local authorities collect trash only once a fortnight.

In summer, on residential streets where bins are kept next to the street the stench can be something...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The 'Stuff You Should Know' guys have a great podcast episode about this

<comment><USER18> So does the "Stuff you missed in History Class" podcast! Here is a link to the episode: [https://www.missedinhistory.com/podcasts/the-great-stink- of-...](https://www.missedinhistory.com/podcasts/the-great-stink-of-1858.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The construciton of the london sewers is one of the episodes of the excellent BBC documentary series "The 7 wonders of the industrial world"[1] (Which also talks about Cholera and the Broad Street Pump).

Highly recommended viewing if you can find it.

[1] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/seven_wonde...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/seven_wonders_01.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER20> I just finished reading «the butchering art» about Jospeh lister and revolution of medicinal science. They mentioned the great stink and how it related to the miasma theory. Great book, author was on Joe Rogan as well.

</comment><comment><USER21> _The Difference Engine_ [Gibson and Sterling] vividly describes a fictional - and probably worse - debacle based on this event.</comment>


Akamai and Cloudfare issues in Europe - <AUTHOR> http://www.akamai.com/html/technology/dataviz1.html

<comment><USER2> We're using Akamai for XERQ's static assets and have noticed a 20% traffic drop today. After scratching our heads and remembering that Memorial day is next week, it's a bit relieving to see this isn't just us.

Can anyone recommend a monitoring tool that can check from many locations at the same time? We're using nagios and a few other homebrew solutions from 3 different datacenters, but none of them picked this up.</comment>


Tesla Is Slowly Pushing Germany into Recession - <AUTHOR> https://www.ccn.com/tesla-is-slowly-pushing-germany-into-recession/ <comment><USER2> CNN hyperbole.

People aren't buying cars like they used to, in general. Detroit and Germany are equally affected.

<comment><USER3> Note that this article is on _CCN_ , not CNN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> why german car makers cant develop EV cars ?

<comment><USER5> If you have invested a lot in ICE, and it is a current competetive advantage, there are two choices: 1. bet on an ICE future or 2. bet on an electric future.

You make more profit in the former, since you can use your hard earned competitive advantage. You make less profit in the latter. It might even be that you have little competitive advantage in the latter one.

Now, based on this, maybe it makes sense to only bet on the first one. If the other future realizes, then you just go bankrupt. Margins are thin anyway, so it's not possible to cover all bases well. You might have a token effort towards electric cars - show some fancy concepts and meanwhile in reality slap on some bought tech in existing ICE cars.

If you're an upstart, it makes sense to bet on new technology where others don't have an advantage. Again, if the new technology doesn't really happen, you just go bankrupt.

In reality, since Germany has good engineering education and lots of relevant suppliers, there should be electric car startups in Germany. Where are they? IMO that's the more interesting question.</comment></comment>


Duck and Cover - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_and_cover <comment><USER2> I remember having to do this in addition to earthquake drills.</comment>


Washington Post: Experts say USMCA frees Canadian data – but with unknown risks - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/experts-say-usmca-frees-canadian-data--but-with-unknown-risks/2018/10/03/3bdb05be-c651-11e8-9c0f-2ffaf6d422aa_story.html <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting article and worth the read ... and of note from the article:

"The new trade deal, the successor to the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, marks the first time the two countries have formally negotiated data's role in trade."</comment>


Remote code execution on Android devices - <AUTHOR> http://labs.bromium.com/2014/07/31/remote-code-execution-on-android-devices/ <comment><USER2> If your machine is rooted then you can install aftermarket apps that let you block things.

If all you need is internet blocking then: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.googlecode...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.googlecode.droidwall.free&hl=en)

It works great and very easy to use.

For more comprehensive blocking: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=biz.bokhorst.x...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=biz.bokhorst.xprivacy.installer&hl=en)

It's more difficult to use but you can control everything.

<comment><USER3> If my device was rooted, wouldn't the attacker be smart enough to circumvent this?

<comment><USER4> The vulnerability is the attacker's way into your system. If you've rooted and blocked that vulnerability, then the attacker can't use that way into your system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Remote code execution is least of the worries on Android. Today I downloaded an app and I read their privacy policy. They will read my browser , all the packages installed on my phone and my precise geolocation. Why did they need those permission just to show you ads.

People don't really read terms and conditions. You can get pretty much any information from users because they reading is inconvenient.

<comment><USER6> This.

I was going to install a torch app and it wanted access to my contacts and call history?!?!

Took a while but I found one that just needed camera access (to activate the LED). Not all apps are completely evil but the majority appear to be.

<comment><USER7> I got so tired of testing all the flashlight apps. Some had ads, other required too many permissions. In the end I wrote my own, in a couple of hours. It's ad free, and doesn't require anything:

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bigosaur.l...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bigosaur.lampa)

<comment><USER6> I salute you. Have installed it and it works perfectly. I will recommend this to anyone who needs such a thing.

Thank you for your efforts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is very problematic for Android. It was a question of time before such an issue crept up that left a large amount of legacy devices fully compromisable remotely. This is the biggest problem of relegating software updates to a complex and unwilling group of people, instead of a single party.

The biggest problem in solving this issue is: "who is going to solve it?". The software fix should surely be made by Google's Android team, but a software fix is not a solution. It needs to be distributed as well. And you can count on that not going well at all.

</comment><comment><USER9> It appears that the equivalent of NoScript for Android WebViews could be quite useful in protecting against this sort of thing, although no doubt there would be a massive backlash against it since I'd bet most of the time this is being used for showing ads...

</comment><comment><USER10> Security through obscurity. Don't worry the development tools for Android are so shit I don't think hackers will bother with it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Richard Stallman has been saying this all along. These non-free operating systems are used for surveillance.

<comment><USER8> Trying to spread Stallman's ideas by FUD does not help spreading Stallman's ideas. Stop doing that.

I don't get why free software zealots hate Android so much. It is by far the most "free" popular operating system ever made. Never has there been a user facing operating system in the possession of 100s of millions of people, for which you can readily download and study the large majority of code running the system on these devices. It is even possible to purge some devices of non- free code (including blobs) completely, if you so desire [1].

[1]: [http://www.replicant.us/](http://www.replicant.us/)

<comment><USER12> > Never has there been a user facing operating system in the possession of > 100s of millions of people, for which you can readily download and study the > large majority of code running the system on these devices.

This is going to be completely off-topic, but most Android installations don't really qualify as "free" as they lack essential freedom to tinker with the code and put it back on the device. Vast majority of Android-based phones are purportedly severely tivoized, and many vendors actively fight any attempts to work around those limitations. That is, having an ability to read the source code doesn't make the software free.

So, on the contrary Android family of OSes (with the exception of AOSP and Replicant) is one of the mostly tightly locked-down computing platforms that has one of the core practices of not letting users accessing anything more than device vendor had allowed. Unsurprisingly, this is frowned upon from many zealots.

<comment><USER8> That is why I put "free" in quotations. Furthermore, many devices sold _do_ allow you to at least put open source equivalents on them on these devices; many flagship phones allow this with some know-how. On the scale of freedom from 0 to 10 (0 being a Lumia, 10 being the computer that RMS uses), I'd say most Android devices are a 3, with many devices being able to go up to a 6 and some devices going up to an 8 with Replicant.

Nonetheless, people fail to recognize the freedoms that Android _does_ give you, and only criticize the freedoms that it doesn't give - the reasons why it's not a 10. If not for Android, I'd wager we would _not_ be able to go beyond 2 (≈ iOS) on the freedom scale when buying mobile phones. That would be bad, and it seems zealots fail to recognize this (that's probably why they are zealots in the first place).

<comment> rational-future Why is Lumia a 0? How about iOS and Blackberry?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Android is a clusterfuck of various platforms for supporting remote code execution.</comment>


Out of Print: The death and life of the American newspaper. - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/080331fa_fact_alterman?currentPage=all

<comment><USER2> I rather enjoy a good newspaper. Perhaps I just have more years than the customers who decide a products' fate -- I grew up with an Apple II instead of an Apple iPod -- but there's something about spending an hour quietly reading a physical newspaper that I just don't get out of websites. I'm not really even sure how to describe it. Good material on the printed page just holds a certain intrigue and mystique.

Regrettably, our local newspaper is dwindling. Less of this, less of that, and even though it's printed on paper, a tiny helping of suboptimally-written material makes it a shell of what it once was.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's all about quality of content. High-quality will get readers, whether that's in print or online. The problems newspapers face are:

a) Most of them don't have much high-quality content. The majority of their content is syndicated from other sources.

b) It's expensive to produce high-quality content. And expensive to disseminate it as well. It may be cheaper to do so online, but the ad revenues are lower.

My startup is helping to solve both problems. We'll enable news publishers to increase the quality of their content, with fewer people.</comment>