Sun and Oracle: Overview and FAQ for the Developer Community - <AUTHOR> http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html <comment><USER2> Not too much news, but expected and reassuring for those of us who live at least partially in JVM-land. I have been programming since the 1960s and the JVM has been the most important programming technology that I have experienced.

Although JRuby, Scala, Clojure, etc. are niche development markets right now, I expect to see a huge uptake in alternative JVM languages used by highly skilled developers. I am not dissing Java, just saying :-)

<comment><USER3> There are other JVMs that now may take more prominence, and whatever OpenJDK is, it's going to outlive Sun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Project Kenai, however, will be discontinued for public use. Oracle will > continue to use it internally and look for ways that our customers can take > advantage of it.

Does Kenai have a lot of usage? I might have missed any stats on wikipedia. This doesn't sound too great. Oh well. There is always google code hosting or bitbucket for hg.

Found this interesting discussion on alternatives: [http://kenai.com/projects/help/forums/general/topics/2406-Al...](http://kenai.com/projects/help/forums/general/topics/2406-Alternatives- for-Kenai-com-)

</comment><comment><USER5> The real question is not whether they will take down Netbeans (which would be silly) but whether they will continue to invest in its development.

</comment><comment><USER6> Yesterday: Java, XML, Oracle/ MySQL.

Tomorrow: Python, JSON, PostgreSQL.

(Or so I hope....)

</comment><comment><USER7> Ah, was wondering why java.sun.com is unavailable. Some network issues to work out, no doubt.</comment>


How Green Is That Grocery Bag Ban? (2014) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://reason.org/files/how_green_bag_ban.pdf <comment><USER2> Arguments shouldn't be disqualified based on their source alone, but at the same time they shouldn't be accepted just because they appear academically rigorous, have charts, etc. This comes from Reason which is a right-wing think tank funded by the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil, among others. So, definitely some close examination is needed before accepting any of their conclusions.

Have any of us taken a close look at the arguments contained within? I noticed that on page 44 where it finally gets into the meat of the argument in environmental impacts, it actually noted that given the projections of San Francisco's office of the comptroller, the ban actually has positive effects. Then it constructs its own "scenario 2" under which is would have negative effects. And then as far as I can see it never argues which scenario is valid! It just jumps to a conclusion later on (p56) that things are "uncertain" so a ban is therefore "irrational".

That just smacks of propaganda draped in the clothes of academia. For some counter arguments see: [http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/10/08/californias- plas...](http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/10/08/californias-plastic-bag- ban-myths-and-facts/201064)

<comment><USER3> > For some counter arguments see:

Personal experience - every single bag I get from the grocery store is used again to dispose of garbage. Doesn't everyone do that?

Making me buy garbage bags is much more wasteful.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, that's by far most recyclable item in the house. The usage balloons with various (mostly unpleasant) cases such as diapered baby, sick cat or just plain love for French cheeses. I guess it's far more enviromentally friendly to use an entire 13 gallon trash bag per each of those incidents.

<comment><USER2> _> I guess it's far more environmentally friendly to use an entire 13 gallon trash bag per each of those incidents._

That's an absurd assumption. You can purchase a small amount of ziploc style bags for such cases, which are right-sized and thus less wasteful and also are better suited for the task as they have a proper seal.

<comment><AUTHOR> One could, but

Ziploc bag with a slider seal, 15c a bag [https://www.amazon.com/Ziploc- Slider-Storage-Bags-Count/dp/B...](https://www.amazon.com/Ziploc-Slider- Storage-Bags- Count/dp/B01FXMDA2O/ref=sr_1_2_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1479050245&sr=8-2&keywords=Ziploc+bags)

Most common trash bag, 11c a bag [https://www.amazon.com/Kirkland-Signature- Drawstring-Kitchen...](https://www.amazon.com/Kirkland-Signature-Drawstring- Kitchen- Trash/dp/B001UB44SM/ref=sr_1_5_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1479050278&sr=8-5&keywords=Trash%2Bbags&th=1)

And as you correctly noted, ZipLoc bags are not a staple of most households, one needs to remember to purchase them. Trash bags are in a "must have" league with toilet paper and tooth paste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This research is valuable, but the quality of this paper seems rather lacklustre. Do research well or don't do it at all. Don't publish an un-peer- reviewed paper with the phrase "is parroted by" in it.

The scope is too wide considering the research it draws from - pick a sub- topic like "plastic bag restrictions effect on tonnage of plastic recovered from street surfaces".

Drawing a chart of "number of bag bans"? Really? We could make that down to one if we just outlawed it nationwide. It isn't a sensible thing to measure.

I really want to see this research done well, but sadly this isn't it.

<comment><USER5> The Reason Foundation is funded by the Koch Family Foundations and David Koch sits on its board of directors. Koch Industries includes plastics manufacturing.

[http://reason.org/trustees_and_officers/](http://reason.org/trustees_and_officers/) [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Family_Foundations](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Family_Foundations)

There is no disclosure of these facts in this report.

<comment><USER6> I recognize the importance of skepticism about sources of information, but why would a paper like this need to specifically "disclose" one of the board members of its publishing organization?

<comment><USER7> It seems like a conflict of interest, IMO.

This is very much a political topic. When you take into context where the funding came from, the "research" presented in this abysmal paper looks a lot more like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

<comment><USER8> Especially since the Koch brothers use their money to sway policies.... and effectively at that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From the Irish perspective [1], when the bag tax was introduced in 2002: it was promoted as an anti-litter measure. By that metric, it was successful: plastic bags went from 5% of litter to less than 1%.

This paper talks about the Irish experience but not from an anti-litter perspective, rather looking at how total plastic bag usage shifted. And it's definitely true with a bag tax in place, you need buy more bags, because they don't accumulate through grocery purchases. But that wasn't what the tax was for.

And of course it raises revenue in a way that is easy to avoid if you're motivated, so it is naturally progressive.

[1] [http://www.marlisco.eu/The_plastic_bag_levy.en.html?articles...](http://www.marlisco.eu/The_plastic_bag_levy.en.html?articles=the- plastic-bag-levy-ireland)

<comment><USER10> I veer in the direction of libertarianism but I can't refute the effectiveness of that tax. It works.

In place of plastic bags the supermarkets put their good used boxes at the head of the store and I can handily truck my shopping away in one of them. That then winds up at the recycling center later on, and in the worse case scenario of it being chucked outdoors by someone cardboard is biodegradable.

It is true that buying a 'bag4life' would emit more CO2 and extrude more plastic net but that wasn't the real issue since those effects are marginal. The amount of litter did reduce.

Now I would like to see us implement the German approach to bottles. They pay people money to collect them, I think it is 25c per bottle, and this has been very effective at keeping them off the streets as well as putting some money into the hands of those who could do with a bit of cash.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElYT8SMl- qI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElYT8SMl-qI)

I reckon on this being cheaper than hiring more street cleaners and cleaner machines so I view it as using a market mechanism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone have a link to the full study they cite about litter? They only citation they have is a memo brief, and that graph raises some serious questions about methodology. Namely, tobacco products accounting for 32% of all litter. It seems like they made a cigarette butt equivalent to one plastic bag, which is not a fair comparison environmentally or visually.

</comment><comment><USER12> Go to Austin, go to SF, go to West LA. Plastic bans are already banned. Go to Orange County CA go to Mexico City go to Shanghai. Plastic bans are allowed. Compare. Latter cities have cleaner streets no bags on streets, in trees, hooked on fences, on the beach, in the water, etc. These bans work and it is evidence of how stricter environmental regulation or taxes are effective to prevent man from hurting man. Or man to hurt the nature he and his posterity depends on.

</comment><comment><USER13> Here in Portland we use paper bags. I have a nice pile of them that I use for holding recycling. There's no cost per bag either. More cities should go this route.

<comment><USER14> You'd need to show paper bags are less impactful than plastic before knowing whether to recommend them.

<comment><USER15> Paper decomposes relatively quickly; plastic takes forever. This is already well known.

<comment><USER16> Forever? Depends heavily on the plastic. Plastic bags also are lighter and less voluminous, making transport of them to the customer (at first sight) less polluting.

Paper bags also may see fewer reuses than plastic ones.

The question whether paper bags are more environmentally friendly than plastic ones is not an easy one to answer.

Most discussions on this I have read conclude you should bring your own bag, rather than single-use plastic or paper bags.

<comment><USER13> When I lived in Socal and got plastic bags from target they all ended up in the trash because there wasn't recycling for them available nearby and I wasn't going to drive way out of my way to do it. Here I've been using the bags at least once again, and they always end up in recycling.

The city even recommends using them for yard waste and other compostables as the bags are perfectly biodegradable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Plastic grocery bags are a disaster, purely from a utility standpoint. I really miss the days of the brown paper bags; you could fit as much in one paper bag as in four or five plastic bags, they were rugged enough to actually hold up, and you could compost them or use them for kindling.

</comment><comment><USER18> Only one comment here mentions visual pollution. I've never seen paper bags snagged on a barbed wire fence. You can see plastic bags on fences a mile away. Much worse than cigarette butts.

</comment><comment><USER19> Can't speak to this study, but now I have to buy plastic bags to line my garbage cans instead of reusing the ones stores give me.

All in all I still throw out fewer bags.

<comment><USER20> Did the bags not have holes in the bottom to avoid children suffocating? If they did, would you not worry about fluids leaking out of the bin?

<comment><USER21> I literally never encountered a grocery bag that has holes intentionally punched in. I do, however see them in product packaging.

<comment><USER22> There's some drive to have them put in as a small suicide prevention measure.

In the UK a few supermarkets had holes in their free bags. I haven't checked the new paid bags.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This comes from reason.org, which immediately should raise everyone's suspicions, but it's pretty well written and organized. We can evaluate it ourselves, and since I find my city's ban pretty annoying, I thought "Why not?".

Section 2.1 disagrees with the notion that plastic bags consume lots of natural resources by quoting someone who claims that they consume a lot of oil, and disagreeing with him, saying that they are made from mostly natural gas. This is just silly: technically they're not wrong, but their argument is only compelling if you for some reason believe that natural gas is a less valuable resource than oil.

Section 2.2 starts off well, citing a study saying that HDPE bags aren't actually that big a component of litter overall. Point in favor there. They also cited the same study to demonstrate that plastic bags aren't that big of a storm drain problem. It goes downhill from there: the section on the marine ecosystem basically consists of them disagreeing with more reliable sources without actually citing any evidence. Then, it for some reason goes into a discussion of the Pacific garbage island, which seems irrelevant.

That section turns around at the end, proposing a better way to reduce litter and citing a successful example of such a program.

Section 2.3, on whether or not restrictions on HDPE bags actually reduce waste. The first section establishes that plastic bags aren't that big a fraction of landfill waste: This is the beginning of a good argument, but to complete the argument they would need to show that bag restrictions have cost larger than that small benefit, and they did not do this.

Landfill decomposition: This is a good argument, +1 point here.

Section 2.4, Global Climate: The life cycle analysis in section 3 does a good job of supporting the argument that plastic bags don't significantly contribute to climate change.

Section 4 cites various anecdotes about the long term effectiveness of bag restrictions. There are only six such examples cited. That suggests cherry picking, since there were many more such examples even two years ago.

This section does also reiterate the previous good argument that an effective plastic bag ban wouldn't help that much if at all with greenhouse emissions.

Further on, in section 4.6, the document tries to make the argument that bag restrictions are expensive, but the numbers they describe seem similarly small to the damage described in section 2.3. While completing the argument, it doesn't actually make it compelling.

The health argument is one I've heard a lot, so I won't try to address it here: that argument is all over the place.

Overall the document makes some good points, some suspect ones, and some irrelevant ones.

</comment><comment><USER24> The horrible risk of reusable tote bags was recently covered on the cartoon We Bare Bears in the episode "Tote Life".

</comment><comment><USER25> This whitepaper is from 2014 and is still just as true. The great garbage patch is also a myth, perpetuated by a fake photo that usually runs with the story in the news.

They banned plastic bags in Chicago. The thin ones. All that happened was now every store gives you a free "reusable bag." These new bags are the same bags as before, but thicker. They are not reusable bags. So in this town it's very clear the regulation was a net negative on reducing plastic consumption.

<comment><USER26> In L.A. we've had a ban for a long time. The thin bags are banned, so they are all thick bags now. And stores are also required to charge at least $0.10 per bag.

Everyone I know just pays for the new thicker bags. It's $0.30 for three bags on a $100 grocery bill.

The real annoyance comes from people not knowing exactly how many bags they need, and usually guessing too low (not wanting to be wasteful), so the baggers take longer trying to figure out how to squish everything in the bags... and sometimes the customer has to pay an extra $0.10 if they need another bag. Which gets them to dig around for a dime. This probably slows down checkout lines by a significant amount (10% or so?).

<comment><USER27> My friend and I estimate an extra 45 seconds at every checkout for this stupid tax. I say this because they always ask (regardless if you brought your own bags) if you want new bags and it'll cost $0.10. Couple that with the fact on average people visit three stores per week, make an average of $60/hour and that there are roughly 7 million people in the bay area and you get this bag tax costing the bay area an estimate:

$15,750,000 per week in lost productivity from wasted time at check outs

(.75 minutes per checkout X 3 times per week / 60 minutes per hour) X $60 an hour average salary X 7 million people

To me the tax is insane and doesn't help the environment. It just got voted on and passed too. Just force paper bag use, and the environment would be cleaner. Simple, it'll save the economy and do more.

I realize this seems like an (and is likely a slight) over estimate of the cost. However, you can do it yourself, we waste a lot of times due to this.

<comment><USER28> $60/hour? The average person definitely does not make that.

<comment><USER27> I believe the average is around $35 / hour, then you have to add the cashier cost which is $20-$30. The cashier cost is $20 for salary plus $10 for benefits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> TL;DR: Banning bags has no measurable benefit.

Conclusions

Proponents claim that banning plastic shopping bags will benefit the environment. Yet, as this study has shown, there is very little empirical support for such claims. Indeed, the evidence seems to point in the other direction for most environmental effects. Some of the alleged benefits are simply false, such as the claim that eliminating plastic bags will reduce oil consumption. An assessment of the San Francisco ban on plastic bags suggests that while there may have been a very small reduction in the amount of litter generated, some emissions—such those of greenhouse gases—may well have increased as a result of the ban.

At the same time, concern about the environment is only one of many issues affecting consumption choices. When it comes to shopping bags, the look, feel, and—likely most important for the majority of consumers—function are very important. HDPE plastic bags are strong, light and highly convenient (there is no need to remember to take them along when shopping, since they are supplied by the store). Also, they are typically reused for various purposes. These features have made them very attractive to consumers. By contrast, reusable NWPP bags are bulky (causing inconvenience when shopping), must be washed between shops if they may have come into contact with harmful bacteria, and must be remembered prior to going shopping (making them far less convenient); moreover, households using NWPP bags will typically purchase more garbage bin liners.

In spite of widespread media attention to the largely false claim that plastic bags are environmentally harmful, bans on the use of plastic bags are not popular: A recent Reason-Rupe poll showed that 60% of Americans oppose plastic bag bans, while only 37% are in favor. Opposition is non-partisan, though it is stronger among independents (64%) and Republicans (71%) than Democrats (52%).

Environmental groups that really care about the problem of litter, such as Keep America Beautiful, have generally promoted solutions that substantially reduce the amount of litter generated, such as public information campaigns focused on litter reduction, and facilitating clean-up operations. In other words, they target littering behavior, which is the actual cause of litter, rather than opposing the existence of certain types of product that might become litter. Meanwhile, environmental groups that really care about the protection of marine animals know that litter is not the prime culprit of diminished marine life and generally focus on other issues, such as policies that promote overfishing.

Unfortunately, policymakers have been cajoled into passing ordinances that ban plastic bags. That is bad news for consumers. It is also bad news for the environment, since the public has been misled into believing that by restricting the use of plastic bags, the problems for which those bags are allegedly responsible will be dramatically reduced. As a result, they are less likely to undertake activities—such as reducing littering and supporting policies that would lead to better protection for marine animals—that would actually benefit the environment.

<comment><USER30> Based on your description, I think your tl;dr was meant to read as, "Banning bags has no measurable benefit."

<comment><USER29> Good catch. (=

We banned bags in Austin a few years ago... but now for the most part I just pay $0.25 every time I need a bag. And now I have to buy special purpose dog- shit bags instead of just reusing supermarket bags.

What I do like though is seeing less plastic bags on the side of the road. Helps keep the place from looking like an oil field construction zone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is from reason.org, which would have pre-conceived notions about such a ban.

<comment><USER32> This is an "ad hominem fallacy." The attributes or beliefs of the entity making an argument are entirely irrelevant to whether the argument is correct. The argument must be evaluated solely on its own merits.

<comment><USER31> What's your analysis on the phenomenon of people believing Onion articles?

<comment><USER32> They've failed to analyze the merits of the article sufficiently. They are, in fact, committing the "ad hominem" error -- they see what appears superficially to be a trustworthy news site, and they believe it unquestioningly, based on the supposed authority of the source, rather than independently evaluating the claims being made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's a classic case of environmentalist authoritarianism backed up by emotional arguments from bored politicians. That's why I oppose green parties so harshly despite caring a lot about nature and environment.

<comment><USER34> Sorry, but I don't buy that you care "a lot about nature and the environment" if you oppose environmentalism in general. We do a lot as human beings to harm the environment, and climate scientists generally agree there is a point of no return that we're heading towards. I'd cite a source or two, but we all know there are plenty of sources and by now you're either going to believe the overwhelming evidence or you're going to live in denial. Even if that were not the case, pollution in general is and has been visibly harmful to a number of ecosystems - oil spills, smog, etc. have an obvious negative impact on humans and animals alike. If you cared about the environment as you claim you do you would not oppose efforts to lessen the damage we do to it.

<comment><USER33> _If you cared about the environment as you claim you do you would not oppose efforts to lessen the damage we do to it._

I don't oppose efforts to lessen the damage. I oppose efforts that do not change the damage in any way, shape or form, or efforts that impose large costs at little or no benefit at all.

<comment><USER35> Single-use bags take up to 1,000 years to degrade in landfill.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. goes through 100 billion plastic shopping bags annually.

There's your "way, shape and form".

<comment><USER36> Essentially nothing degrades in a landfill. Not even food waste.

If we don't use plastic shopping bags, we'll use something else that costs _more to manufacture_. Has more manufacturing impact on the environment. Paper, fabric etc. They can be reused, but it would take thousands of reuses to total less environmental damage than the extremely efficient plastic bag.

Its conceivable that plastic bags are the minimum impact to the environment, considering all the options.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I have thus far failed to get an answer from anyone as to what the revenue of this tax, albeit tiny, is being used for. As it stands it just pads the grocer's bottom line. Whereas it should be used to fund research and protecting the environs. But everyone is mum. At least in California.

<comment><USER5> It isn't a tax. It's a minimum price. The money goes to the grocer.

      The bill also required a 10 cent minimum
      charge for recycled paper bags, reusable
      plastic bags, and compostable bags ...

[http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural- resourc...](http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural- resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx)

<comment><USER20> It the UK most shops donate it to charity.</comment></comment></comment>


Israel a vertical farming hot spot? - <AUTHOR> https://urbanverticalproject.wordpress.com/2015/09/23/israel-a-vertical-farming-hot-spot/ <comment><AUTHOR> Would love to know what folks think about coupling some of these ideas with desalination tech.</comment>


Android malware infections skyrocket, says Juniper - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/juniper-reports-skyrocketing-android-malware-infections.ars <comment><USER2> > And as Microsoft has discovered, the market leader tends to get a > disproportionate share of attention from malware authors.

They seriously can't be playing that card when android was neither the first smart phone, nor the most populous until quite recently. Malware has been present from early on the platform, and worse has been distributed via the google application market. It's clear that Google's approach to openness brings the unfortunate consequences of non-curated content, this is identical to regular personal computers and puts the onus of security on the user.

The advent of the cheapest per feature smart phone however means that this is also the platform that will most likely be picked up in bulk by the population(already has), a population who isn't savvy and probably needs their hand held when it comes to common sense computing.

Part of the fault also lies with google as some apps are gaining root access to avoid remote-revocation, however even before rooting the phone they were allowed unfettered access to areas that should be highly secured such as SMS/Call features and access to personal information such as the address book and browsing history. When Google launched the android market, they took away the unpopular choices made by Apple: things like signed-code and more rigorous app approval criteria, but they didn't reformulate the system or add meaningful changes to protect their own users from the predictable malware consequences. (i.e the differences between consoles versus open platforms)

However, just like the open personal computing platform, google will be able to incrementally improve the software and possibly stamp out the vast majority of weak points. The downside is for the consumers who are stuck with premium- sms bills & possible identity theft, while developers get burned because regular consumers(i.e the vast majority) become scared to experiment with google marketplace.</comment>


Ask HN: an ad blocking compromise? - <AUTHOR> http://www.errant.me.uk/blog/2010/03/adfree-an-adblocker-compromise/

<comment><USER2> Wow, it seems to be ad-blocker day :)

Yours seems to be a pretty well reasoned idea, I think it was Patrick that first suggested that ads in fact function as a micropayments service.

I think the whole adblocker debate is overrated, after all it's not like everybody is using an adblocker, it's just a percentage of the users. And if your business suddenly fails because of that percentage then you didn't have much a business to begin with.

Starting a service on 'eyeballs' is like working with an unwritten contract that you expect the owners of those eyeballs to honour. But they weren't party to the negotiations, and if they disagree they can simply erase that part of their screen, and really, not much is lost.

After all, those ad-conscious enough to use a blocker are probably not exactly the people that would have clicked those ads to begin with. And most ads nowadays are performance based so the loss is really not nearly as big as some people make out.

Blaming ad blockers for failing businesses is dishonest because it will change the bottom line only so much.

A much bigger problem is the fact that a good bit of the advertising market is not transparent to begin with and that so much of the content out there really is hardly worth the bits it is stored on.

Videos on news sites are a nice example of where we're headed, non-skippable ads tightly coupled to the content.

The web equivalent is an interstitial page that you _have_ to sit through before being allowed to view the content you came for.

Personally I have no problem with advertising, as long as it is relevant and not 'in my face'. If I get a negative feeling with a site a few times when visiting because of overly intrusive advertising then I simply stop going to that site.

Salon.com is a nice example, I used to read it frequently, since they started their overly intrusive campaigns I haven't been back. Chances are they've reverted in the meantime but I'll never know.

As for the blocker-and-micropayment system, I don't think it will fly, people that go for freebies are not going to be turned in to people that pay, no matter how you dress it up. Think about it, simply _seeing_ an ad is already too expensive sometimes.

Until they have absolutely no other alternative. And on the web there are so many places to get your 'fix'.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Jacques.

 _I think it was Patrick that first suggested that ads in fact function as a micropayments service._

This was thought of independently. But if Patrick is thinking the same way I'm even more convinced it's a good idea :D

> I don't think it will fly, people that go for freebies are not going to be > turned in to people that pay.

The thing that sparked this thought is that a lot of people here defending the ad blocking practice (me included to an extent) claim they would happily pay for content they enjoy - just dont like to be intruded with ads.

I realise that it is most probably an excuse in many cases and they wouldn't follow through. But would enough do so to make it worthwhile?

As I said: as your not monetizing those readers anyway is it not a net positive to give them the option?

<comment><USER2> I think you are monetizing those readers, you just don't realize it.

People reading and talking about your content are a large part of the engine that drives the 'buzz' around a website. If you would cut those people out and be only left with the people that are prepared to pay in some way then suddenly your website wouldn't be half as interesting.

I don't completely go for the 'eyeballs' theory, but I think that there is no such thing as a user that is not worth having, even if they never pay in a $ sense. They're paying with their time, which is worth a lot more than that click, if you can get them to be productive in some way that is 'free' to them but worth something to you you also come out ahead.

Wikipedia is a nice example, HN is another, I use people on my site to supply me with an endless stream of content and in return they get stuff that those that don't have to pay for.

Shifting the game around like that makes it possible to create value without having to take money from the pockets of all (or a large portion of) your visitors.

I think the whole ad blocker discussion is focused way to much on ads being the only way to 'monetize' a user, if there is any exchange at all between a site and a user and you have a feeling that you get more from the user than what it cost you in bandwidth you're under way to solving your problem in a much better way than to worry about a few ad impressions being lost.

<comment><AUTHOR> > People reading and talking about your content are a large part of the engine > that drives the 'buzz' around a website.

Absolutely agreed. Indeed I think that if they notice you showing a willingness to give them the web they want (ad free) you'll get more coming back!

> If you would cut those people out and be only left with the people that are > prepared to pay in some way then suddenly your website wouldn't be half as > interesting.

I'm not suggesting that. It's not a paywall or anything - the initial/actual experience would be just the same for a blocker as it is now. Just with the option to pay...

 _I think the whole ad blocker discussion is focused way to much on ads being the only way to 'monetize' a user, if there is any exchange at all between a site and a user and you have a feeling that you get more from the user than what it cost you in bandwidth you're under way to solving your problem in a much better way than to worry about a few ad impressions being lost._

I cant disagree with that (I did try, actually, but I can't :)).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Doesn't this have, as a huge issue in the critical path, someone solving the holy grail of the past 15 years: actually getting a micropayments service off the ground? It needs to work, to be not so much of a hassle for people to use that they won't bother, to have fees low enough that they don't swallow all the cash, and to have enough of a critical mass of people who already have accounts so there isn't a hurdle to sign up to some new obscure service just to donate your $0.05...

<comment><AUTHOR> The way I would do it is make a really solid ad blocker for all browsers and release it. Get a load of users (as many as possible) for 6 months or something.

Then release the micropayments service (and approach some of the big content publishers with the idea to get them signed up).

Obviously being open to your users that this was your long term plan :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I dunno, this whole "I'd pay for the site if only it were easier to do so" argument reeks of the "I'd pay for music and movies if it was easy as downloading MP3s" argument.

Nothing is stopping you ad-blockers from sending them a check in the mail. This isn't a technology problem, it's a "why pay for what you can get for free" problem. I don't doubt there will be folks who would pay if given a easier option, but I'm having a hard time believing they would come in droves to offset the lost ad revenue.

<comment><USER5> The success of iTunes can be seen as proof that an easy way to download legal music can make money. And people do donate to open-source projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Your post is the weaker for its grammar and spelling errors. You would do well to fix them, because people notice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Banged out in something of a rush before bed :) To be fair there is only 2 outright mistakes (and some clunky bits).

I copy-edited it this morning...</comment></comment>


Sleep, do you get enough? - <AUTHOR>

I sleep from 3 to 7 hours a day and sometimes I feel badly because of it. But I have so much work to do: job, college etc and it's impossible to do everything in 16 hours a day if I would sleep 8 hours.<p>Do you get enough sleep? What would you suggest me? If you didn't get enough sleep in past, what was effects on your health? <comment><USER2> I've been working on my sleep schedule lately as well. I'll list some of the things to try.

1\. Determine your "sweet spot" for hours slept. Mine is anywhere between 8.5 and 9.25 hours. Too much more and I'm groggy for the rest of the day, and much less won't allow me to perform at my best for that day.

2\. Try to sleep and wake at the same time every day. Sleeping in on the weekends may feel good that day, but then Monday comes and waking up at normal time again feels like hell. If you keep you schedule constant, your body will optimize its different sleep cycles for the time it expects to get.

3\. Try becoming an early riser. Humans are diurnal (!nocturnal) animals. This means that if you continue to sleep after sunrise, your body will want to wake up so you won't get as deep of a sleep.

4\. If you have a super hectic schedule that doesn't allow a constant sleep schedule, try polyphasic sleep. I haven't tried it myself, but it may be worth a shot: <http://www.dustincurtis.com/sleep.html>

If you want to help keep your sleep schedule constant, here are some tips I've found helpful:

1\. Avoid screens like a computer and TV an hour or less before bed. Try a book instead.

2\. Avoid caffeine at least 3 hours before bed (probably obvious, but worth saying anyway)

3\. Try chamomile tea to get to sleep quickly.

4\. Artificial lighting sucks. Avoid it as much as possible. Open a window in the daytime and get to sleep earlier to avoid several hours of artificial light. You may save some $$$ on energy as a side effect.

5\. To wake up quickly, go for a walk outside as soon as you wake up.

I hope some of these help.

<comment><USER3> 1a. If you must use a computer screen before bed, install F.lux (<http://stereopsis.com/flux/>). As the sun goes down, Flux adjusts the color warmth of your monitor to make it friendly as sunlight diminishes.

It takes a little to get used to, but its completely awesome once you are using it. When you disable it during the night and see your monitor jump to a bright, blinding blue shade you realize how painful it is on your eyes.

<comment><USER2> Wow great find. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am bipolar and my sleep is very erratic. I sometimes go 4-5 days without sleep and suffer no loss of productivity. Usually I sleep 3-4 hours a night and feel rested and ready to go. If my sleep goes unchecked, it can throw me into a manic state which is dangerous for my bank account, makes me very aggressive, and leaves me hunting down risky endeavors. I was fine with that on my own, but since getting married I have to work fairly hard to keep more regular hours. My wife wants me to go to sleep when she does and dislikes waking up with me out of bed. Since she can sleep well into the afternoon when her schedule permits it is a challenge for me.

Over the past few years, I have done a ton of research on sleep, tried just about every over the counter and prescription medication, did a few sleep studies, and have tested different tons of sleep hygiene philosophies.

The key to me tuning my sleep has been by recording metrics of how I slept and looking for trends. I record when I sleep and wake, how hard it was to get to sleep and get up, my stress level and mood for the previous day, the medications and sleep-aid methods I am trying, the temperature, darkness, etc. Relying entirely on a subjective rating for sleep didn't work for me, so I use a fitbit to track how much I am moving during sleep, which can be correlated to how effective your sleep is.

In the last few months I have been able to not take any medication and maintain a regular(ish) sleeping schedule for the first time in probably 5 years.

Everyone has different methods that work for them so I will give you a few that work best for most without killing productivity: -Wake at the same time every morning, sleep when tired(If you don't fall asleep within 15 minutes, you aren't tired). -When waking, get as much light as you can. Watching the sunrise is both invigorating for your body and mind. -Exercise daily, even if its just taking a long walk. -2 hours before sleep avoid anything highly engaging such as media, games, and work(if you can manage). Try writing to empty your mind, or reading something that is not backlit. Dim the lights, stretch or do yoga, etc. -For those nights you can't stop working for those 2 hours, I use flux(mentioned below) and have found it to work well. -Don't try the polyphasic sleep except as a last resort. -Don't nap even for a few minutes. -Don't drink caffeine. ...the list goes on.

My biggest piece of advice is to systematically try different techniques and to record your results. It will take a while to hone in on what is best since you likely have a schedule that varies daily.

I have encouraged many people to do this, even if they don't have trouble sleeping since you will discover what your body requires and not what your mind wants. Oversleeping can cause almost the same amount of health problems as not sleeping enough.

Fine-tuning your mind(this method is not limited to sleep) and body is one of the most important things you can do to make you healthy and productive. It amazes me that it is not more common...

</comment><comment><USER5> I pretty much hit my sweet spot in my work. I work until I want to sleep. Then I sleep. When I wake up I continue to work. It makes for real weird cycles like 20-24 hours of no sleep, 12 hours of sleep, 20 hours of no sleep, 6 hours, 14 hours of no sleep.. It's awesome.

<comment><USER6> I was exactly like this. It was good while it lasted. It was not fun when I developed some health issues. Now, I exercise every day and sleep on a regular cycle. The exercise really helped with the sleep regulation.

Do watch your health. It is of prime importance.</comment></comment>


InstaSource: On-demand tech magicians at your service - <AUTHOR> http://instasource.co/splash/hn

<comment><USER2> No, you can't just do a "Magic for X" and get away with it.

Skilled labor is not something you want done "Insta."

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Max, founder here. While we don't deny that we believe a no interface interface is a delightful way to receive services, we do believe that certain people have use for a immediate technical assistance for everything from SSL installation and word-press tweaks to writing a query for a large data set or quick app debugging

<comment><USER2> And what happens if there's a server wipe while installing SSL? How can you accurately recommend improvements to query data in a data set if you don't know the schema/scale?

Magic is fine for a no interface interface since no human interaction is necessary. If a random faceless person on the Internet was touching _my_ technical property, there had better be sufficient assurance of liability in play because there is no element of trust.

<comment><USER3> > there had better be sufficient assurance of liability in play because there > is no element of trust

 _This_ is the most powerful counter-point against such a service. The reason why Magic works so well is because your take-out or flowers order being 20 mins late is not the same as losing business data.

That said, I'm not _completely_ against the idea if the outsourcing method is made more transparent and it turns out there are both high levels of quality and liability assurance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I want a system that can build an API and corresponding UI for any labor of my choice :)</comment>


Show HN: Remember anything with your voice. Quiz Me AI - <AUTHOR> https://quizme.ai <comment><AUTHOR> Remember anything you learn with spaced repetition and your voice via your Google Assistant and Alexa.</comment>


Best UK Universities for Becoming a Quant? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quantstart.com/articles/The-Top-5-UK-Universities-For-Becoming-A-Quant

<comment><USER2> Learn C++. All the Quant work I've ever heard of, is done in C++.

Read John Lakos' "Large Scale C++ Software Development" as well as Scott Meyers' Effective C++ series.</comment>


Deep, buried 'nearly pure ice' glaciers spotted on Mars - <AUTHOR> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/01/12/world/science-health-world/deep-buried-nearly-pure-ice-glaciers-spotted-mars/ <comment><USER2> This link is direct from NASA, and (very slightly) older: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16129078](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16129078)

<comment><USER3> Thanks. We moved most comments there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well this will certainly make human exploration a lot easier.

Take a ride on the BFR. All aboard!

[http://www.spacex.com/mars](http://www.spacex.com/mars)

</comment><comment><USER5> Glacier Water from Mars(tm)

Claimed it!

<comment><USER6> You're being facetious, but if there's something physical worth exporting from Mars it's shit like Martian whiskey.

<comment><USER7> I'll have you know that Mariner Valley rye is some of the finest whiskey known to man, partner.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What motivates you to do what you do? - <AUTHOR> I've been in transition for a while, leaving a big enterprise and moving towards more independent work through own consulting business.
In the process I reflected a lot and one of the important topics I am trying to understand is about underlying motivations for my actions.
I can see what is going on in my head, that I tend to materialise some image of my future self, create value for the family and the environment I live in, position myself good for the future-needed skills, have joy in what I do, have more freedom to decide of my future direction ... there are many different triggers of motivation for my actions, but from time to time they seem random and misaligned.
As said, I can see what is going on in my head but I was curios about how others interpret and manage their motivations which trigger their actions.
Would be happy to have some insights into your heads if you may allow :) <comment><USER4> That I need money and this is my best choice. I would guess 90+% of people who say theres anything more to it than this are lying to you and probably themselves. There are people with broader aspirations, but actually just saying you have some deep passion is a part of the culture, and in most cases, I don't think true.

<comment><USER5> I have to strongly, strongly disagree with this.

First, let's talk about your assertion - we're basically all just in this for the money. If you want to make that claim, you have to be able to answer why. Why is money important? Why would we do anything just for money? Money itself is irrelevant, we only want it because of what we can get with it. So, let's go a step further and figure out what we'll buy with that money. Sure, you're going to buy things for yourself - most people likely will. But are they going to spend it all on themselves? Most likely not. Many people will spend that on gifts for their spouse, a vacation for their family, school for their children, a new house or car to improve the lifestyle of their loved ones. All of these things are honest reasons we justify spending our lives working - <USER2> improve not just our own life, but the lives of those we love (and for many great people in the world - the lives of people they've never met).

Second, let's go towards your statement that people just can't have a deep passion for things. You're saying that people can't do something because they're particularly interested in or dedicated to a particular issue? Ok, explain Doctors Without Borders, the Boys & Girls Club of America, St. Jude Children's Hospital, or literally any other charitable organization in the world. Are its founders, low-paid employees (relative to market potential), and unpaid volunteers just in this for the money also?

I'm keeping my cool here on this, because ultimately this is a comment and we're all free to express our minds - but I'm offended by the assertion that we can't care about anything other than money. And that's after you get past the fact that the statement on its face doesn't actually make sense, because none of us care about money - we only care about what we can get with it.

Edit: perhaps a bit of an overreaction to otherwise benign comments on behalf of the OP. I still feel strongly about my comments here, but may have misunderstood the intent of OP's statements.

<comment><USER4> You need money to live. As for your other comments, I think you're misquoting me.

<comment><USER5> "That I need money and this is my best choice. I would guess 90+% of people who say theres anything more to it than this are lying to you and probably themselves."

I'm not sure how I'm misquoting you here - you very clearly and plainly said you assume 90%+ of people who say anything other than money is their motivation are lying to you and themselves.

As for your comment that you need money to live - of course you do. That's a far cry from your statement, which is that people are solely motivated by money. The typical HN reader likely makes above the average salary, so they're already past the point of working for enough of a salary to live, and they're in the disposable income territory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Money. I work for a large Enterprise software company and we are not "changing the world." That's fine, by the way, but the answer is money and it always has been.

I have two young children at home and nothing is going to come close to making me feel as fulfilled as being their father. Since we need money to live I have to go away for 8-9 hours a day, working on CRUD applications and their supporting systems. What keeps me in my seat is the money I can eventually bring home to to my wife and children.

To a non-parent this may seem a somewhat bleak and uninspiring vision of what we do as software developers, but the truth is that being able to provide for my family is one of the most intensely satisfying enterprises I have ever taken-on. It allows us to put good, healthy food on the table and live in a neighborhood with walking trails and a nearby lake. My children sleep in comfortable beds. The temperature in our home is always appropriate.

If I can't spend the bulk of my time with my family then next best thing is producing money that directly benefits them.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, people won't admit it but not much has changed other than the marketing that sells people on the jobs. Whether it's software development now or good- paying factory work a while back (but not too far back...), most people would like to try to work to live. If we lived in some sort of post-scarcity society, people might "work" but it most likely wouldn't be as much and maybe not exactly what you're doing now. There'd probably be a lot more polymaths out there - people that wrote some programs for a few years then decide to play guitar for a decade, etc etc.

<comment><USER8> > There'd probably be a lot more polymaths out there - people that wrote some > programs for a few years then decide to play guitar for a decade, etc etc.

I did that in reverse. Once I "make enough" I intend on going back.

<comment><USER7> That's great.

I spent a lot of my early 20s working then quitting to travel to other countries. I've been bitten a little in my later twenties, now early-30s having tried to "settle" down but ending up trying out a lot of different careers. Now about 3-4 years into an "IT" career but working to leveraging that into either contract and/or remote work in the future. Plus trying to keep creative outside of it.

 _fingers crossed_

<comment><USER8> Indeed that's good. You'll never know if you don't like it if you never try it. Many say this age is the perfect time to try something new.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm motivated by Freedom. I have a goal to make myself and those around me free from the burden of financial responsibility, and geographical and time constraints. I don't want to have to do a job I don't want for money because I have a mortgage or bills to pay. I don't want to be dictated where I need to be in the world at any given time or how I should manage my time. I want this freedom and I will get it, because I can. My aim is not to be filthy rich (though I won't cry if by freak accident that happens). I just want to remove 3rd parties from having control over those particular freedoms.

Edit: At the same time, I am doing something I love to achieve this goal, so even if it takes me longer than I expected, in the meanwhile I'm enjoying myself and being compensated nicely for this.

<comment><USER10> Just looked at your profile seeking contact details.

Similar motivations here.

Freedom... I think it is possible to create a company around a common set of values?

<comment><USER9> I'm doing exactly that. Over the years my focus shifted from creating the One Big Company in favour of multiple Small-Nimble-Company. As an aside, I should probably update my contact details.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Happy Dance

You know the feeling, when you get something working for the first time. Something that has never been done before and will never be done the first time ever again. And you just did it. You received input, thought about it, build it, tested it, changed it, stewed about it, agonized over it, redid it, and finally, finally, got output. Often beyond your wildest expectations. And you lept out of your chair and yelled, "Yeaaa!" and danced a little bit.

Sure, I have gotten this feeling from other things, from my writing, from my comedy, from sex, from when the Penguins score a goal, and most often, from others. But in the grand scale, those things rarely happen.

Writing software is different. I can Happy Dance all the time if I only set myself up for it.

In the enterprise, I hardly ever Happy Danced. In my own business, I Happy Danced almost every day. What more does one need for motivation?

<comment><USER12> For me, it's that plus money. I need the money. But getting the money from doing something where I also get to do the Happy Dance? Yeah, that's wonderful.

There's a reason that my explicit career goal is never to become a manager. I want to keep enjoying what I do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I guess I am past the need of motivation. I started coding more than 20 years ago and back then it was all about that I want to really learn how to write good software and create cool projects.

Today I am just happy to have few low pressure customers that I am maintaining products for. I kind of feel like carpenter: sure I can make a table for you and I know it will be quite good. It is not going to be the next big table that is going to be displayed on front page of big Carpentry magazine. It is going to be table for some basement, but thats ok.

I sometimes need more money for bigger purchases, (I am farmer now and equipment is so expensive) which makes me return into high pressure of valley development. And I must say that working in this environment it is always hard to find motivation other then "it is soon going to be over".

</comment><comment><USER14> Grown up working class, have parents which are older and still have to work in awful jobs. Met many people who are just simply better than I am at most things. So I just grind daily at it. I want to have an "out", not just me but for my family and the people I care about.

</comment><comment><USER15> I work to live and distribute time to items which nourish my soul and encourage family wellness. Working towards these goals creates a feedback of contentment for me - I'm in a good place and very happy about who and where I am.

I've learned over time that means activities which give you energy: physical fitness, creativity and relationship time (parenthood, spouse, friends, other family etc) and less activities which draw energy from you, inebriation, excessive video games, excess in any form (for example gluttony or work) etc.

I used to try to do projects 'for the money' in my spare time and inevitably I would give up on them. For me, money is not a main driver. I have enough, and toiling extra hours has no benefit for me.

<comment><USER16> What are some creative activities you'd recommend?

<comment><USER15> I'm currently learning piano on udemy. There are some great intro courses and udemy frequently discounts for 10 dollars. Previously I've done watercolors from them as well. I know they seem 'small', but I can't explain the thrill I got doing something I previously thought was impossible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> At work, I enjoy tinkering and have the opportunity to go solve interesting problems.

At home - I enjoy tinkering and that feeling of accomplishment with a job well done, whether that's washing my car, or making my home automation system do things that it wasn't intended to do.

If I think about it - these are both driven by a desire to be known as someone who can "do things," i.e. "I want the credit." [1]

[1] [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pm-5gWhJ3qY](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pm-5gWhJ3qY)

</comment><comment><USER18> Like everyone else, I sell my labour to capital in exchange for a living.

</comment><comment><USER19> There are two kinds of motivation. There is the desire for the project itself and there is the desire to work on the project. I would be overjoyed if one day, I pulled from master and found that the project I'm working on was perfectly complete!

But until that day, I have to find some way to keep on plugging away: planning, coding, testing, debugging, doing art, marketing, etc. It's one of those things that maintains momentum through good developer experience and forcing myself to spend a little time on it every day.

And one day it will be done, and I'll be able to step back and say "Wow. I made a thing." Honestly, I don't know if it will be that great of a feeling. But the anticipated satisfaction of a job well done, including the approval of my customers, is something that motivates me.

I'll add that family can be super motivating too. Of course, I want to provide for them. But working on a side project and having your wife come by and say "That looks cool" is a pretty good feeling.

</comment><comment><USER20> Doing a good job with care, investing myself in the work. It doesn't matter if no one sees it or appreciates it (though that's nice), it's important that it's done well, with economy of design and good judgement for where to invest some time in the code, and where to flesh out with less finishing.

Higher order goals are all well and good, but usually the best way to achieve those is to make as much money as possible and then direct the money towards the goals, rather than to change what you do and work on the higher order goals directly. While working directly towards higher order goals might feel more satisfying and meaningful, it's unlikely to be the most effective way of making a difference if you've got good skills as an engineer.

My personal higher order goals aren't much more than to live the good life, but being sure to live it - be in the moment, rather than living for some tomorrow.

</comment><comment><USER21> Learning and discovery. The satisfaction of scheming and realization. A less trodden path. Not having to have a mortgage, be stuck in one location, to tow a cultural line, or dress up or follow schedules. Knowing that you are leaving the world a slightly better place.

</comment><comment><USER22> Software Engineer @ a big tech firm : I like the fact that the work engages me to a reasonable degree. I am okay @ coding and I like it to an extent - <USER3> keeps me engaged, which is a massive plus. My co-workers are fantastic, which makes the job better. Needless to say, the money helps a lot, which lets me enjoy my weekends and other times.

Ofcourse, I yearn for a life where I am free and completely in control, doing something I like, but I really appreciate the fact that I have a job that keeps me going as well.

</comment><comment><USER23> 1\. Freedom to use my time wisely. 2\. Fulfilment of my potential.

I try to visualize the end days and if I don't do 1 and 2, I will regret it. That is what drives me to do whatever that I do today.

</comment><comment><USER24> If your intrinsic motivations, which probably map closely to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, are not aligned with your startup's strategy and goals, then of course you are going to experience a feeling of being unmoored. The answer is to deploy massive amounts of patience and energy in figuring out who You are. In the immediate term, recognize you are not the only one with this conflict and perhaps develop a set of "motivation management" tools to help crystallize and make manifest your personal journey.

To help with understanding your place in the grand scheme, I'd also check out this lecture by Michael Dearing from Reid Hoffman's Blitzscaling class at Stanford:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vCdfa_aeI8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vCdfa_aeI8)

Although nominally about Creative Destruction and the capitalist work ethic, it gets at the root of our entrepreneurial ambitions. There is a reason the mission statements of the Erie Railway Company from 1857 and Facebook's circa 2017 sound so eerily similar. Their duty isn't to build train tracks between cities or link nodes in the social graph. It's to spread knowledge, commerce and communication deep into places that have never known it before.

</comment><comment><USER25> 1\. Life is short and there's so much to do.

2\. I'm building a business and I have competitors who want to take my market share.

Either of these two thoughts are enough to galvanise me. #2 in particular can snap me wide awake with blood pumping and ideas firing.

Ultimately I am guided by the principle of least regret, although I find that more useful as a decision making construct than a motivation tool.

</comment><comment><USER26> I strive for balance in my life, so what motivates me is the combination of being able to solve complex problems using computer technology coupled with the ability to properly care about my own physical self and the ones around me (family, good friends).

I have been one of those workaholic people that only cared about amassing money. No more.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment! This really reflects the way I started thinking about it lately. Sorry for the investigative tone of the following question: Was there anything in particular that enlightened you towards changing your attitude or was it just through reflection and incremental adjustment of the behaviour?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> My motivations constantly change (and are therefore not the best foundation for action), BUT, right now I'd say that I'm motivated by whatever enables me to stay upwind.

I'm always finding myself interested in new things (and sometimes disinterested in old passions), so I optimize my career and actions around being able to freely engage with those "new things" without jeopardizing stuff like my financial stability. I also try to be as broadly educated and capable of learning so that those "new things" are never too difficult to immerse myself in.

</comment><comment><USER28> I want to make life better for people who are often marginalised.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't have a fear of change, I have a fear of staying the same. I have a fear that I will be stuck in the same job for the next 40+ years. I don't want that, I don't want to work for someone else, to have all my hard work on their projects do more for them than it has for me. I am hoping to quit my job soon and go off and do my own thing or die trying.

</comment><comment><USER30> Seems like you have a career, unlike me, as I'm a student but I'll give it a go.

-Doing and making something great via Human Computer Interaction

-Being hired as an intern at a technology company

-Generating money with a side project ie ramen profitable

</comment><comment><USER31> Curiosity, and fear.

</comment><comment><USER32> To get acknowledged for my skills and effort.

</comment><comment><USER33> Bucking the existential weight that in the grand scope the life of a single human is nothing.

</comment><comment><USER34> Currently - Money.

</comment><comment><USER35> 2 things: the people I lead day to day and money, even with six figure salary, they are never enough, that's why I have a side project I am going to retire soon...

</comment><comment><USER36> Someone has to.</comment>


Life-size Lego car runs on air - <AUTHOR> http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-news/lifesize-lego-car-runs-on-air-20131219-2zmyr.html <comment><USER2> The car itself is fascinating. The article is very weird. Instead of talking about the obvious challenges of building a full size Lego car, plus a working compressed air engine, it contains discussions of the local car industry closing down?

I hope this particular project shows up somewhere else, and some of the techniques used are explored in depth. When James May built a fall sized Lego house there were many structural problems to solve. These are interesting to just about anyone technically minded.

<comment><USER3> _The car itself is fascinating. The article is very weird. Instead of talking about the obvious challenges of building a full size Lego car, plus a working compressed air engine, it contains discussions of the local car industry closing down?_

The Australian press is... funny. They have a tendency to hunt for drama and scandal.

<comment><USER4> The _Australian_ press? Try _all_ press.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As some have said it is indeed compressed air. I'm fascinated by the engine. You can see the Lego parts whirring away in this video

[http://youtu.be/_ObE4_nMCjE](http://youtu.be/_ObE4_nMCjE)

<comment><USER6> Anyone familiar with the orbital engine design they're using? The wikipedia article about it is pretty sparse and I didn't find anything better in a quick web search.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Really unbelievable...! But I can not understand how it gets its power. In a "normal" car there are pistons who makes ignition.Here what?:P ... The only it says about it is "runs on air". Anyway still beautiful...

<comment><USER8> I assume it runs on compressed air, is slow and can't go far. It was funny to me that they article explains that the owner raised money to pay Romanians to build it for him and then later takes a tone of complaining about auto manufacturers closing local operations.

<comment><USER9> Haha. I'm glad I'm not the only who did a double take when the Melbourne man, who we were led to believe completed the project, simply asked people for money and then hired a teen in Eastern Europe with peanuts to build the thing. All the while talking about the ills of out-sourcing.

Fantastic project, but what a strange, article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Like many cars on the mainstream market, the Lego project was built abroad - by the Romanian "teenage tech genius" Raul Oaida, who was 17 years old when the project commenced. The car was then shipped to Australia once completed."

So really, Raul Oaida should be the one with his face in the news.

</comment><comment><USER11> The site for the project is a bit sparse on details bit can be found here [http://www.superawesomemicroproject.com/](http://www.superawesomemicroproject.com/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Call me extremely underwhelmed.

Regarding the claim that it, "runs on air", details?

Regarding the statements,

> "The project was more to show what's possible in a connected society."

and

> "The project is considered by Sammartino to be a timely wake-up call for > automotive manufacturers, in light of recent announcements from Ford and > Holden that they will close down their local operations." I personally > believe the Wikispeed SGT01 and OScar are more impressive in these areas.

       - http://wikispeed.org/2013/09/setting-up-your-own-wikispeed-shop-wherever-you-are/

       - http://www.theoscarproject.org/

</comment><comment><USER13> The more I see about this the more i'd like them to post pictures of the insides of the engine and the transmission.

Looks nice and all, but I'm gonna call shannanigans on this until I see a gearbox/drivetrain

</comment><comment><USER14> better article at wired [http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/12/air-powered- lego-hot-ro...](http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/12/air-powered-lego-hot-rod)

</comment><comment><USER15> This is fascinating, I always been a huge fan of Lego and this project is simply amazing! I wish we could get more details related to the building process.

</comment><comment><USER16> Now let's see it turn around and go _up_ the hill.</comment>


The Death of the Newspaper - <AUTHOR> http://startuphoodlum.com/2010/07/17/the-death-of-the-newspaper/

<comment><USER2> I haven't read a (paper) newspaper or magazine in about 10 years, and I'm 54. I think it's weird that people still read paper.

Our local free newspaper still delivers to us each week (we can't get them to stop), but I actually read the content online at their website a couple of days before I get the hard copy version. It just goes directly to the recycling bin, unopened.

Magazines are even worse. Because they typically have a 2-4 month lead time, I've read pretty much everything weeks before they come out, for free, elsewhere.

As Craig Ferguson puts it, newspapers and magazines are like an old papery blog. Set up your feed reader and never look back.</comment>


GPT-3 wrote this song - <AUTHOR> https://open.spotify.com/track/6gi1B6zaF6kirw5BfNozZz?si=MOxXpLjgQsak8odGMqJBUQ <comment><USER2> I hope you don't mind the YouTube link which doesn't require a Spotify login: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZGLOZmCj7E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZGLOZmCj7E)

Did GPT-3 also devise the melody, not just the lyrics?

... it sure sounds like a "real song"!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Okay, GPT-3 didn't write the entire song, but the chorus section starting at "You can love me...". Had to seed with 5000+ scraped lyric sets. Going to write blog post and explain more soon and perhaps open source the tool</comment>


Scientists found brain's internal clock that influences how we perceive time - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/scientists-found-brains-internal-clock-that-influences-how-we-perceive-time/ <comment><USER2> I can only hope my internal CMOS battery is not easily disconnected.</comment>


Non-lethal microwave-blasting missile knocks out electronics - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/24/microwave-missile-fries-electronics

<comment><USER2> What I found odd/amazing is that just after 38 seconds in the embedded video the pulse is strong enough to cause the computer in the middle back to eject the CD/DVD rom so hard as to throw out the disc.

Also, would it be possible to shield against such a pulse, the same way that data centers can be shielded against EMP using things like grounded copper "wallpaper" and adding shielded energy filters on the incoming power supplies?

<comment><AUTHOR> Where I work we use Faraday cages [1] to stop radio emissions from leaking out and interacting with scientific experiments. The thing is about the size of an industrial freezer with a large door. I guess you could use the same idea but in reverse for very sensitive things.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage>

<comment><USER3> If you have a small computer or electronics that need sheilding you can just place them inside a microwave (obviously not one turned on) as by design they are faraday cages designed to sheild against microwaves leaking out. They also work to sheild microwaves getting in. Cheap, simple solution.

There again most milatary equipment and the like are generaly made to counter EMP type exposures so I do wonder what this new toy's feild of play will actualy be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I remember reading a review on EMP weapons in Nature magazine some time back. The conclusion was, that it is nearly impossible to reliably knock out equipment without precise knowledge of the setup, weather conditions, etc...

Here's the original article: [http://www.nature.com/news/microwave-weapons- wasted-energy-1...](http://www.nature.com/news/microwave-weapons-wasted- energy-1.11396)

And a quote from it: _"... a prototype non-lethal crowd-control weapon that emits a beam of microwaves at 95 gigahertz. Radiation at that frequency penetrates less than half a millimetre into the skin, so the beam was supposed to deliver an intense burning sensation to anyone in its path, forcing them to move away, but without, in theory, causing permanent damage. However, the day of the test was cold and rainy. The water droplets in the air did what moisture always does: they absorbed the microwaves. And when some of the reporters volunteered to expose themselves to the attenuated beam, they found that on such a raw day, the warmth was very pleasant."_

<comment><USER4> And that's what I'd really love to see - EMP that detonates roadside bombs, rather than knocking out equipment. I understand that IEDs usually have some electronics, right?

It looks like there've been some efforts to develop these _"The Air Force Research Laboratory developed an HPM system called MAXPOWER to detonate roadside bombs remotely, but it was the size of an articulated lorry — too unwieldy to be deployed in Afghanistan. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, the defence department's bomb-fighting agency, declined to discuss the system, citing classification issues. But it did say that, as of 2011, it was not funding MAXPOWER."_ , but again, largely unsuccessful.

I imagine that it is too wasteful to EMP roadside bombs with explosive magnetic pulse sources. And non-explosive sources are too bulky...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> So it's non-lethal to people with pacemakers and dialysis machines?

<comment><USER6> You can make the same argument against tasers. But if the choice is getting shot by a 9mm or a taser, I'll take the latter. By the same token, if the choice is getting microwaved a bit or attacked by a 500 lb smart bomb, I'll take the former.

<comment><USER7> That's what's known as a false choice. In practice, equipping police with tasers lowers the bar to using force (it's supposed to be non-lethal so there's not so much pressure against being trigger happy). Note that in for example the UK regular police don't even carry a gun, so there really doesn't have to be any choice between getting shot or tased.

By the same token I don't think the same situations will call for an EMP or a smart bomb. Setting off a bomb will get everyone's attention immediately, whereas this device would silently disable electronics and could even become standard operating procedure for things like SWAT teams.

<comment><USER6> >That's what's known as a false choice.

No it isn't. The fact that some officers abuse their equipment doesn't mean the choice doesn't come up. It comes up all the time.

>Note that in for example the UK regular police don't even carry a gun, so there really doesn't have to be any choice between getting shot or tased.

Oh yes, it was probably just harsh language going through Jean Charles de Menezes's brain pan. You say the wrong thing and _splat_. Brains everywhere.

>By the same token I don't think the same situations will call for an EMP or a smart bomb.

In the first gulf war the US dropped bombs that contained graphite filaments in an effort to take power plants offline without destroying them. Didn't work too well, so a few days later conventional bombs were used.

In another instance the Iraqis put a command and control installation in a bunker full of civilians. We took that bunker out with a smart bomb. An EMP device sure would have come in handy.

<comment><USER7> It's a false choice because the two options you mentioned are not the only ones, as I argued.

<comment><USER6> They're not _always_ the only options, true. But sometimes they are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One problem with this technology is that it is more harmful for advanced militaries than it is against guerilla forces. If the tech ever gets into their hands, modern militaries have much more to lose since they currently rely heavily on electronic devices.

<comment><USER9> Military hardware has been systematically hardened against this since at least the 1980s in the US. I'm sure most other modern militaries have taken similar precautions.

Guerilla forces would be _more_ exposed because they would likely be using repurposed consumer or obsolete military equipment, neither of which is likely to be hardened against this type of attack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anyone else notice a CD drive open during the test and the CD come flying out?

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O-BukbpkOd8#t=37s)

<comment><USER11> I only noticed that once people here pointed it out, and I'm somewhat baffled. Can someone explain? My thought would be that something in the attack happened to trigger the "open CD tray" operation in the computer, but then why would the CD jump out? Is it possible that the microwave sent the motor into overdrive? I'd love to hear possible technical explanations for this.

<comment><USER12> My interpretation was that the CD was spun up, so when it was pushed out by the tray, it had a lot of extra energy.

<comment><USER11> Ah! Of course! Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So I guess the video they showed wasn't the test where they "took out the cameras"? It would have been cool if they needed to pick up some mechanical film camera to record the test.

<comment><USER14> I believe the camera went out when the narrator said "Fade to black."

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4695275>

but let's see - maybe this time people will be interested :)

I think it's very interesting, since it's not only theoretical, it already works.

This could be one of the key technologies used by the US military in the next war they'll fight in.

<comment><USER16> Or against the US... [http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/07/22/Report-China- deve...](http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/07/22/Report-China-developing- EMP-weapons/UPI-10561311362279/)

Plus, I hear we don't practice the same kind of map-in-hand training that would be useful after an effective EMP.

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the link - interesting. Though i don't think US' next war enemy will be China ;)

What kind of _"map-in-hand training"_ \- needed to use such a weapon effectively - are you referring to?

<comment><USER17> Navigation without electronics. With a compass, a map, and your wits. And maybe the Antikythera mechanism.

<comment><USER15> They are not knocking out a city, but buildings.

Some military buildings knocked out, everything not underground or specially shielded shuts down, has to reboot - this combined with a military strike...

You don't need soldiers equipped with compasses to do this.

It's not like electric devices in a big area don't work for a long amount of time.

<comment><USER16> _shuts down, has to reboot_

I don't think you understand how an EMP works. The article is about a microwave gun which is more selective but less effective than a nuclear EMP. The pulse causes extremely high voltage. Durable electronics (an old car) might restart, but modern electronics are often destroyed.

 _It's not like electric devices in a big area don't work for a long amount of time._

Unless they are EMP hardened, they will not work forever, which to me is a pretty long time.

<comment><USER15> Then US military with EMP hardened equipment.

It's not the technical aspects i have a problem with, it's the statement that US Military lacks skills to strike after EMP attack.

 _"we don't practice the same kind of map-in-hand training that would be useful after an effective EMP"_

Like i've also stated: Maybe it wasn't meant to be that serious, maybe it even was meant to be funny.

Thanks anyway for clarifying this. I am intrigued. Guess i will read into this topic in more detail :)

<comment><USER18> If you want a good read on the effect of a massive EMP attack, read "One Second After"[1]. William R. Forstchen wrote it after presenting to the US Congress on the dangers of EMP, and having the presentation be largely ignored.

1\. [http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William- Forstchen/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William- Forstchen/dp/0765356864/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The country whose army is most relied on advanced electronic system is most fragile to such weapons

<comment><USER3> Milatary grade electronics are EMP sheilded in general and that is down to the cold war and the fear that a nuke would as a side effect kill all the electronics. This fear with army's in general has been a area already planned for and with that this type of offencive whilst has niche uses. It is still nice and against less ofganised unofficial army's of the World then this is something that can be used. It certainly is a nice reusable design.

Sadly though medical equipment and hospitals from my knowledge tend to not be as well protected against sich devices. I would also wonder that the effects upon pacemakers would not bode well either.

Still it will be less life impacting than alternatives in the situations which it lends itself towards. So good on boing for finaly making the EMP miltary grade market justified after all these years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is cancer causing considered "non-lethal" ?

Because the police are certainly going to be using this someday at protests.

Not their problem I guess if people get cancer from it several years later.

<comment><USER21> Unless I am mistaken, microwaves are not ionizing radiation. If intense enough, they can cause burns but won't cause DNA damage.

Studies about _chronic_ high exposure to microwaves show no clear signal of cancer incidence. A quick burst is pretty much considered safe aside from heating related injuries, as far as anything reputable I can find on the matter is concerned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Great tech! Can't wait for them to use this on us!

<comment><USER3> Yes I too do wonder what this is aimed at as for years and years milatary equipment as been made to counter against EMP. Digital rights managment may get interesting one day with this :).</comment></comment>


Could the Big Bang Be Wrong? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2019/06/15/could-the-big-bang-be-wrong <comment><USER2> Not compatible with string theory for one thing.</comment>


How to Hire Sales People - <AUTHOR> http://firstround.com/review/the-anatomy-of-the-perfect-sales-hiring-process/ <comment><USER3> > You need to ask for actual proof — screenshots of activity graphs and > leaderboards directly from their org's CRM, for example. If you're lucky, > some of these screenshots will show both where your candidate landed on the > leaderboard and the names of the other high-rankers.

Isn't this a marker of both gullibility and unscrupulousness? Would the author be okay with his current employees taking similar screenshots out of CRM and sharing those screenshots with other prospective employers?

<comment><USER4> It's possibly the worst hiring advice I've ever seen posted on here (despite the rest of the article being relatively good)

If you ask this as part of a job interview process, you're signalling to the applicants that (i) you don't trust the answers they're giving you (ii) you don't trust your own ability to assess whether their communication is commensurate with their resume boasts (iii) you expect them to breach their employer's trust by sharing confidential sales figures in order to get the job.

If you're giving those signals in the interview, good salespeople will run a mile.

Average salespeople might still know their CRM system well enough to be able to run the statistic that paints them in the best possible light. And even if they can't prove they topped the activity stats for the outbound East Coast FMCG team last month (whilst they were on a final warning for poor figures), there's always Photoshop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is generally very sound advice. There is one part that I take issue with though.

>We also looked for proactive junior staff out of companies like LinkedIn who were ready for the next step, but not afforded the opportunity

>A candidate may have worked in sales, but if they were an account manager tending existing customers, they may not be cut out to be an account executive acquiring new business. Just because someone has made 80 sales calls a day in a prior job doesn't mean they can demo and close. Make sure candidates have the expertise you need.

These two points contradict each other, and I think it is a very important issue. If you are not willing to allow a junior person a better opportunity immediately (hiring them into a promotion) then you have to compensate them better compared to the current company for the same position (short of intangibles.)

Often times, larger companies will have a more deliberate and organized sales process that is time-based. This creates scenarios where candidates that are otherwise qualified for the next step (Market Development Rep --> Account Executive) have a seemingly artificial ceiling preventing them from that role at their current company. While it probably makes sense at the larger company for a Market Rep to be promoted after 18-24 months, this person may be very capable of the next level earlier.

If you can successfully find driven junior level people who have this type of artificial ceiling, you can hire very valuable sales people. This also means you are going to have to take a risk that they can perform on the next level, but you can also hedge this risk by offering slightly less total compensation for the opportunity _now_.

<comment><USER6> Totally right! Goal of this was not to say "don't hire them" but instead "authenticate the acumen."

Also, the non-abridged chapter for the book talks about exactly this:

"But there is a caveat when it comes to more junior staff. Many of these industry bellwethers have the infrastructure to support solid sales training programs and to instrument good sales behaviors, like high calling and emailing activity. So looking there for junior sales staff, like market development reps, who are ready to move on to a closing role could make sense. Just be cautious that the potential hire hits your other requirements, as many of these larger organizations have a lower bar for other important criteria."

Great point!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > If there's one thing you should hire for, it's intellectual acumen, a high > "figure shit out" quotient with the ability to grind

I think this is true in general. I've worked with highly intelligent, but less-motivated people, and you're always waiting for that magical moment when they come out of their lethargy and become a 100x worker. And that moment usually never happens.

<comment><USER8> "General Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord, the present chief of the German Army, has a method of selecting officers which strikes us as being highly original and peculiarly un-Prussian. According to Exchange, a Berlin newspaper has printed the following as his answer to a query as to how he judged his officers: "I divide my officers into four classes as follows: The clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities.

Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Serious question - what sort of information can be gleaned from a sales candidate by asking them how messy their room is on a scale from 1-10?

Ability to answer random questions? Ability to compose a narrative? Ability to deal with seemingly arbitrary BS?

<comment><USER10> In my experience, there are 2 groups of sales reps that can be distinguished with this question (assuming an honest answer). There aren't many reps in a middle ground between the two either.

There's the hyper-organized salesperson, their calendar is regimented to the point that every hour is tied to some revenue-generating activity. Their room, like their desk, office, and car (if they're in an outside sales role) will be equally organized. There is variation and I've generalized some common traits, but the organized rep will fit in a role that requires attention to detail, time management, and new business.

The other type of rep is the "wing it", off the cuff rep. They are quick to respond to any request and although they aren't spending every minute selling, they prefer to juggle a number of tasks at once. A messy room can help narrow their personality down. The "in-the-moment" rep is a good fit for an fast paced role that needs the rep to constantly adapt and respond quickly to customer concerns.

Is one question going to tell you all of that? No, but it is a useful tool for building a profile of their personality and selling style but you'll need a lot more than one answer to base it on.

<comment><USER11> Interesting, sounds like it would be a good question for engineering roles too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands There were some definite red flags in the article:

 _" Even a win rate of 35% means you lost 65% of your deals. Remaining upbeat in the face of micro-failures is key"_

This is a total misconception of sales at its core. What if a sales person closed his 10 largest deals worth multi-millions and the rest got away? Is losing those other smaller deals making up your mythical 65% considered a failure? Hardly. Sales isn't about percentages, it's about generating revenue - period. Thinking like this is dangerous.

 _" i.e. sales staffs that are looking to jump onto their next rocket ship."_

Not sure this is great advice. Why would I want a guy who keeps jumping ship to the next big thing? If anything, you want someone who's been at a larger startup who wants more stability as opposed to the "get in and get out" type of sales person who's more likely to leave you high and dry if things aren't working out the first two months - making you having to start the process all over again.

" _Find people who have artifacts of the type of achievement you 're looking for: quota attainment, activity metrics, etc. Note that salespeople are used to, well, selling — so don't get spun_"

These salespeople tend to come at a cost.

If you have people getting into president's club and consistently performing, they're going to cost you. There's only two types of sales people - <USER2> mediocre kind and the high performing kind. As you stated, you don't want mediocre salespeople, you want the chart toppers. These people know they are good at what they do and will demand a higher salary, more benefits and bigger percentage of the company. They also know how to negotiate. Remember, they're sales people so expect a fight on how much they're going to demand if you really want their skills.

 _" Another good screening tool is a mini homework assignment involving account research and voicemail pitching. At the end of the written screen, I ask candidates to leave me a 30-second voicemail pitching TalentBin as if I were the head of recruiting at Airbnb"_

When I was in sales, I was taught specifically to not leave voice mails, for several reasons. If you're asking me to pitch you over voice mail, that's a red flag in my mind. If you want me to do my homework and then come back for an impromptu sales pitch, or do a simulated cold call over the phone that's fine - but leave a voice mail? Not an ideal way to judge someone's sales ability at all.

</comment><comment><USER12> How to Hire Sales People: A Guide in 6 Steps

1\. Build a great product.

2\. Find people with a good attitude that are genuinely excited about the product.

3\. Hire those people.

4\. Give them the chance to talk to other people about how excited they are about the product.

5\. Track metrics and provide sales-based bonuses but don't overincentivize/gamify the sales process.

6\. Enjoy healthy, sustainable sales growth, happy customers, happy employees.

 _Disclaimer: I have little to no experience in sales. This just seems like common sense to me._

<comment><USER13> Actually, this is correct. I know because I've built two companies that match your description and it did indeed work that way.

The problem is that a company built like that will eventually hit an equilibrium point wherein the natural, organic market plateaus. This may not be a problem, but if for any reason you want to grow beyond that you will need to cross over to the dark side and start dealing with salespeople.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the validation. I was surprised that I got to -3 within 5 minutes of posting. I agree that the dark side of sales is forcing/tricking people into buying things that they don't necessarily need or want, which happens once you attempt to expand outside that natural market for your product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Not skimping when negotiating fees. If you try to talk a recruiter down to > 20% or 17.5% of a first-year compensation fee, you're actually incentivizing > them to only show you candidates they don't think they can place elsewhere.

True - better service always commands higher fees. Offer to pay a full 30% if they promise to deliver and make me happy. * Hat-tip Stuart Diamond.

</comment><comment><USER15> >we focused all our energy on landing new, hungry grads out of high-caliber universities like Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA and more — with preference to athletes and others who had demonstrated grit and success on a team.

All they did was replicate the Financial Industry model. Goldman et al. do exactly this, nothing new or hacker about that at all.

<comment><USER16> I think it's posted on HN exactly because it's a topic that is foreign to many engineers. Nothing wrong with it if it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sport, Sports, Sports! Yeah, this is still a guessing game.

<comment><USER8> Haha...this whole article...."we got a bunch of cheap and hungry kids to sell our product that pretty much sells itself to other kids just like them and they did it! Yay us!"

Now why don't you try this out in an industry you actually need domain knowledge in and let us know how it works out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> >We also looked for proactive junior staff out of companies like LinkedIn who were ready for the next step, but not afforded the opportunity.

This is the more efficient way of hiring a sales team IMO. I've been in both categories and although I've only been in the game for a few years, I've learned the pitfalls of the "fresh grad" approach.

The author is right in considering sales "Mission Critical" for startups and other small businesses looking to grow and then goes on to explain the various ways in which an open or ineffective sales position will damage the position of the company. Despite that display of wisdom, they advocate a "fresh grad" approach which is just about the fastest way to ensure high turnover and low productivity. Every salesperson has to start somewhere and a fresh graduate with a sales personality and love for the job often be the best kind of salesperson for this kind of role for the reasons stated by the author. The problem is that candidates can't know if they'll like the world of sales until they've lived in it. Even if they have an amazing ability to filter out applicants without "the right stuff", they'll still end up with a high % of new reps that just don't like the responsibilities of their role.

That can manifest itself in a lack of interest for the industry (boy did I hate copiers, talk about a dead-end market), a lack of interest in the product (some people love sales but hate selling intangibles like services), a mismatch in the selling style required by the market (relationship vs. technical), or a preference for stable income (depends on compensation structure but sales can be very feast or famine).

The company I work for now faced this issue and we've had incredible success stemming from the switch to the strategy of hiring young reps with a few years of experience. We're all "fresh" enough to go after new business with enthusiasm but we were also a known quantity in that we had all proven that we would stick it out in sales. Prior to this switch, we had 50% turnover for all the reasons stated above (some reps wanted to sell tangible products, others wanted a relationship sales style, others wanted a guaranteed salary, and other realized marketing or operations was a better fit for their personality) but none of the "new group" has left in the past 12 months and I doubt anyone will for a while.

The post-2008 stagnation has created climate with a lot of talented reps stuck near the bottom of the ladder. Offer them the next rung or an honest path toward advancement and they'll jump over in a heartbeat. Let the churn n' burn companies (ADP, Cintas, office equipment dealers/manufacturers) do the hard work of weeding out the fresh grads that won't cut it or don't want in. You avoid the biggest risks and although you'll have to pay more, you'll be more confident that you're getting value out of that "Mission Critical" sales position.</comment>