Can Boeing Trust Pilots? - <AUTHOR> https://airfactsjournal.com/2019/03/can-boeing-trust-pilots/ <comment> tuna-piano Assuming the author is correct, and the reaction to the MCAS issues is a simple reaction that every pilot should know by memory: Is it really acceptable that once every 3 months a 737-Max will attempt a nose dive and require a vigilant pilot who can identify and correct the issue before the plane crashes into the ground?

And this likely happened at least twice, while there were 300 MAXs in service. If there were 3,000 MAXs in service, MCAS misfires would presumably be happening 3x a month worldwide - each misfire requiring a proper pilot reaction. How can you defend Boeing in that case?

<comment><USER2> I feel like this is a strong argument for the airbus alpha protection. And I think Boeing agrees with that given the way the 777 fly by wire system is designed.

There are plenty of people (on this site and on reddit) who jump on to criticize airbus for the way it puts the aircraft's computer systems ahead of the pilots and claim that the 737's flight controls are preferable to pilots because the pilots have full control. I don't want to spark any airbus vs boeing debate, but I want to point out these accidents seem to discredit that line of thinking.

<comment><USER3> Before we get excited about computer protections, let's acknowledge that the MCAS system under debate on the 737 Max is itself a computerized system designed to protect pilots from themselves—in this case, from pitching too high and creating a stall.

In the Lion Air accident, a malfunctioning sensor caused this system to react incorrectly, surprising the pilots.

Let's also remember that a malfunctioning sensor was a contributing factor in the crash of Air France 447... a problem which was exacerbated by human interface choices in Airbus's fly by wire system. In particular, stick input is not physically synchronized and conflicting inputs were averaged; neither of which is true on a Boeing aircraft. Even on a 787 the yokes move together.

Human factors matter a lot if the computers hand control back to the humans unexpectedly. That can happen even in fly by wire systems on Airbus.

Edit: fixed 737 reference up top

<comment><USER4> Unclear why you're trying to conflate the MCAS issue with AF447. Or are even bringing up AF447 at all.

On the Max 8 a bad sensor is causing an automated system to misbehave, and may have resulted in crashes.

On AF447 ice blocking the pitot-static system caused automated systems to go offline (enter Alternative Law), and loss of situational awareness caused the pilots to crash their aircraft under manual control.

If you read the final report[0] you'll see that pilot error and loss of basic airman-ship caused the accident. There's always improvements to the airframe to mitigate the human component, but acting like these two are somehow different sides of the same coin is disingenuous.

I'm not actually sure why you brought it up. Comes across as "look they're both just as bad" while ignoring key details about AF447.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_re...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report)

<comment><USER3> Did you read the comment I'm replying to?

The common element between Lion Air and Air France crashes is bad sensor data: AOA and airspeed, respectively. A computerized system, no matter how sophisticated, cannot protect pilots from themselves in the absence of accurate sensor data.

<comment><USER2> > The common element between Lion Air and Air France crashes is bad sensor > data

Agreed but the context is completely different. The airbus flight computers rely on data from three sensors and thus are triply redundant. AF447 happened in severe icing conditions with water ingressing into the pitot tubes on the ground. All three pitot tubes froze, causing all three sensors to report bad data. The aircraft identified the discrepancy and degraded from normal law to alternate law as expected so it would not make any decisions based on the faulty data. The crash ultimately was caused by the pilots being disoriented because of the very low visibility. The sidestick issue is a different discussion, but its not related to the 737MAX accidents.

The MCAS system on the other hand is not triply redundant, and that's what people have issue with. Boeing itself has more redundant envelope protections on the newer models like the 777 and 787.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's what I don't get about this whole situation:

AIUI 737 MAX has an instability such that, in near stall conditions, some attempts to recover can make the stall worse. To mitigate this, Boeing added MCAS, and MCAS can malfunction with a single sensor failure. Imagine that this failure occurs and the pilot successfully turns off MCAS but ends up in a dive, too close to the ground, or otherwise in a bad situation. Now the pilot has to recover, but they are facing a faulty AoA indicator (if they have one at all) as well as a plane that, because MCAS is off, is unstable in near- stall conditions. And the pilot has never been trained in the handling of type 737 MAX under these conditions.

Am I wrong for some reason, or is this a potentially rather dangerous situation that could be caused by a single instrument failure?

<comment><USER6> You're not wrong by my estimation. If a function provided to recover from a stall activated at low altitude, regardless of flight control at < 5k ft, I'm not a pilot but depending on how aggressive the MCAS was, I can't imagine recovery would be easy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't believe this author understands the issue here. His description of the force feedback on the wheel is not correct. The automatic trim adjustment from the MCAS would not be detected if the pilot is trimmed in and at neutral stick. They may detect the pitch change and pull up/retrim for level flight, which disables the MCAS temporarily and gives the impression that trim is under control.

<comment><USER8> The author understands the issue fine and their description is correct. MCAS is a trim-and-feel system that exists to satisfy the stick force gradient requirements of 14 CFR 25.143 [1] within a relatively normal flight envelope. A stick pusher is a stall warning/prevention device that exists to satisfy 14 CFR 25.207 and 25.103, and which doesn't activate in a normal flight envelope.

[1] [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.143](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.143)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > What's critical to the current, mostly uninformed discussion is that the 737 > MAX system is not triply redundant. In other words, it can be expected to > fail more frequently than one in a billion flights, which is the > certification standard for flight critical systems and structures.

How was the plane delivered if it didn't pass certification?

<comment><USER10> It's grandfathered under the original 737 type certificate from the 1960s.

The aircraft would not meet today's certification requirements as a new type

<comment><USER11> As someone with limited knowledge into airplane engineering/certifications, on the surface that seems wrong.

I understand (I think) that they made changes to make it essentially handle and act like the 737 therefore it can apply to the same certificate, but surely there should be some kind of time restriction on a certificate applying to new models - even ones that are "similar".

Can someone illuminate me as to why this does or does not make sense?

<comment><USER12> Boils down to money. A brand new type certificate for a big passenger jet is in the hundreds of millions of dollars in time and money. Therefore you can justify spending quite a lot on lobbying (actual and metaphorical) to get away with reusing one.

Edit: And the airlines will lobby on your behalf too. They don't want to have to certify pilots on a new type, or have yet another split of who can fly what.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does it have any choice? The official FAA incidents log has US pilots stating that the MAX is different to fly from normal 737s...

...and using their own words, is "unsafe!" to fly without additional training. It is unsafe to fly a plane with different layout and handling.

<comment><USER14> Did you read TFA?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It seems like FBW is the way to go and that this particular subsystem was tacked on and not adequately tested and the overall subsystem missing redundancy. Main problem is greedy executives trying to pass it off as a normal 737 when it was completely different. So some executives at Boeing and the FAA should go to prison.

MCAS needs another layer of redundancy and whole thing needs to be entirely retested and certified under a new type.

</comment><comment><USER16> I found this article informative on several points, and the conclusion is correct ("I am sure the future belongs to FBW"), but it sets up a test that has already been failed. Can Boeing trust pilots? Well, if that's how he wants to put it, then no, evidently they cannot. We're talking about two crashes in a short period, in which hundreds of people died. There's a kind of tautology here.

<comment><USER3> Of course we can't trust pilots, that why airliners have at least two of them, and check lists for everything, and all sorts of warnings, etc.

We just had a truly historic near-miss where a crew lined up to land on a crowded taxiway at SFO instead the runway. If they had not gone around at the last second we would be talking about it as the most deadly accident in aviation history. Fly by wire was not going to prevent that; the descending aircraft was an Airbus A320.

Whether fly by wire makes pilots more trustworthy—that's a good question.

But I think the author is addressing a subtly different question, which is: what _seems_ more trustworthy to people? People like: the public and politicians. Is it still acceptable to say "the human, despite its flaws, still belongs in the critical path of safety." Or, is the reputation of computers so strong now that all planes will have to work that way to satisfy modern notions of what is safe?

<comment><USER17> The sad thing is that more than anything else, this is starting to veer into the realm of a philosophical question:

Who is more eeliable, the instrument, or the instrument user?

A machine can only be guaranteed to function on information it has. Same with the human being behind the yoke.

The human by far has the greatest capacity as the only General Intelligence in the room, but technically, that GI's performance is limited by it's access to accurate information regarding the functionality of the tool he is using.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Something about this piece doesn't smell right. The author claims to be a pilot with 45 years of experience, writing in a publication that bills itself as "by pilots, for pilots", but I'm a pilot (with 23 years of experience) and I've never before heard a pilot refer to the yoke as "the wheel". ("If you don't believe me, sit in a Bonanza A36 or Cessna 210, or just about any other high-performance piston airplane, and pull the wheel back while sitting still on the ramp.")

I'm also very skeptical of his thesis that these accidents were pilot error, that there is nothing different about the Max 8 than any previous generation of the 737. The 737 in general has an excellent safety record. The Max 8 has had two crashes within two years of its introduction. The odds of that just being a coincidence are pretty damn low.

So I can't help but wonder if this guy is a shill. Maybe the question we should be asking is: can pilots trust Boeing?

<comment><USER19> The fact that it's called "Air Facts Journal" is suspicious.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's well-known in the field. The name was chosen in 1938:

[https://airfactsjournal.com/air-facts- history/](https://airfactsjournal.com/air-facts-history/)

<comment><USER19> Good to know, thank you. Without context the name sounds very odd.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Am I the only one who immediately stops reading when a writer says, "let me explain"?

I was totally going to let you explain. After all, I'm reading your article and I intended to read more than just the first paragraph. But your sudden insistence that I just give you a few more minutes to explain your provocative argument presumes too much about what I'm thinking. And it's over-used. And it's an annoying tone.</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone in LA want to do a mini HN cafe meetup? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> To clarify a bit... Small meetup today to grab coffee (or beers) and take HN offline for a bit (same topics but in real life and in real time.)</comment>


Show HN: Who says WordPress can't be art - <AUTHOR> https://qodeinteractive.com/catalog/ <comment><USER2> Interesting, but the intro is too confusing. Why do I have to scroll down to scroll sideways? I tried clicking the arrow, dragging the page, pressing the right arrow key, nothing worked. Eventually I clicked "skip intro" and it wasn't until the 2nd time I loaded the page I thought to scroll "down".

</comment><comment><USER3> Visually intriguing, aesthetically pleasing, terrible UX

</comment><comment><USER4> Unique! Fancy.</comment>


What's Facebook's responsibility when the nation seeks to lynch someone? - <AUTHOR> http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/14/whats-facebooks-responsibility-when-the-nation-seeks-to-lynch-someone-on-only-a-name/ <comment><USER2> The responsibility is not Facebook's, but rather the news organizations that reported early rumors and reports as facts. IANAL, but i would expect that they potentially face libel suits for defamation of character.

In this situation, Facebook is merely a modern day phone book (albeit vastly more robust and complex). It is the news organization that bears the responsibility of gathering, checking and publishing verified facts. That's called reporting.

<comment><USER3> How could facebook respond to this anyway? Do they scour all news for incorrectly attributed stories with facebook links? That would be impossible.

<comment><USER4> If only there was some kind of social platform where Facebook employees could share information like this and it would end up being forwarded to the appropriate people...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hi all,

Ryan's roommate here, longtime HN lurker.

It would have been nice if FB locked down his profile a little sooner, for sure. I imagine we're going to be dealing with this shit for a while to come now.

If you wouldn't mind, can you help us get the hashtag #ApologizeToRyan off the ground? Maybe social media can be used to restore his good name, too.

<comment><USER6> I mean well when I say this but I think it needs to be said. My Bayesian probability sense is tingling. HN is comparatively small compared to the space of people-who-could-be-Ryan's-roommate.

<comment><USER5> Well, there's probably nothing sensible that I could do to prove who I am. I promise that making the hashtag trend wont blow up the world.

<comment><USER7> And there's something of an irony.

I'm glad to see that rational distinction prevails in this smaller forum. It's difficult to derive an as useful moderator as yours is here to the much larger colosseum of Facebook.

Anyone can be a deputy on Facebook. If it was the physical world and someone put up a notice in a meeting place inviting a hundred people to come and trash a citizens home, or where a lynch mob gathered under that roof to engage in hysterical damaging acts against a citizen protected ordinarily by law, we would not say that the owner of the meeting place did not at least have a duty of care.

It would be an impossible contradiction to require the venue owner to install fire exit signs to protect an individual and yet allow no interference if the individual is set alight inside the building instead.

Maybe Facebook is a bit like a nightclub. Go and have a good time and no one should get in your face while you're partying. Just don't expect that you won't get in a bar fight once in a while. And if it gets too messy, management will throw you out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Internet Lynch Mobs: JUST SAY NO

Sorry to be simplistic, but that rule is the best. If you think you need to pile on someone, don't.

Our primal lizard brains just _love_ to stomp the shit out of someone, so when society gives us signals that it's okay, we love to do it. We must resist this urge before Piggy's head get crushed by a boulder.

<comment><USER9> Here's an interesting article about recent actual lynchings in Nigeria, pretty frightening stuff: [http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/per...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/perplexed- perplexed-on-mob-justice-in-nigeria/264006/)

Sometimes it can be frustrating to operate within the rule of law, but the alternatives are pretty scary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Every time something like this happens people react in quite predictable ways, the creation of Facebook pages is one of the more common ones. Why do people do this? Does it come from social pressure to show just how angry they are with actions, is it just how people cope with terrible news (by _doing_ something even if it's ultimately futile) or is it just another case of humans doing irrational things? My google-fu isn't very good so no results of relevance are coming up, but it seems like there must be a reason behind these reactions.

<comment><USER11> I can't offer a psychological explanation, but my impression from the people I know who are the most eager to offer their opinion on the shooter is that they love it, that this is the coolest thing that happened to them this month. They'd be bored without it (or they'd be stirring up drama with their friends or co-workers.) They say they're angry, but they seem more excited and gleeful. Some people love tracking hurricanes, some people love elections, and some people love tragedies. It's a break from their boring lives, a dramatic and important occasion to share some excitement with millions of other people. Like when Princess Diana died -- suddenly a lot of people realized that she was really, really, really important to them. (Not that she wasn't important to a lot of people, but there were also plenty of people who were determined not to get left out of the excitement even though they only had a vague idea who she was.) With Princess Diana it was grief, and with Ryan/Adam Lanza it's righteous anger. People are just enjoying the hell out of it.

<comment><USER12> Sure, it's something to get whipped up into a frenzy about. There's a reason we all know about pitchforks and yet few of us would know how to use them for their proper purpose. I think there are several things at play here, one is this kind of "entertainment" that you describe. The other is arm-chair psychology many of us engage in about what this shooter was like, even before there was any stable information out there. It's mostly just ignorance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is why Dutch publishers are prohibited to publish last names of suspects (even after conviction). In this case it would be abbreviated to "Adam L.". They even protect the identities of the most notorious killers and terrorists (Volkert van der G., Karst T., Samir A.). The US should do the same, solves a lot of problems outlined in this article.

<comment><USER14> You'd run into quite a bit of trouble with the first amendment and freedom of the press.

<comment><USER15> Ironically, RSF places the Netherlands in #3 place of the Press Freedom Index, and the US comes in at #47.

<http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html>

<comment><USER14> The US's fall from #20 is largely a result of arrests of reporters attempting to document the Occupy movement.

While freedom of the press in the US may be violated pragmatically, you'd have a much harder time challenging it philosophically. That is, police offers arresting individual reporters (especially ones involved in protest) slips by relatively easily, but a federal law placing limits on what information the press can publish would receive strong opposition.

<comment><USER16> So... what? It would be hard for authorities in the US to pass a law restricting speech, so instead they just restrict speech without going through the bother of making a law about it? How is that better?

<comment><USER14> It's better than restricting speech through law AND enforcement. I'm not supporting the current state of affairs; not at all. Just pointing out that you'd have trouble pushing such a (legal) restriction on the US press.

<comment><USER16> >It's better than restricting speech through law AND enforcement.

Are you sure about that? If a government passes a law restricting speech because it has to, and then enforces it to restrict speech, it isn't clear to me that's worse than a government which doesn't bother with laws in the first place. Either way, you have no freedom of speech, but at least with the former you still have some semblance of rule of law. That's more important than speech, IMO (although of course without both you're already pretty fucked).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder what (if any) legal recourse Ryan Lanza might have against the news agencies that libeled his name. I imagine it really depends on the exact wording used, but Ryan could have a great defamation/emotional distress case on his hands, when everything settles.

<comment><USER18> In the US it is very hard to win a libel case (as the plaintiff). Basically, you have to prove that the news agencies _intentionally and maliciously_ libeled you. This is pretty darn near impossible to prove in most cases. If I recall correctly, an example of a case where a libel lawsuit would be successful is one where the new agency makes up something or encourages a source to make up something.

EDITS (replies to below):

Defamation laws in the US are actually very complex and in certain cases ambiguous. Different states have different standards for civil liability. In Gertz v. Robert Welch (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.>), which involved a newspaper publishing lies about a non-public official, the Supreme Court held that state defamation laws had to have the plaintiff prove at the very least fault of some kind on the defendant's part, and that for punitive damages malice must be proved. The court also found that people cannot be made into a public official.

Certain statements are considered to be inherently damaging and fault does not need to be proved.

Regardless, clearly Ryan Lanza does not have a case since law enforcement officials _did_ originally identify him, wrongly, as the suspect. The police were clearly not negligent because the reason they ID'd him as the gunman was because his ID was found on the gunman's body. I don't know if the news actually stated as a fact that he was guilty.

<comment><USER19> This is not true. The standard of actual malice applies only to public figures.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is not Facebook's responsibility. This is everybody's responsibility not to be an idiot. Unfortunately, too many people fail at this responsibility. But enabling them by saying "it's the press" or "it's the Facebook", not "it is you - personally you - being an idiot by believing unchecked information" is not helping either. When "the nation" - or, more precisely, a bunch of very foolish people - seek to lynch someone, they should be told "you are fools. Not go home and think about it", not "is Facebook to blame for it? Is Reuters? Can we find anybody - preferably big faceless corporation - to take the blame?"

</comment><comment><USER21> Maybe the edge case of being misidentified as your brother, the mass murderer, is not one that Facebook needs to spend any time solving.

And perhaps, despite some of the comments in this thread, strong traditions and protections for free speech are broadly valuable, and it wouldn't make sense for there to be litigious or legislative remedies that weaken them.

And if we're going to waste time worrying about people expressing their "hate" on Facebook, perhaps we could also solve the problem of pandodaily linkbaiting a "tech" article out of a national tragedy involving the slaughter of children.

<comment><USER22> No one is seeking to take away freedom of speech. Only to protect the rights of the accused.

For a more complete elaboration of the difference...

please refer to "To Kill a Mockingbird". A book you can find on Amazon. The author is Harper Lee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If these social networks wished to discourage such behavior, they could create a "most popular comment" feature that pinned something you said publicly and in the last few months in your public profile, then quietly tweak their algorithms to prefer public lynch-mob dickishness or other bad behavior to this spot.

<comment><USER24> That's a terrifying thought, that centrally-run social networks are _actually_ in a position to perform this kind of conditioning. What could Facebook do, if it tried to socially engineer the entire world?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "...should Facebook be more proactive in removing (at least provisionally) hate groups like the ones listed above? Okay, before you start crying foul about free speech and the 1st amendment..."

Is there some Facebook Constitution I'm not aware of? What duty does Facebook have to uphold the first amendment?

</comment><comment><USER26> Seems Adam Lanza, Ryan Lanza's brother is the suspect and that his mom, a teacher was killed in the shootout as well. [http://gawker.com/5968551/ryan- lanza-is-a-cold-blooded-murde...](http://gawker.com/5968551/ryan-lanza-is-a- cold-blooded-murderer?post=55248896)

</comment><comment><USER27> >(Gawker also changed its story, but proof of the original headline is still in the URL)

You can put anything in the URL you like, as long as the number matches and it passes whatever regular expression gawker runs on those URLs, it will point to the right news story. Hardly conclusive proof that gawker changed the headline when someone can do something like [http://gawker.com/5968551/ryan-lanza-is-a- cold-blooded-murde...](http://gawker.com/5968551/ryan-lanza-is-a-cold-blooded- murderer) and the URL bar doesn't even change to reflect the original title.

<comment><USER28> Well, I think the idea is that the link Gawker released initially was the one that got passed around the most and posted on facebook page, twitter, etc. ( I know I posted it. )

As a result, I believe that would also be the URL that ranks highest in a Google search.

Regardless of what text gets added after the number so to an extent, for popular posts, whichever title Gawker releases first will be set in stone.

I'm not very familiar with regexes so I don't really understand why they would need one on the URL. It seems you can drop the string part of that "suffix" altogether.

<comment><USER29> Purely SEO. Articles being identified by number is much cleaner programming- wise, but search engines like it when URLs have text in them to index against. It's also good for readability of URLs in general, really.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Facebook have a responsibility, insofar as privacy is concerned: users are now forced to be included in searches; how easy is it to make your posts saying your are not the killer; how easy is it to delete your Facebook profile, as the wrongly accused brother eventually did?

What's more important is that other people like the Ryan Lanza namesakes are affected by this erosion of privacy - people who also face threats and the like.

It doesn't make them culpable, but they should know that they have a responsibility, because when people are on the look-out for someone, they are going to choose the path of least resistance to tracking them down.

For what it's worth, how should Twitter go about it, when a Ryan Lanza receives death threats from people on Twitter? What can be really complicated is figuring out how to deal with the problem; what isn't is understanding that the proprietors of the most popular social media platforms have a responsibility to their users.

</comment><comment><USER31> I think it's examples like this that show the extreme interpretation of the US free speech law. The US doesn't protect all speech and allows some things to be banned. Cases like this should fall under nonprotected speech. The harm that can done time innocent person without any due process of a fair legal trial and with no effective ability to argue your case _far_ outweighs the harm to a newspaper in banning them mentioning the name. You should be allowed report all the rest of the details of this horrific crime, of course, but you should not be legally allowed to identify the accused unless it was very much in the public interest (e.g. if it was a politician who did it).

</comment><comment><USER32> Sloppy journalism, for sure ... but libel? Maybe. If so, by carrying his brother's id, the shooter may have left him a parting gift of financial security. Surely not planned ... (?)

</comment><comment><USER33> This page has some serious issues with it's floating header in Chromium on Xubuntu 12.04 <http://i.imgur.com/5Z3H6.png>

</comment><comment><USER34> They could display a warning on every goddamn person's Facebook going "No, the Adam/Ryan Lanza here is NOT the killer on the news, please leave them alone."

</comment><comment><USER35> If you buy the argument that the Internet would be better off if everyone had their own domain names (as was recently discussed on HN), it doesn't make much sense to then take Facebook to task for not getting involved.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is about the existence of _institutions of government_

We learnt a long time ago that two sides who cannot trust each other _must_ have a third party whom they can trust to behave in a particular (fair) way all the time.

That third party becomes a mechanism for government.

Facebook cannot be trusted because Facebook has no controlling mind. Just like HN here.

Institutions cannot be crowd sourced or socially generated. They must be based on principles and be independent and incorruptible.

We give professors and judges _lifetime contracts_ with no get out clauses - and we do it for a reason. When Facebook is public ally funded we will need it to have a controlling mind

</comment><comment><USER37> And this yet another reason I don't have a facebook. Although, it seems the news media seems to think anyone without facebook is a psychopath as well. Lose, lose.

</comment><comment><USER38> I think Ryan should receive a lot of money from the media. Can the media really just ruin somebody's life and not even pay a dime for it?

<comment><USER39> The answer is yes. They can. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20267989></comment></comment>


Flaws of Hierarchical File System - <AUTHOR> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TerminallyIncoherent/~3/ZAWrgco-978/

<comment><USER2> The post is really asking, how do you tag files six ways to Sunday, so that files (movies say) can be located under title, genre, actors, etc. in an easy way with a good UI. By the way throw in referential integrity so that if you delete a movie, all its tags are deleted.

My GF could use something like that. She is a painter and photographer and has thousands of images in various stages of processing. Do any of you have good suggestions?

<comment><USER3> Suggestions? Zeitgeist [1] + Tracker [2] if you're on linux...

[1] <http://zeitgeist-project.com/>

[2] <http://projects.gnome.org/tracker/></comment></comment>


The negative control came up "positive" while the acid bath came up "negative" - <AUTHOR> http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259984904_Stimulus-triggered_fate_conversion_of_somatic_cells_into_pluripotency/reviews/103 Fascinating read if you can finish the whole thread. And the story is still developing. <comment><USER2> _I am not claiming that "STAP" cells exsist - only presenting the results of our research as it is - which is open to interpretation. Please, don't Hype up this data!_

 _Modified 23 minutes ago by the commenter._

Yeah, so this is indeed an interesting story to follow but I already think it has too much mass-media coverage. Time will tell. They keep showing it on the evening news here in Japan as I think it's quite a controversy.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Quote:

Kenneth Ka-Ho Lee · The Chinese University of Hong Kong Reviewer

Dear All,

This not an April Fool trick!. The negative control came up "positive" while the acid bath came up "negative". Looks like mechanical trituration could induce STAP cells!?!?!? However, this the first time we did this experiment and will require several more rounds to validate.

End quote.

Since this is ongoing research, don't jump to conclusion!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The story gets really interesting and is still developing.

<comment><USER3> What is the story?

<comment><AUTHOR> The lead researcher, in Hongkong, was invited to review and replicate STAP paper result (which generated a lot of discussion on HN when it first came out). There is something surpring going on. You have to read the latest comments to follow it. Sorry there is no neat TL;DR.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's not clear to me what's going on here. The title has been rewritten, and I can't tell whether the story is an empty controversy or of significant interest, let alone whether this is the best URL for it.

Let's figure this out together? I'd appreciate comments by informed users.

Alternatively, if you're sure that this is an attention-getting controversy piece rather than substantive news, it would be appropriate to flag the story. (If you're not sure, then don't flag it.)

If we decide together that the story belongs on the front page, I'll demote this subthread so on-topic comments take precedence.

<comment><USER2> My understanding is that this appears to be ongoing research related to this finding, trying to replicate the experiment:

[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/misconduct-found- japanes...](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/misconduct-found-japanese- stem-cell-research)

It would be a scientific breakthrough but there is controversy surrounding the claims.

 _edit: if you scroll to the bottom of the page you can see that the 'news' is fairly new. I find it kind of interesting but I'm not sure this is the best representation of the news since it's sort of breaking news. I wasn't really aware of this researchgate site before._

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes the concept of researchgate is very interesting. I just found out about it as well. Prof. Lee's comments on peer review is very interesting too in this interview of his:

"Read my interview on Wired about Peer review verses scientific social network.

[http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/14/research- gate...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/14/research-gate-kenneth- stem-cell-debunk) "</comment></comment></comment>


What to say when recruiters ask you to name the first number - <AUTHOR> http://blog.interviewing.io/exactly-what-to-say-when-recruiters-ask-you-to-name-the-first-number-and-in-other-hard-situations/ <comment><USER4> For startups or any companies who offer illiquid equity, the following is a good tactic I've been using that never fails.

Simply tell them (at the offer stage):

"Make me two offers, one with a higher cash compensation and the other with higher equity."

Then, always take the position with higher cash to base your next negotiations. If it's good enough, you might even take it outright.

This is a trick that exploits the fact that most startup founders and recruiters have an over-inflated "best case" view of how much their equity is actually worth, so it works in your favor when they use it as a benchmark against real money today. I've found they also fail to account how much it would be worth for you vs. them. Considering the risk is high you won't make anything from those options even if you exercise them (& stay long enough), the cash position is nearly always better. If the company becomes some run- away success there will be opportunity to get more equity but getting a cash raise in 6 months is infinitely harder I've found. Promotions at startups often times have an additional equity award and by that time you'll have more information as to the chance of success or not.

Generally, based on my experience, it's a good way to immediately get an extra $10-20k, with little emotional effort and without the other side feeling as if they were strong-armed, or that they had to give up something, since they offered you the choice. (This is important because you don't want to start your position there viewed as an "expensive new toy"). They still feel powerful and in control. They may even be happy you took the cash option and let them "keep more" of their precious company. When I started doing this I originally feared they would think I don't have faith in them, but I've never had someone feel insulted I took the cash option.

As an engineer I actually enjoy the negotiation process, it's the best type of problem: pure tactics.

<comment><USER5> I've always found it amusing how ham-fisted employers' tactics are when dealing with talented engineers. They know you're not stupid, but they try to swindle you anyway, knowing the only way you fall for it is if you have serious self-esteem or assertiveness issues.

That's why I tell every honest engineer I know how much I make and how the game works. It's disgusting.

<comment><USER6> Engineers are typically intelligent, but most of them know very little about negotiation, especially straight out of college - which is a huge percentage of new hires every year.

You may have graduated from MIT and done hard psets for 4 years, but the most you ever negotiated was that $50 desk you bought on Craigslist.

> the only way you fall for it is if you have serious self-esteem or > assertiveness issues.

Which young engineers, being often introverted and nerdy, do tend to have...

Recruiters are basically sales people, so they're on the other end of the extroverted scale: extremely assertive, used to interact with, read, and manipulate others. Is it any wonder they try to push engineers around?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _So, basically, telling them something will only hurt you and never help you. So don't do it. Now, here's exactly what to say when asked to name the first number:

At this point, I don't feel equipped to throw out a number because I'd like to find out more about the opportunity first – right now, I simply don't have the data to be able to say something concrete. If you end up making me an offer, I would be more than happy to iterate on it if needed and figure out something that works. I also promise not to accept other offers until I have a chance to discuss them with you._

And they answer, "Sorry, I cannot move forward without a number."

Stalemate.

I've been there and maybe I just don't enjoy awkward silences enough but my strategy is to have two numbers ready:

1\. My Public Number: the inflated number I give out when pressed. It's grounded in reality but vigorously optimistic. I'll often offer this up front just to anchor the discussion. I make sure it's a number I will be more than happy with, even it turns out that maybe it wasn't as much as they were prepared to offer. If the other side finds it out of the question, I've saved myself time and stress.

2\. My Walkaway Number: in the event the offer is lower, which it often is, the number below which the offer gets rejected. I don't share this publicly.

These vary based on other factors of the offer. But I have them ready. And I stick to the second number.

<comment><USER8> I was asked once (and in a 15 year career, only once) in an interview "How much do you need, and how much do you want?".

This question was almost devastating to my otherwise composed and in-the- moment mindset because it was so shockingly frank and signaled a sense of authenticity coming directly from the owner I had never seen before interviewing for tech jobs. I gave them both. He in turn gave me something in the middle, but much closer to the 'want' than I expected. What was more unexpected was how quickly I gave him numbers-they weren't just random numbers, it was a range that I had decided for myself would be the moonshot salary and "thanks but I'll pass" salary floor.

It was definitely a first being asked such a critical question in such a tactical way-I appreciated it for what it was.

That job lasted for four years until acquisition. We all walked away happy with the accomplishments made, that owner and I are still great friends to this day.

<comment><USER9> The variation of this that I usually ask is, "What salary do you need to maintain a comfortable cost of living and what do you consider a fair salary given your experience and the job requirements?"

Depending on my flexibility in the hiring process I may give them a realistic estimate of my budget as well.

I want to set the stage for the best information symmetry I can (given the circumstances). This makes salary negotiations closer to a collaborative game than a competitive one. I've even told candidates that their ask is unrealistically low for their experience level.

Salary negotiation is the first moment in a trust-based relationship. To me it's very odd that we start that trust-based relationship with a very high- stakes competitive problem that relies heavily on information asymmetry.

<comment><USER10> > What salary do you need to maintain a comfortable cost of living

That is a stupid question to ask. For anyone competent that I would ever want to hire, the amount that they need (unless they have a bad gambling habit or have made some terrible financial decisions) will be much less than the amount that they would ever accept.

<comment><USER11> Plenty of people, especially engineers with families, have lifestyle costs that exceed what a startup will comp in cash. (Lifestyle is supported by current job offering bonuses or liquid equity).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Using a throwaway, because of my position.

I recently withdrew an offer to a VP candidate because he negotiated too much (without being a jerk). He probably took advice from an article like this, and he wanted a) higher pay b) more vacation time c) special dispensation for items involving pay and time whose effect is even more pay.

He has been pursuing me to accept my original offer for the past 2 months and I have been lukewarm because I got turned off.

Summary: all successful negotiation comes down to leverage and it all comes to who has the leverage in a given situation. If you don't have the leverage, you may want to think about how much you negotiate. I have been in situations when I had no leverage at all, like my first job - where I had only one job offer, due to a) irrelevant educational credentials b) tough economic times - <USER2> thankfully, I had not read articles like this and that job led me to life outcomes that today I am quite successful and wealthy.

One of my classmates negotiated hard for that same job, and while he got more money, he left a bad taste in people and eventually got fired (I won't say he got fired because he negotiated hard in the beginning but he started out with a negative vibe, and I heard that from managers, and it went downhill from there). In fact, later on, when I became successful, he approached me for a job, and again negotiated hard with me. I passed him on.

So don't just blindly follow advice like this article. In fact, don't just blindly follow any advice, including mine. Negotiate if your situation permits, and know when your situation doesn't permit.

<comment><USER13> > One of my classmates negotiated hard for that same job, and while he got > more money, he left a bad taste in people

Care to elaborate what "negotiating hard" means?

I've been on both sides of the hiring process multiple times. Never seen a candidate get any serious downside from negotiating.

In fact, there were a couple of cases I wish they did! The worst was when you find a good candidate, give them what seems like a competitive offer, then they disappear, and you learn after a couple of months they preferred my position, but got better pay elsewhere, where the difference is definitely small enough that we would cover it. If only the candidate wasn't so polite!

Recently there's also a trend of recruiters encouraging candidates to negotiate counter-offers, which in my eyes is efficient.

> He has been pursuing me to accept my original offer for the past 2 months > and I have been lukewarm because I got turned off.

Clearly his mistake was negotiating with no leverage.

That said, I'll turn the table here: if I got an offer for a senior position, and a polite attempt to negotiate was met with immediate rescission, I'd assume the weren't quite so interested in the first place.

<comment><USER12> >Care to elaborate what "negotiating hard" means?

He was one of those people "I should get the absolute maximum I could ever get out of any situation." He did get a better offer, and so he was successful in that. He also created much higher expectation of what he could do "he really negotiates hard, I hope he is worth it" kind of vibe.

Fortunately for me, I went in creating reasonably modest expectation (let's say I don't stand out) and I was able to vastly exceed those expectation while he came with inflated expectations that he fell short. Not a great way to start a career. And it went downhill from there for him.

People do make judgments about another person based on factors like this. In my friend's case, I wasn't the one judging him as a tough negotiator (I was a nobody), it was the manager who hired him.

My point is: articles like this should not be taken as the gospel and my own advice is not gospel either. Evaluate your particular recruitment situation (as a job seeker or as a recruiting manager) and act with judgement and common sense.

<comment><USER13> > He was one of those people "I should get the absolute maximum I could ever > get out of any situation."

The problem then seems to be coming across as greedy and/or difficult / demanding person. So he's creating a concern over his personality, which goes far beyond the mere act of negotiating.

I maintain that if you negotiate politely and realistically, no such personality concerns should be raised. If a company still responds to that by rescinding, then either they are unreasonable, or they were never too interested, both of which are reasons for you to decline - especially the latter.

> People do make judgments about another person based on factors like this.

Yes, exactly.

Also, I'm guessing since it was a junior position, your friend's "tough negotiation" got him a few more thousands of dollars at best.

Negotiating hard over such a small amount will earn you the disdain of a hiring manager, who will see it as pettiness and lack of vision concerning future career.

> Evaluate your particular recruitment situation (as a job seeker or as a > recruiting manager) and act with judgement and common sense.

Definitely! Still, imho, most candidates err on the side of not negotiating enough, so articles like these are welcome.

Employers do have an advantage in negotiations: they know a lot more than the candidate (certainly junior candidate), and have people whose full-time job is to hire you on the best terms for them, while you are presumably an expert in something like writing software or designing electric circuits, not contract negotiations.

So I welcome articles like this, that should hopefully even the playing field a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Will my offer be rescinded if I try to negotiate?

> So, if you're talking to a super small company with one role that closes as > soon as they find someone, yes, then they might rescind the offer.

This happened to me. I was perfectly polite, asked for a very modest increase from their severely low offer (after listening to a speech about how they couldn't get any good help), and would have even accepted the position if their response was "non-negotiable". They not only rescinded the offer, but they were ridiculous jerks about it.

> But, to be honest ... an early startup punishing a prospective employee for > being entrepreneurial is a huge red flag to me.

That's exactly how I took it.

<comment><USER15> This happened to me years ago when I was offered a position at EasyPost. I tried to counter politely and modestly, and the CEO (I can't remember his name) got mad at me, told me I should be grateful that I even got an offer, and then rescinded the offer. It was a pretty big turnoff, and I wound up being afraid of negotiating for another year or so. Nowadays, I realize that kind of response means the CEO is a dick and I'm glad I didn't take that job.

<comment><USER16> I'm so curious about the state of mind it takes to acknowledge you need to hire expertise, while simultaneously seeing your own need as being a favour to someone else.

It feels resentful, I can't imagine a bigger red flag than someone who resents having to hire. They're basically saying they would never even consider approaching you if they had a choice.

You'll never get a respectful deal out of that, never mind a healthy work culture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I like a lot of the information in this article. But after going through a gauntlet of 20+ interview pipelines with 3 offers coming in at the same time and an additional 2 on the way, here's my advice... don't give the first number, give the first _range_.

Say the market is showing you between $X-$Y.

Consider it a form of late-binding. You want to be dynamic. So make that range both realistic and wide.

This is beneficial to you for a number of reasons. It will eliminate companies that can't get there. Win. It doesn't commit you to a specific number. Win. You don't have to ruin the rapport with an unnecessary game of chicken over who says the first number. Win. And most importantly, you have a wide open range to negotiate in when your offers come in. You can say... hey, I was upfront about my range, and I really feel like I'm <here> in that range for <these reasons>.

Using this strategy has worked beautifully for me.

<comment><USER18> The issue with a range is that you are by definition anchoring the minimum that you will accept, so a savvy employer won't go much higher than that (without mitigating circumstances like competing offers).

<comment><USER17> You're exactly right, a range anchors the minimum. However, there's far more bargaining chips on the table than just competing offers.

As a savvy negotiator you have to understand that every little piece of the offer is a bargaining chip that causes movement within your range: bonuses, equity, PTO, benefits, gym reimbursement, commute time, cost of living, hours, etc. Everything is fungible.

The salary range is just one lever in an entire control room.

No one has to agree or use my negotiating method. It's simply something that worked really well for me and allowed me to maintain more productive discussions as I negotiated. Whereas a game of chicken leaves a sour taste in both your mouth and theirs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I never understood this line everyone parrots about not giving the first number. That tactic works best only in situations where both parties have no clue what ballpark the other party has in mind. Which is definitely not the situation when you're one of 1000 similarly qualified engineers applying for a well-established job role.

In situations where both parties have a reasonable idea of what ballpark they are playing in, it's far better to toss the first number, because you get to set the baseline for the rest of the negotiation. Unless you're a very experienced negotiator, that initial baseline plays an outsized role in where the negotiation winds up finishing. For example, suppose both you and your counterparty know that the negotiation is going to be within the 100-150k ballpark. You tossing out 145k as the first number, will play much more to your benefit than allowing the recruiter to toss out 105k as the first number.

Obviously this tactic only works if you're well aware of what ballpark you're playing in. But that should be achievable by simply talking to your classmates, or perusing the many salary aggregators and discussion forums online. The only caveat I would add is to wait until all interviews are over and you've received confirmation that the company wants to make you an offer. At that point, no one is going to reject you for being too optimistic with your initial offer. Worst case scenario: you're going to get a much lower counteroffer. But at least you get the benefits associated with setting the baseline.

[https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills- daily/w...](https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/what- is-anchoring-in-negotiation/)

<comment><USER13> It's theoretically optimal not to give the first number.

The employer doesn't know how much you're making now, and can't legally ask (not in CA and NY anyway).

They have a theoretical top comp they're willing to offer for the position. Once you give them your number, their top offer becomes min(your_goal, their_top), which cannot be higher than their_top.

In simple terms, if you know your market value, and you tell them that number, you will never know of or benefit from their willingness to pay above that (often for good reason).

> For example, suppose both you and your counterparty know that the > negotiation is going to be within the 100-150k ballpark. You tossing out > 145k as the first number, will play much more to your benefit than allowing > the recruiter to toss out 105k as the first number.

That would be the recruiter messing up. His initial goal is to get you in the door, unless your expected pay ranges do not overlap. In this case, they do, so saying a low number just means he's encouraging a potential fit to walk away.

A recruiter in this situation will typically state a range, and definitely won't just quote a number near the bottom of the range.

<comment><USER11> > It's theoretically optimal not to give the first number.

Only if you ignore transaction costs of the interview process. Unless you feel you can get their numbers before you start, it may be worth the time savings to give up some potential future leverage.

<comment><USER13> Not being the first to quote a number just means that - letting them bring up the first number.

It doesn't mean flying out for an onsite without knowing if they can match your pay. That's obviously silly.

<comment><USER11> Right, but employer normally won't offer a number pre interview. So the dynamics are tricky to expect them to give you a number while not offering one yourself. The article doesn't touch on how to pull that off. Have you been successful getting this info without giving your details up?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I recently went thru job search, and i found something that worked really well when companies ask for your number.

Basically say that when you have been talking with recruiters you have heard a wide range for your experience and they are better qualified to tell you what your experience is worth TO THEM. Then ask what is their range for the position?

And it's 100% true. Salary is completely driven by how much an employer values your experience so they are more qualified. Also, I had more than a 40k delta between the lowest numbers I heard vs highest. So why would I throw out a number that has a high risk of being over / under what they value the position at?

And make sure you ask up front. I had one company that said they had "great" salaries, and it turned out to be a really low number. Thankfully I asked and did not waste time with them.

Most times it is completely fine. Sometimes recruiters push back - <USER3> acknowledge and repeat yourself. If they absolutely will not move forward without a number then I would walk away.

Also sometimes recruiters will demur to share until later in the process. Up to you if you want to chance it. But definitely hold them accountable. Ask when in the process they can share, and hold them to that.

The one company that i interviewed with that was a stickler about all this is Facebook. They would not share any range no matter how much I asked. That said fortunately it's so big you can get a decent idea from Glassdoor.

</comment><comment><USER21> While waiting for the article to load i was thinking - was zero or one the first number? Or was it two, because you need at least two to start counting?

Then i realized that i was offtopic in a kinda funny way

<comment><USER22> Etymologically speaking, I feel like the first number was most likely "two". The idea of quantifying things wouldn't be relevant unless you had multiple items to bother counting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I cringed reading this article. It is so much in the bubble of Silicon Valley startup culture it's ridiculous.

Most developers don't work for startups or one of the FAANG companies. Most will be working standard corporate jobs where you get a salary, paid time off, maybe a bonus, and somewhat likely a 401K match. That's it. No great equity stake, nothing.

Depending on your market, it's quite easy with the right networking, research, and talking to enough recruiters, you can find what your market range is.

Statistically, you're probably not a special snowflake. Everyone thinks that they are and deserve way above what the local market is paying. You probably don't.

The only time that I've been "underpaid" was when I either stayed at a company too long, or purposely made less than I could because I was learning a new technology or otherwise building my resume.

It's not that difficult. Work with local recruiters, tell them what your minimum well researched jump number is and make sure you are keeping your skillset in line with the market. If I'm off by a few thousand, so be it. I'll become aware of it in two or three years when I'm looking again.

But from looking at salary surveys, talking to friends in the industry, and talking to recruiters, I don't think I am.

Yes I could make more if I wanted to be a manager (no desire) or a consultant (don't want the travel or the stress right now).

<comment> Iwan-Zotow > FAANG

What is N for? Or you meant FAAMG ?

<comment><USER24> Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google. Microsoft is as relevant as IBM.

<comment><USER25> I thought everyone was getting a new impression of Microsoft under their new CEO.

<comment><USER26> As a Linux Admin/consultant I've been impressed with some of the directions they've been headed in recently. If they don't butcher github in the next few years I may consider hating on them slightly less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> These days I usually start the conversation with a recruiter saying I'm looking for total compensation above $300k.

Some don't respond, which is fine because it saves us both time.

Others will shoot back with something about equity. Then we can talk about cash / equity split and there's plenty of room for negotiation there. I've never felt like my $300k number limits my ability to negotiate (beyond putting a halt to some discussions).

Where did I get $300k from? My peers at FAANG, my friends in recruiting, recruiters who state salary bands upfront. Basically, I've done my market research.

</comment><comment><USER28> If you are in California, this is a completely moot point. The new comp law (AB168) requires employers to disclose the pay range for a job upon request.

So if a recruiter asks you to name the first number, you should ask them for the pay range and they are legally obligated to disclose the range.

Source: [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB168)

</comment><comment><USER29> Between me and two friends who are all early in our careers, we've had very difficult times getting companies to move on salary. This was in SF, all within in the last 6 months.

On the other hand, all three companies increased our starting bonus substantially with hardly a fight.

For two of us the reasons were more or less "you're already at the top of your salary band" and for the last the reason was they pay all new grads the same (only one of us is a new grad).

<comment><USER30> Amusingly, that just encourages you to change jobs more often. Amortize that starting bonus over two years, basically.

<comment> shady-lady Are starting bonuses a solely US/SF construct? Have never seen them in Europe.

<comment><USER30> I've gotten them elsewhere in the US, but can't speak to Europe. Usually they have strings attached; basically "work for us for a year or pay us this back". It's a good way to make the offer more attractive without it affecting the following year's budget, while also achieving a bit of risk management. Relocation usually stipulates the same thing; I know with a recent move and job change of my own, between signing bonus and relo costs, I probably would be looking at $50k if I walked away within a year, so yeah, they own me for that time. However I knew what I was getting into and so far am very happy there, so mutually beneficial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Can't remember where I read it (and I've never tried it), but you could try this: name a ridiculously high number as a joke. Laugh about it a little. Then try to move on with them by saying something like "no seriously, what are you offering?"

You've fulfilled their demand for a first number and pivoted back to them for a response.

Anyone else think this might work?

<comment><USER32> As a hiring manager, this kind of sarcasm would seem immature to me, especially when we barely know each other.

<comment><USER33> As a candidate, asking the candidate for their price to prey on their information imbalance would seem jerky to me. Just be open and tell them what you think you can pay them, and whether that's negotiable based on different conditions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is good advice about naming the first number if and only if you don't have good market data. If you have good market data, and you should with sites like levels.fyi, you should use that data to your advantage. Why? Well, first off it signals value. If you name a number that is a bit of a stretch for the prospective company, but still within a realm of reason, they start to wonder if they have undervalued you. Second, it demonstrates that you have done your homework. Third, it shows that you have negotiation skills and willingness to use them.

This technique is referred to as anchoring. [https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills- daily/w...](https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/what- is-anchoring-in-negotiation/)

Use anchoring to take control of the negotiation and to maximize your compensation.

</comment><comment><USER35> On reverse car salesman - use this on the company you know for sure you want. Likely the company you know for sure you want will remain that company even within a 10k range price difference (speaking to software engineers here). That being said, you can start throwing all sorts of weird shit on the table, if you've already negotiated your salary up. PTO is usually the first thing that comes to mind, but I've also seen "guaranteed right to wear flip flops in the office, forever, no matter what office dress code becomes" put in a very picky qa engineer's contract (which is funny because he showed up to his onsite in a suit and tie... And I haven't seen him in anything but flip flops since). There's a hardware laboratory here so I got "access to laboratory" put in my contract, and since then I've learned to solder by just hanging around in there. Remote work stuff comes to mind, maybe some sort of time-bound access to powerful servers, just see what you can think of.

Reason being, if the company has to give just one more thing to nab you, they'll feel like they really worked hard to secure the perfect candidate, there'll be no doubt in their mind, the recruiter/decision maker will always tell the story about how you were looking at other offers "but we finally secured her by putting the Foosball table right into her contract." And on the other side of it, you get that warm fuzzy feeling that you negotiated all there was to negotiate.

<comment><USER36> I negotiated flex time at my current job, as I have for every job since 1999.

After 6 weeks they told me I couldn't have flex time anymore but wouldn't give me the pay cut I took to get it. So now I leave early every day at different times and "work" from home once a week.

I haven't done any real work for them in over a year and a half because of the flex time fiasco. I keep waiting for them to fire me but I'm friends with my boss so he's protecting my job, which is hilarious, but that's how shitty this company is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> With recruiters there's simply one rule to go by: Either you're feeling the pain, or they are.

If there's a trick in this, it's to make the recruiter feel just enough pain that they hate to say no, because they lose their commission.

So when you're asked salary first, go ahead and answer it and highball it. Either one of three things will happen:

1\. They will tell you it's fine (and it might be), in which case, you didn't ask high enough.

2\. They will say you're way too high and hang up.

3\. They will reveal what their highest salary is for the position (or something close to that).

Number 3 is what you're looking for. Because then you can negotiate off your high ball answer and look like you're being reasonable, if they refuse to come up, then it's time to hang up the phone.

</comment><comment><USER38> I don't like how this starts out. Ratcheting up the pressure on how critical it is for you to negotiate from the get-go in your career, as if it's going to somehow compound down the road.

That's _only_ true if you're planning to stay at the same company forever. You can ask for whatever you want in your next interview. It's nobody's business how much you made in the past.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't negotiate, I'm saying it's okay if you didn't.

<comment><USER39> > _You can ask for whatever you want in your next interview. It 's nobody's > business how much you made in the past._

That's only true in California. For the rest of us, it's perfectly normal to be asked how much we currently make. It may not happen at the beginning, but after your first counter-offer, they will almost always ask where you're at now, and then say something like, "that's quite an increase from where you're currently at. How do you justify that?"

<comment><USER40> Just lie when asked.

It's not a crime to lie in a job interview. In fact, it's one of the best tools jobseekers have at their disposal. As long as you can afford to not get the job, swing for the fensces.

<comment><USER41> Absolutely do not lie unless you want the offer rescinded. A lot of companies will ask for exactly that after the offer is accepted and it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

<comment><USER42> This basically never happens.

There is no way for your employer to verify this information.

And even if they DID, do this, 6 months later, if they fire you then they just lost that 3 months of training time that they spent on you.

Sure, they might do it anyway if they are spiteful and idiotic. But most of the time Ive learned that businesses don't like wasting money.

And the immoral people in this situation is the COMPANY, for engaging in this shady negotiation practice. They deserve anything that happens to them if they engage in this behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> > as you get more senior, more of your comp comes from equity

Maybe in SV? Or if you buy options or discounted shares in a publicly traded company you work for? But I don't feel like this is the norm nowadays.

<comment><USER44> So you're saying: as you get more senior, less of your comp comes from equity?

<comment><USER45> Equity isn't a thing at most companies.

<comment><USER46> Most companies in the entire world, or most companies that we talk about here on HN?

<comment><USER47> Most companies outside of the Bay area.

<comment><USER46> Most companies outside and inside the Bay Area are things like individual law practices and barber shops. I'm a bit surprised to find such companies a topic of conversation on HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I've gotten bolder and last time job hunting my answer the first time the recruiter asked for my range: "if you offer $300k right now, I'll take the job today."

<comment><USER49> The crazy thing is, in this current market, you might actually be low balling yourself at 300k...

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Couple of things I'm wondering about....

What constitutes an exploding offer? Is it a 3 day deadline? 1 week? 2 weeks? 3? Personally, anything less than 2 weeks seems rushed to be making a decision that could cost me $10K or more over the next year. I feel like 3 weeks should be enough to wrap up any open recruitment processes, and 6 weeks is downright absurd, but I don't have a good sense of the issue overall.

Also, if merely mentioning having an on-site can get me a $5k increase, why not just bluff?

<comment><USER51> Everybody has their own range. That said, when a company demands an answer by the end of the day or the end of the next day, or if you have mentioned you have another interview coming up and they set it before then, it's an exploding offer and you should reject it.

It's entirely reasonable for a company that really needs _your skills now_ because they don't have anyone else who can do that work to ask for an answer in a week. You should consider negotiating a little harder.

For any company that already has several people working in the same position, or is expecting you to move any significant distance, you should expect them not to be in a huge hurry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Maybe this advice is good when applying to the big four, but otherwise it's a wonderful way to waste one's own time. From having conducted hundreds of in person interviews and probably thousands of calls with recruiters or phone interviews, I find that figuring out the band a company is willing to pay is fairly easy. Also, it's not a wide band even at senior levels. In fact, the acceptable range is usually quite narrow. I save a ton of time by not interviewing with companies who can't even pay the low end of the range I'm looking for. This is the situation most of the time, in fact. I've done interviews and take home assignments only to find out the company's range and my range don't overlap at all. That's just stupid and a waste of time. These days, I discuss salary first if it comes up and definitely before dedicating any major amount of time to an interview. Is there a chance that I'm leaving money on the table? Maybe a very tiny one. Usually, I'm just saving myself hours or days of interviewing for a job I will never take. For almost all jobs, I find this advice to be wrong and a waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER21> While Waiting until the article has loaded, i tried to figure out if Zero or One came first ... doh

</comment><comment><USER53> I'm probably too late, and I am probably too far outside the core interest group (the US developer market) for this one. but anyway: What would you say, if I hypothesized a fairly narrow but structural pay grade for years of experience, qualifications and perhaps a more variable quality for domain specific knowledge or above-competent?

Seriously: if the entire industry moved to a different model, would the fact _some_ of us were significantly worse off, but most of us on average were better off be acceptable?

Thats basically what Unions, and Unionized negotiating achieves. If (like me) you worked in the tertiary education sector as a researcher, this is how it worked.

Could any of you people go there? If not, why not?

<comment><USER54> I would be skeptical, but open, so long as it is frequently renegotiated. Dev salaries have gone up incredibly over time, and new technologies come in all the time. After new technologies/niches come in, their value changes over time. A specialist in neural networks pre-2010 vs post-2012 would have quite different market rates. It wouldn't be enough that most of us on average are better off today. It would be important that most of us on average will be better off today and in 15 years, which seems to require frequent renegotiation in a fast moving sector like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> One can also do this... When asked what your compensation requirements are, simply say you need to research what realistic salaries are in the current market before answering the question. If pressed for an answer, just say doing that research is important to you, and that if they really need an answer before continuing, you'll come find them when you have an answer. This allows you to plainly state your preference, respect their process, and it gives you time to come up with a number you'd actually want. The recruiter may just back off and let you proceed without asking for a number until much later in the process.

</comment><comment><USER56> The response to the exploding offer is incorrect.

The correct response is "No thank you." For extra style points tack on "But it was great talking with you, I'll be sure to tell my colleagues about you."

</comment><comment><USER57> On the hiring side here.

Who hires / works like this?

"I'll be happy to iterate on what I need when I get an offer"!! I'd move along politely at this point. Reality is, our best hires have approached us even when no job posted - but know what we do. They don't seem to care about salary - and I'm eager to give big raises fast to keep them - 15-20%+ at 6 mo, 15-20% at 12 months + bonus. The market is tight at this point and managers want to keep staff.

Thankfully not doing tech hires, if this article is the way these guys work - I'm grateful not to have to hire in that space.

My life is more boring. screening resumes, only 40% of which are minimally qualified. Quick phone screens after two of us go through the stack (we use an online tool to manage this). What are salary expectation is a question in that first call. I'm happy to share ranges with folks as well. Saves us all time to chat this out early - and I find I enjoy working with people who can talk about money in a rational manner.

<comment><USER58> How can you talk about salary if you don't know the job ? I certainly won't negociate the same money for a start up, a big co, a remote work, a borring one, one with hard challenges, one with long hours, one with benefits, location, travelling, fancy clients, bonuses, shared values, etc.

After a first call, I won't know remotly what I need to know what to negociate for, and giving any price is most probably setting wrong expectations that will be very hard to come back from later.

It seems lose-lose to me.

Besides, i have several offers at the same time. I put my recruiters in competition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> If it is a contract to hire position let the recruiter pick the number for you, because their commission is a percentage of that number and they know the client's (hiring company) target range and exceptional range. You will want to max out that contractor rate, because that rate is a factor in your conversation negotiation.

</comment><comment><USER60> Another aspect which is often missed during thinking about own number, or discussing the offer with a recruiter is that even if one's skillset is worth X, it is not always the case company will need the whole set of skills applicant posses. Hence their market price for that position might be lower than what an applicant is looking for, yet still fair. This kind of mismatch of honest numbers is the case where things will just not work out. One thing is being underpaid, the totally different thing is doing something too simple for one.

When I was searching for a job, I used to ask straight their salary range, since I always assumed business is pricing job fairly and that number would tell me what kind of skillset their business need. (And no, one's extra skills are not gonna give an edge to business, and usually these extras worth nothing to the business, hence lower offer)

</comment><comment><USER61> The best way I've found to avoid this problem is to have multiple offers on the table at the same time. And to be sure the employers are aware they have competition.

It seems to create the same dynamics as a blind-bid procurement process, which works in your favor.

</comment><comment><USER62> As someone trying to build a brand new team, I am happy to pay people whatever they think they are worth. I wonder if there is a way to do this without offending the engineers I am trying to attract - I mean, if they are not to answer the question how much do you want, how do I pay them what they want? I am not at all worried about over-paying because any engineers that don't meet the performance bar I set won't last long enough for it to matter.

<comment><USER63> You say you're not worried about over-paying, but you mention the opinion/want of the engineer twice.

If you're truly not worried, just figure out the _most_ generous compensation on the market (e.g. consultant rates, what FAANG pays) for a comparable engineer and exceed it.

Alternatively, or additionally, be generous with equity and/or profit-sharing. Even with a base salary that's only slightly above market, an engineer is unlikely to feel cheated/exploited if they're also being compensated with a significant portion of the value the company realizes from them. (In the typical company, where all employees' combined share is 10%, it's _not_ significant).

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I too spent a lot of my life being wrong about what the word 'diatribe' means. This is not nearly angry enough to count as a diatribe.

</comment><comment><USER65> If you tell them how much you previously made, and it was a lot, is there a good way to prove you're telling the truth?

Or should you not want to work for them if they don't believe you (and they shouldn't hire you if they don't believe you)?

Is it acceptable to offer a copy of previous job offers or contracts to document salary history, sign-up bonuses and relocation plans, or would that be weird?

</comment><comment><USER66> Unless it's a really small company the job has been graded, which means that they already know the title and level of the job and the salary range that has been approved.

When they ask for the number I always respond by saying, "Please tell me the approved salary range for the position."

If they won't tell you the salary range it's probably not a company worth working at.

<comment><USER67> These rules can always be broken, however.

Money can always be found with the right person inside saying "I want this person on the team ASAP"

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> "My wife is a compensation consultant specializing in tech jobs, so I'll ask her to run an analysis on your open position".

</comment><comment><USER69> Not saying up front what you are looking for is completely wrong and really bad advice.

I've negotiated thousands of salary deals and it never works like that.

Consider this simple scenario - employer is looking for a mid level developer, wanting to pay around $80K. You, however, know that you would never accept a role for less than what you got paid in your last job, which is $110K.

So how is this going to play out? 3 interviews, everyone invests their time and effort and codes coding tests and assessments and at the end of it they say "we've got $80K in mind for you", and you are outraged.

The correct advice when asked your salary target is to know the range you are after. It should be neither too high, nor too low. Ask yourself the question - "what is the salary I would feel happy with to stay in this job for the long term?" \- that number is the bottom of the range you present. You can add $5K to $10K to that range to give yourself some negotiating upside.

So your answer in the above example might be "I'd like $110K to $120K depending on the responsibilities of the role".

That's the right way to do it. It's ridiculous to go into a recruiting process hoping to negotiate at the final stage - that would waste everyone's time.

<comment><USER54> > You can add $5K to $10K to that range to give yourself some negotiating > upside.

This probably makes more sense as a percentage. If you're making 80, adding 5-10k for negotiating makes sense. It you're making 120, adding 10-20k probably makes more sense. I always go with the top range of what I think is reasonable and add 10-20% or so.

Basically the very upper limit of reasonable. Yeah it's silly, but everyone's in on it and since I started doing that, I've been pleasantly surprised quite a lot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I realized recently that companies that have asked me upfront what my salary expectations are have never made me an offer of employment (regardless of whether and how I answered that question.) As a result I don't give them a number and I also expect that to be our last conversation.

</comment><comment><USER71> Give a number, if they don't accept it, leave. If I want to play games, I go to an arcade.

</comment><comment><USER72> This would be helpful if it were 1994 and there was lots of what economists call asymmetric information, but now you can price-check a company's offer in seconds.

Besides, companies can also easily see what the going rate is and normalize their budgets accordingly. I recently went through the job search process and almost all companies offered similar rates.

If you're north of 100K (and I assume most experienced software engineers are) realistically 10-20K more will not make a significant impact on your quality of life. We're talking an extra $500-1K a month. Nice, but doesn't exactly catapult you into the 1%.

As long as your salary is in a competitive range it's more important to focus on finding the right fit of industry, company, people and projects. Wouldn't over-weight salary negotiations, especially in a day where both employers and job-seekers can quickly ascertain market rates.

</comment><comment><USER73> Something not often considered is playing on an awkward silence between the tit-for-tat. If you let things stick in the air a bit longer sometimes signaling from the other party can help you find that sweet spot.

</comment><comment><USER74> How about "From my research and experience, I believe that I can get $X" (name your most optimistic realistic expectation), "but I'm willing to negotiate if that number is a problem."

<comment><USER75> Don't follow up immediately with the phrase "I am willing to negotiate". It signals lack of confidence.

<comment><USER74> Then how about "... is a problem for you guys?" Their response may be "oh, not at all" (being the highly successful company they are selling you on).

<comment><USER75> Name your number and shut up. They will tell you if it's a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> I have no problem giving a number, but I know how much I'm worth. I really don't want to get paid more or less.

</comment><comment><USER77> I always ask for $5 or $10 more an hour then I'm currently making. That works for me to get more money each time.

</comment><comment><USER78> any good links to understand how to negotiate stock/RSUs (or how all that stuff even works)?

</comment><comment> Iwan-Zotow aleph null

</comment><comment><USER79> OK, I know this doesn't contribute to the discussion and I apologize in advance.

But based on this title I thought this would be a short blog post about recruiters using phone-screen questions to probe whether a candidate uses zero-indexed or one-indexed counting.

<comment><USER80> Yes, I was profoundly disturbed at the thought of this being an elimination question.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Playover lets you search for long layovers - <AUTHOR> http://www.gillian.im/2014/03/weekend-project-playover.html

<comment><USER2> Interesting.

Is this something that works for people? Even with a 6 hour layover, I'd probably be stressed about getting back to the airport in time, unless I heavily limited my activities.

<comment><AUTHOR> It totally depends on the city - in Paris, I've found that's enough time to take the RER transit into the city, have a ~2 hour lunch or walk, and leave with plenty of time to get back. But of course you could also just search for longer layovers - for international flights, you can take up to 24 hours between flights and still travel on the same fare.</comment></comment>