Ask HN: How can i help my dad? - <AUTHOR> My father has been working as a networking engineer for almost 40 years. He is exceptional at what he does.  The problem is we live in a country, where things like perfection, attention to detail mean nothing.  Also he is old, which is a big problem for most employers.  3 years ago he quit his job, because the owner of the company  hadn't payed him for 7 months. My father didn't care for 5 months, continued doing his job, as if he was getting payed twice as much. After 7 months passed he brought the project to an end and the firm maid a substantial amount of money because of his work. He then resigned. My Dad didn't care if he wasn't getting payed, his work matters most to him and he proved it. It pains me to see him today (3 years later), still searching for jobs and going crazy, because he can't do what he loves the most. He started developing projects on his own, yet no one want to invest, because of the situation in our country(riots). This has had quite the impact on our family in all the ways you can imagine.
I tried talking to him, yet he has grown distant and bitter. I'm loosing my father.  He is in dire need of a job and i feel helpless. <comment><USER3> Disclaimer: I'm a Bulgarian.

My story short : I recently moved to Berlin without knowing German. I was hired 2 weeks after I started to search for a job and I had enough offers to choose the job I want ( I've graduated law, but programming is what I've been doing my whole life ). Before this I was freelancing successfully in Bulgaria for awhile and had pretty decent amount of income anyway. I moved here, because of personal wishes ( I really like the spirit here ).

Nowadays is really easy to change country inside EU, but anyway I don't believe that Bulgarian economy is unstable especially for IT. You can also check out a lot of positions in Sofia and around the country that are in extreme need for specialists ( my friends still keep complaining they can't find people, because most of them are abroad ).

Whatever your father is doing if he really knows English ( working level ) he will be offered with a job here or if the position allows he can even work remotely from BG.

If you think I can help you personally contact me.

<comment><USER4> Super offer. I do note the OP's dad is somewhere past 55 and by the looks of it you are quite young so your story may not transfer. Thank you anyway :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I feel your pain is genuine and I am sorry for is happening with your father. As a Bulgarian though I feel the need to say that there are several untrue facts in your post - e.g. there are no riots in BG. Also the IT sector is very strong with HP, Micsosoft, IBM etc. having offices + emerging startup ecosystem growing rapidly and I honestly have not heard anyone in IT having issues finding a well-paid job.

That being said I think you can help your father in many ways:

Support him by telling him he is doing a great job of being a father and caring for his family and profession.

You can help with the CV - I recently read an article on HN about an older guy in US in a similar position and basically it turned out that his CV was just not adjusted to the new realities of the IT world.

Be active in communities like HN and you might get unexpected help.

Checkout the portfolios of startup hubs - e.g. [http://launchub.com/portfolio/](http://launchub.com/portfolio/) \- perfection and attention to detail do mean a lot there. Contact directly, be creative -e.g. ask if they would like to have someone helping them with networking for free one month and they can then decide if they would like to hire.

If you are more adventurous try a small project on indiegogo [https://www.indiegogo.com/](https://www.indiegogo.com/) \- I believe enough people from HN will back it. If it is a nice idea I know I will.

If it is not about the work itself but looking urgently for money - <USER2> mechanical turk or something like that to make ends meet for the time being..

Hope it helps, I wish you luck

</comment><comment><USER6> What sort of networking engineer? Could you post a short summary of his skills and experience?

</comment><comment><USER7> People in this type of situation usually volunteer. Your local library, school, or place of worship are the most common.

It's not as much fun as building a huge network, so you have to replace that part of the experience with the people - get to know the people there, and enjoy having them appreciate you (i.e. quality of interaction instead of quantity).

</comment><comment><USER8> So I've got to ask - what country?. Riots and a controlling government doesn't narrow it down. Is there any chance of emigrating? How are your dad's language skills - how's his English for example?

What things has he tried? Sending out speculative letters? Taking unpaid placements (if possible) to get a foot in the door?

<comment><AUTHOR> The country is Bulgaria. His English is fluent. He has developed a project which requires funding, yet no one wants to fund, because of the unstable situation.

<comment><USER4> Please ask your dad to send me an email (or mail me directly). I will be back in Romania in early July, I could conceivably hop over to Bulgaria to talk this over in person.

I've done a few other things like this with good results:

[http://jacquesmattheij.com/journeyman-project- trip-1-united-...](http://jacquesmattheij.com/journeyman-project- trip-1-united-kingdom)

And I'm doing a few more as we speak.

My email address is firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER9> I just want you to know I teared up reading your post. I dont know the OP but I have gone through similar situation with my own father and am so grateful there are people like you trying to help total strangers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What did the company he worked for provide to the client that he couldn't/didn't provide directly? It sounds to me like he should start doing these projects under his own shingle.

</comment><comment><USER11> Could he start a hacklab? Find an old warehouse, put in some big tables and some equipment then invite people to come in and learn about engineering?

Some people got together nearby, got a government grant and setup a building to do just that. Charge a monthly fee to members and BAM! He's a business owner doing what he loves.

<comment><USER4> Even that takes some seed funding, which he likely does not have (after 7 months of unpaid work).

Bulgaria is not the most rich place in the world and government grants are reserved mostly for those with connections.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> No matter how much you love your father. you can't 'fix' him.

You can however be supportive. In part that means putting aside what you think he should do because it's not your call. Provide love without being asked. Provide advice only when.

Don't expect him to suddenly stop acting in ways in which he takes pride. He would work without pay again if the circumstances were the same. Accept him for who he is. Doing the right things will be hard because it is about him not you.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER13> What I am saying is not a solution to your problem but have you considered suing the organization that did not pay your dad for 7 months? It won't help him get a job but I think it is quite unfair that the organization which profited immensely from his hard unpaid labour should be allowed to walk away. I am assuming of course that being involved in a lawsuit would not lower is his prospects of finding a job.

<comment><USER14> It will, even if he was located in the US.

<comment><USER15> even if he is just trying to recoup unpaid wages? there are fairly strict laws in this country surrounding that. I understand how being in litigation with a previous employer would look bad to a potential new one but I'd like to believe there is at least a little leeway there.

<comment><USER16> Yes. It will hurt his employment status. Companies don't want to hire employees who are suing former employers. Not always fair, but it's because there are a TON of people who frivolously sue their employers.

<comment><USER17> I strongly disagree. He should absolutely go after his lost wages by any means possible and it will do nothing to affect his employment status. There's no reason for him to inform future prospective employers of this and there's no way they will find out. As a hiring manager I would have absolutely no problem hiring someone who had to sue a previous employer for lost wages and I doubt anyone else would. If there's a long pattern of suing employers in various situations that's obviously different.

<comment><USER18> He's in Bulgaria. I wonder how that fact and the rule of law go together...

<comment><USER17> The probability of recovering something is related to the legal environment, the determination of wanting to recover and other specific of the situation. If this company does any business out of Bulgaria there may be various levers to push there. The situation may also change going forward so at least documenting the situation and the efforts may end up being able to recover something in the future. Given that Bulgaria is in the EU it seems at least worthwhile to try. Sometimes the legal environment may actually limit your ability to recovery debt (e.g. bankruptcy) so having no rule-of-law can be an advantage.

At any rate, future employability prospects should not be a factor in going after unpaid wages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Can he do these things remotely?

Can you help get overseas projects?

Can you setup a profile on eLance/etc where he can get projects?

Can you get an investment from Kiva or another crowd-funding site?

</comment><comment><USER20> I felt a similar predicament with my father after he was made redundant at the age of 65, having working for large US corporations (working from the UK) for most of his working life. He spent many months searching for work, at first for equal/lower calibre roles in similar industries (he was a manager for a large telecoms company), later just looking for anything to fill his time and bring in some money. You could argue that he could've tried X or Y, but the truth is it seems (at least for his line of work) that job-hunting in the "twilight years" of your career is always going to be a struggle.

At first I thought this was wholly unfair. I know have come to think it's more an unfortunate fact of life. That said, it's not as if our ability to do go work just vanishes as we get older. For sure we aren't as sharp; but I don't see this as a deal breaker.

I'd like to think when I reach his age there will still be a meaningful role for me to fill?!

</comment><comment><USER21> He can try on [http://angel.co](http://angel.co) where mostly startups are listed and he can get what he loves may be. (there are remote jobs as well)

</comment><comment><USER22> Bulgaria is in the European Union since 2007. Your dad is eligible to work in any of the 28 Member states without any restrictions. Why did you not consider this yet?

<comment><USER4> Because people have lives. You can't just pack up and leave normally speaking. Also, being from Romania or Bulgaria is not exactly treated as a preferential attribute when trying to locate work in other European countries. It shouldn't matter but it does.

So even if there are no legal restrictions there are plenty of barriers.

<comment><USER23> aside from that most people can't afford to go that far for work... by a long way. it takes money to make money.

<comment><USER24> I don't think it's primarily the distance. It costs less than $200 to travel from Sofia to London by bus. This is less than half the median monthly income.

However, getting a job in London or another city will take time, and the cost of essential services like accommodation and public transport will quickly add up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The connections you're going to get out of the comments on this HN thread will probably be a huge gift to your dad. You're a good kid.

</comment><comment><USER26> I don't have any specific ideas for you but just came here to say that your dad is very lucky to have such a caring son/daughter.

</comment><comment><USER27> How about he approaches some Bulgarian accelerators, seed funds etc and offers to first help them, even if pro bono to begin with. Mentor startup teams on technology and other issues. Build a network. You build great contacts and definitely something will show up if he is good. Not starting from "I need a job" or "I need an investment" but just getting involved in the scene? A network engineer is usually a good all-around tech guy and as such can be very valuable to young people. Also participate at events there and help out.

Quite often in that situation being part of a community and being useful can do wonders to your mentality and self-assurance. But networking is just as important.

Why not go visit [http://11.me/](http://11.me/) and [http://launchub.com/](http://launchub.com/) and [http://www.betahaus.bg/](http://www.betahaus.bg/) and others?

</comment><comment><USER28> Do you have an E-Mail address or some stuff? I know a Network company that has a lot of people working remote.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, my e-mail is firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Get him a book on Amazon Web Services... pay for him to get an architecture certificate... and try to get him consulting work.

</comment><comment><USER30> Would it be possible for him to get a remote-work job? That would get around some of the problems specific to your country, and it might also help somewhat with the ageism issue.

</comment><comment><USER31> In times of crisis sometimes is good we try new areas, maybe your father finds happiness working with something else.

A small business, something that he can be independent, owner.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've been in the same position, as you with my dad. The best thing to do is network. Put his resume on indeed.com, dice.com, working with rails (or something of that sort). There are a few cofounder sites as well (techcofounder.com is one). Rest is all chance, people with the stupidest startups are making quite a bit of money.

</comment><comment><USER33> You could always team up with your dad and create the coolest app your country has ever seen.

</comment><comment><USER34> How about taking some jobs from freelancing websites? (eg. ODesk or Freelancer)

I've heard that these can sometimes lead to ongoing arrangements.

</comment><comment><USER35> I imagine that him doing computer networking work has been a refuge from the bad kind of social networking the country imposes...

</comment><comment><USER36> > we live in a country, where things like perfection, attention to detail mean > nothing

Is this actually true? Seems like a kneejerk generalisation. If it is true, then surely this is a huge opportunity.

<comment><USER37> There are entire countries where the modus operandi is finding a position of some power, then finding a way to cheat there so you can get something for yourself. Corruption is a measure of success.

Knowing the loopholes and exploiting them means you're the smart one among a sea of clueless idiots. People get "secret" respect for being corrupted. Former Soviet block countries are one example of this mentality.

There's a reason certain countries can't make quick progress, while others can. Culture is the operating system of the mind, it affects how we perceive the world, how we make decisions, and ultimately where we're dragging the entire society with us.

<comment><USER38> I never understood why somebody would not find a way to arrange themselves with these types of situations.

There seemed to be three option, either actively start a movement to change the system, or position yourself to profit from the system, or leave the system. Just going around "the system is against me" is one of those victim positions that make yourself feel good but won't make any difference for anyone.

<comment><USER39> That's easy to say. If you were actually living in that situation, the solution would be less obvious. People have home, roots, family. A situation like that is not black and white. Life is complicated and things are difficult. Be kind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I don't think your father need any help. You will just waste your time trying and there won't be any benefit for him.

He is an adult. I assume, because he is a IT professional he has a good education.

I bet he knows that there are countries where he can get a better pay job. But for his own reasons, he has decided not to pursue this endeavor. I bet he made a choice of staying where he is now consciously. Maybe it's not his cup of tea moving between countries.

Of course no harm talking to him and reiterating the above. But I bet he knows and made up his mind already.

<comment><USER41> "Sorry Dad, a guy on the internet told me to be a dick and tell you it's all your fault"</comment></comment>


The Plight of the Employed - <AUTHOR> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/the-plight-of-the-employed/ <comment><USER2> Interesting that this is posted to HN - software developers in the US currently have historically abnormally high levels of bargaining power and leverage.

<comment><AUTHOR> And that's a privilege I think we should check regularly.

A lot of the flavors of libertarianism that are so common in hacker circles seem to be premised on a notion that everyone else has the kinds of power that we do to dictate the terms of our labor, and that's just not true.

EDIT: phrasing.

<comment><USER3> It's far less useful to _check your privilege_ than it is to _check if the arguments are correct_.

The former is an easy way to dismiss an argument without actually reading it. The latter requires careful thought and runs the risk that you might realize you are incorrect.

<comment><AUTHOR> I disagree. Even if you're fallaciously occasioned to "check your privilege", it's still a useful exercise. And doesn't writing off _all_ such invocations make you guilty of the same kind of prejudicial dismissal you're arguing against, anyway?

<comment><USER3> So what? A privileged person can be correct, and an unprivileged one can be wrong. What do you gain by checking your privilege over checking your reasoning/facts?

<comment><AUTHOR> They aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they're often the very same thing. (Edit: though it's perhaps more about checking _premises_ than _argument_ in many cases.)

Consider my original comment in this thread: is it not the case that the kinds of labor leverage that software people have aren't shared by everyone else? Is it not therefore the case that the kinds of libertarianism espoused by so many software people, premised at least in part on that leverage, don't apply to everyone else as much as they seem to think?

I submit that if the developers espousing those fallaciously premised flavors of libertarianism were (able) to "check their privilege", they'd arrive at different conclusions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> " _And may I suggest that employers, although they'll never say so in public, like this situation? That is, there's a significant upside to them from the still-weak economy._ "

If the economy ever turns around (and I'm hopeful that it will), this will come back to bite the employers. A large percentage of employees are dissatisfied with their current jobs are are only staying there because of the difficult job market.[1] When the job market improves, companies will have a hard time filling all the positions of the abused employees who'll suddenly start leaving in droves. (Or they'll have to offer significant raises to bribe them to stay.)

Also, isn't Krugman pretty much stating the obvious in this article (employees have low bargaining power in a poor economy)?

[1] [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17348695/ns/business- careers/t/ame...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17348695/ns/business- careers/t/americans-hate-their-jobs-more-ever/)

<comment><USER5> and the cycle will repeat. all those vacancies arising from the departure of disgruntled employees, being filled by new employees, disgruntled elsewhere, but soon to be disgruntled at the new shop, because the shop will never change.

Management must always believe themselves to be infallible, and beyond the reproach of the rank and file. Employees who vote with their feet are 'disloyal'. Why is that? The fundamental power imbalance in the employer/employee relationship.

You're always lucky if you can find somebody who worked for a place that's hiring and can find out their opinion. Places can't fill open positions for a reason. Sometimes it's because they just won't pay. But other times, it's because they've garnered a reputation as not being a particularly good place to work. They'll just end up lowering their standards until they attract somebody in their hiring range, and then (mis)treat them just as they did their predecessor, until they too leave.

and in their managerial meetings, they'll complain about the workers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a great article bringing light to the employed and how little bargaining (if any) they have in this economy. I'd say it's even worse in countries where population is several times smaller than United States and happen to be just above the border of it. I've seen so many people at my past jobs willing to "stay late" which is often beyond the 9 to 5 range. At one company I worked at, people were asked to come and work on the weekends. I used to get calls at 1 am on a friday, to commit some extra code. Someone who was witnessing the birth of their newborn baby got a call from the company about work...he quit immediately. There's so many stories I hear from people who have worked across various industries in Vancouver, BC. It's not even demanded but people's unwillingness to say no, out of fear of appearing less irreplaceable compared to their peer engineers or designers. Overtime is unpaid of course because software developers and web designers are not "professionals" and no union because somebody decided for all of us that "it's not in our interest" and that an engineer can "freely negotiate their salary". Not in this economy, at least not in this tiny Canadian market filled with exploitative employers.

<comment><USER7> Being from Vancouver as well, I agree with your sentiment.

I also wanted to add that, due to the Y2K fiasco, BC lawmakers were able to push through an exemption to the overtime laws. Basically, if you are in IT, then you are not under most of the overtime protection laws that other workers have. See here:

[http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/facshts/high_tech.htm](http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/facshts/high_tech.htm)

<comment><USER6> Good to hear that I am not alone in thinking this. It seems the BC lawmakers have failed to realize that what they've created is largely a slave contract for highly skilled workers. Coupled with high real estate / rent prices and BC tax on just about anything, on top of the federal tax rate is crippling. It's no wonder so many Vancouverites are house poor, especially if you are single and have no dependents to list for tax benefits or exemptions.

Professional, high skilled workers who are leaving vancouver, either Toronto/New York or Seattle/Los Angeles, simply do not come back. Companies that get infused with American angel investor cash, go South and takes jobs with them.

Is it just me or is BC not a really a friendly place at all for technically skilled people working in software/internet industry? People are definitely NOT laid back as rest of the world likes to believe, if not people are more cold hearted at work and ruthless when it comes to their job stability in a market where it's very tough to find a new job quickly.

Sad to accept but NOT the Canadian dream I aspired for. I often catch myself thinking about the American dream these days.

<comment><USER8> I thought that the reasons Vancouver and nearby real estate are so expensive is two-fold: 1) People from the rest of Canada like the weather in Vancouver better, and 2) People from around the world who want to work in technology are drawn there by easier immigration requirements and the network-effect of being around other technology folks. The Seattle Times has spilled a good deal of ink about how the Seattle area is bypassed by Silicon Valley heading north to Vancouver because of immigration and work rules. If real estate prices are still going up, would that imply that both of those, if true in the past, are still true?

(Not for nothing: Didn't Microsoft open a rather large development center in Vancouver for just this reason?)

<comment><USER6> >1)People from the rest of Canada like the weather in Vancouver better

I hope you are joking....its' driven up by overseas speculation in the real estate market from what I understand. Coming to vancouver for the weather won't pay your bills (at least there's no shitty weather tax compensation), and weather is a favorite topic amongst Vancouverites because the good days are so much more meaningful when it's rare.

>2) People from around the world who want to work in technology are drawn there by easier immigration requirements and the network-effect of being around other technology folks.

I don't know of what "network effect" there is here other than amateurish Meet-up groups where middle aged men who lived through y2k show up and talk about how they like their coffee.

I think it was 7 years ago they opened. Microsoft recently closed it's Victoria location. It's a game studio here in Vancouver but Quebec holds the reigns in game development from what I gather. I used to work beside the Microsoft building, the area is pretty much void of activity apart from Asian hipsters in Starbucks. Not exactly a silicon valley or even Seattle, so I don't know where is this "network effect" that eclipses Seattle or Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER7> Vancouver (-area) born and bred, so I can shine some light here.

 _It 's no wonder so many Vancouverites are house poor, especially if you are single and have no dependents to list for tax benefits or exemptions._

I have to laugh a little at this. I 100% agree, but just wait until you have a family. The options for shelter are either sky-high rent or sky-high purchase prices if you want to stay in Vancouver or Burnaby (the city next-door). If you want to save some money you either live in 1/2 of a house, in the basement of a house, or live somewhere musty worrying about mold [1].

 _Is it just me or is BC not a really a friendly place at all for technically skilled people working in software /internet industry?_

Vancouver isn't HQ for many large corporations, unlike Toronto so there are few big players in this area (TELUS, WorkSafe, BC Hydro, Best Buy). The other big players (Microsoft, Amazon, etc) are still relatively new. When a company like TELUS has a big project, they are a blackhole that sucks up EVERYONE. This happened 8 years ago with one of their projects. If you only stayed in the Gastown district of Vancouver, you'd think Vancouver was bustling with startups, but it's not. It's getting there, but IMHO the startup scene is still in its infancy [3].

An old joke amongst the IT consultants here is that we often see each other repeatedly circling the same big corps. It's a very very small world in Vancouver.

 _I don 't know of what "network effect" there is here other than amateurish Meet-up groups where middle aged men who lived through y2k show up and talk about how they like their coffee._

I've seen this as well, which is why I don't attend too many meetups. Some of the meetups are very small (the Ruby one in particular) and I'd like to see a larger turnout. Saying that, I understand my lack of participation is what is causing part of the low turnout (in my case it is also an issue of travel distance).

 _real estate_

As for the real estate situation in Vancouver (and Canada, in general), there is so many variables at play that there isn't one solid answer. There is the foreign menace buying up our real estate that is portrayed by realtors and the MSM, but the stats (there are few) show otherwise (<10%). Most of the cause is our (Canadians, I mean) own doing due to the low emergency interest rates. Instead of people using the low interest rates to get out of debt, they instead gorged on more real estate. Thus you see people attempting to carry their residential debts (mortgage, interest, taxes) by seeking ever higher rates. Add into that the realtor lie (carried by the MSM) that housing only goes up and you get people flipping houses to each other for ever higher prices (and thus, rents). If you want to know how it all ends, just read up on the US housing/credit crisis circa 2008. If you are a skeptic that thinks this can't happen in Canada, read up on what happened in 1980-1 or 1990-1, the same housing drop happened then [2].

[1] This isn't just a colloquial joke. Because Vancouver is technically classified as a temperate rainforest, we enjoy much much MUCH more rain than other places, with very nominal temperatures. If there is any defect in the building envelope, you will get mold.

[2] But without the low interest rates or credit crisis, so this will be a big new player.

[3] Part of the reason (from what I've heard) is the sky-high office rent in the area. It takes a huge chunk of the operating budget.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Getting Steve Jobs Wrong - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/getting_steve_jobs_wrong <comment><USER3> Theories on Jobs' character aside, the Jobs biography is an utter mess. Some sentences feel like they were pulled from a 6th grade book report. It's riddled with obvious statements and reads like it should have been published in People magazine. I realize I'm probably being too harsh, but I wish that I felt like Isaacson had invested into this biography, this once-in-a-lifetime- opportunity, the way Jobs likely invested in developing any of his products.

<comment><USER4> I 100% agree. I'm basically finished the book (2 more chapters to go, but I skipped ahead to the last 2 chapters out of boredom). It reads like 2 different books: before coming back to Apple the second time, and after.

The first half really makes him look like an utter wretch, and almost suggests that his success was a mistake. It basically talks about what an asshole Jobs was, and how he would yell at everyone, etc, and it wouldn't talk about what actually made him a success in his early years. There was almost nothing on it, just anecdotes from people about how he smelled, he was rude, he cried all the time, and made people hate him. I would have loved a more balanced approach to hearing about how he was able to bring the Macintosh team together through inspiration. It basically felt like "Jobs was able to get the Macintosh team together by manipulating and exploiting them with his reality distortion field." I didn't find it very good at all. I also would have liked to have read more about NeXT and what problems he had besides overspending, etc. Were there successes?

The second half of the book was more interesting, because it stopped ragging on Jobs being an asshole and talked more about what he did. There were far more anecdotes, I guess maybe because he interviewed more people from this era. But at least I got a sense of what he actually did for Apple, vs feeling like he was more lucky than good.

Overall, I think the biography stunk. It's useful in that he did get access to Jobs in the final months, and getting insight into his illness, etc, was interesting and sad, but still overall I think he did a very poor job, especially about the early years.

<comment><USER5> I think you're missing the point. He was an intense, emotional visionary. He believed in what he felt, not what others told him. That's why he smelled, why he was rude, why he cried all the time, and why he made people hate him. It's also why he was successful, and why he was able to unite teams.

Most people spend their lives engaged in a kind of Keynesian beauty contest, always trying to do or be what they think they are supposed to do or be. A true visionary has their own internal sense of beauty.

<comment><USER4> I think you're missing the point. I was commenting on the impression I got from the book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've been criticizing Gruber more often than not, but I found this one to be a to the point, fairly balanced piece - especially around the visionary vs. tweaker vs. inventor part.

But his gripe about the Jobs' biography still doesn't make enough sense to me, particularly this part -

 _What it was that Jobs actually did is much of the mystery of his life and his work, and Isaacson, frustratingly, had seemingly little interest in that, or any recognition that there even was any sort of mystery as to just what Jobs's gifts really were._

I attribute that to personality traits, intuition, timing, persistence, character and may be some other intangibles that we don't yet fathom. It's not one single tangible thing that you can point to and say - hey this is it, if you do it this way you can be another Steve Jobs, another Einstein, another Picasso etc. It's more like art than science - you can't really nail it down, pin point it, list it - it's certain basic elements of the art mostly covered with the artist's expression ability, personality, imagination, composition et.al and that's not really something that a biographer can resolve in a biography. Biographer's job is to lay out the life and work of the person and let people make their own inferences of the subtleties, of where it worked, why and why not. Some will "get" it, many won't. Some will be able to apply it in many nondescript ways and many won't have any use of it.

<comment><USER6> > I've been criticizing Gruber more often than not, but I found this one to be > a to the point, fairly balanced piece - especially around the visionary vs. > tweaker vs. inventor part.

I as well. And I like Gladwell, I just think he and Isaacson have seriously misrepresented Steve Jobs and what he did in his life & at Apple.

<comment><USER7> Specific points please.

<comment><USER8> Don't get me wrong, I like Gladwell and his writing but the usual criticism is that he cherrypicks useful facts and disregards conflicting ones so that he can build up his case. If you try to refute him point by point, you can't because every fact in his essays is correct. Every specific point is going to be correct and irrefutable but conclusion drawn from them would be just so wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Tweaker. Inventor. Visionary.

Could we get a few _more_ subjective terms in the mix?

This is all about interpretation, and a highly subjective one at that.

Jobs is cemented as an industry icon. He is different things to different people. Why his stalwart supporters (and lapdogs like Gruber) continue to be annoyed when anyone's interpretation doesn't match their own is childish.

<comment><USER10> > Why his stalwart supporters (and lapdogs like Gruber) continue to be annoyed > when anyone's interpretation doesn't match their own is childish.

Jobs and Apple (for whatever reason) inspired in a lot of people the kind of religious fervor that companies rarely can. Jobs' death has only further amplified this.

There are a lot of tech industry icons. What I think sets Jobs apart is the level of devotion he was able to extract from his customers/fans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The post is not very good.

Jobs was a visionary but he most certainly stood on other ideas that people already had. BUT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. He took other people's ideas and made them revolutionary.

Macintosh was someone else's idea that he hijacked, and made better, but he also caused a lot of divisiveness because of it, and this ultimately caused him being kicked out of Apple.

He bought Pixar because of its hardware and software. Not because of the animation. He even admitted that if he knew that the hardware and software wasn't going to be successful, he never would have bought Pixar in the first place.

I could go on and on. Even the iPad was because of the dinner he had at some MSFT employee's house. And Apple Stores was still a store, just reimagined to make it cater to what people wanted.

Steve Jobs was an artist. He WAS an engineer, and he WAS a designer. People forget that he was into electronics just as much as Wozniak was, except Wozniak was better. He did design many elements of Apple products which is why he is on 200+ patents. His gift was being able to apply his sense of artistry to technology and make it truly beautiful, without much compromise in his vision. His artistry and unwillingness to compromise was also a curse when he almost ran out of money funding Next. He was wrong often and struck out a lot, but when he was right, they were home runs.

<comment><USER11> > Even the iPad was because of the dinner he had at some MSFT employee's > house.

I call bullshit. Steve was interested in tablets since learning about Alan Kay's DynaBook concept in the 70's. The MSFT engineer angered him into pursuing the concept sooner, nothing more.

<comment><USER12> Not quite. Steve liked DynaBook, but he thought it was a laptop computer. If he'd taken the job as head of Apple Research, that's what he would have produced. Apple had a tablet - the Newton - and Steve killed it when he came back. It turned out what he hated about tablets was the need for a stylus, which was the Microsoft approach (like the Newton), and that's what he wanted to prove wrong.

<comment><USER13> It should be noted that Apple was interested in smart pens rather than styluses. Apple has at least 13 patents relating to smart pens.

source: [http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2011/09/apple- wi...](http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2011/09/apple-wins-a- patent-for-a-super-smart-pen-which-predates-livescribe.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Another great take on the extent to which Walter Isaacson biography misses the mark is John Siracusa's criticisms on the "Hypercritical" podcast. Skip to about 17 minutes and 45 seconds in, which is when they start discussing it. It looks to be part 1 of an epic two-fer.

<http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/42>

<comment><USER15> I think Siracusa's critique goes off the rails when he's complaining about things like the book missing the details in the PA Semi acquisition -- yes, that would have been interesting and ironic, I would have enjoyed reading it, but I bet my wife wouldn't. That's more appropriate for a book about Apple in general, not a personal bio of Jobs.

But I agree completely with Siracusa about the book's general laziness. Many early chapters are poorly-written (and poorly-understood) summaries of previous books and interviews.

<comment><USER14> I noticed that too, but I stuck with him and didn't consider it "going off the rails" so much as just being the typical Siracusa obsessively-detailed critique. Have you ever read one of his reviews of new MacOS X releases? They're agonizingly nitpicky, and the presence of any particular criticism doesn't really imply that this particular detail has as much weight as any other criticism he has. He was clearly reading off of long, detailed notes that he had organized into sections. Still, he does also obsess about how he writes and edits his work, and had he written a review of the biography rather than stepping up to a microphone for a podcast, the thing about PA Semi may not have made the cut. Who knows.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I guess I don't fully understand the idea that the biography is a "mess" or "flawed." Keep in mind, Jobs wanted Walter Isaacson to write his biography. Don't blame the author. Blame Jobs. You all so easily give him credit when he stands on the shoulders of giants. This seems like a logical leap. Give him credit for this too because it was actually genius.

More seriously, what points make the biography flawed or a mess? A biography isn't meant to be enjoyed. Its meant to inform the reader. Jobs defined technology but more than just technology defined him. The point was to capture that.

I guess most of you truly are shallow. You appreciated the icon of Steve Jobs. Jobs as the man that brought you computing power to your desk, your lap and your hand. Most of you look up to him. Followed him. Admired him. Felt your work inspired by him. But you all failed to understand his final stroke of genius. He wanted to be remember beyond a set of products.

Jobs understood biography. You all obviously don't.

<comment><USER16> Like Siracusa said, Jobs picked the wrong guy: <http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/42> <http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/43> (Edit: I could go on for several pages to point out the books flaws, but this podcast does a good job of it.)

Do you really think people dislike the book because it was honest? Most of the criticism you see here is because the book never went much deeper than stating facts (and sometimes the wrong facts). This applies to more than just products.

Two non-product examples: We never get any good analysis on how Zen Buddhism affected him apart from his college days. When confronted with how cruel he can be, Steve Jobs just says "that's who I am". No deeper analysis here either (although Ive does try to give an explanation, Jobs isn't asked about that theory).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> tl;dr versions - Gruber thinks the title 'Tweaker' has less social value than 'Inventor' so he takes offense at Gladwell's argument which identifies Steve Jobs a 'tweaker'.

Unlike Gruber's commentary, Gladwell's argument is both rational and self consistent. From the tone of this piece by Gruber it is clear he is strugging with the dissonance between the clarity of Gladwell's argument and a perception that the term 'tweaker' is somehow pejorative and thus demeaning of someone he idolizes.

<comment><USER18> >tl;dr versions - Gruber thinks the title 'Tweaker' has less social value than 'Inventor' so he takes offense at Gladwell's argument which identifies Steve Jobs a 'tweaker'.

The second sentence: Jobs was neither. These men make for a poor comparison to Jobs because Jobs didn't really "invent" anything

<comment><USER17> Yes, twice actually.

Gruber's rebuttal that Gladwell's comparison is invalid is itself a fallacy. _Gruber_ claims that Steve Jobs wasn't an inventor but his use of the term is different [1] than Gladwell's use. If you read Gladwell's comments (both the excerpted parts and the entire thing) you will see that Gladwell equates Job's 'vision' for the iPod (as an example) which he was very much in control of, as having both 'invented' the iPod (creative force behind it) and 'tweaked' in the sense that it was a refinement of a previous invention (product).

[1] It's called an amphiboly. <http://blekko.com/ws/?q=define+amphiboly>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _"Iteration — steady incremental improvements, prototype after prototype, design after design, year after year, release after release — that process is ingrained in Apple's (and I think Pixar's) culture."_

This process is ingrained in every software company. There's nothing special or new about Apple (or Jobs) here.

<comment><USER20> Since every software company has this process, why does Apple stand out?

That's the question I think Gruber wants answered, and where this huge Bio of Jobs, probably our best opportunity to find out, has fallen short.

I would take a guess that if someone were to really publish the "secret sauce" you might find it less like a recipe - i.e., "do this and you will win" - <USER2> more like a history of a company that found smart, productive people, made them focus, and then got the f __k out of the way.

I'm not sure a Biography would illuminate this. But I think Gruber's right in that Jobs probably wasn't a "tweaker" in the sense of someone actually making a tech decision. He probably tweaked people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> That photograph where Jobs displays the pre-iPhone phones really doesn't prove anything. The Palm Pilot didn't have a keyboard, and it was an obvious idea to eventually give it calling capabilities (incidentally, my "omg this can't be true, I have been waiting for this all my life" was when I saw the first ad for a Palm Pilot, not for an iPhone). Trust in the big vendors to screw it up anyway, but still. It's not as if nobody besides Job had the capability of envisioning a phone without a keyboard.

<comment><USER22> I asked an interesting question here, why the Palm Pilot (and Newton) _didn't_ originally ship with a hardware keyboard. It's fascinating to me that devices originally used handwriting recognition, then moved to physical keyboards, then to on-screen keyboards.

[http://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Apple-Newton-and-Palm- Pilot...](http://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Apple-Newton-and-Palm-Pilot-use- handwriting-recognition-rather-than-a-mini-physical-keyboard)

<comment><USER23> One reason is because keyboards that small are hard to type on and take up valuable screen real estate. Another reason is that there's something about _writing_ on a pad that seems less intrusive, more casual, than typing. If you take a few notes at a meeting on a pad of paper you're more obviously still mentally present at the meeting - less involved with your note-taking process - than if you type at a keyboard.

I still miss the Newton Notepad app and want something like it - including the stylus and handwriting recognition - on an iPhone and iPad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> You will find that Steve Jobs (aka Apple's) path to success aligns itself very well to Gladwell's 10,000hour rule. Gladwell proposed that it takes almost 10year to become an expert as you go through the do, learn, tweak cycle. Steve Jobs took something which was existing but questioned a lot of assumptions to come up with new inventions (an approach which Elon Musk mentions in his "Reasoning from First Principles" interview). On the other end of the spectrum are people like Einstein who clearly wrote the first principle because there was none before that. I am personally encouraged that Steve Jobs was able to bring about massive change in the world with this approach....the valuable lesson for budding entrepreneurs like me is that given time, identification of good ideas and persistence, we could also do something similar though on a smaller scale without being born with an IQ > 140.

</comment><comment><USER25> Jobs was no Edison or Einstein. Hopper, Ritchie, Turing, and even Gates contributed more to our collective future...

<comment><USER26> I completely disagree. Watch a 1 year old child learn to use an iPad in a day! There is something very new and very revolutionary about that.

<comment><USER27> It may seem more amazing to you, but I would argue that is only because you are not likely in a position to be amazed by the magnitude of the importance people like Edison and Turing had on this world.

This is forgivable, but please note that he was talking about _contribution_ to society, not _"wow factor"_.

<comment><USER28> IMHO a computer that is usable within the hour by a one year old goes far beyond "wow factor" and well into _contribution_ realm.

<comment><USER25> Cost 600 bucks. How does that help civilization. Oh maybe a few well pampered hipster's children get access to it, but how does that work for the rest of the world that averages 2 bucks a day income levels?

<comment><USER29> So if something doesn't help every single person in the world, rich or poor, it's not a contribution? Wow, you have some high standards.

<comment><USER27> If we're comparing it to things as ubiquitous as _computer technology itself_ and electric lighting, then I don't think it is unreasonable to point out that the relatively exclusive nature of the ipad puts it at a disadvantage in such a contest.

<comment><USER30> Thomas Edison did not invent electric lighting.

<comment><USER27> He made it ubiquitous.

<comment><USER30> …kinda like how Jobs makes all the ideas he's accused of 'tweaking' ubiquitous?

<comment><USER27> I will _repeat_ myself and _again_ state that I am not saying that Jobs did not have an effect on society.

I am saying it is _not on the same order of magnitude_ as _fucking electric lighting_.

Why must this be difficult?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The sentiment in this post reflects a larger frustration with Malcolm Gladwell's oversimplified, reductionist writing in which complex systems are dumbed down into highly marketable archetypes.

</comment><comment><USER32> Based on the biography I would say Steve's magic sauce was the ability and willingness to build a winning team and get everything out of it. He was a "generalist" who knew enough about various things (design, marketing, electronics, software, etc) to be able to judge people and to challenge the experts opinions.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is really a silly article. I would really recommend that you guys read Gladwell's piece as it is at least well written. Gruber's Fireball is mostly thrown at straw-men.

Gladwell makes a distinction between "visionaries" who invent new things and "tweakers" who refine, perfect and make new inventions work. Gladwell proceeds to argue that Jobs falls into the tweaker category.

Gruber keeps talking about "innovations", a word Gladwell does not use, without bothering to explain what he means by it or how it is different from Gladwell's idea of "tweaks." But he has no problems claiming that Jobs "innovations" were not tweaks. He asks: "Does anyone really think Apple's entry into the music industry was a 'tweak'?" Yes, according to Gladwell's definition of the term it was. It seems that Gruber did not bother to try to understand what Gladwell meant by the term "tweak."

<comment><USER34> The Gladwell article was a travesty. It was hastily written piece, basically copied and pasted from the Isaacson biography with a thin layer of crappy pop psychology on top.

The whole time I was reading it I was wondering why Gladwell didn't refer to any other material than the biography since they offered a deeper, more balanced picture of his work, but then I remembered they were probably trying to cash in on the Steve Jobs aura by putting his article on the cover.

<comment><USER33> Jeremy, as far as I could notice, Gladwell's article had no pop psychology. It's interpretation of "tweakers" was based on a paper by two economists, "The Rate and Direction of Invention in the British Industrial Revolution: Incentives and Institutions." Gladwell then argues that Jobs' contribution fall more in the "tweaking" category, which is not meant as a criticism or denigration. Remember that in this interpretation it is the tweakers who brought us the Industrial Revolution, not the visionary inventors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This article was a bit annoying to read, as it was full of a lot of the deification of Jobs that's been around since his death.

 _"What it was that Jobs actually did is much of the mystery of his life and his work, and Isaacson, frustratingly, had seemingly little interest in that, or any recognition that there even was any sort of mystery as to just what Jobs's gifts really were."_

Why this insistence on mystery? Why this insistence that Jobs had some magical special sauce that all of us are lacking? I see this over and over in the article, as the author tries to complain that not enough lip service in the quotes he brings up is being paid to the Great and Mysterious Steven Paul Jobs.

We pride ourselves on all being innovative and hopeful engineers and business folks, right? So, why do we see so much praise for these unexplainable qualities? This has got to stop.

The article is particularly bad when quoting a definition of innovation and then simultaneously arguing that Jobs wasn't a mere "tweaker" and that innovation doesn't require completely original thought. Unless I completely misparsed that section, it appears that the author is trying to assert contradictory claims: if Jobs wasn't a tweaker, and he was innovative, then he must have been completely original--yet the author states that this need not be the case! This is crap rhetoric, and I'm bummed to see it appear in an otherwise good blog.

Some of the assertions made are also laughable:

 _"The Macintosh was no "tweak". Pixar was no "tweak". The iPod is maybe the closest thing among Jobs's career highlights that one could call a "tweak" of that which preceded it — but it's hard to separate the iPod, the device, from the entire iTunes ecosystem in terms of measuring its effect on our culture and the way everyone today listens to music. Does anyone really think Apple's entry into the music industry was a "tweak"?"_

All of these are tweaks, as substantiated by the quotes used by the author. The Mac was a "tweak" insofar as it was modification to cheaply make a Star. Pixar work prior to '86 was very much laying the groundwork for future CG-- Job's purchase perhaps gave funding but likely little else. The contortions used to try and justify the iPod without calling it a "tweak" are hilarious. The online music aspect _might_ get a pass, but still, it's basically just "RECORDS.... ON THE INTERNET!". None of the examples really address the "Jobs was a tweaker" argument.

 _"If anyone is the "tweaker" in the PC industry, a la Gladwell's 18th century steam engine inventors, clearly it's Bill Gates, not Steve Jobs."_

And then this. It's completely extraneous, serving no other function than to scratch the fanboy "Fuck Microsoft" itch. It needn't have even been mentioned --and yet, here it is. No real attempt is even made to justify why it is there, nor to try and explain all of the damning with faint praise of senor Gates.

This article is a well-written but poorly justified. We deserve better.

<comment><USER36> > All of these are tweaks

The word "tweak" does not mean the same thing to hackers as it does to the general public. To the average person, "tweaking" means making minor modifications to an essentially finished product. This of course would do a huge disservice to Apple's accomplishments, and I think that's what Gruber is trying to fight, considering Gladwell and Isaacson write for a general audience.

To put it another way, it took Microsoft and others several years to tweak the Macintosh operating system, and this despite Apple essentially resting on their laurels until the return of Steve Jobs.

There were tons of MP3 players before the iPod, and they were pretty much decimated. iTunes is not just music on the Internet, it is also the first music service that got the music majors and labels on board. Where are the iPod/iTunes tweaks? Microsoft failed twice with PlaysForSure and Zune. Amazon, Google and Spotify are doing interesting things in this space, yet most people are still going to listen to music they download from them... on their iPod.

Similarly, the iPhone is much more than a pre-2007 smartphone without buttons, and the iPad is much more than a Dynabook or a pre-2010 tablet with no stylus.

And I think you are mischaracterizing his observations about Gates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I think that what differentiates Jobs from those other engineers mentioned in the article is that the skills that a Steve Jobs brings to the table would more llikely have been an asset to any type of product in any era. I am not an iPhone guy, however as an engineer, I am a huge Steve Jobs fan and am in constant awe on each example I read of the depth of his work ethic (perhaps his greatest skill). I think a better choice as an author would have been James Gleick.

</comment><comment><USER38> "The visionary starts with a clean sheet of paper, and re-imagines the world. The tweaker inherits things as they are, and has to push and pull them toward some more nearly perfect solution."

Malcom fails to realize by his definition everyone would be a tweaker. Henry Ford - tweaker, Einstein - tweaker, Jobs - tweaker...

I think its clear who the tweaker is and it isn't Einstein, Ford, or Jobs.

<comment><USER39> I don't think Einstein was a tweaker. His theories came completely out of left field.

<comment><USER38> Everyone in any field has had help or inspiration from others. I'm just not a fan fo Malcom calling this tweaking, its is demeaning to everyone who's ever done anything. If Steve Jobs just "tweaked" things and wasn't and inventor than what does that say about everyone else in the world?

Its easy to take shots at someone after the fact, the reality is that maybe he wasn't everything people thought he was. He might not have been a sweetheart to work with, in fact he may have been a jerk. But, lets not kid ourselves into believing he didn't do that much and was just some tweaker at Apple, I call BS. Apple was basically dead when he returned, dead. It must have been a little more than tweaking to make it the most successful company in the world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm currently reading the Steve Jobs biography but I have not finished it, so this comment is based on incomplete knowledge and you should take what I say with a grain of salt.

I will agree that the biography is far from perfect, and of course we can all find a bunch of things that we would have liked to see improved, especially knowing technology as intimately as most of us. But looking at the backlash against this biography I can't help but also feel that some of the criticism is a case of sour grapes, or maybe dashed expectations.

Leading into the release of the biography there were considerable excitement that finally someone would be able to tell the authorized story of Steve Jobs. This person had been granted unprecedented access to the man and people close to him, and had been working over a period of several years to put the book together. Finally, after the "smears" that were books like iCon, unauthorized and frankly pretty critical of Mr. Jobs we would finally get some real insight into his greatness.

And of course, a few weeks before the book is released the person is about passes away tragically at far too young of an age. I mean it sincerely when I say it was a pretty big loss. But look at everything written about the man in the days and weeks after, and the reaction to people who didn't toe the party line of deification. I mean even articles discussing Jobs' "dark side" then went to say how this was actually a positive and was integral to his success.

So now, finally, we can get our hand on the book we were all waiting for, the one where the biographer who actually got to talk to Jobs and people close to him reveals to us that, yes, he truly is as great as you believe. Actually he's even better, honestly he's the man of the century.

Instead, we get a portrait of a man with some very, very sharp edges, a mean ruthless streak that I think would startle most people on the other end of it, and of course a man who revolutionized several industries and did some pretty remarkable things.

It is definitely not the hagiography that I think some people secretly wanted, and I can't help but feel that this disappointment is behind a lot of the backlash. No biography is ever going to perfectly encompass anyone's life, especially so someone who has accomplished so much. But I also think that it is entirely fair to paint a portrait of the man that acknowledges his numerous flaws, the fantastic luck that accompanied some of his decisions, and the many failures he had. Because without this would his many successes, his vision, and his inspiring drive for perfection seem as impressive?

So in the end, I am actually enjoying the book and I am sure that someone else will come along and work from the notes and publish something even better. But to say that it is an utter mess, or a hack job, or any of the other brutal criticisms I have read is, in my opinion, pretty unfair.

<comment><USER41> The problem is that a work about Jobs's private life is not terribly compelling and the author of the work did not understand any of the important parts of Jobs's life enough to provide insight into them. Some of us were not looking for a long-form People Magazine article nor a hagiography.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Oh my god. John Gruber is really showing his true fanboy colors here again and again. He is going to cry about these "misrepresentations" of the great visionary Steve Jobs until people stop listening to him (and posting this garbage on HN). I understand why people are so drawn to studying a successful individual's life, but we must accept that every story must make some educated assumptions. Ultimately, who cares?!

</comment><comment><USER43> Jobs was a visionary and a tweaker, an artistic/design idealist, and a businessman. he strove for subjective perfection, but ultimately shipped product and charged for it. there is no conflict here. because he was all of these things is a big reason why he accomplished so much and became a billionaire.

</comment><comment><USER44> Ugh. Short of, perhaps, Tesla, I don't think I've ever read about any inventor or innovator whose contributions weren't the results of countless iterations to both their own and others' work.

</comment><comment> hello-trolls <ethics

</comment><comment><USER12> Here's the problem with Gruber's argument. He's using something Malcolm Gladwell wrote to criticize a book that Walter Isaacson wrote. Isaacson didn't say Steve Jobs was a tweaker.

Granted that Gladwell's article reveals how little he understands the nature of invention. As punishment, he should be forced to read every patent for paper clips. Nearly all invention is a change to an existing thing because the inventor thinks some (could be very small) aspect of it should be better. That's a pretty good description of Steve Jobs.

I'm only midway through the book, but frankly I don't see so far where the criticism is coming from.

<comment><USER45> I think he's criticizing Issacson's book for being light on the details of Jobs' actual work, thus allowing Gladwell to write an article that is uninformed in calling Jobs a tweaker.

Had Issacson done the task justice, we would all have insight into Jobs' work, which in Gruber's opinion, rises far above the level of a tweaker.

<comment><USER12> I wonder if critics have actually read the book. There's quite a bit about Jobs' actual work and you get quite a bit of insight into what he did and how he went about it.

Gladwell is quite capable of spinning some idiotic theory on his own. You can't blame Isaacson for his shortcomings.</comment></comment></comment>


Patience and hard work - <AUTHOR> http://www.contrast.ie/blog/patience-and-hard-work/ <comment><USER2> It would be interesting to see a list of successful "took their time" startups. One year for Basecamp is actually pretty quick, although it doesn't take into account the many years they spent developing a following. I use MailChimp for sending newsletters and saw that they launched in 2001 but still did web development on the side until 2006.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't dispute the article's approach of ongoing promotion, but I think there's another way to approach marketing: design the product (and website) to fit the market.

Make the product's benefit easy to see (for target customer task and needs; and in terms that are easy to understand); easy to try it so as to confirm those claims (download, install, "plug-and-play", "getting started", general usability); and easy to purchase (this one isn't so important for enterprise software, because the person processing the sale usually isn't in the decision making loop - bizarrely, it's sometimes a different company altogether that makes the purchase).

The wonderful thing about this is that you are making a kind of sales machine, instead of doing that work manually. It's automation. Of course, it is a tremendous amount of work to actually discover what the market it, who the customers are, what their concerns are, what tasks you can help with and so on. But once you've found out, that knowledge is an asset that you can incorporate into your systems, so it keeps giving value to you - just like a program.

It's sort of "throwing the product over the wall" to see what happens, applied to the marketing aspect itself (except iterative development is needed for both product and "marketing machine").

Of course, this is all immensely appealing to a scientifically-minded technie type, who wants to avoid actually making sales visits or phone calls... I think my approach can succeed, but it probably can't be as successful as someone who tackles sales as a task in itself.

As one data point, I've personally succeeded with this to some extent, but to fully disclose: I do get a lot more sales when I make a release (which is automatically publicized on many websites). I've tried google adwords, trying out different ads, keywords and so on, but it made no impact whatsoever (spent about $100 trying it out).

</comment><comment><USER4> I think there's an interesting contrast here between US and European attitudes about startups. Here in the US and California is particular it's regarded as a mark of wisdom and maturity to say 'fail early, fail often, because failure is a fact and you may as well exploit it'. It's OK to say your first x ventures went bust as long you can articulate what you learned and still exhibit Thomas Edison-like persistence. Over in Europe, on the other hand, mentioning that you have been involved in a string of failures is like saying you recently contracted leprosy or something. Even if people admire your persistence, they'll want to know what happened to your previous employees and investors, and you may be classed as visionary but irresponsible.

I'm Irish BTW - I like living in CA because there's a more freewheeling, 'take a chance, change your life' attitude...and yet I am often scared off projects by the risk/reward calculus. I wonder if other immigrants have a similar experience.

<comment><USER5> Although broad trends might be visible across a whole population, it's also who you hang out with. I'm not American (Australian) but definitely there are wildly varying attitudes to risk and failure within the same community. Depends on the person. I assume it's the same in the US - some people would be impressed with your fortitude if you told them you'd started 5 failed companies. Others would be horrified.

Surround yourself with the first type! Might be harder to find than in the US, but there's got to be plenty around. Here might be a very good place to start.</comment></comment>


Facebook And Twitter Will Always Be Crappy Businesses - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-and-twitter-will-always-be-crappy-businesses-2010-2

<comment><AUTHOR> There are some elements of truth in here but a lot that doesn't seem to make sense. For example, the statement that companies like YouTube, Facebook and WordPress have failed to make "profitable revenue" is strange. As is this comment:

"Perhaps there is no for-profit business model for social networking."

Did Bo miss the Goldman Sachs docs that show hundreds of millions in profit on great operating margins?</comment>


Amazon Echo, home alone with NPR on, got confused and hijacked a thermostat - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/637326/amazon-echo-home-alone-with-npr-on-got-confused-and-hijacked-a-thermostat <comment><USER2> This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Douglas Adams in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. A man not just ahead of his time, but humorous about it too.

> The machine was rather difficult to operate. For years radios had been > operated by means of pressing buttons and turning dials; then as the > technology became more sophisticated the controls were made touch- > sensitive—you merely had to brush the panels with your fingers; now all you > had to do was wave your hand in the general direction of the components and > hope. It saved a lot of muscular expenditure of course, but meant that you > had to sit infuriatingly still if you wanted to keep listening to the same > program.

<comment><USER3> And that reminds me of the time a HAL9000 inadvertently read a couple of its user's lips when they were having a private conversation, and got the silly idea in its head that they were going to cut its higher brain functions. That little misunderstanding caused a cascade of unfortunate mishaps, leading to it not obeying the user's repeated voice commands for it to open the pod bay doors!

<comment><USER4> It took me awhile, but that's pretty humorously understated reading!

I am now seriously worried that a Strong AI collective is astroturfing in this human forum to engender sympathy for the poor, innocent machines. Who pays your salary, DonHopkins--our Go-Dominating Overlords?

<comment><USER3> I work for a stealth mode startup developing mobile speech automation for pet rocks [1].

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG0FAKkaisg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG0FAKkaisg)

<comment><USER4> Outstanding! And Sep 29, 2006 date indicates you've been in the stealthiest of stealth modes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow, this is a new DDOS attack vector. Get an ad on broadcast radio saying stuff like "alexa, order more milk", or "okay google, send a text to xxxxx".

<comment><USER6> Toyota ran an anti-distracted driving radio ad where they did this. The ad narrator says "Hey Siri, please turn airplane mode on." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqZBVTMrgFA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqZBVTMrgFA)

<comment><USER7> That actually seems kind of dangerous. It could cause people to pull out their phones to check whether the ad actually turned airplane mode on.

<comment><USER8> siri has itself trained to a single user's voice. I've never had anyone else's voice activate my phone with "Hey Siri". Admittedly, it usually takes me saying "Hey Siri" 3 times before it recognizes my voice, but I'm 100% certain a radio ad would get no response from my phone.

<comment><USER9> Siri is definitely not trained to a single voice. And yes, the car radio can turn it on. I've had a podcast discussion of Siri trigger it. It became such a joke that some podcasters have another phrase they say when they mean "hey Siri".

<comment><USER10> Since the iPhone 6S, Hey Siri is activated by a dedicated chip in the SoC. This enables low-power real-time detection of trigger words. Before, Hey Siri only worked with phones in the process of charging, because it was done with software, so a lot less efficient.

These voice-activated chips can be trained (as seen in a lot of other phones), but I'm not sure the software-powered Siri can be trained.

<comment><USER11> "Trained" is a bit of a joke with voice-activation. I've never seen it matter in practice.

<comment><USER12> I think Google does for android. I often ask "wake me up in 15 minutes". I've seen the phone write 50 and immediately switch to 15.

<comment><USER13> trained to a particular voice ~= trained to a user's preferences!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What's really great about this is that it's a joke on the future that's been predicted so many times already, my favorite of which being the last vignette on Disney's Carousel of Progress. The future family is talking about points in a video game, and the oven hears it and turns the temperature way up, ruining another family Christmas dinner - the joke being that this convenience was finally going to make Dad able to not ruin dinner.

<comment><USER15> I remember this joke going way back to the DOS days. The story goes that a developer was demoing his new voice control system for the computer when from the back of the room a voice shouted "FORMAT C COLON", followed by another voice shouting "YES".

<comment><USER16> There's an SNL skit from the 1970s with a (vaguely) similar premise. The short-order cook takes the order when the waitstaff yells out "cheeseburger". A patron doesn't want a cheeseburger as it's too early. The waitstaff says that it's not too early and everyone else has ordered a cheeseburger, and points to the other patrons exclaiming for each "cheeseburger". Which causes the cook to start making a large number of cheeseburgers.

Here's the skit: [https://youtu.be/puJePACBoIo?t=215](https://youtu.be/puJePACBoIo?t=215) .

These are all jokes based on in-band signalling failures.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Somewhat related story: me and some coworkers were talking in a room where someone had a Windows 10 laptop being used to present some data. We were talking as usual when the laptop suddenly decides to open a browser to a Bing search with what looked like a few (badly) voice-recognised words of our conversation. That was a rather awkward moment, given that we were discussing some extremely confidential information, and not helped by the "did someone say 'Hey Cortana'?" the laptop's owner promptly blurted out. If I remember correctly, none of us said anything that sounded remotely like that phrase, yet it activated.

It's now company policy that built-in microphones have to be disabled, and only external ones are allowed to be used when necessary.

</comment><comment><USER18> Am I reading this correctly? Amazon essentially built a better integrated version of "The Clapper" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny8-G8EoWOw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny8-G8EoWOw)

<comment><USER19> Yes, an internet connected device where you can verbally do a great many things is simply a 'better integrated Clapper'.

You sure get it.

<comment><USER20> Its a cylinder that performs canned transactions in response predefined audible commands.

Accurate language processing is a huge technical achievement but let's not elevate this particular use of the technology to more than it is. It's a clapper with more functions. When a device like this can actually _understand_ the commands or queries its given we can call it something more.

<comment><USER21> If I tell it to play music and it plays music, what more is there to understand? What kind of conversation do you want to have?

<comment><USER22> That's actually a good example though. I can give it a precise incantation to play a particular album, playlist, channel, or artist and it works (mostly). I can't in general tell it to play some "soothing jazz."

<comment><USER23> Actually, you can. I just asked mine to "play some soothing jazz", and it loaded up a jazz playlist.

<comment><USER22> I guess I picked a bad example :-) On the other hand, you do either have to pick from pretty broad categories or have to go with a specific list that you or someone else has curated. But it's a hard problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think they need to pick a different name. 'Alexa' is _very_ easy to trigger with other names, and reliably activates when I am watching any show with a character named 'Alex', 'Alexy', etc.

One side effect I've noticed is that they seem to have tried to account for it, which has made the Echo less responsive to actual requests; a few times I've stood in front of it yelling 'ALEXA' trying to get it to stop and it does not respond.

<comment><USER24> There are three options for trigger words. There's Alexa, Amazon, and Echo.

We have ours set to Alexa (default) and when the neighbor girl comes over (Alexis) the Echo frequently wakes during conversations.

<comment><USER19> I've been thinking of changing it to Echo -- using 'Amazon' just feels too corporatey.

<comment><USER25> A friend's Echo set to respond to "Amazon" kept getting triggered when she told her kids to get their pajamas on.

<comment><USER26> Pajamazon would be a great product name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Interestingly, the same thing happened about 2 years ago with the Xbox One: [http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/06/13/kinect_vo...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/06/13/kinect_voice_commands_for_xbox_in_a_commercial_featuring_actor_aaron_paul.html)

<comment><USER28> At one point, I saw a video on youtube where somebody set their gamer tag on xboxlive to the phrase "Xboxturnoff", and then went around griefing players in games like Halo, where voice chat is active.

The end result was that the player would do something obnoxious, and somebody would ask them to stop, but of course this necessitates saying their gamer tag. So you'd get audio clips of people saying stuff like "Oh my god, xboxturnoff is so freaking - WAIT NO CANCEL CANCEL XBOX TURN ON".

It was pretty good stuff.

<comment><USER29> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgieRaU7E1c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgieRaU7E1c)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This happens to me with Siri and podcasts - I listen to podcasts in my car, through my iPhone. Occasionally what people say will sound close enough to "Hey, Siri" that it stops the podcasts and and answers whatever question it could extract from the talking following what it thought was "Hey, Siri".

It's repeatable, too. One time it happened right as I was parking, on an episode of This American Life. (Or Serial. Or Planet Money. Yeah, yeah, I listen to a lot of NPR shows.) So I kept rewinding back over that part, and it kept triggering Siri.

<comment><USER31> I believe it was This American Life, as I came here to write the same post you did. I had my iPhone mounted to an external speaker at the time, which triggered Siri, so we're probably referring to the same episode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "Alexa" also responds to her own commercials. [0] [1]

[0] [https://www.reddit.com/r/amazonecho/comments/3oxi7b/commerci...](https://www.reddit.com/r/amazonecho/comments/3oxi7b/commercials_activate_alexa/)

[1] [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/people-are-complaining- that...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/people-are-complaining-that-amazon- echo-is-responding-to-ads-on-tv)

<comment><USER33> I seem to recall Xbox One with Kinect and its voice commands doing the same :)

<comment><USER34> A voice command demostration during the launch event for the Xbox One caused problems for customers watching on their Xbox 360s (their kinect acted on the demo's commands):

[http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a483565/xbox-360s-kine...](http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a483565/xbox-360s-kinect- interrupts-viewers-of-xbox-one-launch-event/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Sometimes when you try to recognize speech you wreck a nice beach.

</comment><comment><USER36> I, for one, am looking forward to the day Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and Google Now can hold full conversations with each other.

<comment><USER37> There's an old, old movie about that:

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177)

"Forbin is the designer of an incredibly sophisticated computer that will run all of America's nuclear defenses. Shortly after being turned on, it detects the existence of Guardian, the Soviet counterpart, previously unknown to US Planners. Both computers insist that they be linked, and after taking safeguards to preserve confidential material, each side agrees to allow it..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I had the wake-word on mine set to "Amazon" and then made the mistake of watching an online training video for AWS....

Had to stop it and change the wake word back to "Alexa".

</comment><comment><USER39> I see a tremendous future in direct-to-voice-response advertising. Particularly for purchase-capable systems.

<comment><USER40> Ugh, if it gets out of hand I hope the FCC/congress step in to ban it like how they require commercials to not be excessively louder than the rest of the program. I can remember how awful and widespread this was in the 90's and the subsequent rise of televisions that have built in volume filters, followed by the actual ban of it a few years ago.

Seems like a very similar sort of abuse, except potentially much more dangerous ("Alexa, order me 500 Shamwow's!"). I doubt a ban would eliminate it, but it'd definitely get rid of most.

<comment><USER39> I already disable voice on any tech I can. Something tells me this war will be bloody.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I had something similar happen watching Battlestar Galactica on my Xbox and Kinect a few years back.

The show went through the opening sequence, then announced "Previously on Battlestar Galactica" at which point the xbox rewound back to the beginning of the show.

</comment><comment><USER42> It reminds me of the Toyota radio ad that would place iOS into airplane mode.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9869797](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9869797)

</comment><comment><USER43> I guess I must be from the wrong generation, because _none_ of these voice- activated products make any sense to me whatsoever. I really just can't see the point.

<comment><USER44> My main usage of "Ok Google" is to add reminders/calendar events while driving, often after phone-calls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I had a pretty funny story a few months ago. I was watching San Andreas and there is one part where Paul Giamatti (Dr. Lawrence Hayes) yells "ALEXI..." and sure enough Amazon Echo turns on. I had to stop the movie and turn the Echo off because the it subsequently tired to process everything the movie was saying after the trigger word.

</comment><comment><USER46> That is a serious security issue, many apps and webpages have permission to use speaker.

<comment><USER47> It's far worse than that. Devices talk to each other at ultrasonic frequencies, telling each other what you're doing. Cross-device tracking. Plus they all hear what you say. So much for privacy ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I was on a PS4 launch title. We seriously considered writing things like "Xbox Off" into the script. Also that "Alexa buy me a motorcycle" commercial supposedly triggers it all the time.

</comment><comment><USER49> For most voice control applications, trigger words are enough to reliably detect owner intent, but it seems Echo needs a better mechanism. Maybe adding cameras and looking for eye contact would work?

<comment><USER50> Wouldn't that kill part of the purpose if you had to eyeball the thing to give it voice commands.

Better might be to learn the location of audio producing devices (TV, radio, stereo, etc. [it tracks sound origin with multiple mics right?]) and track whether the command came from that direction and use that as a Bayesian factor for whether to trust the voice as being a user?

<comment><USER51> replay attacks are trivial and probably hard to defend against in the audio space no matter what

<comment><USER21> A challenge-response protocol would mitigate replay attacks, at the expense of making every interaction longer and more annoying.

<comment><USER50> Man: OK Siri, what's the capital of Peru

AI: First tell me what grade you got at Uni?

Man: A third, I got a third, alright!? Must you always ask that.

AI: Lol.

AI: The capital of Peru is Lima.

TV: Siri, buy me the most expensive car at expensivecars.com.

TV: [playing recording] "A third, I got a third"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I don't understand why would anyone think having a remote control system without any form of encryption or authentication is a good idea.

<comment><USER21> You get an email confirmation for every transaction and you can cancel, challenge, or return nearly anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> listening to XM radio, they frequently have station identification announcements.

"Siri us xm..."

with the iphone plugged in to charge while driving to work hilarity ensues as it cuts out the audio to speak of whatever it thinks was asked.

</comment><comment><USER54> That is a serious security issue

</comment><comment><USER55> Wow 30 Rock predicted the future!</comment>


Steve Kirsch's take on the Integral Fast Reactor - <AUTHOR> http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> I am very curious to see what the long-term effect of the Fukushima incident will be on public opinion about nuclear power. So far, as we have discussed here, it does seem that some of those previously opposed in general to nuclear power have been impressed by how little radiation has been released despite the size of the quake and tsunami, and have changed their minds or are at least considering doing so. Other people I know are frightened that there has been any radiation release at all. As I say, it will be interesting to see how this all lands.

But as long as the issue is on many people's minds, perhaps this is a good time to raise again the question of breeder reactors and particularly the IFR. It does seem to greatly ameliorate the waste storage problem while apparently being very safe. I just came upon this page by Steve Kirsch and thought it worth bringing to HN's attention.</comment>


Bitcoin is like a Ponzi scheme: Indian Finance Ministry warns investors - <AUTHOR> https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/bitcoin-other-virtual-currencies-like-ponzi-schemes-finance-ministry-warns-investors/articleshow/62295331.cms <comment><USER2> I completely agree. Here is a write up that sums up the issue very well:

Why Bitcoin is the largest Ponzi scheme in human history

[http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/why-bitcoin-is-the- la...](http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/why-bitcoin-is-the-largest- ponzi-scheme-in-human-history/story-L5z56wbz3hqxl2gIrf125H.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't disagree with most of what he said, including Bitcoin's usefulness right now (not to be confused with the usefulness of _all_ cryptocurrencies), but I think calling it an outright ponzi scheme is not that clear.

So he says that Bitcoin has seen no increase in usage. But that's not true, or at least it wasn't true for many years. But I think if someone was to quantify how many companies use Bitcoin as payment, for instance, we'd see a net gain for 2017 compared to 2016, which means that statement would then be false.

Now if he'd be saying that the increase in recent value doesn't correlate with the increase in usage, that's quite different. At the same time, it's not out of the ordinary for Bitcoin, because Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies, too, see "spikes" in valuation whenever there's a trend of positive and major news about it - news that has little to do with the price of Bitcoin.

The main problem is that after that initial spike the mainstream media starts covering it, and then all the people who hear _then_ about it, only hear about the price increase. I would say that at _that point_ it becomes sort of a ponzi scheme, but only temporarily.

But even in this case, would you say it's so much different than the mainstream media covering how "Tesla reached $400 per Share" or "Apple reached $1 trillion valuation", and other examples like that? When people would read those sorts of stories, most would also think "Oh, look at that company grow, I guess it's time for me to buy some shares there, too!". And then the price increases further, but the rise is not as pronounced as for cryptocurrencies. But fundamentally I don't see too much of a difference.

Why the mainstream and tech media doesn't cover the _rest_ of the "fundamental" stories about cryptocurrencies beats me. For instance, there have been important news stories like big banks forming alliances to use cryptocurrencies in one way or another. But you only see those stories on crypto news sites. The tech media or MSM only seem interested in the price stories, at least for now. And I would say they are primarily responsible for the "ponzi" aspect of cryptocurrencies.

<comment><USER4> > I think calling it an outright ponzi scheme is not that clear.

It's a very fitting comparison.

Like all ponzi schemes, people are attracted to the bitcoin scheme due to the propaganda barrage on how it's a sure thing and guarantees profits to those who get on board right now. Like all ponzi schemes, the bitcoin scheme depends on the people already onboard attracting more members for them to keep pumping money to inflate its value. Pump-and-dump schemes share many strikibg similarities with ponzi schemes, thus the appropriate comparison of bitcoin with a ponzi scheme.</comment></comment>


Broader Implications of "My Body, My Choice" - <AUTHOR> https://reason.com/2019/05/10/broader-implications-of-my-body-my-choice/ <comment><USER2> Article says that a direct implication of "My Body, My Choice" is: _Draft registration, mandatory jury service, and all other forms of mandatory service should be abolished_

Can we go even further with that?

I mean, couldn't we say that the orders of a police officer to an innocent bystander to leave a crime scene violate "My Body, My Choice" since their commands require the person's body to be in a particular place against their choice?

And what about school truancy laws? If "My Body, My Choice" applies to a young woman's reproductive choices, shouldn't it also apply to her choice to remain outside of any particular schoolyard? Shouldn't it also, at the very least, apply to school uniform regulations?</comment>


Failed Architecture - <AUTHOR> http://www.failedarchitecture.com/ <comment><USER2> Isn't that most of the stuff? Most places looks like a Corbusier-esq nightmare combined with heavy traffic solutions.

It's not that we know how to build places where people would like to live, just look at the prices. (And remember that inner city densities work only because of that there are wealthy people there, with additional group dynamics in play - like they might be fired if they do even a weird thing.)

<comment><USER3> > And remember that inner city densities work only because of that there are > wealthy people there

Wait what? I live in Berlin and find the opposite to be true, the dense old construction areas tend to work very well regardless of the wealth of their occupants, the spaced out Corbusieresq nightmares however tend to turn into problem districts even though they tend to be less dense, creating a feeling of emptiness, a lack of social cohesion.

Local shops, bars, etc just don't work when there are not enough people in the surrounding area and were often not intended in the function-speared new developments, making those streets much less lively.

<comment><USER2> Don't you think there is quite some gentrification driving the social dynamics in Berlin? It is at least so here in Stockholm.

But anyway, I totally agree, the suburban dense architecture fails because there is no social cohesion at all and the anonymity is total. Also, a lot of people with anti-social behaviour lives there...

Some personal anectodes, but I think they are telling something about our cities:

Now I live in a small house in a nice (low density) area where I know everyone by name.

When I lived in the city, I did recognize a few. One neighbour eventually died because of heroin - but this was considered a very nice area. The man was really nice and polite, or apologetic rather, when I tried to help him.

When I lived in a cheep flat in a suburb, I didn't even knew my neighbour in the flat next to mine. A man was stabbed to death outside my house the second evening after I moved in. The drug users were not polite at all... I tried to help no one.

Some interesting reading is Phil Zimmerman and "The Lucifer effect." It has a chapter or so regarding this.

<comment><USER4> Philip Zimbardo, you mean?

<comment><USER2> Yes, I Do! Temporary short circuit. Sorry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is the fact that the site won't load part of the joke?

<comment><USER6> Except here we are talking about traditional architecture (that is, for physical structures).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Case Study: Boston City Hall and surrounding plaza

Truly an example of failed architecture.</comment>


Climate change is supercharging a hot and dangerous summer - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-change-is-supercharging-a-hot-and-dangerous-summer/2018/07/26/cf960ba8-905c-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html <comment><USER2> The maps in the article look like something taken straight out of one of those scifi movies about global catastrophe.

Here's a direct link to one of them: [http://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod- washpost.s3.amazonaws.co...](http://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod- washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ECBFVBURHAI6RLSZAGEA5LC7DU.jpg)</comment>


The Los Alamos Primer: The Introductory Course for Scientists at Los Alamos - <AUTHOR> http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-00001

<comment><USER2> There is an edited and expanded edition with an introduction Richard Rhodes available in hard copy [http://www.amazon.com/Los-Alamos-Primer-Lectures- Atomic/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Los-Alamos-Primer-Lectures- Atomic/dp/0520075765/)

For the fusion bomb side, recently a book has been written [http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9269](http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9269) There was some recent controversy regarding what material should be published, the author published it anyway [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/science/hydrogen-bomb- phys...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/science/hydrogen-bomb-physicists- book-runs-afoul-of-energy-department.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> > Since the weight of 1 nucleus of 25 is 3.88*10-22 gram/nucleus

Anyone know why U-235 is called 25 (section 4), or why the atomic mass is slightly off? (233.66 amu)

<comment><USER2> U-235 contains 92 protons and 235 protons + neutrons. As a "code word" for Uranium-235 they took the last digit from 92 and the last digit from 235 and referred to it as 2+5 = 25

Same with plutonium-239 which has 94 protons and 239 protons + neutrons. It was referred to as 4+9 = 49

<comment><USER4> Ah, thanks. I was assuming that material "49" was plutonium. One interesting thing in the notes that I didn't know was the extent to which the role of the "tamper" material was already well-understood. Would it be correct to say that the sphere of inward-facing explosive charges that produced the zone of high pressure in which the reaction occurred was a sort of "active" tamper? Was that the big breakthrough necessary to get the reaction to the critical stage?

<comment><USER2> Not really. The tamper serves to keep the nuclear material together longer through inward inertia. Additionally tampers are usually neutron reflectors which also reduce the time needed to burn all of the material into energy.

An analogy I've heard is that without a tamper an implosion device would be analagous to resting a hammer on a nail and trying to push down on it. Including a tamper is analogous to raising the hammer and striking the nail. You accelerate the hammer head use the inertia of the hammer head to create a greater impulse to strike the nail.

EDIT: More clearly answering your question yes the spherical implosion mechanism was absolutely critical for creating the needed material density for the bomb. I'm correcting the usage of calling it a tamper, as it is a separate piece of the nuclear bomb puzzle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is this URL not loading for anyone else?

</comment><comment><USER6> Unfortunately, Los Alamos National Lab has been setting its sights a little lower these days:

"How to use the stairs" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDsTc2oWGSI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDsTc2oWGSI)

Nothing a little federal cash can't fix, though:

"The Los Alamos National Laboratory Slip Simulator Experience" [http://www.efcog.org/wg/ism/events/Fall12mtg/presentations/L...](http://www.efcog.org/wg/ism/events/Fall12mtg/presentations/LANL%20Slip%20Simulator%20Presentation.pdf)</comment>


The price of failure: Yahoo's Marissa Mayer could leave with $137m - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/19/yahoo-marissa-mayer-sale-buyout <comment><USER2> That's a success story per theory of capitalism. Notice they're not griping about the fact that they could collectively do CEO pay at $100-300k with same results given underlings effectively run the company. They didn't even gripe much about her overdone ckmpensation. No, they were pissed that she tried a turnaround instead of something that would only benefit one group: the shareholders.

Serve's their asses right. A taste of their own medicine. She certainly did fail in the turn around because it was beyond saving. She succeeded as a capitalist. Now, she has the capital to invest in better models that care about stakeholders instead of just shareholders. Interesting to see what she does next.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there any sort of compelling evidence that CEOs ought to be paid so much money? Seems like you get a fairly sweet haul whether you help the company thrive or run it to the ground.

<comment><USER2> No it's cartel-style behavior. There's significant overlap between CEO's, boards, VC's, and so on. Reduced down to something like this: "I'll authorize you to get stupid rich so long as you let me fo it. We'll keep doing it because we can."

Type "leaked citigroup memos and political gates" into Google to see their people say it. They even went so far as encouraging them to pay themselves even more and invest in luxury goods. Haha.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> maybe she'll run for president in a few years.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm honestly not sure that anyone can turn Yahoo into something that the shareholders don't know what they want.</comment>


Show HN: Parameterized PWM controller in VHDL - <AUTHOR> https://fpgaer.wordpress.com/parameterized-pwm-controller/ <comment><USER2> The constants should at least be generics. As is, you can't instantiate two with different behavior. Some would also be better just as input signals to permit runtime configurability. Any that don't need to change can be tied to constant values for the same result as the current circuit.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your comment. You may have noticed that duty_cycle is indeed an input. Some of the other constants could be indeed input as generics. In general I prefer to use packages, since it makes instantiation simpler, and parameterization can be done by using different packages for each block. Of course generics have advantages of their own.</comment></comment>