One More Thing - <AUTHOR> http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2012/07/22/one_more_thing.html

<comment><USER3> Let's not forget about what happens when a company which had been open internally starts locking things down. Suddenly, you can't get access to certain parts of the code depot, the people working on that project clam up, they stop being verbose in their code reviews lest it leak information, and they stop writing snippets about what they've done in the past week. They ask other teams for resources, but won't say why. You thought you had made it past the final wall of secrecy by being hired, but then they went and started putting up walls inside after years of having things be open. Pretty soon, instead of just one "us", there is now "us" and "the special ones who get to know".

Then they call you to the big auditorium one day for a big reveal, and you find out it's called Wave. We all know how that turned out.

<comment><USER4> Or, conversely:

Then they call you to the big auditorium one day for a big reveal, and you find out it's called iOS. We all know how that turned out.

You can't pick on secrecy just because a company made a bad product under it, just like you can't laud it just because a company made a good product under it. You have to accept it as a tool of the trade, and hope the people in charge know what they are doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is this really only about keeping secrets for surprise launches? I have a hard time seeing how that alone could justify so extreme an imposition on people.

We're talking about police-state levels of secrecy and compartmentalization. This obviously has a huge cost, so assuming the policy is rational it must have an even huger value. Valuable as surprise launches may be, are they _that_ valuable? Or is there more to this, in which case what is it?

Apple's success is inarguable; I'm not dismissing what they do but taking for granted that I don't understand it. But the author's claim that it is all about occasional theatrical events seems incommensurate with the depth of the phenomenon and how ironclad it is.

<comment><USER6> I don't think it is the 'occasional theatrical events' so much as what it leads to: millions of dollars of free publicity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've never worked anywhere that was even close to the size of Apple, so I can only comment on my imagination after reading this. But I can't tell how I would feel about being at a company so strictly compartmentalised. Can anyone who has worked at an analogous company shed some more light on your experiences?

<comment><USER8> I've worked at several companies that are more than twice the size of apple. I never knew very much of what was going on. It's not so much that the companies were secretive, but that there was no way I was going to know everything happening in my own division (which had thousands of employees), let alone everything in a dozen other divisions. It would have been easy for someone to keep one product a secret from most of us because most of us wouldn't have even known to ask.

I think many big companies _could_ keep secrets like apple does (look at mergers and acquisitions which are often kept quiet). Most of them don't keep new products secret, though, because they value the constant dribble of press releases rather than the big bang surprises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> For the vast majority of Apple's customers the first glimpse of a new product will be through a news item or television advert. I think the theatrics Jobs employed at the keynote were symptomatic of a highly prepared and charismatic individual, and not the cause of secrecy at Apple, as suggested by the article.

<comment><USER10> _For the vast majority of Apple's customers the first glimpse of a new product will be through a news item or television advert._

And the vast majority of people writing those news items will frame their descriptions of the product based on the anchoring that Steve Jobs employed during the keynote.

<comment><USER11> Exactly, putting on a good show at the product launch is what creates the media buzz. And advertising through the news is also likely to reach customers in a much more accepting state than if they are watching commercials on TV and have a wall up. You can't buy advertising like that, but Apple gets it for free, mostly because of SJ's showmanship.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Another story of keeping secrets at Apple - [http://www.quora.com/Apple- Inc-2/How-does-Apple-keep-secrets...](http://www.quora.com/Apple-Inc-2/How- does-Apple-keep-secrets-so-well/answer/Kim-Scheinberg)

</comment><comment><USER13> Having to deal with confidentiality and secrecy on a daily basis in my product design job one thing is immediately clear.

If I am designing a widget which requires a pin I need to talk to a supplier about the pin. Typically the supplier will ask me what the pin is for. I could tell him exactly about the product or a subset of the product functionality and that would give him a pretty good idea of what the pin needs to do and he and I could draw up the specification for the pin together. This is lazy and potentially shifts the design of the pin away from the desired design and more towards what is already possible (this is how suppliers tend to work - <USER2> need to use their existing machinery as it is less risky than developing new machinery and processes). This is not how iPhones and ultraslim lovely shiny Macbooks are developed. The uncertainty on the part of the designer allows the supplier to steer the discussion.

If I've done my homework correctly and worked out what diameter the pin should be, material, hardness and the shape of the tip of the pin I could tell the supplier all of those things and he would be none the wiser about the product. He can still supply me with exactly what I need without him having to know about the rest of the product. This is a good outcome.

If I don't know the diameter of the pin I should order 15 different diameter pins and test them all until I get the right one.

What it means is, as a designer I need to own the process of finding out those parameters about the pin which means I am richer because I own that information and the process of discovery regardless of who is supplying me with pins. It also gives me the power to go to any pin supplier and get the same thing which also keeps my costs down. Double win (even if I've developed the new pin making process there should be nothing to stop me taking that process somewhere else as long as my contracts are in place before we start talking).

Secrecy has many advantages as well as the surprise WWDC factor.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't understand why Apple imposes a secrecy tax on itself, given how modest the benefits seem to be. I guess there is more benefit to doing it for hardware, and they try a bit harder for hardware secrecy than software, but it is of negative value for online services (look how badly they screwed up ping and MobileMe).

<comment><USER15> There is also ego-boos for "those in the know", especially those at the very top that make the policies. Never forget that companies are made of people, and people have their own goals and biases that don't necessarily benefit the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Seems like the compartmentalization issues described could be solved by code names for everything. "Are you working on Unicorn?" "No, I'm working on Puppy."

<comment> k-mcgrady The problem with that is that if someone leaked what a codename related to everyone would be exposed. So if I could tell you everyone working on Unicorn, and then someone let slip that Unicorn was code for iPhone suddenly everyone on the iPhone team would be known.

<comment><USER17> And how does not having code names for products ruin the great story more when the product is known? It wasn't about secrecy, remember...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm not so sure about this whole "tell a great story" shabang. Sure, it's a part of the whole picture, but I am definately sure that Apple has a lot more to gain to keep things under the lid as long as possible, then to just "tell a great story". Means to an end, so to speak.

</comment><comment><USER18> Spoiler alarm! If you haven't seen The Empire Strikes Back, be careful.

</comment><comment><USER19> Is there a list anywhere of all the 'One More Thing' announcements?

<comment><USER20> Wikipedia has what it claims is a partial list here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenote#.22One_more_thing.......](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenote#.22One_more_thing....22)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So do you really believe that the whole secrecy thing is just so Steve Jobs could surprise Apple employees at WWDC?

I believe sir you are suffering from choice-supportive bias.

<comment><USER22> Is this at Rands? That's not what I gathered at all. To me, Rands was concluding that Apple is secretive to surprise the whole world, not Apple employees.

I don't think it's possible for a company the size of Apple to have all employees know the secret and not have the world know the secret. Google proves, time and again, that when most employees know what's going to launch that it leaks. I wish it weren't the case, but it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Theatricality and deception are powerful agents for the uninitiated. But we are initiated now. So we watch.</comment>


Maybe Silicon Valley could become a thriving, dense metropolis - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/a-grand-plan-to-make-silicon-valley-into-an-urban-paradise/266998/ <comment><USER2> When was a thriving, dense metropolis ever planned?

<comment><USER3> NYC?

<comment><USER2> Was NYC planned? That would surprise me, but I don't know much about the history of NYC – just enough to lean to Jane Jacobs and not Robert Moses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Link to the original post by Ken Layne: [http://www.theawl.com/2013/01/is-san- francisco-the-brooklyn-...](http://www.theawl.com/2013/01/is-san-francisco- the-brooklyn-to-silicon-valleys-unbuilt-manhattan)</comment>


Verizon CEO: Next Generation Will See End of the Cable Bundle - <AUTHOR> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100923/hey-cable-guys-cord-cutting-is-real-and-its-a-problem-says-verizon/ <comment><USER2> Couldn't agree more. Data flows down the path of least resistance, and you can't unshift the paradigm that downloading video has started. Most in the TV industry should be shaking in their boots right now. Or innovating- but cable TV really doesn't seem to attract those types.</comment>


The WikiLeaks Discussion Community - <AUTHOR> https://www.wikileaks-forum.com/

<comment><USER2> ouch, it has subforums for paranormal and conspiracy theories</comment>


Microsoft decides IE 10 has had its fun: Termination set for Jan 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/29/microsoft_internet_explorer_10/ <comment><USER2> Good riddance, though there is a somewhat masochistic pleasure in finding hacky solutions for old IE versions.

I once figured out that IE7 can be tricked into understanding the :before and :after CSS pseudo-elements with this:

      .thing {
        *zoom: expression( this.runtimeStyle.zoom="1", this.insertBefore( document.createElement("i"), this.firstChild).className="ie-before" );
      }

      .thing .ie-before {
        *zoom: expression(this.runtimeStyle['zoom'] = '1', this.innerHTML = '|');
      }

<comment><USER3> How did you even figure that out? That sounds like it would take having IE's source code to figure out.

<comment><USER4> For those of us who cut our teeth on IE6, this was pretty much par for the course.

Check out Dean Edwards IE7 JS script - this was key to making IE6 behave like a modern browser: [https://code.google.com/archive/p/ie7-js/](https://code.google.com/archive/p/ie7-js/)

Edit: better way to view: [https://github.com/Integralist/Dean-Edwards-- IE-7-and-8-and-...](https://github.com/Integralist/Dean-Edwards-- IE-7-and-8-and-9/blob/master/IE7.js)

<comment><USER5> Ah yes, the good ol' PNG transparency hack is included in there. The bitter- sweet memories of web development in the 90s. Too bad the only working hack for fixing PNG gamma was to remove the gamma chunk from the image file itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Official announcement: [https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Windows-IT-Pro- Blog/B...](https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Windows-IT-Pro- Blog/Bringing-Internet-Explorer-11-to-Windows-Server-2012-and- Windows/ba-p/325297)

> We will also publish the IE11 upgrade through Windows Update and Windows > Server Update Services (WSUS) for all versions of Windows Server 2012 and > Windows Embedded 8 Standard later this year.

Nice! I wonder, will they eventually do this with their Chromium-based version of Edge?

<comment><USER7> I can't imagine they will ever push their Chromium reboot as a replacement for IE, it would break brittle intranet sites everywhere. Hopefully as a separate download, though.

<comment><USER8> It should be noted that Microsoft has a history of _massive_ engineering investments in backwards-compatibility, esp. around Windows. I don't know that that's the case here, but there's certainly cultural and technical precedent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> (I work for a company running a popular mainstream classified ad website in Europe) After some investigation (because we wanted to crush Google Analytics numbers), we found that +95% of our IE9 and IE10 trafic reported in GA is in fact from bots and proxied clients.

<comment><USER10> Just out of curiosity, can you describe broadly how you made that determination (I assume it was something more complex than just looking at the UA string?)

<comment><USER9> We started our journey by trying to understand why ie9 had higher figures than ie10.

As we also have an analytics on the server side, we extracted a raw log. We used our existing tools that can filter "fake" or "foe" trafic by its behavior. We then manualy analyzed representative filtered samples (still by analyzing its behavior).

It took some time, but was worth it, because we found an opposite conclusion than GA: most of the real traffic ($) from our ie9-10 samples is on ie10.

So now the dev. guideline is: forget ie9 and make it not too ugly/broken on ie10. ;)

PS: We had to do a manual work of filtering because our tools do not filter all the traffic that we know being fake or foe because we often have false positive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> IE as a browser _does_ suck, no argument there. However, I (and I'm sure many other Windows devs too) find the .NET WebBrowser control very useful - it's a easy drop-in control that's part of the .NET framework. It shares a lot with with IE codebase, so if IE gets killed off, would that include the control? It certainly would no longer be updated.

I've looked in depth at the embedded Chromium project, but there's simply TOO much baggage with that making it total overkill when all you want to do is render some HTML in a line-of-business application.

<comment><USER12> They're not going to kill off IE, it's the only browser on server/ltsb SKUs. They've said that edge is a no go for those because of how frequently edge gets updates compared to the os.

<comment><USER13> Why does a server need a web browser

<comment><USER14> Because the server is a license server in a company that has a hardware HASP key that is managed by service that exposes its interface only through localhost HTTP.

<comment><USER13> Would take no time at all to set up nginx to allow you to connect from your desktop. Likely much more secure than having an ancient browser on a server.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If anyone is wondering about IE11, MS says "Internet Explorer 11 will continue receiving security updates and technical support for the lifecycle of the version of Windows on which it is installed."

Extended support for Windows 10 ends on October 14, 2025. Extended support for Windows Server 2016 ends on January 11, 2027.

Presumably one or those 2 dates could be considered the termination date for IE11. My company has chosen the 2025 date as when we will stop support for IE11 in our web pages/apps.

<comment><USER16> 6 more years is a really long time on the web. You may want to base it instead on usage metrics — IE, once usage drops below what % are you willing to stop testing against a browser?

Win7 support is ending Jan 2020 also, at which point IE11 will only be supported on Win10 (and it's not default there). So that may be a good date to start considering ending IE11 support as well, especially with Chromium-Edge coming out later this year.

<comment><USER17> If you are selling software to other companies. And out of thousands of companies, one of them bringing a significant percentage of revenue is using IEX, you may want to consider supporting IEX. It can also be useful for future contracts. Usage doesn't mean everything.

<comment><USER18> Seconded.

Just try to run a B2B SaaS without supporting IE11. You will lose out on a ton of large-but-slow-moving customers. Like banks, insurance companies, etc. who all seem to have critical internal systems that only work on IE11 in compatibility mode.

<comment><USER19> This is why our company is still supporting IE11, and will be for some time to come.

Personally, I'm hoping the app my team builds will be able to finally drop IE11 support once the new Chromium-based Edge app becomes available on Windows 7 and 8.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Just yesterday I hit an IE 11 issue that forced a JavaScript hack to resolve.

Goodbye, IE 10. Hopefully IE 11 will soon follow.

<comment><USER21> _> Goodbye, IE 10. Hopefully IE 11 will soon follow._

IE 11 is still part of Windows 10 and it's in fact the _only_ browser shipping in the long-term support version of Windows 10

Expect IE11 to be around for the duration that Windows 10 is around which, unfortunately, is going to be forever (as Windows 10 is said to be the last version of Windows ever released) or at least for the foreseeable future

<comment><USER22> > as Windows 10 is said to be the last version of Windows ever released

Is that because "continuous rolling updates" for Windows 10 or because Microsoft will eventually replace the Windows kernel with some other kernel, such as Linux (just a conspiracy theory of mine)?

<comment><USER23> Microsoft, like most companies, don't use the internal implementation as part of the name brand. It was called "Windows" long before it got the current kernel. ("Edge" is switching engines, too, but not names.) I see no reason they'd change the Windows name even if they decided to switch out the kernel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Over the course of the northern hemisphere's spring ...

A delightful phrasing that more northern hemisphere journalists would do well to adopt (slightly less constraining or cumbersome than actually specifying a date range, but infinitely preferable to the parochial 'season of year').

</comment><comment><USER25> It sounds like this is the best time to fetch virtual machines from modern.ie [1] website. It is worth noting that IE is still used in many Point of Sales or other embedded devices. // Though I guess in most of scenarios it is IE6 for obvious reasons.

[1] [https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft- edge/tools/v...](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft- edge/tools/vms/)

</comment><comment><USER26> I read this as IE11 and got prematurely excited. Good news though.

</comment><comment><USER27> please terminate ie11 in 2020 1/2

<comment><USER28> MS dropping support won't stop corporates using it. Apart from a few exceptions (running on Windows Server 2012 and some embedded versions, where IE11 has until soon not been supported) IE10 (and below) hasn't been supported since 2016. All they are doing here is pulling the plug on those few remaining environments.

If your clients are still running IE10 on some ancient version of desktop Windows now, they probably still will be on 2020. Heck, one of our clients (a major UK bank) seems to be having trouble getting a few remaining members of their staff off _IE8_.

And they can't even try dropping IE11 without breaking previous guarantees or changing the path of Windows 10 at least slightly. They locked IE11's support life-cycle to that of Windows 10, and they've stated that Win10 will not be replaced, only updated/upgraded. _IE11 is officially here to stay,_ and even if it wasn't it would be _unofficially_ here to stay if you have clients anything like ours.

<comment><USER29> Indeed. I hack on a web app with over 100k daily users and we only just last month decided to drop support for _IE8_ , and that only because some third party libraries that will simplify things for us don't support it

<comment><USER28> Our chief leverage for pushing back on IE8 support is that out-of-the-box (which is pretty much how that have it configured) it doesn't support SSL settings that pass up-to-date recommendations.

Each year we are pen-tested by a third party, each year that client complains that the testers say the SSL setup is potentially insecure, every year we point out that we'd be more than happy to follow the recommendations (in fact we feel dirty not doing!) but it would lock out a number of their users if they were not given an alternate browser or otherwise reconfigured.

Fingers crossed this year is the last time: everyone there should have Chrome as an option, and everyone not depending on old apps (ActivX etc) should have IE11 not IE8. The login screens have had "are you sure you want to use this browser?" messages for IE8 users for a while, but some still use it, though only a few.

This is legacy application. Thankfully for our new applications the contracts state nothing older than IE11 will be supported, and that we only begrudgingly support that so users of IE may experience display issues or other minor usability problems from time-to-time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I saw the beginning of the third Browser War was proclaimed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars#Third_Browser_War...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars#Third_Browser_War:_2018-Present)

</comment><comment><USER31> RIP</comment>


There was an attack against the Proton network - <AUTHOR> https://protonstatus.com/ <comment><USER2> Protonmail provides my only non-work email address for everything. Is it a good idea to have multiple email accounts with multiple service providers? Seems inconvenient. But then, perhaps I am taking a risk with my current set up.

<comment><USER3> SMTP is pretty resilient. Unless you have some critical process where email can't be delayed a few hours, I wouldn't worry about it. You could, if needed, get your own domain, and swap MX records to a different provider if something like this arises. Yandex might be a good backup. They have a pretty good, and free, service that allows you to bring your own domain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > There was a DDoS attack directed against the Proton network. We have > mitigated the attack and recovered all services.

This was issued at about 11:15am eastern time.

</comment><comment><USER5> Thanksfully it's only mail. So any outage is not critical. It really needs to be bombarded 4 days for 100% to cause real lossage.

<comment><USER6> They have VPN service as well. It could be critical for VPN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was wondering why I did but have access earlier today :-) just assumed it was a 'normal' outage

</comment><comment><USER8> Why would someone want to take down protonmail..?

<comment><USER9> Maybe it's a way to test the attacker's infrastructure against a semi-hardened target?

I say "semi" because it still seems like a small-ish player, and while I do trust PM to have some very capable people handling their infrastructure, I doubt they have tens of millions in their security budget (vs e.g. Cloudflare or Google or perhaps certain banks).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What are the steps to mitigate a large-scale DDoS?

Say you're running a website fronted by Cloudflare, for example.

<comment><USER11> GitHub fought the largest ever recorded ddos using Akamai Prolexic. At least according to Wired. [https://www.wired.com/story/github-ddos- memcached](https://www.wired.com/story/github-ddos-memcached)

I think protonmail is experiencing the same type of attack (memcached amplified)

<comment><USER12> After the Github attack, there was a larger, 1.7Tbps DDoS against an unnamed client of Arbor Networks using the same memcached tactic. I hope someone is working on getting all those open memcached servers secured..

<comment><USER13> Victor Gevers, co-founder and chairman of the GDI Foundation, says there are already substantially fewer vulnerable servers. [https://mobile.twitter.com/0xDUDE/status/971515743589322752](https://mobile.twitter.com/0xDUDE/status/971515743589322752)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Since when can't we reply to a reply to a reply anymore? - <AUTHOR>

I'm just wondering whether it's me going mad and were we never able to do this, or has a thread depth limit been added recently?<p>Twice today I wanted to reply to something, but couldn't because it was already a reply to a reply. Are comments not supposed to be a discussion anymore, or how are we supposed to keep replying to someone? <comment><USER2> There is an increasing timeout on deeper-nested replies. This is to cut down on the extent of flamewars.

</comment><comment><USER3> A workaround appears to be this: when the reply link is hidden on a deeply nested comment, click the "link" link next to the meta of that comment. There is a reply button on the resulting page

</comment><comment><USER4> Wait. Your chance will come.

<comment><USER3> Is there a karma threshold for this?

<comment><USER3> I seem to be able to reply to a reply to a reply

EDIT: but the reply button disappears here

<comment><USER3> Strange...now the reply button reappeared

<comment><USER3> It's odd that my two replies above were both downvoted, even though I was just trying to be helpful to the OP. If this is the kind of response you can expect on the new HN for trying to help, it's no wonder this community continues to decline in quality.

<comment><USER5> How far can it go?

<comment><USER2> far.

<comment><USER2> Really far!

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure there's actually a limit.

<comment><USER2> I just think it gets annoying enough that people usually stop.

<comment><USER2> But sometimes, I have seen threads that get squished way up on the right side of the page!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Flunking Exams Is Actually a Good Thing - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/magazine/why-flunking-exams-is-actually-a-good-thing.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region&_r=0 <comment><USER2> > believing that because facts or formulas or arguments are easy to remember > right now, they will remain that way tomorrow or the next day.

This is sad, it confuses education with memorization. I was fortunate in winding up at Caltech, which had a policy of open book / open note exams. The idea wasn't to memorize formulae, it was to learn how derive the formulae and then apply them properly.

For example, in AMA95 one of the lectures went through deriving the fourier transforms. On the final exam one of the questions was to derive the hyperbolic transforms. If you understood the fourier ones, you could derive the hyperbolic ones. If not, well, you were lost.

In Physics 2, one lecture showed how the characteristics of magnetism could be derived from the idea of electric charges. An exam question was to show the characteristics of electric fields given the existence of magnetic monopoles.

Anybody can look up a formula in a book, and then misuse it.

<comment><USER3> If you majored in physics, you'd probably come to find out this isn't specific to CalTech, but it's typically specific to hard sciences and engineering disciplines.

Probably 80% of the physics courses I've taken (and people that I know have taken) are almost all like this. Open Note and/or Open Note+Homework and/or Open Book (and occasionally open laptop), typically with a class averages of around 40-70% on the exam

<comment><USER4> Yep at Univ. of Rochester as physics undergrads we were often allowed a single sheet of paper with anything on it (we were told no microfiche!). I did a few open book exams but still made the "cheat" sheet. We all spent a great deal of time preparing that sheet. You had to study to really know what to put on the sheet. I often found that I did not need the sheet in the actual exam because the process of preparing it helped to bring the concepts forward in my mind.

In grad school as classes got more difficult, we had take home exams even. I always dreaded these because they were substantially more difficult than a regular exam. Generally if you didn't have the concepts down, having an entire library at your disposal was not helpful in that case.

<comment><USER5> The "cheat sheet" thing was common at my university too.

It often turned into an exercise in finding the extreme bottom limit to how small one could write (and turned me into a fan of Pilot Hi-Tec 0.25mm pens!), so I always wondered how carefully considered the limitation to _one_ sheet was... did they actually try out different limits and choose the one that worked best?

More limitation forces students to think about what they're including instead of just copying the textbook onto paper, but even a slight relaxation to 4-5 pieces of paper would have _really_ helped in many cases, and allowed us to focus more on the material and less on the physical chore of preparation...

<comment><USER6> The engineering dept at UCDavis went well beyond a single page, and usually allowed anything you wanted as long as it was print-only, book included. (nothing electronic or networked, obviously)

The idea was 1) in the real world, you have reference material which you should know how to use, and 2) test length did NOT include any extra time to look things up.

If you knew the material and just needed a quick check of some detail, you could look it up without any problem because you didn't have to search. On the other hand, if you were trying to teach yourself some concept _during_ the test, the wasted time would probably impact how much of the test you were able to complete.

I liked that system - it seemed rather generous coming from "nothing allowed" tests in earlier schooling, and it had a side benefit of reducing the number of profs that badly reused exam questions or lazily used textbook-provided questions.

/* Yes, this policy caused some of us to find the one printer on campus that printed on A3 paper with duplex support, so we could print an electronic-only reference book at 24 pages/sheet (if I remember correctly...) */

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm disappointed this kind of disingenuous Gladwellese keeps making its way to the HN front page.

Despite what the article claims, "pretesting" is not a thing (yet) in psychology. The whole premise of the article hinges on _one_ unpublished study by a single research group [1], one that didn't even administer a full "prefinal" at that. The effect is intriguing and might or might not be "significant" (no way to verify oneself); but either way a single, unpublished, unreplicated study does _not_ an "exciting development in learning science" emerging from "a variety of experiments" make, as the article pretends.

But then it wouldn't make as clean a narrative, would it.

[1] [http://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu/](http://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu/)

<comment><USER8> I've only ever encountered pre-tests on Udacity. For what it's worth, my experience of them was entirely negative.

That said, I've encountered several variations on the theme that lead me to believe there is a wider "thing" in education about activation and reinforcement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What is up with the questions used in the pretest? From the article:

> Which of the following is true of scientific explanations?

> a. They are less likely to be verified by empirical observation than other > types of explanations.

> b. They are accepted because they come from a trusted source or authority > figure.

> c. They are accepted only provisionally.

> d. In the face of evidence that is inconsistent with a scientific > explanation, the evidence will be questioned.

> e. All of the above are true about scientific explanations.

If I were taking this pretest, it would be accompanied by the realization that most of my work in the class would be dealing with a mountain of oversimplifications and generalizations. So maybe the goal of the pretest is to inhibit my critical thinking to the point where I just think the way the professor expects and try to maximize my chance of filling in the right bubble.

A better question might be something describing historical evidence rather than forcing the respondent to make a claim about truth. Like: according to the research of [researcher and colleagues], 80% of survey respondents said their primary reason for accepting a scientific explanation was...

These would be much better at providing cues for the student later on, since they now have a name and a number to attach to the claim being made.

<comment><USER10> Judging from the questions these are probably first year college students.

What the question is trying to elucidate here is if the student has a working conception of how scientific explanations work. I'm not sure how you are getting from there to "a mountain of oversimplifications and generalizations". I know from personal experience tutoring first year students that they can have a very (and I mean very) shaky grasp of what it even means for something to be scientific rather than unscientific. This groundwork has to be in place before students can proceed to digest any science, in this case psychology no doubt. If anything knowing about the ways in which our beliefs can be (rightly or wrongly) formed will only aid critical thinking.

I think the question is an OK question and that the question you would replace it with obscures what the student needs to learn about. In fact, if you don't mind me saying, I think your replacement question quite odd.

<comment><USER9> My problem is that the question is entirely unscientific. There are reasonable interpretations and arguments for both sides of every potential answer. This is why basing a question on actual facts (such as, what was this particular scientist's argument, or what was found in that study) is a better idea.

<comment><USER10> Not everything can be covered by science.

Not everything that is not covered by science is bad.

Some of the things that are not covered by science are bad: these include pseudo-scientific beliefs like astrology, religious belief, and so on.

The question here is to do with knowledge and scientific explanation. This is the subject matter of epistemology (the study of knowledge in and of itself) and philosophy of science (how something gets to be scientific in the first place). You are right that it is entirely unscientific but you are wrong that think that as a result it should be rejected. Not everything that is unscientific should be rejected, this is one instance of that. You need to learn the distinction between science and philosophy of science.

<comment><USER9> Is this not a scientific analysis of a science-based course (psychology)? How could unscientific things be good in this context?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Years ago in college, for the toughest course I'd carefully pick an advanced textbook - something one or two levels ahead of the current one - and soak myself in that. Example: for an introductory quantum mechanics course I read Dirac's book, then supplemented this with Russian problem books - they were the best & came with answer gists. I would freely look up answers for the tough problems, then go back and see if I could come up with a better way. After this regimen, the course itself became a minor formality.

I realized only much later that this was an obsessive approach, like buying chess books after losing early in one's first tournament. There was no sense of carpe diem, it was about owlishly building up a 10:1 advantage before closing in.

</comment><comment><USER12> This isn't too surprising, I remember before taking the ACT (or any test with some sort of a "Reading Comprehension" section) I would read the questions before I read the selected reading so that I knew what I was looking for.

<comment><USER13> From what I remember, the reading section of the ACT has its questions ordered roughly in the same order as the relevant reading material. That made it almost trivial to just alternate between reading a question and reading the material until you find the answer.

<comment><USER12> That was my experience as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Isn't this the point behind Quizzes? You don't treat them like tests, you bomb what you're gonna bomb, and you improve for the real thing.

<comment><USER15> The primary purpose quizzes as they are generally applied to to check to make sure you've been attending lectures, reading the material, doing the homework, etc... They may indirectly prepare a student for a test, but mostly it is to enforce the work plan (which should help a student on the test).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> In college, I had a fairly consistent habit of bombing the first exam in a class and then going on to ace the class anyway. I got a 50 on my first exam in my very first class, Calc III. It's like I didn't take a class seriously until I was in panic mode. There are some parallels between my struggles with procrastination I think.

<comment><USER17> [http://morganalyx.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/ch-last- minute...](http://morganalyx.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/ch-last-minute- panic.gif)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> training as close as the real thing is the best kind of practice, see sports training for ex.

</comment><comment><USER19> Worked for Holden Caulfield...</comment>


Ask HN: What are some products with the best documentation? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> It's a semi-regular question, the HN archives have good pointers. E.g. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21457029](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21457029) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17399340](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17399340)

Personally I'm impressed by [https://docs.konghq.com/](https://docs.konghq.com/) and like the freshdesk.com layout, e.g. [https://zapiet.freshdesk.com/en/support/solutions/articles/6...](https://zapiet.freshdesk.com/en/support/solutions/articles/60000606795-duplicating- a-location) (more a knowledge base than base documentation)

<comment><USER3> @OP: Perhaps it is interesting if you add more information about why you want to know it.</comment></comment>


Russia spies may be chatting with 'tasty morsel' Snowden - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-usa-security-snowden-russia-idUSBRE95O1DG20130625?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews <comment><USER2> I wouldn't call it speculation. If Snowden didn't understand that he's too valuable a target for any country with a halfway functioning intelligence service, he's naiveté must be completely unbounded.

Intelligence services spend YEARS and FORTUNES trying to recruit and develop sources like Snowden. To have one drop in your lap? With detailed knowledge of the most secret org of your primary geopolitical adversary?

C'MON MAN.

You do understand that people sometimes are killed to get this kind of information, right?

<comment><USER3> I guess, but this whole "may be" story is a red herring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yet another article focused on the man instead of the issue.

The U.S.'s obsession with celebrity gossip fodder makes it far too easy for news outlets to focus on the low-hanging fruit, the story that more closely aligns with an already-determined narrative. If Snowden's story was published as a TV drama right now, you could hear the selling points: "Fugitive on the run from the state!" "Spy intrigue!" "Hero or villain?" "Man or legend?"

...None of that has to do with the issue that that Snowden exposed, the inherent secrecy of the court system that allows it to happen, and efforts to reverse what a large portion of the American public views to be unconstitutional/undemocratic behavior by a country that lectures the opposite to other nations.

There are so many interesting and important issues to unpack in this whole ordeal. I wish we could trust the media to unravel these complex issues instead of spoon-feeding us the easy story. We ingest our own ignorance as a result.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is complete speculation. As of last check, no one is able to confirm that Snowden was even on the flight _to Russia_ from HK.

<comment><USER6> Well, he's definitely IN Russia - [http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/nsa- leak/index.html?h...](http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/nsa- leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

I think the flight you're referring to was the one from Russia --> Cuba.

<comment><USER5> I'm trying to find the article, but reporters apparently showed photos of Snowden to passengers disembarking from the original HK flight and no one could confirm they saw him on that flight.

I guess, though, that Putin would know if Snowden was in the airport area or not and would not lie about it.

<comment><USER7> > would not lie about it.

Why wouldn't he lie about it? It's a free chance to screw with the US, and if/when the truth comes out at most he can say he was misinformed, and give a bit of a chuckle.

I'm not saying he is lying, but there's no good reason to assume he isn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This entire thing reads as a smear job which is quite a shame.

<comment><USER7> How is it a smear job?

At mos, it's the press being distracted from the content of the allegations. But it's a fairly uncontroversial observation that Snowden would be someone that a variety of foreign intelligence services would at least be interested in talking to.

<comment><USER3> Should those stories receive more commentary, be posted more often, than those focussing on the content of the leaks?

<comment><USER7> No, but what does that have to do with whether or not this article is a smear (which is the context of my comment, where the person I was responding to thought the article was a smear).

Shitty, lazy reporting? Sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Fuck. Going to Russia might have been a fatal mistake.

</comment><comment><USER3> Same sources as those promoting the US intelligence agencies agendas: "officals," always unnamed, and usually "former."

Why post this garbage, James?</comment>


Announcing the AWS Asia Pacific (Singapore) Region - <AUTHOR> http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2010/04/29/announcing-asia-pacific-singapore-region/

<comment><USER2> Any speculation or ideas on why Amazon chose Singapore?

<comment><USER3> Excellent infrastructure, politically and socially stable, wealthy and with a government that takes an active role in fostering business growth. There's lots of tech companies there although they're mostly focussed on electronics traditionally.

From <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2798.htm> "Singapore was faced with a lack of physical resources and a small domestic market. In response, the Singapore Government adopted a pro-business, pro-foreign investment, export- oriented economic policy framework, combined with state-directed investments in strategic government-owned corporations."

They're a small country with negligible natural resources but their government has made lots of big bets over the years which have generally paid off. Investing really heavily in education. Actively going after the shipping industry (Singapore is now the busiest port in the world) and a few other industries they see as being big in the future. "state-directed investments in strategic government-owned corporations" is the key phrase in that quote. I sometimes get the feeling they run the place like an enormous government backed VC fund.

My guess is that the Singapore government has an active hand in this as part of a broader effort to build the tech industry in Singapore. Having a government around who is willing to get involved and bet big on the future would be appealing for a company like Amazon.

Another link. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore>

<comment><USER2> Yes, those are all good reasons, and as a delighted reader of " _The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger_ " ([http://www.amazon.com/Box-Shipping-Container-Smaller- Economy...](http://www.amazon.com/Box-Shipping-Container-Smaller- Economy/dp/0691136408/) Highly Recommended!) I knew about their leading role as a container port although not that they're now the biggest.

What I'm sort of musing about is why Japan wasn't chosen. If this were the '80s it would be much more likely, but compared to then Japan is now less politically and socially stable, it's been mired in what is now it's second Lost Decade, the government's "active role in fostering business growth" is gone or incompetent at doing that per se and between the economics and demographics I don't know of anyone who I respect who thinks it has a future.

And I suspect the economic center of gravity of east Asia has moved away from Japan and likely in Singapore's direction. Singapore has of course been hit by the Great Recession, but not (as of yet) catastrophically so, so they're suitably hungry.

If the guess that both of us have made that the Singapore government had a hand in this is correct, it's obviously easier to deal with a small city state than a much larger nation.</comment></comment></comment>


Pictures from old Japanese games (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/incredible-pictures-from-an-era-of-games-we-never-got-to-experience.76520/

<comment><USER2> Well beyond awesome. Thanks for sharing!</comment>


Ask HN: Should flag have a confirmation dialog? - <AUTHOR> I had accidentally flagged a front page post that by no means had a reason to be flagged. Thankfully you guys do have the un-flag feature and I was able to quickly reverse my mis-click almost instantaneously.
My question however would be would it be better to include a "confirm" dialog, or multiple flag clicks to affirm the users choice to flag?
I do understand that it's probably not really an issue just wondering if this has ever been pondered and talked about among the HN community, truly a wonderful group of humans.
I could not find any posts with those keywords - If I missed the post I do apologize. <comment><USER2> I think this behavior is the correct one.

        - If i want to do something, do not make me click more than once
        - If I clicked wrong, let me undo it

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with the second, the first however I believe in some situations a confirmation can be ideal - delete, de-activate, flag, etc.

Of course the quick unflagging is nice and works - just wondering if it would help with alerts in the back end.

Maybe the logs could be analyzed to see how many "mis-clicks" are triggered daily?

This should be easily do-able since the calls are timestamped and could be compared (only count flag/unflag that is within 20 seconds of each other or something similar?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Flagging should, perhaps, take you directly to the post. I've sometimes found it difficult to find the link that I accidentally flagged again to undo it.

If not that, we need a "Flagged Articles/Comments" in our user profiles so we can go back and review what we flagged and correct our errors. At least then it'd be a two-step fix instead of a look and hope "unflag" is on the front page or two.

</comment><comment><USER4> Happens to me all the time with mobile; the flag link is a bit too easy to click by mistake.

<comment><AUTHOR> Embarrassingly I happened to do this on a desktop - waking up so more then likely due to being groggy!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> No. My assumption is that it takes more than one flag for a post to be "flagged." Meaning that there needs to be some consensus to draw it to the attention of moderators.

Once it is flagged the reason for flagging should be obvious to moderators. If there are multiple interpretations, or flagging is not obvious, perhaps the flag is not valid.

The last/only thing I flagged was something that appeared to be a thinly veiled advertisement. With Show HN I think veiled advertisements undermine the overall integrity of Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER6> If this turns out to be a real problem, a better solution would be to remove the "flag" link on the front page, forcing you to visit the article's comments page to flag it. This is already how flagging works for individual comments.</comment>


Video Converter for Mac - Mac Video Conversion - <AUTHOR> http://www.ilifesoft.com/video-converter-mac.htm <comment><USER2> Posted twice for same product. This is spam. And the page mimics Apple's web design, which makes it bait and switch, if not simply confusing.</comment>


Tell HN: No roaming charges throughout North America on T-Mobile - <AUTHOR> http://explore.t-mobile.com/3countryplan

<comment><AUTHOR> I travel between the US and Canada and I find T-Mobile's roaming pricing liberating. They already used to have unlimited data and texting when roaming internationally. Now they've made calls unlimited as well when roaming in North America. Contrast this with say ATT which charges you through the roof for roaming, I'm wondering what about T-Mobile allows them to offer free roaming.

<comment><USER2> Unlimited international data is 2G. The new North America plan offers 4G within your plan's limit. Note that you need to be upgraded to the new plan, it's not automatic.

<comment><USER3> In the last few countries I've been to, I've gotten 3g while roaming, which is faster than T-mobile promises.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I get 3G as well. In Canada, I already used to get LTE when connected to Rogers</comment></comment></comment></comment>


In a Twitter Age, Even Bad News Like Layoffs Is on the Company Blog - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/technology/start-ups/05blog.html?pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> It is inevitable. When there is not enough work to go around, spider senses start tingling and employees start seeking information; a lot of it. They look to upper management (good luck there buddy boy!), and worse, their cubicle neighbors.

From personal experience, I can tell you that the cynical tendencies of the office will distort and magnify layoff gossip, spreading it like wildfire and killing productivity. Managers, in general, must realize that workers are uncomfortable with an absence of information. They will in most cases choose the most convenient sources to fill in the void.

It has been once said that all information is good, even if it is bad. Those few that survive the latest brutal round of job cuts will expect a certain level of frankness from upper management to preserve motivation, as well as a sense of job security. Therefore, I agree and say the best option is transparency, but only on one condition. Cut once, cut deep, and prevent a demoralizing series of job layoffs that will only keep the workers guessing and the monster.com server busy.

I think the layoff blog is a great step; companies finally dishing the honesty and respect its workers deserve.</comment>


The Case for Promoting over Hiring - <AUTHOR> https://philosopherdeveloper.com/posts/the-case-for-promoting-over-hiring.html <comment><AUTHOR> Posted in response to the article about Square's promotion process ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20530046](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20530046)).

This blog does a great job making the case why "promoting as recognition for what you've already achieved" isn't the best or most equitable idea.</comment>


China's Social Security Fund to Use Blockchain Technology - <AUTHOR> https://news.bitcoin.com/china-social-security-blockchain/ <comment><USER2> tl;dr China's social security fund not using blockchain technology

<comment><USER3> Blockchain's are only as strong as their networks (distribution/hashing power/relay speed) as that's what gives them power.

A personalized "blockchain" is a hashed database. Without the vast decentralized network, it's pointless.

<comment><USER2> No, it's _very_ useful! It's called "a git repo, which you can identify by its hash." A completely tamper-evident track record of a history. Without the power consumption of Ireland.

<comment><USER3>
       A completely tamper-evident track record of a history

But they want to be able to alter it.. To regulate bad actors and such.. That won't work for companies if they get hacked and are unable to undo transactions. We've seen this before.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I gauge the value of stock options that I have been offered? - <AUTHOR> I've been offered stock options as part of my offer to join a company.
They have offered me a competitive salary, as well as 200 options at 1300 USD per option. The company is valued at around $1B. Options vest on a four year schedule.
Do I have enough information to make a call on whether this is a good deal, or do I need to know more? <comment><USER2> If they are currently valued at $1300 each with a private company valuation of $1B that means: You have to pay $1300 per share to acquire them and have no ability to sell them.

If the company goes public or acquired the company will have to be valued more than $1B for the options to be worth anything to you.

Honestly you shouldn't ever consider options to be worth anything more than the paper they're printed on until an IPO or acquisition.

Options (before IPO) are mainly a gimmick by management to keep people from jumping ship (they are typically dependent on continued employment). They cost the company virtually nothing. After IPO they have easily determined value.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't that depend on whether they are RSU's? Then there is no strike price as far as I remember only capital Gains.

<comment><USER4> An RSU is not the same as a stock option.

<comment><USER3> No but I wonder if that's what he got instead the price taken into consideration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You need to know the fully diluted count of shares. After that, calculate how much of the company you beneficially own assuming full vesting, and start wargaming out scenarios of exits at $500 million, $1 billion, $2 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion, $25 billion, $50 billion, etc. It's 4th grade math with bigger numbers: 1 bps * $10 million = $1k; 1 bps * $1 billion = $100k; etc. (bps = "basis point" = 10^-4)

You might also try asking the question "I'm trying to value my options. Do you have any financial results or model which would suggest I value them upwards?" HN readers might if surveyed pick "Options are basically witchcraft" but this is very, very not true of CFOs at billion dollar companies. The information you want exists in a spreadsheet somewhere; nobody is going to hate your guts for asking to see it. (They might not say yes but, hey, that's signal, too.)

</comment><comment><USER6> Ask for more cash and hand back the options, invest the cash in your retirement or property or whatever. You don't have enough years to play the same lottery as VC's. The mere fact you are asking how to value these means you are probably in no position to do so, therefore you are probably getting a terrible deal.

<comment><USER7> @chillydawg, Based on the options they have been offered (200 * 1300 = 260,000), What reasonable amount of money do you think they should ask for on- top of their salary, if they forego the options?

<comment><USER6> Ask for another 100 grand, then haggle until you agree, I guess. TBH, I'm on the other side of this equation and I'd respect any potential employee who just said to me "just cash".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some people use Black Scholes to price options but that can be very hard, as there are two unknowns (volatility and if anyone has preferences over you).

A few questions you can and should ask:

1 - What was the last valuation based on outside investors, and how long ago was it?

2 - How many preferences are in the cap table? (If a group of investors put in 100 million with a 2X liquidation preference then they are guaranteed to get 200 million before others get anything)

3 - Related to 2, ask at what exit value all shareholders get treated the same.

4 - Ask about how soon you would have to exercise upon leaving. (Frequently 90 days)

5 - See if the stock is trading in any secondary markets, or if there is news of public market investors remarking their shares.

6 - Ask about growth projections. (EBITDA for PE funded companies, Revenue for VC backed)

7 - Ask if future rounds will be needed. (If the business isn't close to cash flow positive and there are a lot of growth projected, this will take a lot of money)

Net - there is a price the investors put per share on their stock. Yours should be at some discount to that. So if the investors value it at $1300 then you should come in less, much less. (And if it's too much less than the strike price, you are betting on a lot of growth)

</comment><comment><USER9> $1300 is really an unusually high strike price. While in theory there is no difference between 200 options at $1300 per share and 20k options at $13 per share, the former is very unusual and I'd at least want to know the story. If the company is to IPO there will almost certainly be a stock split.

One way to force small stakeholders off your cap table is to do a reverse stock split because fractional shares are typically paid out in cash. If that were the case here, I'd call it sketchy behavior and steer clear.

<comment><USER5> Your scenario is the company with the $1,300+ strike price will do a _reverse stock split_ because they want to IPO with a $6,500+ share price instead?

<comment><USER9> No my theory is that they may have already done a reverse split to wash out small stakeholders. If there is an IPO in their future they will have to do a split as well. The former small stakeholders would not get their shares back.

Obviously I know nothing about this but if I were the poster I would ask to hear the story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I actually built an app to do this kind of calculation. It walks you through each of the calculation steps and variables involved, along with context:

[http://www.optionvalue.io/](http://www.optionvalue.io/)

The main pieces of information you need to know are:

* Total number of outstanding shares

* Strike price

The main thing you'll need more detail on (though perhaps you have it) about is whether the $1300 number is the per-share value (= $1B / number of shares) or a per-share strike price (the amount you have to pay to exercise each share).

The base assumption you'll want to make when doing the calculation is that the company exits at the current valuation. Obviously it could exit for a lot more or a lot less, but the last VC valuation is a reasonable E(x), and while you can add an asterisk around how VC shares work vs employee shares, it should be accurate +-10-20%.

The other big thing you'll want to know is how long it could be until the company IPOs or exits and you can actually get cash. A good optimistic scenario, if they are a SaaS startup, is to ask them about 2015 and 2016 revenue and figure out how long it would take them to get to $200M revenue at current growth rates.

</comment><comment><USER11> Zero. All done, and no fancy math required.

Say what you will, but I've been coding professionally for over 20 years. YMMV.

<comment><USER12> I agree. If they end up being worth something, it's a bonus, not a part of your compensation. There are just too many potential scenarios where you get nothing out of them to rely on them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Keep stock options as possible bonus in future. It may or maynt happen.

If its very small company with only handful no.of employees and you see this company has bright future or may get acquired for billions - then try to understand how they arrived on number 200.

If you faith in product & planning to stay for 4+ years. \- You can tell them increase options with may be increased 5 year schedule.

If you think your basic income needs to be good. Then ask them reduce options and put some money on your monthly salary.

I think 1300USD/option is very high, Google stock is $800 & I'm very doubtful you will get $1300 per stock.

</comment><comment><USER14> Oh man, I just went through something similar, with a startup that was also growing quickly (and continues to grow to some degree).

First, the options are worth nothing, especially if you don't have a market. The strike price is pretty much meaningless (although in your case unusually high). Even if you IPO'd at this strike price (and you won't), you'll really only care about how much the actual stock price moves from that strike price.

Second, there are inevitably investors that have options with greater preference than yours. Before you IPO, your management is going to use the opportunity to shuffle equity around. In my case, the directors performed a reverse split that halved the number of my options and doubled the strike price. The directors/early investors got a better split, hence equity was shifted from employees to the upper level. Expect this is coming (and from your strike price seems like it's already been done at least once).

As a cautionary tale, I actually "own" (not entirely vested) quite a few options compared to my fellow employees. They are literally worth zero dollars. The only _employees_ in my company that got anything were the really really early ones.

tl;dr: if your company ends up being a unicorn these options might be worth a lot; if your company is outstanding they may be worth a little; if your company is typical they'll be worth next to nothing or nothing

</comment><comment><USER15> Effectively zero for the foreseeable future.

The "valuation" of a company is a tricky figure because it can be based on a variety of things.

While the company is still private, it's based on the latest investment round which is whatever the investors agreed to. I can buy 0.0000001% of your company for $1 but it doesn't mean your company is "worth" $1T anywhere but in my head.

In the public markets, it's usually related to current and future estimate sales. There's still no equation, just a gut feeling.

And wow. That's an amazingly high strike price.

</comment><comment><USER16> Knowing the number of options isn't nearly as useful as knowing what percentage of the company you will own. This lets you calculate the various ways the value of your equity will change as the business gets more investment, sells, or goes public. The company should tell you are offered 200 shares of, say, 2 million outstanding shares. If the valuation you say is accurate, it looks like they are giving you options for around 0.026% of the company. Probably about right if you are a late hire (say employee number between 10 and 100). Hopefully your salary is enough to be able to afford ~$65,000 worth of option exercises every year, should you be interested in purchasing them! The link below also has tax consequences, which depend on the type of option, and how much the value of the shares change between now and when you exercise the options.

Ideally the company will also tell you roughly how much the company would need to sell for in order for you to see a return. They can tell you this indirectly by saying what kind of liquidation preferences other investors have.

For a more detailed writeup, see [https://github.com/jlevy/og-equity- compensation](https://github.com/jlevy/og-equity-compensation)

Good luck!

<comment><USER17> > Hopefully your salary is enough to be able to afford ~$65,000 worth of > option exercises every year, should you be interested in purchasing them!

Just dropping a quick clairification: OP should not assume it's necessarily a good idea to buy the options as they vest, and should not assume that they'll have to put up cash to excercise them in the future.

Probably covered by your link, but I wanted to point this out explicitly because people have been burned by these assumptions in the past.

<comment><USER16> Good point, I was keeping my post short but should have included this! I think I was trying to highlight how expensive the options are, rather than the necessity to exercise them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Those options represent a .026% ownership stake of the company.

However, it's not quite a simple as that, because some of the investors almost certainly have more preferential shares of the company, so what those options really represent is 0.026% of anything after those investors take their cut. mathattack's answer starts getting at it in a little bit more detail.

You should value them at $0 for purposes of evaluating the job offer. The only way you could tell what they can/could be worth is having a peek at the future at the time the company is about to exit.

</comment><comment><USER19> Without knowing the total number of shares it's hard to know what you have. You also need to know how your options will be treated under various scenarios: company goes public, company is sold, company is acquired, company gets more funding, etc. In general employee options get the short end of the stick in most of those scenarios. One can still make out well, just usually not as well as they had thought/hoped.

At the end of the day one must remember that more often than not options don't work out the way one hopes. They're used as a cheap form of comp since it's just paper to the company. They can provide a nice bonus under the right scenario but be very cautious about accepting options in place of proper compensation at your full value (e.g. cash in the bank). More people than would care to admit it accepted options in place of cash for their base comp and lived to regret it.

Negotiate proper comp up front and only accept options as part of the icing on the cake. If they can't pay you properly then you have serious reason to question if this thing is a "real company" or just a bunch of hyped up fluff with a valuation that could vaporize overnight--making your options completely worthless before you even knew what just happened.

</comment><comment><USER20> Some thoughts (I'm neither a CPA nor a lawyer, so caveat emptor):

0) Make sure you understand 409a valuation and Alternative Minimum Tax. These two concepts will materially impact the post-tax value of late-stage private company options.

1) Clarify what the $1300 price is. Is it a 409a price, or the latest preferred share price, or something else? Also, get an exact number if $1300 is approximate.

2) Make sure your options are ISOs (and not NSOs). Ask for the count of total outstanding shares.

3) Try to get a history of the company's recent 409a valuations. This will give you some idea of how fast the fair market value is growing. Fair market value at time of exercise affects the taxes you owe.

4) If you leave the company, check how long you have to exercise your options or lose them. The standard is 90 days - this is something to be aware of so it doesn't surprise you.

</comment><comment><USER21> Julia Evans wrote a great article about the topic here: [https://jvns.ca/blog/2015/12/30/do-the-math-on-your-stock- op...](https://jvns.ca/blog/2015/12/30/do-the-math-on-your-stock-options/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Does the company provide stock refreshers? If not, joining fang is worth significantly more than 260k you have been offered.

Given the company looks like a unicorn, i assume there wont be much difference between this and a fang company in terms of interesting stuff to do.

</comment><comment><USER23>
        How do I gauge the value of stock options that I have
        been offered?

Faith.

Most metrics are generally useful for tax purposes and tax purposes only until the company IPO's and 6-12 months (or longer) later you can cash out your options the company's stock has no market value.

Will you work at the company for the full vesting cycle? Will you tolerate the culture that long? Will the company still exist in 4 years? Will the company even IPO? How long _until_ the company IPO's?

These are all risks. Most purely emotional. So your evaluation must also be based on emotion.

<comment><AUTHOR> The company could IPO within 4 years, but I would put that at maybe a 20% possibility.

But you are right. This is a fast moving industry. The company could fold tomorrow. I could move to another startup or company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> You know valuation, option count, and strike price. I think the missing pieces are total shares outstanding and cap table.

I.e. if there are 1 billion shares already out, your options are currently worth -1299 and unlikely to gain that much value. If there are 10k options the value changes a bunch.

But agree with others for a later stage company like this, I would value at 0 or maybe the same as an extra vacation day when comparing offers.

</comment><comment><USER25> Value them as a "gesture of goodwill" if the company is not yet public, with no particular monetary value.

</comment><comment><USER26> As someone said, it's a lottery ticket. But to fair you have much better odds than with a normal lottery ticket.

You should educate yourself about how they work, though, e.g. in the US if you're not careful you can end up paying massive amount of taxes due to AMT if you exercise the options but don't sell resulting stock.

</comment><comment><USER27> Would love to see what others more experienced have to say. The two considerations I'd have myself are 1) do I have enough cash to actually buy those ($1300 is a steep strike price) and 2) is the company still growing fast and is that based on things I feel good about or hype.

<comment><AUTHOR> The company is still growing fast. Incredibly fast actually.

<comment><USER27> Are they really 1300/option? That'd mean you'd need a whole lotta cash to buy those.

Great to hear about the growth!

Edit: not trying to second guess you I'm more shocked that options that high exist. Seems like it'd be really tough for some employees to buy them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Make sure you understand the tax implications of your stock options:

[http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/OPTIONS-HOWTO/OPTIONS- HOWTO.htm...](http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/OPTIONS-HOWTO/OPTIONS-HOWTO.html)

</comment><comment><USER29> I posted this story a few years ago. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7982848](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7982848). Pretty good discussion on this topic.

</comment><comment><USER30> Sorry, but unless it has some traction already and it has been IPO'd the Expected value of those options 4yrs from now is zero.

Unless you are really sure about it, think of it as a bit more than a lottery ticket

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure the expected value can be zero. I know that options are essentially a lottery ticket. I'm just not sure if these options are very little or enough or a lot.

<comment><USER31> Remember that even if they don't hit zero, if they're underwater, say, £1299.99 they are worth essentially zero as you'll not want to exercise them (and why would you want to? You'd be losing money - and you can't write it off as a tax loss in almost all circumstances).

Then, unless they're publicly traded, or there is a legitimate secondary market, you can't even do a sell to cover.

The other way of providing equity is with RSU's, restricted stock units, where the company promises to give you, at each vesting date, a portion of stock. The problem there is that this is taxed as income on the value of the stock at vesting, and once again if there is no secondary market you'll not be able to sell enough to cover your tax liability and be in for a nasty invoice from the IRS that you need to scramble to cover.

I'd recommend having a financial planner walk through the ins and outs with you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Really depends on how much risk you're willing to take. I personally don't value stock options and would look purely at compensation that can be used today.

<comment><USER33> >I personally don't value stock options

Yes you do. I'll give you $50 for all of yours. What's that? Oh that's right: you do.

<comment><USER32> I wouldn't be interested in selling my exercised options, but my unexercised ones that could work, but you would need to offer at least the purchase price. Unfortunately, only employees can own shares... :[

<comment><USER33> I simply don't believe you - if there were a hypothetical way you could have a $50 bill on your desk but, in case they end up worth something, your unexercised options are no longer yours, they're someone else's, and you didn't need to deal with anything else and it were easy legally - then I don't think you would actually want to do that, you wouldn't choose to make that trade.

Let me compare it with something else - say you already belonged to a gym but your employer as a christmas gift gave you a totally transferrable 50% off gift certificate (but that there's no particularly liquid market for, it's not like it has an obvious market price you can sell online) to a more expensive gym that is far from you, that you don't like for some reason because its focus doesn't match yours (maybe it's always fairly bustling and you like fewer people distracting you, whatever, in fact maybe you like going at times that that gym is closed!), and that is still more expensive after 50% off than your annually paid-up membership 15 minutes from your house and that you like: then you would be happy to give it to someone you know for, say $10 or if it'll make them happy or as a favor or for a sandwich. It really is something you value at closer to $0, and I judge that you would be glad to part with it for that amount or for free in that case.

I judge you wouldn't actually part with your options for $10 or $50 even if hypothetically it's legal and trivially easy for you. This is just my impression. I don't think you would do it. If you reflect on the two scenarios above (the first and the second paragraph of this comment) I think in your heart of hearts you see the difference. It's not a small difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> You need to know the total amount of shares that are out there to even begin to speculate on whether the deal is good or not.</comment>


Netflix: Streaming vs. DVD margins - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/25/netflixs-streaming-dvd-margins/

<comment><USER2> The reasons for this are obvious, and probably have nothing to do with the cost, difficulty, or politics of streaming. It's more likely due to the majority of their by-mail customers routinely going inactive for months at a time, while still paying for the service.

That inactivity is so well known that it became a talking point in social commentary and has even been the punchline of late night jokes.

<comment><USER3> Ouch. That's exactly what happens to us: 2 disks, that we wait a month to remember to send back.

The article does point out the "for now" aspect, though. "f(x) = DVD profits" is large, but with a negative derivative, while "g(x) = Streaming profits" is smaller, but with a positive (first order, at this point?) derivative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Did anyone even proofread this article? "....(adding 220 subscribers domestically in the quarter)....", "The streaming business also twice as many subscribers....."

<comment><USER5> It's TechCrunch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm guessing Netflix is highlighting this to negotiate better prices for their content while also signaling to the market this isn't a business others should enter.

I get the sense that Netflix is splitting up these numbers to help their content partners realize that they are killing a potential golden goose. Nobody has been as successful as Netflix with streaming legally licensed content... and from reading other articles, content partners kept raising their rates substantially as Netflix was growing. With this move, it's clear that the established DVD business-model has strong margins and the online business could be drastically hurt if content partners raise their rates any higher.

</comment><comment><USER7> The old DVD-by-mail model was hugely profitable, so they decided to confuse everyone by re-branding it? What?

</comment><comment><USER8> Funny that this posted the same time as Backblaze declaring DVD to be dead.

[http://blog.backblaze.com/2012/01/25/the-dvd-is-dead-usb- fla...](http://blog.backblaze.com/2012/01/25/the-dvd-is-dead-usb-flash-drive- restores-are-here/)

<comment><USER9> Not so funny if you consider what people are paying for.

Subscribers aren't paying for DVDs. They're paying to have an instant on movie that works offline. They're paying for the experience.

Same for BackBlaze. You don't want a DVD data experience, why would you?</comment></comment>


Nest for showers - <AUTHOR>

This might already exist, but when will we have Nest for showers? Or water temp in general? Turn knob to perfect degree. Save settings, remember your preferences. Potentially conserve water and energy. I'd like this. <comment><USER2> Honestly, after using one of those fancy showers that had exactly the features you describe, it was a huge pain in the ass:

1\. I'm extremely short-sighted, and of course I don't wear glasses when I shower, so reading the LCD display to make adjustments was a pain in the ass.

2\. There was an option to save settings for guests (which I was) but I never bothered taking the time to use it, so every time I wanted to shower I had to set everything correctly again. Took me like 3 minutes before I could shower. The UI was quite poor, so arguably this could be improved but still...

3\. The temperature would reset to the default value if I turned the shower off and didn't turn it back on soon enough. Back to step 2, with the added fun of being covered in shampoo and trying to avoid the cold water drenching me since of course I turned the shower on before realizing it had lost my temperature settings.

Again, the UI for this system was quite poor but still. No matter how good the UI is, the cognitive load compared to traditional system is just too heavy for no good reason.

Just give me a knob for temperature, and a knob for jet strength, like all modern showers. That's all I need.

<comment><USER3> A shower with traditional knobs, and a sensor of some kind. The first time you use it, you set the temperature/pressure with the knobs. After that: You step in, the shower detects you, and automatically uses your previous temperature/pressure. The sensor could use facial recognition, or a footprint scanner, or a fingerprint scanner, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was considering how you would design something like this (in the shower the other day)

I trained as an industrial electrician when I was younger so I have some tangentially related experience (though a lot of my apprenticeship was done in a flour mill which is is a very hazardous environment (fuel/air explosions are no joke)).

The conclusion I came to is that while some of the stuff is fairly trivial (constant temperature control for example requires some finesse when you have variable water pressure/flow rates but is solvable) other stuff is actually quite difficult.

How do you handle control inputs?

While waterproof touch screens exist they are ferociously expensive and look more at home in abattoir than a typical shower. So the control would have to be either very simple or controllable from a phone which imposes it's own problems (you would have to run the program before getting in the shower unless you want to take a shower with your £500 iPhone).

In addition there are liabilities (if your software goes rogue and melts the skin of someone that is probably not a good thing).

Safety Standards for showers are rigorous.

Standard for showers are already pretty rigorous (unsurprisingly as they combine electricity in close proximity to water and just for fun throw in scald and slip hazards) so getting a device certified may be expensive.

Integration

The shower would have to be manufactured with the "nest" style controller in it already, modifying an existing shower isn't go to fly as internally there are few standards (except across manufacturers) and anything that impairs the seal is going to get you sued.

None of this stuff is unsolvable if there is a market demand for the product but to be honest I'm not convinced there actually is.

</comment><comment><USER5> The solution already exists:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermostatic_mixing_valve](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermostatic_mixing_valve)

<comment><USER6> I have one from Delta - [http://www.amazon.com/T17T051-SS-Dryden-Tempassure- Series-St...](http://www.amazon.com/T17T051-SS-Dryden-Tempassure-Series- Stainless/dp/B001KBGQSS/?tag=seleniumfaq-20). It works like a charm.

<comment><USER7> Agreed, and as a mechanical solution, it is likely better than an electronic solution in a damp environment such as a shower.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Speaking of saving energy in the shower, I've seen an interesting gizmo for that [1].

It addresses the problem of wasted hot water when people get involved in other things while they are waiting for the shower to warm up. They turn on the hot water, and then go shave or brush their teeth or start the coffee maker or check email, or whatever, and can waste a lot of hot water between the time the shower has warmed up and the time they return to take their shower.

This gizmo senses when the water has warmed up, and then restricts the flow down to a trickle, until you pull the switch to restore the flow. The change from full flow to trickle acts as a signal to tell you the shower is ready, and the trickle wastes much less how water than the full flow does.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Evolve-Showerheads-SS-1002CP-SB- Water-...](http://www.amazon.com/Evolve-Showerheads-SS-1002CP-SB-Water-Saving- Shower-Head/dp/B0017YXIKC)

</comment><comment><USER9> Kohler has a product like that.

[http://www.us.kohler.com/us/DTV-Custom-Showering- Experience/...](http://www.us.kohler.com/us/DTV-Custom-Showering- Experience/content/CNT2400429.htm)

</comment><comment><USER10> I had this in my last apartment in Tokyo.

In Japan, water is commonly heated by gas-powered flash heaters. In that apartment, the heater was controlled digitally and there were up/down buttons that would change the temperature by 1 degree Celsius.

It would remember the most recent setting between uses, so all I had to do was remember my favorite number, ensure it was set to that number upon start, and hop in.

It was simpler in function than a Nest and much less pretty, but it was functional and got me the water temperature I wanted.

</comment><comment><USER11> There's no need for electric showers. The heat regulator could be attached to the "cold" and "hot" handles and a thermometer at the output of the shower.

When the temperature differs from the setup it automatically adjust the "hot" or "cold" temperature to regulate it.

The problem with this is that the whole system would be "reactionary", meaning that temperature regulations would only happen AFTER temperature alterations.

<comment><USER12> That's true of HVAC thermostats as well, and works OK in that application.

<comment><USER13> Yes but hvacs aren't spraying scalding or (worse) cold water on your half- awake self.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've been working on building an arduino-powered solution for this but for sinks, using 2 servos to control the hot/cold faucets and a waterproof temp sensor measuring/controlling the output. Initial challenge was easy, but I'm now having issues with the fact that the pipes cool/warm over time as they get used, and that doesn't seem to be playing well with the basic logic I have in place to keep the temp. balanced.

<comment><USER4> Have a look at Model Predictive Control :).

It's one of the simpler methods beyond straight forward feedback systems.

[https://controls.engin.umich.edu/wiki/index.php/MPC](https://controls.engin.umich.edu/wiki/index.php/MPC)

<comment><USER14> Very cool. Thanks a lot for sharing, this is a perfect solution for what I'm encountering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This doesn't describe the control technology very well, which it seems your question focuses on. However, given the closed loop design it would likely maintain better water pressure and temperature even with standard purely mechanical controls.

[http://orbital-systems.com/products/](http://orbital-systems.com/products/)

</comment><comment><USER16> Most European/Asian showers have already solved this, without anything that runs on electricity or needs firmware. Purely mechanical.

</comment><comment><USER17> People really like to overcomplicate their lives

</comment><comment><USER6> It is already exist and called - Thermostatic valve with volume control. I recently installed this one [http://www.amazon.com/T17T051-SS-Dryden- Tempassure-Series-St...](http://www.amazon.com/T17T051-SS-Dryden-Tempassure- Series-Stainless/dp/B001KBGQSS/?tag=seleniumfaq-20)

</comment><comment> david-peterson [http://www.hansgrohe-usa.com/18920.htm](http://www.hansgrohe- usa.com/18920.htm)

Not sure what "rain brain" is, but their non-electric thermostatic valves do a lot of what you want (we have them in our house).

</comment><comment><USER18> The shower in my parents house has this. Since 1984. Mechanically. And working perfect.

</comment><comment><USER19> Sounds awesome!</comment>


Designing well-formed URIs for your REST Web API - <AUTHOR> http://micheltriana.com/2013/10/07/uri-design-rest-web-api/

<comment><USER2> One of the best posts I've ever read on designing a good rest interface (from a django core developer):

[http://jacobian.org/writing/rest-worst- practices/](http://jacobian.org/writing/rest-worst-practices/)</comment>


"That's because you're still failing" - <AUTHOR> http://thestartuptoolkit.com/blog/2014/04/thats-because-youre-still-failing/

<comment><USER2> If you have work 100 hours a week to barely survive, then you are doing something wrong.

Building a business is very much a roller coaster ride.

You work hard to land a couple of deals. Then you work harder to make sure those deals stick. Then you figure out a way to hire or contract out the rest of the work. Then you try to land more deals and so on.

Hopefully, one day as a founder you are able to work as much or as little as you want and the business will still thrive.

Then, of course, you look to sell.

I don't the idea of extremes: "It's easy to build a business, I can do it on 15 hours a week." or "I have to work 100 hours just to break even and make payroll."

If you are doing either one of those, you have a problem, in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER3> A hearty "mmmmmmmmmmeehhhh" to that quote. Yay to the rest of the post.

There are plenty of non-failing businesses out there that do not require you to sacrifice your nights and weekends. The fact that you're not running one of those is neither a credit nor a discredit to you. It's just a certain type of business and a certain approach to business, which is not universal.

<comment><USER4> I guess that's because success and failure is a very subjective concept. Like these people would say success is closing a 10 million dollar deal. But for others having a small sustainable business that allows them to bring 70k at home and lot of free time to do other things is success and not failure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yeah the problem is probably that each on of them defines success differently.</comment>


Show HN: Match names and faces of YC and 500 Startups partners - <AUTHOR> http://guesswho.cyrusstoller.com/?ref=hn

<comment><AUTHOR> I made this to help with onboarding. It's hard when you're new and don't know anyone and they all know your name.

<comment><USER2> Nice. It's quite effective and fun to learn people's names.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Without knowing anyone, it's pretty easy to guess based on gender and ethnicity alone.

<comment><AUTHOR> True. For me, that makes the learning go by faster. Starting from scratch when I know nothing takes more mental energy. Using this game, it was easier for me to get more reps, meaning I learned names and faces quicker.</comment></comment>


Why we bought a PORN site - <AUTHOR> http://chatsavvy.com/blog/why-we-bought-porn-site/

<comment><USER2> It's a worthwhile lesson (check the background of your chosen name - it may have been a porn site), but I think the blog posting is a little too casual and lightweight.

If you want to go into more detail on what steps you took (beyond the Google Removal Tool) to clean up that background, great, that could be a worthwhile HN post.</comment>


Cooperation Is What Makes Us Human (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/1/what-makes-you-so-special/cooperation-is-what-makes-us-human <comment><USER2> hmmm....I think it's more than that. Ants, bees and other insects cooperate. The defining characteristic may be an awareness of mortality, which is probably what prompted the rescue.

<comment><USER3> When it seems like there's an obvious dismissal of serious work, the odds are low that the researchers don't know about it, so it's best to check. In this case, if you search for "ants" in the article, the first hit is:

 _Many species, from ants to orcas to our primate cousins, cooperate in the wild. But Tomasello has identified [...]_

I'll leave it to the reader to learn what Tomasello has identified.

<comment><USER4> In which case a better title would be "Shared Intentionality is What Makes Us Human", as plenty of species cooperate, whether deliberately or otherwise. It's an interest idea, nonetheless, if true.

One thing which distinguishes us from other animals, and is shared by all human cultures, is our ability to control and use fire.

<comment><USER5> > In which case a better title

It's almost as if you don't want to actually read the article or something.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is there a web app to edit CSS on any website, and share the result? - <AUTHOR>

E.g. If I wanted to show someone an idea I had for tweaking the NYTimes.com layout, I would go to this web app, put in the the URL http://www.nytimes.com, have a textarea where I could override the CSS, and then send a preview link to someone that loads the NY Times home page with my CSS modifications? <comment><USER2> Not that i've seen, but i've wanted exactly this before, especially to show clients possible tweaks to a site.

</comment><comment><USER3> Have a look at CSSEdit. I've never actually used it, but I think it fits your description.

<http://macrabbit.com/cssedit/>

Edit: Not sure about sharing results though

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a PC. :(

Chrome is so decent at modifying CSS & previewing the changes, seems like there could be a (simple?) extension that would track changes you make and give you a shareable preview link. Right? Are there other complexities I'm missing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do you have a contact email? I can show you a quick preview of something I have...it's very rudimentary, but it works.

<comment><AUTHOR> Added my email's to my profile. Thanks for willingness to share!</comment></comment>


Backbone Aura Developer Preview - <AUTHOR> http://addyosmani.github.com/backbone-aura/

<comment><USER2> Looks really interesting and like pfraze I think it's important that we rethink the way we build our sites and applications; focus on composing applications out of reusable tiny JS components (widgets) will make them more robust and easier to develop in the long run, once we get out of the teething stage of trying to figure out how to structure it all.

That said, the architecture they're proposing here seems a bit convoluted; is there really no simpler way to package together your widgets than calls that bounce around to different objects and 'core' methods?

<comment><USER3> There are many many ways to package and deploy an app. That's a double-edged sword of the javascript ecosphere right now. For larger apps/projects, I think that a clean separation of concerns into widgets with a mediator of some sort is the way to go, and aura establishes such a pattern. Will it fit a blog? Probably not. But then, you won't even need AMD-style modules for most blogs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have a basic grasp of what Backbone is capable of, but can't really tell what Aura improves on that. At first glance it seems to abstract MVC constructs away and lets you define those widgets with a single function call. Is that what this is about?

<comment><USER5> (first of all; sorry for my english) Actually it's not about technical side of things. It's about paradigms and philosophies. Addy Osmani is trying to apply enterprise application development patterns to JavaScript. That what i understand from reading all of his blog posts :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Also have a look at Addy's large scale app demo

<https://github.com/addyosmani/largescale-demo>

and the corresponding slides/talk

</comment><comment><USER7> Soundcloud apparently has been doing something similar to this - [http://spadgos.github.com/blog/2012/06/01/soundclouds- stack-...](http://spadgos.github.com/blog/2012/06/01/soundclouds-stack-slides- from-fluentconf-and-sfjs/)

<comment><USER8> Link to video of Nick's longer, more complete talk given at the SFJS Meetup in this thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4062076>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Looks promising. Browser javascript needs good architectural environments, and these are talented devs.

</comment><comment><USER10> "Aura is currently missing two important items needed to help us get out a stable release. These are good unit tests and stronger documentation."

I can understand the lack of documentation, but I balk at the fact that framework developers wouldn't use TDD to guide the development :(

<comment><USER11> I've found that TDD is pretty crappy for exploratory development on things like frameworks. It's much easier to test once I've hit the point where I know how everything should look and behave.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, in my own experience TDD makes a lot more sense when you have something substantial built.. like say version1 of a product. Doing TDD from the scratch is a lot more hassle without substantial gains

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looks awesome. Hopefully some of these features will be pulled into Backbone.

<comment><USER14> hopefully this doesn't happen. Backbone is fine as it is.

<comment><USER15> Well, Backbone as it stands doesn't really allow you to have these kinds of app-in-itself unities capable of communicating with one another. Clearly, this isn't for everyone and for all purposes. Backbone is "fine as it is" for plenty of things, but I would be willing to bet that the Backbone devs will eventually make these enhancements part of the standard architecture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Developer preview? Thank you very much! git clone.....</comment>


Technology groups hit back at spy chief claims - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3237be7e-644b-11e4-bac8-00144feabdc0.html

<comment><USER2> Link to article is broken.

Looks like a paywall error.</comment>