What do we know about Elon Musk's electric plane design? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@andrewt3000/what-do-we-know-about-elon-musk-s-electric-plane-design-981e704f59a3#.vllfdi4s9 <comment><USER2> As soon to be late moore's law showed since 2006 - don't assume anything with extrapolation.

Batteries may or may not hit the target density. Or they could easily surpass it an order of magnitude.</comment>


When to fire your co-founders - <AUTHOR> http://venturehacks.com/articles/fire-co-founders <comment><USER2> The first words he uses to illustrate cofounders you shouldn't bring in are "grey hair". If I could recruit anyone in the world as a cofounder, a lot of the top contenders would have gray hair.

<comment><USER3> And he favored people with no background over people with "so-so backgrounds." If you haven't been out in the world, its easy to have a spotless background.

<comment><USER4> He probably told the kid to "come back when you have a team and some more experience." ha ha

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The biggest mismatches that I can think of involve co-founders with completely different expectations of what the company will do, different financial backgrounds and different energy levels.

As soon as you're 'not in this boat together' you're in trouble.

Other than that I certainly wouldn't let age be a problem either way or rule out people with a serious commitment to family or other dependents.

As for firing co-founders, that is not as easy as he makes it seem, I think that if you get to the point where you need to 'fire a co-founder' and they don't leave by themselves that you are probably better off starting over.

Ideas aplenty.

</comment><comment><USER6> I was telling a guy I sometimes do contract work for about one of my projects and he asked if I was interested in bringing him on as a cofounder (which I need) to take care of the UI/UX stuff and balance out my development load (which I also desperately need). I told him I'd think about it, but I'm honestly very hesitant to take on a cofounder at this point. My main hesitation with him is that he lives in another country and I worry about all of the complications involved with that (although I heard it worked out well for 37Signals). Another issue I have is that my project is still kind of my baby, and I hate to hand even a part of it over to anyone else just yet. I guess I need to do more networking before I make any decisions. It's lonely working alone, but it's scary trusting other people. Perhaps that means I haven't met anyone that I trust enough to work with as a cofounder.

<comment><USER7> If you want a founder, pick someone you already know and trust. The next best thing is to hire someone, and down the road promote them to effective founder status.

<comment><USER8> But who's not a friend.

The secondary relationship makes the primary relationship hard when it has issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To me, the core of this article is always make sure you have the right team for what you're trying to achieve.

Allowing 'hanger-on' people who have installed themselves into positions within the company, displays a clear lack of leadership and the ability to make and carry out difficult decisions.

If you don't know the kind of people you need in your team, recognise this as a weakness, and seek help. Then be prepared to follow the advice you get.

</comment><comment><USER10> I like the read but..... I would have liked the author to be more specific about the qualities as a cofounder. A well rounded person compared to a so-so person is still too vague for me. And as a VC and the reason to not invest in my start-up was due to co-founders I would like him to say so, not make a vague excuse as he said he did per the article.</comment>


Boxo.coffee: new monthly coffee box subscription service - <AUTHOR> https://boxo.coffee/ <comment><USER2> I'm not sure who these guy's target market is.

The annual plan for $300/yr costs $25 a pound, the monthly costs more. Coffee should not cost $25 a pound, no matter how hipster and unique the experience is, it's coffee.

</comment><comment><USER3> its not a bad way of testing out a selection of roasters to find the better ones but it seems a bit pricey (i dont know for sure though as im not US based so im not sure what is normal pricing for you guys but stuff here is usually more expensive)</comment>


How do you back up large amounts of data? - <AUTHOR>

Referencing this post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=417762 how do you go about backing up data?
How do you do it if you have lots of dynamic and usergenerated content, and have to do it from a live server? How often should it be done?
Any experiences? <comment><USER2> I use tarsnap. :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Looking at the e-mail adress on the website I strongly presume you're the guy behind tarsnap :-)

It seems like a great service, and judging by your comments here I'm sure it's a rock solid solution. But I think you need a pretty serious design/usability/marketing effort before it will take off.

Btw this isn't meant to be degrading in any way, just a suggestion from a fellow HN'er ;-)

<comment><USER2> Tarsnap isn't very flashy yet, but I decided to start with the core functionality -- secure efficient backups -- and work out from there rather than starting with style and having substance languish on a to-do list.

If you haven't used tarsnap, you haven't seen the worst of the lacking web design -- the tarsnap web management interface (aka. accounting interface) is minimalist to an extreme. But I think this is the right way to go -- I could be making the web interface look nice right now, but instead I'm writing code for automatically processing incoming payments... and at the end of the day, being able to sign up, send in some money, download the tarsnap code, and start storing backups in a matter of minutes is probably preferable to signing up, sending in some money, and then looking at a beautifully designed website for the 0-10 hours before I'm next awake and able to process the payment.

Making things look nice can happen later -- for now I'd prefer to have the most solid system I can produce so that everybody who uses tarsnap can enthusiastically recommend it to their friends.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's the right decision.

Just wanted to point it out :-)

Ping me if you ever want some help with usability.

<comment><USER2> The nice thing about having enthusiastic users is that I'm already getting lots of advice about how to make tarsnap better (and more usable). But if you want to give me some more advice, I'm always happy to listen -- and even better if you sign up for tarsnap and try it out first. :-)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cost Cutting Algorithms Are Making Your Job Search a Living Hell - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkekvb/cost-cutting-algorithms-are-making-your-job-search-a-living-hell <comment><USER2> These effectively blacklist people who aren't the 'average ideal' candidate in any way shape or form.

Since many firms use the same or similar algorithms, and will likely to continue converging, this amounts to a global employment blacklist.

<comment><USER3> Which would imply that people with "average ideal" resumes are overpriced and you can get a steal on people who, for instance, are unusually qualified in specific ways but lack some common HR filter like a bachelor's.

Or the algorithms are actually accurate and people who aren't "average ideal" candidates are lousy hires on average.

<comment><USER4> This imply that cost-cutting measures have not been applied to these algorithms, which they probably were. This also imply that algorithms are accurate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> These systems all favour one specific skill over any other: Lying.

</comment><comment><USER6> Seems like no one wants to admit that modern job-seeking is a living hell because it would mean that you're not skilled enough to be part of the "booming" software engineering market/economy that everyone else is seemingly a part of.

<comment><USER7> I work in sales recruiting (agency) with various tech companies in SF.

Compared to the people in this story, it's a totally different world, where candidates have a lot more power (partly evidenced by the fact that companies will pay for external recruiting help).

That said, I've run a few LinkedIn & Indeed job posts. It's frustrating when you see the same people apply for wildly different jobs over and over again. Whenever I hear about someone who's angry that they've applied to thousands of jobs but get no callbacks, I think about the candidates I see with no relevant experience, who've applied for a mid/sr level position only a week after they applied for a graduate level position. I get that candidates are frustrated, but as someone who's screening for people, it won't get you moved forward.

<comment><USER8> From their perspective, they've probably heard nothing from your company. Rejection notices would help; however, if companies continue to use the standard practice of "never tell anyone if your resume has been accepted or rejected", job-seekers will continue to try to apply to as many jobs as possible.

<comment><USER9> I find rejection notices do wonders for people. Even better, rejection phone calls that allow for questions. The downside is that, being based in the U.S., there is a litigious danger lurking in every word written or spoken in those setups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My read of the HN zeitgeist on this issue is that algorithms would be objectionable even if their predictions were perfect matches to reality. This mindset is totally alien to me: we're better off when we know more than less. Deliberate ignorance is an incredibly dangerous attitude to adopt. It's premodern and antiscientific.

<comment><USER11> I disagree. The problem is that the skills to get hired are very different than the skills to do the job.

I'm reminded of a thing I read about not too long ago--an organization trying to help those who had stumbled in life to get hired. They had a guy who seemed qualified but nobody would hire him. They tried asking a company to give him a practical test before an interview--then didn't hear back about the interview. A followup call revealed they had hired him on the spot based on the practical test.

</comment></comment><comment> BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 There's a huge market waiting for:

1\. AI apps to tailor resumes and cover letters to openings

2\. Handle the tests and phone interview bots.

</comment><comment><USER12> These HR test firms should form a standards body so that you can test anywhere and use results at all jobs. Then they could start offering training for the tests, and certifications that you can put on your resume.

I think this idea has legs, to a degree.

<comment><USER13> Bachelors from the University of HR? I'll pass on that degree, thanks.

<comment><USER14> Isn't that already the main value of current bachelor's degrees?</comment></comment></comment>


Grooveshark's new Javascript/HTML interface - <AUTHOR> http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/ <comment><USER2> This is an amazing rewrite from the Flash version - well worth the time they put into this one. They have some really dedicated staff members and some great talent on the team.

<comment><USER3> Funny thing - everything works amazingly, until I turn Flashblock on <http://i.imgur.com/HFe8h.png> then all my stuff disappears (favs, playlists) and this js error hangs my firefox to death.

Besides that, it's awesome, even better than before.

<comment><USER4> Exelent UX, but the flashblock problem is anoying.. I think they sould put some empty flash animation somewhere on the main page so that you could hit "play" on flashblock.

<comment><USER3> You can 'allow flash for this site' anyways, I turned off now to see what happens and oooops :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Apparently the latest version of Opera isn't modern enough. I'm really sick of projects blatantly not supporting Opera. There's nothing wrong with it.

Update: Come on there's no reason to downvote this. At least explain why you're downvoting this, for example, Opera killed your puppy.

<comment><USER6> We _will_ support Opera, we just didn't have time to test it in Opera before release and didn't want to claim it worked without that.

I've tried it in Opera, and it's perfectly usable apart from some weird scrolling issues where you can scroll the whole site off the page, and sometimes Opera doesn't seem to want to redraw some items in the songlists without scrolling a bit.

Just click the "Let's take a chance" button when the browser compatibility lightbox opens and the site will let you in.

<comment><USER5> Fair enough, but the phrasing suggests your browser isn't modern enough, rather than Grooveshark hasn't been tested to support it, which can be somewhat frustrating to a user of the browser, which may in fact be modern and up to date.

<comment><USER7> Our copy writers don't always get the why's exactly correct for this stuff, so I apologize for them for making it seem like Opera isn't modern. In reality, our current temporary lack of support for Opera is entirely Internet Explorer's fault. It took all our available resources to get the site working reliably in IE there was none left for Opera. Which sucks because Opera is /fast/ and standards compliant...but it has very few users.

<comment><USER8> It doesn't quite sound like that's the intention here.

"We've tested the new Grooveshark in modern versions of Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer, and Safari.

It looks like you aren't using one of these browsers."

I guess ask them, but to me that reads like "Recent versions of these browsers have been tested. You aren't using something we have tested on."

Good job, though, Grooveshark folk! I love the updates so far.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How come the RIAA is okay with Grooveshark streaming any music at any time? Pandora has many more restrictions in their free version to qualify for "internet radio" licensing rates.

<comment><USER10> I'm pretty sure there's a legal loophole occurring here. All of the music on Grooveshark.com is uploaded by the users and Grooveshark is not responsible for the content. If the song is copyright it's user who broke the law, not Grooveshark. It's a similar concept to copyright videos on Youtube.

<comment><USER9> You're talking about DMCA safe harbor provisions, which would only apply if Grooveshark promptly took down content when requested by copyright owners. Further, Grooveshark isn't even claiming the service is for "user generated music". (YouTube is different on both those points.)

<comment><USER6> <http://grooveshark.com/dmca>

<comment><USER11> The only music I've seen taken down was from the Beatles.

<comment><USER12> and Pink Floyd

<comment><USER13> can't find Smashing Pumpkins on there either

<comment><USER14> Glad to see that I'm not the only one. I was very confused, I was in a weird mood and was looking for both Pink Floyd and Smashing Pumpkins, but couldn't find either of them. Now I know...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Great work! Linux users now officially love you :-)

<comment><USER16> Grooveshark has been working fine on Ubuntu for me. What were the issues people reported?

edit: just tried the site in Firefox ; can't even get the sign-in form to react. :(

Seems OK in Chrome, but at least the Flash version worked in FF for me.

<comment><USER6> If you're really having trouble, the flash version is still available at <http://retro.grooveshark.com>

We tested pretty extensively in Firefox, but there's always things that can go wrong. Also if you think you have any info that will help us fix it, hit up the Contact Us link at the bottom of <http://help.grooveshark.com/>

<comment><USER16> Well, if I run FF from a different account it seems OK, so my guess is that the scripting is not playing well with Greasemonkey or Firebug or some other add-on.

So, on the one had, the trouble is at my end, but on the other hand most sites have no trouble with my add-on arrangements, so there's something that's at least a little sensitive in the GS scripting.

<comment><USER16> Follow up: Disabled add-ons to see if one was causing trouble, and it's Flashblock 1.5.13. Usually it shows a placeholder you can click to allow the Flash object to run, but it doesn't seem to show for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This an awesome step for Grooveshark. Now let the greasemonkey or chrome extension customization scripts begin. Would love to see, what users come up with. I already coded new ad remover for my self. Couple ideas I have are as follows,

1\. Last.fm scrobbler 2\. Lyrics plugin (same as winamp has) 3\. put 'now playing' list at the right sidebar 3\. make 'now playing' list thinner. etc.

<comment><USER18> > This an awesome step for Grooveshark. [...] I already coded new ad remover > for my self.

Shhhh... Don't make them regret doing it. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am a big big fan of grooveshark. I work in a user interface team for a large blue chip company. The amount of work, time, dedication, motivation that goes into developing an intuitive user interface is huge. This guys just make it look as if it was a breeze.... If you could do a blog post as you have done on the architecture part, it will be great :).

</comment><comment><USER20> Question for the developers.

How was JVMC? Was it very useful using the MVC format in your JS, did you end up using it mainly for classes or did you do the whole MVC format?

Why JMVC over something like Backbone?

A write up on this in a blog would be awesome.

Was Javascript templating useful? It seems to be me that it would be very slow (though faster than doing async request to servers I suppose).

<comment><USER21> Source? (EDIT: Nevermind, I see the GS devs on here mentioning it)

As a project lead at my last job I championed jmvc for a new project. We had mostly good results but there was always a couple developers who were against it (and who IMO worked to undermine it).

We were building a very ajax-heavy UI for an Ad network. Think.. Adwords UI meets MailChimp UI.

In our case, my biggest worry was how easy it is to write spaghetti JS. A classic example is a page with several JS includes and they all are binding to the same event (or to different events on the same element). You're in one file working and you have funny results and you only then discover the event handlers in the other file and then you have to refactor the whole mess. We actually had that a lot in a previous project.

Also, 2 things jmvc did that excited me:

1\. Easier JS unit tests. 2\. Fixtures! You can build and test the JS without relying on the server to send you the json you need.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Fantastic -- I'm a Grooveshark VIP member and have been since shortly after launch. I still think it was one of the best investments I've made in the past couple years -- it's completely changed how I listen to music (especially with the mobile versions).

I wish you guys the best of luck and thank you sincerely for continuing to innovate.

</comment><comment><USER23> One thing I noticed is now the ad blocker (on Chrome) catches the ads and doesn't show them. Since I don't have a VIP account with them and the ads aren't as intrusive as Pandora/Last.fm services, I decided to whitelist listen.grooveshark.com to show ads. It works beautifully though, Flash on Linux was such a pain.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It looks like they're utilizing js templates and localization along with a lot of jQuery and JMVC.

</comment><comment><USER24> Doesn't work on the Galaxy Tab. Tried Browser, Dolphin, Skyfire & Fennec. Best I get is the spinning pinwheel after I pick a search.

</comment><comment><USER25> Does anybody know what this is written in/on, specifically? JavaScript/HTML seems a bit vague to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> As far as I can tell, it's written with PHP serverside, Javascript (jQuery JMVC) and HTML/CSS. The actual music player is a hidden flash widget, but the song selection, playback, and entire interface is in HTML/CSS not Adobe flash as previously. (And the adobe flash version had horrible performance on linux).

<comment><USER6> Hi, I'm one of the developers. You are correct. We have a PHP backend, actually the same one that we were using with the flash frontend, and are using jQuery with JMVC, and slickgrid for the huge lists of things. The invisible flash widget provides both music playback and serves as a proxy for getting around some of javascript's crossdomain restrictions (like the fact that you can't make https ajax requests on a page served on http) and talking to third-party services like facebook and last.fm which have perfectly nice crossdomain.xml files.

Feel free to ask me any questions, though I don't know details on a lot of the deep workings of the backend - I'm an Actionscript/Javascript dev.

Oh and thank you so much for _not_ submitting this as 'Grooveshark switches to HTML5'!! Because it's not. We're not doing anything you couldn't do years ago, except maybe that JS performance wouldn't have been fast enough for such a heavy app.

<comment><AUTHOR> No Problem. I think seen the widget before on make your own player page (which I've used because the old flash frontend was so very unstable on linux). And - the switches to HTML5 part - I would only post that if you somehow worked out how to use the html5 <audio> tag, but that has many drawbacks. Thanks so much for the work on the frontend - It's one of the few online music streaming services now that is decently fast and doesn't eat resources on linux.

<comment><USER6> It's not the exact same widget, but it does use the same classes. All our flash playback, in the old flash app, the new invisible player, the even tinier invisible player on the widgets.grooveshark.com page, and the actual widgets on said page are compiled with the same core playback classes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I visited Grooveshark just yesterday, and I just thought it was a flash rewrite. I did like the theme a _lot_ , but the only sad part was my playlist was gone >:( (didn't have an account, it was just saved as cookie or whatever)

</comment><comment><USER27> The Defacer Safari & Chrome extensions (<http://babelstudios.se/defacer/>, [https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/ikfbfahhinbemoji...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/ikfbfahhinbemojiloekflkfeeplnibe)) seem to break this (just shows up a blank page)... any way to fix this?

</comment><comment><USER28> Wow they've done an awesome job. Another massive blow for Adobe, losing the battle once again (and I'm a flash developer)

</comment><comment><USER29> So what is the plan for Grooveshark Desktop?

<comment><USER7> It's getting cnverted too, but noy until we can port the API that allows global keyboard shprtcut helpers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Never used GrooveShark before but this is pretty cool. Wonder why they don't have playlist ratings though (as far as I can tell)? When I do a search for playlists I'd like to see what other people thought of them before I click through each one.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is a totally opaque interface that hardly works at all as far as I can see. Completely uninformative, dumb, not functional in any real way. What is going on? Why do all these other think it is great? It is not.

</comment><comment><USER32> you have just became my favorite website :)

<comment><USER33> I would be interested why this is what did it for you? I work at Rdio, which is a competitor that has been HTML/JS/CSS with a flash player since the beginning. What about this makes you like Grooveshark more?

<comment><USER34> Yay, customer surveys! I like those!

I actually have an Rdio account, because I have a curious bias towards web sites with sexier names/subconsciously believe I am judged by the names of web sites I use. When I joined I had the impression that Rdio would only let me listen to unlimited songs if I paid you money. Now I see that's not the case, so I'll give your service a go.

First thing I don't like is that you don't give me a big search bar. I'm not paying you money. I don't want to log in. I even resent Grooveshark's making me log in to share songs, that's how lazy I am. (I do have a Grooveshark account, which I rarely use.) So the fact that your front page looks more like a product than like an easy service, that scares me away.

I think the two most common-looking site designs are: search bars and product pages. Product pages are universally ugly and I run away from them actively. Search bars I will type in something and see if the engine meets my whims. So Grooveshark's front page sells more.

Rdio fails the Cardiacs test: <http://www.rdio.com/#/search/cardiacs/> returns nothing, whereas Grooveshark gives me almost their full catalogue. Cardiacs is my general test of band obscurity: If you have them you're bound to have most of what I want, and if you don't then I trust you less. (You both fail my Victoria Pipe Police Band test, which is pretty sad, because I request my fervent demand for pipe music be sated. >:( )

When I go to a band's page, I get something that looks like informational bullshit. Which is nice — I use Last.fm for my band-related nonsense — but when I want a music player I want small entries that show me as much music as possible. If I search a band I want three albums on my screen simultaneously. Grooveshark gives me a LOT of music, and fast.

But here's the clincher:

When I go to play music, you ask me to sign in or register. BAM! I'm looking for a new site. I don't like giving out my email address. I don't like picking new secure passwords. I will only do it if I think you're worth the effort.

Right now I use three sites to listen to music. I use Grooveshark, or I use Bandcamp, or I use TheSixtyOne. Occasionally I use Pandora but that's WAY rare. Grooveshark's for general music hunting; Bandcamp is for searching for and buying music, and listening to musicians I know use it (like Sufjan Stevens); TheSixtyOne is when I want to explore random music. Each one is designed specifically to mimic my usage pattern. They look the way I want them to look.

Rdio looks like a college design project. (I'm not saying it looks bad. I go to a design college.) While it's pretty, it's not very _functional_ — you have a lot of design choices that go against the way I'm trying to use the site. Kind of like when search engines make gangly content-crammed designs that stop me from actually finding what I'm searching for. I'm going to stick to the stripped-down tool that does what I want when I want it.

If you want to compete with Grooveshark, go slimmer, more efficient, and sexier. Make it easier for me to find the music I want than Grooveshark, easier to share, easier to — anything. If you don't, I have no reason to even _contemplate_ switching. The good news is that I'm not loyal to Grooveshark beyond my affection for its design; because I don't have an account or use more features, I'm not entrenched. If you do something convincing I'd consider moving over.

Feel free to discuss this more with me, either here or in email. I love discussing design philosophy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I've spent a couple of minutes searching for 'My Music' and 'Favorites' lists. Just click on your username and they are in menu bar left to the search field. Beside that, great interface and fast loading.

<comment><USER35> ooops, I used grooveshark ads-remover chrome extension, which was blocking side menu

</comment></comment><comment> n-named You guys are my number one favorite. I hope you don't get shut down. <3

</comment><comment><USER36> I love it! I can finally use middle-click to open stuff on another tab.

</comment><comment><USER37> Is there any way to make a grooveshark desktop version that uses this same html5 interface? I love how the next/prev buttons on my mac work with that interface (using gs desktop helper)

<comment><USER6> Porting the new site to AIR (with the same support for the desktop helpers) is on my todo list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Really weird scrolling on Safari 5.0.3 on snow leopard. The background flickers through the search results. Otherwise really cool.

</comment><comment><USER39> Apologies for my ignorance, but I've been listening to a couple of songs now, and I can't figure out how to purchase them?

<comment><USER6> It is a streaming only website. We do have links out to Amazon mp3 and iTunes...if you right-click a song in the player, there should be a 'buy song' option, or if you are viewing a list of songs, there is a dropdown arrow on each row for options - 'buy song' is listed there as well.

<comment><USER40> You should try and make it more obvious, I'm sure the additional revenue from itunes/amazon referrals would help!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Congrats on the design! Got me going intuitively. And there's even some rare songs up. Nice work!!

</comment><comment><USER42> How do they hide the source code if it's all Javascript/HTML?

<comment><USER43> Their backend (which you do not see) is much more important than the frontend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> awesome job

</comment><comment><USER45> I switched back to <http://retro.grooveshark.com> It's more refined, runs fine on Windows, and it has more features. The Javascript version is too chunky for my taste. I can't see the song titles, overlays don't work, I'm not getting tips, etc.

</comment><comment><USER46> Whatever you think of the user interface, please don't use Grooveshark. Their business model is either illegal or immoral. You will get mail from copyright owners telling you cease and desist from accounts that you've closed in the past - Grooveshark will claim that you're sharing the music, and you have legal responsibility, not them. Mails to close accounts go unanswered.

And if you work there - shame on you.

<comment><USER2> You are entitled to your opinion, but if you use Youtube you have no place to talk (and Google seems to think Youtube is pretty legit). It's the same business model, just a different market.

<comment><USER47> While I don't think YouTube was nearly as explicit about it before Google owned it, it does at least now tell you on the upload page not to upload anything to which you don't own the copyright. In a quick glance at Grooveshark the only place I saw any mention of this issue was buried deep in their TOS.

They in essence encourage you to upload copyrighted works so you can access your music anywhere, and from a first glance at the interface it's not even excessively clear that you're sharing your music with others by uploading (as opposed to it being a private library).

This of course is all further complicated by the fact that they apparently have licenses with some labels, and not others. I would presumably be able to legally upload some music, but not all (I guess YouTube actually has the same issue there).

Add to this the fact that the RIAA has shown it doesn't mind suing end users at all, and I wouldn't upload anything to Grooveshark. Incidentally I also wouldn't upload anything copyrighted to YouTube.</comment></comment></comment>


The Myth of Schema-less - <AUTHOR> http://rustyrazorblade.com/2014/07/the-myth-of-schema-less/

<comment><USER2> And for dynamic services that just accept data that has to be highly scalable - how does your RANT handle that?

Dismissing something because you have not found a need for it in the past and don't currently have a need for it is a pretty poor excuse for that drivel I have just read.

Kudos for wasting 5 minutes of my life

<comment><USER3> If all you needed was a "highly scalable" service that "just" accepted data, why would you need a database? :p

Sarcasm aside, I'll assume you mean that we're actually storing those amorphous blobs of data. I think the "rant" is intended to remind people that a "schema" will exist from the moment you consume that data for any non- trivial purpose.

The only reason that would have been a waste of your time is if you agreed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Example of such a service?</comment>


The danger of using Gmail as storage - <AUTHOR> I have an old .rar file with some important documents + an .exe file I need. It allowed me to send it last year and I left it there for storage. Fast forward to today, they changed the rules and now block any .rar file with .exes inside. This means my files are there but are blocked and inaccessible to me.<p>This is a reminder of the danger of trusting our data to 3rd parties and who actually is in control of it. <comment><USER2> Created this account just to help you :)

I was in the same situation last week - I needed an old file that was inside a .rar archive, and gmail wouldn't let me download it. I knew about google takeout, but i didn't wat to download several gigs just for that one file, so this is what i ended up doing:

1) In Gmail, create a label (any name will do, like "rar export");

2) Add the message google won't let you download attachments from to this label;

3) Go to google.com/settings/takeout, and look for the option which lets you export a single label from Gmail.

Hope it helps :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow! You are a flying unicorn angel of light! Thank you so much :) ... HN is such a great community

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I foolishly relied on Google to store my travel itinerary (confirmation emails, mostly), which worked fine until I needed to confirm a hotel reservation in Beijing, where Gmail is blocked by the Great Firewall.

</comment><comment><USER4> Google has been blocking archives with exe files since around 2005, rar was just one of the few formats they didn't scan inside of so this is hardly a surprise.

Does IMAP allow you access?

What about google.com/takeout?

<comment><USER5> Indeed, IMAP probably works in this case. Hopefuly, the lesson has been learnt: gmail isn't a backup provider.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > This is a reminder of the danger of trusting our data to 3rd parties and who > actually is in control of it.

Not really. It's a reminder that you should keep backups and test them. If your only copy is in gmail, you don't have a backup.

</comment><comment><USER7> A good reason to always throw a password on archives.

<comment><USER8> At least with .rar files you can still see the list of files in the archive even if it's password protected.

<comment><USER9> I think he meant to say "A good reason to encrypt your archives", not just put a password on them. If you encrypt your archive, even a rar, gmail shouldn't be able to see the contents inside of it.

Another solution is to simply change executable names to .exe.backup or something similar, that way it'll register as a ".backup" extension for most systems and not be blocked simply by name (though this wouldn't necessarily defeat things that actually detect and block binary executables).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Password protect your compressed files. Problems Solved

Check the box to encrypt file names and they can't scan inside rars.

</comment><comment><USER11> Thanks for this post. I won't be storing any exe/rar files in my gmail account.</comment>


The Rise of "Worse Is Better" (1991) - <AUTHOR> https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html <comment><USER2> Trying to open this link as a new tab seems to trigger jwz.org's hotlink detection, which then serves up a slightly obscene image.</comment>


Ask HN: How do I turn a major SV job offer to an offer elsewhere? - <AUTHOR> Got through the technical interviews, and received an offer. Still negotiating it. Major company, think FB/Google/Apple/etc.
Problem is, I really don't want to live in the Bay Area. Really, really. Even with adequate compensation to have a nice place.
What I would like is to work somewhere else geographically. I'm going to talk to the company to see if they can put me in one of their teams outside of SF, but through the process they were explicit about the need to work on site in SF.
Is it possible to turn this offer into an offer at, say, Microsoft or Amazon or something located elsewhere, perhaps in the PNW? Basically, wondering if there are any shortcuts or suggestions for contacting a different company and going with them without having to go through the entire tech interview process yet again. <comment><USER2> If you have any warm leads that are decision makers at a tech company, email them with the fact that you got an offer and what your timeline is. Or if you're part way through applying at places, now's a great time to email your contact an update.

If you haven't been keeping many irons in the fire, that makes the whole process of getting what you want way more difficult.

</comment><comment><USER3> no company is going to say.. wow facebook made you and offer work for us instead right now.

I've interviewed hundreds of people and the biggest question is usually "Do you want to work with this person?" The interview process is more about how well the team thinks you'd work with them and not so much on your tech skills.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a totally reasonable comment. I definitely wouldn't expect one company to make me an offer just because another did, but I feel like, maybe incorrectly, having an offer in hand could potentially be persuasive to the other company to at least give me a shot.

I guess I'm more asking: Is there a standard way to get in touch with another company to try to at least use the first offer to get my foot in the door and (hopefully) avoid the super rigorous tech interviews in lieu of fit interviews?

<comment><USER4> You: I've been offered a spot @ FB/Apple/Google etc.

Our Recruiter: Neat, half of engineers have worked @ one of those places. So our tech screen process is...</comment></comment></comment>


In Defense of the 60+ Hour Work Week - <AUTHOR> http://blog.lawnstarter.com/post/77371611550/in-defense-of-the-60-hour-work-week <comment><USER2> So at 23 this person feels he has enough anecdotal experience to trump 100+ years of research.

Let's see...he states he has no life outside of work, that he forced himself to pull those hours even when there wasn't work enough to demand it, that he was working those hours without remuneration of any kind, and while conflating 'working' with 'learning', leading me to question if he was really being productive, rather than just playing around with new languages and technologies, 'causing him to credit what he would have done in his free time to 'working'.

<comment><USER3> The HN crowd baffles me sometimes. It seems to move between "This person is too old. They are disconnected from today's generation," and "This person is too young. They don't have the experience to share meaningful anecdotes."

At what age would this person's comments hold water? 25? 28? 30?

<comment><USER4> When someone is making statements about a global truth, such as the ability to be productive, experience is paramount. We all know you can pull off 80 hour weeks for a little bit before bad stuff happens, etc. It takes a bit of experience to learn what happens after a couple years of that.

When someone is talking about fashions or the popularity of new technologies etc, then being too old is going to make your opinion less useful as it's going to be harder for you to unlearn what you've already learned. This is generally far less of a problem and I really haven't seen much "This person is too old" on HN, but you do see it a lot on reddit as reddit attracts a very young crowd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I used to think it was possibly to work 60 hour weeks just because I loved what I was doing. When I was shipping Assassin's Creed 2 and being both the team lead and main programmer on the combat system, I worked sustained 60 hour weeks for somewhere in the range of six months.

Just before shipping, I realized I was making so many ridiculously obvious mistakes that I requested someone shadow all my code commits.

And then when the project was done? I was burned out so bad I would have panic attacks if I even saw code. It was nearly three months before I could program again.

Just because you love it doesn't mean you will avoid burn out and other downsides to sustained long work days.

<comment><USER6> Ahah! So it's your fault! Nah, I'm only kidding. I love AC2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _You Learn and Accomplish More_

This is what everyone else is arguing _against_ and what the research is invalidating. You may feel you're getting more done, but are you really? Few _high quality_ hours are much more productive than many _low quality_ hours, especially if its work that requires your brain to actually work efficiently (anything creative, programming etc).

 _I refuse to believe that this tipping point is exactly 40 hours per week_

Of course its not some one-size-fits-all magic number. Different people have different capacities. The same person has different capacities based on age, what they're working on, their health/mood/etc. Its also well researched that limited crunch time _is_ more productive but that it drops very sharply over time. Its also often observed that the people don't realise they're not productive - like a lot of things, it can be hard to self-measure.

 _As long as your net contribution3 per hour is positive, what is the harm in working more?_

You're health? You're social life? You're non-work-related interests?

 _I actively assess what makes me productive and what hurts me_

This is good. Many people _don 't_ do this.

But the other thing is that when I was in my early twenties (I'm in my late twenties now, so not that long ago) I was absolutely able to work 30 hours straight without problem - but its not sustainable and ultimately leads to burnout. As you get older, it becomes even less sustainable and really, looking back, I would have benefited much more from normal hours and more of a life outside of study/work (I did have a reasonable one, but in hindsight I should have had even more of one). This persons statement that he has no life outside work is scary to me - he'll fuck himself up longer term.

In my opinion, the biggest problem isn't even how effective it is for one- self, but rather the expectation for others. Most people don't assess how productive they actually are (or do it badly), but will work long hours. One might think "Great! A person willing and able to work long hours! Hired!" and get significantly less quality work out of them than from someone working more "normal" hours.

<comment><USER8> _I refuse to believe that this tipping point is exactly 40 hours per week_

Ok, give or take 5 hours (35-45). That's different than 50% more :-P

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have not problem with someone working 60+ hours per week. It is your life. Do with it whatever you like.

I think the previous discussion was not about turning down people working long hours. It was about turning down the idea that working 60+ hours is something heroic, something which is worthwhile to do for everyone.

<comment><USER10> Exactly this. I would even agree with him that 40 hours is not the point where you become less productive. It's less than that. I don't want to waste my time when I'm less productive, my time is important to me. I would like to work 20 hours a week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _Me, I'm a 23 year old startup founder_

I think that people making the argument of 40 hours a week is not that is it impossible or not beneficial to work 60+ hours a week at a particular time. But that it's not sustainable. It's not the same living on ramen for two years than defending that living on ramen is actually great. Again, assuming that an exceptional situation (young startup founder with no commitments) is the norm is a mistake.

Also, it is easy to think that working those extra 20 hours are a big deal, hey 50% por output! But the fact is that that's not necessarily true. Ideas need time to develop, and spending time in different activities is good for your mind. I had a shop for a couple of years, and I worked A LOT during that time (I was the only one taking care of it), and I know how founding a company sucks up absolutely all your energy and mind. But being obsessed with it is not sane on the long term. I also work right now a lot less hours and more relaxed than when I was younger and I am waaaaay more productive.

<comment><USER11> Absolutely right.

Just because a few driven individuals can survive Navy SEAL selection (BUD/S) doesn't mean that BUD/S is the optimal practice for everyone to have a productive, balanced, or happy life.

Some people do fine on 60 hours a week. Some people burn out on 40 hours. Some people sleep 5 hours a night. Some people delude themselves into thinking that 5 hours a night is all they need and then sleep 14 hours on Saturday.

This article is good insofar as it's one man's exploration of the question. But everyone needs to figure it out individually - there's no one-size-fits- all answer.

<comment><USER12> Except that this guy wants and expects to only hire Navy SEALs.

"All else being equal, why would I hire someone that works 40 hour weeks when there are a ton of other people willing to work 60?"

To which I'd ask, why would someone who isn't horribly naive work 60 hours to make _you_ rich?

<comment><USER11> Well, yeah, leaders need to lead from the front, or at least give a strong impression of doing so. Otherwise, people will ask your question, and for good reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "There is absolutely nothing wrong with working a modest 40 hour week. I am in no way putting this normal practice down."

"All else being equal, why would I hire someone that works 40 hour weeks when there are a ton of other people willing to work 60? "

So, which one is it?

</comment><comment><USER4> This guy is going to read this in 10 years time and be appalled at how naive he was.

 _> (yes, I am passionate about lawn care)_

 _> As long as your net contribution3 per hour is positive, what is the harm in working more?_

Look, if people who have done this exact thing before tell you it doesn't work, maybe listen a bit? But I guess there is nothing quite like a lesson you learn for yourself.

<comment><USER14> I give him 5 max.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "All else being equal, why would I hire someone that works 40 hour weeks when there are a ton of other people willing to work 60?"

A good one is that this person has no clue of business, resources and the general nature of deals. They just signed a contract for 40 hours and are willing to throw 20 hours on top, cutting down their effective wage. Unless you make a 60 hour contract with them.

I cannot, with good conscience, have this person make guesses on costs of parts of a project, assert the cost letting work done outside of the company or generally allow them to make any decisions on efforts. I cannot have them work in a group of people that has to plan with time constraints.

I am okay with freelancers working 60 hours and billing them, if they really want to optimize for money. I am not okay with people singing on for bad deals, skewing the market for everyone with a tiny bit of business sense.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's interesting reading these sorts of articles.

I'll just throw in my 2 cents about my experience.

A couple years ago I put in 3000 hours over the course of the year. Multiple 80 hour weeks, etc.

I was completely and absolutely burned out for about a year and a half after that. The massive amount of effort I put in really took a toll in every aspect of my life. I'd say I was about 50% as productive at work in my burn out period. Socially I was about 10% the person I was before, rarely hanging out with people and rarely wanted to do anything. Everyone on my team said essentially the same thing happened to them.

YMMV

</comment><comment><USER17> We need a good "in defence of the partial work week".

In the UK, there is an ongoing political issue about declaring people with disabilities or chronic illnesses "fit to work". Everyone from cancer and dialysis patients to those with chronic fatigue, pain, depression or back injuries. An essentially binary prospect is presented: you have to take a job you are deemed fit to do, or the money you were relying on to eat is cut off.

The thing is, quite a lot of these people can do _some_ things for _some_ period of time. But if you force them to 40 hours it will run down their health and achieve zero productivity. With reasonable accomodation they could be part time workers. But nobody is interested in making this happen. The person who figures out the "hack" of making one 40 hour week out of four people's 10 hour weeks will be doing the world a great service.

Less extremely, this applies to parents of small children and the elderly; scope for doing more than zero hours, but not the full 40.

</comment><comment><USER18> The problem isn't the 60 hour weeks, it's the expectations they create. A 60 hour week is easy when you're happy, but having to do a 60 hour week when you're not because that's all you've done for the last year is a serious drag.

<comment><USER9> Another problem is the expectations it puts on others in a team. Is it ok if there are people working 40+ hours and people working constantly 60+ hours in the same team? I guess this can lead to serious tensions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm starting to think that lawnstarter is an experiment in content marketing rather than an actual business. At this point I've "learned" more about the founder than the business itself, but honestly, so many of these types of articles are paid for that I doubt it reflects anyone's real personality.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think people need to mature a bit before giving life advices.

Is he sure he will say the same thing when he will be 40 yo ?

By all means do as many hours of work per week as you want but if you want to justify it, prove (as in scientific proof) us that you are more productive than standard a 40 hours / week .

</comment><comment><USER21> The thing about people that have no life outside of work and claim to be happy is that they bring their communication and socialization needs to work all too often. Which means a lot longer meetings and a lot more small talk or playing games together etc.

As in, every single one I worked with that stayed in work that much without being burned out or tired did that.

</comment><comment><USER14> The problem about 60+ hour work weeks is that it's nothing but utter cheating by employers.

It means they are too cheap to pay you what you are really worth (you are being paid for 40 hours of work, but work over 50% more thus severely constricting your 'hourly' rate) and too cheap to hire enough people to do the job (i.e. 2 people need to do the work that 3 people are supposed to do). Nothing more, nothing less.

<comment><USER22> Not necessarily true. If people weren't getting compensated in some way they would leave. Investment bankers work 80-120 hours per week, and they get paid as such. Same with lawyers.

<comment><USER14> How does your average Silicon Valley 60+ hour worker get extra compensation for those additional hours that are expected of him (beyond the contractually agreed 40 hours)?

<comment><USER22> Faster advancement within the company. Executives aren't in their position simply because they are smarter than everyone else. After an IQ of 120-125, intelligence is not a good predictor of success (according to Malcolm Gladwell at least). Hard work plays a role.

If you want to work a normal work week and a normal life, great. But sometimes to achieve great things you have to make sacrifices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As a husband and father I struggle to put in a 37.5 hour week. Overtime is has to be traded off against seeing my children grow up and finding (literally) a few minutes a week alone with my wife.

Hence at 23 I think you should embrace longer work hours, as long as you also maintain a healthy social life in the balance.

'My company is my life' should be a red warning flag however, because for any number of foreseen and unforeseen reasons that company might not exist in the future.

</comment><comment><USER24> I wouldn't trust a 23 year old with little work experience to (really) know why "F500 executives work 80 hour weeks", if indeed they do...

And the "single most prevalent argument against working long hours", supported by research, is that there is more to life than just work and humans require a balance between work and other things that, unlike the author, they find valuable, e.g. love, family, friends, travelling, exploring and learning about interesting things unrelated to what you do "at work". There is also evidence showing that creativity comes easier during play time, not work time.

Nevertheless, I worked long(er) hours until I was about 28, and also at 31 because of my startup. The bottom line, for me, is that you end up missing out on life; unless there's nothing in your life but work, of course, and that, for me, is quite sad. And, like mrcharles, given the level of stress work I've been experiencing, right now I too feel anxious just thinking about coding (thanks man, now I feel more normal).

</comment><comment><USER25> You can actually be incredibly productive when working a 60 hour work week, and I used to do it regularly. When I was doing it at a large company, there was little reward for it, but I did learn a lot and was able to turn that into a better, and less stressful job in finance.

There are definitely benefits to having one person work 60 hours rather than two work 40, beyond cost savings to the company. Often if you're tackling a hard and involved problem, it often isn't something that can be easily split up. There is a lot of context, and one person working on it steadily will certainly be more efficient than trying to have two people work on it and communicate.

I don't work like this now, but I can say that when I did I was remarkably productive. It does come with an associated cost on family life and out-of- work activities, and unless you're going to actually get compensated for it; it is likely not worth it.

Working on an interesting problem, though, can be very difficult to put down.

</comment><comment><USER26> Not only do I completely agree with this article, but I see it every day. Everything you want has a cost and a sacrifice. I look at the executive team at my firm and they have be working 60+ hrs a week for over 15 years. And you know what? They are VPs. Win. Sure it probably cost them a lot of social and family time, but they accomplished their goals. If your goal is to have a wife, kids, and a white picket fence, with a low stress job, then go for it. No one is telling you not to. But if you want to be a senior vice president, or a founder of a company - news flash you should probably work more than 40 hours a week. Do you think every executive is smarter than the people he was promoted over? No, of course not. So most likely they worked harder and longer to get there.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think it is ok to work 60 hours+ when you are young, have only yourself to take care about and a skill set to build. As soon as you starting having a girl/boyfriend or family you are not taking care of your private life when you are working 60hours+. Then you are prioritizing work in front of your private life.

I will ask people, when you are in your death bed and thinking back about your life, how many people will wish they worked more or wished they travelled more and had more fun in life?

Done those kind of hours earlier in life and learnt by experience that if you work to much you do not have balance in your life. You have unreasonable expectation of professionalism of everyone around you and get easily annoyed by minor work misshappenings.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm always surprised at the passion this subject always generates, particularly in how many people express an opinion on how many hours a week _I_ should work.

I can understand being upset by having to work >40hr/wk when you don't want to, or those 70hr/wk coworkers being declared best. employees. ever., but the reaction when someone expresses an opinion on their personal experience is just ridiculous. It's either the patronizing "when you're my age, sonny, you'll understand" or the similarly unhelpful "you're doing it wrong", with no admission that someone's experience might be different.

</comment><comment><USER29> I've found that working long hours is practical with regimented conditioning, much like training for any strenuous activity. If you jump headlong into a 60-hour work week, you'll suffer and burn out rather quickly. A slow ramp eases you into the commitment and tests your limits, gradually pushing them upward. It's also crucial to take down weeks every so often.

</comment><comment><USER30> I have worked 60+ hour weeks for significant periods of time and in various roles, including as CTO of a dot-com startup and as a trader at Morgan Stanley.

I differentiate between working long hours for yourself (e.g. as a business owner or startup founder) versus for someone else (i.e. as an employee). My observations here are generally about situations where you're working for someone else (although some have general relevance). For business owners and founders, motivations and rewards are very different, and I think that, for them, the decision to work long hours or not is a far more subjective and personal one.

I don't think there's anything intrinsically bad about working long hours, _as long as it is the exception (and for relatively short periods of time), rather than the rule._ For example, if you're working for a startup and you've got a big product launch coming up, it makes absolute sense to put in extra effort in the run-up to the deadline to add new functionality, eradicate bugs, etc. However, if you are expected to put in 60-hour weeks as a matter of course, that's not good. Work-Life balance is important (and gets more important as you get older).

If you are expected to put in 60-hour weeks as a matter of course and your boss _doesn 't_, I would advise you to quit that job as quickly as it is feasible to do so.

Working long hours wears you down, especially in roles where high concentration is required. I used to work 12-hour days as a trader and, come the weekend, I'd be so exhausted that I'd usually sleep in on Saturday and Sunday until the early afternoon. That's not a good lifestyle.

I also believe that working long hours has a negative impact on creativity and the ability to make intuitive leaps. In my experience, taking a break and stepping back from a difficult problem can often yield a solution. If your work hours do not allow your brain enough downtime from work to disengage from your work problems and engage other things (beyond simply resting), your productivity is likely to take a significant hit, in my opinion.

Finally, there's the impact on your mood. If you're not actually enjoying working long hours, it's likely to make you impatient and irritable, and that will have a knock-on effect on the atmosphere at work.

Certain types of companies (law firms and investment banks, for example) seem to rely heavily on getting more junior people to work long hours. They're able to do that because the rewards that come with climbing the corporate ladder are significant - partners and managing directors get paid a _lot_ of money and, in order to have a chance of getting promoted to that level, you have to serve your time and put in long hours. For many young (and, some might say, foolish) people, the long-term carrot (Ferrari-level income) outweighs the downside of having practically no life during one's 20s. Because of that, I think their decision is closer in nature to a business owner's or startup founder's than a pure employee's.

Bottom line (and TL;DR): It's up to each individual to make their own decision based on their motivations and personal circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER31> A Bird named the Alpine Swift may fly through the air for a period of several months without stopping... Some people's minds may work on a problem similarly.

</comment><comment><USER32> I can kind of see where the OP is coming from. My summer job out of high school was working as a roofer, where I had to get up at 5 am every morning to drive out into the small town where we were based. My boss was famously a jerk: the summer before he was hospitalized because apparently a worker "accidentally" pushed him off the roof. And the summer before that, the office workers who were employed on the managing side of the roofing company had to go up on a roofing job because my boss's crew quit on him.

I don't blame them because my boss was, all things considered, kind of a reckless asshole We didn't take breaks on 100 degree days, had 10 minute lunch breaks, and by the end of the summer all of us had fallen off a roof at least once because my boss believed that setting up the safety scaffolding was a waste of time. But goddamn we got a lot of roofs done that summer, and that actually felt great.

But I was 18 then, was in good shape from high school athletics, found the whole situation hilarious, and more importantly, I knew that in a few months, I'd be at college.

In the decade since, I've averaged at least 50 hours a week and would not be surprised if the average was closer to 60. However, the long hours I work now are _not_ in the office. I go home and read and program on side projects/experiments/other people's Github projects, because that's the only way I can eventually figure out solutions to technical problems that not only interest me personally, but that I eventually will apply in my work. If I were to spend 20 hours a day in the office, I wouldn't get done what I do by spending a couple hours in the evening or early in the morning, studying and practicing out of my own volition.

Before my current tech work, I was a newspaper reporter. I was often at the office for 10 to 12 hours a day...some of it was because I cared about the stories and projects I was working on. But honestly, most of it was because of inefficiencies inherent to the work, i.e. waiting until close to midnight because I'm waiting for a source to call me back right before deadline. The 12-hour day then was _not_ because of best practices...I don't think I need to convince anyone here how horribly inefficient traditional media companies are in general.

So I will never work for anyone who would raise an eyebrow if I felt that 8 hours a day in the office were enough. I work extra hours constantly because I get satisfaction out of building things well, and sometimes building things well means taking 4 hours of quiet time, spread over the weekend, to rig up a solution that saves me 50 hours of work in the next couple of weeks. If an employer can't trust me to spend my time right, then that's not an employer that would use me to our maximal mutual benefit.

<comment><USER33> I think you hit the nail right on the head.

My take on it is this: You work for as much time as you need.

Different jobs, different positions, different work-styles all dictate different needs out of a typical work day. Who's to say that one is vastly superior to another. Further, who's to say that their workflow is so stupendous, that it should dictate the needs of others?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7246035](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7246035)

</comment><comment><USER35> I didn't read the article but I can speak with experience. The 60 hour work week does not work. The challenge is to try to do everything within 40. If you need more time then you're not doing it right.

<comment><USER35> I got a downvote. Thanks HN.

<comment><USER36> You commented on the article but you didn't read the article? I'm not surprised you got a downvote.</comment></comment></comment>


Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton "more Dangerous" Than Donald Trump - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/susan_sarandon_hillary_clinton_more_dangerous_than_donald_trump/ <comment><USER2> Please stop posting political horse-race, celebrity gossip, and indignation- roiling stories to HN.

 _The worst thing to post or upvote is something that 's intensely but shallowly interesting: gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partisan political articles, etc. If you let that sort of thing onto a news site, it will push aside the deeply interesting stuff, which tends to be quieter._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Zzz.

</comment><comment><USER4> This just in: fanatic says things that don't make sense. News at 11.</comment>


Ask YC: Critique/comment on our webapp - <AUTHOR>

At the start of July myself and 3 friends committed our spare time to building a functional webapp within a month. We would love any feedback you guys can offer.
Spicy Elephant http://spicyelephant.com
Niche: Learning and memorization (flashcards) Monetization: subscription model (premium account) Core Advantage: web-based advanced (supermemo) scheduling algorithm (only study when you need to)
cheers <comment><USER2> Nice design. Don't know if I'd pay for the market, but I am not the target market.

Also, typo on the first sample flashcard: "It is proven that if you review material to[ extra o] soon and you waste your time, too late and you have to relearn. Intelligent scheduling is about training at the point of forgetting."

<comment><USER3> are you saying the phrase "too soon" should be "to soon"?

thats not right.

<comment><USER2> No, I added the 'extra o'. It says 'to' originally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1\. Why not have people enter their answers onto the web form instead of using the honor system? The answers all seem to be textual, you could check them yourself and score them instantly.

2\. Even if you don't auto-score them, it'd help to show the answer. It's sometimes hard to remember what you just said when you have to evaluate how well you said it.

3\. The "Study" link needs to be more prominent when viewing a deck.

4\. How's this better than paper flashcards?

<comment><USER5> Hi there, I'm one of the 4 folks working on spicyelephant and in answer to your questions:

1\. We would not like to limit people to purely textual content, as it stands now you are able to include images in both questions and answers. Further to that, it would be hard to rate a person's recall based purely on whether they got the answer right (e.g. it could have been a random guess)

2\. Could you elaborate on where you were failing to see the answers, because answers should definitely appear when studying.

3\. Definitely something we can address, thanks for raising it.

4\. The real gist of the application isn't in the electronic representation of flash cards, but the algorithm behind it that keeps track of how well you're recalling the answers and then let's you know when the best time is to study again. This studying methodology is known as spaced repetition (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition>)

Again, thank you and everyone else who has taken the time to take a look and comment, your feedback and suggestions are all greatly appreciated.

<comment><USER4> 2\. It's not that I'm failing to see the answers, it's that I'd like somewhere to write my answer and then (even if it's not automatically scored) show me what I wrote and how it compares to the real answer. Otherwise, I'm not _doing_ anything, I'm just passively clicking through cards.

Same reason I _write_ code instead of just reading language manuals. I used to do the latter, but it doesn't really teach well. Unless you're actively doing stuff and getting feedback on how you did, you're not really learning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Congratulations on pulling the app together so quickly. Out of curiosity, is there research to suggest that using flashcards is a superior way of learning? For example, for languages, isn't it better to practice with a native speaker to understand the subtleties of the language, expressions, etc.? Personally, I am now more likely to rely on the Internet as a store of facts, like capitals of the world, rather than commit such facts to memory.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the kind words.

"Personally, I am now more likely to rely on the Internet as a store of facts, like capitals of the world, rather than commit such facts to memory."

One of the reasons we were motivated to build this application was the observation that people were 'outsourcing' their memory, eg. just Googling for information. Outsourcing our memory limits are ability to think deeply.

Why bother remembering words when you can just sound out the word each time? Why bother remembering their meaning when you can just do a search on Google?

<comment><USER6> I'm no brain expert, but I'm not sure that we use the same part of the brain for remembering facts as we do for thinking deeply. Happy to be proved wrong on that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I captured some thoughts about my involvement in this project in a post: [http://www.neverreadpassively.com/2008/08/my-experiences- on-...](http://www.neverreadpassively.com/2008/08/my-experiences-on-one-month- startup.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> i got to this and was confused about what your app does

"2. We intelligently organize when to study"

</comment><comment><USER9> Is there a way to hide the answers to replicate real flashcards? All I'm seeing are two column lists.

<comment><AUTHOR> there's a study mode for decks which can be accessed in the listing of decks (far left) or on the desk describe page (top right).

the listing you describe is a deck details page not intended for study.

you make a good point regarding the accessibility of the study feature.</comment></comment>


How We Got People to Earn Our Schwag - <AUTHOR> http://www.thumbtack.com/engineering/how-we-got-people-to-earn-our-schwag/

<comment><USER2> The key here was not just making people do something in order to get the schwag, it was making them do something that made the person feel slightly awesome. That's an interaction they're going to remember. A good lesson for any marketing exercise.

</comment><comment><USER3> The regular expression solution is easily my favorite. The way it shifts the board to find all the diagonals is a great gotcha, it took me a few minutes to understand what the heck was going on.

<comment><USER4> Thanks! I'm really pleased with how deceptively simple it looks on the surface. Once you actually try to read the code, though....

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Swag. Shit We All Get. Schwag is something you get at an altogether entirely different sort of venue.</comment>


Built to learn - <AUTHOR> http://startuplessonslearned.blogspot.com/2009/04/built-to-learn.html <comment><USER2> This is fantastic; I always love seeing people respond to other people's comments - the clarity of thinking by having to hear what other people say is really helpful.</comment>


Ask HN: 2 Questions about React Native for paying clients - <AUTHOR> My team is about to begin an estimated 2yr web + mobile project. We're considering using React Native but I have two very real concerns and I'm wondering what the community's opinions are on them:
1. What are our options if React Native stops being supported?
2. What are the patent implications for my client? I've heard talk that React Native opens you up to patent infringement.
Are these reasonable concerns? Any input is greatly appreciated. <comment><USER2> _I 've heard talk that React Native opens you up to patent infringement._

There is a clause like that but it's only relevant if you compete with Facebook. There's a theoretical problem that might arise if you make something, it gets really popular, and then Facebook copy it. Technically then you'd need to either settle with FB or retool your product. It's a legitimate worry for some companies, but equally it hasn't stopped a lot of people using React and React Native. If it's at all likely consult a lawyer.</comment>


Getting Involved: Gates vs. Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://hivelogic.com/articles/2008/06/regarding-involvement-gates-vs-jobs <comment><USER2> I'd have to agree with the first comment on the post: I don't think the confusion was real, he was just putting himself in the position of a user.

However, I think there is a difference between Jobs and Gates that this illustrates: Jobs would do his best not to allow that kind of thing to ship.

</comment><comment><USER3> This isn't necessarily true, as noted in the Joel's tale: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=228298>

Bill gates was very involved with the code and structure of Microsoft's early software and this article basing its judgement of the two people on one email from Gates isn't exactly solid evidence that Gates was necessarily like that in person.

</comment><comment><USER4> The full text of the article quoted Gates saying he sent emails like that all the time - that was his job. [http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/141821...](http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/141821.asp)

I do think the confusion was real. And it kind of makes sense when you think about it.

Bill Gates was very involved in Microsoft code, to the point where he used to review all code, even after Microsoft was no longer a tiny startup. He was a programmer, after all.

But that kind of thing doesn't scale. Especially when you have thousands of programmers, dozens of divisions all with "product managers", and many many products..

He obviously tried to stay in touch with Microsoft products as best as he could. But his role changed over time in his company - he could no longer be the chief code writer.

<comment><USER5> ...and this was the fundamental failing of Microsoft. They were so involved in finding the next generation of revenue and growing (instead of just putting out dividends and cautiously expanding out of their core competency) that they lost focus.

I like their keyboards, though. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Jeff Barr, the Amazon Web Services evangelist, mentioned during one of his talks that Jeff Bezos, the Amazon CEO, had an intimate hand in the shaping of the Amazon Web Services APIs.</comment>


The Pirate Bay Couples With Meezoog Belowdecks To Launch Dating Site - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/01/the-pirate-bay-couples-with-meezoog-belowdecks-to-launch-dating-site/ <comment><AUTHOR> I had to put this up because my colleague thinks it's a spoof, or TC made up the story. He can't handle the idea of single pirates.</comment>


On2 shareholders approve Google merger - <AUTHOR> http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=901822

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1375034#post1375034>

Seems (according to one, at least) many shareholders were against the merger, but the corporate leadership managed to push it through.

<comment><USER2> Considering Flash's migration from VP6 to H.264, the glut of codecs on the market, and the fact that VP8 is neither open nor standard, Google's $100M+ offer seems quite generous.

<comment><AUTHOR> I completely agree--at least from my perspective, On2 is completely worthless except for their patents. I find this purchase particularly interesting as Google is often noted for buying companies solely for their employees.

1\. They're currently in the red.

2\. VP6, their only successful product in recent years, is obsolete.

3\. Neither VP7 nor VP8 is competitive with the best H.264 encoders, nor do they have the clout to get hardware implementations out there. They will serve --at best--as niche formats, like Bink. VP7 got practically no adoption--the only notable licensee I know of is Skype video chat. As VP8 is basically just a faster, pared-down VP7, I doubt it will do much more for them.

Most importantly, proprietary video and audio formats are simply hard to pitch nowadays. Nobody wants to use file formats that depend entirely on the implementations and support of a single company; it's simply too risky. The only proprietary format I can think of that still has wide adoption for reasons other than legacy is Bink, due to the low licensing costs, good reputation, top-quality tools, and cross-platform availability. And, of course, the fact that games are usually release-once-and-forget products, maybe with a few bugfix patches on the side.

(Note "professional" video and audio stuff is its own world, and has a huge variety of almost-entirely-proprietary stuff, like ProRes, etc.)

4\. Their last code release, VP3, while quite outdated, is a great example of utterly atrocious code, which doesn't say much for the quality of the rest of their code, or the capability of their programmers.

I found the fact that their shareholders asked for _more_ utterly hilarious.

<comment><USER3> Well, it sounds like a lot of those shareholders bought shares back when VP6 was the only game in town for Flash, and Flash video popularity was skyrocketing. They've already lost money, but since the knew that Google really wanted to buy and has big coffers, held out for more to reduce their losses.

Now, what's Google going to do with them? That's an excellent question. VP3 was adapted to create Ogg Theora. Google has committed pretty strongly to supporting HTML5 and open standards for the HTML; they support both Ogg Theora and H.264 in Chrome, and serve up H.264 on YouTube. There isn't, however, a viable cross browser codec as Mozilla and Opera refuse to support H.264 and Apple and Nokia refuse to support Ogg Theora (and Google won't host video in Theora, as the video is too big at acceptable quality levels).

So, I'm wondering if Google is planning on making VP6, 7, or 8 an open standard, freely licensed unlike H.264 so it could actually be viable cross browser. It's still an uphill battle, as you don't have hardware support yet, and need to convince the other browser vendors to go along, and it's a lot of money to spend to just give away for free. On the other hand, Google really does seem to believe in promoting open standards, and has been spending a lot of money on free software supporting open standards, such as Chrome, and as you point out, it's tough to make money on proprietary codecs by now, so I'm really quite interested to see what happens here.

<comment><USER4> > (and Google won't host video in Theora, as the video is too big at > acceptable quality levels)

Chris DiBona of Google made that claim about Theora on the WHATWG mailing- list, but it turns out that Theora can produce nicer video than H.264 at the bitrates YouTube delivers:

<http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html>

Of course, it's quite possible that Theora is more _processor intensive_ than H.264 for an equivalent bitrate, but in raw quality-per-byte Theora is perfectly usable for YouTube-quality video.

<comment><USER5> Sorry, no. Theora is better than H.26 _3_ , which YouTube currently uses for compatibility with older Flash players. This does mean that Chris DiBona was wrong, but Theora is still worse than H.26 _4_ (which YouTube uses for all but the lowest quality clips).

<http://web.mit.edu/xiphmont/Public/theora/demo7.html>

Check out the last graph on the page. As they point out, PSNR isn't a 100% unbiased way to compare codecs. However, the graph, made by the theora developers themselves running the bleeding edge encoder on content of their choosing, clearly shows that Theora requires 50% larger files to produce the same PSNR as H.264.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Open-sourced/"open-patented"/Google-backed VP8 ready-to-be the-HTML5-video- standard here we come?

<comment><USER5> I sure hope so, because it's the only way past the current HTML5 video impasse. Has anyone proposed any _other_ plausible reason why Google would buy On2?

<comment><USER7> On2 also do video hardware chips for phones via a company called Hantro they bought which fits into Google's Android plans, and they have a cloud encoding platform though I'm guessing Youtube already does it better.

Hantro info: <http://www.on2.com/index.php?319>

On the other hand On2 announced the deal with _"Google and On2 to Improve Video Quality on the Web"_ and Google's title was _"Innovation in video on the web"_ and used phrases like:

 _"Today video is an essential part of the web experience, and we believe high-quality video compression technology should be a part of the web platform," said Sundar Pichai, Vice President, Product Management, Google. "We are committed to innovation in video quality on the web, and we believe that On2's team and technology will help us further that goal."_

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/innovation-in- video-o...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/innovation-in-video-on- web.html)

So draw your own conclusions but I think that's some fairly heavy hinting from Google. Of course that was before MPEG-LA dropped charges that would have cost Google about $25 million over the next 5 years and generally held back video on the web so you could put it down to sabre-rattling.

edit: Also it's not the _only_ way past the current impasse. The MPEG patent holders could release a patent-royalty-free subset. Not a total win for free software folks, winning the battle like that could lose them the war but it would perhaps suit Apple as it would probably match what they support in iPhones anyway. Google and Apple apparently have already tried to broker a deal and got rebuffed but maybe Google have more leverage now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> An interesting note, On2 provides one of the codecs that Flash supports for video.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Video#Codec_support>

<comment><USER2> Yes, I suspect basically all of On2's revenue was from people buying VP6 encoders for Flash video. And then Flash started supporting H.264...

<comment><AUTHOR> And even those customers were hardly satisfied.

Facebook used to use VP6 before they switched to x264--from what I recall hearing in my time there, the On2 software was a disaster. Unreliable, slow, and overpriced--$1500 per core per year!

From my experience, the primary reaction of many companies to the announcement of Flash H.264 support was not "yay, we can save bandwidth with H.264", but rather "oh god now we don't have to deal with VP6".

<comment><USER9> Oh I remember working with the On2 linux engine in my previous work..... After using it for a while, we ended up moving back to ffmpeg/mencoder, much more reliable...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anyone know of a way to find out how many shares total there are at On2 and how many employees they have?</comment>


Notifying users affected by the DNSChanger malware - <AUTHOR> http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/notifying-users-affected-by-dnschanger.html <comment><AUTHOR> On July 9 2012 the replacement DNS servers operated by ISC will be shut down and any victims who still depend on these servers will face new risks. \-- <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120327_dns_changer/></comment>


Ask HN: I am building a Drag and Drop Database Schema Builder - <AUTHOR>

What features would you love to see? <comment><USER2> i don't want to rain on your parade but you do know there are a gagillion of these around</comment>


Daddy's Home, and a Bit Lost - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/fashion/11berrys.html?ref=business

<comment><AUTHOR> _"... his plan for his next job — as an analyst in a venture capital firm or as an executive at a start-up — has been deferred ... As unemployment has hit a 16-year high and Wall Street shakes off tens of thousands of jobs, affluent couples in the New York area find their families suddenly in flux ..."_

Despite being in the 'fashion' section (links to brands) a warning to the smart but non-entrepreneurial. In recessions, qualifications, experience and technical skills are no guarantee to keep you employed. Blog ~ <http://scottjberry.com/></comment>


Linux 3.15 Can Almost Be Compiled Under LLVM's Clang - <AUTHOR> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY2MjY

<comment><USER2> I like the flexibility of Gcc even if it's maybe slower than clang. And I really don't support the attitude reflected in this clang error message:

"error: fields must have a constant size: 'variable length array in structure' extension will never be supported"

Even if something isn't in the standard, if it allows less code to be written, it is a good thing. My question is then:

Why?

<comment><USER3> Clang's user manual has this to say: "clang does not support the gcc extension that allows variable-length arrays in structures. This is for a few reasons: one, it is tricky to implement, two, the extension is completely undocumented, and three, the extension appears to be rarely used. Note that clang does support flexible array members (arrays with a zero or unspecified size at the end of a structure)."

<comment><USER2> Arrays with zero size at the end have completely another semantics. This one that clang swears to "never implement" allows avoiding explicit alloca calls, instead the programmer can simply pass the expected size.

It's obviously used in kernel, that's how I discovered about that clang curiously worded error message: by reading the LLVMLinux site:

[http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Broken_kernel_opti...](http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Broken_kernel_options)

<comment><USER3> Yes, zero-length arrays have different semantics; the clang devs weren't trying to claim they were a drop-in replacement. And, yes, it's obviously used in the Linux kernel, but the Linux kernel has, traditionally, been wedded to GCCisms and not cared about working on any other compiler, so the Linux kernel was not a priority when that decision was made for for that obvious reason. _Most_ codebases, and certainly the vast majority of codebases likely to ever target Clang, aren't using this "feature".

Their biggest point was, and remains, that variable length arrays inside structs _have no defined semantics at all_. GCC _has no design document specifying their behaviour_. It is impossible to tell what about their behaviour is undefined happenstance and what is intentional. There is no means of determining how Clang should behave in any number of corner cases (presuming you could even enumerate them all), short of reverse engineering the behaviour of a specific release of GCC, and praying that that release's implementation was bug-free and displayed no undefined behaviour (spectacularly unlikely, for a little-used and obscure feature like this).

<comment><USER2> I can specify you the behaviour even if I never looked at sources of that feature in Gcc, and I'm sure anybody who writes compilers can do the same. It's nothing earth-shattering, much easier to specify than most of C++ features, and certainly not harder to implement than most of C++.

I see a lot of developers like to ignore C, giving immense priority to C++ and that makes me sad. C has certainly potential to also get some features first implemented by major compilers and only then standardized, just like it happens all the time with other languages.

"Will _never_ be implemented" in the compiler error message is still quite telling about the climate among the clang developers. Are you one of them?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Intel Security CTO warns of dangers from escalating Russian cyberwar - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2016/12/29/intel-security-cto-warns-of-dangers-from-escalating-russian-cyberwar/ <comment><USER2> "The administration, fellow lawmakers, and general public must understand the potentially catastrophic consequences of a digital cyber conflict escalating into a kinetic, conventional shooting war."

The international community needs to come to a consensus on what kinds of digital attacks constitute war rather than intelligence gathering operations. There are well understood limits to what the CIA and GRU can do without provoking too much outrage if caught.

Note that Obama's announced retaliation focused on new sanctions on Russia's intelligence agencies and expelling a few diplomats from the country. "Reports have indicated that White House officials are also trying to avoid escalating the conflict." The issue with a widespread digital war would be the entire Internet as collateral damage for a few days. We are indeed wise to not escalate matters.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> And people were worried Trump would start a war with Russia!!!

<comment><USER3> I think people are worried that Trump works for Russia.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but before the election, the argument Hilary put forth was that Trump was going to provoke a war with Russia.

<comment><USER4> The US doesnt need Trump for that, they seem to do just fine without him with nuclear tensions and overblown sanctions.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I made some free screencasts on iOS dev, should I make more? - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/user/chrishulbertsydney/videos?live_view=500&sort=da&view=0&flow=list

<comment><AUTHOR> My thoughts are that the Cocoaheads meetup i go to has all sorts of really interesting talks about advanced topics, but a lot of people who attend are just beginners, dipping their toes in iOS development, and it'd be helpful to show them the ropes outside of Cocoaheads (so the pros don't get bored!).

But rather than the typical beginner stuff you see on the internet which teach things that you wouldn't really use for advanced apps, these would teach good principles from day 1 - at least, that's my hope.

Anyway, i've made 2 screencasts, and i'm curious to see if there's any interest - if there is, i'll make more.

Cheers all :)</comment>