We may get fired and I don't know what to do - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/L69iMWGn <comment> UK-AL I really would not talk to upper management. If the guy got moved to a profitable department, it means he has friends there. You're gonna lose, and risk a bad reference which would make it difficult to get a new job.

Remember who put him there, if it was bad choice, it means upper management made a bad decision. In my experience upper management will do anything but admit to a bad decision.

Just silently leave for another job, try to make sure you will get a good/neutral reference. Remember future employers will just think your bad/unskilled if you get a bad reference rather than the fact you got into politics. Larger companies have an automatic no, to bad references and won't accept excuses. Since they assume your a bad person/almost criminal (the only point large corporates will give a bad reference normally) and probably lying. Limiting you to small companies for your next job.

Its nice to think you can be a hero and fix this, but you can only do that if your someone with significant power in the company like a founder, or an early employee who is best buds with senior management. Since HN is full of these types, they can be idealistic.

I've been through situations like this, and this is what I would do now rather then potentially making your life hell.

Situations like this is a massive problem with modern company structure.

<comment><USER2> As a side point - am I incorrect in believing that it is, in fact, Illegal to give a bad reference? I was under the impression that your only recourse was, instead, to decline to provide a reference at all.

<comment><USER3> In the United States it is perfectly legal to give a truthful reference, good or bad. If the truth appears to be debatable, just stick to the facts. If the person inquiring asks for a "deep reference," (someone else who knows the applicant besides you), it is also perfectly legal in the United States to provide that information. (This surprises a lot of job-seekers in the United States, who would like to believe that the law is otherwise, but this is the law. In general, you can say truthful things about current or former employees, including identifying other people who know about them.)

I have been looking up information about employment law (mainly in the United States, but also around the world) as part of a promised update to my FAQ on company hiring procedures

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5227923](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5227923)

that I will post to my personal website.

<comment><USER4> Absolute true. But you will only get sued for a bad reference, it simply isn't worth the corporate risk. The corporation gains literally nothing and exposes itself to legal liability. There are reasons HR have strong policies on this -- it is all liability and downside with no upside.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Resign, if you can. This seems to me an organization with a toxic ecosystem that's neither healthy for you or your co-workers.

It's ridiculous that the strategy team isn't aware of these shenanigans and that tells me, the structure of the organization is hopelessly broken (besides the manager they don't want to get rid of).

In my experience, management isn't the sort of thing that's easy to fix or, IMO, worth fixing in the longer run. If you're not a founder/investor or in other way have a horse in this race, you literally have no incentive (besides immediate salary) to waste precious time off your life in a hierarchy that isn't going anywhere and is utterly clueless.

Resigning may give you better options later on than getting fired. It's going to be tough depending on how well you can function on reserves, but if I were you, I would be tiding up my resume immediately and sending out feelers elsewhere.

It's a big ocean out there.

<comment><USER6> > you literally have no incentive (besides immediate salary) to waste precious > time off your life in a hierarchy that isn't going anywhere and is utterly > clueless.

I beg to differ. It sounds like the whole department is at risk. If I was in the position I wouldn't want to just quit and leave everyone else - who I work with on a daily basis - to face the consequences. I would try speaking to upper management and seeing how that goes. At the very least let them know about the PMs regime to rewrite everything - "What, you didn't know this was happening?". I would actually speak to them rather than just emails. If they don't seem bothered, and nothing happens, then get out. But at least you know that you tried, and don't have to feel guilty about leaving.

<comment><USER7> I agree with this because it seems to be essentially one bad apple that is screwing everything up. If the team was working okay before under the previous PM and lead developer then there's no reason to think all hope is lost. At least not yet.

<comment><USER8> Yet this bad apple sunk one department and then got transferred to a highly profitable one. It sounds to me that he is very well connected or otherwise good at office politics. Taking him on would likely end in defeat. I would suggest to get out of there.

<comment><USER7> He doesn't need to "take him on". He needs to gather information to decide whether or not he needs to leave. If one jumps to conclusions and passive aggressively resigns every time one encounters dysfunction in an organization then one will never be able to work on a team larger than 3 or 4 people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You can either resign silently, or step up and go talk honestly with higher management with the risk of getting fired. In any case, you shouldn't continue working like that.

Finding a new job is easier than you think it'll be. Living in such a stressful environment is not worth it. The only thin you'll regret is not doing something about it.

<comment><USER10> _Finding a new job is easier than you think it 'll be._

Maybe he is older than 35?

<comment><USER11> Is it that much harder to find a job when you turn 35?

I mean, a lot of my older colleagues have had a hard time finding jobs, but most of them are not very passionate about what they do. They want to work right next to their own front door, they don't want to sacrifice any pay or holiday credit, and they prefer not to learn new things and stick to the familiar. (I know of a few exceptions, and I'm not claiming this is true for all >35yo employees)

I wonder: if you keep learning new things, continue to be passionate about your field etc, is it that much harder to find a new job just because you're older?

<comment><USER12> If you're low or mid talent you're competing with fresh graduates and self- learners. It gets harder, because you'll want more pay and work less free overtime.

For high talent or a unique skillset, it's not a problem and you effectively set your own salary. This is where you want to be.

<comment><USER13> It's an interesting problem. All the cream of the crop 20 somethings now will be 35 one day. Even people like mark zuckerberg will be 35! But I guess the question is relative value.

In baseball or basketball, a younger age does make a difference (since performance is proportional to athleticism). Veterans are still highly regarded for leadership, and sometimes pure skill (setup man, utility infielder, 3-point shooter); Though they're called on less and usually earn less then their heyday. Would we ever see something similar in the code business?! I don't know. In the case of coding, experience goes up, but perhaps desire to not work like crazy goes down (family, done it before, etc).

Maybe we should pay even higher salaries to bright youngins with huge signing bonuses? And let them know that their expected prime is 21-34. And they should manage their money wisely and open a carwash or burgerking or two.... :P

<comment><USER4> It is an interesting (made up) problem. Older developers exit for hiring paying management roles. At large companies, average developer age is constantly going up.

The market (US) has 2.2% unemployment and every single software company I have ever worked for is CONSTANTLY scouting for people, nonstop, the entire time I have worked there. Keeping standards high is exceptionally challenging... "Good news, this one can do FizzBuzz!"

Age isn't even considered, we just need freaking people and are competing with 5+ other companies to get them. There is a reason we pay recruiters 20k+ per freaking hire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you're not willing and able to stand up and speak up, you're just as unprofessional and incompetent as those you are blaming.

I'm sorry I'm so blunt, but I'm getting so tired of developers whining as if they are victims. We are not poor exploited coal miners, we are well paid, sought after professionals. Start acting like it.

<comment><USER15> Who is going to pay you for the risk of confrontation? Like others already said, its not your job to oversee the management. As a team member priority number one is to keep the peace. The best you can do it to give small hints here and there by asking for justification/vision/mission statement that makes sense. If management don't catch on the hints, there is nothing else you can do.

I am surprised this person has so much vision over the state of the business, if there is nothing else that can explain the situation you have to leave.

<comment><USER16> > its not your job to oversee the management. As a team member priority number > one is to keep the peace.

I strenuously disagree; employees should have the right, if not the obligation, to keep their direct management honest [0]. It forestalls situations that turn into HN horror stories. If you feel like doing so would put your employment in jeopardy, all you can do is take orders, right ?

[0] by "keep them honest" I don't mean to imply that management lies to employees; it's a figure of speech in American English that AFAIK means to make sure the other party knows that you're watching out for any foul play.

<comment><USER15> I've heard this before, but there is only so much you can do. You can't be constantly calling your manager on his bullshit. What kind of relationship are you going to have this way?

I agree with you to the extent that you can give hints and ask the manager one or two tough questions. Once the OP raised the issue with the lost money and the case was dismissed, that's all you can do.

Some managers are passive-aggressive, they will exploit the peace and just sit and wait to be confronted about everything. And any confrontation labels you abrasive or without respect for authority and that puts you into a losing situation. You must know what kind of person you are dealing with. A bad manager is a bad manager. Best option is to leave asap, if you have a bad manager you will never advance your career.

<comment><USER16> > You can't be constantly calling your manager on his bullshit. What kind of > relationship are you going to have this way?

No relationship, since if I find I _have_ to call my manager on bullshit repeatedly, why would I waste my time in that position ?

> A bad manager is a bad manager. Best option is to leave asap, if you have a > bad manager you will never advance your career.

ah yeah you came to the same conclusion as me :) I thought you were saying, one should just tough it out upon finding oneself reporting to a bullshitty manager.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> An incompetent manager is moved to the most profitable division? This indicates that the individual is highly connected in the company.

Brush up your CV, get the heck out or request a division transfer.

<comment><USER4> Sad truth. :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> So the project manager and lead developer are hiding the work of multiple employees (division?) from from upper management? Many employees are getting payed for months of work to recreate a product--work that upper management would probably disagree with if asked. In what company is that even allowed? I can understand keeping something secret from other divisions or a small group focusing on something for a period of time but sounds very fishy and something that should be brought to the attention of your boss's boss or someone higher. Between work that may be worthless and losses, your project manager is effectively spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in an unauthorized manner.

<comment><USER19> " _Many employees are getting payed for months of work to recreate a product-- work that upper management would probably disagree with if asked. In what company is that even allowed?_ "

Yes, I was wondering about that as well. And the significant loss in revenue - in my experience that usually leads to _lots_ of questions.

The office isn't overlooking the London wheel by any chance :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Without trying to make this sound trivial, have you simply considered ignoring both individuals?

You have a senior in the team that has a fair idea of what needs to be done. You know the problems. You know that working on this side project, in secret, is wrong; so why not agree at every meeting, discussion, etc that you _will_ work on it, and then simply _do whatever needs to be done_.

It is risky, as the manager will then likely try to fire you; but that's going to be difficult to sell:

\- At every point you've followed directions given in verbal conversations \- If there's stuff in email, you simply agree to that as well - said manager is then documenting their own failure \- You are delivering what the strategic parts of the business believe are the right thing \- He'll justify trying to fire you... by revealing his secret project \- All hell will break loose, and at the end of the day if you were demonstrably protecting revenue _and_ following the overall strategic intent of the organistion, you'll just be treated as a dilligent cog in the machine.

Directly raising it or confronting the issue is likely to make you appear argumentative or a "trouble maker". It doesn't matter if you are right, once it gets past a certain point, non-experts have no clue what's going on and rely on relationships, tone of conversation, and the amount of trust they feel.

However, if you look harmless - nay, even too stupid to have done the wrong thing(!), you can likely let it wash over you and the team.

Alternatively, just all take your sick leave at one time, due to "stress caused by long hours working on SECRET PROJECT NAME", cc HR. :P

<comment><USER21> Then Success goes to the manager and lead and failure goes to the team for not doing what they were told and agreed to do in writing. You are handing them a scapegoat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> If it is as bad as you say, send an earnest letter to whoever owns the company. If that's the founder, shareholders, whoever has the owners equity in the company. Better yet, if possible, find them in person and address them that way if you have the confidence/acumen.

Get your resume sorted but don't touch the linkedin as it will show you might be thinking of jumping ship. It sounds like you enjoy the project and would rather solve the issue than leave. A project being developed in secret is completely f'ed (and could be illegal depending on your company structure) and they would have to be mental for reprimanding you for bringing transparency to it.

<comment><USER7> I think he should go to the PM's boss and to request an in-person meeting to raise the issue. Depending on how big the company is, the CEO may be way too high up to have any clue about the people he's talking about; he needs to get a read on the situation based on the PM's boss' reaction to figure out his next move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I would likely have gone over his head to higher management some time ago. The only reason not to is job security, but I swear to you it's better to go out having done the right thing.

<comment><USER24> I agree.

Go see senior management, and tell them what kind of unholy clusterfuck is occurring inside their top area.

<comment><USER25> Be very careful with this approach. You've no idea what those above know or do not know and if handled badly, it could blow up in your face.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It seems a lot of people think you can sort things out by speaking with higher managment but it looks like the organization is broken, not just the new manager otherwise he wouldn't be in a position to brake a second department.

There is a communication problem too. Why isn't anybody talking about thoses site going down ? Why is it so formal/difficult to talk about problems with other managers and other departments ?

It's unfortunate, but a few (even just one or two) guys can brake an organization when they are at the top.

<comment><USER27> Agreed. The natural first response is to play politics (not always bad) and escalate via some other back channel, but often times direct confrontation in the right setting is more effective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Your job is not to make the company more profitable. It is to make money for yourself. You're a technician. Do the work, tick the boxes, while finding better employment and building your skillset.

I wouldn't rock the boat under the reasoning that you gain nothing by doing such, except, maybe, a tiny chance at promotion. Moving jobs will likely net you a higher paycheck.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'd have to agree with most of the comments on here from what you describe. Considering your last sentence, you are in London where there are no shortage of tech jobs. Brush up your resume and send it out. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER29> Now that things are so bad, the best thing to do is to keep higher ups and other peers(yours and your managers's) in the organization, a quick update on what's going on in your group. Make sure to have some good metrics/data collected to have the case strong.

Remember: When concerned about loyalty, Your loyalty is not just to the manager, but to the organization.

</comment><comment><USER27> To get into the mindset of the managers, consider skimming James Collins' book "Good to Great". One point to take away is that any leaders in your organisation will appreciate the brutal facts.

Make sure you have documented what issues and risks you have expressed to the PM and Lead Developer - maybe actually in whatever tool you are using, or at least in email. Make a record that team's morale is decreasing.

You and each of your team members should directly be telling the PM and Lead Developer that you are worried with specific risks or issues.

Take the registers to somebody with more authority in your organisation. Come in with a few recommendations. Present the facts and tell them you think there's a problem, and ask if they agree or not. If they do agree, make sure to get what the next action will be.

Just my immediate thoughts. Good luck.

<comment> UK-AL This is super idealistic. In reality in small/medium companies people are connected and group together, and protect their friends. Most likely the pm is friends with the senior manager.

<comment><USER30> Also, in reality many employees do not have the insight or ability to identify critical issues they think they have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Honestly it sounds like I used to work for that company. If it's not the same one then the situation sounds damn near identical.

The company I was at was too big to suddenly change direction and fire those people who were incompetent and the problem was that the issues the company had did not come from the bottom, they came from the top.

Going to upper management in my case was not going to change anything on the ground for me immediately and if I did not see change in a month I was going to lose my mind.

In the end I chose to resign because I needed change for myself one way or another and at least my resignation guaranteed that change for me.

And like another commenter said here - getting a new programming job (especially in London!) is not that hard.

Good luck :)

</comment><comment><USER32> A day job isn't supposed to be this political and stressful. Get the hell out of there.

</comment><comment><USER33> Story of my life! Except the system was our bread winner and the redesign was no secrecy. We knew something was wrong but we all wanted to see the company succeed so we kept going way after the project was late and over budget. In the end we failed and everyone competent left.

My advice will be that you leave if you can. If that is not an option then work up the courage to tell some higher ups what's going on. You will burn bridges with the manager but you will save yourself and the rest of your team from the pain of coming to work every morning knowing they are partly responsible for something bad that is about to happen.

</comment><comment><USER34> The weather in London is not ugly right now.

Just for the record.

</comment><comment><USER35> There are two schools of thought at work, and you need to decide which one is for you:

1) You're paid to do a job, in a hierarchical management structure each tier must delegate and trust the tier below it. It's not your job to criticise your manager, it's the job of your managers manager, at the end of the day none of the developers are at fault for simply being told what to do.

2) You're personally and emotionally committed, you know you shouldn't do it but you want to take on the problems of the team, and by proxy, the problems of the company. If that's the case then voice your concerns because it'll stress the fuck out of you otherwise. Don't voice them to your manager, voice them to your managers manager. Don't get all emotional when voicing your concerns just lay out the facts calmly and impartially and go with whatever they say.

My opinion on this is that if you've taken the time to submit to HN, then you're Option 2 and it's going to eat at you. Even if you leave like many people have suggested you're going to feel bad for your team. Voice your concerns and then try to emotionally distance yourself from the company (unless they get the hint and fire the idiot manager). Then start looking for another job and advise the same to your colleagues.

Lot's of people here are saying to look for a job first, if you voice your concerns now, in the UK, it's unlikely they'll just fire you without any notice or any severance pay. If you're in London and half decent, you'll find employment pretty quickly.

Best of luck ;)

</comment><comment><USER36> > When we talk with the manager he thinks that it's not a big deal and once > the tool is complete we will not have this kind of problem any more

The idea that "the current system is rubbish, but the new system will be perfect" is common, and it is dangerous nonsense. Every large system has flaws, and throwing it away and starting over is the worst way to address them. Refactor if you can. Add the ability to refactor if you can't.

</comment><comment><USER37> Go over your managers head. Go to the person who is in charge of your manager, and tell them what's going on. Inform them that your manager's messing this up with a secret side project.

I'd also be tempted to go back to your original project. If your new manager's taught you anything, it's that it is OK to work secretly on stuff without reporting to management. See if you can get the whole team to revolt.

</comment><comment><USER38> This being an post complaining about weather in London, English law can be assumed to apply. First of all consult a local solicitor in employment law. Collect all your reviews and e-mails about your job performance in the last years. The solicitor can tell you what your risks are as losing a job can be a big financial problem. This will cost you a 100 to 300 GBP which is worth it. (have a look around see if a trade union can help you for much less)

Then document what is going on with the secret project and if possible show where your boss has lied on paper/e-mail. Then either schedule a meeting with your bosses boss and ask internal legal council to be present if it is in your company do this personally and make sure the meeting is on short notice and preferably early in the day.

If possible have a basic recovery plan available but do not give it unless asked for it. You should show concern for the business not look like you want your bosses job.

During this period of course look for new opportunities elsewere as, if your current boss stays your boss work is not going to be any fun. Even if they can't fire you now.

</comment><comment><USER39> Fuck 'em. Get a new job. Capitalism at work baby. Hire a crappy manager, capitalism means the company will lose skilled employees and go under.

</comment><comment><USER40> Find a new job, now. You can probably get a raise. Finding a job while you already have one is easier than when unemployed. Posts like the "HN Who is Hiring" can help, although more US-focused.

Decide if you should tell management about these issues (politely) on your way out. I'd be inclined to just leave quietly, though.

</comment><comment><USER41> While its personally satisfying to be a "hero", it will just get you fired.

I worked for a company whose CEO fired his outside accounting firm and replaced them with his wife, this in a company that grossed 5-10M per year. Super fishy, especially amid rumors that sales were off 20%.

I asked him directly if he was hiding something that was material to our deal (we came in through an acquisition). I was promptly fired, or in legal speak "laid off due to business reasons".

I'll never forget the comically bad exit interview, which ended in me being tackled by one of the managers in an attempt to obtain my cell phone.

So unless you want to be a martyr, just quit. Agree also that management put that bozo there, nothing you can do about it except leave.

</comment><comment><USER42> It sounds like you're invested in the company/team and/or the project or this would be a no-brainer (leave). You could try confronting the lousy manager as a group (if you really do all agree), and if that fails go over his/her head. Then you've done the right thing by everyone. Maybe there are even some good ideas in the new design that could be moved to the existing design to help the idiot save face (at least offer a lifeline). Confronting the manager first means he/she can't claim he/she was ambushed, no-one ever said anything, and so forth.

</comment><comment><USER43> Don't resign just yet, find a new job first ;). Shouldn't be too hard!

</comment><comment><USER44> Start looking for a new job (or, if you feel up to the challenge, starting your own company). Once you feel comfortable that you can leave and start something else, you will also feel comfortable going to management and explaining the situation (make sure you have plenty of hard evidence). Then you'll be able to decide whether you stay and try to work with management to rearrange things in a way that's better both for the business and for yourself, or you move on to one of the other options you've already secured.

</comment><comment><USER45> Leave. It's not your problem. You're not curing cancer (I assume) and your job means nothing to the universe, it's merely a way for you to gain energy until entropy wins and kills you. If you're old, then you'll have to focus and try harder than your younger colleagues, and you should start this very minute.

Seriously, the vast majority of our jobs mean nothing. There are other, less stupid places to work. The vast majority of our employers won't exist in 100 years. So be happy and leave.

Leave.

</comment><comment><USER46> It sounds like the company is on its way to tanking. It might not have hit the tipping point yet, but if the senior leadership made a mistake at putting their worst manager on the best team, well ...

... My point is that, if you step up and lose your job, you got out while it is still good. If you don't step up, eventually, the company will collapse and now you are out of options.

If you don't feel secure about it, perhaps you might want to start being open to looking for other opportunities.

</comment><comment><USER47> >> _Since the beginning of the year 2013 my department have lost more than 50% of its earnings and keeps losing at an alarming rate. Discussing with my team mates it is obvious what is going wrong: We have an incompetent project manager and lead developer and they are the only ones who seem to not notice that there is even a problem._

The PM and the lead haven't noticed but certainly their boss. Wait and see. I don't think it's _you_ who will be fired.

</comment><comment><USER48> Why are people telling you to leave? If you confront the situation the worst is you'll get fired, get workers comp and what not. If you leave you get nothing.

<comment><USER49> The logic goes like this:

1\. If you're going to do something that might get you fired, get another job lined up before you do it.

2\. The leverage "threaten to resign" only works once; if you don't follow through it won't be credible again; and it marks you as having one foot out the door, making it less appealing to invest in training you or give you new responsibilities.

3\. Even if you use leverage other than threatening to resign, moving jobs is guaranteed to get you away from your toxic boss, whereas trying to fix things isn't guaranteed to work. And at the same time you can probably learn some new technologies and get a salary bump. Once you've got another job lined up, you might as well take it.

4\. Telling everyone what you really think in leaving e-mails / exit interviews never changes anything in the company, but might make you enemies or get you a bad reference. Why bother? Instead give them some bullshit about how it's a great company and you just felt it was time for a change.

Of course, if you can confront the situation in a way that doesn't risk getting you fired, the above logic doesn't apply.

<comment><USER50> Don't threaten to resign. Make your argument, back it up with data and evidence, let managers the space to do the job they are supposed to do. If then they don't fix the problem, then just leave.

There is only downside for threatening to leave, it scuppers your future in the company. As michaelt notes, don't bluff, have the next step lined up. At that point, there's no value in threatening to leave. Just hand in your notice, if they realise your value they tend to counter-offer anyway. But be sure leaving is the right thing for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> If you talk to higher management, make sure the project neglect and subsequent loss of income is forefront in your concern. If the problem person has friends in higher management, you may be screwed one way or the other, but if you keep it about the finances of the company you stand a much better chance of being heard and even appreciated. Otherwise, I'd say update your resume and quietly start looking elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER52> Secret projects are a recipe for layoffs. Years ago I worked for a manager who wanted a few of us to work on a wildly impractical project. The main business wasn't getting accomplished, and the parent company that was funding the venture dissolved the company. One of the programmers there became a principal at a Silicon Valley VC firm--he doesn't mention his stint at the failed venture.

</comment><comment><USER53> Have any of you discussed this with the new incompetent PM? That seems like a natural first thing to do, before going over his head.

</comment><comment><USER54> So I have this crazy idea that since I'm young and in IT, I should never try to protect my job. Just make a stink of it, lose your job (that sucks anyways), and find another one. If you do that often enough, you'll be the one always proposing changes, that's called a leader and it's the kind of people that get promoted.

<comment><USER17> No, you'll be the person with a long resume who finds it hard to get a job!

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Just quit. Tomorrow. Life is too short to waste time on crap corporate politics and the culture of failure.

Frankly, it's probably not worth the time it would take to do a brain dump to upper management, HR or any potentially interested party. I wouldn't volunteer anything unless someone who seemed genuinely interested asked.

</comment><comment><USER56> First, find another job, then talk to upper management. The negative consequence of talking to upper management is that it would be difficult for you to work with the incompetent project manager in the future. Oh well.

Help your coworkers find other jobs too. They might even follow you to your new company if you play your cards right.

</comment><comment><USER57> my 2cents

either a) you do not care anymore about the success company and only care about job security

b) you do care about the success of your company

if a) is the case, quite now! you are part of the problem. you are blaming them but are at the same time not willing to take the consequences of doing the right thing.

or

b) speak up, all the time, to anyone, not just with your peers, but also to anyone else. call this "to change the dance" you are changing how you behave, to other have to react. they will be pissed, they will blame you. they might fire you (good for you, then) or they will change their dance.

there is no alternative, everything else will just go downhill.

recommended reading: [http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Systems-Unlocking- Mysteries-Org...](http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Systems-Unlocking-Mysteries- Organizational/dp/1576754553)

buy it, read it, understand what is currently happening and what your role in it is.

</comment><comment><USER58> Just name the damn company and sooner or later the upper bosses will find out.

</comment><comment><USER59> How about anonymously linking this post in an e-mail to the upper management?

</comment><comment><USER60> You grew personally attached - don't do that. Your co-workers are not your friends and you don't have a stake in that company. It is normal to change your job.

</comment><comment><USER61> You're in London, come join us, we're after some shit hot talent!

Reply and I'll provide details if you're interested!

</comment><comment><USER62> Stop being a lamb. Speak up or find a new job.

</comment><comment><USER63> Leave. Now.

</comment><comment><USER64> If all of you agree, you can write a letter together that points out the problems and toxicity of the situation. Then you all sign the letter in alphabetical order and send it to the CEO of the company.

If that fails, you can resign.

<comment><USER65> send it anonymously

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Be sure you're right, then go ahead.

Going ahead means talking to higher management, laying out your concerns ("I'm worried this may be the case" not "This is the case, absolutely, and you must act now!") then asking if they think you're right.

I would also style this as a question of management theory, not the individual in question. "I believe Dan is using the STFU management technique and it's not a fit for our unique situation..."

<comment><USER67> That, I'd say, is the best answer so far. Do not confront anybody, just ask questions (to enlighten yourself), and let the upper management know about the secrets (because they obviously aren't secrets, your manager isn't allowed to have secrets, so you can freely talk about them).

Be as friendly as you can be, and talk about policies, not people. They may actually not know about your division's problems, and correct the situation.

Also, look for another job. It is possible that your manager has friends up there, and won't be fired. That means your team will, one way or the other.</comment></comment>


Amsterdam to ban Airbnb in city centre - <AUTHOR> https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/04/amsterdam-to-ban-airbnb-in-city-centre-bring-in-permits-for-holiday-rentals/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is great news, bit of a non issue right now with Corona but that will pass. Hope other Dutch cities with small, historic centers will follow Amsterdam's example.</comment>


Show HN: Technical blogpost search engine and tech event map - <AUTHOR> https://news.garage-coding.com/ <comment><USER2> I typed 'virus' and link was to a page in Amazon's store for a book in Spanish. Curious about how pages are selected, ranked and matched.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for trying it out ! Currently just a large hand-picked list of sources. I looked and yeah, some irrelevant book data sources were present, I just removed them. Try again, tell me if you get better results. (It will be improved over time. I use it when I search for reading material myself)</comment></comment>


ASK HN: I can't remember the name of this app - <AUTHOR> I'm trying to remember the name of an app that was featured here on HN on November, that was used to vectorize an image by using an iterative approach with shapes configuration like circles, squares, lines. Can someone help me?<p>Thank you! <comment><USER2> [https://github.com/fogleman/primitive](https://github.com/fogleman/primitive)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the concept is exactly this. But I remember they had created an iPhone app that was being sold for $9.99. Can you remember? Thank youuuuuu!

<comment><USER3> a mac app. it's called "Primitive for macOS"

<comment><AUTHOR> haha That's it! Thank you! =)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


List of 200 remote jobs hand-picked from "Hacker News: Who is hiring? March" - <AUTHOR> https://remoteleaf.com/whoishiring <comment><AUTHOR> Author here. There are few automated aggregation sites available to curate the jobs posted in this thread but I want to take the aggregation one step further and wanted to provide the good quality remote jobs by handpicking them. So I've manually screened, verified and tagged all the remote jobs posted in this thread. So it can save you time, energy, and frustration – and hopefully, help you find a job faster.

\- Only 100% remote jobs

\- Filters based on skill category and location restrictions.</comment>


I'll be your data scientist for $150/hour, or for free - <AUTHOR> https://www.ownlife.eu/

<comment><USER2> I don't see why you're hiding your identity.

For that price, you shouldn't be afraid to put out a bit.

Remember that as a consultant for hire (independently) you _are the business_.

Plus you make it easier for people to verify your skills with your real ID.

I know you may feel uncomfortable with it, but it's worth a shot, especially as a way to "advertise", although referrals will still be your biggest money- draw.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good point. If I do a follow-up, it will possibly be on my personal website.

For what it's worth, I'm responding to inquiries with my identity and more details. So far, I've received several really interesting projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice you are being inventive! I wish more job hunters did the same :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

On a general note: my apologies for not including my identity and portfolio; I didn't want this experiment to be the first hit when you google me.

<comment><USER4> Why not?

<comment><USER5> In a lot of professional services fields, the reputation of working for free or cheap tends to bring in really bad customers that tend to be more trouble than they are worth.

<comment><USER3> Hmm, now I am confused. I thought you were giving your identity, that's why I liked it

<comment><USER5> I am not the OP.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is Programming Less Exciting Today? - <AUTHOR> http://www.javaworld.com/community/?q=node/8300

<comment><USER2> I kinda agree with the general spirit of this post, but I'll posit that there's a lot of stuff that's "old and new again." That is, things that were once new and shiny, that didn't catch on or really take off "big time" for whatever reason, but are waiting for that "second wind." Some things are just ahead of their times anyway.

That said, some of what excites me these days:

The new batch of programming languages that are coming out / came out recently: Clojure, Scala, Rust, Go, Fantom, Ceylon, etc.

Machine Learning, especially with the availability of a toolkit like Hadoop that prepackages scalable version of many popular algorithms.

Technologies for extracting knowledge (with rich semantics) from unstructured data (Apache UIMA, for example). And on a related note, things like Apache OpenNLP.

And I'm still fascinated with the general notion of a "Digital Nervous System" for organizations, where the IT systems are really analogous to the human autonomic nervous system. Bill Gates started hyping up that phrase back in the mid to late 90's (it existed before then, but Gates really got some buzz behind it), but nobody seems to have truly achieved that level of integration and sophistication to this day.

Semantic Web technologies are something I have a lot of interest in, and that still excite me as well.

I'm really intrigued by the possibilities of applying tools from Network Science and Social Network Analysis to different kinds of problems as well. It's not _strictly_ programming related, but there's interesting stuff going on in the world of complex dynamic systems and studies of emergent behavior, that could have some impact on computing in days to come.

Business Intelligence, Data Mining, Multi-agent Systems, Grid Computing, Swarm Computing, Evolutionary Computation, Reconfigurable Computing, Genetic Programming, Biocomputing, and, hell, even good-old-fashioned AI stuff (logic programming, expert systems, etc) still excite me. I believe there's still progress to be made in all of these areas.

But, then again, I'm an old fart, so what do I know? Now _getoffamylawn_ while I go play a MUD and surf Gopherspace.

</comment><comment><USER3> _It all feels like we've been here before, with only the names having changed_

They have, while there is no denying that there where significant improvements with the last total technology shift, we do have to accept that we throw everything out and start over again. I sometime wonder where we would be if a language like LISP had come to the forefront and inertia stayed behind it. When we start over on new stacks there is a great deal of reinventing the wheel. Not that that has not contributed to forward progress, but I cant help but imagine what if something like the JDK had been around for lisp back in the 70-80's and we kept on running with it, what if everyone standardized on it. All of the recycling would have been avoided and we would certainly be in a different place. Whether it would be ahead of what we have now is impossible to know, but what can be stated is that the move from the web to mobile was the same as from the PC to the web, which was the same as from the mainframe from to the PC. WE seem to keep reimplementing a lot of the same systems on the next platform. How many accounting systems have been implemented for the Mainframe -> PC -> web and now mobile. But yes it does seem that every generation and every new platform changes out the underlining tools and we set of to re-implement systems in those tools. Along the way we get novel things like Google and Facebook, but for a good deal of the industry it is just implementing the same systems on the next platform.

</comment><comment><USER4> There's yet another set of examples from gaming e.g. [http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/owhaz/dear_nimblebit...](http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/owhaz/dear_nimblebit_we_feel_your_pain/)

Alan Kay claimed there's only three new things in computers since 1980 (though he couldn't remember what they were): [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/357813/help-me- remember-a...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/357813/help-me-remember-a- quote-from-alan-kay) and when he asked for new things since 1980, the web seems to be the only one [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/432922/significant-new- in...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/432922/significant-new-inventions- in-computing-since-1980)

One fundamental change is that computing is a fully accepted consumer market. I hear ordinary folk using technical jargon at in cafes. It's in a hit sitcom (big bang theory). This means that anything new won't feel any more special than new toothpaste or washing powder technology. The future has become commonplace, like the grimy worn spaceships of star wars. So I guess we're "hipsters". But excitement over the new has always been fundamental to science and technology.

There's another view: If things seem boring, it's because _you_ are boring. Invent something interesting.

</comment><comment><USER5> There's a difference between "done before" and "done well."

Also, the increase in network and computation speeds and the reduction in size of components means that things that were merely doable in the past are now doable in more interesting and practical ways.

</comment><comment><USER6> There's still a lot to be excited about. Here's just a few things that excite me:

* Programmers are building and financing viable products on their own.

* They're deploying to the cloud because it's cheaper and more approachable for the little guy.

* They have new distribution methods available to them via App Stores and don't have to rely on software salesmen.

* They can measure nearly everything their users do.

* They can work from anywhere on distributed teams and have a good shot at success while maintaining a healthy work/life balance.

In short, yes programming hasn't changed much, but the way software gets built is changing a lot. That's still very exciting.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think this man is just burnt out.</comment>


CenturyLink to Buy Level 3 for $34B - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/centurylink-agrees-to-buy-level-3-for-34-billion-in-cash-stock <comment><USER3> IP transit is probably cheaper if you own the IP transit company. Conceptually this makes sense. Has that Rockefeller vertical integration feel to it.

Take this with a grain of salt, but from what I've gathered doing IP transit related work, Level3 has something of a reputation of being higher quality transit than many of their competitors. They tend to cost more and people seem to be paying it.

<comment><USER4> _Has that Rockefeller vertical integration feel to it._

Yeah, with the acquisitions they've been making, you can use your home CenturyLink connection, which goes over the CenturyLink backbone cabling, over to CenturyLink's IaaS provider, which hosts an app deployed using CenturyLink's PaaS.

<comment><USER5> CTL is much stronger in the commercial space than they are in residential. Vertical integration is the name of the game in the commercial telecom space, and has been for 30+ years.

And really, think of CTL as a decades-long rollup of baby Bells in the north central / midwestern US and they make more sense -- just like AT&T is largely a rollup of the southern and western Bells and Verizon is largely a rollup of east coast Bells.

AT&T and Verizon were able to prevent Comcast from becoming a third national competitor (for now), but it looks like CenturyLink will just take their place. Look for them to get into cellular in more than an overbuilding capacity soon though. I will almost guarantee that Sprint ends up with Comcast and T-Mobile with CenturyLink -- though I also wouldn't be surprised if the opposite happens.

Our goal as people who use telecom services should be to get as much diversity in telecom as possible. Right now, it's a two-horse race: AT&T / Verizon and Comcast / Charter / Cox. If, in 10 years, we have a choice between AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and CenturyLink... that will be better.

Small, local competition for ISPs do not make sense over the long term. It may get you fast speeds over the last mile in the short-term, but doesn't get you a fast connection to everywhere else and the investment levels are going to be unable to keep up after the first generation. The oversubscription model benefits from national scale, and even a national last-mile telecom without a national fiber network will have problems matching the cost structure of their competitors (as we recently saw with TimeWarner Cable). The infrastructure doesn't scale operationally or financially otherwise.

<comment><USER6> " If, in 10 years, we have a choice between AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and CenturyLink... that will be better."

CenturyLink is already one of the big players and they'll never enter markets that Comcast, ATT, or Verizon are already in. We're a small ISP and a Level 3 customer. I'm moderately concerned about what this acquisition will mean for companies like us in the long run. The hand that feeds us is now also a competitor.

<comment><USER7> > CenturyLink is already one of the big players and they'll never enter > markets that Comcast, ATT, or Verizon are already in.

They are entering Comcast's market in Seattle. A lot of places now have two options, where they only had one ~3 years ago.

<comment> at-fates-hands They've been competing with Comcast in my area. I was lucky before I moved, I was about 30 yards from the DSLAM and was getting solid internet service from them for about $25 less per month than Comcast.

Then I moved to an area they're not servicing very well. My internet speeds went from 60mbs down and 7mbs up to a paltry 4mbs up and 1mbs down.

I had to switch to Comcast which wasn't so bad, but I got way better service from CL tbh. I've been told they're building out fiber in my area and their 1gb service will be available "soon".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting paper on the falling pricing of transit (2010) : [http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit- Pricing-H...](http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing- Historical-And-Projected.php)

On the other hand, I understand transit is a commodity, but not sure I want to see what happens when a "too big to fail" company goes under, in countries that have heavily-privatized backbones.

<comment><USER9> Fiber links are valuable long-term assets, and remaining competitors will generally be happy to buy them from a distressed company.

<comment><USER10> Happened here in Canada with Teleglobe. All their assets (mainly buried fiber links) were purchased for cheap by Tata Communication, which has been growing since.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting, CL has such terrible customer service, perhaps Level 3 was treating customers too well and Century Link thinks they can help them with that :-)

It is interesting that CL seems to be operating out of the old MCI playbook. Here I thought the days of aggregating a bunch of ISPs into a mega communication company were behind us.

<comment><USER12> >CL has such terrible customer service

I can vouch for this. We have a choice between CL and Comcast here for residential service and I've used both. CL has a pretty solid DSL service but $deity help you if you ever need to call in for some problem you're having with it. Expect to spend multiple-hours on the phone while you're put on hold for extended periods, have your call dropped, get routed to numbers that don't answer, and, if you're lucky, speak to a person who has no idea what you're talking about but might know someone who can help, "let me transfer you"... Rinse and repeat. The only good that I can say about CL is that their come- out-to-your-house techs seem to know more or less what they're doing and have solved DSL and analog line problems for me quickly and without additional pain.

<comment><USER11> Hey, they sent my account to collections twice _after it was already closed_ for "non payment" even though it had a balance of zero. After the second conference call with the debt collector, the Century link accounts people and me to unwedge that mess I explained that if Century link did this a third time I would sue them in small claims court for the maximum amount allowed for harassment and punitive damages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How can a company that is valued at $16.6 billion with $19 billion in debt buy a company that is valued at $19.4 billion with $11 billion in debt for $34 billion? From where is the money for such acquisitions coming?

<comment><USER14> I think you're confused about "value."

CTL isn't valued at $16B. That's only the market capitalization of its common shares outstanding.

      LVLT market cap = $19.4B
      LVLT assets = $24.1B (as of FYE15)

      CTL market cap = $16.5B
      CTL assets = $47.6B (as of FYE15)

This deal's ~$10B cash + ~$15B stock (edit: based on diff. article from wsj[0] It's $34B if you include $10B in LT debt.) CTL needs to raise cash and issue/buy-back shares. Lots of options, but I'm sure they already have creditors lined up.

On an unrelated note, CTL has $20B in goodwill on its balance sheet. Wow...

edit: [0] [http://on.wsj.com/2f0DDdj](http://on.wsj.com/2f0DDdj)

<comment><USER15> I never quite understood how goodwill is calculated. I mean, I can understand how ATVI (Activision) or HAS (Hasbro) can have big "goodwill". But it doesn't make sense for CTL. Do you have any explanation?

<comment><USER16> It's BS assets that companies use to add phantom value to a balance sheet with things like "brand value" and "intellectual capital". There's no way to assess an actual value, so a lot of companies give outlandish valuations to themselves to make themselves appear more valuable than they are. Some people will disagree with that, but that's the reality.

There are of course a lot of companies that have extremely valuable brands and IP, but those tend to trade at pretty fair market valuations and don't have an unusually high percentage of goodwill relative to the rest of their assets.

In the case of CenturyLink, that would be a major red flag to me.

<comment><USER17> Goodwill is just accounting. It is your what you pay - net assets whats on their balance sheets. No real BS about that.

<comment><USER16> Right, but just because an accounting team says "Well yeah the market values the company at $5B, but we think it's worth $15B because goodwill" does not make it so.

In some cases, there is additional value created by an acquisition that can justify that added value, but in many cases it's just a way to justify an irrational overvaluation on a balance sheet.

For example, the last time I looked CTL had lost about $2 billion in market cap after this deal was announced. That's the market saying "you overpaid for this company" or, as I prefer to say "your goodwill valuation is BS."

<comment><USER18> It doesn't work like that. You're not paying $15bn for some assets worth $5bn because you have decided that the "goodwill" is $10bn. It's the other way around: you have decided to pay $15bn and as a result you write down in your books tangible and intangible assets for $5bn and "goodwill" (the balance) for $10bn. Maybe you think it's better to write off the $10bn as wasted money right away, but that also creates some issues (for example, you would probably wipe off your profits for several years, so you wouldn't have to pay taxes).

<comment><USER16> Goodwill is the amount you paid beyond the tangible assets (cash, property, equipment, accounts paid, etc.) on the balance sheet. You can call it what you like, but basically it's something you spent cash on that you have to show on a balance sheet but has no tangible value. This is usually attributed as "synergies", "IP", "brand recognition" and other BS.

<comment><USER18> > Goodwill is the amount you paid beyond the tangible assets

Wrong. For example "Hewlett-Packard purchased Autonomy for $11 billion in 2011. The purchase price represented a greater than 65 percent premium over the price at which Autonomy was trading at the time of the announcement. Hewlett-Packard recorded $6.9 billion of goodwill and $4.3 billion of other intangible assets in connection with the acquisition."

<comment><USER16> Ha and how'd that work for them? According to the Wikipedia entry, "within a year HP had written off $8.8 billion of the value."

Thanks for helping me make my point.

<comment><USER18> You're welcome. Just to be clear, I agree that paying too much when making acquisitions is not a good business model. But goodwill is not the reason for overpaying, or an excuse for overpaying. Goodwill is the _consequence_ of overpaying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> IP transit seems to be a declining business as content moves towards customers. See "The death of transit?":

[https://blog.apnic.net/2016/10/28/the-death-of- transit/](https://blog.apnic.net/2016/10/28/the-death-of-transit/)

<comment><USER20> Not really, because mobile data roaming is growing, and in most cases it doesn't use local breakout. VoIP is growing in the volume (but almost not growing in $). That data has to be moved over backbones. Messengers are growing - again backbone traffic. In fact Tier-1 traffic grows. Revenues - <USER2> so much, price per megabit is in constant fall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I always wonder how companies like this get founded. So i checked their own history page which includes this statement which reads so dry, i have to blow the sand out of my eyes by the bucket:

"Our business started as part of a subsidiary of a construction company that created one of the first competitive local exchange carriers, MFS Communications."

If you follow that trail of companies, you feel like you've hit "deep corporate america" where nothing has a founder and everything is a subsidiary of some larger corporate division of something.

<comment><USER22> > If you follow that trail of companies, you feel like you've hit "deep > corporate america" where nothing has a founder and everything is a > subsidiary of some larger corporate division of something.

A corporation is literally just a group of people acting together. Much as the tech world likes to maintain the image of the visionary individual put forth by the ideology of creativity, that's of actually how the world usually works.

Most innovation happens when groups of people leverage their existing collective abilities together well.

<comment><USER23> A corporation is a collection of assets owned by stockholders.

<comment><USER24> Someone has been reading Bhandari and Weiss' "Corporate Bankruptcy'. This view ignores a very important aspect of who/what carries the liability of say violations made by the corporation.

<comment><USER25> What do you think about the book Debt: The First 5,000 Years?

<comment><USER24> With regard to what specifically? I think it's a great book, it touches on several subjects so you might have to ask more specifically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The article mentions this interesting detail:

"The deal also promises to help CenturyLink by giving it access to about $10 billion in tax credits that Level 3 is carrying on its books, Jennifer Fritzsche, an analyst with Wells Fargo Securities LLC, said last week."

Can anyone comment/speculate on why L3 has $10 billion in tax credits that is "carrying"?

<comment><USER27> So that's 35% of $10bn right there, paid for by the US government. You've got to love financial engineering sometimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> _The acquisition values Level 3 at $66.50 a share, the companies said in a statement Monday. That's about 42 percent above where the Broomfield, Colorado-based company was trading last week, before reports surfaced of a potential acquisition by CenturyLink..._

What explains this? I could understand a small jump in value, but what can be the basis for a $14B gain in a company's value when the only facts that have changed are that a buyer exists? Does the market "believe" that the company's future 42% brighter under the prospect of a buyout, and that belief is captured in the price now?

<comment><USER29> My understanding, which should not be relied on, is that the market is composed of traders expecting other traders to bid it up in anticipation of CenturyLink bidding it up, so they're bidding it up.

<comment><USER30> Or that another suitor will step in and cause an intense bidding war ala Isilon/Data Domain/etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I was an employee for Level 3, coming from the Global Crossing acquisition, for around 17 years, choosing to leave early last year (and unlike most former Level 3/Global Crossing employees, this choice was not forced upon me).

Internally (and by, internally, I mean within my team, not within management or anyone who makes decisions of this nature), we'd always seen CenturyLink as an interesting prospect for merger. The two companies' footprints and businesses appeared to compliment each other. It was generally dismissed out of hand because of the consumer side of CentryLink. Level 3 (and even less so with Global Crossing), focused on carriers and Fortune 50-100 businesses as their core and shied away from the more expensive, less profitable consumer facing pieces.

A bit of history for those who weren't around in the 90s: When thinking CenturyLink, think Qwest (and commercials about the little motel in the desert with "Cable TV" replaced by media services delivering every television show and movie produced in the history of ever). They were one of the formerly local telecoms that expanded into long distance/fiber/internet after the 1996 telecom deregulation[0].

Level 3's business is Carrier and Enterprise with much of the Enterprise piece coming from the Global Crossing side of it because, at the time, we effectively couldn't compete with Level 3. We'd come in to bid a project at a price we could eek out a small profit on and would be undercut because they owned far more local which had the effect of lower cost of access and lower complexity for the company we were selling to. Our focus was Enterprise where the margins were higher, we could work with other carriers to provide the services (often Level 3) and step in with a better understanding (and willingness to "do practically anything" to win the contract -- our CEO, after all, was John Legere and the way he runs T-Mobile came from the way he ran Global Crossing: "Hug the Customer" was a mantra).

Level 3 (like all telecoms) is a run to the bottom as far as price is concerned. Cost of access is pretty much _it_ in this business. The expense is so large it eclipses pretty much everything else. Being able to move more things onto your own network reduces that expense (and in-turn results in revenue from others paying _you_ for access to those local components). This fits well with CenturyLink.

The rumblings of this deal internally were strong over the last few months (I don't work there any longer and _I_ heard the rumors[1]). Since this had come up from time to time, I wasn't surprised to hear it again and it still came with the difficulty of figuring out how a deal like that would work. Internally, most employees assumed it'd be a Level 3 purchase of CenturyLink, but a look at the fundamentals of the two businesses made something like that wishful thinking on the part of employees who are really tired of all of the layoffs and really didn't want to see a large one that would come as a result of being purchased.

This will be an interesting transition for the employees of Level 3 proper. They're used to doing the buying and they're actually _more_ used to being the company that comes in, strips the company they purchased (of staff) and imposing the "Level 3 way" on the purchased entity. It was clear that was their position during the Global Crossing merger and morale became greatly affected when some Global Crossing employees took leadership positions and imposed "The Global Crossing way" on Level 3. This resulted in a pretty dramatic culture clash that wasn't really resolved even by the time I left (which was shortly after the TW Telecom merger!). At least at that point they were _still_ suffering getting the various pieces/parts of the company together and operating as a single, well oiled, machine. Adding this to the mix will further complicate those efforts. Level 3 was known for being good at making a purchase and bad at integrating that purchase. I think they did a better job with the Global Crossing and TW acquisitions, but "better" was in comparison to the "abysmal" job they did with the six that were there prior. They still have a history (and current?) reputation of shedding jobs about every 6 months (5-10% across the board) that despite having a better few years, didn't change after I left[3]. They have difficulties hiring top talent as a result, though I'm sure this problem exists across telecom unless you're one of the two big guys.

Apologies for the lengthy and poorly revised post. The speculation contained within is my own and has not been influenced by internal employees -- and may be wildly off since I haven't been an employee there for well over a year, but I thought I'd share in case it spurs further discussion that irons out some of the wrinkles. This will be an interesting change in the landscape of telecom, putting a really large competitor against some of the "bigs" who's reputation is best summed up by this SNL sketch: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHgUN_95UAw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHgUN_95UAw)

[0] Which is in and of itself a terrible description. It was less a "deregulation" than a "re-regulation" and like all government regulations of this kind, it defined a set of "winning and losing business strategies" in this sector that were different than the strategies that existed before. And a set of tricks/arbitrages that would create entirely new businesses designed to provide nearly free services by leveraging cost of access (in a quasi tariff style).

[1] Before I get anyone in trouble, the rumors I heard were not from people who would have been in any position to know about something like this and were little more than the speculation of previous years ... along the lines of "wouldn't it be great?". I was able to connect the dots, though, by discovering that certain of my former coworkers were unusually busy -- so busy that I couldn't get in touch with them due to their workload. Knowing what they were often involved in, and combining the increase in talk about CenturyLink led me to fully believe this deal was going to land at some point. As a result, I didn't do any stock transactions to avoid the appearance of having "insider information" that I didn't reliably or accurately have.

[2] A look at the fundamentals of both business indicated that as wishful thinking. It was clear to me if there was going to be a purchase, it was Level 3 who was getting bought.

[3] This was a small bit of my motivation for leaving. I'd been through 30-35 "Reductions in Force" and came out still employed and had continued to have the confidence of management up to the VP level, so I was not concerned about losing my job, but all of those "RIF"s take a toll on you. I'm still amazed, to this day, how efficiently our process for laying off employees had become. We had entire systems/applications built for the task and it was these sorts of things. That sort of thing bleeds into the culture of the company and it was a culture I had grown very tired from.

</comment><comment><USER32> Major communications mergers like this and AT&T/Time Warner read like a chapter from Tim Wu's "The Master Switch". The path forward for these new communication conglomerates is either profound failure a la AOL/Time Warner, or a change in the Net Neutrality legislation that has traditionally precluded their success.

<comment><USER33> I'm not sure if I got the same thing out of Master Switch. Clearly the hero of that book was Theodore Vail and AT&T as the enlightened monopoly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Prisms for wave division multiplex keep on getting more color channels while speed of light stays the same. What is the physical limit of prisms?

<comment><USER35> The prisms aren't the limiting factor. The limiting factor is the fact that the optical signal for any given channel will "widen" in bandwidth when you modulate it. Some modulation schemes are better than others and you can do some tricks like using orthogonal polarizations.

At the end of the day, if you modulate a signal at higher and higher rates, it takes more and more bandwidth. That's your real limiting factor.

<comment><USER36> Sort of. We are able to shape these spectra now to improve the spectral efficiency (when using colorless muxing). The next generation of coherent modems will have a 25G granularity and SW will tune the modem to maximize capacity for a given reach. Higher order modulation requires more SNR so this is the real limitation.

For relatively short reaches the modulation order will increase. This improves the spectral efficiency. For longer reaches lower order modulation will be needed but the baud rate can increase. We can can however use other wavelength bands like L band to double the capacity. You are already seeing this in new submarine cables.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> CenturyLink has been quietly making great acquisition moves for the past few years. My opinion is this helps move them to be a bigger player in the market. Now they can further compete with companies like Verizon for more business market share.

</comment><comment><USER38> Telecom is a commodity market, so a race to the bottom is inevitable, unless there is a monopoly (or quasi monopoly) involved.

</comment><comment><USER39> EDIT: Disregard this comment

Leaving my mistake for context.

\---

L3 is also a defense contractor. I wonder what happens when a company is purchased for one line of business, but is under contract on other, very different, lines of business.

<comment><USER40> No, you're thinking of L3 Communications. Totally different companies. Level 3 is a backbone provider, L3 specializes in military communications technology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> In addition to the tax benefits someone mentioned, Level 3 has massive voip and traditional voice assets. They are a huge wholesaler to other voip companies.

</comment><comment><USER42> Wow, CTL already go Tier3 right? They now got Level 3. They pretty much have half of the telenetwork industry in the U.S., correct?

<comment><USER43> Tier3 was an IaaS. You are not correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> [http://fuckinglevel3.com/](http://fuckinglevel3.com/)

</comment><comment><USER45> 34B is the kind of money I can only dream of. Hell, I don't think I can even afford to dream about it.</comment>


Eavesdropping a fax machine - <AUTHOR> http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2013/07/01/eavesdropping-a-fax-machine-2/ <comment><USER2> Here's an article from back in 2009 that rings a bell:

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8147534.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8147534.stm)

Basically, the shared ground of the local electrical infrastructure of any given building may act as an antenna, and allow attackers to detect EM keystroke signals that can be detected on the power plug.

      They demonstrated it working over
      distances of 1, 5, 10 and 15m from a
      target, far enough to suggest it could
      work in a hotel or office.

I think this is the doc from presentation:

[http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh- usa-09/BARISANI/BHU...](http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh- usa-09/BARISANI/BHUSA09-Barisani-Keystrokes-SLIDES.pdf)

Sounds like the technique is similar for fax machines.

</comment><comment><USER3> A few months ago (I think it was here on HN) I found a MIT paper that explains how to reconstruct what a old dot matrix printer is printing only by recording and analyzing the sound it makes. The idea is kinda fascinating - at least to me.

<comment><USER4> [http://www.usenix.org/event/sec10/tech/full_papers/Backes.pd...](http://www.usenix.org/event/sec10/tech/full_papers/Backes.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A few years back I bought a used HP volume laser printer on ebay. When I went to configure it it had some existing ip addresses entered and when I checked they trace back to the CIA or the NSA (honesty can't remember which but it was one or the other).

Reading this post got me thinking

a) you would think they would have flushed that from the machine before giving to a third party (where I purchased from).

b) I would imagine that some agency (not necessarily of our government) could sell used equipment with the express intent of modifying in some way to collect info. Possibly even target (ala the dropped usb in a parking lot) specific companies or individuals.

<comment><USER6> Try not to think about the companies that are these days printing out QR codes for bitcoin secret keys to store in bank vaults that will eventually hold double-digit millions in the next few years.

So many orgs still have terrible opsec (and believe otherwise), and there's basically no excuse this far into the game. :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of Van Eck Phreaking. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking)

When I first read about it as a kid, I was in awe.

</comment><comment><USER6> See also: optical TEMPEST eavesdropping on a CRT using a high-speed photosensor and a telescope:

[http://www.rootsecure.net/content/downloads/pdf/optical_temp...](http://www.rootsecure.net/content/downloads/pdf/optical_tempest_crt.pdf)

I wonder how long it's going to take until we have some details from the reverse engineering of the bugs they find in those fax machines...</comment>


What do you recommend for a teen programmer? - <AUTHOR>

What do you think are the best resources and books? <comment><USER2> The worst thing you can do when trying to become a great programmer is to think that you need a book to learn how to program. I used to think that and had to learn the hard way that the whole joy of programming and the proper learning approach to programming comes from having an interesting project idea that you want to build and use. That should be the driver at all times, and you will see that after you have developed a couple of those project that you learned a great deal and had a lot of fun doing it. Now that said, if you still want to use books, which can be useful if you are a complete beginner, I would recommend books that are based around building an example application. In web development one such book is "agile web development with rails". If you want to develop for iOS I would strongly recommend "The iOS Apprentice". This last one is the best single learning resource I have come across ever. The whole course is a joy and you learn how to think as a pro programmer and the natural iterative workflow of a pro programmer. I cannot recommend it enough. I wish you good luck!

</comment><comment><USER3> I tell people to just sit down and build something. Nothing genius or great. But _something_. Even if you get bored half wy and change projects. Just build it. Need help? Build a hacker news replica in whatever language you like.

</comment><comment><USER4> Don't shy away from technical content. I used to program as a teenager, but ended up not going into computer science. I mainly focused on learning whatever would help me accomplish a short-term goal (usually creating a game). Now I am a doctoral student and mainly program for research purposes, and sometimes regret not focusing on more difficult material like algorithms, applied mathematics, and low-level languages. There is high returns to the stuff that seems boring as a teenager, but a lot of that stuff will be relevant even if the language you choose to learn now turns out to be unpopular when you try to get a job.

</comment><comment><USER5> I created this document full of curated lists of resources, recommendations etc.. check it out [http://www.scribd.com/doc/126959684/Learning-Technology- Codi...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/126959684/Learning-Technology-Coding-Care- Package)

</comment><comment><USER6> What do I recommend for a teen programmer? Unit testing. Best resources and books? There are just so many good books. Last one I enjoyed was The Pragmatic Programmer. Next I'm going to try reading Clean Code. Keep learning. Keep reading. Keep writing.

<comment><USER7> I thing it's totally Wrong :(

You confuse the teen by tell him to learn "Clean Code". It's should be about Learn Basic skill First.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Two words: Video games.

Sweigart's tutorials [1] are a perennial favorite. The materials formerly hosted at simpson.edu [2] are also good.

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

[2] <http://programarcadegames.com/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everyone!

</comment><comment><USER9> learn lisp, read sicp.

<comment> daniel-cussen I did this, and honestly, it's kind of steep. In hindsight I might have learned it after Python.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Version 2.0 of "Follow my Money". My weekend budgeting app project - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/follow-my-money/id471808412?mt=8

<comment><AUTHOR> Some promo codes to check it out: <http://codehookup.com/a7d34f71></comment>


These Are the 116 Images NASA Picked to Share with Aliens (or Future Humans) - <AUTHOR> http://petapixel.com/2015/11/11/these-are-the-116-images-nasa-picked-to-share-with-aliens-or-future-humans/ <comment><USER2> Not _one_ cat video?</comment>


Sense of smell 'may predict lifespan' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29441323 <comment><USER2> Aging is a global phenomenon of damage accumulation throughout the body: more damage means faster aging. People who show more damage in any one measure tend to show more damage in all the others too, as it all stems from a few root causes. This bears up in epidemiological studies, but there is a fair amount of individual variation.

Almost every decline in aging that can be measured can be correlated with near future mortality. Grip strength and walking speed are the common ones presently used, and finding others should be in no way surprising.

<comment><USER3> Agreed.

Also, these types of studies always claim to have corrected for differences in confounding variables, but there are always more confounding variables than have been corrected for, and all they end up doing is a statistical comparison of data with a fewer but still significant number confounding variables, and if the sample size is big enough they will find a significant P value and try to imply some sort of causation/significant correlation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like how the article succinctly discussed different possible causal mechanisms for losing a sense of smell that an individual formerly had as a marker for declining health and impending death.

This is especially interesting in view of the reduction of sense of smell over millions of years in the ancestral line of human beings. Before animals in the clade Primates developed trichromatic color vision, they distinguished fruits ripe enough to eat from fruits that were not mostly by smell. But after color vision improved, there was no longer selection pressure to maintain the sense of smell genes that gave the same information about food plants, and so random mutations gradually knocked out those genes. Comparative DNA analysis shows that human beings have descendant genes that were once used for accurate sense of many smells that human beings can no longer distinguish, but that sensory capacity was lost by genetic drift until lack of accurate sense of smell for many substances became fixed in the human population. A fascinating book that tells this story in more detail is _The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution_ by Sean Carroll,[1] a very readable and enjoyable book about molecular biology studies and the evidence they provide for biological evolution.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic- Evolu...](http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution- ebook/dp/B001MZ0FHU/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Interesting possible correlation. I have a horrible sense of smell. I always have. I can certainly smell some things - and particularly strong scents like coffee, fish, or oranges definitely register, but I'm able to also completely block out offensive odors in a way that I've found others cannot. I've always felt that if I had to suffer from a deficiency in a sense, smell is the one to choose.

<comment><USER6> _The assessment involved identifying distinct odours encased on the tips of felt-tip pens._

They don't discuss range, just accurate identification. I think I have lost some range over the years, but not accuracy. Up close I can identify smells fine.

But sometimes I'll make a cup off coffee, someone will remark how good it smells, and I can't smell it at all until I'm 30cm from the cup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting - I don't have a sense of smell (and never have). I don't think I'm at risk of dying from that, however, barring an undetected gas leak.

Loss of sense of smell is fairly serious, though, so this isn't too surprising.

<comment><USER8> you don't have a sense of smell? How is this called? Do you actually never smell anything or is it just very very weak? Does it also mean that when eating you basically couldn't tell between smoked herrings and cheese other than by level of saltiness/texture?

I hope I am not unpolite in asking and please forgive my curiosity, I've never heard of "congenital olfactive loss" and my mind was just blown.

<comment><USER7> It's not impolite to ask - I don't mind answering questions about it. "Congenital Anosmia" is the correct term. It's fairly serious when someone loses their sense of smell, and can cause weight loss and depression. It can also be a symptom of some fairly serious conditions (e.g. Parkinson's).

For food - I prefer strong flavors (smoked salmon, capers, onions). Subtle flavors like spices are lost on me - basil, spinach, and mint all taste the same. Cheeses can be strong - I think I could tell the difference between blue cheese and provolone, but I haven't done an experiment. I'll have to try that sometime.

It is possible I have a very week sense of smell. I can kind of smell coffee, and there are a few times I've smelled an orange, but that hasn't been reproducible. My dog got sprayed by a skunk one time, and I couldn't smell that, so I think it's accurate to say I don't have a sense of smell.

I can "smell" things like vinegar and bleach, but I think that's the trigeminal nerve. I can't tell the difference between white vinegar and balsamic vinegar, however.

My mom can't smell either - nor could her dad.

<comment><USER9> thanks for sharing, that's super interesting. just one question since you mentioned salmon and cheeses: do you get the bacon flavor/smell ??? that's a favorite aroma for a lot of people.

<comment><USER7> I like bacon, but it's not my favorite food. It's also never triggered what I think of as a smell, like coffee does sometimes, and oranges have done a couple times. So I don't think I'm getting any of the aroma.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As someone with a history of chronic sinus problems (which were really just the tip of the iceberg -- an indicator of much more serious problems, actually), I can well imagine ...a connection here between deteriorating sense of smell and underlying serious health problems. As my health improves, so does my sense of smell.

I don't feel like I am saying this very well. Let's try this: If someone goes blind or has other significant visual impairments, we typically take that seriously as a big deal and then may look for underlying causes, but the loss of sense of smell tends to not be treated quite the same way.

</comment><comment><USER11> Interesting that "orange" is one of the smells tested: there are at least 3 smells to an orange – the oil in the peel, the juice, and the rind or pith (the white stuff). Not to speak of the varieties of fish (or do they mean rotting fish??).

</comment><comment><USER12> So maybe dumb question but did they take into account the age of the participants? That is the older people in the study would tend to has less sense of smell and die sooner.

<comment><USER10> Yup:

 _And despite taking issues such as age, nutrition, smoking habits, poverty and overall health into account, researchers found those with the poorest sense of smell were still at greatest risk._</comment></comment>


Minimum Viable Painting - <AUTHOR> http://chenyuz.quora.com/How-I-Painted-Zuck-Elon-Musk-Marissa-Mayer-And-12-Other-Tech-Giants-With-Minimal-Viable-Painting-MVP-Method-in-1

<comment><USER2> nice post</comment>


Testing is Overrated - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoq.com/presentations/francl-testing-overrated <comment><USER2> Testing zealots never seem to understand that some errors are expensive and some are not. Testing should be a cost benefit analysis.

I never waste my time writing tests when the consequences of errors are cheap.

Conversely, I always write tests when the consequences of errors are expensive.

<comment><USER3> I agree that with you that "some errors are expensive and some are not," but you don't know which category a bug falls under (cheap/expensive) until after the fact. So making that decision of what (or what not) to test isn't always so black and white.

<comment><USER4> It depends on the context. I've had some very simple fixes/updates I've wanted to put in production that I knew were incredibly low risk, and anything that could go wrong could not possibly be catastrophic, only to be vetoed and told to go through a very expensive testing process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So many unit tests just rephrase the function you're testing -- all they check is whether or not you edited the code and test at the same time.

There are some tests that are unassailable -- like checking to see if the output of a sort function is sorted and whether it has pathological complexity. On the other hand, duplicating all the conditionals in the code as tests is bullshit. Mocks are even worse!

<comment><USER6> The reason rephrasing is valuable is that it stop people from taking out or removing needed cases. If there is a test and someone changes that logic, it forces them to at least realize someone else tested and wanted that logic. Then if you search through the code and no something is unnecessary you can change the logic and the test.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Please watch the video first, testing is useful, you must write tests, and perform tests.

But! tests will not increase your quality, they will just keep it.

<comment><USER8> My dirty little programmer secret is that I've never written a unit test. Thanks for making me feel bad :(

I watched the video and, indeed, it did not absolve me of my sins.

<comment><USER9> I never wrote tests until recently, when I started working on a functional JS library, and realized that if you're not writing them, you're doing them in your head (which is slower and more error prone). This only applies to langs/libs/APIs though; for apps, I generally find the UI itself to be the best test.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, the last thing I worked on like that was a networking engine and I could really see where tests would have helped me _a lot_ (all existing code was covered, but not the new stuff I was writing). Hopefully I will get to work on that sort of stuff more in the future and can get into the habit of writing tests in the process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Testing can help find bugs. Testing makes refactoring a lot easier. Testing protects you against other people breaking your code.

I don't know if testing is overrated, because I haven't carefully measured how much hype it gets, but I do know testing is useful.

</comment><comment><USER11> There was a slim volume called the "The Art of Software Testing" that I borrowed once from my mentor.

In it, the author posits the following perspective: a successful test is not one that finds zero errors, a successful test is one that _finds_ errors.

<comment><USER12> Zero errors is also OK. As is a proof of correctness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Are all the Ruby Fringe videos available someplace for downloading (such as happens with the assorted RubyConf vids)?

</comment><comment><USER14> I find the following sequence of testing is productive.

1\. Smoke Testing

2\. Performance Testing

3\. Other tests

</comment><comment><USER15> infoq is overrated.</comment>