Stop Conflating Violence and Mental Illness - <AUTHOR> http://m.xojane.com/issues/for-the-last-time-stop-conflating-violence-and-mental-illness <comment><USER2> It's been really depressing to see so many reactions to the shooting phrased in that way -- that the problem is mental illness or bad care of the mentally ill. Mentally ill people are already stigmatized enough as-is, despite the fact that they're far more likely to be _murdered_ than to be murderers.

People are already suggesting that the mentally ill be added to registries, much like the already-flawed sex offender registry. This isn't going to make life any better for the mentally ill, and certainly won't make anyone safer. It'll just make mental illness even more of a black mark on someone's record -- imagine being diagnosed for depression or autism once and never being able to hold a proper job again. People will be even more deathly afraid of being properly diagnosed and cared for, not the inverse.

</comment><comment><USER3> One of the first things I, as a European, thought after hearing speculation on mental problems of the shooter was the following: If they just focus on the mental health issues on the shooter and start stereotyping, ostracizing and discriminating mentally ill people a bit more, maybe even with some law that limits their freedoms, people in the US will be able to avoid their two big taboo topics: Healthcare (and, by extension, taxes) and gun control. I would absolutely hate to be right on this one.

<comment><USER4> HNers are mostly bright people. Right now there is a trending post on randomness and clusters on the front page and we mostly enjoy. Still why do we forget the science we are so proud of everything guns are mentioned?

Why is there no similar outcry for stricter car control? That could really save a lot of innocent kids lives as well as making the lives of all kinds of criminals way harder.

You'd also reduce the emissions of CO2 and the overuse of hydrocarbons.

Since cars are bigger and mostly are used on roads collecting most of them should only take a few years.

But nobody seems to be interested, why?

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure what your point is, because cars are already very heavily regulated?

To drive a car you need to pass a competency test, as well as be insured against accidents. Your right to drive can also be revoked if at any time you demonstrate that you can't operate one safely.

So uh, yeah. I agree with you, lets do guns like cars!

<comment><USER6> If we regulate guns like cars, then:

Anyone who passes a simple safety test (simple enough that the bulk of the population has little problem with it) can purchase a firearm and use it (subject to safety regulations) in public.

With or without a license you can own and use a gun on private property.

There are certain quality regulations on cars/guns which apply to using them outside private property (i.e., if it's likely to burst into flames, you can't take it onto public roads).

There is no federal regulation, except for rules saying that a license in one state is valid in all other states (i.e., a Texas CCW license works in NY).

This sounds like exactly what the NRA regularly lobbies for. The only people who will argue against your proposal are gun control advocates (e.g., Bloomberg).

<comment><USER5> I think you might be taking my analogy a little far there.

I wasn't suggesting a straight find/replace of car with firearm...

<comment><USER6> I was just pointing out what regulating guns like cars actually means.

If you actually don't want to regulate guns like cars, but instead want far more draconian regulations, why not just clearly state that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> HN is the last place I would look for real understanding and incite on the affect of mental illness on our society.

HN is the first place I would look to see part of the problem and misconceptions about mental illness.

It seems the mental health of our country is failing as a whole. As the symptoms accumulate, in time, there will probably be a disease or syndrome named after it, with a little pill to "cure" it.

I have other opinions, but they are just that, opinions and as such I won't pollute HN with my ignorance. I prefer to judge myself (as part of this country's failing mental health) and not others I know little about.

Let's get back to tech, a topic where our opinions are more informed and the facts more easily understood.

</comment><comment><USER8> Stop conflating statistically insignificant incidents with reality. The Sandy Hook lunatic wasn't even as deadly as a slow weekend in Chicago.

The only reason the occasionally mentally ill (you heard me) gunman gets press is because the UMC media can identify with the victims. The UMC media can also identify with the gunman. Unlike Chicago gangbangers, they've known such creepy kids back in high school.

</comment><comment><USER9> Even more important is to stop branding people as mental ill!

Mental illness in our system is defined like we are all chicken. We are defined healthy if we lay an egg every day, have clean feathers and don't pull feathers of other chicken in our cage. But not the chicken are insane. The system is insane!

And the system became worse over the time. A lot of more people are now declared mental ill, then ever before. Especially children and the fear of the parents are exploited by doctors and pharmacy. Pharmacy drugs only try to hide the symptom, and often fail in even this. The result is more likely a drug addicted kid, who will later visit the doctor again, and again, like a junky visiting his heroin dealer.

</comment><comment><USER10> Although people suffering from mental illnesses may statistically be more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent acts, the disproportionate focus on the latter is not unwarranted.

People are afraid of unpredictability. They are afraid of irrational people doing irrational things, and many people with mental illnesses behave irrationally. That's the long and short of it.

That said, we ought to be careful in making ex post diagnoses of mental illness as a means of coming to terms with a tragedy. It is merely a figment of the collective imagination that a person of sound mind would not consciously take the lives of many others.

<comment><USER11> Conflating predictability with rationality appears to be a common failing amongst the supposedly sane.

Just look at the hysteria that flares up every time an event like this occurs. Guns are bad, gunmen are mad. Unless they're police or military, in which case they're obviously in perfect mental health and heroes to boot. Very rational.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Did anyone also notice that the mentally ill girl depicted drawing on the wall seems to be a Java programmer? She wrote things like "Math.pow(x, y)" and "function place row".

Here's the image upside down: <http://i.imgur.com/d095a.jpg>

<comment><USER13> I was curious about that myself as well. It seems a rather odd choice if you're trying to imply lunacy.

<comment><USER14> Isn't it an inevitable consequence of being exposed to Java for too long?

Just like: InternalFrameInternalFrameTitlePaneInternalFrameTitlePaneMaximizeButtonWindowNotFocusedState

That's not part of a class API, it's a cry for help.

Too cheap?

<comment><USER15> Wow thanks, I had not seen that, but that's a real class name in com.sun.java.swing.plaf.nimbus.

"it's a cry for help"

I'll agree with this.

<comment><USER16> A _real_ cry for help would have mentioned a couple of Factories at least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> the author appears to be really upset about the current debate in the US about mental illness. and I don't see why. the article goes on a long rant about how we should separate mental illness and violence, yet no half-way knowledgeable person would assume a mentally illness person to be automatically violent. why is the author so strongly trying to prove a moot point? you can't argue away the fact that most (if not all) mass shooting in recent history have been conducted by mentally ill people and mental illness is a major factor when individuals commit such crimes. the author just messes around with statistics and appears to forget about causation and correlation - it's obvious that the majority of mentally ill people doesn't exercise violence - yet the ones who did were in most cases mentally ill. we're trying to find a way to prevent these shootings. and we need to ask ourselves how we, as a society, treat mentally people - not because 50% of them might be violent, but because 0.0001% are.

what we really need to do is starting to make a more distinctive diagnosis of what the actual mental illness was and don't just conflate all forms of schizophrenia with psychosis, bi-polar mood and depression disorder, etc. under mental illness.

and a last remark on statistics (and sampling bias), and I believe we can all agree that:

P(violent|person is mentally ill) ~ P(violent|person is not mentally ill)

however (and I believe this is the source of the discussion, correct me if I'm wrong):

P(person is mentally ill|violent) >> P(person is not mentally ill|violent)

</comment><comment><USER18> Hard policy is hard: <http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2012/12/19/so-sandy-hook/>

But simplifying is human nature. We'd be unable to make sense of the world otherwise (he said in a hilariously un-self-conscious way).

</comment><comment><USER19> "Autistic Americans"? Does the nationality of an autistic person have an effect on their autism?

<comment><USER20> In some sense, yes -- Autism is characterised (in part) by difficulty with "normal" social interactions, which can (and do) vary from nation to nation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Let me play devil's advocate. From what she's saying I'm drawing the conclusion that mental illness correlates with drug use which correlates with violence. The prevalence of mental illness in the population is small, so the proportion of the mentally ill among violent criminals is also small, but if mental illness is a predictor of violence then being more aggressive about institutionalizing the mentally ill would provide society a better return on investment with respect to preventing violence than policies aimed at the general population (such as gun control).

<comment><USER22> Mental illness is not a predictor of violence.

We're not just interested in the proportion of people with mental illness in the population of violent criminals. We are also interested in the proportion of violent criminals in the population of people with a mental illness. We find that very few people with a mental illness are violent. We find that people with mental illness are far more likely t be the victim of violent crime than the perpetrators of violent crime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The issue here is very general one. The so-called common sense held by wast majority is just plain wrong. It is a just a consensus by ignorant public, and have nothing to do with more or less accurate description of reality, leave alone explaining any particular event.

This situation is so common, that people literally didn't know any better. Common sense about _what things really are and how things works and why_ are naive oversimplifications and folklore at its best.

Common folks have no clue how, say, financial instruments works, or what software engineering is about, or what is mental disorders and Autism in particular. But everyone are cock-sure that they have an opinion and their opinion is the most accurate description of the reality.

99% of these talks are naive but emotional nonsense. Guns are not the causes. It is the same stupidity as to blame the pain for the cancer. Blaming autistic traits as the causes of some particular acts of people who "seems like autistic" is just as stupid as to blame food for obesity.

Yes, autistic individuals have much more pressure in society because they have very unpleasant, physical sensation of discomfort, comparable with pain or fear. We can do nothing with it, it just is. It is almost the same sense as of being overwhelmed by annoying, loud noise you have no means to escape.

It might be caused by mere presence of noisy, loud, annoying, hyper-active, rude and selfish people, it might be just forced conversation or forced eye- contact - each autistic individual has his own sources of causes of overwhelming annoying pressure.

It doesn't really matter how exactly it works, due to some inherent over- sensitivity of Amigdala or due to dis-balance in production or metabolism of some neuro-chemical substance, it doesn't really matter. The matter is that life is much less pleasant task if you are one of us.

The most interesting part is that most of autistic people don't even realize that they are somehow different from others, and that not everyone share the same feelings of being overwhelmed. It is very difficult realization, which requires lots of knowledge and intelligence. You're, of course, heard of it many times, but you probably thought that it is not about you.

So, like it or not, the cancer is society. It is that simple. How people threat each other (let alone how they threat Asperger and autistic individuals) is the cause of most troubles. Just what people are in general. The bell-curve is very real thing, and so-called ordinary people, en mass, is by no means a nice thing.

I do not try to say that _this particular shooter_ deserves any mercy or special consideration. He is just like a sick animal - everything is too late. All I'm trying to say that do not talk about things you have no clue about. You may hear some shit about ASDs and event felt something like being overwhelmed by stress or depressed, but some people live all their lives under a constant pressure, source of which they didn't realize, having no idea that it is not the world around that is wrong.

World is the same for everyone. The hell is other people, you like it or not. Especially for autistic people.

Some idiots used an analogy with rabies, but, no. There are no microbes that produce toxins that rewires your brain so you have no control over it, so, you are not responsible for your actions. This is an instance of that naive oversimplification nonsense. It is all mental, and it accumulates in fullness of time, as chronic depression or constant agitation does.

By the way, most of accompanied mild, non-organic mental disorders go together. If you have physical discomfort being forced to deal with people, you likely have the whole bunch of personality disorders in their mild form. They are just artificial names of the same thing - consequences, effects, reactions to an overwhelming pressure.

btw, that illustration in original posting, with a girl in a corner is a good illustration of a common misconception.))

1\. Autism is mostly boy's disorder. That picture is about clinical depression, which is women's trait, and it is just being shut in oneself.

2\. To depict autistic narrowed focus, the corner must be not of a closed room, but something of a ruin, with no other walls or ceiling around, with all the world all around, but a boy didn't notice.

<comment><USER24> I wasn't going to respond to this article, or even read it, or even really acknowledge the HN culture anymore on account of gems like this, but in all honesty: SRSLY?

___Autism is mostly boy's disorder. That picture is about clinical depression, which is women's trait, and it is just being shut in oneself.___

The loaded _gender-nomenclature_ of this patriarchal, advanced-capitalist polyarchy has become so freaking thick that I would find it laughable if scientific literature (STEMers) even distills 5% of it from shared knowledge 100 years from now.

___In a similar vein, Baron-Cohen and Hammer (1997) argued that, whereas individuals with autism have extreme "male brains," with better spatial skills than social skills, those with Williams syndrome show the reverse pattern and, as such, may be characterized as having extreme "female brains." ___ \-- [https://sites.google.com/site/drjonbrock/publications/the- ot...](https://sites.google.com/site/drjonbrock/publications/the-other-end-of- the-spectrum-social-cognition-in-williams-syndrome)

Now looking at your statement, we have terms like "boy's disorder" contrasted with "women's trait".

What are you talking about? With Williams Syndrome we have "female brains" so with every reason to believe that they are alone in clinical depression. That is, by your grammar of reasoning. But what is more?:

___This view of Williams syndrome and autism as diametric opposites has, however, proven to be somewhat simplistic (Tager-Flusberg, Plesa-Skwerer, & Joseph, 2006). Despite their sociable and empathetic personalities, individuals with Williams syndrome are often reported as having high levels of social anxiety (Dykens, 2003; Udwin, Yule, & Martin, 1987). Children with Williams syndrome typically prefer adult company to mixing with their own age group, and have great diffi culty making and sustaining friendships (Einfeld, Tonge, & Florio, 1997; Rosner, Hodapp, Fidler, Sagun, & Dykens, 2004; Udwin et al., 1987). The two disorders also overlap clinically.___ \-- [https://sites.google.com/site/drjonbrock/publications/the- ot...](https://sites.google.com/site/drjonbrock/publications/the-other-end-of- the-spectrum-social-cognition-in-williams-syndrome)

So what are you, in factual terms, please, sir, saying? What is going on here, where your post ranks highest, and you have express'd what seems to be unessential and obfuscating sexist language, in such a way as to talk about what is clinical; and current research says, quite simply, and quite exactly the opposite of what you theorize on with false knowledge; if indeed they clinically overlap, that is?

<comment><USER25> With all the respect to gender equality supporters (to which I count myself), why so much butthurt?

<comment><USER24> What does this have to do with gender equality? I'm talking about his "theorizing" and his "nomenclature". I am talking about his method and his "grammar." I am talking about the future state of existing true statements that may exist in our scientific literature in "the next 100 years." I am dealing with Popperian-style skepticism; this is philosophy of science. Please, understand. I want sense, from nonsense. That is a big issue to me, essentially since I just read his post with <http://antijingoist.github.com/AlphaSymbolic/>. And quite frankly, I'm not happy about it. All I see is a logical paradox. A sequence of linguistic markers, and his paradoxical blobs of AlphaSymbolic text is way to clear to me. It's way too eerily clear.

Please see <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/>.

This human man is clearly using language in a way that is expected and fits along a normalized pattern that suggests "rational." However, his theorizing immediately leads to "explosion"; so it is a matter, then, of what content quantities of his exist which, in principle, say nothing. How much of any of this paradoxical language exists? And how did we get to a point in society where what he says passes off as passively authoritative? -- What are we filling the Internet with? -- Ultimately, when I reflect on Godel's proof, Candor's diagonalization, it all becomes too clear that our Western society is intolerant to difference; and this can undermine scientific progress.

I am concern'd with consistency and the stress of things like general internet ecologies (and hypermedia applications) on organic cognitive systems (like us). Because, quite simply, What is going on here? What is he talking about? Is it informational? Operational? Pragmatic? Dogmatic?

What does his content and its ilk engender in terms of rational, dialectical discussion with no obvious linguistic glitches that mislead and misinform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> People tend also to conflate mental illness with "things I don't like". For example, when the Sandy Hook shooting happened, people were saying, "What a whackjob", before they even knew who the perpetrator was, as if it were like "What an asshole". (Yes, I agree that he's an asshole, but no, I don't see reason to believe that he's literally the victim of a head injury.) It does seem likely that the man was mentally ill, but that's not all of the picture. The vast majority of people with mental illness would never do something like this, and not all mass murderers are mentally ill. In fact, as far as I know there are only two mental illnesses that positively correlate with violence. One is severe drug addiction, which is a different class of problem, and the other is psychopathy, and people with the latter tend to be above-average in social development, which is why Ted Bundy was so effective: he killed about 40 people before he was finally caught.

We've seen this equation of displeasure with mental illness in the fallout as well. The NRA are referred to as "crazy gun nuts". Well, they're not actually "crazy". They hold strong ideological beliefs that we dislike, and they're almost certainly _wrong_ (in that the benefits of ubiquitous AK-47s do _not_ compensate for the drawbacks, because the probabilities associated with the events that would make then beneficial are ridiculously low). They're not the same thing. These radicals are dangerously wrong and I'm glad they're on the fringe, but they're not "crazy".

I also take umbrage against the attempt to explain away evil using mental illness. It's like people don't want to admit that bad people or evil exist. Hitler was crazy, Adam Lanza was crazy, Ted Bundy was crazy. Well, I have no idea if they were mentally ill. They were, however, evil. Evil exists. It probably doesn't have a metaphysical platonic form (a Satan) and there's no evidence that it has _any_ supernatural presence but, in the practical real world we live in, evil's a real thing. It's a part of our story as humans. You can't understand what we, as a species, are if you leave it out. In fact, to the extent that evil and "insanity" correlate, I would argue that the causal direction goes the other way: people who do evil things, especially if they're rewarded and become powerful, warp over time and eventually go nuts. It's not the other way around. Mental illness is painful and horrible and sometimes it makes people do harmful things but it does not make people evil. Killing 28 innocent people, mostly children, for no reason is evil. Adam Lanza may have been mentally ill but he was also an evil piece of shit.

</comment><comment><USER27> >"When you think of mental illness, is this what you see?" asks artist Jennifer Mathis.

Was I supposed to have? I certainly didn't. I imagined a lot of things, on a wide spectrum, but not that.

</comment><comment><USER24> @see <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3642570></comment>


Android Market update - dismantles 24-hour return policy to appease devs - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/11/android-market-update-streamlines-content-nukes-tabs-dismantle/ <comment><USER2> I think the main purpose of the return policy is to allow the user to see if the applications even works at all on the user's own android handset. 15 minutes is ample for that.

<comment><USER3> On my EDGE connection, 15 minutes is sometimes not sufficient to even download the app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder what effect this will have on paid downloads. Offerings may rise, but I suspect demand will slightly drop for current ones.

I've always felt very comfortable making purchases from the Android store due to the gracious refund policy. Now there is a small fear of buying a crappy application and being interrupted before testing it out. An hour may have been a better compromise.

<comment><USER5> When the price of an app is a dollar, it doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of risk. If the game sucks, ah well, you're only out a dollar. For more expensive apps it's possible there will be some more risk, but I find that I typically don't know the true value of an expensive app until I have been using it for some time.

I think it would have been interesting if they had made the refund available (1 hour * ceil(price in dollars)) from the time of purchase, but realistically I think the simple solution is sufficient.

<comment><USER6> Implementing 1 hour * ceil(price in dollars) would be much harder since you would have to have a time value for each app. I imagine this might be a nightmare or at least a nontrivial thing to do.

<comment><USER5> Tracking one additional dependent attribute per app and checking it during the refund flow would be non-trivial? I can't see why.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> it should be open for the developer just like price.

I would feel more inclined to but an app with oneweek trial instead of the 15 min. Specially if its a keyboard one.

<comment><USER8> I agree about it being up to the developer to decide, and but most apps are $2 or so. If this change results in better apps because the devs make more money, I'm all for it, even if I lose $2 on some purchase at some point.</comment></comment>


GDC rescinds award for Bushnell after criticisms of sexual inappropriateness - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/31/16955232/nolan-bushnell-gdc-2018-pioneer-award <comment><AUTHOR> [had to shrink the title slightly to get it to fit but I think I've left the meaning intact]</comment>


Ask HN: Does anyone here trade cryptocurrencies successfully? - <AUTHOR> If you do, what is your strategy? How do you make trading decisions, and what resources did you use to get started? <comment><USER3> I use sentimental analysis over some content + other factors, when it hits some threshold, I trade it myself.

I don't automate it also because I'm not looking for very short trade movements, but more like in periods of 8 hours. So I either buy or sell my complete position in the coin, generally operating 2-3 coins.

I've tried trading with a bot with this system, created by myself, but I've found out that it's better to set up a trade with a stop, use the criteria of whether using a coin or the other and just sell it after a few hours, as hype usually lasts for a couple of hours as news travel fast, so do people start selling off early. You generally want to analyse it yourself how much hype there is.

Note that I don't believe in cryptocoins as they are, for me they are bullshit without a business model or intrinsic value, but some clueless people think they are "investing" on it, so I'm there to make profit out of their lack of knowledge.

With 3-4 trades a day, there's much window to make like 10% a day, even though it sounds crazy, some coins got some big volatility.

Also, some days I stay out of the market, based on my criteria. Some days things will just go generally down after sometimes after weeks of gains. It's better to stay out with your money than in the game to lose.

<comment><USER4> Can you recommend a website exchange I can create an account and get started?

<comment><USER5> Chiming in with one exchange I've used, Coinbase / GDAX , I think it might only be available if you're in the United States.

<comment><USER6> Using it from Australia here but you can't sell in Coinbase if in Aus so I have to send ETH/BTC/LTC to a local exchange (BTCMarkets) to withdraw $.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I started trading just recently with smaller amounts. Basically what I do is really stupid and not technical at all, but it works: I lurk in various chat rooms where people discuss and alert which coin started "pumping" and what's hot right now. Then I go and check the graph for that coin and try to estimate if it will grow more. I also look for popular coins that fell low after initial high. Then I buy them and immediately set a sell order in the exchange to automatically sell them when the price rises to a certain point, to earn a couple percent of my trade investment. Then, the most important part - <USER2> forget about this. I just wait until the sell orders are cleared out, it usually takes a couple of days or weeks. This way I'm earning around $200 per week. Of course, all is correlated with the price of BTC. If it drops I'll be at loss :)

</comment><comment><USER8> Anybody actually making money trading cryptocurrencies wouldn't be eager to share their strategies on Hacker News...

</comment><comment><USER9> I have a lot of strategy ideas but in general the idea is to find very promising technologies that have surpassed nascent issues in the original protocol, invest as much as you can as early as possible, and sit on the funds as long as possible, ideally many years.

</comment><comment><USER10> I got some dogecoin once and sold. So profit. Much luck. But no systematic system.</comment>


Ask HN: Learning to Build Video Codecs - <AUTHOR> What are some good resources to learn about implementing a video encoder/decoder from scratch? <comment><USER2> [https://epiphany.pub/@shi-yan/implement-a-toy-video- encoder-...](https://epiphany.pub/@shi-yan/implement-a-toy-video-encoder-in- browser)

[https://github.com/leandromoreira/digital_video_introduction](https://github.com/leandromoreira/digital_video_introduction)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank You!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The creator of lz4 is blogging constantly on compression algorithms, maybe you could start with this as it is a lot easier to understand.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm guessing you are referring to: [http://fastcompression.blogspot.com](http://fastcompression.blogspot.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How much math are you comfortable with? Codecs are about packing the most information into the smallest energy, which is a bit of a task.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm currently refreshing on math topics because of that, I do not mind very technical resources. I find there is not a lot of information online regarding low-level details of video codecs, having any resources is greatly appreciated.</comment></comment>


Wasm3 runs WebAssembly on Big-Endian systems - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/wasm3/wasm3/issues/125 <comment><USER2> Wasm3 runs on Linux, Windows, macOS. If it doesn't work on other OSes like the BSDs, then it is not really 'cross-platform'.

<comment><USER3> That ship has long since sailed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross- platform_software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-platform_software) points out:

> a cross-platform application may run on Microsoft Windows, Linux, and macOS. > Cross-platform programs may run on as many as all existing platforms, or on > as few as two platforms.

A quick check of your own history shows you writing "Interesting to see another cross-platform GUI library here" at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21903606](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21903606) for Geeonx, whose web page only describes support for "Linux, macOS and Windows".</comment></comment>


Chicago Erlang Conference with Joe Armstrong - <AUTHOR> http://www.chicagoerlang.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> ... and a pretty amazing lineup of speakers for a 'local' conference. If I were anywhere at all close, I'd go.</comment>


Boeing publicises new name for 737 Max planes after crashes - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-max-plane-new-name-poland-enter-air <comment> thrww-564332 737-8 has been the official designation from the start. Here's an article from 2016 using this terminology:

[https://www.flightglobal.com/farnborough-boeing-details- rang...](https://www.flightglobal.com/farnborough-boeing-details-range- boosting-737-7-redesign/121231.article)

So it's not a new name. However, it is clear that Boeing is scaling down the use of "MAX". Just compare yesterday's press release with one from 2018:

[https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases- statements?item=1...](https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases- statements?item=130724) (yesterday)

[https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2018-02-05-Boeing-Debuts- First-...](https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2018-02-05-Boeing-Debuts- First-737-MAX-7) (2018)

</comment><comment><USER2> Waiting for the tools that identify what kind of plane you'll be flying on. Maybe with an easy 'cancel flight' button :)

<comment><USER3> You can (or will be able to once they are airborne) do that by using FlightRadar and looking at the historical data for the flight number.

<comment><USER4> The 'cancel flight' button could be a problem then however ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why is anyone still ordering this plane? Are there no other options? Speaking as an uninformed civilian, when I step onto a big passenger plane, it kinda looks like all the other big passenger planes I've been on. What feature could possibly offset the risk of the known bugs?

<comment><USER6> The max was designed to be cheap to buy/maintain/Train pilots especially for existing 737 fleets

<comment><USER7> There is a queue (7 or 8 years) to order a plane. Both for Airbus and Boeing.

So people who ordered Boeing are stuck with it now.

If you order another plane type, you end up at the back of the queue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There were pictures last year of Ryanair aircraft with "737-8200" painted on them:

[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48995509](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48995509)

<comment><USER9> One thing that will definitely put me off getting on an aircraft is painting Ryanair on the side.

<comment><USER10> Pro tip: only get on airplanes that have painted on the side the name of one of the 2 US states that are not part of the continental US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Casual re-branding worked for cigarette companies, why not for shoddy planes too?

</comment><comment><USER3> That's kind of annoying as the NG version of the 737, the 737-800 is referred to as the 738.

<comment><USER12> You mean B738, there wont be any confusion, as this is the B38M.

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

[https://www.icao.int/publications/DOC8643/Pages/Search.aspx](https://www.icao.int/publications/DOC8643/Pages/Search.aspx)

<comment><USER3> Good to know!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Best name for a boat: Unsinkable 2. Bets name for the 737max: Uncrashable 2.

</comment><comment><USER14> Still wouldn't board one :)

</comment><comment><USER15> I wonder what discount they got!

</comment><comment><USER16> I thought the typo made by _guenthert_ about a day ago in a totally unrelated post gave rise to a good name for this plane:

       ...but also Boing airplanes

_Experience the all-new Boing 737MAX, the most bouncy plane in our catalogue_</comment>


7 Undeniable Reasons to Embrace DevOps - <AUTHOR> http://www.51zero.com/blog/2016/3/14/ss <comment><USER2> Increased security? Really?

My experience is that developers understand very little about security, and certainly a lot less than dedicated administrators.

DevOps continues to be the 3-in-1 printer of the tech world - it does a bunch of things, but none of them better than a dedicated device.

<comment><USER3> I'm unconvinced. You suspect that dedicated administrators who can't code produce more secure environments than ones who can?

DevOps are dedicated administrators, it's just that they have a responsibility to show their work in code, and have that code speak for itself.

Manually configuring stagnant machines isn't a real job anymore.

<comment><USER2> What a narrow view - I assure you, there are thousands of companies around the world paying real money to qualified admins to handle such equipment.

Not everything is a startup in SF, and not even every startup does DevOps.</comment></comment></comment>


The Bot That Bluffed Me: AI may make it tougher for humans in online poker - <AUTHOR> https://www.scribd.com/article/338909933/The-Bot-That-Bluffed-Me <comment><USER2> Article doesnt load</comment>


Laptop vs Thermite - Hard Drive Self Destruct - <AUTHOR> http://hackaday.com/2013/05/23/laptop-vs-thermite-slow-motion-destruction/

<comment><USER2> Thats a little excessive but fun to see. As long as you damage the platters, data will be near impossible to recover. Putting an axe through them would be quicker and just as effective.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you start a career as a software consultant? - <AUTHOR> Employers keep passing on me because of my recent criminal history. So I think my only hope is to adopt an alias (which I'm legally obliged to notify the government about) and become a software consultant.<p>I've researched on HN already about how to price myself ($200-$400 / hour), that I should buy a nice suit and meet a client and don't tell them I'm the software team, things like that. But everyone says they find clients through previous client referrals. That's not an option for me. Any resources or tips you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks. <comment><USER2> It's all in the networking.

Most projects with sizable budgets already have vendors. Your best bet is to find projects that are on the brink of failure looking to jump ship to a new vendor. This is, fortunately for you and me, more common than you might imagine.

Ideally you can be brought onboard before the project begins, but software has huge sales cycles. Until a project is actively in progress, there is a strong chance it will never leave the planning stage. You can waste a lot of time courting clients for projects that never materialize.

My advice is to seek out projects that are in progress but need the help today, at least you can go from the first meeting to a sale in a reasonable time frame without getting strung along. At the same time, continue to network and establish relationships with clients who will be launching projects in the future. You need money today, and it can take years for clients to be ready to execute.

</comment><comment><USER3> Blogging is my way to get clients. The great thing about it: Once you reach a certain grade of credibility, clients will approach you.

<comment><USER4> I would _love_ to hear more about this. The routine, choosing post subjects, how to get visibility, which social media ( if any ) is more "valuable" for technical posts ( i´m assuming linkedin and medium ). Please, elaborate a bit more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would suggest any freelancing site ( toptal, upwork, fiverr... ) and taking small projects one at a time. So you can build a portfolio _and_ reputation. The downside is it´s a long game.

</comment><comment><USER5> nothing short of networking, getting to know people's problems and being their go-to consultant.</comment>


Amazon shares fall 6% as Trump renews attack - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-trump/amazon-shares-fall-6-percent-as-trump-renews-attack-idUSKCN1H9185 <comment><USER2> Consider this:

"President Trump's comments are consistent with industry sources we have spoken to in the shipping industry, who often label Amazon's deal with the USPS as a sweetheart deal"

If true, pricing one vendor at half that of the others might be unfair, if the vendor is providing the same quality of service. Equal pay for equal work should apply here</comment>


What are common mistakes that new or inexperienced managers make? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Management/What-are-common-mistakes-that-new-or-inexperienced-managers-make?share=1 <comment><USER2> Good managers realize they have to be _managers_ and can't do an effective job of engineering (this is certainly true of a first-level manager with more than a few reports).

The best managers I've had have sighed wistfully and wished out loud that they could do engineering, but made a conscious decision not to. The really good managers will be very interested in how you are getting along with your career, and it will often not come as a surprise to them when it comes time for you to leave ("time to go, grasshopper").

The bad managers were bad for numerous reasons, but many of the worst were micro-managing, getting in the way, having technical _arguments_ , dishing out unreasoned mandates to solve things one way or another, or generally trying to be Boss Engineers without actually being part of the team. Sucked hard. The times I've switched jobs underneath these bozos, I've called it "Firing my boss."

<comment><USER3> I'd go a step further and answer the question "What are some common mistakes new managers make?" with "Accepting a promotion to management".

If you're coming from a technical role, understand that your new job is not to be an engineer. If you're lucky and are good enough at your new job that you have some spare cycles, you might get to guide some architectural discussions

It can be rewarding to help guide a team towards something you could never accomplish alone, but you must resist the temptation to step and do "do things".

Disclaimer -- I moved up to a director-level position and realized within a year that to be good at it I would probably not be able to continue expanding my technical skills, at least not on company time. I moved on to an "individual contributor" role with a company that provides higher level career opportunities that don't involve having direct reports. The minutia of actual line management wasn't bad as long as there was a good team, but I definitely underestimated the people skills, budgeting, planning, and politics that goes along with being a good manager.

<comment><USER4> > _I moved on to an "individual contributor" role with a company that provides > higher level career opportunities that don't involve having direct reports._

Well, that sounds pretty slick. How's it working out? As someone who was just approached by management about a director position, and this being somewhat familiar ground, I'm concerned about the lack of expansion and technical progression as well. Haven't really seen many "no direct reports" situations in my neck of the woods, unfortunately... but it seems like that could be something to aspire for.

<comment><USER3> I was probably a bit negative with that reply (though I do think "X is our best engineer, let's have them manage others to make them more like X!" is far too common).

I'm enjoying the new (now 2 year old) role but there are also negatives -- I have less visibility into the direction of the group/company and "stuff happens" that I would've known was coming at the old role. I'm definitely getting to stay hands on, and satisfying the "big picture" itch with involvement in architectural and project planning discussions.

I think if you're considering that sort of move just make sure you find the management challenges interesting and be willing to invest as much time and effort into getting good at the new job as you have at your "individual contributor" role. Have a good relationship with some existing managers and directors and talk honestly about the role with them if at all possible.

I don't regret the short move to management or the move back, and I'd consider either in the future. It's important to understand that they are usually almost completely different jobs though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Those answers are great, but they're also very high level and general.

One of the best pieces of advice, badly paraphrased below, I've heard from a military context.

       "Any time you instruct a subordinate, you must be
        prepared to deliver the same instruction every single
        time they perform that action, and expect it to be
        performed in that way until otherwise instructed."

This is a warning about micromanagement, flippant decisions and how to delegate. For example, if you tell someone off-hand not to bother you with X, be prepared to _never be bothered with X again_. If you tell someone how to shine their shoes, be prepared to tell them how to shine their shoes _every single day_.

Again, this is an a military context where orders flow downhill, but the same applies in other areas of business. An experienced manager knows where they need to set the boundaries within which their staff operate, with as much autonomy and initiative as possible. An inexperienced manager doesn't understand how to balance this equation.

PS if anyone has a better formulation of the above, please share =D

<comment><USER6> I am reading Dune and this is very similar to the advice Leto gave to Paul. Which came first, I wonder?

<comment><USER7> Can you please quote which part you refer to?

<comment><USER8> Comes up just before Paul does his sandworm trial.

<comment><USER9> Having not read Dune myself, I was rather hoping you would quote the relevant passage, so that I and those like myself can compare it to the aforementioned military quote, and perhaps derive some insight from it.

<comment><USER10> It's worth reading.

<comment><USER6> I am almost through it and I have to say I am not enjoying it as much as I thought I would. I read books like this mostly because of their significance to the SciFi genre and while I think this books has some really great elements, the fact that Paul is basically infallible irks me. Nobody is that perfect in my experience and I wish I wasn't sure that he'd be successful with everything he starts.

I did read a critique of Dune recently that suggested that Herbert initially wanted to show how dangerous superheros are. This explains a bit about why Paul is a superhero: he has to be to make Herbert's thesis. However, then I'd be rooting for him to fail and I don't like the stories where the protagonist is evil in some subtle way and you are supposed to root for them to fail.

<comment><USER11> > the fact that Paul is basically infallible irks me.

It's supposed to.

> I did read a critique of Dune recently that suggested that Herbert initially > wanted to show how dangerous superheros are. This explains a bit about why > Paul is a superhero: he has to be to make Herbert's thesis. However, then > I'd be rooting for him to fail and I don't like the stories where the > protagonist is evil in some subtle way and you are supposed to root for them > to fail.

Paul _isn 't_ evil and you aren't supposed to root for Paul to fail; insofar as the critique that Herbert is trying to illustrate that superheroes are dangerous is correct, it is correct in the traditional sense of "superhero" where "evil" is very much not part of the mix.

An evil "superhero" is a super _villain_ , and illustrating that supervillains are dangerous wouldn't be particularly interesting. Supervillains are useful dramatic tools because their danger is blatantly obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So at one point I took on a management job, stepping up from a (lead) developer. I felt like the whole thing was kind of a train wreck and I am still slowly analyzing the black box recordings from it. This was my first time having direct reports that were not one or two interns and managing a team of seven other highly intelligent people was quite a chore in itself. What bugged me is that I could never tell if the problem was the environment or something I was doing. I tried to be fair. I mentored people when I could help. I tried to not be overbearing when I had nothing to add. I present challenging problems to the people who I thought would find them interesting. I advocated for my guys to the upper management, trying to improve working conditions. I insisted on being flexible, discarding what was slowing us down, and adopting what was good. None of that seemed to help: my dev team learned to resent me for delivering the bad news (for example the dev team was the fallback for doing data entry for weeks on end when nobody else could handle it and we had no time to finish better data entry tools because of it), and my boss(es) learned to resent me for not delivering what they expected.

I know that there were quite a few problems above me. Lack of leadership carries far and wide and there was a disconnect between what the products did and what the management thought it did. Lack of money (think lack of compensation, lack of tools, lack of time for anything but immediate returns) did not help either. I do keep questioning whether I was doing all the wrong things or if I was put in a situation designed for me to fail, or perhaps both.

After I left I understand the company hired three different people to replace me: a manager, a dev lead, and a support engineer. I suppose that's some kind of a sign that I was trying to do too many things at once. Most of the engineering team also left after I did. The least I could do is give them the great recommendations they all deserved so all of them moved onto exciting new pastures. However, I cannot help but feel like I failed at this task that I felt sure I could tackle and I don't understand why.

Please excuse the rant. These types of topics always trigger those same feelings in me.

Edit: now I work as a developer on 2-3 person teams. I have no reports. I get to be productive again! I can write code that doesn't have to suck to compensate for poorly chosen deadlines. This is good for the soul. I do miss leading a team though; not managing but really leading. One of my proudest moments was when I was allowed to follow a system of estimates and sprints I put together and for 8 weeks my team delivered on schedule and exactly what was promised. That was one of my more joyful moments.

<comment><USER12> welcome to low/mid-level management. You get squeezed from the top and bottom. Everybody will hate you, so you just try and hit deadlines.

It also sounds like a typical story where the larger organization was trying to keep management lean, without realizing that it really did take multiple people to do the job.

One place I worked at ground through three managers in 6 months (with 120 people under them) before finally getting the clue and hiring a proper team of 7 to do the job.

It's not uncommon at all and it really is the upper management's responsibility to properly staff their low/mid management teams.

<comment><USER13> How common is 600% turnover in management?

I know turnover in engineering is usually high (if people are moving around every 18 months to 2 years)... but 600%?

<comment><USER14> I've seen turnover that bad at past employers. In some cases it continued for years after I left. I think it depends on the company, not necessarily averages.

<comment><USER15> Ditto for a place where I used to work. Unfortunately for me and my colleagues, the reason for the high turnover was that they kept hiring good dev managers who all quickly identified the projects' major problems and set about trying to solve them. This had the unfortunate side effect of revealing the incompetence of the TD, so they had to go quickly.

<comment><USER16> TD? Technical Director?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> the top answer is really well done, but lacks the gem from the second answer: "One of the major rookie mistakes I have made and see many others make is the assumption that human motivation is tied to economic outcomes"

put another way - you might have a personal ambition to have a title like "VP of Engineering" or make $500k a year, but most others don't. so if you project your motivations / world view on those who work for you, you will have a bad time building a great team with a great culture. knowing what your people value is really important and will help you get the best work from your team.

<comment><USER18> One of the amazing things I've learned as a manager is how much you can get out of asking people what they want.

Many people haven't really thought about it and so you end up going on a fun journey helping them figure it out. Usually, you discover over time that there are _a lot_ of things more important than money. Being the manager that helped them figure out what they really want (and hopefully get closer to it) builds awesome loyalty and motivation on the job.

Once you have the minimum amount to live comfortably (which in places like SF is actually a non-trivial amount), I've found raises and bonuses have only very short-term happiness that wears off in a week or two. It's feeling fulfillment in your job and making progress on your long term goals that really brings career happiness.

<comment><USER17> this is really good advice.

I learned from a superb mentor Laurie Litwack who was a great program manager at microsoft that you should learn about each of your reports "heart, tree, star".

heart: what do you love? tree: what / where do you want to grow? star: how do you feel rewarded?

especially in an environment where you can juggle awards, this can be really helpful, if someone values a bonus and someone else values titles & public recognition, you can balance them out and make everyone happy. and hit a budget. ideally...

<comment><USER19> Interesting...I just ran a Google Search on that one (Heart-Tree-Star) and it came up with a SlideShare presentation from another Microsoft guy mentioning "Meng Phua" as the originator for him...seems like it was taught to quite a few of the folks there at Microsoft at one point perhaps?

[http://www.slideshare.net/kaykas/career-planning- framework-h...](http://www.slideshare.net/kaykas/career-planning-framework- heart-tree-star)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I surely agree with most of what's posted there - a majority of it is straightforward common sense that's barely even specific to management.

"Don't procrastinate, communicate clearly" are to management what "eat less, exercise" is to losing weight or "only buy things you need, spend less than you earn" is to saving money.

The problem isn't managers that they haven't read this compilation of checklists or its equivalent in any of the thousands of management books out there.

The problem is the brokenness of management as a role in general.

Too many organizations are stuck in an broken structure which makes management the most direct if not only way to advance in terms of status, pay, autonomy or all three.

The end result are incompetent managers who need to be taught common sense or unhappy ones who are far better suited to other roles, but recognize them as dead-ends.

If becoming a manager stops being desirable for all the wrong reasons you won't have to remind your new, inexperienced managers not to be lazy or not to manage by intimidation.

<comment><USER18> It seems like a number of newer, growing startups are making sure there are individual contributor paths for growth. What would you like to see as a solution?

Also - do you think it's that their overwhelmed, under-trained for the new demands of the role, or something else that causes so many managers to fail?

<comment><USER20> _> 'It seems like a number of newer, growing startups are making sure there are individual contributor paths for growth. What would you like to see as a solution?'_

I think that making available a number of paths for growth is certainly a good thing. I expect there are size limits on such a structure - either for the company as a whole or the extent of the company that gets to experience that track.

This is something I'm very curious about - small companies which have managed to keep their employs happy, well-paid and continuously growing (as individuals).

> _' Also - do you think it's that their overwhelmed, under-trained for the > new demands of the role, or something else that causes so many managers to > fail?'_

I doubt there's ever truly a single source for manager failure, but if I had to bet on the most significant variables in failing in a typical situation I'd say:

* Promotion Beyond Competence:

Happens for all sorts of reasons - nepotism, stereotyping, political maneuvering (puppet appointments), adherence to tradition and many more.

However it happens, the person is not properly equipped for the role, in the worst case it's to such a degree that they don't recognize how far they fall short.

* Lack of Ambition / Urgency:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, don't fix it. There's too much risk. No reason to rock the boat and jeopardize a steady, comfortable paycheck.

* Unmanageable People:

I expect lots of people have never worked for a good manager of any measure. That bad experience makes them utterly certain that anyone who isn't 'in the trenches' 100% of the time useless - a drain on their productivity.

So, once the good one comes along - the one who will make him/herself an impenetrable human bullshit shield for 98.6% of every day in exchange for a 5 minute status report - they refuse to offer up that barest minimum.

<comment><USER21> Your first bullet point is so well known it's called the "Peter Principle" [0].

EDIT: There's also the corresponding "Dilbert Principle" [1] which states that incompetent employees are promoted intentionally to remove them from the productive flow.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle) [1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The single most common mistake I see managers making is assuming that their job is to manage the people rather than the project, closely followed by trying to micro-manage the project itself. Trust and delegation are key to all of this.

A good manager looks after a project not its people, concentrates on the big picture while letting others deal with the small details. A good manager achieves this by delegation.

Assuming you've hired the right people in the first place you should be able to let people get on with their jobs — if you try to do their jobs for them you will fail through lack of expertise or lack of time.

I would add that iteration is also key - a manager should check on a regular basis that what has been planned is what is being done and that if not ensure there is time to change what is being done as early as possible. Good staff and good managers appreciate that some things will take a few iterations to get right but it is better to iterate than to take the first version of everything (and foolish to plan for this) - not iterating leads to over-design and slow progress as everyone desperately tries to second-guess all the situations their work might have to cover.

Iteration is also the best way to get a feel for individual workers' pace and abilities.

</comment><comment><USER23> When I first started work out of college I kept a notebook of "things I like/don't like" about my managers, mostly as a training piece for myself. One of the top qualities one of my managers had was his comfort level with admitting to me "I don't know the answer to that, but I think I know where we can find it".

Probably summed up as something like "check your ego at the door". This goes for not only managers, but any member of an organization -- pretending to know something when you really don't and being afraid to ask questions is a _huge_ red flag to me for both managers and employees alike.

And back to the list, IMO that's a pretty good list, especially coming from one person's experiences.

<comment><USER24> Piecemeal advice, even if you know the answer to all job interview questions answering a straight up "no haven't dealt with that before but I'd tackle it by learning x y z." Will set you apart from pretty much everyone. Being able to confidently tell someone you politely have no fucking clue is pretty rare in my experience.

Example I interviewed for a job I know I was qualified for, they kept asking questions about things I really had no idea about (all stuff I had never dealt with before - only similar things) they were so refreshed by the honesty and how I dealt with not knowing things they offered me the job despite pretty much what I thought at the time was tanking the interview.

<comment><USER25> I used to interview people for Google, and "I don't know but here's how I would go about finding out" almost never counted against candidates. What _would_ count against a candidate is if they made a wrong assumption and then blindly proceeded as if that assumption was correct.

<comment><USER26> What if they said they'd bing for the answer? Would that count against them?

<comment><USER25> I think that's happened before, not for one of my interviews but for one a friend gave. I don't think it counted against them, but they weren't good enough to meet the bar anyway. (That happens a lot - I've never had a non- intern candidate get through, and I've had friends go for 50 interviews without a single candidate getting hired.) We had a good laugh afterwards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Problems I found with the top answer:

Performance management: It is highly unlikely as somebody new to the team, and brand new to management, that you can work out who the high performers are and who the under performers are within the first few weeks. If you get it wrong then by making it official and documenting by email you will get the entire teams backs up.

Not explicitly managing resources: Really bad advice. How do you know what is important within the first few weeks? Often you will only have a high level view of what the team does within the first few weeks. Try and do this too quickly and again it can backfire.

<comment><USER28> When I wrote the answer (that is currently top answer) I was thinking about a longer time window for the "new manager" period, perhaps a year instead of a few weeks. You're right that someone new to the team and new to management won't be able to accurately assess who the top and bottom performers are in their first few weeks. Same for how to allocate resources.

If the "new manager" period is the first year of management then I stick by my answer on those points.

<comment><USER27> From a years (or even six months) perspective the points make a lot more sense. The question asked about the first few weeks as a manager :). Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> In other news, Quora doesn't blur out the second answer and ask for you to log in?

<comment><USER30> Because the submitter added ?share=1 to the link

edit: I personally use [https://github.com/sindresorhus/quora- unblocker](https://github.com/sindresorhus/quora-unblocker) in Chrome to do this for me so I don't have to think about it. I also made [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quora- share/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quora-share/) to do the same thing in FF.

<comment><USER31> > Because the submitter added ?share=1 to the link

That was us. Maybe we should make the software do it?

<comment><USER32> I wonder if sama has seen this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4503910](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4503910)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> There are some old IEEE articles on management for techies that, in my humble opinion, are simply brilliant.

Delegation: (usually the first failure I see) [http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/Management/art5.html](http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/Management/art5.html)

And the rest: [http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/Management/index.html](http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/Management/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> The hard part for me was that managing engineers takes a lot of time and energy, it's not possible to be a full time engineer and a full time manager.

Over time your understanding of the technical details of the work your team is doing will atrophy and where once you may have been an expert on all aspects of the system you must now rely on the judgement of the senior members of your team when making decisions. This is hard for a lot of people, to know that you don't know enough to make a decision and then to trust your team enough to help you make the right one.

Building that trust is important, because without it you'll make bad (or at least uninformed) technical decisions. it's easier if you moved up into a managerial role from a team you worked on instead of being hired to manage a team you just met.

</comment><comment><USER35> What really always rubbed me up the wrong way was approaching me to come up with the question "OK, how long then?". Because "managers" tend to ask this when neither scope nor current state of the project are visible, and are then getting offended when one points out to them that it's an impossible question. They then usually proceed to ask you to just make something, clearly demonstrating that they don't want to improve the disaster state of the project or care for your opinion in any shape or form, but instead prefer some randomly made up number.

So whenever I hear this question in that very particular tone, I already plan my exit strategy because I know it's going to be a train wreck.

</comment><comment><USER36> A number of the points in the top answer are really symptoms of not being aware of what is going on with your people. One of the fatal flaws (for the manager if not the company) I have observed in poor managers is a lack of spending time with the team members.

At least in tech, many managers are promoted from individual contributor roles and they only carve out a little time to be a manager. Usually that means they don't know what is going on, and when issues do come to their attention those issues have been festering for quite a while.

<comment><USER18> I've always been stunned how few tech companies and startups do 1 on 1s. It's the single, easiest way to surface a lot of this. As long as you don't completely ignore what's brought up in them, you'll get in front of a lot of trouble.

@abdinoor - what tactics do you use to get in front of these issues?

<comment><USER36> @jevanish you're right about the one-on-ones being the easiest way. But just doing the meeting is not enough. You would be surprised how many managers walk into a 1:1 with no agenda and are just asking "What's up?"

It is also not enough to just talk about the day-to-day. The 1:1 is not a smaller standup meeting. Just because there is "nothing on your plate" does not mean you skip the 1:1.

I generally prepare by reviewing notes from previous meetings and any goals that we have set together. Also bring a number of questions about company direction, transparency, colleagues, etc. Over the course of many 1:1s I can build a pretty comprehensive understanding of what makes this person tick and how they feel about their work and colleagues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I wish there was a way to share this list with a manager without seeming like a dick.

<comment><USER38> I've felt this way several times in the past.

What I've found is that its a good indicator of when I need to launch a new job search.

Under good management, I usually don't feel the need to share a list like this. If I do, then I can usually have a 5 minute chat with the manager to get things worked out. If that doesn't work, a longer discussion can be in order.

Under bad management, I usually feel like any attempt at change is more likely to hurt me than help me. I once took the risk of sharing the netflix culture slide deck [0] (a quick and insightful must read) with a manager. His response was that, if I was attracted to that sort of culture, then maybe I should get a job at netflix. Fail. You can probably guess at the number of management discussions we had after that.

[0] [http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664](http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664)

<comment><USER39> That Netflix culture slide deck sounds pretty idyllic, but it's also 5 years old. Netflix has faced a number of challenges since then, and I wonder if they've changed their approach at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> My experience is that the more experienced the manager, the more he will remove himself from all conversations, the rookies always talk about themselves.

<comment><USER17> talking about themselves and taking credit are two of the big traps rookies fall into.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The biggest mistake I see managers make is that they think they are there to deliver completed projects to upper management. They are playing project manager when they should be playing people manager.

A good manager's job is to make sure their direct reports have everything they need to get their job done. The proper information, tools, training, time, motivation, etc. If they have the proper staff the rest of the success will stem from that.

I have employed that as a manager and expect it as a direct report and have only ever seen success when it is employeed both in the military and the private sector.

</comment><comment><USER42> Mistake #1: It's not about you, it's about them. Mistake #2: Not having frequent one-on-one meetings with your direct reports. For this I recommend you listen to: [http://www.manager-tools.com/manager-tools- basics](http://www.manager-tools.com/manager-tools-basics). One-on-ones are considered the core of the management trinity. Mistake #3: Not giving timely, frequent feedback. Mistake #4: Not coaching your team to help them grow. Mistake #5: Not wanting to let go of your individual contributor responsibilities.

Cheers!

</comment><comment><USER43> Can't we ban links to the Quora website? It doesn't let people read the page without logging in.

<comment><USER44> Who's we? And no, you don't have to log in, try it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> OP lists all the issues from the point of view of management.

From the employee point of view, here are some common manager problems:

Employee comes in earlier, leaves earlier than manager: manager assumes employee is only working the hours they see; they act on this and insult/piss off the employee with their assumption of slacking.

Manager optimizes group for his own metrics e.g. maximize resources/minimize commitments to increase likelihood of meeting all objectives. Company loses (spending way too much for the minimal accomplishments); employee loses when manager won't permit taking on anything but the most mundane projects.

Manager cherry-picks opinions in group to justify the approach manager Wants to take, instead of letting the experienced employees make their own plan. Managers don't 'get to' make decisions; they are supposed to gather information to make the Right decision.

</comment><comment><USER46> I think the biggest mistake new managers make is to forget that you are principally managing people. Even though day to day there's a lot of email, meetings, project management and office politics it pays to remember that you succeed through your staff as much if not more than through your personal efforts.

<comment><USER18> Do you manage anyone? How do you remember that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _Lowering the bar - Inexperienced managers have low standards, or lower > their standards, in an effort to make a hire. Good managers know that they > 're much better off keeping a high bar and waiting for the right candidate._

I'm facing this argument right now, and it's unclear to me on what my manager's opinion on this is. I'd rather not trade quality. While I agree with the quoted answer, I can't think of a good argument to back it up, and the answer doesn't provide one. Can someone give something more concrete here, especially something more concrete than, "well, a weak hire will cost you more in training / patience / bringing them up to speed / constant mentoring"? (or is that really the argument?)

</comment><comment><USER47> Software development. 1\. Don't have experience programming(medium is okay for fast debug). 2\. Don't have experince in meeting room.Altitude E.g don't play with your phone in meeting room don't voice opinion.. It you don't talk how people would knew it ? 3\. Follow Up Client And Vendor .Some new born or over experience take think as simple.(Serious Issue). 4\. No Money Manager.Just wanted to request people work for them without money(Serious issue).

 __There 's a lot to write here.. but above seem important to me dealing with problematic manager.

</comment><comment><USER48> "Thinking too small - A successful leader is going to create growth and opportunity for their team. A leader who thinks small is unlikely to do either. Instead of planning how to grow your business 100%, plan how to grow it 10x or 100x."

This attitude could potentially backfire. It can lead to a closed-loop that eventually results in dishonesty to meet unattainable numbers. Better to plan growth empirically and adjusting for things like regression to the mean at the team and company level.

</comment><comment> bjelkeman-again I probably have made all of those mistakes at one time or another. Some of the mistakes where bad enough to nearly sink a company. Hopefully I make fewer of them now.

It is humbling to have a great team actually letting you manage them, especially when you mess up and the tell you and they let you learn from your mistakes.

When you have teams like that it is easy to manage. If you do, take really good care of your team. They are worth it.

<comment><USER18> What kinds of things do you like to do to take really good care of them?

<comment> bjelkeman-again It probably varies a bit from what type of organisation you are running.

Then, listen to people, understand where they are at, offer something which means that they develop personally. Make sure everyone is really clear on what you are trying to achieve and then give them the rains to lead and achieve that together. My product development teams have a very strong idea of where we are going with the products and they do 95% of their work without any input from me.

Again, listen to people. Attend meetings, not to control things but essentially keep your ear on the ground for issues or friction then resolve it quickly with the person in focus. Also I attend meetings to inform people on what is going on in the rest of the organisation.

We run a very open organisation, so we discuss budgets and how we approach things very openly. Open discussions about how we are expanding are important. One effect of this is that we have very little in the form of politics in the organisation.

A lot of this can sound like clichés, and it is, if you don't do it well and with people in your focus. The organisation we run is there to support a great group of people doing great things. Not the other way around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Micromanagement is the #1 problem I've seen with inexperienced managers (and some experienced ones, too). I'm surprised the article didn't mention that, although a couple of the commenters did, at least.

You have to hire good people that you can trust to do the job, up front. Then you have to trust them to do the job. It's as simple as that.

</comment><comment><USER50> A handful:

Not delegating.

Not working through others.

Not managing a group's resources.

Promoting one's self while failing to support one's boss.

Appropriating others' work as one's own.

Not growing relationships with other groups in a non-protective, non-clique, non-silo'd way.

Following, rather than questioning, organisational policies (i.e. not managing upwards).

</comment><comment><USER51> One thing I didn't see on any of the lists is ethics. Truly world class managers and team builders are also very careful about ethics, and see it as more important than their project, job and career.

</comment><comment><USER52> off topic, but wow, quora is actually letting me read past the first answer without logging in. they are finally wising up after I ignore the call-to- signup for the umpteenth time?

<comment><USER53> Adding ?share=1 to the link helps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Not knowing when someone has to go or worse, having the confidence to make them go. Far too many cannot organize their thoughts properly to justify it to themselves or even HR.

</comment><comment><USER55> Listen. Don't think. Keep it simple stupid. Let the leads lead, and we'll just listen.

</comment><comment><USER56> Praise publicly, criticize privately (with the person you are criticizing, not behind their back).

</comment><comment><USER57> Wish, I could post it on my company's intranet.</comment>