The Largest Infrastructure Project in History: Chinese High-Speed Rail to Europe - <AUTHOR> http://cleantechnica.com/2010/03/13/china-wants-to-connect-its-high-speed-rail-to-europe-largest-infrastructure-project-in-history/

<comment><USER2> Once it's done I'll travel that thing, what a unique perspective on the world it must be to see the landscape and the culture change like that.

It's a perspective that no airplane ride will ever give you.

<comment><USER3> Well, you can already do something like that, just a little slower (which gives you more time to appreciate the landscape changing):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway>

It essentially connects Vladivostok with Europe, going through countries like North Korea and China, making the railway even larger than the railway proposed in this article.

<comment><USER4> You can do it virtually via Google:

<http://www.google.ru/intl/ru/landing/transsib/en.html>

<comment><USER2> We have more senses than just our eyes, but I can see how this would appeal to people that are constrained in time and funds.

But it seems like it is no substitute for the real thing.

An item for the 'bucket list'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The largest PROPOSED infrastructure project in history would be the Transatlantic Tunnel.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_tunnel>

[http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/trans- atlantic...](http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/trans-atlantic- maglev)

<comment><USER6> I shook my head when I read this part:

      Cost: $88 billion to $175 billion

Why on earth hasn't this project been started yet? We spend that in a few months in Iraq. We write checks for that and just _give_ them to AIG, GS, and MS.

Seriously, what is going on? Why is our country like this?? When is it going to change? Is it going to change?

Should I just move to china? Seriously. I've considered it. Or India. Or even south america. I continue to ask myself, why do I _choose_ to live in the U.S.? Because I was born here? Is that a good enough reason?

<comment><USER7> Considering that none of the key technologies exist yet, I find that the cost is very optimistic. The "øresund" bridge linking Denmark and Sweden opened in 2000 at a cost of ~5.5 bln USD. It's 15.9 km = 9.9 miles, or $555 mio/mile. This was a successful project, using very well understood technology by people who just finished building a similar project 150 miles away, finished roughly on time.

A transatlantic tunnel would be 3500 miles, that's 350 times longer. Its completely unknown technology - no-one has ever submerged a vacuum tunnel, and no-one has build a mag-lev that actually goes 4000mph. And they're telling us it can be done for $50 mio/mile, less than a tenth of a regular bridge? I know it doesn't scale linearly, but I'd expect such a tunnel to be more, not less, expensive pr. mile. At the same mile-cost as a bridge, it'd cost $1942 bln.

I did a back-of-an-envelope calculation when this came out a while ago, that if all plane passengers from London to New York (can't remember the number now) were to switch to such a train, tickets would have to cost an average $10.000, one way, to cover 5% maintenance, interest and ROI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is not a big deal as an engineering project. It's a lot of expensive track-laying, but the obstacles are not as bad as some already conquered elsewhere.

Politically, it's basically impossible.

<comment><USER6> In the U.S. it'd be politically impossible, but not in other countries, especially not in China. All the other countries have to say is "yes" and they very likely will because it'll be cheaper to transport goods and people between their markets. The Eurail pass will take you nearly anywhere you want to go in Europe for 6 months and $2k. They love trains.

This project and this vision is another nail in the U.S. hegemony coffin.

<comment><USER9> It would be possible in the U.S. because the U.S. does not think long term any more.

Everything is short term, and a failure if not successful within a very tightly compressed timeframe.

There is no vision or ambition in the U.S. any more when it comes to infrastructural projects like this.

<comment><USER10> And that is one of the most worrisome aspects of modern american political culture. What happened to the country that put a man on the moon, that built the interstate freeway system, that made universal telephone and electric service available from sea to sea?

None of those projects could be done today, they require planning horizons of ten years or longer and even if the vision were there would become mired in petty politics and shortsighted penny-wise pound-foolishness.

Done right infrastructure projects create far more economic value than they cost over their lifetime.

<comment><USER6> Those projects were all before the invasion of the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower prophetically warned us about. Plus, stocks are traded by households now and are focused on quarterly earnings. Prior to the 50's that was only true just before the great depression and look where we are now...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Wow, didn't expect such interest from HN. Seems everyone loves trains. :)

Tangentially, what is it about trains anyway? Seems to me they hit the natural sweet-spot of "comprehensible speed" or speed at a near-human scale: not so fast and distant as to be alien like jets, but fast enough to be interesting. Oh, and stress-free compared to driving.

<comment><USER6> Have you traveled on trains? It's so much nicer than planes. No security check, no long waits, no cattle herding.

Plus, they are more efficient. They are transportation of the future. The world is going to be going backwards in time as energy becomes more expensive. This means leaving planes and going to trains and wind powered ships. It's already happening.

Plus, it is a national recognition that long term thinking is beneficial. China in this case is a visionary example for the world. I hope the U.S. wakes up soon.

<comment><USER11> > No security check, no long waits, no cattle herding.

Not all trains. With Eurostar (Paris<->London) there's a security checkpoint with an x-ray and metal detector, along with passport control.

<comment><USER12> yeah, and in china all trains have such checks - but no passport control.

However, the eurostar is nicer compared to many airports. Airports are shopping centers, where they want people to stay and buy things. The longer you stay at airports the more you spend. That is an incentive to have you at airports longer. Whereas many train stations do not have that set-up (although that is changing!). The eurostar used to be easier, because the station at the london end did not have a long way to walk past lots of shops. Now, at the new station there are lots of shops to walk past before you can leave. Still quite nice though in comparison to flying out of gatwick on easy jet ;)

I love trains. Been on them from 30 hour trips across Australia, to the bullet trains in Japan, ones across Germany, France, the Netherlands, China and ones across the UK. Always wanted to do some long trips across china, russia and india... guess I better hurry up before those trains are replaced!

It will be great when the fast networks of europe are joined to the fast networks of asia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Any map so far ? They have to go through Iran, Russia or a myriad of ex-ussr countries, I can't see how that's gonna work out ...

<comment><USER14> I've personally been to Iran, Russia, and a handful of other ex-USSR countries, and I can't see any real obstacles here. Even those countries in this region that suck at stable government tend to be fairly good at reliable infrastructure; California-style rolling brownouts or Manhattan-type shitty metro cars would be more or less unthinkable here. I'm pretty certain people and politicians alike are ready to embrace this project. In the former Soviet block and in the Middle East alike, especially in Turkey, rail networks still symbolize progress and prosperity like nothing else.

<comment><USER7> One word: Visas. As it now, you need a transit-visa just to change planes in Moscow. Travelling through, what, 11 countries, each one insisting on confirming the identity of each person entering the country and making sure they exit again? The alternative is sealing people inside the cars, which is what they do on the Kaliningrad-Moscow train that passes through Lithuania and Belarus, but that's logistically problematic, when there are stops in more than two countries.

There are _very_ real political problems to this, and while some of them can be resolved easily, I'd like to remind people that the TGV rail system in France is frequently brought to a halt by protesting farmers who park a tractor on the track. And that's just _one_ country (two if you ask the angry farmers - Paris and the 'real people').

<comment><USER14> You do have a point there; trains are a lot easier to stop than planes or ships and the visa thing can be a pain here, even with a very good passport. Consider, however, that most countries in this region have a +lot+ of experience with commercial land passenger vehicles going across multiple borders.

I'm in Sofia, Bulgaria right now. There is a daily direct bus connection from here to Tehran. It does take 48 hours but it's safe, it's clean, and it gets me there.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, yes, there will be problems and setbacks, but more likely than not they will find a way eventually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Its main connection to Europe would likely go through India, Pakistan and the Middle East. Although, exact routes are not yet determined."

Can anyone say "IED derailment at 200kph+"?

<comment><USER6> Wow, why all the negativity? This is an awesome project and lots of rational reasons it should go through, but you and other commenters are being so irrationally negative. People in the old days said, "International plane flights will never work. People won't trust flying over the ocean."

This project will happen. It's inevitable. It's the only way people will be able to move between countries when planes are too expensive to fuel.

<comment><USER15> It's not negativity, it's a dream that I hope one day will be established; people living in peace and traveling to each others countries to learn and trade, enriching and improving each other's lives.

I am being a realist, there are terrorist attacks almost daily in some ME countries and Pakistan. A train packed with tourists and businesspeople is pretty much the same target value to a terrorist as a plane, except you can attack it from the outside much more easily. The prevalence of IEDs and people willing to use them, highly mobile suicide car bombs and the doctrine of certain radical Muslims which allows for moral permissibility of killing fellow Muslims who are "dealing with the enemy" (strains of Wahhabi and Qutbism thinking like Bin Laden's) would make such an attack inevitable.

This "negative" attitude of mine is part of the economic damage that is done to the moderate Muslims of these countries by the extremists. How many tourists have decided not to take a trip to many of these countries? How many businesses haven't been set up? How many skilled workers have fled? It's a massive economic damage these people are inflicting beyond the scope of their deplorable murders.

<comment><USER16> I think the terrorism threat is overblown. This is going to sound horrible but very few people are killed by terrorists compared to pretty much every other cause of death.

And a lot of the discourse in countries like Pakistan is not pure terrorism but actually the deeper struggles of any authoritarian regime.

Call me a dreamer but I really do hope and think this will happen.

<comment><USER17> Thank you for saying that. I say the same thing all the time on various websites -- I mean I wouldn't be surprised if you're more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in a terrorist accident. I'm more afraid of getting on the highway.

<comment><USER18> Fear sells news and news is as much about money as it is journalism.

<comment><USER17> I realize the news agencies will spout that kind of stuff, but the commenters don't have to go along with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hm, this doesn't really seems to be an attempt to divert passenger traffic from using the planes to some cross-continental HSR. On the other hand, it'd allow China to export much much more goods and much much faster than nowadays with ships [1]. And of course, it would also very much strengthen China's influence in the Middle east and around, as in this area, HSR travel times would be very interesting and provide (in comparison) wonderful connection with China.

You wouldn't travel from China to Europe by train even with this, of course. I wonder what would the Russian response be, as they are quite expected to maintain their strong influence in this region, and this isn't exactly going to support that.

[1] This is already being done, in a rather small scale.

</comment><comment><USER20> Hard to make it happen politically. India tried something similar, to get gas from Iran in a pipeline. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Pakistan%E2%80%93I...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Pakistan%E2%80%93India_gas_pipeline) The project has been gestating for the last 20 years with no real movement in the progress meter. And similar to what happened with the pipeline, I expect the US to spring roadblocks all over the place. Even if it cannot convince every country, it will convince enough to ensure gaps in the rail line undermining its usefulness.

<comment><USER6> _In January 2010, the United States asked Pakistan to ... abandon its plan ... in order to isolate Iran._

What is an American to think of this? Am I suppose to like it because I'm an American or despise it because it is holding up a better life for humanity?

<comment><USER17> Nationalism is overrated, so I vote for despise it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> With China's minimum wage being around US 60c an hour (<http://bit.ly/6mDBYz>) they are in a much better position to undertake such a labour intensive job as the West.

It is a smart move to receive payment in the form of natural resources as some of the countries involved in the network are economically poor but resource rich. It is likely the countries participating will end up paying a lot more in resources than they would have in cash.

It's my opinion that people are mistaken when viewing the proposal in terms of personal transport. It's not. It's a system designed to fuel China's growing demand for resources, which cannot be transported via air. In the other direction will come a high speed flow of manufactured goods.

<comment><USER22> For that kind of project it would make sense to develop robotics and other technology that could lower the cost dramatically.

Also, you can't just take the minimum wage from China and multiply with the number of workers, there are many costs added to having that many people in different countries. Food and housing in Germany, for example, are expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> A trans-North America high speed rail route would be pretty cool. This seems analogous to the way sputnik ignited the space race.

<comment><USER24> Except that sputnik was a proxy for a nuclear weapon. "Look what we can put up above your heads, and there's not a thing you can do about it." High-speed rail doesn't have the same overtones.

Also, connecting 1.5 billion to 700 million is a lot more lucrative than connecting, what, 150 million to 50 million? Nevermind the fact that there are existing high-speed networks to connect with in Europe and China. What a fucking bummer it would be to take a 6 hour train trip from NY to LA then a 6 hour bus from LA to SF.

<comment><USER25> To get from NY to LA in 6 hours would require a train that averages 410mph.

This is exactly the type of route that trains will not take from planes any time soon. The fastest train in the world is China's maglev that does almost 270mph.

But a trip from LA to SF, or St. Louis to Chicago, or NY to DC, or between any major city in Texas and any other one... that is the kind of route that rail would excel at, provided we had the motivation to build it.

All that said, I don't see the motivation to take a two day train trip from China to London when you could fly it in much less time. I understand the comfort factors and all, but when you are talking that length of time, I think the customer demand is going to be very limited (unless it's significantly cheaper than airfare).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> With all the flack airlines and air transport is getting now because of climate change, maybe China can try and sell this is action on that front? Trains are more efficient than airplanes, are they not? (not a rhetorical question)

Even so, I doubt this will happen in 10 years.

</comment><comment><USER27> Any mention of what the route would be? And what's the anticipated travel time from London to China?

<comment><AUTHOR> From the article:

"...China's new goal is to continue on with a HSR revolution internationally in order to create two-day HSR trip times between Beijing and London."

<comment><USER28> A 48 hr trip would have to average just over 100mph. Maybe, if it's got some pretty limited stops.

<comment><USER29> London to Beijing takes about 9-10 days as of right now. You could easily get that to 5-7 days if you cut out stops (especially between Moscow and Beijing) and if you tripled the average speed of the trains from ~30-40 mph to 90-120 mph... there you go, although the latter part is what requires so much money and engineering.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Don't Get Your Coworker to Agree with You - <AUTHOR> https://www.workaguide.com/blog/2018/5/1/how-to-get-your-coworker-to-agree-with-you <comment><USER2> I actually absolutely agree with everything in this article; but I did find it amusing that the article is titled "How To Get Your Coworker To Agree With You", and the answer is actually, "Don't." The three sections can be summarized into: 1) Stop the first reaction of trying to do it, 2) Check yourself also, 3) Let go. Again, I actually agree with the author, just thought this was amusing, and may not be what readers are expecting going into the article.

<comment> master-litty Beyond amusing, it's great writing. I see we've already changed the title but I wish we hadn't! I bet it's really persuasive for offenders.

1\. Lull the reader into a false sense of security: This article is going to help you with a problem!

2\. Really dig into it: Share a highly relevant story and connect with the reader's current frustration. Make it as clear as possible that the reader is understood.

3\. Now that you have a shared foundation, introduce your argument.

Discussions that start with the argument immediately don't stick as well to a lot of people. Give them a reason to listen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello, article author here. I admit that the title is a bit clickbaity, but I paid careful attention while writing to make sure that the title is 100% correct. At the end of the process your coworker will agree with you -- only it may be because you changed your mind, rather than your coworker.

You're basically spot on with my strategy in writing the article. I stole it from Extreme Ownership, an excellent book that uses a similar tactic. The authors begin each chapter telling a story wherein they made a serious mistake, but leads the reader through their logic in making the mistake such that the reader is thoroughly convinced that the mistake was the right thing to do. Then they reveal the mistake and boom! The reader learns. I found it to be a very effective way of teaching soft skills so I emulated it here.

I don't want to trick anyone into reading an article that doesn't have any value to them so if folks feel that the title was inaccurate I'm totally OK with the thread title being changed. But I would point out that it means a totally different thing now that no longer reflects what's in my article. :)

<comment> master-litty Thanks for sharing the thought process and for crediting the book, ordering it now :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This works well in situations where the cost of a mistake is low and reversible. But often in software the cost is accumulating technical debt that will rarely, if ever, be paid off and driving a potentially successful project to the ground. I don't believe you can have a successful software team with individuals who can't take a code review well.

Edit: That being said, there are definitely tactful ways to deliver a code review. I also don't believe you can have a successful software team with individuals who can't give a code review respectfully.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello there! Author of the article here. I love the point you've made. Often there are long term costs in e.g. technical debt.

I assumed in this article that the stakes are low (and they are more often than we think) but I have a future article in mind about how to make team decisions when the stakes are high, and it'll be something along the lines of: Have a strong process, and make it the responsibility of one person to follow the process, which should involve gathering information and driving the consensus of the team on that issue. Give that responsibility to someone already established to have good people skills e.g. a lead. What would be your approach?

<comment><USER4> Hello! It's wonderful that you're joining us here today. I found your article insightful as I'm dealing with a very similar situation at work. I was wondering if I could ask for some further advice. Here's my story:

I'm currently working on a multi-faceted project, where I have essentially become responsible for all things UI related. This is fine, considering UI/UX was a decent part of my educational background and I have experience from doing UI design on pretty much every team I've ever been a part of. However, what I'm struggling with is constantly being overruled by higher-ranking team members.

I feel like I'm just being dictated to, even for the most minute details. I've tried the "just give them what they want, preserve the relationship" route, but that has just led to a compounding of bad UX. I've tried backing up my decisions/ideas with appeals to textbook UI/UX principles, but that has led to the same polarized arguments you've described in your article.

I have no problem with appealing to rank when a decision is difficult to make. But the issue I have is, when someone pulls rank, they don't bother to explain the reasoning behind their decision. When I try to ask questions to better understand, responses basically boil down to "I just think it looks better this way".

I don't feel respected, despite the extensive background (more than the others when it comes to UI/UX, actually) that I bring to the table, and despite the fact that I'm the only one working on this part of the codebase day-in and day-out. I feel like the ideals of meritocracy are not being honored, and decisions are being made by rank before reason. No one seems open to discussion and understanding. And I'm basically being treated like a junior dev when I'm actually a senior-level engineer.

What should I do?

<comment><USER5> Test your design vs their design with 5 people [1] and share the results with the team. If the results are in your favor, you've effectively elevated the design decision from this sole person to the greater team at large and are then presenting objective data that anyone in opposition of your design would have to publicly admit to colleagues that their reasoning is arbitrary and not grounded in reality.

As a UX champion on your team, you must bring the user's voice to the table and that data will make it easier for people pulling rank to agree with you in my experience, cause they'll never take the time to test designs as they wouldn't have the skillset for UX research whereas you do (or are learning it). Cheers.

1\. [https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to- test-w...](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test- with-5-users/)

<comment><USER6> They ignored published best practices (per OP), why do you think they won't also ignore data? "Admit to colleagues" assumes you roped in other managers, do you really think an individual contributor is going to win the political game at that level? Because I've seen what happens at that time; all the other managers nod their heads politely, and then behind closed doors tell the one you were butting head with "You have to reign in your people". All you end up doing is undercutting your entire team's authority, you don't elevate your own above your manager's.

<comment><USER5> That's a company that isn't going to survive and I'd probably jump ship if they were leaving the product's success to chance and on the whim product decision making. They are in for a rude awakening when competitors leverage full time UX professionals that so the user research to maintain competitive advantage. I agree you shouldn't be brazenly shaming superiors but take a step back and make the data speak for itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I went through this phase with a difficult coworker over code, would take code reviews personally, developed long running branches in an ivory tower with no input or discussion.

Learned to let go and he has his parts of the code base and I have mine. Not ideal, but worked as we were a 2 man dev team at the time. Then he left and we grew the team. Now we got a few minefields left in the code base that anytime we need to add a feature or work in the area we have issues due to technical debt.

What could one have done instead? Anyways the situation is a lot better, the new team all mesh well and discuss issues without taking it personally. Take away (probably obvious) is that good communication amongst team members is vital.

<comment><USER8> > What could one have done instead?

Got rid of the co-worker much earlier on, by the sounds of it.

<comment><USER9> This is half of the right answer. The part where the OP's story breaks down is "he has his parts of the code base and I have mine". "Letting go" is different than "giving up". "Letting go" means realising that a single decision is not going to destroy the world (unless it is -- then don't let go ;-)). "Giving up" means never trying to find consensus on the rest of the issues.

If you can't find a way to work together so that your code is sensible, then one of you should leave -- as quickly as possible. Over a long period of time, if you shut down your communication channels, then you will grow even further apart. _This_ is what leads to the problem.

Some people are inflexible. They have a need to have things their own way. They panic if the code is not how they would like it. Don't be that person and don't accept anyone else on the team like that either. Be compassionate and help the person improve, but don't enable their poor behaviour. You're the one who will ultimately pay.

But you can't help everyone. And sometimes you can't leave. That's life. Not every situation is fixable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _But you are a smart and socially conscious human being. You know that you can't just go to Kara's desk and tell them "Kara, the icon is wrong." Kara would get defensive and argue for the the icon._

I never understood this logic. How is Kara being offended a smart and socially conscious decision? A better way to handle criticism is to ask for people's opinions and not get defensive.

After reading couple of negotiation and similar articles, I started to try and reason with people with carefully crafted questions to guide them towards my goal. But the end result always is that once people realize what I am trying to do, have them remove an icon, they get defensive irrespective. And then argument ensues.

The only way I found around this was to build trust. And it takes time, you cannot arrive at a company and start a discussion with Kara. Small talk about family etc helps build some trust. Or if systems fails and resolving it without shaming the original developers helps too. This obviously is not perfect because the time you spend building trust, you are also acquiring issues. But it helps in long run.

<comment><USER11> I've read a bunch of negotiation books as well as conversation books. What the latter heavily emphasized is:

 _Do not ask leading questions_

What you describe is textbook behavior. People usually will know when you are doing it, and will get defensive. Especially the smarter ones. I look back in all my years and understand a lot of people's reaction to me: Some people have literally shouted at me when adopted the Socratic approach. The rest don't shout, but they do get defensive. The better among them will ask why I'm probing. But the majority will either answer (but internally think negative of me and damage the relationship), or will get nasty.

That's not to say you can't ask questions. The key is to ask genuinely curious questions (the opposite of leading questions). If you have a concern, learn how to state the concern in a non-threatening manner. Don't try to lead people to it.

The other thing they all say, which the submission has: "If your goal is to change someone (be it internally or externally), the chances of having a poor conversation are high."

<comment><USER12> A strategy for this is outlined in the (great, IMO) book "Never Split the Difference": treat the interaction as a negotiation, and adopt a EQ-first approach. The book has some good phrasing hacks and other subtle messaging techniques designed to place both people on the same team, solving a common challenge.

Yes, it can be exhausting if you do this in every interaction. But I've been picking 1 interaction per day and implementing those techniques to significant success.

[edit] Relevant article from the author's site: [http://blog.blackswanltd.com/the-edge/the-key-to- disarming-t...](http://blog.blackswanltd.com/the-edge/the-key-to-disarming- the-attack)

<comment><USER11> I was debating if I should mention the book, and was worried someone else would.

Of all the negotiation books I've read, it is the best book at explaining the psychological aspects of negotiation. However, the tone and ego of the author is incredibly off putting - especially his continual bashing of the other well known books that are used in MBA curricula. He often makes claims about those books that aren't true and ridicules them (the straws are thick in the book). And then over 80% of what he does advocate is also in those books he criticizes. I usually don't mention the book because I worry that people will read it and have a biased view against all the other good books out there.

As for his "phrasing hacks" \- some are great, some less so. I think this is a product of his background - he was an FBI negotiator and most of his negotiations are one-off. He is not going to interact with his counterparts once the negotiation is complete, so he is not aware of the long term consequences. Finding clever ways of asking "How can I do that?" works in the short run, but will often damage relations in the long run - people do wisen up to it. These days I have to deal with someone who keeps asking what the author would call "calibrated questions", like "Yes, but how will I know X?". I'm at the point where I just respond with "Yes that's a good question. How _will_ you know X?". And likewise to all the other questions.

Some of the calibrated questions are really effective. Others are not. I suspect because most of his interactions are one-off, he cannot distinguish.

One of the books I read (Bargaining For Advantage) formalizes this a little: You have two axes and 4 quadrants. One axis is: How much you care about the outcome. The other is: How important is the relationship to you?

The toughest is when both are important. The quadrant where you care about the outcome but not the relationship is easier, but can be challenging too (examples are divorce and negotiating the price in a market). When the relationship is important but the outcome isn't, the advice is to focus on making the other person happy - this can also be the perspective of an employer who wants to hire a good candidate - if the candidate asked for an average salary or less, give him an above average salary. For the final quadrant where neither is important, society usually has protocols that people just follow so that time isn't wasted on negotiating trivialities.

But I agree - there is good stuff in the book. And of all the ones I've read, it is the most "down-to-earth" in terms of putting what you learn into practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In situations with clear org structure the final decision between product disagreements can always be handled by the chain of command. When two product people disagree on a feature, the one higher up the org chart can then make the final call. Feelings are saved because roles are clearly defined, and those with greater product knowledge have the authority they need to "make the call", making the product better overall.

For those stuck lower in the org chart, they can rest assured knowing the more good ideas they contribute, the quicker they will rise up the ranks in decision-making authority. When job mobility is also meritocratic and has efficient review processes, those middle managers should be correctly rewarded or punished for making good or bad calls.

The problem arises for confrontation more frequently in startups because org- structure is often very loose. It's seen as "undemocratic" to force an issue because of seniority, even if someone may have more experience in a topic. Startups generally the traditional business hierarchy as being inefficient for decision making, because many institutions also fail to properly reward decision-making, or punish bad managers.

<comment><USER14> We've worked at different companies. I've seen the opposite. In smaller organizations there's more of a ... for lack of a better word ... team spirit. Conflicts rarely devolve to a zero-sum faceoff and people are more likely to be interested in the same goal (i.e. moving the product forward). The bigger the organization, the more muddy the waters. Cryptic territorial fights, all up and down the chain, become a shade coloring a great many decisions.

Passing decisions up the chain of command doesn't really sidestep the issues in the article though - cause you still have to decide when to escalate something from "hey, what about this?" to "hey, you are wrong". If anything that's a more drastic step now that you are bringing an issue to An Authority Figure.

I do agree that a lot of problems fester because of a lack of clarity about RACI-matrix. That can happen in any size organization, definitely worse in smaller ones.

<comment><USER15> > _The bigger the organization, the more muddy the waters. Cryptic territorial > fights, all up and down the chain, become a shade coloring a great many > decisions._

I heard a story recently of a fairly simple decision that put two territorial groups in conflict. It escalated to the person at the split between branches, who made the decision.

Which is fine, except that the arguing parties didn't overlap one or two levels up. A question of "who wins over this one task at one site" landed on the desk of a senior VP overseeing dozens of sites after wasting the time of a half dozen managers who escalated it and fought with each other. At a conservative guess, it cost $2,000 in salary just to decide who would do the task.

I think people undervalue how much benefit startups get just from having fewer disagreements that Need An Adult. Passing decisions down from the top is fine, but pushing conflicts up and back down is ridiculously expensive in time, money, and goodwill.

<comment><USER6> And the best part was the person making the decision was completely non- technical, and unaware of the actual considerations. Their decision was likely based on as much valid insight as a coin flip. Had a coin flip been agreed upon earlier, not only would the results likely have been the same, but morale would have been better, and costs would have been lowered.

Not necessarily advocating for a coin flip approach, just, you know your company is unhealthy when decisions can be made equally well if not better via random chance as by allowing your process to handle them.

<comment><USER15> Hah, this was actually my thought when I first heard it.

Anywhere in that entire chain, two equal-power managers could have said "this really isn't a big deal, I'll flip you for it". It would have saved time and money, and probably produced less resentment than the 'intelligent' decision.

We already know the average stock picker is at 'random chance' levels of quality - I wonder how many other parts of corporate life could be replaced with a dartboard?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sorry BSVino, but this has been the total opposite of my experience working in UX and UI. I've seen this exact attitude leading to mindless groupthink, and the accumulation of technical or design debt. It doesn't work because it's entirely opinion based, in which case the stronger personality/authority will just force their viewpoint.

What I find works best is to clearly define what results you want from a design change. For example, if you can both agree that it's very important a particular icon is NEVER misunderstood, agreeing on an icon becomes much simpler. If you really disagree, you now have an objective way to measure if it succeeds in it's goal.

</comment><comment><USER17> > If the icon is implemented and then Kara realizes their mistake and reverts > it, then Kara has learned a valuable lesson that they couldn't have learned > otherwise. Plus, they will remember that you were right about this issue > when you spoke about it, and that you were respectful about presenting your > concerns.

In reality... Kara moves the goalposts, declares the icon a success, and implements more useless icons. Your objections are categorized as "crying wolf". Kara gets a promotion, you get managed out, company slowly bleeds cash while everyone rearranges icons.

</comment><comment><USER18> My approach would be:

1\. Talk to Kara, why she prefers her approach and not yours. Don't tell her that the icon is wrong. Ask her, if the icon could be changed to the other. Maybe she is right and you are wrong. She's the expert in this scenario, not you. If shes professional and her approach is wrong, she will see the mistake and adopt your idea. After that, let it pass and don't go out and tell everyone she was wrong. That's not very humble and fair.

2\. If you really think you are right, be subborn. Stubborn people are more successfull then non-stubborn people if you look at statistics. That's why most subborn people are working in management.

3\. Don't approach disputes based on a single formula. Be diplomatic, stubborn, helping and supportive. Fight the good fight.

4\. Don't talk about the fight club.

<comment> master-litty >Stubborn people are more successful then non-stubborn people if you look at statistics.

Success by what metric and which statistics?

<comment><USER18> [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/why-stubborn- chil...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/why-stubborn-children-are- more-likely-to-become-successful-a6864966.html)

[https://my.apa.org/apa/idm/login.seam?ERIGHTS_TARGET=http%3A...](https://my.apa.org/apa/idm/login.seam?ERIGHTS_TARGET=http%3A%2F%2Fpsycnet.apa.org%2F%3F%26fa%3Dmain.doiLanding%26doi%3D10.1037%2Fdev0000025)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If Kara's emotions and defensiveness can't handle a clearly articulated, rational, objective argument against design decisions, then for the sake of the product and the company, she probably needs to find another job. Avoiding discussions doesn't work for me. I'm happy Steve Jobs didn't read this post.

<comment><USER20> The thing is, Kara almost certainly has clearly articulated, rational, objective arguments _for_ the design decision in question. If she didn't, she wouldn't be making the decision in the first place. (If she's prone to making decisions willy-nilly with no idea why they're being made, that's a different issue.)

So from Kara's point of view, _you 're_ getting just as emotional and defensive about, and ignoring clearly articulated, rational, objective arguments for, the decision as you claim _she_ is. Which is the point of the article - if someone goes into a discussion assuming they are the only one who is "objectively correct", they've already failed.

I've used the method outlined in the article very often in my career and it almost always works. Often it turns out I was right and we shouldn't have done X - but sometimes it turns out that Kara knew something I didn't, and X worked out way better than I expected.

<comment><USER21> The takeaway from this is that management defines reality. Opinions and objectivity goes out the door if management doesn't like the decision. This is why a clear chain of command is vital. Humans need it to function in groups if the group is to stay together as one unit.

<comment><USER22> No, management does not define reality. Validation and verification define reality. In a rational engineering organization, you and Kara would agree to test her change and see how well it works instead of having an argument from first principles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's safe to assume Kara wrote this article.

<comment><USER24> I feel like this is the only comment that needs to be here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm sorry but no. This is terrible advice.

Shit quality will be shit quality. If you _really know_ shit has been done, you need to say so. Not communicating it will just keep the shit flowing. Have some pride in your work!

<comment><USER26> Agreed. This must be written by someone out on the west coast.

<comment><USER27> Could you please not post flamebait to Hacker News? We're hoping for better than this here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Good advice in the article, the relationship is more important than to fight over details but I would recommend using standards.

Regarding the change, ask her why she want to change it? How would it give a business advantage for the business? It is a bigger change, write it down so you can evaluate in retrospect -> this is how we improve. If it does not give any business value why should we do it?

As they say in the article do not go directly against the proposed change because the person will not remember your arguments only the feeling they had when you said it.

</comment><comment><USER29> > Kara, the icon is wrong

Well, no kidding, if you're literally going up and saying /that/, which doesn't help anything but your ego IMHO.

Learn to deliver criticism properly! How about "I think the icon is misleading: I saw customer X interpret it as ..." or "I think the icon doesn't fit the style of the rest of the thing, look at how all the other ones are using pastel colors and this one ..." or "The icon is too low-res and looks pixelated on my monitor" etc? The point isn't that they are wrong and you are right, it's that it could / should be better in a certain way.

Also, go in with some dignity and not with the assumption that the person is incompetent: perhaps they had some other goal or an absurd deadline or a constraint that they were working around and not "you missed this obvious thing that even I could see, doofus".

Also, first tell the person privately and casually, in an environment where they don't feel pressured to maintain appearances: like it or not, there is a stigma around making mistakes in most offices (or learned behavior on some people's part) that doesn't work to anyone's advantage. So don't blurt out "the icon is wrong" out of nowhere in the middle of a meeting with superiors or "ha ha, GEEEZ DID YOU MESS THIS ONE UP" in the middle of the open office.

Sure, if you've been tactful and helpful and still being ignored and it's important, then raise the issue above the person. But gosh, being tactful is a learnable skill.

\---

Edit: I think the quality of the interaction mostly really comes down to: does the person think you're genuinely trying to be helpful or that you're just trying to point out that they're wrong (and perhaps get brownie points yourself)?

</comment><comment><USER30> There's some caveats to all this. The most obvious is that you're right and Kara's wrong. The problem in creative orgs is that it's often hard to tell you apart from Kara. Learning and _unlearning_ are important abilities in a creative setting. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a creative setting. How many of us (in ops) have had to argue with coworkers about the usefulness of configuration management (back when that was becoming the best way to do things), and who now have to talk with coworkers about the need to containerize our build and deployment? So, what might've been wrong (or right) at some point in history, may not be wrong (or right) now.

And yes, as others have pointed out, there is usually a lot of technical debt at stake.

In UI/UX settings, agreeing with your coworkers (as someone who's done design, talking about engineers), it usually means that you end up with a real stinking pile of a UX, where the designer gets overruled every time unless product intervenes. There's just more engineers than there are designers, and all of the engineers are living in the same bubble.

That leads into the other caveat. This strategy works okay when you are in an org with enough clearheaded people (who have the power). With a critical mass of clearheaded people, you can carry forth and the cumulative effect of things going wrong doesn't overwhelm the org's ability to repair them.

Are there meta-abilities involved with creativity? I know for my own individual flow, it was important to recognize when I was stuck, and to take a walk. Creative people are often very stubborn, and, maybe this works well in a traditional, management context, but, I'm pretty sure this works against us in our creative bread-and-butter. And, I'm not sure there really is a general way to teach creative ability (whatever that is) that works for everyone, including this fictitious Kara.

<comment><USER31> I think the main point is that it's not about being right. You need to pick the right battles to fight, it's not worth ruining workplace relationships when people dig in their heels over a disagreement about something relatively small

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think people constantly confuse arguments with fights. Arguments are good they involve an exchange of ideas from which both parties might potentially learn from. All of the best engineering teams I have been part of were built on the backs of people who argued very well.

Fighting is terrible and if it happens in an office context something has gone super wrong.

The idea of letting an argument be won by letting the feature happen and then rolling it back was clearly written by someone who works in a company big enough where projects can swallow the budgetary loss of losing a week of work into something that can't go into production.

</comment><comment><USER33> I have seen more technical damage done by nice and competent people deferring to bullies in the workplace than by legitimate disagreements expressed passionately.

</comment><comment><USER34> For all the critics. "If the cost of reversing the decision and walking back through the door is relatively low, then why should you and your coworker even talk about it?"

The "if the cost is relatively low" is important. We are talking about god damn icon, which can reverted any time, even before going to production.

And now you made me argue with you, instead of let it go. Damn I failed :D

</comment><comment><USER35> We've all met people like Kara. We have also all met people who think they are always right. So, instead of looking for ways to "win friends and influence people", how about we focus on how to have a productive dialog with coworkers.

It's either you convince them, or perhaps they convince you.

Logic wins.

</comment><comment><USER36> Thought immediately about posting a rant on the obsessive use of "they/their" in a singular context. Pick a pronoun for Kara and use it. Whether he is a she or she is a he, Kara is not a "they"

But then I thought, nah. I'll just read something else.

<comment><USER37> That's a pretty petty reason. Also, you're only going to see usage of the singular "they" increase, so you'll be skipping a fair amount of content with that policy.

Especially in the workplace context, assignment of a particular gender for an example like this is often an issue. Many people (myself included) take the reasonable opinion that "they" is preferable to "he or she," if only on aesthetic grounds.

<comment><USER38> Singular "they" is a different issue than singular l _specific_ "they", which is what is used in the article; singular "they" is a very long established usage, but "they" for a specific named person (even if a hypothetical one) is about as well accepted as "it" for that use.

> Many people (myself included) take the reasonable opinion that "they" is > preferable to "he or she," if only on aesthetic grounds.

"he or she" and similar constructs are also not generally accepted for specific named individuals.

<comment><USER37> For a _hypothetical_ person? I don't buy the distinction (ignoring the small aside where the author says Kara was "a real person).

I sincerely doubt that the poster I replied to would be fine with the article if all instances of "Kara" were simply replaced by "[your/my/a] coworker."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> 1) If you are responsible for someone else's work and will be blamed for the mistakes of that person you should be able to ask them to change something without any drama.

Designers and developers are very prone to drama regarding their work. I've seen this again and again. They become attached to what they've done and can't be objective about it.

2) If you are not responsible for that person's work then, yes, by all means express your opinion in a respectful way and see what happens down the road.

</comment><comment><USER40> Parts of this article make sense but only in the reversible case.

Arguments are rough- there are many ways to circumvent them. I find with review as long as you provide sound reasoning on why something is wrong and compliment the rest of the work. It's generally received well.

Hairy reviews can be avoided by specifying how a project is to be approached beforehand.

A one pager on the layout of a project and its components before work gets done does wonders to avoid huge changes at review time.

</comment><comment><USER41> >The only person who you're responsible for is you. Kara may or may not be making a mistake with the icon, but you're not responsible for it.

What happens when the issue is security related? Personally I find myself in a situation where I feel like I'm wasting political capital and hurting myself trying to advocate for security. Is the solution to just... not?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, author of the article here.

Security can be a pretty significant cost to the business and if your teammates aren't concerned about it then that's a red flag that maybe you're in the wrong place.

But for the time being, yes, consider not. First, consider whether security on your team is a concern at all, for example you're working on an internal tool and you can trust your teammates not to go looking for buffer overflows.

Otherwise, the question I have is, why is there no process for dealing with security flaws? Whose responsibility is it to set up that process? Send your discovered flaw to that person and suggest that they set up such a process so that you can submit any future flaws, and then your obligation to the customer is done. If you burn your relationship with your teammates, you give up any chance of influencing them to improve their security practices in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Zen of persuasion: don't try to convince others and they will respect you and your opinions. Simple yet quite elegant.

</comment><comment><USER11> I see posts like these once in a while on HN.

I suggest folks read some good books on conversations and negotiations.

Conversations:

Nonviolent Communications:

[https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language- Lif...](https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Life- Changing- Relationships/dp/189200528X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525274332&sr=8-1&keywords=nonviolent+communication)

Crucial Conversations:

[https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking- Stakes-...](https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes- Second/dp/0071771328/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1525274360&sr=8-2&keywords=crucial+conversations)

Difficult Conversations:

[https://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss- What-...](https://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-What- Matters/dp/0143118447/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1525274398&sr=8-2&keywords=difficult+conversations)

Negotiation books:

Bargaining For Advantage:

[https://www.amazon.com/Bargaining-Advantage-Negotiation- Stra...](https://www.amazon.com/Bargaining-Advantage-Negotiation-Strategies- Reasonable/dp/0143036971/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525274423&sr=8-1&keywords=bargaining+for+advantage)

Getting To Yes:

[https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Yes-Negotiating-Agreement- Wit...](https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Yes-Negotiating-Agreement- Without/dp/0143118757/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1525301902&sr=8-2&keywords=Getting+To+yes)

Getting Past No (billed as a negotiations book, but really more of a conversations book):

[https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Past-Negotiating-Difficult- Si...](https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Past-Negotiating-Difficult- Situations/dp/0553371312)

I strongly recommend reading Influence before you read these - much of what is in the books above will make more sense once you've read Influence.

[https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion- Rober...](https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Robert- Cialdini/dp/006124189X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1525274472&sr=8-3&keywords=Influence)

When you read these, keep in mind: _Change is hard_. Don't expect to read these and become good communicators quickly. It may take a few years of stumbling and practice.

I see a mixture of comments agreeing and disagreeing with the original submission. For those who disagree: Most of what the author is saying is in agreement with what the books say:

If your goal is to change someone, you will either fail, or will succeed at the cost of the relationship (and relationships at work do matter).

Another important related point: If you cannot summarize why the other person is acting this way without using phrases like "stubborn", "irrational" or similar negatives, then it means you have no idea about the other person's concerns and motives, and are being lazy. It is easier to label, and much harder to probe effectively. Additionally, people often act stubborn because they realize you are not really interested in their perspective. Internally their thought process (which is very rational) is "This person does not really want to hear me out, so I'm not going to invoke too many neurons engaging with him and will just dig in my heels." \- which is why a lot of books focus a lot on listening skills (which includes skills to signal that you are listening - you may in reality be listening just fine but the other person does not know it - so you signal it by summarizing their stance).

A lot of the comments here are invoking false dichotomies. Since HN has a comment limit, I'll address some here:

>I don't believe you can have a successful software team with individuals who can't take a code review well.

This is tangential. You can give feedback in a code review poorly, or efficiently. Both ways allow for you to point out problems with the other's code. One way will not be taken well. The other way has a higher chance of being taken well. A big step forward is to realize you can have your cake and eat it too.

>I started to try and reason with people with carefully crafted questions to guide them towards my goal.

Leading questions is a bad idea (all the communications books say it). Learn how to state your concerns. It is OK to ask questions if genuinely curious. But if you want to point something out, learn how to state it in a non- defensive manner.

(3 separate comments below):

>If Kara's emotions and defensiveness can't handle a clearly articulated, rational, objective argument against design decisions, then for the sake of the product and the company, she probably needs to find another job. Avoiding discussions doesn't work for me.

>Learned to let go and he has his parts of the code base and I have mine.

>And this is how you end up with a terrible, in-cohesive product.

Again, false dichotomies. The solution is not to be quiet and let it go. The solution is to learn how to talk about the issues effectively. One of the books calls this "The Fool's Choice" \- thinking that either you have to be quiet and not air your concerns (to save relationships), or that you have to air them and damage the relationship.

>It's either you convince them, or perhaps they convince you. Logic wins.

Logic alone rarely wins. One key point in one of the books: Don't pretend that emotions should not be part of the decision making process. The reality is that emotions are already part of the decision making process. If you get angry that someone cannot take your feedback well, emotions are present.

>It's safe to assume Kara wrote this article.

It is safe to assume that the author of this comment is unwilling to question his views on the topic.

That's what assumptions get you.

>I have seen more technical damage done by nice and competent people deferring to bullies in the workplace than by legitimate disagreements expressed passionately.

Another false dichotomy. What the submission describes is normal among non- bullies.

>The flaw here is that you assume that "Kara" will learn from her mistakes. Not always the case.

It is a similar flaw to assume that merely telling her what mistakes she made will make her learn from them. _Definitely_ often not the case.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'd check that cup again, BSVino - if I were you. I'm sure a lot of people on HN can have similar or greater claims of success as you do on your 'about me'. We wouldn't want to 'display arrogance', would we? :-)

Otherwise, nice article. Appreciated.

</comment><comment><USER44> See also: "Dealing with freaking artists when building software on short deadlines"

</comment><comment><USER45> The flaw here is that you assume that "Kara" will learn from her mistakes. Not always the case. _Especially_ in "creative" personality types. Find a creative, rational person if you can.

<comment><USER46> Hah. The tricky part is that some people will learn, some won't. Some people will look back and cherrypick only things that worked and call it experience.

At the end of the day, the question to ask is: who is responsible for the product? If the product owner/boss/ceo is okay with it, who are you to question it?

What I do is try to talk through the pros/cons of what the other person wants to do. I will try to challenge what they're doing with data and/or ask them to show me their data. I am open to being wrong at any point in time (ie try not to come across as judgmental or saying it's a bad thing). Also, if you've seen the same thing in the past, walk through what happened and what you think the worst case scenario is.

If your colleague is insecure/anti-social/not interested in learning, you don't want to work w/ them. I've had my share of 'cowboy' coders that were 'moving fast and breaking things'. That's not sustainable. You need to try to do something about it and not just hopw they will learn their lesson. Huge difference between lack of experience and sloppiness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I think this article misses the important point - you should be able to trust the coworker's expertise. Present the facts, but leave the decision about the person's domain to that person.

<comment><USER48> For a trivial issue like the one the article covers, sure. But often decisions have larger impact. The cost of a bad decision can be higher than the cost of fighting for the right decision. If Kara weren't just designing a single new icon but electing to, say, replace nearly the entire suite of icons with flat iconography, that's a pretty impactful decision. This significantly impacts the design choices that other designers will have to make.

Domain expertise is not always unique to the other person, either. When negotiating with a coworker on a design or feature request, it's entirely possible that the person asking for the change has _more_ domain expertise than the person empowered to make the choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> And this is how you end up with a terrible, in-cohesive product.

</comment><comment><USER50> Be likeable or get fired

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16883882](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16883882)

</comment><comment><USER51> I was really expecting a detailed story of kidnapping, water boarding, starvation...

</comment><comment><USER52> As someone who works as a contractor/consultant most of the time, I think this article is ok. In my position I can't just go around tearing into other peoples' work because I have absolutely no social capital (and I like it that way, keeps me from getting into office politics). That means that my coworkers and I have had to learn how to be diplomatic and understanding in disagreements about how the work should be done.

If someone has done X and you think they did it poorly and you think it's important enough to broach the discussion, it's very important to frame the conversation in a constructive way. There's a reason why they did X the way they did, and it almost never comes down to straight negligence. Approach the conversation as a way to _understand_ why they did it that way instead of a way to make _them_ understand why they did it wrong. It's also important to keep in mind that _no one_ likes to be told they did a shit job. Not even you!

Often there are misunderstandings about (not exhaustively):

* Who the stakeholders are

* What the business requirements are

* What the time and resource budget is

* What is the most important thing to get right and what isn't as critical

* What constitutes good work

If multiple viewpoints on these sorts of questions cannot be reconciled by discussion, then it's a problem of leadership and management. Making it a conflict between two individuals is exactly the worst thing to do here. Hopefully discussion can clarify and localize where the disagreements are and those issues can be brought to the attention of the stakeholders that all parties agree should have a say in the decision.

Most importantly, a lot of decision-making comes down to experience. It's virtually impossible to tell someone your experience in a way that teaches them the lesson you learned. This is almost universally the case, whether it's about code architecture or UI design or management decisions or anything. Sometimes you have to let people make the same mistakes you've made in the past and let them learn from them. In such situations it's important to make sure they _own_ the decision that is made so that if and when issues arise later they can get the feedback they need to learn the lesson. The worst case scenario is that they get their way in the decision and someone _else_ has to clean it up later. No one wins from that.

I like being a contractor because I get to work in lots of different environments without being bound to them. I meet a lot of different people who work in very different ways. I've met some people who are truly incompetent (mostly because they refuse to learn anything), but the majority of people I've met who have made mistakes* are willing to improve their craft and will do so if you can create a trusting and constructive relationship with them.

* Let's be honest, the majority of mistakes I've seen have been my own.

</comment><comment><USER53> The problem is that if you are actually do know best, everybody else has to make that mistake and learn, and while doing so, is halting progress that could be made in the right direction.

In my world as a software developer, I've found that if my group of colleagues and the boss has very different culture and skills than you do, it's very hard or impossible to influence change. Because the entire group would have to be on the same level of technical experience OR have enough respect for titles or experience to follow someone else, in order for progress to happen.

<comment><USER54> I agree with you, it is important to let the person fail and learn. But sometimes, this can be costly and fixing it may be hard.

My approach is to ask the person question and understand what is the objective trying to be achieved, and hope with the answers given, the person realize it is doing a mistake.

I also hope that the person respect my experience and is able to learn from my mistakes and do not need to do the same mistakes in order to learn.

But I do not always succeeds in these endeavors. Once a colleague was developing some page objects for Selenium tests and creating classes with only one attribute, which was the full URL of the page. Of course tests would not word when executed in several environments and to have this files were useless. But to fix exactly this, I saw it required more knowledge on OO design than a simple talk could give.

<comment><USER55> The problem with Socratic questioning is that it assumes a teacher-student type of relationship, or at least a superior-subordinate one.

If that's not the case, and once someone recognizes what it is that you're doing, they may become rightly offended at the arrogance you're displaying by choosing the teacher role for yourself.

<comment><USER48> "Socratic questioning" implies only a collegial relationship. If you cannot walk over to a colleague and ask them questions about their work without them getting offended, your office politics are extremely unhealthy.

Or else you are probably wearing an expression of disapproval when you ask them these questions. If you go in with an honest "I want to learn and understand" stance, normal people will generally be happy to answer.

<comment><USER55> Of course you can and should always ask your colleagues questions in order to understand their point of view and way of thinking.

But that's not what Socratic questioning is. It is specifically when you ask pointed questions, pretending that you don't know the answer already, in order to make the student work out the line of thinking herself, or perhaps force her to flesh out her thinking more completely.

It's more about making the askee think than transferring information. As such, trying to mask that behind "I'm just asking questions" is rude.

<comment><USER54> I have the understanding from experience that people will always give a reason for doing something that I could not imagine.

So 1st, make questions, understand what is the objective with that code you see on screen. 2nd, make more questions too see if other use cases were considered.

3rd, there are best practices, literature that provide a common way of working, discuss how to apply this.

There are no ways of understanding without making questions.

On this specific case, besides the lack of OO design knowledge, there were also a misunderstand on the page object pattern , how web apps are build and what is the web app and what is part of the browser.

And this is why I also talk with my team on my ideas to develop something before or while developing it. It should not be a surprise, no matter how nice and commented the code is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> TL;DR: Let your coworker have their way.

</comment><comment><USER57> People who can't take criticism and instead do e.g. get offended should just be given the boot.</comment>


2010 Acquisitions - Google: 23, Facebook: 6, Apple: 5, Microsoft: 0   - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-20017823-62.html

<comment><USER2> I wonder which of those companies did the most in-house R&D last year?</comment>


Curated list of Free Programming books - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/EbookFoundation/free-programming-books/blob/master/free-programming-books.md <comment><USER2> Has someone knowledgeable gone through this compilation? Is this resource truly valuable?</comment>


FTC Approves of Amazon and Whole Foods Deal - <AUTHOR> https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/08/statement-federal-trade-commissions-acting-director-bureau <comment><USER2> Commentary of Amazon becoming a behemoth aside, I'm intrigued by the future we will be living in where everything will be delivered to us.

Intrigued for two reasons:

1) I'm reminded of DFW's words about shopping at large stores playing 'soul- killing musac': [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL- ydFMI#t=10m8s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI#t=10m8s) This is going to make life easy for me. Grocery-shopping is stressful and time- consuming, I look forward to the day that I can do it all online without paying much extra.

2) Less people will need cars in the future of AmazonFresh/Grubhub/Blueapron. This is also why I love Uber pool incidentally... I feel like I'm saving the environment when I do that (vs. driving)! If you continue in this line of thinking, what you have is: one truck delivering 50 people their groceries via an optimized route vs. 50 cars traveling by stressed out people who are tired and just don't want to go the store. Less accidents, less pollution, less stress.

I am _really_ looking forward to the future of optimized infrastructure for travel/transportation.

<comment><USER3> 1\. David Foster Wallace is commenting how one has to do the work to manage stress and bias. That's the truth, you work for it. You running away the stress by deferring it to someone else to handle (the delivery person or the warehouse picker) undermines his whole point.

2\. So now instead of 50 cars, it's 1 truck with 50 people's worth of individually packaged goods that gets trashed.

Cattle also feel pretty good about fed three times daily before getting slaughtered.

<comment><USER4> 1\. A lot of the stress, at least imo, is in knowing what to get, how much to get, and balancing that against constraints like what's available at the store and price. Having to make a string of smaller decisions. Being able to do this online makes things a lot easier. I really doubt that outsourcing the mechanical part of it all - picking up, hauling, taking home the groceries - is going to stress out the workers to a comparable degree.

2\. Sure, except a vehicle getting trashed will be much less likely if 50 cars are reduced to 1. Not to mention the increase in productivity due to 50 people not losing time by sitting in traffic, or being at risk of bodily harm.

Don't understand your cattle point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If 1) Amazon let me buy the groceries online and pick them up at the store and 2) started carrying "normal" brands, they would have my business. I don't want to pay $8 for a gallon of milk, and I don't want to see a sign that asks me to let the cashier know if I'd like the conveyor belt wiped clean in order to preserve the organic integrity of my produce.

Basically, just get rid of the attitude where you expect someone to pay $6 for asparagus in water, and we're good. ([https://www.eater.com/2015/8/3/9090797/whole-foods- asparagus...](https://www.eater.com/2015/8/3/9090797/whole-foods-asparagus- water-wtf))

<comment><USER6> In all honesty... Walmart offers exactly what you're talking about[1]. Order your groceries online, pick them up at their store. None of the fancy organic- attitude stuff you talked about, either.

[1] [https://grocery.walmart.com](https://grocery.walmart.com)

<comment><USER7> Good luck finding a Walmart close enough to you if you live in New York City, Boston/Cambridge, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, or much of the SF Bay.

<comment><USER8> Hmm, I don't know about SF but I live in the Bay and there are at least five Walmarts within a short drive. Maybe SF real estate is too expensive in the city itself?

<comment><USER9> Perhaps driving is not an option if you live in major cities? Whole Foods has prime locations in urban centers.

<comment><USER8> Sure. I'm talking about Bay Area, not SF proper. There, _not_ driving is pretty much not an option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Amazon won't raise any monopoly red flags until it's responsible for the vast majority of our non-public infrastructure; it is simultaneously growing toward becoming both a horizontal and a vertical monopoly in every field it operates while not technically meeting the definition yet.

<comment><USER11> I think the issue is that many people see monopolies as a good thing, as long as they are not being very blatantly abusive (and especially if you can say, "well look, they _only_ control 80+% of the market!"). Examples: Thiel, Friedman, maybe there are others.

The march towards efficiency, productivity, and profits naturally cuts into redundancy, diversity, and competition. Same goes for index funds, holding companies, etc.

I wonder if there is any way we can find a balance, because it seems like there are so many cases where giving up some efficiency/productivity for some other traits is desirable (renewable energy, research and development, health, safety, etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think the best take on this whole thing by far is from Ben Thompson:

[https://stratechery.com/2017/amazons-new- customer/](https://stratechery.com/2017/amazons-new-customer/)

(Incidentally, his podcast is fantastic)

</comment><comment><USER13> I had assumed this deal had already gone through. Amazon Fresh has gotten orders of magnitude better in terms of selection and pricing this last month. Perhaps they started working together before the deal finished?

</comment><comment><USER14> The only angle I saw for an antitrust concern was in delivery where Amazon is already dominant (but not focused on groceries) and Instacart is a serious player who has long partnered with Whole Foods - anytime #1 takes out a significant competitor in a space the FTC could be needed. But there are several more competitors in grocery deliveries including all the legacy companies - Safeway, Kroger, Albertson's, and even Walmart. Basically, this wasn't going to hurt consumers.

</comment><comment><USER15> Until Amazon credibly deals with its counterfeit problem, I'm _not_ buying any foodstuffs from them. While it's likely that Whole Foods / AmazonFresh supply chains are currently separate, that's beside the point. If the problem goes unchecked, Amazon may consider expanding the strategy further.

People are paying a premium for organic / fair trade / gluten free / $FAD_OF_THE_DAY groceries, so there is margin for counterfeiters IMO.

<comment><USER16> there are third party sellers on amazon groceries?

<comment><USER17> Yes. But groceries and anything that expires is not commingled so if you buy from Amazon you get Amazon's inventory

<comment><USER15> They're not co-mingled yet, but there's no assurance that they won't in the future. And if / when they do, they're unlikely to forewarn you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There's some crazy speculation about the whole deal. One more simple and obvious optimization is stuff like Amazon Go that could replace the need for cashiers.

</comment><comment><USER19> Let's see if those stores will become even more useless. Maybe they will start selling healing crystals?

</comment><comment><USER20> Url changed from [https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/23/ftc-approves-of-amazon- and...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/23/ftc-approves-of-amazon-and-whole- foods-deal), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER21> The FTC is so weak.

<comment><USER22> Could you expand?

<comment><USER23> My guess is that the parent thinks the merger is a bad idea and that the FTC is capitulating in some way by allowing it to go through.

But I think you knew that.

<comment><USER24> But it's not their job to block "bad ideas". And Amazon gaining control of 2% of the grocery market is clearly not monopolistic.

<comment> norea-armozel I agree that Whole Foods isn't a big deal merger but the fact that Amazon has a logistics system in place that could topple the other competitors is very scary. The silver lining to this is that it'll be mostly Walmart vs Amazon now rather than Walmart trying to destroy the regional chains (and Kroger to some extent on the national side of things). Hopefully this will add some competition on the Walmart front to force them to pull back where they're really not needed (or wanted).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Should you socialise with your colleagues outside work? - open-source-ux http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38224684 <comment><AUTHOR> While I'm married and never developed any office romances (also, what a bizarre example to use -- a couple who got married...), I've often found that the classic "drinks after work" scenario works wonders in tense situations.

Sometimes, if I'm dealing with a stressful situation, maybe I get angry at someone who I think is stalling the project, or making bad decisions, it sucks. It can be awkward, or seem insincere to apologize in the office, or really have a heart-to-heart chat and figure out your differences. Tensions build up, the situation gets worse, after a while, the "professional enemies" relationship just cements itself for stupid reasons. But hey, a couple of rounds in the bar can be _amazing_!

Is it healthy? Eh. Does it work? Absolutely. I'll be the first to admit, my social skills aren't the best, and that's where bars come in! "Man, I am so sorry I got so worked up over which HTTP code to return. I really, really don't care. I was just stressed out over the project in general" seems way more sincere and less cheesy after a couple of beers.

</comment><comment><USER2> >Indeed, talking to your colleagues may help your work rate. A study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers found that workplace chatter, even the idle kind, can increase productivity.

No mention in the link of introverts vs extroverts. It's studies like this that make businesses feel justified in saving money by making the workplace one big open office hell.

</comment><comment><USER3> if you want to? i can't understand why the usual social rules don't apply. we all get to choose who we hang out with, whether they be from work or from the neighborhood or...wherever

for everyone else there is a very clear social contract where we are expected to exchange minor pleasantries and act nice, but no more

when did this system break down? i liked that system

</comment><comment><USER4> From what I've read, start up workers seem to socialise exclusively with one another.

<comment><USER5> Sometimes starting at the interview. First round interview, a bar in the evening. Sorry, was I looking for a job or a date?

<comment><USER6> clearly you are not a good 'culture fit'.

/s

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sure, but treat it like HR is standing right behind you with an evil eye.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I revive a dead project? - <AUTHOR>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-Re1QJMXLE
This was the first start-up that I did, and I'm looking at it now going "holy cow, we built that!?!?"
Is it worth reviving? <comment><USER2> why did you give up on it? What has changed?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not exactly sure, but I think money had something to do with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> looks good how much work to get it up and running? I'd say go for it if you don't have other pressing projects around.</comment>


Is the express line really faster? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mrmeyer.com/?p=4646 <comment><USER3> Waiting in line at the grocery store is one of my greatest pet peeves. To avoid this I usually do one of 3 things:

1) Move to the lines further from the store exit. I've noticed that people tend to queue up in lines close to the exit (this is usually where the express lines are, too).

2) Use the self-checkout. At least this way I feel like the process is going as efficiently as possible because I am in control of it (plus barcode scanners fascinate me). I will only do this if there is an immediately available self-checkout station. Otherwise, it's guaranteed to take 10x longer than just waiting in a normal line (only being slightly sarcastic).

3) Go to the 24hr grocery store at 2am. No lines! (This only works because I am usually up really late coding, and it serves as a nice break.)

</comment><comment><USER4> While I generally reserve enough time for shopping groceries so that I never need to hurry, I do exercise some preference between cashiers. It, however, isn't necessarily for the fastest route but the most pleasurable route.

My highly scientific method (=i.e. where chemistry kicks in) to ensure this goes like this:

\- Prefer younger cashiers to older cashiers: I empirically know that middle- aged and older people can be unbearably slow. Note that I don't mind queueing as long as I see some progress: unbearably slow is slower than that.

\- Prefer women to men: they're not necessarily faster but I find it more pleasurable to spend my time queueing while observing a female cashier.

\- Prefer attractive women to others. They're not necessarily faster but I find it much more pleasurable to watch them while standing in the queue. Moreover, given the (speed-wise) age range from the first bullet, the woman's age doesn't really matter. General looks and vibes matter most. Breasts do play a part.

Yeah, I'm a man.

<comment><USER5> I disagree: give me a cashier in their forties or fifties anytime. They are work fast and are more experienced than a young temp or weekend worker. For me the people who are waiting makes a big difference. Couples are good, because when one is paying the other will be handeling the groceries.

<comment><USER6> People usually queue so that the queues of the same length in meters when I arrive --- so I go for the queue that has the least amount of stuff in it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> OP is missing one critical piece of data: in many stores, there is a much higher probability that a junior cashier is on the express line. The express line tends to have simpler transactions, so it is a more natural training ground. This progression would have cashiers "moving up" to the lines with greater volume and complexity. Ironically, express line cashiers end up being _slower_.

</comment><comment><USER8> I wish they had 'airline' style dispatching: one line, and then you go to the first available cashier. Oh well.

<comment><USER9> A Whole Foods in NY has that. Everyone just gets into 3 lines and a note pops up telling you which cashier to go to. I think they have 3 lanes just to hold more people - the system would be identical with any N lanes.

<comment><USER10> I was at the one in Union Square (5 lanes express, 3-4 normal) and I've noticed that frequently the express lines will be totally full (10+) and on the other side of a small barrier the normal lines will have almost no one in them. Once I don't think I had any wait at all by not using the express checkout.

I sometimes wonder if people at the Whole Foods think they have to use the express if they have fewer than 10 items.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I find the biggest time sucks are: A cashier who can't take payments fast, and a customer who can't pay fast. Someone who doesn't know how to work their credit card adds a lot of time.

Based on just being observant, I've got a general intuitive sense of when the people in front of me might take a long time to pay. I look for people who seem unaware, in a zombie-like trance, shuffling their feet along the floor with their eyes blurred off into nothing. It's a pretty decent judge. For cashiers, just waiting in the line a moment usually gives a good idea, and I'll move lines if I'm in a hurry and the cashier appears new or particularly slow.

<comment><USER12> I find it frustrating that there are 3 major credit card companies but every store has a different procedure for accepting credit cards. I can never remember if it is 3 screens I need to tap yes on, or 5.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It looks like not many people have experienced the ethereal reaches of grocery store technology embodied by some Super Stop & Shops in New England. You scan your groceries with a handheld unit as you put them in the bags in your cart. All you do at (self) check out is pay.

Vast amount of time saved by not unloading the cart and reloading your bags.

I don't understand how theft isn't a problem since it is easy to even inadvertently forget to scan something as you put it in the cart, but it is a huge improvement in the shopping experience.

<comment><USER14> The store where I shop here in the Netherlands works like that - <USER2> interactions with humans required for the whole process, which I appreciate. I believe there's some sort of sanity check heuristic at the checkout - I once did forget to scan something, and a friendly store employee walked over to me with a different scanner and scanned a couple of items until a light went green.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Usually when I choose to go through the express line it is because the line is around the same length or barely greater than the other lines and there is a clear advantage because the normal lines have people with groceries filling their carts to the brim.

Something confusing me was the pleasantries exchange and cash is faster than debit. People do say hello and ask if you found everything fine and whatnot but while they are saying that they have already scanned 3 or 4 of my items I haven't ever had the trouble of someone talking and waiting for response before scanning items.

In response to cash is faster than debit there are always people fumbling with wallets to get cash out and such while with a debit card you just slide (most of the time before the checkout is even done) and enter pin/ sign receipt and you are on your way, you don't even need to wait for someone to count out change back to you.

<comment><USER16> In response to _In response to cash is faster than debit_ , it never happens that way here in New England. I watch as the register total increments. Every $20 I pull another $20 out of my wallet so when I'm done I just hand the wad of cash to the cashier.

Compare that to someone with a debit card who always has to wait for the cashier to do _something_ (I dunno what it is) then tell the customer to swipe their card and enter their PIN, except the swipe often needs to be repeated, and then there's the wait for approval.

Not only is the cash-pay mean time lower than the debit-pay method, by my observation, the debit-pay time has a huge variance depending on equipment reliability, account status, the occasional desire for extra cash and other technical issues I've encountered only once:

Many years ago I tried a debit transaction but was denied, so I paid cash with my "emergency" $100 bill. Later that month the store charge showed up on my statement, but of course by then I had no evidence I had already paid the bill in cash. Of course this would never happen to anybody else, and it sure as hell isn't happening to me again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm horrible at choosing lines, and it aggravates me to no end.

As in most endeavours, the vastly more important factor in determining efficiency is the person doing the job. i.e. the cashier or the programmer, not the type of line, or the language.

</comment><comment><USER18> I've often felt they drop the new employees in the express lane as the reason it seems to go slower.

</comment><comment><USER19> I've always thought that checkout speeds are negatively correlated with the amount of register localization. By de-localizing the registers, one could map a redistribution that makes the distance from each shopping section equidistant. This would effectively eliminate the need for "express" lines.

This can't be a novel suggestion, so why has it not been implemented? It shocks, to think that major companies would sacrifice efficiency so as to not disturb a consumer's sense of familiarity.

</comment><comment><USER20> Sorry, I stopped reading at "It's my DaVinci code."</comment>


Ask HN: The unreasonable effectiveness of certain headlines on Hacker News - <AUTHOR> Certain headlings work really well such as:
The unreasonable effectiveness of X
n myths that people believe about X
These are the hacker news equivalents of
"X happened. You won't believe what happened next."
"Do X with this one weird trick."
My question is:
1. Do you have other examples of these repeating, and successful headlines?
2. Why do they work? <comment><USER2> "Air pollution is a big deal" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21560916](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21560916) Didn't work very well.

Then someone posted "Air Pollution Reduces IQ, a Lot" [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/11/ai...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/11/air- pollution-reduces-iq-a-lot.html) and it scored well despite being just a rehash of Patrick Collison's blog post. :) The moderator dang since then has changed the url and title to "The cognitive costs of air pollution" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21565624](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21565624) Amazing! over 1000 points!

</comment><comment><USER3> For the two examples you listed I think they work because they imply that the article has some quick tips to "level up" as a developer. Either by adding a new and powerful tool to their belt, or by dispelling some previous false notion they have.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't recall seeing many of those on Hacker News, but it may be that they have been renamed by the time I get to them.

What you're asking about is known as "clickbait". Search for that term and you'll find plenty of information. They work by putting us in a state of anticipation, hijacking our dopamine reward system.

</comment><comment><USER5> >The unreasonable effectiveness of X

These are just allusions to classic "unreasonable effectiveness" papers, probably starting with

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences)

>n myths that people believe about X

Again there are well-known articles that specifically address programmer myths and short-sightedness, generally a good topic.

Many people remember the original, well written articles and want to read more of the same.

<comment><USER5> Not quite the same as click bait.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "$(PropietarySoftwareCO) [is now using|adopts|champions] $(OpenSourceTechnology)"

This works because there is an implict conflict.

</comment><comment><USER7> [Some-software-tool-or-library-that-you-already-know-and-use]... written in Rust.

<comment> F-0X Great articles for when you want to know how it works but want the code to play hard to get.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another patterns:

\- $(SHINY_NEW_TECH) [beats|as a better|replaces] $(OLD_TECH)

\- $(OLD_OR_BORING_TECH) beats $(SHINY_NEW_TECH) (because)

\- $(OLD__TECH) refuses to die</comment>


Roman Legionary – professional heavy infantry of Roman Empire - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/history-of-yesterday/roman-legionary-a439d8493c5f <comment><USER2> I wonder how credible the claims of carrying 45kg for 40km is. This seems nearly unbelievable; my understanding is that healthy, experienced hikers today might carry around 30% of their body weight at the upper limit, which would be 60lbs or about 25 kg for a 200lb person.

<comment><USER3> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomp](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomp)

Thus described what UK soldiers had to do during the 1982 war in the Falklands. Walking 56 miles in 3 days with 36kg loads is a lot more reasonable.</comment></comment>


Uber and Lyft Have Become Indistinguishable Commodities - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/uber-and-lyft-have-become-indistinguishable-commodities/?ref=technology

<comment><USER2> Ride sharing will become like airline travel: a huge industry which greatly benefits the consumer, while suppliers struggle to make a profit on very thin margins.

</comment><comment><USER3> When I worked for Lyft they did almost no brand training anyways. I'm a big fan of brand identity, so seeing the company slack on this almost makes me want to use Uber. Being lazy with one's brand makes it hard for people to take any company seriously.

<comment><USER4> Transporation is a commodity. I don't care about Uber or Lyft's brand.

Can you get me where I'm going? Are you affordable? That's all that matters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Once the VC is burned through, profits will normalize close to zero as they compete on price. Uber is hoping to avoid this by getting access to Google's self driving car tech.

</comment><comment><USER6> this applies to many of the "sharing economy" businesses.

airbnb seems to have a monopoly at present but as their listings become shown on competitor booking sites with lower fees customers will soon follow and the whole thing becomes commodified, and eventually peer2peer or non-profit/non- fee networks will win out.

the supreme type of monopolies enjoyed by facebook/ebay/amazon will not occur in these style businesses unless they can enforce exclusivity, and most (non- US) states won't allow this.

</comment><comment><USER7> Uber will buy Lyft. Not that I want that to happen, but it seems likely.</comment>


International Olympiad in Informatics Problems - <AUTHOR> http://www.ioinformatics.org/history.shtml

<comment><USER2> Also worth checking out is USACO. The USACO training gate allows you to start with easy problems and the build up to the point where you can do the ioi problems. Finish the entire thing and I can guarantee that you will at least have a good understanding of the ioi problems. <http://ace.delos.com/usacogate></comment>


Cheaper hardware/software mean you can attend a wedding at 5am (in your pyjamas) - <AUTHOR> http://benwerd.com/blog/2012/04/13/attending-a-wedding-at-5am-in-my-pyjamas/#comments

<comment><USER2> I love the world we live in. In 5 years, I've seen telecommuting development jobs go from non-existent to abundant.</comment>


Tourist buses 'no longer welcome' in Paris city centre - <AUTHOR> https://www.france24.com/en/20190702-tourist-buses-no-longer-welcome-paris-city-centre <comment><USER2> I don't understand. This reduces transportation capacity, and what's more environmentally friendly than buses? If tourists stop using them, it seems like whatever they switch to would get more crowded?

<comment><USER3> Tourist buses are fundamentally recreational, not a form of transportation. Their goal is to allow their passengers to see specific things, so they often use inefficient routes and move slowly to give their passengers a better view. Most of their passengers ride the bus along a circular path, rather than boarding or disembarking along the way. (Often, they don't even _allow_ boarding after the tour begins.) As such, they place more load on the road network than a city bus, without any of the transport benefits.

<comment><USER2> Well, being able to see the city is a benefit. It still seems like if they take regular buses (or worse, taxis), it will be more crowded and less efficient.

<comment><USER3> > It still seems like if they take regular buses (or worse, taxis), it will be > more crowded and less efficient.

Those aren't substitutes. Tourists ride tourist buses to be taken on a guided tour, not as a means of getting from one place to another. Passenger buses and taxis don't provide that.

<comment><USER2> Unless you think tourists will just decide to skip Paris, they are going to substitute _some_ way of getting around the city and seeing at least some of the places they want to see, even if it's an imperfect substitute. A guided tour is one way, exploring on your own with a guidebook is another.

There may be an argument here about induced demand: more capacity results in more tourists until it gets too inconvenient at some higher level of visits, and similarly in reverse. But this suggests that removing capacity will result in bottlenecks due to traffic somewhere else. Things will get worse somehow until the word gets around and people reduce the number of trips they make.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>