Update on Julie Horvath's Departure - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/1800-update-on-julie-horvath-s-departure <comment><USER2> When I arrived at this thread, comment two was 'using the information available in the short techcrunch article, I'm now going to PROVE, point by point, how Horvath's claims are false.'

Comment three was 'aha they issued a vague apology, this is basically a FULL ADMISSION that everything Horvath said was true!'

People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears? There is not enough _public_ information present to reliably prove or disprove anything at this point; Github issued a nonspecific semi-apology (to wit: "It's certain that there were things we could have done differently" well, yeah this is usually the case) with some promising indications that they are taking the issue seriously & looking into it.

Now we wait. Stop saying github is admitting to every point of Horvath's assertions! Stop saying Horvath is a liar! You don't know these things! Take deep breaths, listen for a bit, and wait for more information to come out.

<comment><USER3> "People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears?"

When the topic is as controversial as sexism in tech and the workplace. Or whatever the flashpoint happens to be at the moment. Like sequoia, I've noticed that controversial topics brings out the most incredible responses from both sides, and often with very little definitive evidence. To me, this is a sign of how deeply felt this topic is, and how much it is just under the surface of our thoughts, ready to explode when an appropriate trigger occurs.

I laughed when I read the quote above and thought it was a good comment.

<comment><USER4> It is sad that some people dispute the existence of sexism in tech, but that does not make it controversial in the sense that it is contentious, because it isn't. The facts are simple: 1) technology is a big source of power in our society, and 2) women are underrepresented in tech. Whenever a well defined group of people is absent from (or underrepresented in) a source of power, discrimination is taking place, period. Sexism, like racism, is a loaded word, and people often believe that malice is required for it to exist, but that is not the case. Whether sexism begins in kindergarten or in mens-club startups is, at this point, secondary. It is there and we _must_ address it.

In the case of GitHub specifically, the issue is even clearer. This is a company that for years had a blog with little else than their drinking escapades. Perhaps that's changed, but the burden of proof is on them.

The only thing that is up for dispute is whether this _particular_ case is an example of sexism in tech or not. We can't be 100% sure, but at this time it's safer to assume that the weaker party is right, if only because the stronger party can handle a quick-to-judge public much more easily than the weaker party. I'm not saying it's boycott time, but it's best to at least open the discussion with that assumption in mind. Again, the burden of proof is on GitHub.

<comment><USER5> > Again, the burden of proof is on GitHub

I can see how "to align with the weaker party" can be a sensible goal for a society. However, in this case it directly conflicts with the presumption of innocence principle, which is an even higher goal for a just society.

So no, the burden of proof lies in whoever is making the accusations, whatever the (un)balanced of power between parties is.

What we should do is (1) not judge any party until there are enough _facts_ on the table (of which we don't have many right now); (2) strive for an impartial account of the events; (3) judge only on and after _evidence_ has been collected. If you want to support a cause, pushing for people to follow this recipe would work much better than pushing for "the weaker party is right until the stronger party proves themselves".

<comment><USER4> I am not in favor of _judging_ them now, only _assuming_ they're in the wrong for the purpose of discussion; if some people happen to jump to conclusions, I'm sure GitHub can take it more than Horvath can.

Because sexism in tech is a fact, this occasion is an opportunity to discuss it. Debating whether Horvath is right or wrong is not only futile, but is also potentially harmful to her, and that harm is far greater than GitHub's. Presumption of innocence is only a principle in legal disputes, and this, currently, isn't one, nor are we the jury. There will be no great injustice done if the assumption turns out to be false, but there is a lot of harm being inflicted on Horvath right now by people equating her position with that of a rich company and suspending any form of judgment. This does not only harm her personally, but the entire industry by implying that sexism in tech is disputable and pending "further data", which it isn't.

Given that sexism in tech is real and serious, that GitHub has a bit of a spotty background on that issue, and that GitHub does not deny any of the allegations, this is a perfectly good time to assume something bad has happened and discuss measures to correct the situation in the industry. If it turns out GitHub has fallen victim to the very real injustice of sexism in tech, I won't shed a tear for them, but will be excited to see them face the challenge and lead the way forward.

<comment><USER6> Why do we have to make an assumption either way? Damage to Github's reputation may not be a "great injustice," but it's not exactly consequence-free. It seems to me that withholding judgment is a far better course of action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's good to see this statement out of Github. The general tone and specifically the mention of the founder's wife in this post gives a huge amount of credence to Julie's claims. I hope Github follows through on this with as much sincerity and determination as this post implies.

<comment><USER8> I agree that the statement is good. I only wish they'd addressed the concerns that were raised regarding them having access to/messing with private repos.

<comment><USER9> I didn't quite read the statement as saying the founder's wife had access to private repos. I just read it as saying that the founder's wife claimed to have access to private company communication, specifically chat logs only intended for github employees. But a statement clearing the concerns up would be nice.

<comment><USER10> You're right - the TechCrunch article didn't mention access to private repos - only private employee chatrooms. But the question was raised here on HN, asking if she did have access to private employee chatrooms what else might she or others have access to? If the security is lax in one area, one might assume it's lax in others as well. But it's just speculation - but it has merit non the less

[edit: spelling]

<comment><USER11> There's no way to know unless someone comes out and says it explicitly, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that the aforementioned "spies" emailed specific chat logs to her. In a toxic environment, that kind of stuff gets passed around willy-nilly. That's the first conclusion I jumped to after reading the TechCrunch article, anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is the best possible response GitHub could have done given the circumstances.

<comment><USER13> That was also my first reaction. I don't know enough about crisis-management- style PR to second-guess their response. I often have the _suspicion_ that founders are not taking the best course of action, but this response seems to avoid the obvious pitfalls.

<comment><USER14> This was also my first reaction as well - the real question is how they followup this response, but this is the only correct move at this juncture.

<comment><USER15> I think the follow up will be more critical, especially the public explanation. That will have the potential to either strengthen GH's credibility or destroy it.

<comment><USER16> Why should they give a public explanation for something that should've stayed internal in the first place? This should've stayed between the OP, GitHub and GH's HR team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The actions that Github has taken lends credibility to what Horvath has said. Of course, we'll not know the whole truth until sometime in the future, if ever.

Even if this episode were only hypothetical, this episode reminds me that many people have poor decision-making abilities, even if they are super intelligent. A co-founder of a company like Github would and should have a very good brain and very good decision-making prowess. And yet, here we see instances of him possibly:

1\. Not being able to identify boundaries between his personal life and his work life, and allowing factors from his personal life to influence his work life, possibly very negatively (magnified by his position at the company).

2\. Not being able to communicate with people and ascertain the truth of the matter. Someone had to lie to cause him to accuse Horvath of lying: either his wife lied or Horvath lied, and he didn't appear to do a good job of getting the truth and resolving the situation.

3\. Having perhaps made a poor marriage decision. I would not be surprised if everyone downvotes me for this speculation, and am sorry if this ruffles features. But if this episode is true, there are very few ways that this co- founder's marriage comes out looking good. Either he's absolutely insensitive to the needs of his company or he's completely whipped by a woman who cares more about herself than him. If it's a poor marriage decision, he wouldn't be the first person in history, people from all walks of life seem to make poor marriage decisions all the time.

In the end, I am reminded again that people are messy, and no matter how intelligent they appear to be, they can still have the potential to act stupidly.

<comment><USER18> Wow, you make it sound so easy.

> Not being able to communicate with people and ascertain the truth of the > matter. Someone had to lie to cause him to accuse Horvath of lying: either > his wife lied or Horvath lied, and he didn't appear to do a good job of > getting the truth and resolving the situation.

Sure, and a good managers should have no problem figuring out things that can take police and the courts years and years.

> If it's a poor marriage decision, he wouldn't be the first person in > history, people from all walks of life seem to make poor marriage decisions > all the time.

How is that relevant, and what exactly does that even mean? You don't really know who the person is and will be when you're getting married, you're just making a bet that they really are who you think they are, _and_ that they wouldn't change in the future. _If_ this episode is true, they can either do what married people should do (stick together, learn, communicate, support each other, and resolve the issues), or they can say "fuck it, we're stupid and made a poor marriage decision", and separate.

<comment><USER17> > Wow, you make it sound so easy.

I think you misread me. I believe I made it pretty clear that I think that people from all walks of life do not find it easy to make good decisions. I don't believe it is so easy. I talk as one who has made many poor decisions myself.

> How is that relevant, and what exactly does that even mean?

I really don't want to get into this, mainly because we don't have enough information. But the gist is what I've stated, that he may have entered into a marriage with a selfish and megalomaniac woman who cares more about herself than him. Again, we don't have enough information to confirm, but the questions are asked because there are allegations of such behaviour.

And for the record, I have seen plenty of good, high-quality marriages where doing what married people should do does not become public incidents (i.e. they are able to work out their issues in the way you describe, but in private so that they don't become public spectacles).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's good to see a straight-up apology, not a mealy-mouthed "I'm sorry if our engineer's sexual harrassment offended you" type response.

Of course, it would have been better if Julie had felt like she could have taken this up while she still worked there and got something done at the time.

<comment><USER20> Re-read it. He was careful not to actually apologize for anything in particular. It's worth noting that they have not admitted to any 'sexism' or whatever other accusations are floating around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Awesome response from GitHub. Professional response, apologises and thanks the complainant rather than being defensive ... I think their new HR hire in January is already paying dividends ;)

<comment><USER20> They didn't actually apologize for anything in specific. This is very carefully crafted and is being very defensive by not admitting to anything. The only real meat is clarifying that the wife had no hiring/firing power.

<comment><USER22> Explain to me why you would admit to anything if you haven't got to the bottom of it yourself? As they explained, they're investigating the issue currently.

So...doesn't their response then make sense?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This whole incident is sad. It's incredibly sad for Julie, for everyone at GitHub, for the founders, and for the alleged "crazy" founder wife who was banned from a company she probably sacrificed a lot for

<comment><USER24> I'm surprised nobody sees sexism in the way that the wife has been stigmatized.

<comment><USER25> I think that the wife's actions would have been even less acceptable if she were male. The stigma is caused by the repeated unprofessional actions she did, and made worse by the fact that she was not even an employee.

<comment><USER26> Why should gender affect the acceptability of one's behavior?

<comment><USER27> Because sexism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Usually there are two sides of the story, but the fact that a non-employee (wife of co-founder) exercised so much power and meddled in internal office politics in the way that she did, it was hard to see how GitHub could even claim a reasonable stance. They screwed this up big time. This is a good response.

<comment><USER29> Not usually...ALWAYS. There is another side here. Github has just realized they have nothing to gain by defending.

<comment><USER30> Off topic, but there is not always "two sides". There is a tendency to try to frame and reduce everything to binary questions... but the world is just not binary.

<comment><USER31> To put it another way, there may be two sides (or N sides), but some sides' perspective are often more worthy than others. Not to Godwin the thread, but, yeah. Both sides' perspectives are not always equally valid. (I dutifully acknowledge that the offenses are not the same magnitude, and all the caveats that go with referencing The Big G.)

<comment><USER32> Like the nature of earth:

* General scientific opinion (it's generally roundish).

* Religious doctrine (it's flat, centre of universe, on the back of a turtle).

* And then this person: [http://www.timecube.com/](http://www.timecube.com/)

Point is, only one of these sides is reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> _The founder's wife discussed in the media reports has never had hiring or firing power at GitHub and will no longer be permitted in the office._

The fact that she was married to someone who did have hiring or firing power and WAS permitted in the office means she DID have (defacto) hiring or firing power.

I wonder what the ramifications are, legal-wise? Obviously the founder could be sued, especially if he was allowing someone who wasn't an employee to harass. I suspect A16Z will waste no time putting distance between themselves and the (allegedly) guilty founder. In the end, this wife's jealousy could end up costing her family 10s or 100s of millions of dollars.

<comment><USER34> By your logic, hiring managers should not be allowed to be married, lest they give a non-employee "defacto" hiring power.

Before we string up the cofounder's wife, let's actually let her and/or the cofounder defend themselves, OK? It's entirely possible Horvath is completely embellishing things and the cofounder's wife didn't do anything terribly out of line.

<comment><USER35> That's quite the straw man.

The key here is that the founder's wife has a regular presence in the office. Plus, a founder is in a vastly higher position of authority than an employee (be it a manager, or else).

So it's not too far to imagine that she could exert some influence towards her husband's decision at work, e.g. hiring and firing of someone.

<comment><USER34> Yes, she could exert influence. Just like every other SO of every other hiring manager in the world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I hire people, and I talk to my wife all the time about work matters. And if, knowing everything she knows about my team, she told me that I should be looking at cutting someone loose, I would take that advice very seriously. Every good executive has trusted advisors, and for people in serious relationships the partner is very commonly one of those advisors.

The only problem here is the wife's alleged direct meddling with work matters, not that she had a strong influence on her husband's work decisions. For founders, life is totally enmeshed with work and it would actually be weird if his wife DIDN'T have strong opinions on the company he built while she supported him at home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "the relevant founder has been put on leave... The founder's wife... will no longer be permitted in the office."

Almost exactly what I expected. As the startup grows larger (200+ employees now for Github?) it's not uncommon to have some cultural setback. +1 for Github trying to fix it asap, but still Chris Wanstrath did not mention how are they exactly going to fix the culture. Putting founder on leave is by no means panacea. The behavior on that one founder is very likely not the cause for the wrong culture, but just the side effect. So more specific plans INSIDE the company, please? (well, actually I think fixing the culture can't be done by any plan, but it must be done by example of founders/high-level executives.)

<comment><USER37> It's been like a day (over a weekend), probably not enough time to put together such a plan...

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I wasn't aware of the whole story. Here is the link to better understand the context: [http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath- describes...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes- sexism-and-intimidation-behind-her-github-exit/)

<comment><USER39> And the discussion, which is still on the front page [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408055](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408055)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I wish we could stop this.

Women in software is an important topic. This specific issue on the other hand is just a he-said-she-said soap opera.

Nobody but the folks directly involved here know what really happened. _Everything_ else is useless.

<comment><USER27> The problem is that it's _always_ he-said-she-said, _especially_ in the worst cases.

<comment><USER40> That is very true.

I would maintain, though, that besides the involved parties nobody can possibly know what really happened, and hence everything is just idle speculation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Ms. Horvath's act of taking this directly to the press was obviously intended to inflict the maximum possible harm on Github and is, in itself, unprofessional and harms her credibility. The right way for her to have handled this would have been to document _everything_ , and then resign and sue them without fanfare. Nobody wins when dirty laundry is aired.

<comment><USER11> Most women (and men--Julie's story rang true to me--and also reminded me of persecution some guys I've worked with have endured) protest and, when nothing changes, quit to preserve their health and sanity. They don't sue. They don't get fanfare for it. They quietly resign and move to other pastures. And nothing changes for their coworkers (and other women and men in the industry) who are also harassed.

Resigning and talking about it is actually pretty courageous. She doesn't win, she gets a stigma. Her company doesn't win, it gets a stigma. But the spectators with their mouths agog realize that this kind of mismanagement/harassment is not only happening under noses, but also being noticed externally (it's endemic; while women and minorities likely deal with it a lot more, it's not just gender-based, it often happens to the lawful-good no matter what gender or race in small tech companies) and, for a brief time, these companies pull themselves together and become better places to work, if only because it's expensive and time-consuming and morale-killing to fuck this stuff up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I try to avoid these topics, but it's almost sad to see how easily you've all rushed to her side. It seems the magic word of the 2010s is "sexism": utter that word, and people will defend you no matter how little evidence there is, no matter how full of shit you are -- assuming, of course, you are a female.

Is what she described accurate? Maybe so, maybe not. No one fucking knows, and that is the point. Stop being assholes about it until someone, if anyone, has been proven to have done wrong. It's not uncommon for someone to feel sourgrapes about a situation and use "sexism" as a way to manipulate it in their favor. Most of you act like that isn't even a fucking possibility.

</comment><comment><USER43> The sad thing is that however the real story may have nothing to do with sexism, but as it's presented as "sexism story" and "protecting other women", the people who will probably suffer the most after that story are that very women. It would be pretty natural for many HRs to remember that story as "possible hazard" and _ceteris paribus_ reject the female candidate.

</comment><comment><USER44> That non-employee spouses are allowed on company property to the extent that the CEO has to acknowledge it (and put an end to it) smacks of an unprofessional environment. Ugh.

<comment><USER45> This is an extremely odd sentiment. Now, if said spouse is causing issues that interfere with work then by all means ban this person. But as a blanket rule that seems absurd.

<comment><USER46> I think "causing issues" was implied by "to the extent that the CEO has to acknowledge it".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> They are lucky it's not the CEO-founder. Easier to put a non-CEO on leave than a CEO I imagine.

<comment><USER48> Sounds like you're so desperate to out the guy that you have to make a weird, nonsensical post.

If you really want to out him that badly just man up an post his name rather than trying to weasel around with "Easier to put a president on leave than a CEO".

<comment><USER47> Here, I edited my post so I don't hurt your peculiar sensitivities.

I wasn't outing anyone, the founder who shall not be named is the only married one as plenty of people pointed out from the start.

Also, for context to the original comment, the founder we are discussing here used to be CEO but switched roles a while back.

<comment><USER49> PJ Hyett has been married for many years: [https://twitter.com/pjhyett/status/89064336454201346](https://twitter.com/pjhyett/status/89064336454201346)

<comment><USER47> I stand corrected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Please - I would like to ask all the commenters to respect the privacy and feelings of all the people affected, their loved ones, and friends. The only productive or good thing you can do is express sympathy for the victims and hope they reach an amicable resolution.

Most of you probably have no idea how some thoughtless comments on a forum can cause grief, pain and fear to intensify. Making hurtful comments, making assumptions, and taking sides does nothing to help anyone involved. It can only hurt someone, and is completely unnecessary (other than for sating a debased wish to feed on the suffering of others). Whatever happens does not concern you and will not be affected by you in any positive way.

So, pretty please, for the sake of all the people who are directly and indirectly affected by this story, STOP. SPECULATING.

</comment><comment><USER51> Pretty ridiculous, I'm sure she'll land on her feet but these startup cultures are a disaster. Hula hoops? No clear management of any kind? I'm all for freedom of expression and all that but try and act like an adult for once in your life and put the hula hoops down.

<comment><USER52> What is wrong with hula hoops?

I have (adult) friends who dance for fun, play with hula hoops, play with poi balls and lots of other things. There is nothing wrong with these things.

 _No clear management of any kind_ is a big problem, but the rest of what you say is, as you put it, _pretty ridiculous_.

<comment><USER53> Nobody has suggested there's anything wrong with playing with hula hoops, even when it's adults doing it. It just doesn't seem like something that should be done at work, or at work-related events.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> It's really sad for this to have happened, but respect to Chris Wanstrath for his classy and sincere apology.

</comment><comment><USER55> Honestly If all of this is true, then obviously what happened is wrong, but I don't really see the sexism in this whole thing. Is it the houla-hoops thingy ? Because I gotta tell you if 2 dudes start doing houla-hoops where I work everybody will stop and watch ... Just because it's ... I dunno weird ? funny ? unusual ? Am I missing something ?

<comment><USER56> I also didn't see the connection at first, but as I understand it the sexism claim comes from the implication that her experiences are at least partially due to her gender. as in, the situations were handled the way they were because she's a woman. as I read her side, the hoola hooping was more so to show an example of the allegedly sexist culture at GitHub.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I don't see how this is any of our business. Is HN a gossip rag? Because otherwise this is just two indirect blobs of hearsay directed at each other.

<comment><USER58> Because it involves an important issue within our industry, and how a major company is dealing with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> This is a textbook response to a harassment issue. It is extremely professional. You put the accused on paid leave. You do not fire them. If the accuser is correct, this prevents further damage. If the accuser is incorrect, this prevents permanent damage to the accused.

You contact a full internal investigation, and you do not issue any statements biased either way until you have full information from that investigation. At the end of the investigation, you either bring back the accused employees if they appear innocent, or lay them off if they appear guilty.

This is absolutely the right thing to do. I understand the Internet would like companies to go in with pitchforks before investigating. That is wrong. In the majority of discrimination cases, the accuser is wrong (for example, the accused is an equal-opportunity-asshole, but the accuser feels targeted). When the accuser is right, you want to know the level and details before acting in any irreversible way (and a public statement, aside from potentially being libel, is irreversible).

The Internet's attention span is the Internet's problem -- not github's.

</comment><comment><USER60> I think there is whole chunk of story missing.. Some context/information is missing from her allegations. The wife's behavior doesn't make sense.

Too many red flags in Julie's version. But I will wait for the complete story.

</comment><comment><USER61> I do not consider the article in TechCrunch to have presented a balanced description of the matter. I will withhold any judgment until Github have carried out an investigation. I will not presume the founder in question, his wife or the other employee to be guilty of the allegations against them until we have more information. I hope Github will be fair and impartial in their investigation.

<comment><USER62> Just the fact that the wife of an employee was consistently allowed in the building, is already a serious matter. GitHub is not a scrappy startup anymore; it's a 1 billion dollar company. You do not allow strangers to walk around the office, and much less let them invite employees to dinners to discuss internal matters.

Having said that, seems that GitHub recognizes that they screwed up. The tone of their response seemed fair and balanced, and they acted fast by removing the folks involved. Too bad it got to this point, but it's a good sign.

<comment><USER63> > GitHub is not a scrappy startup anymore; it's a 1 billion dollar company

Yeah, let's kill all the fun.

> You do not allow strangers to walk around the office

Except that she wasn't a stranger, she was the wife of a founder. Most old employees probably know her.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> If what she said is half true, the engineer in question should absolutely be fired. I would fire him.

<comment><USER20> It's a good thing you aren't a manager. Which half is it that's good enough for termination? Reverting a commit, or what?

<comment><USER64> A coworker showing up uninvited to her house and making an awkward and uninvited advance, or systematically reverting commits as vengeance.

I made a vague statement, but I think "reverting a commit" is definitely minimizing what she claims happened

<comment><USER65> Seriously? You would fire employee for making an awkward and advance? I can see firing person for reverting commits as vengeance. I can see firing person for harassing someone or if he was threatening.

I can not see it reasonable to fire employee for asking another one on date once, even if it was awkward and unexpected.

Maybe I'm weird, but I do not see it employers business to police relationships of their adult employees, as long as they do not cross the line described above.

<comment><USER64> She clearly felt he was threatened, whatever that is worth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Him mentioning the cofounder's wife immediately gives credibility to Julie's claims! I hope she get's paid! The workplace should be professional, not a schoolyard.

<comment><USER67> I don't recall anyone having a spouse when I was playing in schoolyards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> This is leadership. Executive leadership at other tech companies should take note.

<comment><USER69> To respond only after the issue was brought public? No, that is no leadership. It's the best possible response he could give under the present circumstances, but on the flipside, he had no choice but to make this statement. I wouldn't be surprised if it was crafted for him by a PR person or firm.

<comment><USER70> I'm guessing that at the time (whilst the issue was still internal) they didn't think what was happening was a big enough deal. As a result they're now having to perform damage control.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> This is a great apology, and goes a long way to restore my shattered faith in github.

No denying or spinning what happened, no victim blaming; just "we fucked up, we're going to do everything we can to fix it, and Julie is great". That's all I expect. Own up, fix the problem, and protect the victim.

</comment><comment><USER72> Of course we may never know for sure exactly what was said (unless everything was secretly recorded somehow... NSA - data, please), but my initial reaction is that this story sounds a bit... exaggerated. Were things said that shouldn't have been said? Probably so. But here's the way I read it from TC:

Let's look at what Horvath claims:

> character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull > requests and issues

It's unclear what exactly this means, and in most cases, bringing up someone's character in PRs is certainly inappropriate. Does it happen? Yes, it happens all the time, regardless of gender. A PR comment like "it's a bit naive to assume these conditions will be met in this instruction - please fix" is technically bringing up someone's character inappropriately. She never claimed (at least as quoted by TC) that sexist or intimidating things were brought up in PRs/issues - just that "character started being discussed".

> She calls her colleagues' response to her own work and the work of other > female GitHub employees a "serious problem."

Again, pretty unclear. The response to her work MAY have had nothing to do with her gender or any kind of personal/social conflict, but rather based solely on performance. If such was the case, then I'd say colleagues tend to "respond" to other people's work all day long. I honestly can't say the "response" in this case was completely benign, but again, the article and direct quotes certainly don't seem to point at anything specific.

> she struggled to feel welcome.

This is a common feeling in pretty much any workplace or environment, regardless of who you are.

> she did her best to distance herself from the founder's wife, as well as the > founder, for fear of being caught up in an unhealthy situation.

This is mentioned before anything else regarding the founder or the founder's wife. It sounds like (at least the way it's presented in the article) some kind of animosity was felt even before any real interaction between the parties. That could be based on anything (including possibly Horvath's own prejudgement). The truth is we don't know because we aren't given any more details.

> almost immediately the conversation that I thought was supposed to be causal > turned into something very inappropriate. She began telling me about how she > informs her husband's decision-making at GitHub, how I better not leave > GitHub and write something bad about them, and how she had been told by her > husband that she should intervene with my relationship to be sure I was > 'made very happy' so that I wouldn't quit and say something nasty about her > husband's company because 'he had worked so hard.'... the wife went on to > claim that she was responsible for hires at GitHub, and asked Horvath to > explain to her what she was working on.

Just for sake of argument, here's a possible conversation that could be twisted into fitting the above description:

"Glad you could join us for drinks! My husband works hard to create an amazing workplace at GitHub, and even though I'm not a part of the company myself, I enjoy meeting the employees and want to help people feel welcome the best way I can. My husband told me you're fairly new... what is it you do? That's great. I just want to make sure you're very happy at GitHub. In some way, I feel responsible for helping make sure the company treats everyone well. If there's anything that could be better, I might be able to put in a word with him. The last thing they'd want is for you to have a bad experience and leave the company."

That's just an example of something I wouldn't be surprised to hear from a founder's spouse in a startup environment.

> The wife also claimed to employ "spies" inside of GitHub, and claimed to be > able to, again according to Horvath, read GitHub employees' private chat- > room logs, which only employees are supposed to have access to

I agree this is definitely crossing a line, but of course the wife only "claimed" to have this access. That doesn't mean she does, and I could easily see it being said in a low voice (trying to win over someone's "exclusive" or "secret" friendly confidence) along the lines of:

"I'm not officially with GitHub, but I have ears. I try to keep close tabs on what employees are saying about the company in the chat rooms and company chit-chat."

The next few events are pretty vague. It includes rumors, a random profession of love (and rejection) outside the workplace (if she had a problem with trespassing, she should have called the cops; the male engineer's reaction at work - if true - should have been corrected by HR, but it sounds like it was never brought up to HR by Horvath as it should have been), Horvath "feeling threatened", and "the founder accus[ing] her of threatening his wife", followed by the wife "sitting close to Horvath". Lots of generalities.

Finally it bubbles to the point of Horvath claiming "The next thing I knew the wife was in my face at my work station verbally attacking me"

From my own experience, perfectly civil conversations can often be turned into "verbal attacks" later if it helps a person's case. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but the details are _just so vague_. What was the conversation about?

As for the hula hooping... you're telling me that two women hula hooping to music in the workplace is perfectly appropriate, but when the other people nearby (who are going to be mostly males if the majority of employees are male - go figure) suddenly notice, _that 's_ the inappropriate part? Really?

I certainly won't say that Horvath is making this stuff up, and it does sound like some inappropriate actions _did_ occur and she should be upset. But I _will_ say that based on the "evidence" presented in the TC article, GitHub is not guilty of all the claims "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

<comment><USER32> Actually of all of these the last one is the only one I think your counter is flat out wrong (all the others seem plausible enough). Why? Because gawking at other co-workers (regardless of genders) in a casual environment is not ok. In a casual work environment people often do light exercise, and they need to feel comfortable to do that without being turned into sex objects.

I would hope the men in question have enough self control to ignore women moving their bodies around. You are basically using the same logic as countries that require burqas in public. This has already been covered by feminist movements in this country. It is seriously a sign of how backwards the tech industry is in regards to social equality that this sort of basic stuff is missing from general knowledge.

<comment><USER73> > In a casual work environment people often do light exercise

Could you elaborate on this? In the work environments I've been in, people go to the gym or outside to work out. I've never been in a work environment where it's acceptable to do your exercising in the office space. What are you talking about -- yoga, bicep curls, jogging, jumping jacks? I've worked at extremely liberal companies but that kind of stuff doesn't happen..

> and they need to feel comfortable to do that without being turned into sex > objects

I don't think it's a person's right to hula hoop in an office and then be upset when they attract the attention of the rest of the office, regardless of sex on both sides. It's an unusual thing to do, so it will draw eyes.

<comment><USER74> Definitely.

I think Julie should have spoken to both groups, telling the guys it's not cool to gawk at women, and tell the women if they want to hula hoop, do it some place more private.

<comment><USER21> > and tell the women if they want to hula hoop, do it some place more private.

Indeed. And just in case men _still_ gawked at them, she could have brought some free niqab to work for them to wear.

[http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2013-09-18.png](http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2013-09-18.png)

<comment><USER74> Eh, I think you missed my point.

The point of talking to the women isn't to help the men exercise better restraint (which extrapolated to an extreme would require a niqab).

It's that if the women are doing something in the office, out in the open that people stopping to watch would make other people feel uncomfortable, then perhaps it shouldn't be done out in plain view of everyone.

Like, if you are trying to have a private conversation with your Dr on the phone about your recent herpes outbreak, don't talk in the lunchroom and get pissed that I listened in.

We can come up with counter examples, and/or take things to the extreme, however my point is that exercising some restraint and a little professionalism would make situations like this non existent.

<comment><USER21> No, I got your point quite clearly. If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable, that's unfortunate, but also totally your problem. Ditto breastfeeding and suchlike.

<comment><USER74> _Clearly_ you did not.

> If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable

It wasn't women hula hooping made someone feel uncomfortable.

It was men "gawking" at the women hula hooping, that made Julie Horvath feel uncomfortable.

I hope you understand the difference.

> If hula hooping women make you uncomfortable, that's unfortunate, but also > totally your problem. Ditto breastfeeding and suchlike.

Tangentially related--another key point you're missing, this is an office.

No one should have to feel uncomfortable at the workplace, because the office is for people to work and be productive, not hula hoop.

Things like hula hooping (I'm guessing), yoga, tai chi, Zumba, etc, are there to improve worker productivity. If these programs run counter to that and actually hinder productivity by making some employees feel uncomfortable, then those programs may not be the right fit for the workplace.

<comment><USER21> > No one should have to feel uncomfortable at the workplace

I think you're wrong about that.

What about religious fundamentalists uncomfortable with gay people?

What about conservatives uncomfortable with breastfeeding?

What about chauvinists uncomfortable with women in leadership positions?

There is no right to 'not feel uncomfortable'. There is no right to 'not to feel offended'.

What you have to do is choose _who_ you are going to offend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> In github's defense, that rug really tied the room together.

</comment><comment><USER74> Don't know what to make of this.

The founder getting his wife involved made a serious mistake. Agreed with most everyone else here, the CEO made the right call.

I'm now trying to understand though, what precipitated this whole mess. Julie talks about github as a "boys-club" culture and that her character was under attack in pull requests and issues, but doesn't give any more details.

Julie talks about passive aggressive behavior from a coworker, but this was while her ordeal with one of the founders was going on.

So what triggered this collapse?

</comment><comment><USER76> Here is an article that I found on TechCrunch. Posting the link here just for sharing. No, I am still trying to make out what is happening, so I hold no opinion for now.

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath- describes...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes- sexism-and-intimidation-behind-her-github-exit/)

</comment><comment><USER77> I am just reading about all this now.

First of all, the main theme that resonates with me is that no company is immune to these things no matter how much "special" or "different" they are.

At this point, I don't completely accept everything Horvath is saying nor do I believe what she is saying is all lies. The truth as is always the case is never black and white. What I do accept is that there is definitely serious issues that need to be taken a look at that have been brought up.

Github did not need to respond and I believe they responded quite well. There response cannot be point by point rebuttal or a statement of denial.

It's a measured response stating that they are taking action to look into the issues. Putting a founder on leave is a major decision and sends the message to Github's employees and the rest of the community that they are taking this seriously. My takeaway from the response was recognition that Horvath's assertions are with weight and they will not shy away from investigation.

There is no doubt that Horvath's assertions have made Github deal with this. Having a founder be involved would likely have swept all of this under the rug.

I commend Horath's for speaking out. I am certain it wasn't an easy decision and very painful.

I also commend Github for having the CEO write this response instead of hiding behind a shield of legalese.

I do believe something will come out from this for the positive. There are too many great people within Github that do not need to be there that will now have an opportunity to take a reality check and assess for themselves Horvath's claims and drive for change.

The founder may be the most in the hot seat. Github may use this as the "last straw" of many straws that may have been already bulging at the camel's back to exit the founder.

</comment><comment><USER78> The attitude adopted by the HR department on this matter reminded me of this: [http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-11-26/](http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-11-26/)

It's good to see that things are changing in GH.

</comment><comment><USER79> Now, what does "put on leave" mean? Is that "suspended with pay"? "Stay low until the dust settles"? Or, "terminated after further review"?

<comment><USER80> It means just that!

Github have a very fine line to walk. They don't have traditional shareholders to make happy. At the end of the day, all they have is their brand to protect.

Ask Microsoft how important their brand is after releasing Windows ME. Or Blackberry just after the iPhone came out.

Clearly _something_ has happened, but they have to not only find out what happened, but to also be transparent and show that they are trying to find out what happened.

I think its the best response you can expect given the circumstances.

<comment><USER81> _" At the end of the day, all they have is their brand to protect."_

They also need to protect their company from a potential lawsuit.

<comment><USER82> Bingo!, the lawsuit is coming regardless, Horvath made sure to leave enough of a paper trail for it.

I think this whole situation looks like a misunderstanding snowballing into a tsunami. Founder's wife takes her for drinks, gets drunk, talks of her ass and says inappropriate stuff. I would just chalk it to drunkenness and forget the whole episode. It would've ended right there.

<comment><USER83> Guaranteed lawyers have already contacted her after hearing about this assuring her she has a big settlement waiting, which she probably does. Github will just want to make this go away and prevent her from shit talking the brand anymore and money is the answer

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> I'm going to sound *ist... You know how this is solved? Seriously? If you are abused, violated, made to feel uncomfortable, intimidated, etc... Write it down, gather evidence, gather some witnesses and then hire a lawyer and start suing. Go after the vc if it's a start up and the founders are involved... That's how we got seat belts...

I just don't see much good coming from putting this in the open like this. Sue them then do the book deal or tc article

<comment><USER85> And I don't see much good from simply suing a company without trying to work with them in the first place.

If it was your company, surely you'd want them to try and solve it internally first?

<comment><USER84> I'll clarify, sue them as opposed to taking it to twitter and a pseudo- journalistic startup news site. I would think that it would be the last resort and some reasonable amount of effort be made before taking that option.

Or conversely, name names, go all in. Put the bad actors on notice and let what happens happen. It's not libel if it's true. Just all the rumors, speculation, etc. doesn't seem good for any thing. Not everyone involved with GitHub is an a-hole, at least I hope not..

All things being equal, I have no idea what the timelines are, I have no idea what reasonable things were done or not, I have no idea who is on leave or not. Yet in this thread strangers are questioning the marriage decisions of other people... It's an ugly story and it brings out ugly in the community. Sue everyone involved and if you win, future companies will certainly be different. My off the cuff immediate take away? Be really careful with the ultra social folks, big blog or big twitter following and they might just blow up in your face in a very public way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> a very nice apology, but it cannot be enough. i hope some specific action will be taken. but somehow, i am doubtful.

it is relatively easy to apologize, and say "we will investigate". but, how does something like this happen, if it did happen, without people knowing? Ms Horvath stated she raised the issue, yet it took a public scandal to actually issue a "we will investigate" statement?

at the very least, IMO, GitHub must get rid of the problematic co-founder.

<comment><USER86> P.S. i cannot resist the impression that all this talk in the comments, about how we don't know anything to make any conclusions, is coming from distrust of Ms Horwath because she is a woman.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> This validates a lot of things without explicitly doing so. Why put the engineer in question on leave, and the wife and the founder and mentioning it in this apology? Makes no sense unless it was because of what happened. That isn't to say that what Julie said happened did, but there is an ounce of credibility there. Depending on how this resolves, I may (likely) take my business elsewhere.

<comment><USER27> > Makes no sense unless it was because of what happened.

Makes perfect sense if you have a public watching that will see anything else as protecting the offenders and tear you to pieces.

This mereley proves that they cannot actually _disprove_ the allegations, since that is the only other course of action that won't make you look bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> One of her claims was that she was told that the founder's wife had ALREADY been told not to enter the building.

Unless we see confirmation that it has actually happened, I'm not going to believe it. Statements are easy. That's just damage control. We need to see the actual action.

I predict that the founder in question stays away for a month or so, and then is exonerated and let back in.

</comment><comment><USER89> Is bullying legal in this particular state? If so I don't get why Julia didn't reported it to the police when it all started.

</comment><comment><USER90> One of the things I'm very curious about is what effect this will have on GitHub's culture as a whole. I've been in a startups where one of my colleagues triggered events that slowly began transforming our startup culture into more of a corporate culture.

</comment><comment><USER91> as one if the most important corrective actions, Github needs to bring back cubicles or better even offices, so that a lot of the "increased collaboration and communication" between Julie and the founder's wife ( like when the wife would sit near Julie and stare at her) just wouldn't be able to happen.

edit: another thing that would help - it is to have some older, like in the their 40s, people in the workforce. I mean it may be useful to have old farts like us, who've been through sterile no-harassment environment of BigCo's, and who would be able to spot inappropriate behavior even from a couple floors away, and whose mere presence would calm the hormones at least a couple notches down :)

<comment><USER92> Oh please, I've worked in open office spaces were being harassed by a founders wife could have never happened. The presence or absence of chest-high modular walls has nothing to do with this story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> i guess no one sees the irony that validation in their mind comes in the form of the co-founder 'owning up'.

if he had been silent or refuted the statements (maybe on advice from their lawyers), would that undermine Julie's credibility?

if so, why?

<comment><USER39> It's never a good idea to pass judgement when you've only heard one side of a dispute. I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's the case here. This is a general rule.

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> What a fucking circle jerk.

</comment><comment><USER95> Does Horvath's characterisation of the founder's wife remind anyone else of Lady MacBeth? The situation seems suitably dramatic for it.

</comment><comment><USER96> Awesome response

</comment><comment><USER97> Who is the "relevant GitHub engineer"? The one Horvath rejected?

<comment><USER98> The one who sabotaged her work based on personal pettiness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> This is the best response that could have ever been made, ever.

</comment><comment><USER100> Well that pretty much confirms what Julie said was true. Kudos to GitHub for not trying to sweep things under the rug.

<comment><USER101> Except there's no rug [1] anymore, JAH made sure of that.

[1] [http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy- rug](http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug)

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> If Horvath's characterisations of the founder's wife are correct, then she seems somewhat similar in temperament to Lady McBeth. It's easy to see why his work is considered timeless.

</comment><comment><USER102> Female developers are not special.

<comment><USER103> Well they kinda are. Because we have a lack of them.

<comment><USER104> So what is the fair proportion?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER105> > We know we have to take action and have begun a full investigation. While > that's ongoing, and effective immediately, the relevant founder has been put > on leave, as has the referenced GitHub engineer.

Pretty much a full admission that everything that Julie said is true.

This is great news, but putting these people on leave seems to be too nice. It's clear that these two people obey ethics that are in direct oppposition to the healthy growth of the company. Surely they don't want them back?

> The founder's wife discussed in the media reports has never had hiring or > firing power at GitHub and will no longer be permitted in the office.

Why did it take a Techcrunch article to reach this decision? Didn't _anyone_ at Github see anything wrong with that founder's wife doing what she did, according to Julie's statement?

> GitHub has grown incredibly fast over the past two years, bringing a new set > of challenges. Nearly a year ago we began a search for an experienced HR > Lead and that person came on board in January 2014

Doesn't appear so. They did get an HR person, but an experienced one? Not a chance. No experienced HR person would have let any of that get as far as it got. That HR person should probably be put on leave or be fired as well.

> Chris Wanstrath > > CEO & Co-Founder

This narrows down the choices: the "founder" who is the cause for all this drama is either PJ Hyett or Tom Preston-Werner.

<comment><USER106> GitHub is known to have a dubstep and IPA culture. If they want to be a standard bearer for feminism in tech, the transition is going to be difficult and they are going to take some hits. The two cultures don't mix well.

It sounds like GitHub is going to have to become more stale and corporate to survive as a larger company, which is inevitable, but hastened by their own choices.

<comment><USER107> > GitHub is known to have a dubstep and IPA culture.

What point are you trying to make here? Are you a classical music and hefeweizen type of employee typically? Or maybe based out of Seattle, in which case you'd prefer a more grunge/PBR culture?

<comment><USER108> Here in Seattle we like IPA so much, we invented a dark faux-IPA style called CDA (Cascadian Dark Ale). And no one listens to grunge anymore.

<comment><USER109> CDA was probably invented in Vancouver, FWIW. [http://www.newschoolbeer.com/2012/11/who-owns-cascadian- dark...](http://www.newschoolbeer.com/2012/11/who-owns-cascadian-dark- ale.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER110> 100% correct form from the media team at Andreesen Horowitz... er, I mean Github.

</comment><comment><USER111> Well Julie's story stinks. Let me just quote the last thigs she wrote and work backwards from that.

"Two women, one of whom I work with and adore, and a friend of hers were hula hooping to some music. I didn't have a problem with this. What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them. It looked like something out of a strip club. When I brought this up to male coworkers, they didn't see a problem with it. But for me it felt unsafe and to be honest, really embarrassing. That was the moment I decided to finally leave GitHub."

For me, two adult individual can do whatever the hack they want to do, if it is legal and they are both consent of doing it. Julie seems like really pissed that other people just can have fun the way she does not like. This sounds like a huge frustration in her towards others with different standards. This last event seems like triggered her outrage, and that is also a sign that she might exaggerate what was really going in Github. Don't get me wrong, as part of a small minority I totally understand what oppression means at a workplace, but these accusations seem a bit irrational.

<comment><USER112> It's pretty odd for women to be hula hooping, I've never seen that, but Julia's reaction to is is bananas. How does that make her feel threatened? Can't she just ignore it, of course men are going to look, did the women think nobody would notice? To me this belittles any legitimate claim she might have, if she's this irrational about this event, then it clouds my view of other things she says.

She also sounds confused, unless the women doing hula hooping were also taking off their clothes then I fail to see how she thinks this looks like anything at a strip club. If the hula women were stripping then she has a legitimate claim that this is inappropriate in the workplace, otherwise I don't see how this is any different to table tennis or air hockey etc.

<comment><USER113> So, if you hula hoop in public you are asking to be ogled?

Was she asking for it? Was she asking nice? Yeah, she was asking for it Did she ask you twice? \- "Asking For It" Courtney Love and Eric Erlandson

"We had just gotten off tour with Mudhoney, and I decided to stage-dive. I was wearing a dress and I didn't realize what I was engendering in the audience. It was a huge audience and they were kind of going ape-shit. So I just dove off the stage, and suddenly, it was like my dress was being torn off of me, my underwear was being torn off of me, people were putting their fingers inside of me and grabbing my breasts really hard, screaming things in my ears like "pussy-whore-cunt". When I got back onstage I was naked. I felt like Karen Finley. But the worst thing of all was that I saw a photograph of it later. Someone took a picture of me right when this was happening, and I had this big smile on my face like I was pretending it wasn't happening. So later I wrote a song called "Asking For It" based on the whole experience. I can't compare it to rape because it's not the same. But in a way it was. I was raped by an audience, figuratively, literally, and yet, was I asking for it?" \- Courtney Love

<comment><USER112> If anyone starts hula hooping at my office they will surely attract a lot of attention because it's just not something people do at work (YMMV)

I didn't say she was asking for anything, I said her credibility is weakened by her reaction to this. Try it, get any two people at your workplace to hula hoop and see if people come and watch, gawk or whatever word you want to call it.

And why quote Courtney Love at me, that's about as ridiculous as quoting Germaine Greer in response. What did CL think would happen when she jumped off stage? She of all people understands human sexuality, and was exploiting it. She says the big smile was her pretending it was happening, however, there are a million other interpretations. If I jump into a hungry lion's den do I complain when I get eaten? Ask yourself why CL is says it wasn't rape and then it was, she's a very astute woman and knows exactly how to exploit the attention she garners, because she sure as hell is a lousy singer.

Hula hooping doesn't look like stripping, any which way you want to spin it, so given that she has her normality barometer so poorly calibrated, how can we believe much else she says without applying the same thought process?

<comment><USER113> Hula hoopers weren't compared to strippers, the gawkers were compared to how "customers" behave at the strip club. I know lots of women who do not enjoy being "gawked" at, including my wife and daughter.

I don't think it was expected for CL to be stripped of her clothing for stage diving, even if it maybe wasn't the best idea. However, if her gender wasn't female, she probably would have had no problems stage diving. I was insinuating that blaming the victim was your viewpoint, which it still seems to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER114> Julie was banging a co-worker so why is she acting surprised when drama happened ? I don't get it.

<comment><USER113> I work for a large, bureaucratic company. The only restrictions on dating (and we have a ton of HR rules) is about reports. As long as you neither of you report to each other or have any influence on position etc., corporate has no problem with dating.

I can't imagine a startup caring unless you actually cause the drama, and this doesn't sound like that case.

Grow up.

<comment><USER91> well, the founder's wife has some issue with Julia. The story sounds like a fight for a position of an alpha-female. That gives non-zero probability to the idea that either Julia's partner may have been of some interest to the wife, or Julia's behavior toward the founder looked like a challenge to the wife.

<comment><USER113> Possibly, but the story didn't mention any conflict over the person she is/was seeing.

The founder's wife definitely seems to have a problem with Julie, but it isn't clear from the tech crunch article why that was originally.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


List of 600+ Startups Hiring Remote in 2018 - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TLJSlNxCbwRNxy14Toe1PYwbCTY7h0CNHeer9J0VRzE <comment><USER2> I like the list, but it would be nice to know the tech stack (if any) as well. As a back-end engineer in C# I know I'm a "minority" in the startups world typically. :)

<comment><USER3> Yeah I too had a hard time finding potential workplaces that are remote+C#

<comment><USER4> If you're a competent C# developer, looking to work remotely, please ping me. My email address is in my profile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> On what planet is Salesforce a startup?

<comment><USER6> Yeah it could maybe just be called "List of companies hiring remote workers" or something. The company I work for is on it, and while we are small and act like a startup in many ways we've been in business for ten years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wish this list also mentioned what these orgs mean by remote. Waaay too many companies have conditions where the term "remote" mean +- 3 hours (which in most cases is US companies hiring remote US employees or +- 5 hours which brings some parts of Europe into consideration.

People on the other side of the globe are completely left out of this (APAC, India, Eastern Europe for example)

I'm not complaining about this. I understand why this happens and do admit that having a decent time overlap between all employees is useful for a lot of people, but truly remote companies get lost in the 600+ list of companies who are conditionally remote. So would be great to have a filter of some sort for this

</comment><comment><USER8> It would be nice to add a column with stackshare.io links, so that it's easy to check what the company's tech stack is.

</comment><comment><USER9> Definitely would be more helpful if tech stack was searchable.

</comment><comment><USER10> Great formatting for a spreadsheet; highly readable

</comment><comment><USER11> great! do you think it could be put on git in a repo?it's easier to track changes...

</comment><comment><USER12> Thank you for this.

</comment><comment><USER13> Isn't Basho dead?

<comment><USER14> Not sure if I got my facts straight, but one of their biggest users, gambling website Bet365, I believe bought the IP, open sourced it, and threw in a couple million to keep development going.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Thank you for compiling this.

</comment><comment><USER16> thank you</comment>


Why Do People Watch Code? Survey Results Edition - <AUTHOR> http://phark.posterous.com/41879014

<comment><USER2> Cause Mark Phillips likes cock</comment>


Free Our Internet - <AUTHOR> http://freeourinternet.org <comment><USER2> The tiered Internet is in the interest of a handful of ISPs -not even all ISPs, just the very largest- and literally nobody else. Neutrality made the Internet what it is today, and when people seek to spoil it for the sake of charging economic rent, there is no solution but to regulate that power out of their hands. These are dark times, for such things to be necessary, but these are dark deeds that the the behind this site intend to commit.</comment>


Hal Finney received the first Bitcoin transaction. Here's how he describes it - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/01/03/hal-finney-received-the-first-bitcoin-transaction-heres-how-he-describes-it/ <comment><USER2> Needs a (2014) in the title. Early 2014.</comment>


Ask HN: Getting foot in door as a Software Engineering Student - <AUTHOR> Looking for advice from others who might have gone or going through what I am doing.
Currently, I have a full time job as a mechanical engineer who regrets the industry I've gotten myself into. I've decided to go back to University and pursuing my degree for Software Engineering in my off time as well as learning AWS and Penetration testing as additional learning resources.
However, right now I'm losing steam at my current job and want to go somewhere that might open more doors. I've looked at Datacenter Technician jobs (currently living in Chicago), technical support jobs at local colleges & universities.
Are there jobs that people could recommend as someone who has interest in cloud, software engineer, penetration testing that are good entries for students? <comment><USER2> When I decided to go back to college as a 30 years old dude, most of my professors had projects that offered a small pay. I even end up working for a multinational startup for a year (my payment was crumbs, but it was better than nothing). Maybe try something like that. You can make great connection at college. Get closer to the professors who likes the same stuff you do, they would be able to recommend you.

</comment><comment><USER3> I transitioned from liberal arts degree -> telemarketing / inside sales -> field engineer -> education company teaching IT to underemployed communities -> big IT consulting firm -> normal software engineering job,

You have an awesome background,

Some surprising types of companies that helped me transition into a software engineering role where i am today and am happy with:

-education companies teaching software/IT (lots of online/non-profits doing this nowadays in the US, pays not great, but its fun to teach and you are working with software which is a step in the right direction), i found education hours are usually pretty structured (when you are with students), so that gives you time to continue to ramp up skills outside of those hours, i initially enrolled as a student at my program, at least you will be able to tell your friends/family what you do all day if quitting your job is on the table, and then went on to work for the school for a brief time

-field engineering (installing software systems/robots/machines on client sites), sounds like you have a good background for that, a step in the right direction in my opinion, being on client sites can be pretty brutal though in terms of not having time to improve skills out of work hours due to work deadlines/exhaustion of physical nature of the work and the traveling.

-big consulting firms, big IT consulting firms like Deloitte, Cognizant, Capgemini, handle staffing software engineering/IT departments at a lot of big US corporations. So like Google engineers might mostly be normal Googlers, but there is probably still thousands of IT consults working at Google full time (on projects with like 10 year contracts, obv easier to get hired by IT consultant than a firm like Google) These firms hire both extremely qualified/experienced engineers and newbies like us who might be getting in the industry. Might not be the dream job for someone getting into software engineering, but I found working with senior engineers at Fortune 500 companies to be a great step in the right direction.

</comment><comment><USER4> We take interns at our shop. Even had a program (pre-covid) where we had high school students doing an internship type program - and I will be hiring them when they finish university (if I can steal them away).

Any work you do as a student will pay off in spades. Very common to start off doing some testing - and it is easy to think it is the Charley work. Look for a place where the developers write tests, not necessarily have dedicated QA staff. Take time to learn whatever language they are developing in. Most folks don't spend the extra time honing skills right away and if you can get one of the senior folks to mentor, it will accelerate your career.

</comment><comment><USER5> Help desk or internships would be good. Any position related to the field will look better on your resume than nothing. You can learn a lot in a help desk or many intern settings because you need to be a generalist so you get exposure to many things.

If you are already in the process of night school, then you might as well apply to some of the jobs you want. Reach out to the recruiter and suggest bringing you in as an intern (paid) until you get your degree and then be promoted into the role. It's a bit of a long shot, but some places will do it.

</comment><comment><USER6> You have domain knowledge of your job. Can you identify problems that can be solved with software in your job, organization, or sector? Can you build and finish software to address these problems and bring value to people? Can you get it used.

If you do that, you'll be way ahead to get a foot in the door. It shows you can _notice_ problems, _build_ products to solve problems, and get users.

This _arc_ is very attractive.

</comment><comment><USER7> Do you already have a degree in mechanical engineering? If you do, you will likely be able to switch to software without doing another full undergraduate course.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do, however its an Associates Degree

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> hi wickerm - not sure if this applies to you - but we released an scholarship for this kind of thing for under represented groups ([https://vectorized.io/scholarship/](https://vectorized.io/scholarship/))

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Will look into it, but doesn't seem I would fit the category. I will try submitting regardless</comment></comment>


Why won't anyone think of the deaf? - <AUTHOR> http://www.deafcritic.com/why-wont-anyone-think-of-the-deaf/

<comment><USER2> _I implore you Web Developers and Designers to simply have a checkbox: Don't ring me, I'm deaf._

Alternatively, "Don't ring me, I greatly dislike speaking on the phone when e-mail will suffice."

</comment><comment><USER3> Not only that, but think of those WHO DON'T HAVE PHONES.

I now have a cell phone that I use around 10 min per month. I could easily do without it... but everywhere they expect you to have one. I could understand an email address, but a phone number? Why?

<comment><USER4> I'd imagine the overlap between people who are using web applications and don't have cellphones is extremely small.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was under the impression that most deaf people had phones - they're multi- purpose devices, now, and the phone functionality is a tiny part of what I use mine for.

If I were deaf, I'd probably ask someone to record a voicemail explaining that I'm deaf and that calling me will do no good, and offer alternatives, and then enter that phone number into web forms.

<comment><USER6> Often these sign-up processes will call the number you give and an automated voice will verbally tell you a PIN type code (numbers or letters) which you have to type into the sign-up screen to continue the process. The voicemail would never be heard by a human.

<comment><USER7> The automatic voices I imagine will be more easily transcripted by software.

<comment><USER5> Hey, you just found a niche!

I wonder if this is something Google Voice/Twilio could be scripted to handle.

<comment><USER7> If it hasn't been done already I'd be thoroughly disappointed. =| All the phone software needs to do when receiving a call is 1. Try to transcript the incoming audio and email it to the user. 2. Broadcast the voice message saying the receiver is physically unable to take phone calls.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Introducing the Blockstack Browser: A Gateway to a New, Decentralized Internet - <AUTHOR> https://blockstack.org/blog/introducing-the-blockstack-browser-a-gateway-to-a-new-decentralized-internet?ref=producthunt <comment><USER2> Duplicate</comment>


Google is replacing Flash in Chrome once and for all - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/9/13903878/google-chrome-block-flash-html5 <comment><USER2> This is misleading. Chrome is just keeping Flash from auto-playing on sites. Which I am sure everyone welcomes. Its not replacing Flash which is a completely different topic.</comment>