Tech Jobs, Cheaper Housing: The New Silicon Cities - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-jobs-cheaper-housing-the-new-silicon-cities-1478181842 <comment><USER3> I've lived near Richmond my whole life, and moved to SF within the last 2 years. I have friends who live and work in Tech (in Richmond).

Getting a new job can be hard. Your options for big companies that hire tech people in the area is GE, Altria (Phillip Morris if you're okay working for a tobacco co ), CapTech, UPS, VCU... But it isn't like Google, Apple, etc. Your options for smaller companies are bad. Some startups have popped up there over the years but they have pretty unanimously been bad.

You get paid less. It's harder to advance in your career. You can't really get by without a car like many do in bigger cities.

Richmond is a very nice city, and I enjoy going back there for a week every June, but to call it a New Silicon City is crazy. Sure you can buy a house if that's what you want to do. There's a reason talented engineers flock FROM these areas, though.

<comment><USER4> I'm in Richmond too. It is a great city. Very affordable, youngish, a fun mid sized city. We probably have more microbreweries per capita than anywhere else in the US.

But I do feel like we are flyover country as far as tech is concerned. Compared to northern VA we might as well not exist.

However I do think it is a good place for startups if only because there is an outsized amount of talented engineers stuck in corporate jobs here. It shouldn't be hard to poach some of them before they give up and move to SF or DC. Especially easy if you offer nationally competitive salaries.

<comment><USER5> You can't hire the people working for megacorps if your company is in Virginia because they are more likely than not bound by noncompete clauses. Only California throws them out as a matter of public policy, which is one of the main reasons why Silicon Valley is where it's at.

<comment><USER6> I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is only true if you are looking to compete with the megacorps, which probably isn't the case if you are a startup. It's called a non-compete, because it means you can't work for a competitor. Having to do with tech doesn't make you a competitor.

<comment><USER5> A noncompete typically bars you from holding any type of related position within a specific radius of your employer.

<comment><USER6> What do you been by related position? Would web development for Walmart be a related position to web development for Microsoft, a company that doesn't compete with them? I've signed multiple non compete agreements and they always specify that I can't work _for a competitor_. I looked up various examples online and couldn't find anything that didn't specifically mention that the restriction on working counts for anything other than a competitor. I'd be curious to see an example that says otherwise. Perhaps you can link to an example of one of the non compete agreements you are talking about?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are many reasons YC requires you to be in Mountain View during the program. When you finish YC, every partner will tell you to stay in the Bay Area.

As CEO of a post-seed company, I had to start building relationships with Series-A investors. They are all here, so I could meet them in person without much travel, or they could come visit our office. That matters.

When our investors hold events, they are here. I meet other founders/executives who have started/run large tech companies, in person. I can ask them about what they are thinking about, walk through problems we're going through, and build a human-to-human relationship, off the record. That last part is important when, as a founder, talking candidly about the shit going wrong isn't usually what you get to do. Most won't do it over email, unless they know you well already.

When we recruit people, many of the best are already here, working on similar problems. There is a Catch 22 in building another Silicon Valley: to hire talented people you need successful companies; to build successful companies, you need talented people.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but the hard parts of building a tech company are easier here. They aren't easy, but easier. When you're a small team with 300 things that have to get done, having the most important ones made easier is a nice thing to have. For every minute another startup spends convincing an investor or potential hire that they can be the first massively successful company founded in Richmond, we can think about something else.

Do I wish it were the case? No. But I only have so many battles that I can fight at once, and our number one priority is building software to run cities. If being here helps us do that, we'll adapt.

<comment><USER8> Doesn't being in SV mean the top talent is all hoovered up by Google, FB, etc? What about huge rent costs?

Would love to be able to start a startup in Melb, Australia, because it's the most livable city in the world, but the tech scene here in comparison to SV is like living in the Stone Age. Not sure if I'd be better off moving to SV - <USER2> interestingly, I met a top CTO/CEO who had moved his company to the Valley and advised against it, because apparently it's very cliquey and it's hard to break into really well established circles, especially as an Aussie, for some reason. I'll definitely get him another coffee at some point in the future to dig into this more.

<comment><USER9> Different kinds of people work at BigCos and startups. Some overlap and occasionally you compete but not always.

For your situation: go work in SV for a startup. That will get you in the circles and connected. Australia is easy to hire from for US companies because of E-3 visas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My wife is looking at residency programs (she will be an MD). She has an interview at UCSF, but we are not sure we will go--San Francisco is just too expensive. Salary is only $65000 and we have to pay back student loans. I cant't imagine any doctor wanting to train in San Francisco. The city is pricing itself out of existence.

<comment><USER11> My fiancee is currently going through the same process. She's going to, but not taking seriously, the interviews she has in Manhattan.

OTOH, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and a few other cities look promising.

Some of the programs in Manhattan and Brooklyn are paying ~55000. She's in (we're in) >400000 in debt from the med school loans. There's no chance we can go there. (Maybe if they paid ~100000.)

<comment><USER12> Stay away from Atlanta if you value quality of living. Look to places like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Columbus, etc.... big healthcare areas without being the biggest sprawl on the planet or having insane cost of living.

<comment><USER13> > Stay away from Atlanta if you value quality of living

Can you elaborate on Atlanta's poor QoL?

<comment><USER14> Dirty, terrible traffic, was decimated by the recession and not quite back. There are very nice areas like Buckhead, and really rough areas like Lithia Springs.

You'll need a car to get anywhere and you're going to spend a lot of time in it. Especially if you live in one of the popular suburbs like Marietta or even Douglasville.

Source: lived in the area a few times.

<comment><USER15> > rough areas like Lithia Springs.

To be clear, Lithia Springs is as part of Atlanta as Vallejo is part of San Francisco - as Edison is to Manhatten.

You'd need a car to get anywhere if you lived in Vallejo too... And you'd spend a ton of time in it (and about $10 in tolls) to get to Downtown San Francisco.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Places to consider (from the article):

      - Richmond, Virginia
      - Eugene, Oregon
      - Manchester, New Hampshire
      - Huntsville, Alabama

<comment><USER17> I've looked for tech jobs in Eugene and found virtually nothing. The only tech workers I know there have remote-work jobs in bay area companies.

<comment><USER18> Really? There are dozens of companies hiring in Eugene:

[https://siliconshire.org](https://siliconshire.org)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The wealth that has been created here since the last market crash has been enormous. Given the limited amount of land, the cost for RE has been driven incredibly high. As a result, the cost of _everything_ is also way up.

I'm sure the congestion on 101, the BART, and the bridges is worse than it has ever been.

In the past cycles, people left the city because of costs and moved to the peninsula. Now even the peninsula is full of people hoping to get their kids into schools that are under-funded and have waiting lists.

I cannot predict when that river of wealth will run dry, but I think the companies that benefit from this can no longer afford to fund housing, health, etc. for every single employee they have.

Where are they going to go? They are going to go somewhere else.

It makes sense given that one of the implications of building and amazing global communication network is... that you don't have to be in a certain place in order to participate on it :-)

Also, don't get me started on the construction here in the Bay Area vs. some of the amazing craftsmanship like the one seen in the article.

I think we are going to see a lot more articles like this.

Oh, one other thing. One of the the reasons all these companies started here was because it was relatively cheap! For example, Apple picked Cupertino because everything further north was 'expensive'. Imagine that!

<comment><USER20> _" Also, don't get me started on the construction here in the Bay Area vs. some of the amazing craftsmanship like the one seen in the article."_

Drive around Menlo Park south of Santa Cruz Ave and west of El Camino and you'll see many beautiful houses with craftsmanship at least as high quality. This is new construction but with a traditional design, interspersed with 1950s ranchers that haven't yet been torn down. Of course you may be paying $1,000+ a square foot to build these new custom homes, so your 3,000 sq. ft home is closer to $5M including land.

So only an order of magnitude more than these "New Silicon Cities..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I moved from living on the beach in California to the mountains of Central Arizona in 1998. From my perspective, AZ is a very good place to do business: very affordable housing, inexpensive locally grown food, clean and healthy environment, and with so many jobs now being remote, why not live in a beautiful and inexpensive area?

My hourly rate at my current remote job is about half of what I made at Google living for a while in Mountain View, but with the local very low cost of living, I am better off financially with my current job.

I hope the future is more distributed, with people and companies taking advantage of beautiful and cheap places to work and live.

</comment><comment><USER22> Add them to the list: [http://brighton.io/Next_Silicon_Valley](http://brighton.io/Next_Silicon_Valley)

<comment><USER10> Cuba? Really? Might as well add every city in world to that list.

<comment><USER23> It's a joke. There are dozens of cities with articles calling them "the next Silicon Valley". But everyone still moves to California or New York when they need to raise big rounds and hire lots of engineers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Or, you know, just embrace hiring remote workers.

</comment><comment><USER25> Toronto + Kitchener/Waterloo, and Vancouver are sizeable.

Toronto is big. Much bigger than many places mentioned.

A secret Canadian bit: healthcare is pretty good, and 'free' \- at least it's not out of pocket, and covered by taxes which are on par with Cali/NY. That makes a difference in the very early stages, I think. There is a lot of technical talent in Canada, just not great marketing and business leadership, and of course nothing like the Valley etc..

<comment><USER26> 1\. Canadian salaries are a joke. Senior software engineers make 85k in Vancouver and housing is as expensive as SF. 2\. Canadians _think_ their health care system is pretty good because they haven't experienced a good private system. My wife is from Vancouver and thought that until she tried the American system (assuming you're insured). Her friends have long waits for OBs and almost no family doctor is taking new patients. Further, my uncle had a 6 month wait for chemo and had to go to Detroit to get it (about 15 years ago, don't know if it's better now).

<comment><USER25> "Canadian salaries are a joke"

Yup.

It's due to a lot of reasons, but that will change if the talent is there.

It's particularly pernicious in Van where the cost of living is crazy, less so in Toronto.

I live in Montreal - and my flat would be 6500/month in San Francisco. It's really nice. The culture is great. Cost of living is peanuts. There are smart people, and 10x more cute girls than SF.

If you grew up in the cold and can hack that, then it's in many ways a great choice.

Also if you have a hookup at a good company because they are rare here.

Nobody can compete with SF for talent. Nobody - I would not imply that.

But depending on what you are doing - TO, Van and Montreal can make good choices. Again - very situationally dependent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Couldn't read article b/c of paywall, but I gotta put in a good word for Greenville SC, where I currently live. It's been popping up on a lot of "cool cities" lists recently, and rightfully so. Great & growing tech scene. I personally work for a medical start-up & could be living anywhere, but right now I'm content to be in "G-Vegas" =]

</comment><comment><USER12> Interesting they leave out places like Raleigh, or Columbus.

<comment><USER14> Raleigh is where I'd probably be if I wasn't here in the Bay Area.

<comment><USER28> There's just nothing to do in Raleigh, unless all you do is drink and go to restaurants.

<comment><USER29> ...and the horrible traffic, where the city loves to randomly close streets for events (almost every week).

...and the excessive police presence.

...and the re-segregated schools.

Not to mention the state legislature, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Article mentions lower home ownership prices in the cities but doesn't cover salary or other comp.

</comment><comment><USER31> Too bad housing prices are viewed as a completely uncontrollable force of nature beyond any human ability to tame. Too bad a supossedly endless stream off ideas and innovation apparently can't possible solve it.

Otherwise the chief driving force of the economy might not be increasingly constrained by literal rent seeking.

But rent-seeking is apparently a sacrosanct property right that trumps all other issues of well being and so we must comfort ourselves with myths that innovation is so independent of culture that it can appear anywhere and, if it does, won't be choked to death in infancy in exactly the same way every time.

<comment><USER32> Entrenched politics are a completely uncontrollable force of nature beyond any human ability to tame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Important to note is that everyone in the video from the article were tech employees who relocated to those areas with their same job. They're all remote workers, save for the guy who commutes to Boston. And, more to the point, they were established in their positions -- presumably onsite -- before moving.

Good for the folks who do this, but don't kid yourself...it impacts your ability to move ahead in your career. If you want or need to move on from your current gig, your options become extremely limited.

Proximity to tech hubs still matters.

</comment><comment><USER34> Don't forget about Kitchener-Waterloo in Canada.

</comment><comment><USER35> >INSTEAD OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, TRY HUNTSVILLE, ALA.

Yes please

</comment><comment><USER36> He forgot Beersheva! There's a city with a good start-up scene and a little cheaper than Tel Aviv.</comment>


Simply adding more features does not equal a better software product - <AUTHOR> http://pauljoslin.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/more-features-does-not-equate-to-a-better-software-product/

<comment><USER2> While I don't feel that this post brings up anything particularly unique, I think that it is a good reminder to keep away from feature creep and to stick to doing a subset of tasks well. As I work on my side projects, I keep reminding myself that my goal is not to match every possible feature but to do a simple task well.</comment>


How to apply a "hack" to force my CentOS system from timing out and sleeping - <AUTHOR> I work in this annoying government environment where my CentOS 7 system cannot stay awake after 10 minutes of inactivity. IT has applied this annoying global config that forces my system to sleep after this time frame requiring me to log in. This rule was mainly applied to our regular administrative staffing not so much the engineers.
I have a windows systems as well. So I'm constantly bouncing back and forth between the two systems reading emails, datasheets, documentation etc etc. Ten minutes of inactivity is quite common with my work flow. I have limited root access to my system and yum installs are not possible. I can request higher access but it usually involves paperwork and approval which I would just like to avoid.
Their global config overrides settings I apply in Gnomes tweak tool or any custom power management config I create. Don't ask me how they do this. How can I simulate a button press or any craft hack that could run in the background say every 10 minutes? Any other ideas? <comment><USER2> Ask for hiring authorization to hire an assistant to press buttons when you're away. Maybe they'll get the message.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you have xdotool:

        while true
        do
          xdotool mousemove_relative +1 +1
          sleep 60
        done

I use it to stop the screen from locking while I'm watching a film.

If you don't have it, you can probably compile it yourself and run it without needing yum.</comment>


How to export emails as plain text using c#? - <AUTHOR>

am trying to create an application that would  access a storage location containing emails maybe stored by an email application or client.please how would i got about achieving that ?<p>thanks <comment><USER2> 1.) Go to Stack Overflow[1] and search for "c# email".

2.) Read all of the search results. (Here[2] _might_ be a good start.)

3.) If you cannot find what you are looking for then sign up and ask your question.

4.) Keep checking back but _don't_ wait and _don't_ whine for an answer. Go to MSDN[3], google[4] et al. and keep searching...

\----

[1]: <http://stackoverflow.com/>

[2]: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/44383/reading-email- using...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/44383/reading-email-using- pop3-in-c)

[3]: <http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/categories>

[4]: you know where this one is right?

</comment><comment><USER3> You could've found the answer using Google in about half the time it took to post this question.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ask at Stack Overflow.</comment>


Barnes & Noble Exposes Microsoft's Trivial Patents and Strategy Against Android - <AUTHOR> http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296

<comment><AUTHOR> So let me get this straight. Not only does Microsoft have useless/trivial patents, but they shouldn't have gotten them in the first place because of prior art. Plus, with those patents they get to claim a license fee as large as the license fee for their whole OS - WP7. On top of that with those useless patents they get to act as if they owned the whole of Android, and get to dictate manufacturers how to make their Android phones?

I have no words for Microsoft, they're simply despicable and I don't know how anyone could support such a company that has proven time and time again they will adopt such tactics to destroy their competition. They've probably done a lot of this behind the scenes with Linux and other browsers before. We just didn't find out about most of it. And we almost didn't find out about this, either, if it wasn't for B&N.

But what I don't understand how could HTC, Samsung and all the others agree to this so easily? HTC has grown 3x every year for the past 2 years because of Android, and Samsung has become the largest smartphone manufacturer surpassing both Nokia and Apple thanks to Android, and they say nothing against Microsoft or try to protect the ecosystem that's been feeding them?

Shame on them for not standing up to Microsoft, and kudos to B&N, which wasn't even a manufacturer not too long ago, for having the guts to stand up Microsoft and protect the Android ecosystem.

<comment><USER2> Time and time again I've read people lauding "The New Microsoft," the company that created XBox and Mango, the company that no longer behaves like the old, nasty monopolist of old. Such plaudits remind me of someone who is dating a wonderful man who has been divorced four times, but this time it's going to be different.

<comment><USER3> Interesting that the tone here when it's Apple suing over flimsy multitouch, pinch-to-zoom and design patents that look like a rectangle(and demanding that they stop production, not even ask for a licensing fee) is they're protecting their innovation, but when it's Microsoft it's all about a evil monopolist.

Reminds me of the argument that Apple's winning because they derive the most profit out of the phone business inspite of Android's marketshare, but Apache's winning in the web server business inspite of Microsoft making the most money out of it.

<comment><USER4> Don't obfuscate reality to lend credence to an all-too-familiar anti-Apple rant.

Microsoft is utilizing ridiculously old, unrelated patents to force Android manufacturers to pay up.

Apple is using designed in house, relevant and modern patents against what it feels is intellectual property theft.

What's the difference?

Apple is suing companies for what it feels is unfair use of the technology that Apple feels it made.

Microsoft is simply forcing companies to pay huge fees for using software that Microsoft never made and has no claim to.

<comment><USER5> > Apple is using designed in house, relevant and modern patents against what > it feels is intellectual property theft.

You must be kidding, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _As always, if you shouldn't look at patents, don't click to read the rest of the article._

Groklaw is right to write that. If you write software that will ever be in the public eye, you shouldn't look at software patents because they make you more liable for damages in infringement cases.

The constitution authorized congress to create a system "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by publishing information that innovators would _want_ to look at. The system we have now hinders progress, not just in corner cases but across the entire software field.

Can you imagine anyone writing that sentence if we had a patent system that worked as intended? I can't. If the patent system promoted progress, innovators would _constantly_ be reading patents.

<comment><USER7> I've yet to read a patent that actually contains useful information. I'm sure they're out there, but generally they seem to be written in as obfuscated and generic way as possible, as their sole purpose is to enable litigation.

<comment><USER8> You might be safe with reading expired patents, but don't take my word for it. I do sometimes and get a kick out of it. Where would we be without a patent for a "Baseball cap for pigtail hairstyles"? <http://www.latepatents.net/5799334.htm> (Their site seems to be dead in places, but you can still browse through a few of them with google <https://www.google.com/search?q=site:latepatents.net> )

Academic papers at Arxiv and elsewhere are far more useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As someone that has been on the defending side (legal representative) of a patent troll attack which is essentially the role MS is playing here it saddens you to see how low people can go with using the patent system. One of the case I analyzed was a patent that literally did not cover the technology and only a very loosely interpreting judge could interpret it as so. But the cost (at least 0.5 - 1 million dollars until a judge will even see your argument) are so staggering that we in fact encourage parties to throw around bs patents to racketeer money from parties that actually contribute positively to society by creating innovative products. Of course this also fuels the market for filing and selling/buying up bs patents.

The only way I can describe it is that its like a artery of someone that keeps eating bacon long after their doctor advised them to stop. The space keeps getting blocked up more and more. It is inevitable that serious problems are bound to occur and cause ever greater friction to innovation.

<comment><USER10> With direct patent troll cost (loss of company values) calculated for the last years by BU at about half a trillion plus blocking of innovation, loss of jobs and indirect costs to companies at one point society has to question the priorities: To make (very) few much richer and loosing whole industries or to create an environment where the whole economy can prosper. History has some good examples on that e.g. from the first industrial revolution that was led by the UK. After Prussia / Germany completely relaxed IP laws it became the leading industrial nation in Europe. The UK where strong special interest groups pushed through stringent IP & patent law lost it leadership role & dominance of the industry and has till today not been able to recover from that.

On patent trolls & the 500 billion: The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls (<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1930272>) Abstract: In the past, non-practicing entities (NPEs) - firms that license patents without producing goods - have facilitated technology markets and increased rents for small inventors. Is this also true for today's NPEs? Or are they "patent trolls" who opportunistically litigate over software patents with unpredictable boundaries? Using stock market event studies around patent lawsuit filings, we find that NPE lawsuits are associated with half a trillion dollars of lost wealth to defendants from 1990 through 2010, mostly from technology companies. Moreover, very little of this loss represents a transfer to small inventors. Instead, it implies reduced innovation incentives.

<comment><USER9> Its quite the chance that that paper on Patent trolls was written by my Patent Law Prof from BU. Who takes in mind a well balanced view on this difficult subject.

Also some great TIL about German vs Uk innovation.

Even most patent attny's that are more than happy making money off this broken systems excesses agree that there many serious problems abound

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They are a known, serial monopolist and at this point MSFT deserves the corporate death penalty. They should go ahead and force the company to split into consumer software, enterprise software, Windows, and hardware companies like the should have done more than a decade ago.

EDIT: A well reasoned rebuttal is worth a thousand downvotes. But my fault for getting involved in religious wars...

EDIT: I also want to note that whoever is doing this is not content to downvote this comment, but is also looking up my comment history and downvoting old comment of mine (fair warning to anyone posting in this thread)

<comment><USER12> 3am: are you sure that your old comments are being downvoted? For a normal user, the "down arrow" option disappears after a day, and it doesn't look like you have any recent comments other than this one. So if they are indeed being downvoted, it's being done by someone with more access than a standard user. This seems unlikely, although not impossible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a court filing by a litigant. It's hardly an unbiased source. The assertions of an interested party should not be an excuse to avoid critical thinking.

But hey, it's in line with what most of HN thinks about patents, so we're all willing to take it at face value.

<comment><USER14> To be fair I think it's more that we're willing to take PJ at face value

<comment><USER13> > Take a look especially at Exhibit D, where there is a long detailing of the > incredibly insignificant patents Microsoft has the nerve to use against > Android, claiming control of the entire operating system with what is pretty > much a handful of stupid patents no one really needs or which are so trivial > that the fees it claims become outrageous. _At least that is Barnes & > Noble's position. It made my blood boil to read it._

Doesn't sound like pj is doing much critical thinking either. Just accepting B&N's assertions at face value, because they line up with common "knowledge" about patents.

<comment><USER15> There should be elements of B&N's assertions (like which specific patents Microsoft is using) that can be regarded as factual.

<comment><USER13> Absolutely. I have no problem stipulating to stuff like that, because it would be ridiculous for B&N to lie about it or get it wrong. But that's not the kind of assertions I'm talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a legal denial of service attack (assuming B+N's story is substantially accurate). I wonder what kind of penalties are for that behavior - I assume being ordered to pay the other side's legal bills is a possibility.

</comment><comment><USER17> It's pretty sad that Microsoft has sunk this low: a company that is so afraid of its ability to compete honestly in the market that it becomes a multi- billion-dollar patent troll.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'd very much liked if someone called bullsh*t on the Microsoft's patents and then prepared joint lawsuit of all companies against Microsoft's "agreements". They look more like racketeering than cooperation.

</comment><comment><USER19> If I want to sue someone for my (alleged) patents, why not make me pay the legal costs for both sides, _as the case goes to court_ (not after), until the case is decided one way or the other? that way, if a big fat ass company sues a small guy, the small guy can at least try to fight in court. May be he'll lose, but he'll at least have a chance to fight - it'll also make these big guys think a bit before suing for patents?

</comment><comment><USER20> MS has no obligation to license their patents at a reasonable price or even at all. You may say the patents should be overturned, but that's a question for the USPTO and the courts. Their job is to maximize profits using their patents.

It's still very unclear to me what MS is doing that is illegal. They have no mobile monopoly. And "demanding" design guidelines certainly isn't illegal.

BN can sue because MS isn't nice to them, but that's about all I see.

<comment><USER21> The problem is not that they have a monopoly on mobile (having a monopoly is not illegal), but that they are using their monopoly of desktop operating systems to exert pressure on competitors in another market (via the FAT "requirement" - because if you don't use FAT your gizmo won't work with 90%+ of the computers sold). This can be interpreted as abusing a monopoly.

Another way to see it is that Microsoft is one of the richest companies on Earth _because_ of their monopolies and when they use their prodigious resources to force companies to cave instead of litigate (because they could easily litigate said companies out of existence) it's an indirect abuse of monopoly.

This is what I though on about 5 minutes. There's probably a whole lot more in there waiting for more dedicated brains.

<comment><USER22> Not defending the patent for FAT - nobody prohibits device OEMs shipping a piece of software that manages data on the device without requiring the FAT to be present.

<comment><USER21> Those devices will offer a more complicated experience because they have to do something Microsoft doesn't have to because they have the desktop OS monopoly creating a competitive burden to everyone else. Looks like leveraging a monopoly on one market to gain advantages on another to me, even if it is a subtle way.

All they have to do to leverage their desktop-related monopolies is to sit tight and do nothing. And that's why it's really bad.

<comment><USER22> It worked out for Apple/iTunes just fine. I don't like this approach (and do not buy i-devices for that reason), but it is quite viable if executed right.

<comment><USER21> Before the iPhone, every iPod used on PCs had to be formatted with FAT, so it's fair to say it didn't work until iTunes had a critical mass.

If it's hard for Apple, you can imagine it's much harder for everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> M$ needed to use all their ammo to counter Android. It already crossed 52% marketshare <http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1848514>. I am able to see their (M$) desperation but it never going to help them.

</comment><comment><USER24> I love that B&N's lawyers cited Netscape Navigator 2.0b3 as prior art (with respect to background image loading in a web browser). I wish HTC and Samsung's lawyers were as clever with respect to Apple's bogus "Linkify" patent ("Live URLs" from 2.0b1 in that case).

</comment><comment><USER25> Cool! I'm going to try to do more Xmas shopping at B&N this season.

</comment><comment><USER26> Good luck finding developers for WP7...

</comment><comment><USER27> tl;dr, anyone?

<comment><USER28> B&N's Nook used Android. MS claims to have patents that cover Android stuff. MS wanted B&N to pay licence fees for that patented technology. B&N wanted to find out what exactly was covered. MS claimed that to disclose that information (which is in a public patent) they'd have to get B&N to NDA. Eventually, a list of patents arrive, and they're all for tiny stupid trivial stuff or for really old stuff; yet MS was trying to charge for them as if they were worth a full OS.

See this PDF for a list of the trivial patents:

(<http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/675085-463533.pdf>)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> From B&N's filing:

>Microsoft has shown its intent to drive out other open source software using overaggressive patent enforcement. The Microsoft dominated MPEG-LA consortium recently sent out a request for patents that would cover Google's VP8 video codec, and one company has already filed a private antitrust complaint against MPEG-LA for this behavior.3 MPEG-LA is a patent pool organized to collect and license patents on the H.264/MPEG video codec, a method of digitally encoding video files and decoding them for playback. Google is attempting to introduce its own codec, the VP8 codec, to compete with the MPEG codec. Once again, by seeking non-essential patents to assert offensively rather than defensively, Microsoft intends to drive out competition from open source developers.

Is MPEG-LA really dominated by MS in any sense of the word? Just curious.

MS seems to be actually paying them more for licenses in the end than what they get for a few patents they have in the pool. Not sure about Apple.

In any case, they're supporting VP8/WebM via user installed plugins in IE and have stated that they're not shipping it with the OS because they're afraid of patent trolls suing them for very high damages because they would be liable for hundreds of millions of Windows licenses.

<comment><USER30> Isn't the fact that their funding comes disproportionately from Microsoft (I'm just assuming you're right, obviously I don't have numbers) and argument _for_ the MPEG-LA being "dominated" by Microsoft? They need MSFT more than it needs them.

<comment><USER29> >Isn't the fact that their funding comes disproportionately from Microsoft

I never stated that their revenue comes disproportionately from Microsoft. What I stated was that Microsoft pays them more than what Microsoft gets from it for Microsoft patents in the pool, which is a completely different thing.

<comment><USER30> Um... isn't that exactly what "disproportionate" means?

<comment><USER29> I think there's a communication gap here. Let me try to explain with some made up numbers.

Lets say Microsoft pays the MPEG-LA $50 million/year and gets back $2 million/yr for their patents. So net payment to MPEG-LA is $48 mil/yr.

But MPEG-LA has a LOT of other licensees like Apple that licenses it for Quicktime, iMovie, all OS X and iOS devices, Google for YouTube, Adobe for Flash etc. etc. Lets say they all pay them $452 mil/yr. So total revenue of the MPEG-LA is $500mil/yr but Microsoft's share is not disproportionately large in that number.

I don't know about MS's share in MPEG-LA's revenues, all I stated was that they paid them more than what they got back in licenses.

<comment><USER30> Yeah, this is a communication issue. When I said "disproportionately", you apparently heard something like "predominately". But that's not what I meant.

The point is that MSFT might pay more into the MPEG-LA than it gets _precisely_ so it can influence the MPEG-LA to take actions that are beneficial to Microsoft's other business interests. You are apparently trying to take that same fact and argue in the opposite direction, and I don't think the logic works that way.

<comment><USER29> >The point is that MSFT might pay more into the MPEG-LA than it gets precisely so it can influence the MPEG-LA to take actions that are beneficial to Microsoft's other business interests.

I don't see how it's Microsoft's choice to pay more or less. The terms are pretty clear and the same for all.

I also don't see how paying more will allow it to have more influence on the MPEG-LA, they're more like a customer. That's a pretty torturous argument to make.

<comment><USER31> MPEG-LA needs to keep Microsoft as a customer. Your biggest customer often has more influence on your business model than your smallest customer. If Microsoft can show they are willing to make moves to no longer be a customer of MPEG-LA, MPEG-LA will make moves to show that Microsoft should continue to be a customer.

<comment><USER29> Maybe, but is Microsoft MPEG-LA's biggest customer?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Groklaw used to be good a while ago, but now seems to have degenerated into extreme bias against Microsoft. We do not see such articles written by PJ on Apple, for example. While they're still interesting, they need to be taken with a large dose of salt.

<comment><USER32> I'm curious. Specifically which part needs to be taken with a grain of salt? Most of the information is straight from court filings.

Are you claiming that Barnes & Noble is perjuring themselves and Groklaw is helping to spread the misinformation?

<comment><USER33> I think the comment relates to the caution one might wish to use when evaluating the selection of information for presentation given that there is some evidence of an editorial bias on the part of Groklaw, e.g.:

 _"incredibly insignificant patents Microsoft has the nerve to use against Android"_</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: CircleUps – A Politeness Tool for Busy People - <AUTHOR> https://circleups.com/ <comment><USER2> Why use autocomplete=off on the sign up password field? It prevents password managers from autofilling a new password, and I can't be bothered to remember another password.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! Will fix straight away :)

<comment><AUTHOR> fixed <3

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Perhaps I'm just absurdly cynical but getting a "Thank you" note for attending a meeting doesn't sound like a positive. At best it's neutral/just more email spam. At worst it feels condescending and/or childish.

"Thanks for doing your job!"

No thanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> So here's the deal: After any external meeting you get an email with thank-you links for each participant. Clicking on any of the links opens up a precomposed email that you can EDIT and APPEND TO before sending. And you should!

Checkout Mindmaven's post on follow ups after meetings to learn more about why it makes sense to send emails after meetings. [http://mindmaven.com/blog/2011/05/12/how-to-write-a-great- fo...](http://mindmaven.com/blog/2011/05/12/how-to-write-a-great-follow-up- email-to-a-meeting/)

If you feel you're entitled to peoples' time because "it's their job", you're wrong...

<comment><USER4> I just thank people in person when the meeting is over. I don't see anything in that article that explains why I need to send an email, too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Clearly I'm biased - no way I'll be able to convince you follow-ups are awesome, given I'm trying to show off a tool making them easier :)

I suggest you talk to someone in a position where curating relationships is key - founders, growth, agents - and see what they have to say about follow-up emails!

I'd say the advantages are: Show gratitude, reduce the hurdle for the other person to ask questions/reach out via email in the future, summarize the most important points made, stay top of mind with the person...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting idea - the name is a confusing choice though - doesn't seem representative of what the service actually is and there's already a well known startup called CircleUp

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

I take "circle up" to mean "check back in again".

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great idea and well executed! Do I need a Google account to use it?

<comment><AUTHOR> No you don't! We support Gmail, iCloud, Exchange, Office, Outlook calendars!</comment></comment>


The ISP speed index from Netflix - <AUTHOR> http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com

<comment><USER2> I think Netflix has a weird way of measuring bandwidth, unlike say the way Speedtest.net would do it. I've noticed this before when they compared Google Fiber to something like Comcast, and Google Fiber won, but was only slightly better, so I was thinking "that can't be right - Google's fiber is 50x faster. So why isn't that being shown here?"

I think Netflix just shows what's the "maximum" speed needed to deliver their service. It doesn't actually measure the speed of that ISP's connection. So all they care about in their test is whether the ISP meets that ~3 Mbps they need for a perfect Netflix streaming.</comment>


How Dark Money Flows Through the Koch Network - <AUTHOR> http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/koch

<comment><USER2> OpenSecrets.org tallied the top donors in federal elections between 1989 and 2014. Koch Industries -- privately owned by the Evil Koch Bros -- is on the list, to be sure, but doesn't appear until the 59th slot, with $18 million in donations, 90 percent of which went to Republicans.

So who occupies the 58 spots ahead of the Evil Koch Bros? Six of the top 10 are ... wait for it ... unions. They gave more than $278 million, with most of it going to Democrats.

These are familiar names: AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).

In other words, the six biggest union donors in American politics gave 15 times more to mostly Democrats than the Evil Koch Bros.

Three of the remaining four slots in the top 10 were taken by AT&T ($56.4 million), National Association of Realtors ($51.2 million) and Goldman Sachs ($44.8 million).

So, if money is the measure of evil in American politics and the Evil Koch Bros only come in 59th, who is really the most evil donor ever?

Turns out it's the left-wing group, Act Blue, with just short of $100 million in contributions during its lifetime, which only started in 2004, 15 years after the Evil Koch Bros in the OpenSecrets.org compilation.

<comment><USER3> Truth To Power! Always putting the G in Glibertarian.

Uhm, perhaps if you did some research (I know, it's hard), you'd discover that ActBlue is a crowdsourcing front end that involves hundreds of thousands or millions of donors.

Koch Industries, two billionaire bros.

Exactly the same thing. I'm sure you'll have some glib response!

<comment><USER4> Not to mention that the Koch bros really only have two items on their agenda. No taxes for rich people and no environmental regulation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> God forbid anybody gives to republican or libertarian causes, right?</comment>


Sumo Scandal 2008 - <AUTHOR> http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/Joe/archive/2008/09/08/sumo-scandal-2008.aspx <comment><USER2> Here's link with a few photos: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia- pacific/7595475.stm>

I was lucky enough to catch a Sumo tournament in Kyoto a couple years ago while I was there. Very interesting sport to watch. I think that I actually saw Roho in action while I was there.

I caught a baseball game in Tokyo as well and that was another great experience. Baseball in Japan is quite amazing from a spectators point of view. Each team has songs and cheers that the fans all know and they sing them when their team is up at bat. No booing or fighting between the fans of the different teams, it's all very respectful.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder if they were smoking it for fun or to artificially increase their appetite. I'll assume the former.

Good thing to know Japan has their priorities in order:

"In 2000, Japanese wrestler Toki hit and killed a pedestrian while driving in Osaka. He was suspended for only one tournament."

From: [http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/02/sports/AS-SUM- Wres...](http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/02/sports/AS-SUM-Wrestlers- Marijuana.php)

<comment><USER2> Japan has very well defined and strict laws on drug use. When entering the country customs will take any drugs you have that are not prescription (and in your name). They also ask if you have any porn.

I find the punishment for the death of the pedestrian to be light, but perhaps he was ruled not at fault? If you're driving at the speed limit and actually paying attention, not texting or reaching for something in the back seat, and someone runs out in front of you and you have no time to stop, and they're killed, should you really be punished?</comment></comment>


Stealth VC funded YC startup seeking Backend/Operations Engineer (S09) - <AUTHOR>

Operations Engineer
We seeking a forward-thinking experienced engineer to lead our operations.
You'll start out supporting the existing tools that we already have and quickly move on to owning automation and integration projects. You'll also be responsible for managing and providing active support for mission-critical MySQL production/QA/dev environments. You should have a "can-do" attitude and work well in a cross-functional environment. This position is full-time and will report to the CTO. The position is based in our main office in downtown Burlingame, CA.
Responsibilities
* Create and maintain tools that facilitate administration of servers
* Create and maintain scripts to deploy web applications to multiple environments
* Assist in tracking server issues
* Understand and debug network, hardware, and Linux OS related issues
* Predict growth and scaling issues before they occur and implement solutions
* Provides all aspects of MySQL administration: installation, configuration, backup strategy, disaster recovery, upgrades, schema deployment
* Implements and manages database replication
* Responsible for availability and usability of the database servers
* Provide requirements and solutions to expand existing monitoring tools
* Quickly diagnose server problems and employ preventive measures to maintain high availability servers
* Creating processes to ensure data integrity and identify potential data errors
* Performs all other duties as assigned
Requirements
* Bachelor's Degree in CS, MIS, or other related field preferred or equivalent experience
* Deep experience with Linux and hardware systems support for web applications
* Working knowledge of ruby or python
* Excellent verbal and written communication skills
* Excellent time and project management skills
Bonus
* Security experience
* Rails knowledge
* Postfix/Sendmail knowledge/experience
This position is full time with salary + full health benefits and stock options.
Submit your resume to "firstname.lastname@example.com" and tell us something interesting about yourself. <comment><USER2> This looks like an interesting position, and it seems like maybe you're putting more emphasis on doing infrastructure/ops yourselves vs. trying to outsource as much as possible to a hosting or "cloud" provider. Rock on.

While I respect your desire to be stealthy, I'm curious how many developers you have (i.e. is ops being hired after you've hired ~5 developers, or after 2?), and what are your reasons for (presumably) coloing your own boxes vs. either using managed hosting or ec2? (I personally think each solution has its merits, and for anything security or performance/jitter/avail/config critical, I'd still go with a cage and leasing or buying hardware; EC2 rocks for ease and in 5 years will be even better, and is great for dealing with peaks)

<comment><AUTHOR> We use the rackspace cloud, but application deployments, mysql administration, etc are not helped by the cloud. These are still things you need to do especially at any kind of scale. We are "launching" soon and having someone be responsible for the numerous servers and infrastructure would be a load off my mind (i'm the CTO and the only person that knows anything about load balancers, linux, etc).

We have 4 developers right now, counting me. We are hiring a total of 4 more...probably. Ops/Infrastructure UX QA and user acquisition/general rails engineer

I am going to move to a more management/new tech investigation role and out of daily coding/deployment/bug fixing. The ops guy/gal and general rails engineer will back-fill me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Some free advice (from someone qualified but unavailable):

Give a bit more of an idea as to how senior a person you want (i.e. willing to pay for).

Indicate if use of MySQL is inflexible, or if the ops person would have significant input into choice of tools. One could infer it from "as assigned," but clarity helps.

Be less stealthy. At least a hint as to what the company is doing, or, barring that, who the early founders are, is more likely to garner the "right" kind of attention.

Oh, and kudos on thinking about ops this early!</comment>


The Myth of Shareholder Capitalism. - <AUTHOR> http://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder-capitalism/ar/1

<comment><USER2> It seems the research focuses solely on untimely unseating of directors, while completely discounting the everyday role of shareholders: determining the value of the company and the election of directors at the annual general meeting. Both are pretty important functions.

The fact that directors usually aren't fired mid-term is a symbol of the system working, not the opposite. At a certain size, being public is almost always the best way to capture the feedback of the market in the long run.

It's like democracy: we get to have a small, orderly revolution every few years. In return we don't randomly go around killing our rulers. The result is almost never exactly what anybody wanted, but in the long run, it's consistently better than the alternative.

<comment><USER3> It's virtually my mantra on economic issues, but: Second-order effects, second-order effects, second-order effects. The fact that I am not now currently in jail does not mean the law has no effect on my life, and when you put it that way the logical error being promoted here comes out starkly.

(I often find myself thinking this is why capitalism attracts so much enmity, as it is a major economy system that only makes sense when you consider second-order effects, perhaps the only such major system. Socialism and communism all have soothing first-order stories ("Is somebody richer than you? Take it from them, and they'll be less rich and you'll be more rich! And let's not worry about the second-order effects of such actions! Everything will always stay the same! Wheee!") and the problems don't arise until you consider the second-order effects.)

<comment><USER4> _I often find myself thinking this is why capitalism attracts so much enmity, as it is a major economy system that only makes sense when you consider second-order effects, perhaps the only such major system. Socialism and communism all have soothing first-order stories_

Most intelligent socialists know about the "second-order effects", to use your terminology. Some of the effects of redistribution are good (better-educated populace, social stability) and some are bad, depending on the extent of it and how it is done.

<comment><USER3> I don't meet too many intelligent $ECONOMIC_MODEL proponents on the internet. Yes, I freely include my preferred economic model there.

I have much more respect for people who hold opinions which disagree with mine and have actually thought them out, rather than just coming to the opinions they have because it seems... nice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Short summary: it appears that courts do not treat corporate shareholders as the ultimate authority of a corporation, deferring to the authority of the Directors. The OP wonders why, then, the Directors behave as if they _do_ answer to the shareholders.

This is interesting, I think, because the question of fiduciary responsibility comes up here on HN from time to time.

It seems to me that the author is starting out with the assumption that corporations are evil, or at best amoral. If one drops this assumption, the explanation is easy: even without courts forcing them to do so, corporate Directors tend to _want_ to do what's best for their shareholders.

<comment><USER6> Also the only consequence of ignoring shareholder wishes mentioned was that occasionally a court battle ensues to oust the director - surely the aftermath involves more than just that.</comment></comment>


If you thought Facebook ads were creepy before, we've got some bad news - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/facebook/2017/06/27/if-you-thought-facebook-ads-were-creepy-before-weve-got-some-bad-news-for-you/ <comment><USER2> Time to add one more reason to the list of reasons I don't use facebook.</comment>


India patents 1300 yoga poses - <AUTHOR> http://en.rian.ru/world/20110421/163630520.html

<comment><USER2> They should patent 0 and positional number systems. Could be a way to persuade USA to stop the patent madness.</comment>


Norcal coder's automated off-grid home - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwH6B7aJYDU

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the link; this guy is admirable.</comment>


Getting feedback when a company declines to make an offer - <AUTHOR> I recently interviewed for a position at The Atlantic Monthly as part of their data team.  After two hours in person, a phone screen, and a two hour coding test, I was told I was "in contention" -- and then they went radio silent for two weeks.  Finally I heard back from the recruiter that they had declined, but provided no other feedback.  I contacted the hiring manager, who I'd already exchanged several emails with, to ask if he had any constructive feedback, but did not receive a reply.
I understand the potential reluctance of a firm to provide feedback to candidates they decline to hire, even ones they feel are reasonably strong: they are probably concerned about legal ramifications.  But still, this feels unprofessional, especially when you've spent a day or so invested in the interview process.
I'm curious what the HN crowd has to say about this. <comment><USER2> It's not unprofessional at all. It's the standard. Nobody on the receiving end likes it, and many on the hiring end don't like it either, but it is what it is. For a company the size I imagine The Atlantic is, you're lucky to have even gotten a no from the recruiter. Many companies just drop you without further contact. ( _That_ is a bit unprofessional.)

Sounds like this may have been your first job interview ever, TBH.

Move on.

At your next interview, ask the final tech interviewer _before you leave_ , what their impression is. I wouldn't do this with every interviewer because the response (good or bad) will change your psyche and affect the rest of the interviews through the day.

Don't bother asking the HR person (usually they are the final person you speak to before you leave), they won't tell you anything useful. For smaller companies, where the HR rep will have some useful feedback for the hiring manager, do make an impression on them before you leave that you like the company and the folks you met and hope that you'll be a good fit, etc. A compliment about some aspect of the company wouldn't hurt either.

And look at it this way. It doesn't matter what the feedback is. If you're not a good fit, you're not a good fit. If you feel the reasons are wrong, you'll just get mad about it (and frequently their reasons are wrong, but the interview format doesn't allow for deep exploration of any candidate). If they are right, they are right. You shouldn't change your presentation of yourself based on some company's personal, biased impression. You should find a company that wants to hire _you_.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't ask during the interview because I believe the asking could be mistaken for insecurity.

<comment><USER4> The right way is to position it as a learning opportunity. You ask if they have any reservations about your background. It gives you a chance to get some negative feedback and also gives you the opportunity to address their concerns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In many cases, a company is concerned about opening itself up to potential legal action. It sucks for candidates who really just want to know how to improve, but the safest action for a company is to simply not provide any information, rather than provide something that could be used against them later.

It's not dissimilar to why many companies can't provide more info on reference checks than the dates of someone's employment.

If you don't recall any major red flags, it really might just be an issue of fit. Maybe you didn't have a specific type of experience or expertise that they decided would work best for this job (and another candidate did). It doesn't mean you're not a great candidate, just that you're not the right candidate for this job at this company.

<comment><USER6> Is this specific to US? Since I have never had any issues with receiving feedback in Europe. Fun fact: The current job I'm at, I was declined at first, but after asking for feedback and having a follow up discussion about it, they changed their mind and offered me the position.

<comment><USER7> It is typical in the United States. In part due to the nature of employment law. In part due to employment law making the legally conservative approach normative. I would say your experience is not entirely beyond possibility here when dealing with a small company and an unadvertised position. It is unlikely at an organization of substantial size with an advertised position.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's absolutely status quo. If something other than this happens you should be shocked. There is the concern over lawsuits etc, which is real, but really, the issue (I believe) is that many companies really can't articulate valid reasons why they took the person they took over you. It's rarely about ability, experience or drive, but more squeemish things like cultural fit, personalities, and other 'like us' decisions like ageism, sexism, tribalism, etc.

Frankly, you should be honored that they actually contacted you to tell you they didn't want you. It is very common for companies to just hope you forget.

</comment><comment><USER9> No feedback when you get rejected seems to be the rule these days. No one wants to take responsibility to carry the "bad" news. Radio silence for a few days and you know you are out anyway. The market is so competitive, they wouldn't let you free otherwise. I take it a sign that it's not a company I would want to work for and move on. F'em!

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed regarding the "radio silence." This at least seems very unprofessional, especially if a company (as in this case) has indicated that you are "very much in the running."

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Suppose there are four fully qualified candidates for a single position. To a first approximation, three of them did not get the position because there were four candidates and one position. The reasons why one or another candidate was chosen are much much less relevant to the outcome experienced by other three. The difference is mostly luck. Sure the hiring committee may have found reasons for picking one and not the others. But that's the nature of their job...rejecting three candidates and/or choosing one. And all this assumes that there actually was a position and not just the possibility or hope or wish that there might be one in the future.

</comment><comment><USER10> Most of the time there are plenty of people we would be happy to hire, but some other guy was just slightly more qualified or slightly cheaper for the same qualifications.

There are some cases where it's just attitude. Like I feel this person was just blasting her resume to everyone and picked someone whose cover letter felt a bit more sincere.

There are plenty of cases where someone is simply not qualified. Or that I'd get the impression that this person is not very smart and choose not to move forward with the interview process.

Weak English is another major reason. We rarely need someone good with algorithms or a specific tech skill. This is all learnable. What we really need is someone who can build what we want the first time, and not spend 2 weeks building the wrong thing. Or having to hire someone else to read the manual for them. It's really hard to explain why you'd think someone has poor English. Grammatical errors and a few typos are okay. But sometimes it feels like some effort to simply communicate with the person.

Also do note that the person on the other end is human. We don't really want to say why we reject someone, as the reason is often unfair and false. It's very uncomfortable to explain it. Easier to just ghost someone.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I notice a lot of value judgments on here with respect to the original posting. In no way was it a comment on the job, frustration with the interview process itself, or a comment on my or the interviewer's proficiency. I was merely curious whether feedback is common.

I've had a reasonably long career and have been blessed (and perhaps lucky) to have gotten almost every job I've interviewed for, so I wasn't quite sure whether feedback is the norm or not, as I haven't been in the position to assess that.

The summary, though, seems to be not to expect feedback, at least not post- interview, if you are not made an offer. This is understandable from a liability perspective. More professional companies will, after an interview, at least notify you (or your recruiter) that they have decided to pass on your candidacy. And finally, lack of feedback is not necessarily indicative of a poor, nor a great, interview. Any number of factors may have come into play, including, as far as one knows, say, that at the last minute the CTO decided to hire his cousin.

</comment><comment><USER4> I had a similar experience with my first interviews in a very long time. I had two phone screens and a long in-person interview. And nothing ever again after that. It left me with a very sour taste. I was told I was one of two candidates and I would be notified by the end of the week either way. Literally the one thing I asked from them was to hear back either way. I won't work with either the recruiter or that company again.

</comment><comment><USER11> We provide that feedback if the candidate asks for it. In engineering or any other role (product, project management etc...).

It's never comfortable, but it's something that I think you deserve to get.

Just as a side note, I think a lot of people know why they were rejected. It's rare that people think the interview went great and they still did not get an offer.

<comment><USER8> >> Just as a side note, I think a lot of people know why they were rejected. It's rare that people think the interview went great and they still did not get an offer.

i don't think this is true at all. Being on both sides, i know most people i interview have a higher opinion of the interview than i do.

But also the interviewer might truely like you, and so you feel good about things, but someone higher up nixes the hire, for nebulous reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If a firm asks you to invest time in the interview process beyond the initial application and maybe an initial HR call, then it's deeply unprofessional if they don't give you some feedback about their decision.

It does not matter if they want to have a no-feedback policy for legal risk mitigation reasons or anything else, it is just simply an unacceptable way to treat a person after taking up their time. And it becomes more egregious as they take more time with more interviews or assessments.

The hard truth is that most companies are bad, in a Moral Mazes sense, and the fact that these inhumane practices get adopted by the majority is not an endorsement that they are in any sense OK or tolerable. They aren't.

When a company fails to give sincere feedback after taking up your time, just be thankful you get to avoid them, as it seems clear it would be a toxic workplace culture.

</comment><comment><USER13> If you absolutely need feedback when you don't get an offer, be clear about it up front. If a company won't agree to it, don't interview with them.

Otherwise keep playing the game according to their rules.

</comment><comment><USER14> Don't spend another second thinking about it or them and move on to better pastures. It could be as simple as someone was ahead of you in the queue and you were a backup interview.

</comment><comment><USER15> Don't bother they will never mention anything concrete.

</comment><comment><USER3> They don't owe you anything.

</comment><comment><USER16> I would call the hiring manager (directly if you have his number or through the switchboard/reception i.e. just ask for him).

When you communicate, be clear that you're a grown-up and are look for constructive feedback.</comment>


Everything you know about CSS is wrong (again) - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2809024/points-in-css-specificity/11934505#11934505

<comment><USER2> Title should be "Everything you know about CSS specificity is wrong (again)".

Either that, or all I apparently ever knew about CSS was a practical but not precisely accurate base ten points system.</comment>


How do you grow willpower? - <AUTHOR> http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2008/how-do-you-grow-willpower/

<comment><USER2> _"I refuse to grant credibility to anyone using a study to support an argument without a reference. If the study was published I can read it myself and see what it actually says."_

Red Herring. There are widely-known tools to look up research articles, and it's not conventional to cite such articles in newspapers because the journals are not easily accessible to the general public.

I wonder how many other things he refuses to believe in because he's never read the papers?

<comment><USER2> Ugh. Then he follows his straw man with an over-generalization and appeal to ridicule:

 _"anyone with above average willpower has a busy enough life not to have time to participate in psychological surveys"_

and an appeal to personal belief (which also happens to be biased, and begs the original question):

 _"I think I possess above average powers of will, but I would never test them against things I thought were pointless."_

Finally, he closes by quoting a section of the original article out of context, and misinterpreting the meaning:

 _"there are tons of higher level masters of teaching willpower, but since they don't have neuroscience degrees, this article neglects to give them a voice....Why use 10% of the article on a guess, when a phone call could bring an expert with data."_

(the original Times article explains that the theory of glucose-induced willpower was tested in specific experiments, and found to have some merit.)

For a guy who wants to take a science reporter to task for sloppy reporting, he sure does play fast-and-loose with the logical fallacies....

<comment><USER3> That first point has merit. Studies and surveys in general always pretend to be dealing with random samples, but that's never the case.

<comment><USER2> You're committing to the same fallacy. I don't care what "studies in general" do -- I care what _this_ study did.

Same goes for your use of the words "always" and "never" -- given that sample bias is a well-known scientific phenomenon, you're going to have to provide extraordinary evidence to convince me that studies "always" make the mistake...that's a rather extraordinary claim.

<comment><USER3> C'mon. If I say, "Okay, here's my random sample", and it's a self-selected group, you know immediately it's not a random sample. Whether or not this matters has much to do with whether we are testing physiological or pyschological criteria.

<comment><USER2> C'mon nothing:

A) I don't know if the study authors claimed that they used a "random sample" (not all experiments require it).

B) Even if it wasn't a "random sample", unless the selection bias was correlated with the trait under study, it's highly unlikely to matter.

C) All of this is window dressing. The point is, Berkun's argument was overly general (" _Anyone_ with..."), and based on ridicule of the experiment, without actually _knowing_ anything about the experiment (by his own admission!)

If Berkun knew the details of the experiment, and was pointing out a methodological flaw, he'd be making an argument. Instead, he's speaking from the comfort of ignorance, attacking a study based on second-hand information and his own personal biases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Grow willpower? It's not a sprint, the harder thing is sustaining willpower.

The trick is balance.

Force yourself to take breaks and give yourself rewards. I finished a big piece of code on Tuesday and went for a bike ride to the Persidio. Exercise is also a great way to deal with stress.

Eat well, splurge a little and make sure you are eating foods high in Omega-3. Your brain will thank you.

Talk to your friends about your ideas. It is energizing evangelizing your ideas and getting people passionate. Doing so over a pint at the Toronado is a bonus.

And finally have fun! We have one life to live, do something that you deeply care about.

</comment><comment><USER5> If a short-term motivational boost like attending a conference/event (Startup Weekend) is like "fast food" (sugar rush, temporary infusion of can-do'ism enters your system quickly and exits just as quickly, no real long-term benefit (unless of course, you apply will-power...)

Then applying will-power to a challenge is like "Fibercon" - not the most pleasant to subject yourself, something you have to intend yourself to do regularly/everyday.. _and_ better for you in the long-run.

I'd like to share with you one of my favorite essays that I've read - it's about Salsa dancing but it's really on 'willpower' and the importance of effort over time: [http://www.unlikelysalsero.com/2007/08/magic-of-time-last- on...](http://www.unlikelysalsero.com/2007/08/magic-of-time-last-one- standing.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> Growing willpower is pretty much impossible for me--I'm smart enough to reason my way out of anything, even if it's something that will benefit me in the end (ie: exercise). The key is to not think about it. If I start to think about not wanting to go to the gym, I won't go. I realized that I was doing this, and decided to use my incredibly stubborn nature to defeat it.

I just say, "No."

Cliche, yes, but it works. It works so well, in fact, that none of my friends will discuss anything with me if I'm in a jovial mood, as when the argument begins to look up for them, and I no longer feel like defending my own point of view, I will simply contradict whatever they say.

I'm sure they also hate that I'll start arguing fine points that really have no relevance to the topic at hand, but...haha.

Willpower is exactly that, the strength of your will. The person with a strong will will do exactly as he decides fit, regardless of arguments presented by any camp, including his own.

Some call it will power, some call it determination. Even others call it perseverance. But in the end, it is pure OBSTINANCE.

</comment><comment><USER7> "As a baseline, anyone with above average willpower has a busy enough life not to have time to participate in psychological surveys."

I wonder if that's true. Aren't a lot of psych experiments done with college students? I think I know a lot of people with above average willpower that did psych experiments in college because they were kind of fun and paid pretty well.

</comment><comment><USER8> >The real problem here is that it's hard to respect any article that mentions a study without providing references. I refuse to grant credibility to anyone using a study to support an argument without a reference. If the study was published I can read it myself and see what it actually says.

Unfortunately, most research today is behind a pay-wall, leaving little opportunity for an average Joe to check it.

</comment><comment><USER9> >The real problem here is that it's hard to respect any article that mentions a study without providing references.

This guy wrote two books and doesn't know how to use Google?

</comment><comment><USER10> 1) seek what you aim for

2) work on interestring problems; toil hard and achieve them

3) remind yourseves first two things whenever you are alone

</comment><comment><USER11> "Willpower" is a word to describe a non-issue.

"What, you don't beat your children? What willpower!"

"You'd rather miss a meal than rob a bank? What willpower!"

"You don't murder your enemies? What willpower!"

Funny how easy life gets when you stop thinking about "willpower" and start doing the right thing.

<comment><USER12> You're only saying that b/c you've never been in a situation where you were compelled to do the "wrong" thing. :-)

<comment><USER11> <sarcasm>

My probation officer would beg to disagree.

</sarcasm>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> They actually have a lot of the pieces out there but unconnected. I will answer the question.

Willpower is an equilibrium between two distinct drives, one of which is a drive to act, and one of which is an inhibitory drive. The first step to growing willpower is to make sure your lack of willpower isn't caused by a biological problem or a mental health problem. Before struggling too long to grow willpower, have a physical, have your thyroid level checked, and get a mental health evaluation.

The reason you can build willpower is that it is an equilibrium between the parts of your brain that produce fear and anxiety and the parts of your brain that produce good feelings. Your right prefrontal cortex produces negative emotions, and your left prefrontal cortex produces positive emotions. This circuitry is linked up to the circuitry that primes your body to move. Assuming no mental or physical illness, willpower is simply a measure of the relation between these systems.

We know that monks who meditate for 10,000 hours have much greater gamma ray function. Gamma rays underlie large scale brain synchronization. These monks also had a different relationship between the left and right prefrontal cortexs (corti?). In monks, the positive emotion producing left prefrontal cortex was much more active than the right. Also, they were much more primed to move.

Meditation, particularly certain kinds from Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, are scientifically proven to work on this, to such a degree that neuroscientists haven't seen some of those neurological states in normal people. From studying these monks, we know what to do.

It's scientifically proven that you can grow willpower by getting a physical, and a mental health eval, and then meditating. It's the best, most efficient way. Everything the nyt article lists as a way of increasing willpower is an example of an activity where you must be continually bringing your attention into the present. I don't want to sound like some stupid hippy, but meditation can be the most concentrated way to practice this focusing of attention, and directing your focus in certain Tibetan buddhist ways hits all the main parts of increasing motivation.

I consulted <http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma8/monkstudy.html> to refresh my memory on the monk neurology study.

<comment><USER5> I think exercising the mind is the hardest thing to do because it's so easy to take the path of least resistance.

What are your thoughts on the (1) Marathon Monks of Japan and (2) the Lung- Gom-Pa's (near mythical if not mystical) of Tibet?

(1) <http://www.millennium-tv.com/Monks.htm> (2) <http://www.planetultramarathon.com/lunggomparunners.htm>

<comment><USER14> Great links, thanks.

Here's a video for anyone who's interested: <http://youtube.com/watch?v=S06oMxdt40A>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Don't try.

Instead, find a way to _want_ the thing. Really want it. No tricks; they don't work.

You can't pretend passion (and sustain it).

<comment><USER16> Even if you want the thing, some of the stuff you need to do to get the thing may be less immediately rewarding than other stuff you could be doing instead. Even if you consciously know it's worth it in the end, there are subconscious forces within us that are not as far seeing.

So you need willpower to get past some local lows. Without it, you'd have to restrict yourself to goals that can be accomplished with only constant enjoyment along the way. That leaves out many worthy goals, and most opportunities to create value.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How concerned are you with the new Nexus 6P from nexus 6p - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Not very. As disappointed as I am over the lack of inductive charging, like what I currently enjoy with my Nexus 5, the 6P looks like a pretty great device. Huawei's in a great opportunity with that phone to break into the American market.</comment>


King Alfred and India - <AUTHOR> https://www.caitlingreen.org/2019/04/king-alfred-and-india.html <comment><USER2> I come from Kerala, the southernmost state in India referenced in the article. My last name is Thomas and every now and then people in the US look at me bewildered when I tell them my name – "But you don't look Spanish". I take it as an opportunity to give them a bit of a history lesson – "Do you know Christianity came to India 14 centuries before the US? And Columbus was looking for these Indians selling black pepper?"

Surprises people so much to know that Christianity exists in India, let alone that St. Thomas died in India [1].

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle)

<comment><USER3> Please, could you also educate them and tell them that Spain is a country in Europe? It seems that many US-americans believe Spanish is a race (whatever they think a "race" is) instead a nationality.

<comment><USER4> Nobody in the US think Spanish is a race rather than a nationality. There's an artificial "Hispanic" term politicians invented to encompass all Spanish speakers.

Ignorant Americans may conflate all from Central America as "Mexicans", but that's about it.

Most Americans who never studied the Spanish language are probably ignorant of the differences between Castilian Spanish and Spanish as used in the Americas.

<comment><USER3> Differences between "Castillian Spanish" (I don't like that term at all, more on that on [1]) and Latin-American Spanish are only on pronunciation of some consonants. The Royal Spanish Academy (Real Academia Española) accepts allow all of those dialects as rightful variants of Spanish language.

[1] What some politicians call "Castillian Spanish" is the Spanish language spoken in all parts of Spain. It is idiotic to call "Castillian" to a language were some dialects of Spanish (West/East-Andalusian and Canarian [from Canary Islands]) are very similar to Latin-American Spanish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Last Kingdom on Netflix is a pretty decent series about this time. Sort of a non fantasy version of Game of Thrones. I think there are probably a fair bit of historical inaccuracies in there but nevertheless a fascinating time and decent series. I ended up reading up on wikipedia about several of the characters (at least the non fictional ones).

<comment><USER6> Thanks for mentioning. I was looking for such a series. As per Wikipedia, it's historical fiction. So, wouldn't it be somewhat different than real history?

<comment><USER5> It's a romanticized version of several events that actually took place featuring e.g. King Alfred and other historical characters. While there are some written records from that era, there's not much to go on. It was called the dark middle ages for a reason.

So, the script writers probably took quite a bit of liberties as did the author of the books this series is based on: [http://www.bernardcornwell.net/series/the-last-kingdom- serie...](http://www.bernardcornwell.net/series/the-last-kingdom-series/).

I haven't actually read the books; so I can't vouch for those. But if you are interested, I can recommend Hild by Nicola Grifith which is a good read about roughly the same era.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is interesting, but I don't believe it's all that surprising. Medieval Europe was very well connected. Alfred himself went to Rome when he was a child and had an extensive cultural exchange with mainland Europe. It is also well known, as the article points out, that interactions with Asia was much more widespread than what is perhaps understood by most people today (who still sees it as a dark age).

This can also be seen by the fact that Christian communities existed, not only in India, but also in China as early as the 7th Century: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China#Earliest...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China#Earliest_documented_period)

<comment><USER8> > Alfred himself went to Rome when he was a child and had an extensive > cultural exchange with mainland Europe.

There's also a depiction of King Arthur (Rex Arturus) in a famous mosaic located inside the Otranto cathedral, located in Puglia, Italy [1]. Presumably the mosaic was put in place in the 1160s, give or take a few decades.

A bit OT but not by that much, the same Italian city of Otranto was under direct Ottoman control for a year, sometimes in the early 1470s. Most of its Christian residents who had dare resisting were killed, and presumably the final step of the Ottomans' journey was Rome (I have a quote about this made by Mehmed II somewhere in my books, I'm too lazy to search for it on my phone). Fortunately for Western Christianity Mehmed got caught up in some fierce fights in present day Albania and also in a region of present day Romania (Moldova, to be more exact) so that he had to recall his troups from the Italian peninsula.

Which is to say that yes, the East and West have been a lot more involved with each other compared to what most of today's people assume.

[1] [http://sites.duke.edu/danteslibrary/files/2016/02/otranto- mo...](http://sites.duke.edu/danteslibrary/files/2016/02/otranto- mosaic-4-king-arthur-1024x796.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There were networks of trade far older than even this between Europe and India.

Pompeii Lakshmi (1CE):

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompeii_Lakshmi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompeii_Lakshmi)

1st century Roman coins found in Southern India:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo- Roman_trade_relations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo- Roman_trade_relations)

Really, all these guys had to do was get to the vicinity of Rome or Constantinople, and catch a connection, and they were there.

</comment><comment><USER10> So I take it that island at the far east of the map is Japan?

Its interesting how they thought the Nile came from Asia. And what's with Scandinavia missing?

<comment><USER11> The large labelled island at the very top is Taprobane, the name by which the ancient Greeks knew Sri Lanka. It was believed to be as large as Great Britain.

The text reads: "Tabrobanen habet x ciuitates, bis in anno merita [corruption of metit?] fruges", which translates as "Taprobane has ten cities, [and] twice a year reaps crops/fruits."

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Green notes that England is rather remote. This may be one reason for the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons.

> "The utter remoteness of the islands at the north-westerly limits of the > Ocean and the barbarian nature of their inhabitants was a commonplace or > topos in the work of Roman poets and historians. ….Christian commentators > living in the Empire, however, adapted this secular image of the centrality > of Rome in the light of a very different biblical tradition that Jerusalem > was the centre of the earth. Old Testament prophecies had announced that the > glory the God of Israel would one day be revealed to all peoples, even to > idolatrous gentiles throughout the 'multitude of isles'…"¹

But the theme was not exclusively eschatologic. "Bede made sophisticated use of the Roman, biblical, and patristic strands of the topos in his account of the various conversions and reconversions of peoples and regions within 'the multitude of isles'."

Awareness of the remoteness of Britain was likely therefore closely related to British Christian identity.

Interestingly, however, the scholarly basis of that identity was increasingly undermined. Of Charlemagne's time, Pirenne wrote

> Among these purely Germanic Anglo-Saxons the Latin culture was introduced > suddenly, together with the Latin religion, and it profited by the > enthusiasm felt for the latter. No sooner were they converted, under the > influence and guidance of Rome, than the Anglo-Saxons turned their gaze > toward the Sacred City. They visited it continually, bringing back relics > and manuscripts. They submitted themselves to its suggestive influence, and > learned its language, which for them was no vulgar tongue, but a sacred > language, invested with an incomparable prestige. As early as the 7th > century there were men among the Anglo-Saxons, like the Venerable Bede and > the poet Aldhelm, whose learning was truly astonishing as measured by the > standards of Western Europe.

> The intellectual reawakening which took place under Charlemagne must be > attributed to the Anglo-Saxon missionaries.³

And Alcuin, an Anglo-Saxon, was of course in charge of the Palace School. Pirenne continues:

> It was the North that now proceeded to diffuse the culture which it had > received from the Mediterranean. …In this way the Anglo-Saxons became > simultaneously the reformers of the language and also the reformers of the > church.⁴

By Alfred's time, however, the English were in dire need of scholarship from the continent. I haven't a copy of _English Historical Documents_ on me, but Fulk, to whom Alfred wrote in supplication that scholars from Rheims might be sent to revive learning in England, replied most condescendingly (whilst granting his request): he informed Alfred, as if he were some ignoramus, of the existence of church councils (as if any Christian at the time would have been unaware of their existence), rambled on about his part in the apostolic succession (as if England was not also home to bishops validly part of the episcopal succession too), and emphasised the propriety of customs in his part of the world. Alfred could do nothing but accept the onerous conditions imposed upon him near the end of the letter, such was the state of degeneration of the church.

1\. Jennifer O'Reilly, "The art of authority", in _After Rome_ , Thomas Charles-Edwards ed., p. 141 2\. Ibid, p. 142 3\. Henri Pirenne, "From Mohammed and Charlemagne", in _The Pirenne Thesis: Analysis Criticism And Revision_ , A.F. Havighurst ed., Boston 1958, 109pp., p. 38 4\. Ibid, p. 39</comment>


Yahoo claims to be "the world's largest start-up" - <AUTHOR> http://info.yahoo.com/about-us

<comment><USER2> Perhaps Marissa will do a pivot so they can make some money</comment>


KnobFeel - Reviews based purely on the feel of the knob - <AUTHOR> http://knobfeel.tumblr.com/

<comment><USER2> Probably rather accurately correlates to a professional review of the product.</comment>


Carl Icahn just started a blog - lots of rants - <AUTHOR> http://www.icahnreport.com/

<comment><USER2> Wow, I thought he was just some obnoxious prick, but he's actually an extremely intelligent guy.

He gets American business.

<comment><USER3> A lot of blogs run by high-profile business figures are wishy-washy buzzword- riddled bullshit.

It looks like this guy, though, could turn out to be the Zed Shaw of corporate America.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Preach it Carl!

"They reward the CEO with pay packages and bonuses when the stock is floundering or the CEO is leaving the company. Corporate performance and the shareholders welfare seldom enter the picture. What kind of democracy is this? There is no accountability."

I don't mind CEOs who make a lot of money for shareholders also making a lot of money for themselves. But CEOs doing a bad job and still making extravagant sums because of quid pro quo relationships among the executive class is nothing short of fraud.

</comment><comment><USER5> > © 2008 Copyright of Icahn Blog LLC

All business. Always.

<comment><USER6> By starting a separate corporation, he guards his personal fortune from potential liability payments. He's got billions of dollars, so he wants to avoid losing any of it to greedy lawyers who push people to sue for marginal slights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Obviously a lot of these posts are the result of recent Yahoo fights - especially the poison pill one.

I have some sympathy for what he suggests (company board members should always fear for their lives... errr... jobs) but it is necessary to have _some_ stability.

Short term thinking already drives a lot of US companies, making radical strategic action hard. Speeding up the process to remove boards to a single EGM (as he suggests) could cripple the ability to do any kind of long term planning.

</comment><comment><USER8> He's a pretty fair writer. I wonder if any of it is ghostwritten?

Interesting posts nonetheless. I hope he starts posting rants about Yahoo! soon...

<comment><USER9> [http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters- dealzone/2008/03/06/icahn-l...](http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters- dealzone/2008/03/06/icahn-loses-battle-to-his-own-lawyers/)

"So far, however, readers wanting a fix of the latest Icahn blast on The Icahn Report, have been disappointed, with the site simply sporting a dour picture of Icahn with the notation, "blog coming soon."

At a meeting last night, Icahn explained that he's not suffering from writers' block, but said his lawyers are stopping him. "Every night, I write for an hour and they tear it up," said Icahn with a sardonic laugh. "

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Forgive me, but who is he?

<comment><USER11> Um, don't downvote axod for this innocent question. What's the point of that?

axod: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Icahn>

<comment><USER10> thanks. And -4 downmod for my follow up. I guess I should have done my research :/ just never heard of him before that's all.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, those types of questions are easier to ask Google than to ask forums. _However_ , it is really silly to penalize people for asking questions.

My father once said something to me that turned out to be valuable, and I still try to follow his advice: "Only ask a question when you're truly stuck."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Who quotes themself on the header of their blog? Shouldn't that be some kind of inspriational quote from someone else?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think when you are Carl Icahn you can do whatever you want.

<comment><USER13> I get the sentiment, but this type of title worship is precisely what he's preaching against (when you're the CEO, you can do whatever).

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with you. My comment was meant to be sarcastic. It's a good idea to try reading articles or posts before you know who the author is and judge them based on the merit of that. Knowing the author affects your judgement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sometimes the best commercial is to put the boss right out front.

When Chrysler had trouble selling cars, personable Lee Iacocca did the TV ads himself. Wendy's is still looking for a spokesman half as good as Dave Thomas. And who could forget Remington's Victor Kiam, "I liked the shaver so much, I bought the company."

Technology has changed but the basic idea endures. What better way to promote your cause in a battle among high tech goliaths? The boss's blog, what else.

<comment><USER9> I'm pretty sure I've been subscribed to the feed since before the Yahoo deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It'll be interesting to see what kinds of comments he allows.

</comment><comment><USER16> My hero!</comment>