A prospective Alzheimer's trial reports - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/02/10/a-prospective-alzheimers-trial-reports <comment><USER2> As I tell my students all the time -- properly-executed, an experiment that doesn't work is not a failure. If you don't internalize this idea, you will find experimental physics to be psychologically untenable.

If you build an experiment (at any scale) to test out an idea that you think is going to work, and it doesn't work, _you made progress_. Now you know something really essential -- that thing that seemed like a well-motivated idea has some kind of unknown flaw. With that in hand, you can proceed to try something better, whether it is a refined approach or something entirely new.

Without doing the experiment, that well-motivated idea would still look like something worth trying.

If a large team of people were willing to spend years and lots of resources on an Alzheimer's clinical trial, it was likely to be because they thought it had a real chance of working. If it didn't work, we all benefit from their effort.

<comment><USER3> Out of interest, roughly what proportion of experiments in physics "don't work"? Does data that fails to support the experimental hypothesis get published prominently in physics journals?

<comment><USER4> 99% of experiments in fundamental physics "don't work" in this sense. _All_ of them get published. If you got funded to build an apparatus, people are going to want to know what you saw.

You can check for yourself, by looking at the experimental papers on the arXiv [0]. Every paper here that mentions data, but doesn't have the word "discovery" in the title, is a negative result. There are thousands of such papers.

0: [https://arxiv.org/list/hep-ex/current](https://arxiv.org/list/hep- ex/current)

<comment><USER5> I suppose you could think of it as an unexplored continent that has very specific requirements to survey each region. You mount an expedition, and you probably just find more trees and brush. The important thing, though, is that now that area is on a map, and the map keeps getting bigger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _As that last-linked blog post makes clear, I don't find that evidence compelling, and most certainly not compelling enough to approve the drug as it stands. But with the way the FDA is behaving these days, God only knows what's going to happen. People are investing on just that basis, although rarely stated in quite those words. But if you can look at the ruins of all the attempts to show efficacy with anti-amyloid antibody therapies and decide that the Biogen /Eisai data represent a real ray of hope, you have a sunnier disposition than I do._

I share the cynicism! Early drugs targeted amyloid plaques because it seemed like a good idea. But after so many failures, I can't think of any reason so much time and money is spent on a failed hypothesis other than hoping for a false positive. Because a false positive, even with very modest results, would result in a ridiculously profitable drug given the complete lack of Alzheimer's treatments we currently have.

<comment><USER7> Because there's very little money is invested in Alzheimer's research. People were very conservative in their choices.

We were spending a lot more on AIDS research 20 years ago than on Alzheimer's today:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222902/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222902/)

This produced great results for AIDS, which many people thought would never be treatable.

Anyway, medical research is expensive. Considering the number of people who will get Alzheimer's and the cost to deal with the disease, you would have thought we'd have been spending more on research for the past several decades.

Maybe soon we will all agree that it's probably worth investing more on research?

<comment><USER8> A huge amount is invested in Alzheimer's, but comparing to aids and hiv isn't a reasonable thing to do:

HIV and AIDS kill people, and they do so quickly.

There's also a foothold on how to treat it - whereas for Alzheimer's we don't even have an understanding of what actually causes it. Once we know the actual cause I suspect we'll see research funds skyrocket.

<comment><USER9> > Once we know the actual cause I suspect we'll see research funds skyrocket

I agree with your hypothesis, but saying it out loud seems backwards. In an ideal world, wouldn't we see research funds rise now in order to discover the cause (the hard part) rather than for the treatment (the less hard part).

<comment><USER8> no - there's a huge amount of research already happening, but the biggest cost in drug development occurs after you have a target. The reason funding _appears_ low, is because the expensive parts of drug discovery are late in the process - things like the large scale trials, etc. I would not be surprised if (I have not looked it up) a significant contributor to the amount spent on research in HIV is on late stage trials, because realistically at this point the majority of new HIV drugs should actually work, and you need the large scale tests to see if the drugs work _better_.

<comment> chupa-chups I'd like to see sources please, since I don't believe that claim. The years and years of research of many teams all over the world should exceed the amount of money required for large-scale trials by orders of magnitude.

Please note that I don't speak of an individual research team but of all teams globally combined working on that goal.

<comment><USER10> I'm sure that for any given drug you'll see a pattern of later research costing more, but as a field, unless we happen to get lucky early on with figuring out the basic science (which we clearly didn't with neurodegeneration), we'll need years (or decades to centuries - emperor of all maladies is an excellent read into the amount of work and time it took to understand cancer to the level we do now) to understand what to spend money on drugs on, and we'll have to pay for all the dead ends there too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Something interesting I stumbled upon recently: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldehyde_dehydrogenase#Patholo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldehyde_dehydrogenase#Pathology_\(aldehyde_dehydrogenase_deficiency\))

Specifically these quotes:

> Some case-control studies claimed that carriage of ALDH2x2 allele was a risk > of late-onset Alzheimer's disease independent of the apolipoprotein E gene > (the odds for LOAD in carriers of ALDH2x2 allele almost twice that of non- > carriers). Moreover, ALDH gene, protein expression and activity are > substantially decreased in the substantia nigra of Parkinson's disease > patients. These reports are in line with findings implementing toxic lipid > oxidation-derived aldehydes in these diseases and in neurodegeneration in > general.

> The ALDH2-/\- mice display age-related memory deficits in various tasks, as > well as endothelial dysfunction, brain atrophy, and other Alzheimer's > disease-associated pathologies, including marked increases in lipid > peroxidation products, amyloid-beta, p-tau and activated caspases. These > behavioral and biochemical Alzheimer's disease-like deficits were > efficiently ameliorated when the ALDH2-/\- mice were treated with isotope- > reinforced, deuterated polyunsaturated fatty acids (D-PUFA).

D-PUFA is interesting (and being investigated for use in other diseases, e.g. Huntington's) but it's just addressing the proximal cause of the neurodegeneration (= the build-up of peroxidation products in the brain) rather than the mechanism by which those products are produced.

I'm much more curious to know whether introduction of exogenous ALDH2 into the body (perhaps above wild-type expressed levels of ALDH2) might be neuroprotective/prophylactic against neurodegenerative disease. As far as I can search, though, nobody's ever even extracted+purified an ALDH2 enzymatic solution, let alone tested it for such effects.

</comment><comment><USER12> Anyone have any breakdown of what this means for the laymen out here on HN? I get the gist this was a major (but not unpredicted) failure, but am I reading it wrong? Was this for one category of drugs, or a hypothesis about the cause of Alzheimer's in general, or both?

<comment><USER13> There was a good HN discussion a few weeks back about this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225) It's becoming increasingly clear that the entire Amyloid-beta plaque hypothesis has been wrong and last 20+ years of Alzheimer's research and drug development has been wasted.

<comment><USER14> Yes. My comment triggered most of that discussion.

I have really good solid evidence for another common disease being caused by infection or microbiome dysbiosis. But I am encountering a lot of resistance in the field despite my theory, models and data being much more solid than the status quo to explain said disease and my research coming from a famous lab.

I guess it's really hard for lots of people to accept most of their careers were spent chasing the wrong hypothesis.

I've reached a tipping point where I think I can only push it further and develop a drug in a startup. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's are also something I want to tackle because the mechanism is analogous. If someone wants to help or some VC is interested, just let me know. Contact email is in my profile. These diseases have a big CS / information theory component.

<comment><USER15> What's the disease?

My personal experience and the research I've read makes me believe you are absolutely right.

<comment><USER16> Probably something like MS or another auto-immune disorder that could be microbiome and/or dopamine related. Could also be type 1 diabetes, RA, Crohn's, etc. Those would be my guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > I really don't know what else to say at this point. I've been writing this > blog since 2002, several years after my own experiences with Alzheimer's > drug discovery, and ever since then I have chronicled the failure of drug > after drug aimed at the amyloid hypothesis. Different mechanisms, different > dosing, different patient populations, different trial designs: none of it > has worked. Not once. I myself include the most recent Biogen/Eisai antibody > efforts in that list – yes, the one that they've submitted to the FDA and > are trying to get approved, a decision about which I have made my position > abundantly clear.

What's remarkable isn't the failure of this trial, but the complete lack of efficacy for any drug working through the "amyloid hypothesis."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry_of_Alzheimer%27s_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry_of_Alzheimer%27s_disease#Amyloid_hypothesis)

Either this hypothesis is completely wrong, or all of the drugs in all of these trials aren't able to address the amyloid.

Given the weight of evidence, it seems like there's not much left of the amyloid hypothesis to even poke a hole through.

</comment><comment><USER18> Amyloid plaques are clearly not the problem, but I thought we already knew that? When did these experiments get launched?

There are people who appear to be genetically immune to Alzheimer's yet build up massive amyloid plaques. They do not show any symptoms of the disease, so shouldn't this have been ruled out by now?

<comment><USER19> Looking back through Derek Lowe's posts, I don't think he considered the amyloid hypothesis dead until around 2016 or so.

The study was started in December 2012, according the clinicaltrials.gov posting. At that time, you had the first round of amyloid blockers that didn't work, but you were in the midst of the hail-mary round of "maybe it works if you catch it early/in this group of people/etc." tests. Indeed, this is one of those studies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I found this old presentation making a set of hypothesis regarding Alz etiology, possible mechanisms and possible treatments somewhat interesting: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1FmK4582mA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1FmK4582mA).

I am obviously biased towards this concept, as I have personally seen my mom slow reverse her early dementia with the help of an experimental Mercury removing drug, but since Alzheimer is really only confirmed by Autopsy, and we happen to live close by a Chlor Alkali plant that has been dumping Hg to the environment for decades, we would never know if she would have eventually died / get diagnosed of Alz.

<comment><USER21> Mercury poisoning can also cause things like memory loss and neuropathy. It seems like a reasonable explanation given your anecdata.

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

<comment><USER20> Right, although apparently it can as well, at a very low levels cause the same degeneration to neurons as seen in Alzheimer disease, unlike any other heavy metal tested as far as I know. I found this video pretty interesting: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU8nSn5Ezd8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU8nSn5Ezd8)

<comment><USER10> yeah, mercury is dangerous with how toxic it can be at low levels in an organic form. If you have a case for mercury poisoning, is it possible to sue the company responsible via class action lawsuit or the like? Sorry to hear about what you're going through, I hope the drug works and wish you all the best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If I reduce your load of gunshot wounds near zero but to a nonzero value, the pathogenesis of your disease will still worsen. This blogger will then claim that the gunshot wound hypothesis is flawed!

The data shows that reducing amyloid-beta load is not sufficient to confer a clinical benefit. That's all the data shows. The failure of these drugs does not preclude the role of amyloid formation in the diseases.

In particular, there is no known dose-response relationship for amyloid-beta or other pathogenically-implicated amyloid proteins.

The conclusion is similar: these drugs aiming to reduce amyloid load are illogical. But the subsequent claim that the amyloid hypothesis is wrong does not follow.

<comment><USER23> > _The data shows that reducing amyloid-beta load is not sufficient to confer > a clinical benefit._

No, this trial was designed to test whether _preventing_ amyloid plaque formation can prevent Alzheimer's. To the extent that it does not (which appears to be the conclusion), then it's safe to say that amyloid hypothesis is wrong.

In other words, if these patients do not acquire amyloid plaque, but still acquire Alzheimer's at the same rate and severity, then amyloid plaques logically cannot be the cause of Alzheimer's.

This should no longer surprise anyone. These studies, coupled with the existence of people who have been found to be loaded with amyloid plaque and yet do NOT get Alzheimers [1], should be plenty to change the direction of research.

1 - [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/colombian-woman-s- ge...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/colombian-woman-s-genes-offer- new-clues-staving-alzheimer-s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This seems quite consistent with the idea that microtubules are the locus of the real action of consciousness and memory. The amyloid theory would then be confusing cause and effect. If that's so, plaques don't cause Alzheimers; they are the side-effect of a process that causes Alzheimers: disintegration of microtubules.

</comment><comment><USER25> Spending billions in basic research that investigates the causes of Alzheimer without a potential patentable drug is not economically valuable for private companies. If the cause is found it might not require expensive new drug to cure. This research should be funded by the governments.

<comment><USER10> Basic research already is mainly funded by governments. The research in this article is an attempt at a drug being developed by a private company, which is seperate from research that investigates the cause of Alzheimers disease.

Once the root cause is discovered, if it somehow needs no drug or device intervention to be treated, then great! Otherwise, the private sector would step in to take those drugs to market and pay for those trials then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Nothing but bad news.

</comment><comment><USER27> What's the next best guess for a target now that the amyloid hypothesis seems to be a failure?

</comment><comment><USER28> tldr: No effect for the two antibodies tested.</comment>


The World's Fastest Police Car - <AUTHOR> http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/lambocop-stalks-italian-speeders/?ex=1240804800&en=dced38ed2084eb84&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=AU-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M067-ROS-1008-PH&WT.mc_ev=click

<comment><USER2> The moment I saw the headline, I guessed it would be a Lamborghini Diablo VT. But I was half right. It's a Gallardo. But its an easy guess that the Italian police now have to recruit specialised guys into the force to use these cars to their fullest speed or else it would be better to buy some old Ford Gran Torino and save some money.

Thieves, your next escape route is thru jets or water.

Episode-2 Green-Friends: Lots of speed and lots of fuel and lots of pollution... leads to lots of protests by green-friends. Police, start hiring a good lawyer who can fight environmental suits.

One comment on that page that caught my eye:

 _The headline should read: "Lambocop stalks Italian women"_

</comment><comment><USER3> according to this <http://www.gizmag.com/go/6555/> the Brabus cop car is faster + unlike the Lambo the thing has a back seat to put crooks in</comment>


Master of the Unreal - <AUTHOR> http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/03/master-of-the-unreal-hercules-segers/ <comment><USER2> Werner Herzog dedicated his part of the Whitney biennial to Segers. See him talking about him here > [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/werner- herzog-is-...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/werner-herzog-is- bringing-one-of-his-favorite-artists-to-the-whitney-biennial)</comment>


Developer Preview of AWS SDK for JavaScript in the Browser - <AUTHOR> http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2013/10/developer-preview-aws-sdk-for-javascript.html

<comment><USER2> My first thought: great - we can retire our in-house multi-part uploader (EvaporateJS) [0] and use AWS's. But digging into the API, it seems like most of the real work of multipart uploading (managing part failures) is not done by the SDK [1], so we'll stick with EvaporateJS. It's working pretty well for us. We've seen 22GB uploads go through (direct from browser to S3). The main issue that we know of [2] should be fairly easy to fix if anyone wants to contribute!

[0] [https://github.com/TTLabs/EvaporateJS](https://github.com/TTLabs/EvaporateJS) [1] [http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSJavaScriptSDK/latest/frames.ht...](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSJavaScriptSDK/latest/frames.html) [2] [https://github.com/TTLabs/EvaporateJS/issues/6](https://github.com/TTLabs/EvaporateJS/issues/6)

<comment><USER3> We had similar hopes, but for now we will continue to use our in-house multi part uploader. We have to sign every multi-part request server side, using an auth scheme that depends on the key and the user.

I'm not sure if it would be an improvement or not to give each of our users an IAM account that correlates to specific bucket acl which is based on user namespaces. It would lighten the load on our servers (don't need to sign each request) but now each user needs resources in IAM to be managed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is huge. Jeff, if you're still reading, are there any plans to include Persona in the Web Identity federation?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am reading! I will ask the team about Persona.

<comment><USER5> This would be great. Firebase is somewhat of a competitor and offers this feature.

[https://www.firebase.com/docs/security/simple-login- persona....](https://www.firebase.com/docs/security/simple-login-persona.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's a library helping devs move to a fully client-side model.... that requires a server for auth.

I must been missing the intended use case. Happy with the Google Drive and Dropbox equivalents, this isn't something that we'll be adding to that set.

<comment><USER7> You don't need a server for auth, that's what web identity federation[1] is for.

[1] [http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2013/05/aws-iam-now-supports- amaz...](http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2013/05/aws-iam-now-supports-amazon- facebook-and-google-identity-federation.html)

<comment><USER6> In the flow picture at the bottom, the STS looks like a server to me. What I'm saying is the auth flow still seems to require a server to act as an indirection to the real auth server. But if Amazon provide that part for us, great.

<comment><USER7> It's not just Amazon providing this-- there is Login With Amazon, but there is also Facebook and Google that act as identity providers. Unless I'm mistaken, this is how Google's storage APIs work too, by using OAuth/OpenID to get an access token that can then be exchanged for keys.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's a sample that will let you authenticate using Facebook and then upload content to S3:

[http://aws.amazon.com/developers/getting- started/browser/](http://aws.amazon.com/developers/getting-started/browser/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How does this generate security credentials for a user client side? It mentions Identity Federation[1], but it looks like that links with Google , Facebook, or Login with Amazon. Is there a way to to authenticate a user without a 3rd-party login service?

[1] [http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2011/08/aws-identity-and- access-m...](http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2011/08/aws-identity-and-access- management-now-with-identity-federation.html)

<comment><USER9> I really apologize for a very cursory read on my part, but I'm guessing it is in the same manner that CORS uploads to S3 is handled: [http://aws.amazon.com/articles/1434/](http://aws.amazon.com/articles/1434/)

There seems to be more details here: [http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2013/05/aws- iam-now-supports-amaz...](http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2013/05/aws-iam-now- supports-amazon-facebook-and-google-identity-federation.html)

Again, I didn't have time to read all of this and see if it is done in the same manner as has been possible with S3/CORS for the last year or so.

<comment><USER7> If your application is only using S3 to upload objects, the full SDK would probably be overkill. Using pre-signed forms is sufficient there. However, if you want to use other services like DynamoDB, SQS, or SNS, pre-signed URLs will not work. Also note that in order to generate a pre-signed URL you still need a backend service running to sign those URLs, something you can avoid with the client-side SDK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Each request must be signed with your AWS credentials. .. Our web identify federation feature to authenticate the users of your application. By incorporating WIF into your application, you can use a public identity provider (Facebook, Google, or Login with Amazon) to initiate the creation of a set of temporary security credentials." [http://media.amazonwebservices.com/blog/2013/iam_web_identit...](http://media.amazonwebservices.com/blog/2013/iam_web_identity_federation_1.png)

I rather disagree with getting your autherization tokens by the grace of Google and Facebook.

It seems simple enough to roll your own, perfect use case for App Engine actually:

(Gets temp S3keys)

User <\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--> Logins to your site (AppEngine)

ˇ

S3

I just wish Amazon offered better late rimiting options and intergration behind the scenes. The 'Each Request' phrasing can be misleading, you don't need to sign each request, you can give the client side app a token that will last for an hour or a week. (But its on you to refresh it when it expires and keep track of how its being used so there's no abuse)

<comment><AUTHOR> What kind of rate limiting do you need? What are you trying to guard against?

<comment><USER10> Well lets say I have a TokenFactory running somewhere (my servers, AppEngine, whatever) and my app is called Shminstegram - when my users login and get a token that's good for say 1 hour, I probably don't want them uploading 10,000 photos in that time period. That's probably a bot.

Now I could manage this myself with a background task that crunches S3 logs at its own pace and when it notices abuse it reports it to my TokenFactory so next time that user asks for a fresh token they get denied... but it would be great if S3 was a tad smarter about such things on its own. :)

Does that sort of make sense? In other words a token should have finer grained permissions than just time. Maybe... "Accept this token for the next 24 hour, or 200 POSTs, which ever comes first, and no more than 20 POSTs in the last hour." That sort of thing.

<comment><USER11> In this context bandwidth throttling is also a consideration - perhaps a per token or per bucket max object size?

<comment><USER10> You can limit objects by size with the existing ACL's already. But you can't specify how many objects overall a user may upload in some time frame, or their accumlated size.

So you can have a token for: upload as many objects as you want of size less than 1MB in the next 1 hour.

You can't have a token for: upload no more than 1000 objects of size less than 1MB, in the next 1 hour and cut them off after 200MB Total.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How do you do security when making calls to DynamoDB directly from the browser? Does that mean a user can do anything it wants with your DB by forging the JS?

EDIT: Ok, so it says in the post. Fine-Grained Access Control for Amazon DynamoDB. Good stuff.

</comment><comment><USER13> epic, I'd love to see angular and ember sdk extensions.

</comment><comment><USER14> Thank you for this!

</comment><comment><USER15> "Deceloper"?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have old eyes, further blurred by writing re:Invent blog posts almost non- stop for the last 2 weeks. The typo has been fixed.</comment></comment>


Find your optimal vehicle and help us solve the AI cold start problem - dan-jackson https://driverbase.com/company/sign-up-to-find-your-optimal-vehicle-release-v-1774-beta/ <comment> dan-jackson Open a free account, add vehicles and driving routes to unlock recommendations: [https://driverbase.com/user/register](https://driverbase.com/user/register)

<comment><AUTHOR> What is the AI cold start problem your solving?

<comment> dan-jackson Additional users help us improve the quality of generated recommendations. Every time a new user joins driverbase the recommendation quality improves for everyone.</comment></comment></comment>


A percentage of Google traffic is stripped of identifying information. Why? - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/05/google-operating-system-tech-enter-cx_ew_1205google.html?feed=rss_news <comment><USER2> Lots of people here probably already understand this, but: User agents being stripped out says nothing about the OS, only the browser. The OS has no involvement in the user agent string. Most browsers happen to include an OS, but that is their choice, and they are free to lie.

My guess is that either Google has a critical mass of privacy nuts that use readily-available Firefox extensions that do this, or, probably more likely, that there are internal builds of Chrome floating around that have been programmed not to send their version number freely out. It means... nothing interesting whatsoever!

Speculation that Google was building a browser was obvious and flowed freely long before it was found to be true. Speculation that they are building an OS is the same, except it hasn't been shown to be true yet. Well, except the Android OS, which I'm sure there are NO PLANS WHATSOEVER to bring to the desktop in any form, ever. (I mean, obviously it can't be a straight translation, but...)

<comment><USER3> I thought google was the motivator behind <http://www.thinkgos.com/>

So in that sense if they want to build a consumer oriented OS, they've already been doing so for a while...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> translated from the PR: We noticed something funny about some web requests from Google. Obviously this is evidence of a super secret stealth project that will cause Steve Ballmer to throw chairs. Buy our Data.

<comment><USER4> And for a limited time only, it's only $9.99/GB. Act now and save!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the article:

"Its algorithms may be picking up on Google's robots that crawl and grab content from the Web, for instance."

Translation: they're not cleaning up their traffic data for the biggest source of traffic out of Google's HQ. They should just stop spweing BS and Forbes should get better reporters.

</comment><comment><USER5> "'Google is the only company we've seen that does this,'" Vizzacarro says. Google employees not using the secret OS are employing various versions of Unix, such as Linux or Ubuntu, and some older operating systems, like X11, he says."

X11? Linux and Ubuntu versions of Unix? Wtf? This shit is embarrassing.

</comment><comment><USER6> The article was dead in the water when it called X11 an operating system.</comment>


Spotify may soon be worth more than $8B - <AUTHOR> http://uk.businessinsider.com/spotify-raising-400-million-at-84-billion-valuation-2015-4

<comment><USER2> Music brought back Apple to the world and now Spotify. Music is moving, Radio > TV > iPod > Cloud.</comment>


How a couple worked charter school regulations to make millions - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-charter-schools-20190327-htmlstory.html <comment><USER2> While there may be some phony charter schools out there both of my children went to charter schools that were far superior to the traditional local schools.</comment>


Coinbase lets 3rd party app use brand and spend user BTC, "believes it's secure" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/479799235122954240 <comment><USER2> I'm baffled at the seeming nonchalance of startups developing "high security" banking apps, certainly. But I think the interesting part here is that the way customers see them (due to their marketing, of course) -- as a hyper-secure distribute currency broker -- but the way they behave is as if they are generally non-professional (only in that they do not believe their profession is "banker") people hacking away at a CRUD app. So it may seem cool and agile to them when they post this, but they may be getting a different response from people who don't see the men behind the curtain and only know the marketing.</comment>


The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux - <AUTHOR> http://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-truth-comes-out-microsoft-needs-linux/ <comment><USER3> There is a large group of people on the internet who never let the Microsoft of the 90s go.

How does every single one of their business decisions get linked to some nefarious goal? The author doesn't even know what it could be, BUT DON'T FORGET! This company tried to patent everything decades ago! Don't forget they're not bringing bash to Windows out of the goodness in their hearts!

<comment><USER4> There seems to be a lot of conspiracy theories going on, on what I personally believe to be a really straight forward and logical reaction.

From my perspective, "Bash on Windows" is a reaction to the wide adoption of OSX for development (In particularly web development seemed to have a mass migration).

For obligatory anecdote:

I'm a longtime and loyal Windows user. Windows has been my primary development platform even though parts or all of our stack ran on some flavor of -nix. I've always encouraged my team to do the same, primary motivated by the better UX on Windows.

But, like many in the past few years, I jumped the OSX bandwagon and moved the entire department over. This wasn't a fun transition, and came with many pains. But ultimately it was a necessary transition as the tools we needed just weren't supported on Windows.

Development became more complex, tooling became mandatory at every stage of development and only OSX offered us a reasonable balance between a -nix-like environment that ran the tools with decent UX.

Microsoft's move to bring Bash to Windows will likely motivate me to migrate back in due time.

While some may be spinning conspiracy theories, I'm personally just really glad Microsoft is moving in this direction.

<comment><USER5> You talk like developing on Linux means doing everything in the command line. *nix UX is nothing to be ashamed of, and I personally prefer it over Windows and OS X (especially OS X).

<comment><USER6> Personally, the reason I like OS X over a random linux distribution is the sane keyboard shortcut defaults - CMD+C and CMD+V just work everywhere, as well as things like CMD+W.

Well, almost everywhere. And CTRL+F is still a little wonky depending on the app you're in.

<comment><USER7> Where on Linux do Ctrl-c, v, and x not work? I haven't had a problem with them anywhere in a decade. I have largely stuck to Gnome2, MATE, and XFCE, though.

<comment><USER8> The problem with Ctrl C is that it is also the shortcut for SIGINT when the terminal is focused.

Also most terminal emulators will forward all Ctrl combinations directly over the TTY rather than capturing them in the windowing system, so in practice Ctrl-V rarely works in a terminal either. Likewise for Ctrl-W, which is typically bound to backwards-kill-word, etc.

The way it ends up in practice, shortcuts involving the Command key on OSX end up being clearly defined and consistent, because apps typically can't override them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The author quoted Shuttleworth:

> The native availability of a full Ubuntu environment on Windows, without > virtualization or emulation, is a milestone that defies convention and a > gateway to fascinatingly unfamiliar territory.

"Ubuntu environment" is the key there. Microsoft doesn't need "Linux" unless they're planning on replacing their own kernel with it. Microsoft here is depending on the software running atop of the kernel: in this case, the GNU operating system---which is more than just a set of GNU programs[0]---which brings all of this software together.

Granted, all the talk has been primarily about GNU Bash and other GNU software.[1]

Yes, they're running software compiled for the kernel Linux by providing translating system calls; they could also do that for any other kernel that hackers want to compile their software for, should it become immensely popular. But the rest of the Unix stuff is separate.

[0]: [https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html](https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html)

[1]: [https://www.gnu.org/software/](https://www.gnu.org/software/)

<comment><USER10> If we end up with fully comatible gnu/linux and gnu/windows, that's still awesome, maybe even better than ending up with only linux variants.

<comment><USER11> Not if it's harmful to the development of a fully Free ecosystem. Unless Windows becomes fully Free - which would be a huge, unprecedented change - <USER2> users are forced to accept whatever compromises Microsoft makes on their behalf.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> GNU is like Leonardo DiCaprio few years ago; never getting the Oscar. Microsoft did not bring Linux to Windows, it brought GNU. Linux is a kernel and there is not even a single bit of it in what microsoft brought to windows. It's technically GNU/Windows.

<comment><USER13> No. Just no. GNU on Windows has existed for a long time in several forms, for one thing. For another, by bringing a compatibility layer for the Linux kernel they have opened the door to much more than just GNU, and it remains incredibly reductivist to claim that that's all the Linux kernel does. You can use the Linux kernel (or this linux-compatible layer) to use a GNU system or a completely non-GNU system if you so choose.

What they bring by default as a user-land is Ubuntu, which is actually a complete OS that happens to include both GNU and Linux and many many other things, including essential components that are not part of either project. I say _actually_ a complete OS because, in spite of RMS' protestations to the contrary in the famous "It's GNU/Linux, stupid!" editorial, the GNU system was not "almost finished" when the Linux kernel came along and is still not "almost finished" even today.

And the reason it's not almost finished is because the GNU project considers the kernel unimportant, which they prove wrong every year HURD remains a mess that moves forward with the pace of a snail.

<comment><USER12> You are wrong in so many ways. First of all, you are confusing "Microsoft bringing GNU to Windows" with "this is the first time GNU is brought to Windows." Then you go on to make it seem like if the GNU/Linux debate is just the craziness of some guy called RMS: wrong, many people support this distinction. Then you go off-topic talking about why GNU hurd is a mess. None of this contributes to the key topic here: Microsoft only brought GNU, not Linux and not Ubuntu. A topic where you were wrong again. Please read [https://mikegerwitz.com/2016/04/GNU- kWindows](https://mikegerwitz.com/2016/04/GNU-kWindows)

<comment><USER14> > many people support this distinction

Really? Maybe I travel in the wrong circles, but most of the time this comes up most people just roll their eyes.

Also, that blog post is terrible, and highlights why the FSF fails so miserably at it's mission. Referring to Windows as "freedom-denying, user- controlling, surveillance system" ignores the fact that most people don't care because it works.

<comment><USER9> > Also, that blog post is terrible, and highlights why the FSF fails so > miserably at it's mission. Referring to Windows as "freedom-denying, user- > controlling, surveillance system" ignores the fact that most people don't > care because it works.

These users do not value freedom. And that's their right, however much we disagree with it.

It doesn't make those statements false, and doesn't change the situation. I wrote that article to focus on software freedom, its purpose, and GNU.

We don't ignore the fact that "most people don't care because it works"; that doesn't make sense, because that works against our ideals.

<comment><USER14> I suspect those users do care about freedom. The issue is that most people view a computer as just a tool to do work, not a political statement. The concept of software freedom make little sense to most people, and for good reason. The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a better user experience for non technical people.

The other issue is the concept of "free software". No matter the claims, when the term free is applied to a product (or product class) like software, the immediate implication that the price is free. The "free as in free speech" doesn't work too well because speech is not a product. Also, Windows doesn't exactly stop me from doing questionable activities, like authoring documents that would be considered subversive.

Telling people that Windows takes away their right to view and modify the source code will at best give lukewarm response, because most people have other concerns.

<comment><USER9> > I suspect those users do care about freedom.

I meant software freedom in this context; I should have been more clear.

> The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a > better user experience for non technical people.

There are plenty of organizations that do that. The FSF exists for very specific reasons---ideology is essential.

> The "free as in free speech" doesn't work too well because speech is not a > product

I don't follow.

By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as in freedom".

> Also, Windows doesn't exactly stop me from doing questionable activities, > like authoring documents that would be considered subversive.

You're not setting a very high bar there ;)

<comment><USER15> > By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as > in freedom".

If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?

<comment><USER9> > If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

The free software definition specifies four specific freedoms:

      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

It is essential that the user be able to exercise those freedoms no matter what, which means ensuring that certain conditions on the distribution of the program are met, and that all derivative works are also free. This hack on copyright is called Copyleft, and it uses copyright to grant rights _back_ to the user.

      https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

Copyright needs to be used because, in many countries, works are proprietary by default; there is no choice; in the US, if you do not explicitly grant rights to others, then all rights are reserved.

<comment><USER15> If you need copyright law, you need men with guns to enforce the law. If you need men with guns to enforce the GPL, is that really freedom?

The public domain and licenses that approximate it (3-BSD) do not suffer from this problem. Eliminate copyright law, and everything still functions like a permissive license.

I want to abolish copyright because I think it gets in the way of creativity. Generally speaking I also want less dependence on men with guns. Since I want to abolish copyright, I do not like the GPL. The best way to abolish copyright in practice is to use a permissive license.

<comment><USER16> I do not mind offering my work under a dual choice. If you agree on a contract to never enforce any copyright or patents, for eternity, in legal and technical form, you may distribute my work without honoring the terms of GPL.

I have yet to find a person or company who would prefer those terms over the GPL. As such, I find people to be a bit dishonest when they proclaim a desire to abolish copyright but still prefer permissive licenses.

<comment><USER15> It's a bit of a one-sided contract (I'm giving up way more than you). And signing a contract just means more unnecessary men with guns, whereas we could just make and share and use creative works and that would be that. If you agreed to do the same, then maybe. If the contract pertained only to my changes to your software, then certainly, but it would have to be as free as 3-BSD. It's not like I ever intend to sue over IP.

The only reason to prefer 3-BSD is because public domain isn't recognized worldwide. I'll agree that there should probably be something about software patents in there, those are stupid.

<comment><USER16> The contract would pertain to any work ever made by the contracte. You said you wanted to abolish copyright, and that mean you can't pick and choose to keep copyright around when its suitable. It would also work indiscriminate, cover any past or future work in software, pictures, music and so on.

If you never intend to sue over IP, then the contract should be an no-issue. All it does is to write down that specific aspect into an enforceable contract. Contract don't need to use men with guns if everyone choose to honor it, which was the historically method used back when people lived in tribes and villages made out of a handful houses. No one would dare to break their word, risking that others would start to do the same.

<comment><USER15> Your contract is worse than marriage (no divorce), and a terrible strawman. Lifelong written contract with a stranger? Ugh. What if I change my mind? I'll just continue releasing things permissively, and gradually abolish copyright in the process. (I don't really care about attribution which is generally all that's left.) You're free to use what I make in your copyleft projects!!

<comment><USER16> A deal is a deal. If you want to retain the option to change your mind and sue people over IP, then that is your decision. I won't be enabling that kind of behavior, nor will I donate code to it.

The best option would of course be that the law was changed and IP abolished by political change. Copyleft and permissive licenses would go away, artist could stand on the shoulders of giants without fear, and compensation would be addressed before the art was made rather than afterward. A fitting end to the flame wars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Did the author post this having entirely ignored all of the news and discussion about this last week?

This just seems like a seriously tardy "me-too" piece.

<comment><USER18> There's just no content in that article at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ubuntu on Windows does more to destroy OS X. It's about developers choosing Macbooks over Surface Tablets and traditional laptops with a Win10 license.

If you're an enterprise running SQL Server now on Windows. You're not going to ditch your cluster to have it re-installed on Linux just to save a couple dollars on an OS license. But if you're a newbie developer fresh out of college and been doing development in a Unix-style environment (because they bought a Macbook instead of a Win8 laptop four years ago), you've probably never been exposed to a Microsoft development environment. These efforts are to capture the next generation of developers who haven't ever touched a Windows desktop and feel comfortable with writing Python on Linux and using MySQL or Oracle. Want proof? Quick, name one unicorn startup who has a Microsoft technology stack. Heck, just name anybody that's using a Microsoft development stack in Silicon Valley...

Now those developers can be targeted with .NET, SQL Server, and Ubuntu on Windows. Now instead of buying the same version of that Macbook, those folks can go buy a Surface Tablet clone with the pen and touch screen (and a Windows 10 license!), and still do all of their development on a Unix-style environment. Better yet some will transition to C#, and some will even take advantage of the free-license-for-Oracle-users to switch to SQL Server.

</comment><comment><USER20> How is it the truth if the author specifically mentions that he his speculating?

</comment><comment><USER21> To me Microsoft has been evil long enough, instead of welcoming they "join" open source world, I'm 1000x more concerned they become a tumour and hurt the booming open source at large. Just leave OSS alone Microsoft!

<comment><USER22> Why do I keep rolling my eyes everytime I go on hacker news?

Microsoft providing more free tools in their suite is nothing but nice. It certainly won't do any harm to OSS.

<comment><USER23> I can't believe you don't see the evil. Open your eyes. Just because a company pays 400 million for Xamarin and then open sources the Xamarin SDKs for Android, iOS, and Mac shouldn't fool you. People everywhere... revolt!

If you can't tell, I am being sarcastic. I love Microsoft. People just believe what they want to believe. I'm sure they will never change.

<comment><USER24> Sometimes it's a virtue to hold a grudge.

If people and companies are forgiven the instant they stop being abusive, then what's the disincentive to being abusive again? Microsoft did what they did because they had a monopoly position; they've changed now that they've lost it. There's absolutely nothing to say that they won't go right back to the way they were if they get a monopoly again.

If someone has been hitting you with a stick for years, and then all the sudden shows up with a big smile because they've lost their stick and they think you could help them get it back, what kind of fool would help them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Yes, it does. Not so much on servers or desktops, but on phones. The mobile ecosystem is in danger of becoming a iOS/Android duopoly (or already is, depending on which X you want in 9X% to say it is)

I love Windows Phones. No so many apps, which is good as I don't have that much time to tweak stuff. Sensitive defaults like a black theme (!!!), a click to enable reading aloud SMS (!!), crazy battery features.

They are liquidating the current WP8 line, so it's like $30 if you want to get a Lumia 640 LTE to play with for a weekend (and free unlock code if you want to keep it but don't want AT&T). It's just sad to see something that had so many good things for it go the way of the Dodo.

</comment><comment><USER26> I don't think MS is "embracing open source" (or even necessarily rejecting it), so much as they are acknowledging that Linux servers are here to stay for a while, and simply grabbing a piece of the pie instead of ignoring it. Much like Oracle having its own Linux distro.

Perhaps enough shareholders complained about a market segment simply being given to OSX (development environment for work intended for a POSIX server) that they simply had to act. No more, no less. Not benevolent or malevolent, just picking up some loose cash :-)

<comment><USER26> Maybe they are too late, though. I still like my Mac better than Windows version N, and have largely switched from Ubuntu (formerly RedHat, formerly Slackware) to OSX at home for the family.

The UI on the last few Windows versions has really confused me as to WTH they think they are doing.

<comment><USER26> I remember when my kids got the version of MS Office at school that came with Vista/Win7. All the complaining about Open Office / Linux stopped, as they learned that the Win XP layout was NOT God's Own User Interface.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A possible reason for bringing MSSQL to Linux that was not mentioned in TFA at all: customers requesting it.

</comment><comment><USER28> I wonder what Ballmer thinks, after all he was the one who called Linux a "cancer".

<comment><USER29> I realize you are likely being rhetorical, but in case you aren't, Ballmer recently said that Linux is not a threat, and likely has not been a threat, even if he thinks that Microsoft did what it needed to do to survive at the time he called Linux a "cancer". [1]

More importantly, Ballmer was not wrong in saying that Microsoft's focus as a company has been and should always be "Developers, Developers, Developers" and everything about this Ubuntu on Windows effort is for Developers.

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux- id...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux- idUSKCN0WC2RA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Click bait title and speculation

</comment><comment><USER31> in other words, just installing cygwin.</comment>


Ask YC: "Rock Star" Job Titles - <AUTHOR> So someone mentioned to me the option of working full-time for a period of time on a very exciting project.  The cost benefits would simply yield supplementary income, nothing super spectacular, so not getting the gig doesn't immediately mean I'll be shit out of luck with money.
But then I saw the job post and it said "ROCK STAR Developer" and immediately I didn't want to work for this company.  I was asked why by a third party, and I explained how the whole cliche of calling people ninjas and rockstars is pointlessly chic, and trivializes what you want the person to do because their name "looks" hip and trendy.
And dear god I know one thing if I know anything: trendy fails to deliver.
Anyone else here have an opinion on the whole "rock star" job industry mentality? <comment><USER3> I totally agree 100%. If I see rockstar or ninja, I skip right past your ad.

You want to get my attention? Tell me you're looking for a professional, and you're going to treat me like one. I want to know that I get 8 hours a week to work on opensource. I want to know that you're looking for craftsman, not ego maniacs. Mostly, I want to know that I'm not working with a group of people that saw the word rockstar and thought to themselves "Oh, rockstars huh? That's totally describing me."

Also, please please please don't tell me you have funding from a "Top Tier" VC. It's a sure fire way to convince me that you care more about your ego than running a successful company. Who the fuck cares who funded you? I don't care who, I only care that you're going to be around for a long time. And, you're going to consider anyone that gives you a ton of money to be "Top Tier", so it's completely meaningless anyway.

<comment><USER4>
      "I want to know that I get 8 hours a week to work on opensource"

You wouldn't work at a closed source company?

edit: i read 8-hours-a-day -- sorry. that is somewhat reasonable.

The unreasonable side comes from the inability to create hours. You can only add work. Side projects are always additive, unless you can stop work on a core project to do the side project. That's often bad for business, unless you're Guido.

The solution is to just work more to make up the hours. Most people don't want to hear that though, because they like the idea of getting a gift of choice from a company.

<comment><USER5> Any company that leverages open source software should make an effort to donate back to the community, even if the core of their software is closed source. Use Linux? Python? Emacs? Firefox?

Allowing your employees to donate some time towards open source projects is probably a good way to attract talent. Advertising for "rockstar ninja" positions is not.

<comment><USER6> While I agree that it's a much better way to attract talent, I'm going to say (as an OSS contributor myself) that unless it's already significantly into its funding cycle, a startup where you've got time to spend on random OSS stuff that doesn't directly benefit the company is probably focusing on the wrong things.

<comment><USER5> A startup where the co-founders have time to work on random OSS stuff is probably working on the wrong things. A startup where _employees_ can spend 20% of their time hacking on OSS or side projects is likely doing just fine. I would be more worried about a startup that expects or demands that employees work 40+ hours. It either means that it's being run by suit monkeys that don't understand how programmers work or has poor project management that requires a constant crunch mode.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Job ads are usually full of cliches. The interesting thing to me is how much they've have changed. Ten years ago it was "team player." Now it's "rockstar." Silly as it is, that's at least a sign of progress. It means employers have now realized that you want the smartest programmers, rather than obedient ones.

I suspect Google's example is the main reason for this change. Or evolution.

<comment><USER8> So from your perspective the companies that use "rockstar" and similar terms are probably better for hackers than a standard job posting? Since they are at least looking for the right type of programmers... I can see that perspective.

It's always possible that some horrible HR person posted the job. I've talked to some horrible HR people at Microsoft and Google in the past (when they were "cool" places to work with super smart types).

I think the most obvious move is to interview and talk to the people you will be working for/with. In many cases the specific project or team is as important as the company.

The job ad is just to get that initial interest. To get you to commit to sending a resume or taking a phone call.

<comment><USER3> So, smartest programmers = rockstars? Highly doubtful.

<comment><USER8> _Silly as it is, that's at least a sign of progress. It means employers have now realized that you want the smartest programmers, rather than obedient ones._

Yeah but that seems to be what PG is saying here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I used to love reading John Carmack's finger-based blog (flog?). "finger @idsoftware.com" still yields the company directory listing (not sure if it's still up-to-date). With the exception of the CEO, everyone has a simple, functional title like Programmer or Artist. The humility and understatement implicit in the listing -- John Carmack, Programmer -- is something that more companies and individuals should aspire to. He isn't a rock star, ninja, or even an engineer, architect, or developer. He's just a programmer. One of the best.

<comment><USER10> Engineer seems as humble as programmer to me.

<comment><USER9> To me, "engineer" and "architect" are terms originally pulled from other disciplines -- perhaps as an attempt to lend credence to the seemingly less substantial act of mere "programming." John Carmack and id software, to me, represent the disavowal of all pretense, the refusal to seek the respectability of more historically established fields. They are programmers and they are proud.

<comment><USER10> I use 'engineer' because I do other things than programming (my job title is 'Technical Specialist'). Programming, systems administartion, writing processes for the software and reviewing architectural designs.

Everything I do pretty much falls into either software or electrical (hardware) engineering, at a higher or lower level depending on the job. I don't think of mechanical and structural engineers as having a monopoly on the term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like to use the term "famously good". Unfortunately, that sets the bar extremely high. Not as high as it seems, though, since I mean, "famous in our segment of the market or for working with our preferred technologies". e.g. They've written one or more books on the topic, they headed up a popular FOSS project in the area or in the language, they wrote the definitive implementation of a really interesting concept, they have code in our language implementation (where language for us is Perl and JavaScript--so patches in the Firefox JavaScript engine or Perl 5 or Perl 6 are interesting indicators), etc. We'd even consider blogging to be a "famous" trait...though we'd want to see some code.

So, by that definition there are at least 50 people on HN that I'd hire without hesitation. And by that definition, I've worked with and for at least a couple dozen famously good people in my ten years in the industry (and the longer I think about it, the longer the list gets).

Interestingly, when I read "Rock Star Developer", I think, "Will work your ass off, get no equity, and get salary on par with the industry average." And when I think, "famously good", I think, "Will expect salary that is commensurate with output, will expect to work on interesting projects, and has his/her pick of jobs." And yet, the latter is who I want to hire, because I know the difference it makes in quality and productivity. If I can hire a famously good hacker for about 1.5 times the industry average, I'd consider it a good deal.

But I use the term because I know what it means...I'm not sure if it'd be meaningful to folks reading our job ads. So I'd probably be more explicit about what we're looking for.

</comment><comment><USER12> "ROCK STAR Developer" is probably a synonym for an underpaid, overworked developers ;). They can't pay you with money so they pay you with empty superlatives.

<comment><USER13> Meh... after working with a team of 20 developers for a few months, I could very clearly tell you who are the rock stars and who are not. Particularly in software development, some people are just unbelievably better than others.

<comment><USER14> I'm more of a roadie.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I find it funny that, typically, these companies want 'rock stars,' but are unwilling to pay a commiserate rate.

If you really believe you want a star, say John Resig or someone similar, you better have a kick-ass project and be prepared to pay for him ... otherwise, you're just hoping you can get someone good on the cheap.

<comment><USER11> Work environment is also a big issue. I've known great developers (a few of which have written code _every_ Python developer uses every day) who've made their employment decisions based on how they'll be treated, who they'll be working with, and with what tools they'll be working (and even what they'll be working on....Open Source development has a strong allure for many developers, beyond mere money). Aeron chairs have a reputation for being a "boom era boondoggle", but if you don't provide a good chair, you won't keep a good developer sitting for long. Great recent hardware to work on is a given. Big monitors, a given. Whatever software and hardware they need to be comfortable: trackball or fancy mouse, weird keyboard, monitor stand, etc. Likewise for snacks and their favorite beverages.

As a startup, I'm running cheap. But, when it comes time to hire folks, I'm stocking the damned fridge with the best stuff money can buy, buying great chairs and huge monitors, and anything else I can to make working for me and with me the best work experience of their lives. Even if it costs $5000-$7500 right off the bat to equip a developer, that's chump change compared to the opportunity cost of hiring a new one to replace him if he leaves. And it's a small percentage of their total compensation package. (And we have that wonderfully alluring Open Source thing going for us, so we won't lose folks just because they don't get to see their code set free.)

Reckon we could hire Resig? I hear he likes Perl.

<comment><USER16> which is the name of your company :) ?

<comment><USER11> Virtualmin. We'll be hiring for a couple of positions a little later this year (primarily related to our new cloud computing products, rather than what you see on our website today). Feel free to send over your resume.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Ninja" and "Rockstar" are just a dorky way of saying "We're looking for energetic, self-motivating high-achievers to work in a dynamic team on its way to the top!" In other words, nothing.

If I read an ad that was looking for an expert in graph theory, or genetic algorithms, or whatever, with a strong knowledge of C++ for a small team where there were still opportunities to be treated as a co-founder ... then we're getting somewhere.

The problem with "rock star" and "ninja" isn't just that they sound dumb, it's that they're usually just a way of saying, "We don't really know what we're looking for, but if you're a workaholic, it might be you."

</comment><comment><USER17> I agree that it is pointlessly chic, however have you ever thought about it from the point of the people hiring? It is difficult to find good people to hire, and this company isn't making any bones about what they want. Also remember to separate human resources from development. What you are getting, unless the company is tiny, is HR spiel.

I would use something like that as a flag of caution but I would want to see the job description/website/product information before making a final decision.

The Omni Group calls their support staff, "Support Ninjas", and I thought it was humorous the first time I saw it a couple of years ago.

<http://www.omnigroup.com/company/people/>

If it's a churn and burn shop that pays nothing then yes, stay away. If it's an over zealous HR person, than give them the benefit of the doubt. :)

</comment><comment><USER18> We've solved that another way. Our employees get to choose their own title (except they can't use a legally significant name or VP without permission).

We have:

       * Head Greenskeeper
       * Mighty God of Thunder
       * Princess

... along with the usual "senior software engineer" and such. You might think that would remove the meaning from titles, but I can tell you... I'll take a Mighty God of Thunder or a Head Greenskeeper for my project any day over someone that put Senior Software Architect on their business card.

<comment><USER19> Why don't you choose for the best, regardless of the label they apply to themselves?

<comment><USER18> I do. I just told you their labels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> One thing that you just generally have to watch out for with startup job postings is the people who have drunk too much of their own Kool Aid. Everyone believes they will change the world and make a major impact. Some certainly will change the world, others will "merely" exist in a self-sustaining niche that never changes the game, but earns everyone a nice salary.

Most startups are masters of spin, you pretty much have to be. Every developer is a "Rock Star", every VC is "Top Tier", every release is a "Revolutionary enhancement", and even though there could be 8 players in any one market, each one is somehow or another the "Leader", "Market Leader", or "Top Ranked" one.

Don't be turned off JUST by the job posting...

</comment><comment><USER21> Way not take these titles literally?

Rock star: cocaine and alcohol habit; cancels important engagements at the the last minute; often uncommunicative / in stupor; always followed around by a gaggle of loose women;

Ninja: Hides from colleagues; carries deadly weapons; often surprises you with unpleasant experiences; uncommunicative; can't work with others; only ever seen at night

I'm sure, if questioned, most companies using these titles are not looking for these attributes! Seriously, why not ask for "Code Vampires" or "Project Pornographers" :-)

</comment><comment><USER22> I think the "rock star" mantra used to work well when everyone else had dental job postings and a standard application form that had to be faxed in. Now, though, marketing and recruiting people are clued in on the "ninja" and "rock star" terminology, so abuse it to no end.

I too am turned off by these titles for this reason. When I'm recruiting I just go for what seems honest and appealing -- nothing overly flashy or trendy, but not boring either. I think the best positions combined with the best companies will always stand out in some way, but that way will probably continue to change.

</comment><comment><USER23> Clearly we need to develop some new titles

1) Code Baristas

2) Python Jockeys

3) CrackerJack Developers (retro!)

<comment><USER24> Java Zeppelins.

<comment><USER25> Perl Bandits.

<comment><USER26> Ruby Wranglers.

<comment><USER27> Ruby Samurais?

Ruby Commandos?

:)

<comment><USER28> Lua Lunatics

<comment><USER29> Lisp Elitists

<comment><USER27> Scheme plotters

<comment><USER30> _"... Clearly we need to develop some new titles ..."_

T-Rex's

<comment><USER31> so this is reddit after all

<comment><USER30> _"... T-Rex: so this is reddit after all ..."_

I disagree.

Puns are hacker activities. The real power of a pun is being able to see things from different angles and perspectives. References to _"reddit"_ , cynicism and reasons not to learn seem to be closer to what you mean ~ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=248509>

<comment><USER31> i meant it in a joking way, because reddit was the first time I observed the phenomenon in node comments.

after all reddit was in its begginings a hackers place

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> My wife asked if organizations _really_ advertise for "rock star" programmers, so I did a search on the local Craigslist and got four hits. The first link I followed contained the following definition of "rock star":

[quote]

FileMaker Certified Developer. (If you're not yet certified, we'll get you there!)

Ability to install and configure FileMaker Server Advanced; knowledge of ODBC access and custom web publishing.

Experience managing software development projects.

Experience with SQL, javascript, PHP, Quickbooks integration.

Computer science degree or certification.

[unquote]

 _Res ipsa loquitur._

The ad on the second link I followed said that the company's _software_ "performs like a rock star". I'm not sure I would consider this a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER33> To paraphrase from a popular movie:

"When everyone is a rock star, no one is."

<comment><USER34> When just about everyone is a rock star, the lone groupie will be in high demand.

<comment><USER4> There is a lesson for the long tail here, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If the project is in fact "very exciting," maybe you should respond in kind. Humor them. Rent a rock star costume and wear it to the interview. Gently explain how you were moved by the job description but that there was this one part which seemed pretentious to you. Be honest. Tell them you cringed when you saw the words "rock star." Then, with all the drama you can muster, tear off your uniform facade and reveal the person you are underneath. Or at least the person you are in clothing suitable for a job interview.

</comment><comment><USER36> More terms to avoid:

      * Ninja
      * Guru
      * ___ - <USER2>
      * Kick-Ass ___
      * ___ Chops
      * Mad ___ Skill[sz]

<comment><USER37> Sounds like a short list for potential .com's. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I have yet to meet a 'rock star' that was particularly impressive. They're 'washed up, surreal-life cast member' quality at best.

Is there even such a thing as a 'rock star' anymore? There are indie-rock bands with small but loyal followings, sure, but 'rock star'? My daughter won't have any idea what the term means. It smells of old out-of-touchness. Like COBOL! ROCK STAR COBOL PROGRAMMER WANTED!

<comment><USER39> I think "rock star" has, and is intended to have, a certain retro charm about it. A marker that those who use it are from a more civilized age (the 1980s) when songs were sung instead of spoken, when mistreating women was something you did in the privacy of your hotel room rather than the subject of your lyrics, and when writing songs about how awesome you personally are was considered a little gauche.

<comment><USER40> what you're describing sounds more like a "rap star"

<comment><USER39> Sorry, perhaps I was unclear, I was trying to contrast rock stars with rap stars.

Rap stars are the 2008 equivalent of rock stars, but nobody talks about rap- star programmers, because rappers aren't nearly as cool -- at least, not to the demographic which tends to dominate programming.

And that's why we still aspire to be rock stars even though rock barely appears on the sales charts in this blighted age.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> A less-known employer looking for talent on a job board has very few ways to distinguish itself from the pack. Looking for a "rock star" may be one of the ways it tries to do so. Tacky? Most certainly. Effective? Probably not. I don't know if it should be discounted because of it though. The only way to truly determine if it would be a good fit is to talk to the company.

<comment><USER3> Actually, a really good way to grab attention is by not doing what everyone else is doing. So, NOT looking for a "rock star" would be a good start.

<comment><USER42> this is 100% true. when we hired a developer at edufire.com, the ad ripped the phrase "web 2.0" and said if you were interested in building a real business that would change the world, you should get in touch. we got about 15 resumes, half were high quality, and we ended up being lucky enough to have an amazing developer agree to come on board.

it's pretty simple: if you want to find the top 1% of developers out there, don't hire like 99% of companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've found that the vast majority of functioning code is written by a small minority of people at the company. The current exception for me is Tipjoy. That's because I'm the only developer, and own 100% of both the angelic and filthy code.

While the term "rock star" is a bit silly, a goal of mine is to grab someone from that 1-5% pool at a company that actually writes good code.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think someone who simply rocks to the beat of chic and trendy catch phrases means they can produce the best code.

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't get so hung up on wording of a job post. Talking to someone for 20 seconds will give you inordinately more information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> On the same subject - does anyone find "a fun place to work" to be strangely unappealing ? I just can't help imagining myself rolling on the floor with laughter after seeing their existing code :) In the end it should be an _interesting_ place to work rather than anything else.

</comment><comment><USER44> I don't see the big deal. Especially if it's just a job post title. Think of it as just another way to say 'Senior' without implying any specific years of experience or worse, age.

</comment><comment><USER45> I see some postings for code ninjas but where is all the love for code pirates?

Pirates need love too!

<comment><USER46> Well, I wanted that, too ("Python Pirates, Arr!") But it has a little bit of a bad connotation. Sounds like people who steal code all the time.

"Pirates ship it."

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I have to listen to the "ninja" term all the time in my office. It drives me up the wall.

<comment><USER48> Is that because you don't want your ninja identity exposed?

<comment><USER49> Why would he be climbing walls if he didn't want to be exposed?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I think with engineers things are pretty binary. There is just 0 and 1. Some engineers can just follow (0) and other that lead (1). The (1) are the ones that just get things done. The (0) are the one that need some coaxing to get finish line. The whole idea or a rockstar, ninja is BS. It is like a project 0 you failed and are not complete 1 you've met the deadline. If you want a rockstar goto hollywood. If you want ninjas goto japan. If you want an engineer goto colos, star wars movies, your local tech meet ups.

</comment><comment><USER51> I wrote a blog post on the very topic of so-called "rock star" job postings: <http://coderific.com/blog/post/564>

</comment><comment><USER52> If you want a "rock star" developer, you can't ask someone to self-select. You have to know them, and then ask them directly.

I would never call myself a "rock star" (because it's a dumb expression), but I've personally never looked at a job ad and responded. I've always gotten jobs through friends that specifically said they would hire me. When you are going to spend 40 hours a week with someone, it's good for you to be friends.

</comment><comment><USER53> 'Wanted: Rock Star programmer for Bubblegum Pop company'

</comment><comment><USER54> "Rock Star" in a job ad should only be used for Rock band auditions.

</comment><comment><USER55> I steer clear of rock star job listings too. I suspect it means they have a weak team, weak technology, or both, or some kind of tangled mess, and they hope someone can come and fix it all for them while the other team members hold their responsibility at arm's length.

</comment><comment><USER56> Man these are some awesome comments. "Self proclaimed" Rockstars != craftsman. Those who earned the title. Guido vonRossum et. al. are having their five minutes, let them have it, they took the risks. You can't blame the recruiter though, if they are looking to bring cocky, blowhards to the interview table and wow the upper "hangers-on" with their talk game. I think recruiting, much like a good programming environment needs to take bad decisions out of the equation or minimize the collateral damage thereof. Oh well, such is the state of recruiting and such is the ever changing complexion of software development. Time to go back to the guild and apprenticeship system. Any nobles out there? :p

</comment><comment><USER57> Is anybody looking for a surfer dude developer ?

<comment><USER58> sure. drop me a line, email is in my profile.

<comment><USER59> Don't listen to him, OP. He failed to refer to you as "brah".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> The term "rockstar engineer" always struck me as a comedic oxymoron. Guess I'm not the only one. Terms like "kick ass" and "rockstar" do imply youth, however, which is not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.

<comment><USER61> _do imply youth, however, which is not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned_

I am pretty sure discriminating on age is at best unethical and generally illegal in most major economies.

<comment><USER60> I do not condone age discrimination. I merely meant to say that those terms imply a younger company, which implies a smaller and a better work environment, in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Alternatively, are there any "fun" job titles that are actually decent? Our founders are trying to think of something to call themselves that's not as boring as CEO/CTO/etc.

<comment><USER63> I'm Vice-President in Charge of Crayons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> When I see ads that advertise for RockStar Developers(!!!!!) I think about companies that describe themselves as "cool".

If you have to say you're cool....you're probably not.

</comment><comment><USER65> i completely agree that you should probably avoid these places... at that point the company is trying too hard to be cool and therefore they are inherently uncool (to me at least) - not to mention, this probably reflects on the project / product they're building and who wants part of something that isn't awesome??

the other thing about 'rock star' and 'code ninja' that particularly turns me off is that it reminds me of that guy from payperpost who is annoying... i would really hate working for that guy, and in the few times i've seen him he never fails to say something like that...

one last thing i'll add is that i saw a job posting a grockit the other day and thought it was pretty interesting...while i wasn't enamored with their 'agile development practices' the way they probably want developers to be, i really liked their openness about what they offer in terms of comfort, health, and fun. very straightforward and very honest, which is really what i'd be looking for.

</comment><comment><USER66> the problem is that for every good programmer there are a hundred that are just horrible, so I find that the whole "Rock Star/Guru" thing is just there to weed out the guy who has to lookup in his book how to do a hello world application

</comment><comment><USER67> I HATE IT. It turns me off too. I wonder if it attracts certain people though?

</comment><comment><USER68> Stunt Programmer

</comment><comment><USER69> Agree, stay away.

</comment><comment><USER27> I do not want to be a rockstar - or a ninja . . . I stay away from those types of ads, although I probably should take a closer look as other posters have suggested.

If we are going to get into that naming territory, I think Wizard or Sourcerer (misspelling intended) are more appropriate . . . and Bounty Hunter, Gunfighter, Sniper, Commando, Surgeon, Evil Genius, Field Marshall, and Gladiator are still not quite as silly as rockstar

:)</comment>


Ask HN: How to search user profile - <AUTHOR> There used to be a way (prior to algolia search) to search user profiles. There doesn't appear to be a way to do that any ideas? <comment><USER2> www.google.com/search?q=allinurl:"[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id="&filter=0](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id="&filter=0)</comment>


Show HN: Setup 'Hacker News.com' to redirect to this website - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/mattkenefick/60b1505ceed36e789b6337eecddc0aed <comment><AUTHOR> I've become fed up with typing "HackerNews.com" into the address bar and having it go to SpaceRogue.

This script should install this to your hosts file on unix/windows.

The change is: 188.8.131.52 hackernews.com www.hackernews.com

Feel free to check my work. I'm just sharing in case anyone else wants to give it a go.

<comment><USER2> I am confused though, as to why you would redirect someone else's domain to go to another party's site? It'd be like if I changed it so every time someone typed google.com it went to duckduckgo.com. Yeah, it might be more convenient for me, but it's... kinda breaking the web? Just for yourself, I guess.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's definitely personal choice / for-yourself thing.

For me, I think it's fine to change things that are specific / personal. I have plenty of modifications for dev work, staging, etc.. but also refer to things like Corp.com ([https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/04/microsoft-buys- corp-com-...](https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/04/microsoft-buys-corp-com-so- bad-guys-cant/))

Google.com to DuckDuckGo.com is an exaggeration. I don't think people should redirect MSN to CNN; that's just confusing.

I think it's fine to redirect amazon.co, amazo.com, amazn.com to amazon.com. Could a unique site named "amazn.com" exist? Yes, but I would prefer it to go where I expected. Similar/typo URLs are often related to malware (but not always).

I seem to remember localhost.com had a landing page telling users "You mean to go to localhost".

But yeah, don't use this if you're afraid to redirect your own hosts. If you're like me and want to type "HackerNews.com" because you prefer it landing here.. then use the script.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is full page video practical? - <AUTHOR> I notice full page videos on various websites.
It's something I'd like to do but maybe not such a good idea because people don't have fast enough computers/broadband?
What do you think? <comment><USER2> Depends on where your users are. In many places, broadband has enough penetration and users won't have an issue.

In others, bandwidth maybe an issue.

We have customers in NZ, who have bandwidth issues with our product, we are constantly working to improve.

The majority of our customers and market are in the US & Europe. So we have a large video on our homepage. It is more valuable to show the larger market what we can do, than it is to dumb everything down for the much smaller market.

Don't do video because you want to (unless it's just a personal project), but look at how video would benefit your product, and let that be your guide.</comment>


Startup Quote: Marc Benioff, co-founder, Salesforce - <AUTHOR> http://startupquote.com/post/5565935336

<comment><AUTHOR> Customers want new functionality, but they don't want the traditional complexity that has marred products in the past.

\- Marc Benioff (@benioff)

<http://startupquote.com/post/5565935336></comment>


Zoomingo's iOS Jobs Page Hijacked by Pr0nsite; Can't Contact Their Admin - <AUTHOR> http://about.zoomingo.com/jobs/

<comment><AUTHOR> I expect that Domains by Proxy is in violation of the Internet RFCs, or maybe the Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy, as one is required to maintain up-to-date contact information for the specific purpose of enabling others to inform you that your server is faulty.

This only occurs on iOS, not on Android, Windows nor Mac OS X - I haven't tried Linux.

I've been trying for several days to contact Zoomingo but have not gotten any response.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> They seem to have fixed it. Maybe the folks at Zoomingo read Hacker News. ;-D</comment>


Who Needs Domain Experts - <AUTHOR> http://steveblank.com/2009/07/16/rocket-science-5-who-needs-domain-experts/ <comment><USER2> This is a rather fascinating series - it is worth reading the rest, if you haven't already.

While I was reading I found myself thinking 'well yeah, _Dragon's Lair_ really sucked'...but then I remembered a time when I thought it didn't. and in fact, it was a huge financial success, so much so that it is _still_ being ported to new systems despite its numerous flaws. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons_Lair>

Throughout the 1980s, Sierra sold a ton of games with horrible EGA craphics, but which were basically cinematic games with fairly simple decision-tree gameplay. Other high-selling games continue to include lots of cinematic material, a case in point being the Kojima _Metal Gear Solid_ series or alve games like Half-life. Having name (or at least professional) actors lend talent to a game is common now in many genres. And in fact, CD-Rom's _did_ revolutionize the gaming industry - not quite in the way that the company anticipated, but enough. And San Francisco's SOMA (aka multimedia gulch) is still the favored home of a lot of startups, again suggesting Rocket Science were onto something.

I wonder if Mr Blank, ruing the company's failure, is being too harsh on himself - it sounds like they went terribly astray with the design of their own games, but that's a problem of execution rather than vision.

<comment><USER3> _Throughout the 1980s, Sierra sold a ton of games with horrible EGA craphics, but which were basically cinematic games with fairly simple decision-tree gameplay._

This has always struck me as one of the most interesting aspects of computer game history.

Back in the old days, adventure games were all about the story and experience, not the gameplay. This even continued into the 90s in some cases, with games like _Planescape Torment_ , which contained over _800,000 words_ of text, and the ill-fated (but brilliant) _Last Express_ , a game whose graphics was made by rotoscoping tens of thousands of scenes made by professional actors!

These games weren't about brilliant game mechanics, in-depth strategy, or competitive experience. But few deny that they were great games. Of course, the genre basically died towards the end of the 90s--and many claim that it killed itself ( see <http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html> ).

Interestingly enough though, I've noticed that despite the proliferation of seemingly mindless entertainment these days, there has been somewhat of a revival of the genre of "games with lots of text". The genre of visual novels, once just an offshoot of silly Japanese dating sims, has begun to turn out some seriously impressive material. The most impressive to date, IMO, has been _Umineko no Naku Koro ni_ ("When the Seagulls Cry"), a murder mystery reminiscent of a cross between _The Last Express_ , _The Usual Suspects_ , and Agatha Christie's _And Then There Were None_. Even more unusually, it has no decision tree at all: it is completely linear. The "gameplay" is the author's challenge to the players--to solve his mystery before he reveals the true answer in the final episodes of the game.

In a sense, we've come full circle: we began with simple mostly-linear adventure games, gone to complex, branching plots, and now we're back to simple, mostly-linear adventure games.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Back in the days: [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.11/rocket.science_pr.ht...](http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.11/rocket.science_pr.html)

<comment><USER5> Reading that article, one thing that stood out is how the game industry was so focused on such a young market segment: they talk about kids and trying to get them to spend their allowance money. It's interesting how much the gaming demographic has expanded in the years since the mid-nineties.

<comment><USER6> It actually seems to have followed the same people. After fifteen years, it's the same target demography... fifteen years older.</comment></comment></comment>


Training mathematicians to be expert witnesses for court cases on redistricting - <AUTHOR> https://sites.tufts.edu/gerrymandr/ <comment><USER2> "Your mathematicians were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

Teaching someone the mechanics behind something and then certifying them as experts is dangerous. Have we learned nothing from Jurassic Park?</comment>


America Is Not a Democracy - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america-is-not-a-democracy/550931/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> > It is true that to recover its citizens' loyalty, our democracy needs to > curb the power of unelected elites who seek only to pad their influence and > line their pockets. But it is also true that to protect its citizens' lives > and promote their prosperity, our democracy needs institutions that are, by > their nature, deeply elitist. This, to my mind, is the great dilemma that > the United States—and other democracies around the world—will have to > resolve if they wish to survive in the coming decades.

I think I'd harken back to an older view of the conflict: large concentrations of wealth (the natural result of our economic system, unregulated) are in direct opposition to the principle of "one man, one vote."

</comment><comment><USER3> America doesn't have a democracy problem--it has a republic problem. Clearly, a republic is failing the people, mostly out of its own design. The founding fathers' ideas may have worked in the ages of slavery, and Jim Crow, where exploitation actually led to great wealth creation, but they do not work now. They work great at keeping the people down, in check, and out of politics, just as the founders designed. Really, the main problem here is that Americans stupidly think that they live in a democracy when this has never been the case. Obviously, America is not a democracy. It's always been a republic and people are now realizing just how oppressive a republic ruled by bribes from the elite is, now that the main concerns are less about oppressing minorities but simply about the survival of the majority, something that is no longer guaranteed. Let's face it, American government isn't about to change soon, so it'd be in our best interest for the people who think we live in a democracy to realize that we don't. After all, if you don't think you have a problem, a solution is impossible.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure the first example where the town failed to buy out a bad water company supports author's argument.

The article hinted that the company was doing something malicious that on the voting day, "locals who had toiled on the issue for years noticed many newcomers", who eventually voted the idea down. It almost sound like those newcomers were brought in by the company to influence votes in its favor.

But in my experience with condo boards and other small democratic organizations, there are always a small but vocal group who tend to run the show, while the majority just carry on with their lives without paying too much attention to the local politics. That does not mean those people have no opinion on major issues, and their opinions tend to be revealed at those kind of major votes.

It sucks if you worked for years to get your ideas through, only to be voted down by the majority. But is this really a failure of democracy?

<comment><USER2> I guess the trouble, in my mind, is that these instances are often grey enough that a justification like this could come up, but there is a tendency, in aggregate, for things to break one way. For an example that is probably familiar to HN readers, consider municipal broadband.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Never has been.

<comment><USER6> Yes. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

<comment><USER7> Actually a republic is a type of democracy.

<comment><USER6> The People's Democratic Republic of Korea is both.

<comment><USER7> In spite of the name, North Korea is a dictatorship.

<comment><USER6> I agree, that was my point.

<comment><USER2> Well then it doesn't really seem to answer the argument that a "representative democracy" and "direct democracy" can plausibly be classified as two forms of democracy.

<comment><USER8> Give all the voting power to one person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think it is actually, you see, the elections and such.

</comment><comment><USER9> The author makes sense initially but towards the end seems to be attacking American institutions like the Supreme court. That was odd.

America was founded on a messy system where not everyone got what they wanted. It was always a compromise.

However, this messy system did bring us out of slavery into the modern era. Now though one of the last abominations of this messy system is causing most of the issues in the republic. I wonder why the author does not touch the subject of "Electoral College".

The "Electoral College" elected both "George Bush" and "Trump" subverting the will of the majority. The first president led us into an illegal war that enriched his corporate buddies. The second one will be judged by history.

In my opinion, until we get rid of the "Electoral College" America will never be a true democracy.

<comment><USER2> Judicial review was invented by Federalists specifically to subvert Jefferson really. It's in some sense an antidemocratic institution.

<comment><USER10> > Judicial review was invented by Federalists specifically to subvert > Jefferson really.

Judicial review is simply the concrete manifestation of two things express in the Constitution:

(1) the judicial power regarding cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, laws, etc., and

(2) The Constitution's express limits on what laws Congress has the power to pass.

It's anti-democratic in the sense that Constitutionally-limited government is itself anti-democratic, in that the electre representatives of the people are denied the unlimited power they would have in a parliamentary supremacy model, but not in any other sense.

<comment><USER2> I don't like treating the development of ideas like they just sprung from the ether devoid of masters or historical context. Certainly it can be seen as flowing from those principles, but it came to exist in a particular circumstance -- namely, when Federalists thought raving Jeffersonian Democrats were going to ruin the whole republic with too much democracy and invented a legal theory that said they could throw out their laws.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Looking for Beta Users for Our Startup Compliance+PLM Software - <AUTHOR> https://www.hayagcorp.com/public/home <comment><USER2> The footer says "Patent pending". What is the patent about?

The privacy policy lists continuos geo-location tracking. That seems a bit much for a SaaS website.

Firefox reports "Broken Encryption. Your connection to this website uses weak encryption and is not private."</comment>


Scaling Agile at Spotify - <AUTHOR> http://blog.crisp.se/2012/11/14/henrikkniberg/scaling-agile-at-spotify

<comment><USER2> Actual article - <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1018963/Articles/SpotifyScaling.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER2> Does anyone know how they do remote collaboration? Distributed pair programming for instance.</comment>


What application do you want to see? - <AUTHOR>

I'm moving to Boston in four weeks and I will need to find a full time job unless I start generating consistent revenue.  Maybe there's an application someone here wants to see that I can build in a week or two.  The goal is to not be forced into a full time position.
I'm a PHP guy but I'm willing to learn any language to get the job done.  In the middle of learning Ruby on Rails.
So, what do you want to see? <comment><USER2> An extremely simple inventory management system. Maybe something like this already exists, but so far I've only found highly complex enterprise solutions.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd like to hear more about this if you have a chance. rcavezza [at] gmail [dot] com

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can you contact me off list johng at forum foundry dot com....

Also, have a portfolio to share? What have you built?

<comment><AUTHOR> Email Sent</comment></comment>