AOL Exposed: A Former AOL Employee Speaks Out - <AUTHOR> http://thefastertimes.com/news/2011/06/16/aol-hell-an-aol-content-slave-speaks-out/ <comment><USER2> "AOL paid us as "independent contractors,"

AOL is treading a fine, fine line there.

The IRS defines an independent contractor as:

"The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if the payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not what will be done and how it will be done."

This is a notoriously ambiguous definition but with AOL's rigorous guidelines, deadlines, and instructions it sure seems like this isn't an "independent" work force.

[http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179115,00....](http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179115,00.html)

<comment><USER3> That is not the only criteria.

See this comment:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2666507>

The other issue is, as a contractor, the contractor retains all copyrights to the material created. Work for hire does not apply in this instance.

He could send a DMCA takedown notice and have all of his articles removed, or organize all the other unemployed writers and coordinate a massive DMCA takedown letter writing campaign.

<comment><USER4> Virtually all contractors in our field work under "work-for-hire" clauses. I am baffled by the people voting you up and those questioning you down. It is not "in the Constitution" that two parties can't agree to a binding contract that transfers ownership of work product.

The IRS tests for contractor vs. employee status break down to:

* Does the worker control the "how" as well as the "what" of their task, or do they have to e.g. work at proscribed locations during set hours?

* Does the worker control the business aspects of their work, for instance the cost of tools, the expenses incurred, &c.

* Has the company employing the worker done things to create a de facto employee relationship, such as offering benefits?

None of these are bright-line differences. Contractors routinely work on-site, 9-5, using tools provided by their employers; however, care has been taken in structuring the relationship (for instance, by working corp-to-corp with a large consulting firm or head shop that itself maintains a W2 relationship with the workers).

It is indeed possible or even likely that AOL is treading a fine line by 1099'ing the people writing its content. On the other hand, AOL can afford pretty good lawyers, and it's equally likely that every aspect of their workflow has been structured to avoid imputing employee status to people doing piecework writing for them. You should tone down your stridency. There are a lot of people on HN that consult professionally.

<comment><USER3> With regard to the Constitution, I was merely stating that the initial owner of a copyright in a work be the author.

So, without any other sort of agreement, the guy who made it is the guy who owns it.

The IRS employee vs contractor 'test' includes:

Behavioral: This includes type of instruction given, degree of instruction, evaluation systems, and training - [http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179111,00....](http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179111,00...).

Financial: This includes significant investment, reimbursed expenses, opportunity for profit or loss, services available to the market, and method of payment - [http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179113,00....](http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179113,00...).

Type of Relationship: This includes written contracts, employment benefits, permanency of the relationship, and services provided as key activities of the business - [http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179116,00....](http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179116,00...).

This issue has been around since at least 1989. Do you remember this?

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/01/businesspropicks-u...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/01/businesspropicks- us-findlaw-dont-treat-c-idUSTRE53063S20090401)

As for being strident, you are free to downvote. I am enjoying this discourse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's nothing unique to AOL here. When I first got out of college, I interviewed at local newspapers up and down the east coast. Entry level jobs had awful pay, about $15K/yr, but it was a chance to break in to the business.

One grizzled editor chain smoked cigarettes through our interview (you could do that in the office back then). He listened to me describe why I wanted to write. Then he leaned back, blew a cloud of smoke, and told me:

"You kid come into this business thinking you're going to make a difference. Pretty soon you find out, you're just filling the space around the ads."

He was right, actually. So I got into high tech instead, and have been doing startups ever since. Not sure I always make a difference, but at least I'm trying, instead of just filling space...

<comment><USER6> Not just local papers.

I worked for The (London) Times on a student scholarship back in the mid-90s.

I heard editors telling senior journalists to lie about anti-government movements, and asked to phone up a sister 'paper and lie about calling from another news organisation to find out whether a story was going to be run that weekend.

They offered me a job, but I turned it down. I'd had enough being a machine to generate words at university. I then had to chase them up for payment for my three weeks' work. A measly 150GBP (total) and they tried to screw me out of that.

Ironically I ended up working for Rupert Murdoch in IT again (in a completely separate non-media company - not MySpace) for 10 more years.

I have to say I read this article and thought: isn't this what journos are paid to do?

<comment><USER7> Well, I guess they can't all be Robert Fisk.

I get the impression that it's rather a lot like rock stardom, a lot of wanabees, with a few receiving all the pay/accolades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Creating content online is NOT a viable business model. Recent history is littered with new content creators, and they've failed. The viable business model is either to host other content - YouTube, Hulu, Pandora, GrooveShark, Earbits, etc - Or to create content that is agnostic as to their use - Hollywood Studios, NY Publishers, Music Labels. - So either AOL should transition to a creator, or transition to a online host. It can't expect to have a viable future by creating content for online only. This is true of AOL and any other business model that tries this. JustinTV - Hosts, ESPN - Hosts, The WKUK - Creators, Monty Python - Creators. So please, once and for all, let's stop imagining these Online Studios, or these Online Magazine, or even worse, these Ipad Magazines. Instead think Vice. They've got music, magazines, tv, movies, and they don't care where you see it. <http://www.vbs.tv/> \- <http://www.viceland.com/> . Just a bunch of Canadians that thought that they could rewrite the magazine business model by giving away their magazines for free. And look where that's taken them. So to recap. Make your choice, either host or create, and abide by their distinct rules.

<comment><USER9> Plenty of folks are making money by creating and serving content online.

<comment><USER8> Who leads your list?

<comment><USER10> HackerNews :)

<comment><USER11> Well Hacker News doesn't make any revenue and acts as a community project of a company, not a profit-aiming brand.

<comment><USER7> It also produces 0 content, merely comments.

It's an aggregator.

We've all got used to the aggregators like google making all the money by convincing everyone content should be free. It was the greatest and long-term wise worst achievement of the dot com boom.

<comment><USER12> > _It also produces 0 content, merely comments._

I wouldn't say those are mutually exclusive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Maybe this is an idealistic thought, but I think this trend of writing SEO laden garbage is what will finally make quality journalism behind paywalls work. People will eventually be driven to pay for decent content, unable to put up with irrelevant half baked articles churned out at breakneck pace.

<comment><USER14> I pay for publications like The Economist and The Atlantic (both of which I read entirely digitally) for exactly that reason. I want quality content when I sit down to spend my precious reading time on something.

I can hardly imagine spending that time reading insipid, content mill junk. Who puts so low of a value on their time?

<comment><USER15> >Who puts so low of a value on their time?

Sadly, lot of people, it would seem. AOL's still in business.

<comment><USER16> The intersection of good journalism and articles about Lady Gaga is a very small set.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _"Do you guys even CARE what I write? Does it make any difference if it's good or bad?" I said._

 _"Not really," was the reply._

If he had any programming background, he missed a golden opportunity to write a markov text generator which would have let him meet his deadlines without the stress.

<comment><USER18> Obviously a straight-up Markov Chain generator isn't going to work, but a smarter system that would allow you to basically sketch the article and then have the system automatically babble in English to fill out the word count while not actually needing any additional information strikes me as feasible, though not trivial.

Somebody's doing something similar for sports reporting: [http://thenextweb.com/media/2011/04/18/robot-journalist- writ...](http://thenextweb.com/media/2011/04/18/robot-journalist-writes-a- better-story-than-human-sports-reporter/) You'd have to tweak it for a different domain but I'm sure that would be feasible for your average gossip- rag type story.

<comment><USER9> The Motley Fool also uses automatically-generated articles. For instance if you google the phrase _"Being able to retire rich, or at least comfortable, is the goal of almost any investor"_ you'll find hundreds of articles from fool.com, each posing as an analysis of a particular company, and all generated with an algorithm which is fairly obvious after reading a couple of 'em.

They're not completely worthless, though. Real data + automated analysis is far better than no data or no analysis.

<comment><USER19> OUCH. No mention of the contraction of the newspaper industry when discussing Gannett?

>Next, we want to ensure that Gannett's stock has the ability to rise over the next five, 10, or 20 years. A company that's growing its net income has the best possible chance to see its share price rise over time. Of course, we can't predict the future, but we can look back to get an idea of how the company has performed in the past in order to try to ensure future earnings growth. Over the past five years, Gannett has shrunk its net income at an annual rate of 13.9%. Unfortunately, Gannett has run into its own share of problems, and the financial collapse of 2008 certainly couldn't have helped either. So the company has been unable to grow earnings, which doesn't exactly mean that it won't in the future, but it's certainly not the greatest of signs.

from [http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2011/04/26/should- you...](http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2011/04/26/should-you-retire- with-gannett.aspxhttp://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2011/04/26/should-you- retire-with-gannett.aspx)

It's kind of clear that it's auto-generated after just one. The only other possibility would be that "Jordan DiPetro" had a real point to make about what stock stats can tell you without any real knowledge...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The OP talks about how in the age where there are more readers than ever, writers are undervalued. What the OP fails to mention is the quality of readers and writers. A reader who consumes 100,000 pages worth of Facebook statuses is not really much of a reader. Historically, reading was used as a means to communicate ideas. Think Machiavelli, Aristotle, Nietzsche. Now it is used for communicating a much larger scope of information: "Lady Gaga Pantless in Paris". You cannot compare a writer that writes the Illiad and a writer that writes TV Show reviews of shows they've never seen. They are not the same category.

</comment><comment><USER21> Anyone else notice how good of a writer this guy actually is? Throughout the article he takes you through an emotional journey that very effectively portrays AOL as a soulless monster. (The third-to-last paragraph is a very good example of this.)

His words may or may not have merit, but his writing style is extremely persuasive. He got his message across and certainly made an impact. If only AOL took advantage of this, we might be reading an entirely different article.

</comment><comment><USER13> Alec Baldwin was the celebrity in question referenced in the article in case you're wondering.

<comment><USER22> The author did give us the keywords to find this out on our own.

<comment><USER13> I realize that, but I figured I would stick it in the comments in case it helped anyone.

<comment><USER22> I didn't mean to undermine you, only that I noticed a cleverness in the author's placement of the keywords. He gave us the exact keywords to find the actor who had issues with him, without directly stating who it was. This goes against the whole keyword driven doctrine at AOL, where the keywords used are explicit in who they are trying to promote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Just an aside: would have been awesome if the writer created an article generating program. He could feed the program a few key words (perhaps just the name of the TV show). The program could scrape or be manually fed some information from Google trends. Then add some scraping of data from existing articles. Use a markov chain to keep the content fresh and you're good to go! I'm just thinking of the sentence generation via markov chain from Programming Pearls and the hilarious auto-generated computer science papers that were submitted and accepted by some journal.

<comment><USER24> It would be hilarious but I'm not so sure it would work that well. I think one of the big reasons the scigen papers passed for real was because a lot of people will assume that if they can't understand a paper, it's just gone over their heads. There's enough real jargon in them to reinforce that assumption. Entertainment news is a lot more accessible so it would be pretty obvious.

<comment><USER23> You're right that entertainment news is much more accessible. However there's also much more pre-existing "content" related to $mainStreamTopic at our disposal for training our future pulitzer-prize-winning markov-chain-based authors :-p

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This just makes me think: why in the world would any one want to become a writer these days? There isn't much money in it, unless you get lucky and hit it big. I understanding having a passion, but this is one passion that should be relegated to hobby time. Am I wrong on this? I'm just not seeing the economic viability of writing sentences and having people (whether readers or advertisers) paying you proportionate to the amount of work you put in.

<comment><USER26> Funny you say that, 'cause people tell me the same thing about startups.

But as Bezos once said: "You don't choose your passions. Your passions choose you."

<comment><USER27> I think it's more, "You don't choose your passions. You will randomly do many things in your life and some of those things will interest you so much that you feel compelled to keep doing them."

It's not as pithy, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Are things really at a state where 35k is considered an impressive salary for a journalist in the US? I know programmers are spoiled, but I was kind of shocked at the implication that that was thought of as big bucks. Sad.

</comment><comment><USER29> I am a huge supporter of creatives and artists. That being said, I have only partial sympathy for this guy. Work is work and we all need it, particularly creatives, but when you take a job writing about things you don't know anything about, you can't complain that you're being asked to do so. If he hadn't seen the most popular shows on television, he took a job he wasn't qualified for. That's fine, but then, he couldn't be bothered to research the industry he was covering - when that research required sitting in front of a TV and watching The Simpsons. That's not exactly slave labor.

It's a shame that content production has become the ad mill that it has, and writing about that from an objective viewpoint with all of this guy's internal data would have been good journalism. But I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who got paid $35k a year to write about cartoons and couldn't be bothered to watch some of them in his spare time.

<comment><USER30> I inferred that he was being asked to write about 16 (one article every half hour for eight hours) specific show episodes for a deadline about 12 hours after they aired; even with a Tivo, how would you both watch and write?

<comment><USER29> I believe he said it was fewer articles (something like 10), but what I'm referring to is his comment about having _never_ seen many of the shows. The minute you take a job writing about television, you get started familiarizing yourself with the most popular shows. When you're assigned to a new show, you watch one or two episodes. If you're covering some more often than others, you put that one on while you fold your laundry. It's not as if he has a job reviewing tourist locations. Point is, you become an expert and suck it up. Particularly in a field this competitive, you spend time outside of the actual writing getting up to speed. To suggest that's too much to ask lacks a certain professionalism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> AOL's plan to "beat the internet" with a content farm isn't working out so well yet?

</comment><comment><USER32> It's a sad sad story. I love reading great content and I never had problems paying for great content.

I've been a subscriber to paid magazines/papers and I'll continue to be one to digital ones.

But I guess my kind is rare and of course the majority always wins.

<comment><USER33> I take a slightly less pessimistic view. Its an economic process that is in the process of balancing itself.

There are a lot of people who only want "free" information (which is to say free news, free reviews, free self help advice, etc) and of course providing information is not 'free' as it costs real dollars to host it, to maintain it, to fix it up after the web site gets hacked etc.

To enable it to stay 'free' people put advertisements on the page which the advertiser pays the costs of hosting the content.

That creates an incentive to monetize the difference between the cost of the content and the revenue from the ads. Given the incentive all sorts of suppliers have arisen, from domain squatters at the low end, to businesses like Demand Media and AOL apparently.

If you look at content creation you will see that this is creating 'content' at an unsustainable rate. At some point, a small population at first, and then growing larger, of people will say "I'll _pay_ you for information that is 'better' rather than pay the cost of wading through the free crap to get to the good stuff."

When that switch reaches a large enough number of readers, I believe it will 'spontaneously' create the actual market for purely digital information sources. The blend of subscriber revenue and modest ad revenue will create a better reader experience and quality companies will emerge to take advantage of that.

<comment><USER34> Or perhaps article spam filters like HN will become more popular?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> FYI If you havent taken the time to read the comments posted to the actual article I strongly recommend you do. They're priceless - perhaps better than article itself.

</comment><comment><USER36> <http://www.aoltv.com/bloggers/oliver-miller/page/1/> are his articles.

</comment><comment><USER37> "AOL has a plan. The plan involves the future;"

Okay, but the future has a plan. The plan doesn't involve AOL. This and the fact they refuse to cancel your account. What a pathetic company. Good job stockholders are dumb.

Every bonus taking banker raped the banks' stockholders. But nobody seems to care. Stockholders come bottom, behind customers, employees, and bigger creditors. It's not quite how capitalism was supposed to work.

</comment><comment><USER38> Why are advertisers paying $9 to $20 CPM to AOL when they generally pay a tiny fraction of that to advertise across most web sites and on Google?

</comment><comment><USER39> As I as reading this I thought how eerily familiar to Huffington Post this sounded. Then I remembered who Huffington Post was sold to.

</comment><comment> brown9-2 Does anyone think that AOL's model here actually stands a chance of succeeding? Who wants low-quality, crap content?

<comment><USER40> People who only read the first paragraph anyway and people who play FarmVille.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> AOL's new "business model" is one Google algo change away from going poof. Clearly after Panda, Google is out to get rid of business models like this. Unfortunately they kind of suck at differentiating quality from non quality, but it's crystal clear they're trying.

</comment><comment><USER42> Not just AOL, broadcast media, like mainstream news channels seem to work that way too as far as buzzwords and what topics to cover.

Like you'd never know the US was in three wars or about to default on the deficit the past couple of weeks. Only PBS was mostly immune and BBC World.

</comment><comment><USER43> Actually, it's a former AOL contractor.

</comment><comment><USER44> Side note: Lady Gaga is pantless everywhere. So, a good and safe choice of words.

<comment><USER44> Haha, of course a downvote. No, really, she's pantless everywhere. This is not a joke. Maybe the AOL writer who came up with that example knew what they were doing; I thought it was an interesting possibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> AOL has a responsibility to its shareholders first and foremost. Making employees write about stuff they don't know about is not exactly slave labor... if they don't like it, then just quit, it's that simple.

</comment><comment><USER46> Cocksuckers ...

</comment><comment><USER47> :( Those poor old regular words. RIP.

</comment><comment><USER48> did any body start to lose respect for this guys about half way through the article?

I suppose we all need money, but there is a limit, by god, there is a limit.

<comment><USER49> Not really. 35k salary for a writing gig, presumably nothing even comparable is out there for the author. Judging by the last sentence, that dread of losing the job was valid.</comment></comment>


Making it Easier to Find What You Want - <AUTHOR> http://blog.talentopoly.com/2011/04/making-it-easier-to-find-what-you-want.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a blog post discussing the pros/cons of a tagging system and how to phase it into a new web site.</comment>


Apply HN: Skill Certification You Can Trust - <AUTHOR> Problem: Certificates and degrees don't measure real understanding or ability to apply the knowledge learnt and are often little more than a sheet of paper. The cause is that most certifications, even when awarded with rigor, measure the students ability to cram and regurgitate knowledge a short time after the material was taught. No certificate or degree provides any measure of how much of knowledge or skill is retained 6 or 12 months later.
Since any potential employer can't rely on a candidate's certificate/degree to indicate that they  actually knows the material (or can apply it), they are forced into retesting every candidate (i.e. the dreaded technical interview). This is an incredible wasteful process for both candidates and the employers. What is needed is a certification process that can't be gamed that measures true retention of knowledge and skill.
Solution: Use an approach similar to WADA's whereabouts system [1, 2] that is used to detect drug cheats in sport. Certificate/degree holders would be tested on their knowledge and skills at some point after the certificate/degree was awarded. Holders would be able to register their availability for testing at certain times and days on a system similar to the WADA ADAMS system [3]. They would be called at 12 hours notice anytime over the next 3 to 12 months and asked to sit a test in one of their nominated times slots. Failure to be available for the test would mean a fail.
Such as system would prevent cramming and it would only measure long term knowledge retention as there would be too short a warning of when they were to be tested. The knowledge tested could then be certified by the testing agency to be Real&True™. Employers would not need to test a candidate again in the interview process.
1. http://www.usada.org/testing/whereabouts/
2. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/whereabouts
3. http://adams-docs.wada-ama.org/display/EN/Welcome+to+the+ADAMS+Knowledge+Base+in+English <comment><USER4> _" Certificate/degree holders would be tested on their knowledge and skills at some point after the certificate/degree was awarded. Holders would be able to register their availability for testing at certain times and days on a system similar to the WADA ADAMS system. They would be called at 12 hours notice anytime over the next 3 to 12 months and asked to sit a test in one of their nominated times slots. Failure to be available for the test would mean a fail."_

As an employee, I'd find this distasteful. Just as I wouldn't work for a company that wanted me to piss in a cup at random intervals, I wouldn't work for a company that wouldn't hire me unless I was re-tested for competence at random intervals.

Also, I'd find it disturbing if a company that has a financial incentive to make people take as many tests as possible would be given control over who gets hired across a large number of companies. And the system seems to be lacking the transparency that would allow people to determine whether the testing company was itself competent to judge the competence of others.

Finally, in a field like software development, there's such a wide variety between the skills needed in different jobs that a one-size-fits-all certification would be meaningless. E.g., it's perfectly fine for someone who works on operating system kernels to not know anything about HTML, CSS, JavaScript or mobile app development.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not sure where I suggested that a company is forced to use the system or not. I can't see any company testing their current employees as there is no advantage for them doing so. The would only be interested in the certifications of new candidates.

So your objection seems to be that a company offering these tests might make a lot of money by having lots of people take these tests? It is not like companies aren't doing these skills tests already - the nice thing about this approach is that it makes the whole testing process more transparent. As a candidate you know if you passed or not, which is more than can be said for the average whiteboard test.

Of course the tests would be specific to the skills you want to be tested on. If you want to be tested on front end material the test would be about that, not operating system kernels. The candidate controls what skills they want to be tested on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is an interesting approach to a genuine issue; I've got a background in Curriculum Design and can agree that an outside, "third party" type certification system could have market potential for both graduates and employers. One of the sticking points in my studies looking into a similar concept was balancing the cost to the student with the expected utility of receiving the certification. So, unless at the debut of the certification there is a large, verified list of employers willing to pay a premium for certified graduates, this concept doesn't make a market value connection in my opinion.

On another fundamental note, the system as described would be effective in long-term retention knowledge testing, true. Yet this model doesn't seem to incorporate 'continuing education' into the remedial approach. Thus, the certified prior knowledge can be tested and maintained, but there's no inclusion of 'new' studies and knowledge that promote long-term growth on top of the knowledge base.

As I've experienced in several industries, there are already licensing ('cerification') bodies which have deployed a Continuing Education (CE) credit model (e.g. insurance, finance). This proposed model may benefit from comparison and distinction from these existing, regulated approaches, in addition to the above note regarding expected market value. Cheers for taking on a genuine issue and working towards a better environment!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. It is always great to get thoughtful feedback.

 _One of the sticking points in my studies looking into a similar concept was balancing the cost to the student with the expected utility of receiving the certification. So, unless at the debut of the certification there is a large, verified list of employers willing to pay a premium for certified graduates, this concept doesn 't make a market value connection in my opinion._

I agree that traditional certification suffers from this problem, but my idea gets around this. Traditional certification requires a large investment in time from the candidate (study) where as mine requires no study. This lowers the barrier to entry to sitting for the certification. With investor backing the tests can initially be made low cost or free further lowering the barrier to entry. I can see it appealing to people with skills but not a tradition education who want to demonstrate they have these skills.

The employers need to value the certification (this is one of the difficulties I listed in my follow-on post). The best way of achieving this is to start in a very narrow industry/skill set, achieve critical mass, and then expand. This solves the typical chicken and the egg problem that you need credibility to be widely used and you need to be widely used be credible.

 _On another fundamental note, the system as described would be effective in long-term retention knowledge testing, true. Yet this model doesn 't seem to incorporate 'continuing education' into the remedial approach. Thus, the certified prior knowledge can be tested and maintained, but there's no inclusion of 'new' studies and knowledge that promote long-term growth on top of the knowledge base._

There is no reason why the system is incompatible with continuing education - you just test the effectiveness of the new education in the same way. In many ways my idea complements continuing education since continued education is one of the ways to keep the knowledge the candidate can draw on in the test fresh in their mind.

 _As I 've experienced in several industries, there are already licensing ('cerification') bodies which have deployed a Continuing Education (CE) credit model (e.g. insurance, finance). This proposed model may benefit from comparison and distinction from these existing, regulated approaches, in addition to the above note regarding expected market value._

If successful I would see a symbiotic relationship developing between the providers of continuing education and the business running my idea. They could use my approach to ensure that their education is making a lasting impact on the participants and is not just a "checklist" requirement done and forgotten.

The think I feel most positive about this idea is it can catalyse a change in education towards long term retention of skills and knowledge. Education providers who use the approach will change the way they teach and move us all away from the current cram and forget model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the employee's point of view this will always be a hated service because people hate being tested. Especially the majority who are not naturally gifted but only got by because of cramming stuff into their heads. These are perfectly serviceable programmers who will learn what's needed and do a good job in the industry. In addition, you're not forcing employees to put too much emphasis on a single test for a potentially (hopefully?) large group of employees. Does this become a stressor like an SATs for coders? If the employee doesn't do well are they screwed? Or do you allow them to retest? If so, you've become just like any number of certification services that have come and gone over the years.

From the employers point of view you appear to have the opinion that most jobs are in startups. In reality, the huge quiet slowly moving employer base is below the visible portion of iceberg. These are the businesses that just need coders to keep things moving from day to day. They are not startups, never will be, and don't even exist in the world where founders are wanted or needed. There needs in a coder is not a superstar, it's someone who can learn to tow the line, get things done, and keep their heads down and code. A average coder is fine here as long as they fill a niche.

Finally, how could you develop a standardized test for all these below the waterline businesses? If a business needs to fill a slot for a person to crank out Java reports for a few years do you test the same as one who needs to fill a position interfacing C++ to POS/IoT devices?

Not that idea is a bad way to make money. It's just that you'll likely need to move into a niche and then you'll need to drive test retakes, release cram books, and become another paper certificate mill. Remember when paper CNAs and such were all the rage.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed critic. Now to your specific questions.

 _From the employee 's point of view this will always be a hated service because people hate being tested. Especially the majority who are not naturally gifted but only got by because of cramming stuff into their heads. These are perfectly serviceable programmers who will learn what's needed and do a good job in the industry._

The testing should be the least painful possible since you can't study. You either know the material or not. If you are actually able to do a good job in industry then you will pass. The entire purpose of the testing is to separate people into those that can do a serviceable job and those that can't. With normal tests you might be able to cram and pass but not be any good on the job, while with the proposed tests this will not be possible.

 _In addition, you 're not forcing employees to put too much emphasis on a single test for a potentially (hopefully?) large group of employees. Does this become a stressor like an SATs for coders? If the employee doesn't do well are they screwed? Or do you allow them to retest? If so, you've become just like any number of certification services that have come and gone over the years._

I am not sure how you got the idea that this would be a single test. There would ultimately be thousands of different tests.

I doubt any such system would become universal, but even if it did it would be a failure of the testing process if people who are productive workers in a field failed. Every test should be able to separate the competent from the incompetent.

I would imagine that as people gain skills and experience in a field they would do better on the tests. If you do improve you should want to retake the test and demonstrate how you have improved. This is actually a great thing for an employee as you will be able to demonstrate to your boss that you have improved and are worthy of a higher salary.

 _From the employers point of view you appear to have the opinion that most jobs are in startups. In reality, the huge quiet slowly moving employer base is below the visible portion of iceberg. These are the businesses that just need coders to keep things moving from day to day. They are not startups, never will be, and don 't even exist in the world where founders are wanted or needed. There needs in a coder is not a superstar, it's someone who can learn to tow the line, get things done, and keep their heads down and code. A average coder is fine here as long as they fill a niche._

Not at all. If you are an average coder you should get an average mark and get an average job in a company that just wants average coders. Nothing about my proposal changes anything here other than to make it easier to identify who are the average programers and provide them with an un-gameable certificate of what they really know. It also only measures a limited aspect of a person (their skills) and companies will still hire or not on the basis of cultural fit, etc.

 _Finally, how could you develop a standardized test for all these below the waterline businesses? If a business needs to fill a slot for a person to crank out Java reports for a few years do you test the same as one who needs to fill a position interfacing C++ to POS /IoT devices?_

I think you are thinking that there is only one test. There would ultimately be thousands of tests covering all areas. People would take the tests of the skills they want to be certified for. If you are a java developer you would take the java test and I would expect that even something like java would be broken out into sub-categories over time.

 _Not that idea is a bad way to make money. It 's just that you'll likely need to move into a niche and then you'll need to drive test retakes, release cram books, and become another paper certificate mill. Remember when paper CNAs and such were all the rage._

This is the key difference of my idea and all the other certificate mills - you can't cram for the test. There won't be an ecosystem of cram books and test prep providers since you can't cram. You either know the area you are being tested on or you don't. Once people know this the value of such a certificate rises.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Due to the 2000 character limit here is the rest :)

Monetization: Certificate holders could pay a fee to be certified Real&True™ for any skill they wished. Educational organisations could also charged to have their students tested. This would "value add" to their education as well enable them to be able to market to potential students/employers how well their past students did in the Real&True™ tests.

An added benefit of the whole testing system is that it would encourage a change in the way students are taught to ensure long term knowledge retention and application of material, rather than encourage the current "cram and forget" process.

Difficulties: The major one is the tests have to be perceived as being valuable by both candidates and employers. The obvious solution is to start in a niche industry and scale out over time as the testing process gains credibility. Another potential pitfall is certificate holders may find the whole process too onerous and refuse to sign up for the testing process (elite athletes certainly complaint about WADA's whereabouts system). Once again this could be trialed in a niche and scaled out if successful.

</comment><comment><USER7> OK, I think the number one thing to ensure about this business, if you want to revolutionize hiring, is to show that it works. If I can apply this idea to my potential hires, I'm going to give you all the dollars because the alternative is spending my team's precious cycles on interviewing.

I think there are a lot of paths that lead to your business making money but ultimately going down a path towards "yet another technical certification" \- technical certifications are a negative hiring signal for a good reason. Avoiding this pitfall, I think, is the hardest part but perhaps the key to success.

<comment><AUTHOR> My idea is not about revolutionizing hiring, but changing education. As you rightly point out technical certification currently have a bad reputation (well deserved). This is what my idea fixes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Have you confirmed with any employers, trainers, hiring managers, etc that they actually need to be able to skip their internal preparatory steps?

Who would be the actual customer here? The potential employees? Are they supposed to keep taking random tests while they're employed to maintain their cert in your system?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am sure that some employers would still go through the whiteboard process, but once they were confident that the certification could be trusted they would stop.

I explain below who the customers, etc are - I could not fit it all in because of the HN posting limit.

How often to be tested would be up to the employee. My guess is few people would retest, but would spend their time being tested on new skills.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you had to focus on a specific area, it could be building a low cost ABET certified curriculum that has better unit economics than traditional universities.

ABET is pretty legit.

<comment><AUTHOR> It could certainly be used that way - in the end it would not matter where you had studied or if you studied at a traditional institution at all, but what you had really leant.

As I mention in my follow on post, it would be best to start in a niche and build out to a more general testing process over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not sure if this accurately represents how people remember things. It's normal to be a bit fuzzy on a topic a year after learning it if you aren't regularly applying it. What matters is that you can learn it again quickly, and I think preparation for technical interviews works fine for testing that already.

<comment><AUTHOR> My idea is not about how people learn.

The current system of technical interviews works - my idea is about making this process better. The market exists, my idea makes the process more efficient and captures some of the value created.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a really interesting idea. I'm not convinced from your description that you have a viable product just yet, but I think you're headed down a really good path. Here are some more thoughts:

\- Testing and certification is the most economically valuable aspect of education (at the high end the most valuable test a student can take is getting accepted to an elite institution (I'm using "test" broadly here)).

\- Learning itself can and has scaled quite easily thanks to the internet. But testing and certification hasn't really yet.

\- There is a huge opportunity to build a new authority for testing/certification/credentialing. (In many ways YC is doing this almost by accident, but it's not their main focus and they're not doing it in a scalable way).

\- The kind of knowledge and skills that are valuable in white collar "knowledge worker" jobs are typically not what you study for and get tested on in school. It's more the various soft skills that let you succeed. In other words, it's not the algorithms themselves, it's that you're disciplined and smart enough to figure out how to learn them. The same is true for white boarding interviews - and lots of management roles too - it's not just that you know how to balance a binary tree, it's that you can explain how to do so in a clear way, can handle curve balls without getting flustered, and seem like a good person to work with.

\- There are lots of professional certifications that various professions require. But it's not necessarily in anyone's interest for workers to take these kinds of tests more often or in a more rigorous way.

\- There probably are some industries where concrete knowledge testing is valuable. I don't know how big a market it is, but it's probably there. One strategy would be to go after these industries. I'd look for fields with high turnover, and/or where companies are losing money due to worker error.

\- Another strategy would be to go after the higher end, and try to become a trusted authority for certifying employee skills. I think this is better because this seems like the kind of thing where it's easier to go from high- end to low-end than the other way around.

\- Certifying knowledge workers would probably look less like giving them pop quizzes and more like conversations with them, of else just tracking their work closely and assessing it.

\- To get it off the ground you need to decide who is your customer - <USER3> worker or the employer? It sounds like you're thinking workers will be your customer. In that case the most important thing will be to show a return on investment for a few early adopters. I'm not sure how best to do that early on, but I think you'd want to have some clear benefit that they get - i.e. getting a job or a promotion indirectly as a result, but that probably way beyond your control. Maybe there's something else?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. The description is cut short because of the 2000 character limit here on HN. I did post a follow up comment with the rest of the description, but it has now fallen to the bottom of the comments so nobody seems to be seeing it :(

The basic idea is to bring technology to the certification process in education (a huge industry). Right now all the new education institutions (and a lot of the old) have no way of really proving to the world that their graduates have learnt something and have valuable skills. Employers see a piece of paper from some institution and wonder what does the candidate really know. This is what the idea tries to solve. Now to your specific comments.

 _Testing and certification is the most economically valuable aspect of education (at the high end the most valuable test a student can take is getting accepted to an elite institution (I 'm using "test" broadly here))._

Exactly. The value of an elite institution is not in the actual education you might get, but the hurdles needed to overcome to get in. It is an incredibly crude proxy for measuring what an employee will actually be like.

 _Learning itself can and has scaled quite easily thanks to the internet. But testing and certification hasn 't really yet._

Yes. The reason why is that there has been no way of preventing gaming of the testing system. What you want to measure is if a person really know their stuff, or has just crammed it all in before the exam. My idea is break this link between cramming and test results by preventing cramming.

 _There is a huge opportunity to build a new authority for testing /certification/credentialing._

Yes there is and once built you will have a very strong network effect that will make the business very valuable.

 _...In other words, it 's not the algorithms themselves, it's that you're disciplined and smart enough to figure out how to learn them._

This can actually be tested too. Once you make a test unable to be crammed then you can start to do the sort of tests that measure real on the job performance.

 _Another strategy would be to go after the higher end, and try to become a trusted authority for certifying employee skills. I think this is better because this seems like the kind of thing where it 's easier to go from high- end to low-end than the other way around._

Yes this is my thinking too. Start in a narrow niche and become the authority for certifying the skill set of people in that niche. If the testing authority say you really know skill X then as an employer you will believe this is true. You can add all sorts of layers to this where you can rank a persons skill as beginner, intermediate, expert, etc. Once you have a strong foundation in a niche then just expand into related fields.

 _Certifying knowledge workers would probably look less like giving them pop quizzes and more like conversations with them, of else just tracking their work closely and assessing it._

Because the tests can't be crammed the tests that would be given would by design have to be a much closer match to real work than a typical test. You can make the tests as rigorous and challenging as the market wants. If people want to be certified that are lateral thinkers that can solve real work problems then that is exactly what can be tested. You don't want to test people on things that they can google in 30 seconds, but the sort of thinking and problem solving that make a real difference in the workplace.

 _To get it off the ground you need to decide who is your customer - <USER3> worker or the employer?_

There are two customers - the worker and the education provider (see my follow on post for more details). It would be easier to go after the workers at first, but the educational providers would be where the real money would be.

<comment><USER11> Awesome. Yeah, I think this could be really big.

> You don't want to test people on things that they can google in 30 seconds, > but the sort of thinking and problem solving that make a real difference in > the workplace.

Do you have a plan - or at least a general idea - for how to do this?

Also, thinking about this more, here's another random thought:

Fundamentally the problem that testing and certification tries to address is trust. If I say I can do something you don't have to just take my word for it, you can see that a trusted third party vouched for it. A lot of people have been experimenting with alternative mechanisms for providing trust lately - from AirBnB and Uber relying on reviews/reputations instead of certifications and brands, to even something like bitcoin. Maybe the solution isn't a better testing system, but instead something that removes the need to test at all?

<comment><AUTHOR> I used to be a university professor so I am highly familiar with the difference between those students that really knew their stuff and those that just crammed well. You really only want to hire the former.

In a sense this idea gets rid of traditional testing. You are not measuring how many facts a test taker has managed to cram into their head, but how much they retain and can apply. Grades as such would become irrelevant as we start to focus on those retained skills that translate into day-to-day productivity.

I do have a plan about how this idea could be best developed, but HN is probably not the place to discuss this. My hope is by putting this idea up I will get feedback or suggestions about aspects I have not thought of. It is a big idea that could change a massive industry like education and there are many different ways it could be developed.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What should one do if they're put on a performance improvement plan? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Begin looking for work. Thomas has articulated this well on HN in several places, including here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14705531](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14705531)

</comment><comment><USER3> It is hard to remain cool headed and rational about it. But at least try, or get a third person to give you some candid feedback.

If the PIP is merely a form of being soft-fired, then give it a token effort and seriously look for a new job.

If there really is room for improvement on your part in some specific area, then why not work to the program and see if you can make an improvement? I would still start looking for new work as a plan B.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you want to keep the job, follow the plan.

I had a client who was put on a plan and they hoped he would quit. He was irked but he stayed. The manager eventually quit.

</comment><comment><USER5> It really depends on the manager and the org. I've seen two or three folks put on a pip, strive to do better, and stay, becoming great contributors. I've also seen cases where they were set up to fail and the pip was just a cya for the org to justify the firing. It usually leans towards a firing or a "managing out."

</comment><comment> xkcd-sucks Document and record anythi that could be relevant to future lawsuits. Warm up your old contacts. You _will_ be fired. Don't get stressed.

</comment><comment><USER6> Save some more money if you see it coming like this.</comment>


Apple reportedly has a 'secret' team with hundreds of employees working on VR - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/2016/01/29/apple-reportedly-has-a-secret-team-with-hundreds-of-employees-working-on-vr/ <comment><USER2> Cited story at _Financial Times_ : [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9d3b86c-c67f-11e5-808f-8231cd7162...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9d3b86c-c67f-11e5-808f-8231cd71622e.html#axzz3ykIIueLH)

</comment><comment><USER3> Another me-too from Apple. And not so secret, e.g. they bought augmented reality company metaio a year ago.</comment>


"So, I got censored by tiktok_us" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/tompaseka/status/1203905017805074432 <comment><USER2> I wonder if they're doing the opposite as well by more prominently featuring pro PRC viewpoints.

</comment><comment><USER3> The rest of the world has been putting up with platforms censoring and demoting non-usa viewpoints for the past ~20 years.

I welcome a proliferation of platforms with a range of content policies.

<comment><USER4> I too remember when Twitter widely censored protesting against US police and foreign policy. /s

<comment><USER3> They censor or demote lots of things considered inappropriate or illegal in the USA - from child grooming to explosives making instructions to content on polygamy to pornography.

They're well within their rights to do this, and lots of the user base thinks it's a good idea. But it would be nice if alternative platforms with alternative userbases were granted the same.

<comment><USER5> What are you doing? Are you really equating banning child grooming and banning support for a political movement?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


6000 hours of video from 146 programming presentations at JavaZone 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://2014.javazone.no/program.html?videos

<comment><AUTHOR> Note: around 55% of the talks are in english. Use the filter on the right side and click "english" to remove all the norwegian talks :)</comment>


Developing with Docker at IFTTT - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@silvamerica/developing-with-docker-at-ifttt-5bd03b4e597c <comment><USER2> It seems like using .dev TLD is a bad idea since Google owns it[1]. How many people use the .dev or .local TLD? What's the best practice here?

[1] [https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/dev.html](https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/dev.html)

<comment><USER3> .local is actually reserved for such purpose: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local)

<comment><USER4> OS X does weird stuff with the .local tld, making usage of it for local hosts non-trivial. [https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT201275](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201275)

<comment><USER5> Not, _that_ weird:

        > Host names that contain only one label in
        > addition to local, for example
        > "My-Computer.local", are resolved using
        > Multicast DNS (Bonjour) by default. Host names
        > that contain two or more labels in addition to
        > local, for example "server.domain.local", are
        > resolved using a DNS server by default.

Apparently there's nothing wrong with adapting, say, .dev.local (or .ifft.local) with a coresponding hack, ahem, file, under /etc/resolver/dev.local:

[http://blog.scottlowe.org/2006/01/04/mac-os-x-and-local- doma...](http://blog.scottlowe.org/2006/01/04/mac-os-x-and-local-domains/)

<comment><USER6> That looks like a great way to handle it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very cool, we use boot2docker and a slightly modified fork of docker compose but have yet to automate installing everything.

To avoid reinstalling dependencies you can use multiple dependency files to separate your slowest building dependencies (i.e for ruby you can use a Gemfile and Gemfile.tip) and a git hook script to set the modified time of all files in the repo to their last change in git:

[https://gist.github.com/siliconcow/d5c991f49b7550360465](https://gist.github.com/siliconcow/d5c991f49b7550360465)

<comment><USER6> Thanks!

We looked at the approach of adding a Gemfile.tip, however we like the data volume approach because it doesn't require any changes to the Dockerfile and it is more like what our developers are familiar with. A Gemfile.tip can become basically another Gemfile eventually, so separating the bundle step from the build step (in Development) gives us more flexibility as well as keeping things more in line with what our developers expect to do.

What does setting the modified time of all files do?

<comment><USER8> I'm a bit confused by your bundler-cache. It seems you must be running `bundle install` at runtime, because you can't mount that volume during build. Am I misunderstanding?

<comment><USER6> That's correct. You build the image and then run (from inside a container) _bundle install_. This mapped well with our current flow, where you need to run _bundle install_ after fetching new code anyway. This way, when you fetch new code, you don't need to rebuild the image and launch new containers, unless something changes in the Dockerfile or the docker-compose.yml file. That now happens fairly rarely, and, when it does, it's a pretty quick process.

You don't have to run it at runtime, however, as the data volume for a container sticks around until the container has been deleted. If you don't delete the bundler-cache container, your bundler cache sticks around. If you want to clear the cache, just remove the container.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hey IFTTT! Jacob from Imgur here. Do you guys think you will be trying Kubernetes soon?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're currently using Marathon and Chronos, and it's going pretty well. What about y'all?

<comment><USER9> We're still experimenting with Docker, but aren't using it in production yet. Definitely going to check out these scripts though, especially that dnsmasq container.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice to see a post that covers the various aspects of using Docker in place of some like Vagrant for local development.

The biggest pain I've run into when using Docker for local dev is waiting for pip to install dependencies on rebuilds. This offers an interesting strategy for mitigating that and I look forward to digging into this more.

<comment><USER6> Thanks!

We experienced that exact same pain. Whether it's pip or Bundler, I can't tell you how many times I've installed and reinstalled requirements.

Sharing data volumes is kind of a hack to make it really easy to keep part of a container around when you delete and recreate a container. I would love to see persistent data volumes become first class citizens so you don't have to create a separate container for them.

For now, though, it's saved us from having to put everything directly into the image in development.

<comment><USER11> You'll be able to create volumes as first class citizens in the next Docker release with the new 'docker volumes' command if I'm not mistaken: [https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/4b4597ae17d4fd8843aa93...](https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/4b4597ae17d4fd8843aa9367fd1aa790cc74f7f6/api/client/volume.go#L25)

<comment><USER6> Yes, I'm looking forward to it! It will still be a little ways off before we can use it with Compose, however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cool stuff.

Link the to github project: [https://github.com/IFTTT/dash](https://github.com/IFTTT/dash)</comment>


Ask HN: Advice on being hired by a startup - <AUTHOR>

Hey all, I've created a throwaway account as to preserve my anonymity.
Here's my scenario: I've just had a job offer from a small startup. I've been in various discussions with them, been through a sort of technical interview and talked at length with the founder.
I've never worked at, or had a job offer from, a startup so I'm not sure on best practice. The salary offered was about what i expected and it also included a percentage of equity in the company, to be vested over time. This all sounds great as I've always wanted to work at a startup, but I have a few concerns that I'm hoping you guys might assist with, and perhaps help with my deliberation.
The startup itself is based quite a distance from where I'm currently located, and would require me to relocate. I'm not averse to this but it just means I want to be extra cautious before I make any decision.
So my questions are:
What is a reasonable percentage to be offered in terms of equity? I would be employee number 4 or 5. Is it advisable to speak to a lawyer about these things? Is there anything to be careful/mindful of?
Finally, whilst there's bound to be an element of risk with a startup, what due diligence should I undertake to ensure any decision I make is right one? Is it reasonable to ask to see their earnings, for example (please don't shout me down if I'm way off base here!)? How might I roughly gauge their likelihood to be successful?
Thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> I don't have experience with this sort of thing yet, but I'm going through something similar. I don't think it would be unreasonable for you to ask to see their earnings. Both you and the start-up are making a large investment and deserve to know as much about the other as possible. The likelihood that they will be successful, considering you will be employee number 4/5 will largely depend on you.</comment>


Google's first retail store - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/10/04/inside-googles-first-store-for-chromebooks/

<comment><USER2> In the late 90's we saw a shift from brick-and-mortar stores to online-only stores. It seems like you just can't do some things (like hard sells) with online-only stores. I think this decade is going to find a good balance between online and b&m stores.

I think it is especially true with things you need to "play with" before you make a decision to buy - e.g. keyboards (and other input devices), tablets, phones, watches, etc.

Companies that have or are starting to have b&m presences again: Apple, Google, Microsoft, SparkFun (yay, Microcenter!), RadioShack (the good-old RadioShack from the 80s and 90s, not upsell-the-phone RS. Still holding my breath for this one). Fry's was one of the survivors because it understood the need for customer-product interaction (imho), even though it did decline in customer service quality, which is a result of the race to the bottom price against internet-only stores.

</comment><comment><USER3> "One selling point the staff are pushing is that unlike traditional PC's, Chromebooks get better over time with automatic software updates."

That seems a bit disingenuous. PCs get better over time with software updates as well.

<comment><USER4> I _very_ much doubt that the average PC owner would agree that automatic software updates make their computer better.

<comment><USER3> Okay, I mean _some_ automatic updating software is bad. Adobe's is very annoying, and Windows Update frequently requires rebooting. But some are great -- like Chrome! On a Mac, probably the best thing about the app store is that it consolidates all my software updates (well, not _all_ of them yet) into one place. So the UX is lacking in some places, but it's getting better, and I certainly don't agree with quote's implication that automatic updating doesn't exist on PCs or that software updates don't (in the majority of cases) keep adding value to a PC over time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like the confidence that the employees had to get the stopwatches out for the 8 second test.

<comment><USER6> The difference between US and UK culture is jarring. In the U.S. if we don't like something we just shrug our shoulders and walk away. In the UK they openly decry the product's existence. And their politicians love to verbally spar. Here politicians passive-aggressively don't clap during state of the union speeches. I love it.

<comment><USER7> _In the UK they openly decry the product's existence._

You must be joking. The British are probably the most adept at quietly suffering, lest it come across as inappropriate (except when it comes to the weather). Americans are far more honest and loud-mouthed about problems.

At least from an Indian's perspective.

<comment><USER8> Does make you wonder why we got the reputation for being _Whinging Poms_ then!

<comment><USER7> Why thank you! I was unaware of that beautiful expression. This explanation is hilarious - [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whinging%20Po...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whinging%20Pom)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't get it.

Why is Google so careful with opening more stores like this?

It seems pretty clear that such stores are extremely good at selling products to your average customer. Why not open dozens, even hundreds of them, all over the world?

<comment><USER10> I'm sure they will. This is a trial store, and I bet they will see it become very successful. We know Google is a data-loving company that tests things quietly, sees what works and what doesn't, and move forward with promising projects.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Google stores rocking Motorola phones, tablets, etc popping up over the next few years. They're in no rush, I'm sure: retail and customer service is _not_ their strong point and they're making plenty of money without the stores right now. But the time will come.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Chromebook's claim to fame (or primary selling point) of 8 second boot-up is very gimmicky to me. People never hard power off their tablets and never need to for most notebooks. If they are, that's a usability issue they're having with the OS, not a limitation.

A fairer comparison is time to resume from standby. But then, Chromebook will have to push their other selling points.

<comment><USER12> I agree with you as well. Most people put their machines on standby or hibernate, eliminating most of Chromebook's competitive advantage.

Honestly, I don't see Chromebooks becoming very successful mainly due to price. For the same price of a Chromebook, one can buy a notebook that is much more powerful.

Instead I think Google should sell (or even more ambitiously give out) Chromebooks at a loss to have people use their cloud-based services. (Much like what Amazon is doing with their Kindle Fire). Unfortunately, if they were going to do this, they would have a long time ago.

I think the Chromebook will eventually go the way of the Zune. Late to market and eventually cancelled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> hilarious.

"It's so limited!" the man in his 20′s was saying while sitting in front of one of the Samsung Chromebook Series 5 devices, and idly playing with the clickable trackpad. He was saying this to two friends that had crowded around the device and a staff member who was managing to stay calm while defending the Chromebook's existence. "For 350 quid [Brit-speak for pounds] you can get so much more."

He looked up at the staff member and asked, hopefully, "Is this going to have iTunes?"

"No."

"See what I mean!" he cried.

"There's Grooveshark," one of the friends piped up.

"All I'm saying is it's a computer for solely online purposes. Why? You could just buy a netbook and install Chrome on it." He gesticulated at the screen. "It's just a shell with Internet."</comment>


Why is Bitcoin surging? - tefo-mohapi Quite curious to find out why Bitcoin is surging (now past $400). What's causing this? How does Bitcoin surge because it is not a stock? <comment><AUTHOR> > How does Bitcoin surge because it is not a stock?

There are lots of financial instruments that are traded on markets that are not stocks. Things like oil, cattle futures, and currencies are all exceedingly commonly market traded instruments.

When people are saying that Bitcoin is "surging" what they are saying is that the price is going up on a variety of markets where Bitcoin can be exchanged for USD.

It is comparable to when the Euro goes up in value in comparison to the Dollar.

Bitcoin is different than most currencies in that macro-economic factors largely drive the price differences in most headline currency prices. Bitcoin is still such a tiny market that minor fluctuations in a small set of speculative market participants can cause large price swings.

</comment><comment><USER2> "The price of the cryptocurrency bitcoin surged on Wednesday to its highest in more than a year amid a wave of Chinese testimonials for a "social financial network" called MMM, which bears the hallmarks of a pyramid scheme."

[http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/ee93bc2e-82f6-11e5-8095-ed1a3...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/ee93bc2e-82f6-11e5-8095-ed1a37d1e096.html#axzz3qdmgG3Td)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is best explained through a visual, [https://i.imgur.com/sWRbaUE.gif](https://i.imgur.com/sWRbaUE.gif)

<comment><USER4> This is one of those gifs that goes in the archive for a rainy day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This was discussed here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10505362](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10505362)

Top theory was that the world's most infamous Ponzi scheme architect is heavily promoting a BTC-based pyramid scheme based around "community" and "sharing" in multiple new markets, including China. Other theories include market manipulation by the Winkelvosses, and mainstream coverage of non-BTC "blockchain tech" being used by major financial institutions.

All of these effects may be pretty minor, but once BTC starts to surge it doesn't take much to get the speculators going

</comment><comment><USER6> Because people love gambling.

</comment><comment><USER7> It had a height of over $900 in 2014 just for perspective.

Last year it was worth over $400, and then it crashed down to just over $200. There's no reason to assume this year's surge won't go the same way.

Bitcoin needs sustainable growth, not these crazy spikes caused by people seeing the jump and joining in to "get rich." Who knows what started it? Maybe just a very large single trade.

I will say at the current price ($480 ish) you'd be foolish to invest, it is more likely to crash than it is to keep surging (at least looking at historical data).

The expression "get in on the ground floor" applies here.

<comment><USER4> Bitcoin will not see anything near "sustainable" until it stops being the victim of speculation.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm curious what you mean by "victim of speculation".

Speculative market participants smooth price imbalances in most markets.

<comment><USER5> They also destabilise markets where the value of the underlying commodity is very hard to gauge and speculators vastly outweigh regular purchasers or hedgers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A more important question...Is bitcoin a pyramid scheme?</comment>


TripAdvisor splits off from Expedia - <AUTHOR> http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2011/04/07/expedia-to-split-off-tripadvisor-unit.html

<comment><USER2> Does anyone know why these spin offs occur? Is it tax reasons?

<comment><USER3> As a separate company, Tripadvisor can now be considered more impartial, not favoring Expedia partners... This will also increase their sales appeal to Expedia's competitors.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's your tangible hobby? - <AUTHOR> Most of us are working with virtual things - software, network, marketing, analytics, etc.
I still have an inevitable need to do something tangible. Especially at spring. I am more than happy if I can repair something at home, car, do some gardening, etc. But nothing regular.
Wondering if you have any tangible hobby. Have you web or blog where you share you hobby-expertise? I'd like to read what other people are doing in their spare time. <comment><USER2> I like to build electronic "stuff", or at least play around with building circuits and stuff. For quite some time now I've been sitting on a half- dormant project to build a "retro-computer" based on a Zilog Z80 CPU. That led me into trying to learn to program an EEPROM with an Arduino, and I got as far as breadboarding part of the programming setup. I'm using an Arduino Uno, which doesn't have enough digital output pins to represent both the address bus and the data bus of the EEPROM simultaneously, so I started down the path of using shift-register chips, etc, yadda yadda.

Anyway, I keep all my electronics stuff at the local hackerspace and sometimes I go up there and pull my breadboard and parts box out and play around.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a hobby of making leather wrapped Mason Jars, and give them to friends... I made these today.

[https://imgur.com/gallery/n53TnlT](https://imgur.com/gallery/n53TnlT)

I pickup broken granite from the granite shop and make plant stands with leather feet:

[https://imgur.com/gallery/jsRNEhX](https://imgur.com/gallery/jsRNEhX) \-- these have the first vintage leather feet - the new ones have the plugs from the stamped leather on the mason jars.

I make custom lockpicks from spring-steel from Street Sweeper blades (dont seem to have any images though)

\---

I make custom lamps from random parts I find at antique stores...

[https://imgur.com/gallery/NaSea](https://imgur.com/gallery/NaSea)

\---

I like to make things for my bike:

[https://imgur.com/a/ikKKT](https://imgur.com/a/ikKKT)

\---

I do it as therapy for depression and to express myself. Don't do any of it for profit - but I have had a lot of the bike parts stolen, or people admire them so I give them to them...

My next project is a leather hipster bartending apron, just because I want to make one - but I dont have the funds to quite do that at the moment.

And I am working on making my own leather based bike grips - but I am still working on the right jig for the die, as my parts are not coming out perfectly consistent when I do it by eye.

On the to-do, aside from the apron:

* Living wall

* Some planting boxes

* Get access to a laser cutter for some leather things

* Completely cover my bedroom floor in leather (I have a leather-piece throw covering in the center of my carpeted room, and its the most amazing feeling with bare feet walking on it - I want to see how much a whole room that way will cost.

</comment><comment><USER4> My main hobbies are photography—I still have analog gear, but I am old, and music. I have two banjos I am learning to play.

I agree that having things to do away from the screen is important.

</comment><comment><USER5> Building or repairing furniture. And I certainly suffer if I don't make time for it.</comment>


Hey Facebook, Line is introducing video ads that users will be paid to watch - aki-xiii http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2013/12/20/hey-facebook-chat-app-line-is-introducing-video-ads-that-users-will-be-paid-to-watch/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, I'm kinda conflicted about this.

On the one hand, it is a hop, skip and a jump away to "watch relevant ads for 'real' money" type of campaigns - and it won't be long before a click-fraud equivalent for video ads crops up and kills off this particular concept too - just like many others before its time.

On the other hand, the advertising/marketing industry is in desperate need of a new idea. Or two. Or three. Text ads, link ads, banner ads, flash ads, video ads, audio ads - heck, all possible permutations and combinations of the senses have been explored and exhausted.

I am not saying this is a new idea (or a good one even) but if this gains traction and goes the way I described two paragraphs ago, then maybe, just maybe, the advertising and marketing industry can finally understand that advertising is becoming more detrimental than useful to product sales.

Don't ask me if I have a better idea - I'm still trying to work out what I, as a consumer, wouldn't mind watching/clicking/exploring. All I know is that for me to remember/buy/consume your product, you better have a strong use case for me and me ONLY. That's the best I have to offer.

Sorry, I realize that wasn't particularly helpful but I've been thinking off and on about advertising and marketing and just wanted to (sort of) vent, I guess. :(</comment>


Top Small Business Ideas for Your Startup - <AUTHOR> https://2muchcoffee.com/blog/top-40-small-business-ideas-for-your-startup/ <comment><USER3> Related to the topic of business ideas, Problems are Goldmines - <USER2> Diamandis > [https://www.diamandis.com/blog/problems-are- goldmines](https://www.diamandis.com/blog/problems-are-goldmines)</comment>


One Reason Google Will Never Fail - <AUTHOR> http://www.thejaywalker.net/2010/11/one-reason-google-will-never-fail.html

<comment><USER2> While I doubt they will fail, they may become less relevant over time due to people not caring to do search since everything they care about is in their facebook. Why do you use google? Why does your mom use google?

<comment><USER3> I'll take the contrarian point of view and bank on Facebook's eventually becoming irrelevant long before Google does. Facebook may look like it's poised to win in the short term, but the bigger and more complex the experience gets, the more AOL-circa-1996 it starts to become.

On-demand always tends to beat out kitchen-sink. The question is, who will eat Facebook's lunch eventually? Probably not a "cooler" competitor, as is popularly fantasized, but rather, a meta service of some sort -- not unlike how Google ate the content web's lunch back in the day.

Facebook Connect and the distributed Like platform will become increasingly important for Facebook as it hedges against site fatigue among its userbase. And if, at some point in the future, Facebook's core value is simply as the universal credentialing and friend list populating system for the consumer web and mobile space, that's still a fun place to be. But how monetizable or sexy of a place is that, really? Would Facebook basically be a Paypal competitor (of a sort) at that point? And how loyal will people feel to their Facebook credentials when and if they're sick of Facebook itself? Food for thought.

It's been said many times now, but ultimately, Facebook is Facebook's biggest competitor in the long run. And it's going to be a tough one.

<comment><AUTHOR> I second the opinion. It's like saying that AOL, Compuserve, and the BBS of the past decade had everything the consumer wanted. Why invent a page ranking algorithm then?

Though a typical internet user does spend an insane amount of time each day on Facebook, the experience is mostly related to 3 things (at least in my circle of friends and relatives): uploading photos, sharing videos and playing Zynga games.

The potential to expand from that point onwards is to base on the "profiles" of the users (and their list of friends) and show targeted ads/ services, etc.? But won't that data gathered by Facebooik still be related to shared videos and uploaded pictures as well as how much score you made on Farmville?</comment></comment></comment>


Replace Apt with Snap as Default Package Manager - <AUTHOR> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/package-management-default-snap <comment><USER2> This was posted on 2019-01-07, but I don't see any comments or discussion. Did anyone react?</comment>


Game Physics for Javascript developers - <AUTHOR> http://skookum.com/blog/simple-game-physics-barcampclt/

<comment><USER2> I guess it's not even real world physics. And the Newton you attribute those formulas to is not real world Newton. For alternative world, your physics are just perfect. For real world, you need to factor in time as well as space.</comment>


KeePassRPC Plugin Vulnerability: CVE-2020-16271 Warning message - <AUTHOR> https://forum.kee.pm/t/cve-2020-16271-warning-message/3143 <comment><AUTHOR> When KeePassRPC (version 1.13.0 or higher) detects a previously authorised client which uses the same encryption key as the one used during a successful exploit of the first related vulnerability fixed in KeePassRPC 1.12.x, we display a warning message.

In the current version of KeePassRPC, this reads:

Your KeePass instance may have previously been exploited by a malicious attacker.

The passwords contained within any databases that were open before this point may have been exposed so you should change them.</comment>


VC Charles Hudson on 'the conversation no one has during an upmarket' - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/24/precursor-ventures-charles-hudson-on-the-conversation-no-one-has-during-an-upmarket/ <comment><USER2> These conversations are always the wrong way round. Being excited about running a company is not enough - affording to do so matters. Restricting founderdom to the already wealthy or the maniacally driven seems a dumb idea.

My conjecture is that more successful companies are founded during downturns because more founders are forced into the process by circumstance.

If we want to increase the successful startups in the world, increase the number of people who can afford to do so. We are seeing paycheck protection programs across the globe - why not use some of the same cash as giant seed funds.

<comment> aaron-lebo Do startups really cost as much as we act like they do? I mean, yeah, if you've got 10, or 30 or however many engineers, it's gonna be expensive, but there are a lot of projects that can be bootstrapped and really don't take many people. Instagram can be built by a single person working nights. You probably aren't going to get a unicorn out of that, and you'll obviously have to scale up, but it's cheaper than it has ever been. Tech is almost free these days.

The disconnect between how cheap/easy new tech is these days and how few interesting experiments we've seen in the last decade, especially in the web space, suggests that it's something other than the money. We're just not really building things because VCs and startup mantras have convinced us we need a million dollars to do anything and it's just not he case.

Do bootstrappers have an advantage in an environment like this? They've always had to tighten their belts, so they should have some advantage relative to these bigger ventures that have bills/investments to pay for.

To respond more directly to you, your conjecture should be pretty easy to test, look at metrics like the stock market plotted against when successful companies are founded. The data are there.

To provide an example, I'm bootstrapping. I haven't made more than 40k a year last decade, got student loans, about to get out of school, don't have a job, got limited funds to fall back on. This economic crunch isn't any worse for me than the past 10 years, so if the idea is it can't be done, thus far I'm doing it. Odds are I won't succeed, but it's doable. If I was making 100k and had connections, it may be easier, but I also wouldn't have the time available. Cheap machines, free OSes, and a decade of HN and other free resources don't cost much. Everyone's sitting at home, anyway. Not much better to do, not much to lose.

<comment><USER3> Startups don't cost anything, unless you make them so. Chasing scale for the sake of scale is stupid. If you're actually selling something that's not fluff you get a couple of customers, improve your product then roll out when you need to.

I'm running a startup right now. The first year cost 0 for me and my partner (besides gas). All the engineering work was done on my gaming PC and the feedback from potential clients was gathered by my partner.

After we got something going, it cost us about 2k for servers (256GB RAM, 50TB storage, 32 CPU cores total) and around 4-5k for graphical product and website design in the next year.

If we're lucky, we're getting a contract this year netting us about 100k/yearly revenue, which will cover all costs + good wages (we were on no/minimal for two years) + another engineer (bus factor of 1 is not fun).

Disclaimer: What I wrote applies to software B2B startups, hardware startups almost necessarily cost a lot, B2C may be harder, but still not that hard if you're not selling fluff.

<comment><USER4> How did you pay your rent if you didn't give yourself a salary?

<comment><USER3> I had a full time job on the side, plus I lived with my parents.

<comment> blaser-waffle > plus I lived with my parents.

So you were paying for it, just in a different way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > startups that merely survive won't be judged merely against their peers that > also survived; they will also compete with brand-new startups for capital > and companies that didn't need to hunker down during lean times.

This is so totally against history as to be laughable.

Sure, some very small single digit percentage of good VCs will be making hay and throwing money at companies.

Most VC's are sheep. With nobody to follow, the majority of VC's will simply hold onto their money. After an implosion, there will be _zero_ new companies competing against you for at least 6-12 months.

Even better, some ideas that couldn't get their heads above water when there was too much chum can finally breathe and take off.

A lot of the most successful tech companies got that way because they exited the other side of an implosion.

<comment><USER6> Yeah this guy is so bad.

Amazon thrived because of the dotcom bust. Not the bubble but the bust, which took out their ~entire deeply uneconomic competition.

There's no better time to create a sensible business than when all the non- economic actors and their VC donors are taken out. Infinite money makes it impossible to do so because you'll be undercut by "blitzscaling" and other creative forms of capital destruction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Are you excited and prepared to run this company for the next two years?

> startups that merely survive won't be judged merely against their peers that > also survived; they will also compete with brand-new startups for capital > and companies that didn't need to hunker down during lean times.

Interesting perspective here. It definitely cuts both ways.

The converse is that if you're able to find product market fit in a down market, you'll have a lean and focused operation for the upswing to accelerate. For most companies that will mean a product people really want, and in the surviving case, probably profit and optionality.

<comment><USER8> Which raises the question for the surviving start-up, with a lean operation, customers and profits, why this company would need and want VC money. Unless, of course, the only measure of success is VC investments.

<comment><USER9> The classic answer is in order to scale up rapidly before a competitor springs up, out-grows them and dominates the market. That's not necessarily a concern for all companies though I suppose, depending on the market they are addressing.

Every company will be in a different situation. For some it might make perfect sense to tough it out, but for others that might not make sense. If you're burning cash, why do that for 2 years when it's pretty clear you're not going to be able to make any progress over that time? You'd come out of the down turn with a stack of debts any possible competitors won't have. In a few years time if the business case still make sense, you might even be in a position to try again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you're doing something for which the opportunity cost of waiting two years is not very high in the first place, perhaps it's not worth doing at all.

<comment><USER11> > As Hudson put it, "there's never been a better time to maybe fold." That's > because, he explained, startups that merely survive won't be judged merely > against their peers that also survived; they will also compete with brand- > new startups for capital and companies that didn't need to hunker down > during lean times.

Not sure how you got from his core idea, but how do you even guess to measure that?

<comment><USER10> Great companies require a great deal of conviction. Waiting two years because it's harder now isn't a conclusion one draws from such a standpoint.

<comment><USER8> Timing is important. If head winds are too tough right now, delay the launch. If there is no choice, unemployment etc..., then start it now.

As you said, start ups are hard already, no need to make it any harder with bad timing.

Also goes the other way round, if the right timing is _now_ , do it _now_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Some of the biggest wins looking back are companies that got started during either the dotcom bust in 2000 or the recession in 2008-2009. So what he's saying is contrary to history.

Though it's true you have to really love the idea you're working on. I've seen people with what they thought were clever ideas for which they had no real passion fail again and again.

IMHO the people who have it the hardest are those trying to find product market fit in this environment as it has to be absolutely brutal.

<comment> aaron-lebo Do you have any specific examples of those companies (2000, 2008-2009)?

<comment><USER13> AirBnb, Pinterest, Square and Uber were founded 2008-2009.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What should companies do if they are hacked? - <AUTHOR>

Out of curiosity, I thought I'd quiz a HN on how you think companies should handle these situations that keep occurring?<p>Please comment below! =) <comment><USER2> Companies should already have in place a set of well defined, easy to follow, procedures for identifying, containing, and removing threats to the network.

If the network has been breached you may be required to notify users, depending on what kind of data is stored on the network (such as personally identifable information) and the laws your company operates under.

Most large companies keep response teams on hand for exactly this sort of issue, and medium/small companies should at least have a set of procedures and information security operatives who can figure out how the network was breached, what happened when the attackers were inside the network, and what (if anything) was removed, added or altered (i.e. exfiltration).

EDIT: I did not see the 2nd part of your question.

In the case of a reoccuring event, the attackers may have installed a backdoor somewhere on the network, stolen passwords or credentials, or may even be a disgruntled employee.

In this case it is the job of the information security department to find this breach, be it internal or external, and ensure that the breach cannot be repeated. Proof-of-concepts can help in ensuring that the backdoor or breach has been fixed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Depends on how they break your system. If it's by a well known 0day I would think you should secure your systems and give public notice. If it's by a unknown method and you trace it through a piece of software i'm not too sure. Many vendors like Oracle have a horrible track record of patching vulnerabilities until they become public.

I believe California requires notice within 30 days if it affects any California users.

</comment><comment><USER4> I believe that your best option is to contact your corresponding CERT.

They will provide you a little help managing the situation.

This is the US Cert: <http://www.us-cert.gov/>

* Depending on the State (or Country) there might be a legislation within how to act when you have been hacked or you have a security breach.</comment>


Tesla Owners Try to Make Sense of Elon Musk's 'Red Pill' Moment - ajay-d https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/technology/elon-musk-tesla-red-pill.html <comment><AUTHOR> "Honestly, Musk is becoming a liability and the Tesla board needs to seriously consider ousting him," wrote Markos Moulitsas, author of "The Resistance Handbook: 45 Ways to Fight Trump."

He's only becoming a liability in the eyes of people like this author because he's moving away from the left.

What's interesting is that when you listen to him being interviewed about the current pandemic, most governors are now essentially agreeing with him and opening up their states.</comment>