Advanced Off-the-Shelf Targeted Attacks Against Nation States [video] - <AUTHOR> http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6575_-_en_-_saal_2_-_201412272300_-_rocket_kitten_advanced_off-the-shelf_targeted_attacks_against_nation_states_-_tw_-_gadi.html

<comment><USER2> To be honest I was a little disappointed when I saw this talk. Its title was not accurate for a presentation at ccc. It is neither advanced nor attributable to a nation state. It grossed me out when the nontechnical guy hyped things and the hired gun shied away, making it clear the nontechnical guy is grandstanding - also not appropriate for ccc- so I left before it ended.

<comment><USER3> _To be honest I was a little disappointed when I saw this talk._

Agreed. The technical sophistication of the described spear-fishing attack was certainly low, using 10-year-old software and requiring the victim to enable macros, when prompted, after opening the excel spreadsheet. The only takeaway from this talk was that a dozen or so fishing emails were related together by the excel spreadsheet metadata.

Certainly not worthy material for the front page of HN, in my opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am really confused as to why the security community is obsessed with the term "nation state". Every single publication or quote from security researchers that wants to attribute some worm or attack to a country incorrectly calls it a nation state.

A nation state is a specific thing that is not just a pompous way of saying state or country.

If you're wondering, you can check the Wikipedia entry on it. There's nothing inherent about any type of technical attack that could connect to a nation state.

It's sort of a shibboleth of someone who is self-important and doesn't fact- check.

<comment><USER5> What's even more problematic is that you have been downvoted on a community that was founded by people who participated in building the tech responsible for forging history's first self-sustaining post-nationalist identity (the internet) in history.

The nation-state must be the enemy, which can only be defeated by a nation- state... because the concept of a nation-state is dying and is engaging in full blown Hegelian dialectics to keep itself afloat. Unions, nationalists, and identity zealots have been having a field day with HackerNews as of late.

<comment><USER6> >history's first self-sustaining post-nationalist identity

I am not a historian, but wouldn't that honor go to religion? Regardless, religion is certainly older than the Internet.

<comment><USER5> This is technically correct in concept, but not in practice, as organized religion existed long before the formalization of the nation-state. In fact, one can even argue that nationalism is an agnostic subdivision of organized theology since it utilizes identical symbol worship mechanisms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not in netsec, but i'm still a little fuzzy on some details here:

1)what's the evidence that this is tied to/from the off the shelf core-impact product? using a similar api call? a controlling server is used?

2)other than the target being an israeli aerospace firm and payload pretending to be military in nature (im guessing to generate curiosity, how are 'nation- states' involved?

EDIT: maybe answering my own question 1\. a "Campaign" identifier is a variable found

2\. lure document exists elsewhere and has been seen targeting multiple nations over years. at academics and defense orgs.</comment>


Ask HN: As an engineer, how can I volunteer in the developing world? - <AUTHOR> I'm an experienced software developer from the states, but I've spent a lot of time overseas, particularly in Asia. I'm interested in spending some time, at least six months, volunteering in the "developing world", for lack of a better term. Are there programs or organizations that I should be aware of that will let me use my skills to help others? How can I have the biggest impact? <comment><USER2> Is the requirement to be on the ground in country? If not you could volunteer building sw tools for ngos

</comment><comment><USER3> Which continent?

<comment><AUTHOR> No particular preference - I'm fairly comfortable in South East Asia already, so that would be slightly easier - but anywhere would be fine - Africa or Central America seem like good options as well. I just can't seem to find any established programs that let me donate my skill set anywhere. It's really surprising. I'd be happy to pay airfare and, assuming it's affordable, my own room and board.</comment></comment>


Groupon Shares Plunge, Trading Close to IPO - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-22/groupon-shares-plunge-for-second-straight-day-trading-close-to-ipo-price.html

<comment><USER2> As an indicator, my short position was closed out on Monday by my broker -- they couldn't find shares to borrow anymore.

<comment><USER3> How does that work? When you short, you immediately sell the shares you borrowed. Why aren't those shares available to be re-borrowed from the new owner? The only reason I can guess is that the new owner isn't connected to the liquidity system, which I would guess would have been a solved problem by now.

<comment><USER2> <http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/34-60388.pdf>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Was this really a surprise for anyone? The IPO has been a trainwreck since Groupon decided to start making up financial metrics.

</comment><comment><USER5> If Groupon could cut costs by using a self-serve model (rather than 1000s of sales staff) it could drastically cut costs and potentially make a large profit.

Surely at some point in the next few years they will be well known enough for businesses to go to them, instead of the other way around?

<comment><USER6> That assumes that Groupon is actually beneficial to the business that does one.

They also need to manage the "coolness" and variety of offers and write snarky copy, so self-serve wouldn't necessarily bring it to break-even.

<comment><USER5> In the long term they do need to be beneficial to the businesses that do it, otherwise they'll die in a few years from word of mouth.

Who writes the copy is an issue, though just someone writing that would be cheap compared to chasing tons of businesses looking for work and talking to them all.

<comment><USER6> The best bet is that they _will_ die in a few years. The fundamental flaws with their business can't be solved with self-serve.

It's not impossible to survive off the efforts of a predatory sales force without actually benefitting your customers, but small local businesses aren't the best prey and you have to actually be able to profit off it it. If you can spend that much money on salesmen, you're better off making enterprise software than social coupons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "The so-called borrow rate, or fee imposed by brokers on traders who want to sell short, has dropped to about 30 percent from 99 percent earlier in the month, Leung said. At 30 percent, Groupon's shares would have to decline by at least that much before the trader makes a profit."

I must be missing something...

When I buy shares, I don't get to inform the broker that the stock needs to go up by 30% before they can execute my trade at today's price.

Betting on a stock to dip 5% seems like a big enough risk that I should be able to make money on it. 30% just sounds crazy.

<comment><USER8> many people have made heaps of money these past days shorting grpn. let's wait and see what happens by the time the 180 day lock-up expires.

the risk with shorting grpn _today_ is the small free-float given that it's easy to create demand with small amounts of capital. it's a no brainer that when the lock-up expires this stock will fall like a brick.

<comment><USER3> If it's a no-brainer, why aren't short sellers flooding the market and driving down the price to the post-lockup price?

<comment><USER8> there is a limited amount of free-float which you can borrow against. the counter-party needs to purchase that stock, and if a large number of investors want to short sell the stock, they are indirectly increasing the demand. a good example is how hedge funds lost eur30bn back in 2008 trying to short sell overvalued volkswagen stock. i.e. Porsche selling part of its VW stake to ease a short-squeeze

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hmm I haven't seen them "plunge". I saw Them spike out the gate and gradually tail down. Which is pretty much what I expected.

<comment><USER10> 13-14% drop today. That's quite a bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why so much of a drop today? Has any news come out recently besides the fuzzy numbers and growing competition?

<comment><USER12> It wasn't so much of a question of why, but when. I don't think any sane person expected Groupon to stay up there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Isn't it still up from where it started?

<comment><USER8> not really. it wen't public at 26+$/share. only if you had put an order (as an institutional investor, prior to going public i.e. traded) you would of been able to get in at $20/share.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Most 2011 tech IPOs are unhappy today. The market is volatile and bearish. In the absence of news, you can't interpret stuff like this --- especially given the fact that Groupon doesn't have a listed competitor --- without understanding where the whole market is at.

<comment><USER15> that is no explanation: \- investors do not consider Groupon a tech company (it's all over the research reports) \- Google, Intel are down marginally (non retail), Apple is up (tech retail). Nasdaq is ONLY 0.07% down. \- Falling 14% is intrinsic to the stock, not the market.

<comment><USER14> Google, Intel, and Apple aren't unproven '11 IPOs. Look at Pandora, Zipcar, etc.

<comment><USER15> I was making a point regarding tech. Groupon is not a technology stock, it didn't market itself as a tech company. I don't understand how on the one side you say "Groupon doesn't have a listed competitor" but you want to compare it to "unproven '11 IPOs. Look at Pandora, Zipcar, etc.". It all sounds to 1+1=5...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Working on an Android tablet - <AUTHOR> http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/working-on-android/

<comment><USER2> I would recommend the solar powered Logitech keyboard [1] as it means one less thing to worry about charging. Does anybody know of a solar powered trackpad?

[1] [http://www.logitech.com/en-gb/product/Wireless-Solar- Keyboar...](http://www.logitech.com/en-gb/product/Wireless-Solar- Keyboard-K760-for-Mac?crid=26)

</comment><comment><USER3> I didn't know Android supported standard mice. How does that work exactly, do you get a regular cursor or what? I'm guessing you can't use that for standard control gestures?

<comment><AUTHOR> With a regular mouse you get a cursor. Many features work with drag-and-drop.

With the magic trackpad you can also do gestures like two-finger swipes and pinching</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How many users does your webapp need to be worth something? - <AUTHOR>

For a free to use site with advertisements(as the revenue model), roughly how many users would make this site worth anything? <comment><USER2> Not enough information to answer the question. It would depend what your application does, who the users are, what you are advertising and how, what kind of response you get to your ads, what type of activity users think they are engaged in, etc.

I think you could make an app with 50 users that is more valuable than Facebook, if I'm allowed to pick whom the 50 users are and what they do. (Military officers with purchasing authority who use the app to make trusted strategic forecasting decisions. BAM.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Just normal people, it's just a simple app to help people with something they do quite often.

<comment><USER2> Normal people like poor twentysomething males who are habitually adblind, value only digital content, and steal all the content that isn't nailed down, or normal people like forty-something females who make purchasing decisions related to the website niche for households with $80k+ average incomes, where goods responsive to the needs of the niche have little branding and 90% plus profit margins?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, anyone who lends stuff to their friends, which is everyone. Normal that is. I'm not being that helpful.

<comment><USER2> Careful here: I think you'll find that borrowing trades off with buying (i.e. people who buy don't borrow, people who borrow don't buy). Aside from a few industries where one does not have to have money to get it extracted from you, people who don't buy do not make good targets for advertising.

Try chatting up some middle class housewives. I may be totally off my rocker here, but I'm thinking borrowing items of significance is vastly, vastly more common among twenty-somethings in communal living situations than it is among people who own property.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


QAnon and Pinterest Is Just the Beginning - <AUTHOR> https://hapgood.us/2018/08/15/qanon-and-pinterest-is-a-completely-predictable-disaster/ <comment><USER2> The way Pinterest presents images with very little context can also discourage users from connecting images to their source websites (which they may never visit). It's like a social Google Image search with recommendations.

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe this is a big part of the "fake news" problem on Facebook and Twitter as well -- both of them present stories from all different kinds of sources as visually identical "cards," with the only included indication of where it came from being the domain name the story is posted on. And that domain name is typically presented in tiny, light gray type, making it super easy to miss. The result is that a headline from, say, the _Wall Street Journal_ is presented with the exact same visual weight as a story from BobsConspiracyBunker dot biz. The casual reader scanning through his feed has no quick way to distinguish which stories are actual journalism and which are not. Doing that takes work, and work is something we know people are not going to go out of their way to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Part of this seems founded on serving content based on what people do versus what they say. In the case of the video shown, they said they were interested in recipes, yet didn't bother to pin anything for recipes. From the standpoint of the algorithm, they must not be very interested in recipes, no matter what they claim.

Good or bad, this 'actions speak louder than words' approach isn't merely a social media thing. "Oh, the politician says they are for good thing, but they voted against the Bill for Good Thing." That is regardless of context, too.

I don't know whether they have this feature, but it seems to me this could be mostly addressed with a 'Less of this' button.

With a feedback mechanism, even if someone manages to inject an unrelated meme into a given demographic profile, those memes could be weeded out by a subset of those people who are just trying to keep their view the way they want it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Honestly scary stuff. I can see a good number of middle-aged women be very receptive to the fake information being disseminated on Pinterest, so long as they think that such information just "organically" appeared in their home feeds.

<comment><USER5> Clicked for me. The Democratic party should absolutely be looking into it, because for the life of them they can't seem to explain why they aren't reaching white suburban women (I've seen a slide literally titled "where are the white suburban women?") they assumed they had locked down with Clinton.

Either way I hope some organization with a lot of resources delves further, my "spreadsheet of Twitter bots" doesn't exactly constitute research and I'd love to see something bigger/better/more effective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So what are some strategies in terms of recommendation systems to avoid overly personalizing your user's recommendations? Any literature on mitigating this issue?

<comment><USER7> Let them do it themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> >I don't know how compromised Pinterest is at this point. But everything I've seen indicates its structure makes it uniquely vulnerable to manipulation. I'd beg journalists to start including it in their beat, and researchers to throw more resources into its study.

If we've learned anything from recent doxxing culture, he's dogwhistling journalists to harass tech platforms into purging users he views as problematic, only this time, with a patriarchal flavor:

>So why don't we talk about it? My guess is that its perceived as a woman's platform, which means the legions of men in tech reporting ignore it. And the Silicon Valley philosopher-king class doesn't bring it up either. It just sounds a bit girly, you know? Housewife-ish.

Indeed, Mike, it's time for the MEN to step in. /s

<comment><USER5> You don't view qanon memes as problematic? Or does your /s tag apply to your whole post?

Have you ever seen much reporting on Pinterest? I buy his theory - nobody in tech reporting takes it seriously because few in tech reporting falls into Pinterest's audience.

Maybe we're both missing some articles on the subject though?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm unsure about this class of problem. On the one hand, it most definitely _is_ a problem (the quote about 'engines of personalisation' being engines of radicalisation was particularly resonant here).

But on the other hand, I don't know that it's a problem to be fixed in- platform. Society has dealt with unsourced or decontextualised information in the form of gossip for millennia, and it's done that by building up an immune system of sorts, in that people (mostly) grow up knowing to take stories they hear in the pub (or wherever) with a healthy pinch of salt.

What we haven't done is start giving people chatting in pubs "citation needed" tickets. Maybe that's a bad thing - I don't know - but it seems like the real solutions to these problems all involve instilling healthy scepticism in the populace at large, and a habit of treating online interactions just the same as offline, rather than altering the medium.</comment>


Lessons from Nietzsche's Awful Publishing Results - <AUTHOR> https://theotherlifenow.com/lessons-from-nietzsches-awful-publishing-results/ <comment><USER2> Yeah but you don't wanna give everybody the impression their gonna be respected and valued posthumously or that that's what they should wager their life on. People can do other life works, there doesn't have to be one, its okay not to write the Big Book you wanted to write.

Also, I dislike the appeal to "independent intellectuals": so-called intellectuals should be conferring with others more often if they truly trust what's in their head, that's generally what the history of philosophy and science is, people conferring with one another, even across time.</comment>


By The Time You Give Them a Raise, They're Already Out The Door - <AUTHOR> http://saastr.quora.com/By-The-Time-You-Give-Them-a-Raise-They%E2%80%99re-Already-Out-The-Door <comment><USER4> What drove me from Microsoft was:

\- A culture of burnout (really, really bad death marches, mostly because upper management had fucked up by dithering about what products to make)

\- A lack of respect for engineering quality (when the build for your project is broken for weeks at a time, you'd expect management to get a clue -- I mean, what are managers for? -- rather than ask about how things are going with the schedule)

\- A lack of respect for your time, realized as a reluctance to buy equipment (I got my build times down to two hours, from four hours, by buying my own computers. Yup, I probably spent $5K on computers while I was at MS because my managers didn't see the benefit in buying faster hardware), and by scheduling tons of nonsense meetings.

\- Politics (oh God, the politics). MS needs to fire about half of its "partner" rank people. There are good eggs there, really smart people, but then there are the ones who . . . aren't. (When they do get around to axing half of the partners, I'm betting it'll be the wrong half).

A year and a bit later, I'm at a place where they realize that the most valuable thing is your time, and equipment is Not A Problem. It's a great thing when you're the bottleneck.

<comment><USER5> Those respect points are really crucial. I mean how much does a new computer cost vs. how much does a developer's time cost?

<comment><USER4> It's been over a year, and I'm still angry.

Let's say that a "good" desktop computer is $10,000. Just load the thing with enterprise scale SSDs, fast spinning disks, CPUs, RAM and so forth. I think you'll be hard pressed to spend that much on something that you'd want near a desk. (I'm assuming that you've already bought the developer the two or three large displays and a decent graphics card).

Let's say this gets builds down from 4 hours to 1 hour, and a developer has to do a build like this on average once a day. At $80/hour, this takes 42 hours, or maybe two months (spread out) to breakeven.

By NOT buying your developers _great_ machines, you are costing your company money.

"But that comes out of a different budget!"

Who cares? The shareholders (who the management chain proxies) should be _delighted_ that developers have faster machines.

Of course, multi-hour builds are nonsense, too. MS has a whole cloud infrastructure that they should be leveraging the crap out of, to make sure that developers are the bottleneck again. I'll bet they could get Windows to build inside ten minutes, if they put the right people on it.

<comment><USER6> Were you there when Ballmer promised every employee would get a new windows 8 machine? I am still shocked at how they could mismanage that so badly - <USER2> everyone I know was angrier about their equipment _after_ that effort than before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> On the other hand, if you're an employee and not getting paid what you think you're worth, don't jump to the conclusion that you're being exploited or disrespected, and don't jump to the conclusion that you have to leave in order to get market rate. If you're happy with the team and with the work, consider just asking for what you want. Founders are crazy busy and, believe it or not, sometimes lose sight of "little" things like comp. Talking to them may be all it takes.

<comment><USER8> I generally disagree. I always feel that it sets a bad precedent by relieving those in charge of having to take the initiative to recognize and reward the efforts of their employees.

If they are too busy to make sure I'm not having to question my value, I would rather find another employer that may not have this issue.

Having said that, money is one of the last things that cause me to leave a job. If I enjoy what I'm doing and the people I work with, it usually doesn't matter (as much) what raises I receive.

I also recognize everyone is different. This is just my preference and what works for me.

<comment><USER9> Huh. It's easier to go find an entirely new job than to just knock on your employer's office door and ask to have a quick chat about your compensation?

If that kind of interaction makes you uncomfortable, I guess you probably should go find another job since you might not have a great relationship with your company.

<comment><USER10> I think this is somewhat related to the concept of 'managing upwards'. While it might not be hard to tell people "I should be making more money", it should also not be difficult for a good manager to recognize "hey, this guy should be making more money". For me, there would not be a scenario where I'm asking my manager for more money but I'm also satisfied with the relationship with my company, because part of my job satisfaction in relation to my company is recognition of my efforts in the form of salary compensation.

I (personally) feel that there's an implicit understanding with my employer, wherein my above and beyond efforts will result in increased compensation. If I feel like I've been clearly outperforming my compensation level and that's not recognized, I'm more likely to search for a new job than to ask for a raise, because my current employer has already failed to meet their end of the bargain.

<comment><USER11> This exactly. It IS easier because when it comes to a new company, you've only got one problem - the salary. When it comes to your existing company there are two problems. The money, but also the fact that you're having to ask for it. The more you deserve it the more awkward the conversation becomes since the ask itself is evidence of a management failure. In extreme cases, making the request can be as uncomfortable as having to reapply for a job you've already got.

In a well-run shop, managers have a very good idea as to who is worth what, and how much the company stands to lose if they lose good people. Staying one step ahead of this curve is a fundamental part of their jobs as a managers.

Obviously, the rules are a bit different in an early-stage start-up where the founders are doing everything at once and hoping something connects. But once an operation has hit cruising altitude, you really shouldn't have to ask for a raise if you're actually worth what your asking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Pay market, or above, as soon as you can. It's a sign of respect.

This is the best advice I can give any software engineering firm. I've left companies large and small chiefly because they waited until I gave notice to bring my salary in line with my performance. If you have a top engineer and haven't given them a raise in 9 months, they are seriously considering their options.

A lot of people act like compensation shouldn't matter. All the senior people in your company care _VERY MUCH_ about their compensation. If you become good friends with them you will see this very clearly.

You deserve it just as much.

<comment><USER13> How frequently can/should one ask for raises? I was under the vague impression that once a year is reasonable, but looks like I might be wrong.

<comment><USER14> You can ask literally any time, but unless you have a real reason it's a waste of time. A good reason would be an increase in responsibility.

Otherwise wait for your performance review. If you don't get one, ask for it.

<comment><USER15> What do you say when they say, "Oh we've had a rough year last year, so we're giving you 3%"?

<comment><USER16> Assuming you've done well for your company you might say

"That's very disappointing to hear that we're struggling so much as a company. I was (hoping|expecting) for X.

<pause>

Is there any advice or direction you could provide to me where I might help ensure we do better as a company going forward? I'd like to set up a plan of what I can to help and revisit compensation in the next 1-3 months."

And at the same time, start polishing your resume and interview skills.

I would think of this approach as a probation period for any company that I work for. If an employee isn't doing well, they're put on probation. Why not do the same for any company that is vying for our technical abilities?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've seen this claim over and over, but never any sort of citation or numbers. Lots of people get competitive offers, get a counteroffer, and then stay for years. I know a number of them personally.

The reason it seems like they never stay is that _they don 't talk about the offer they didn't accept_. The negotiation happens over the course of a few days, and they don't mention it to the other employees. So there's a big bias in how frequently you hear about the negotiation. Whereas if they leave for another company, of course everyone knows about it.

<comment><USER18> There is a lack of reliable data on counteroffers and their effectiveness due to the secrecy - companies don't have to report to some agency when they counter an employee. Another part of the problem is that recruiters are trained to scare candidates away from accepting counteroffers (I'm a recruiter), and you'll see all kinds of articles from recruiters claiming statistics about what percentage of people who accept counteroffers are gone within a certain amount of time. I've heard 80% within a year, 90% within 6 months - depends on which recruiter you ask, but the numbers seem inflated and are just used as a tool to scare someone from accepting.

I distinctly remember being trained on how to handle counteroffers when I was first getting into the business. I don't use any of those tactics these days, but I am certain lots of recruiters do. The amount of publicity that recruiters give to these numbers (which usually lack a source) adds to the misconceptions.

<comment><USER19> I suspect that those (% gone with a year) numbers vary drastically by industry, and may be 80-90% or whatever in some lines of work, but are likely much lower for developers.

<comment><USER18> Over my 15+ years in recruiting developers I'd say a fairly high number of people stayed much longer after accepting a counter than the most quoted 'stats' would have led me to believe. My only numbers are candidates I lost to counter or admitted accepting a counter in the past, so this isn't a huge sample.

The secrecy of counteroffer benefits the company, as if it becomes known that a counter is your quickest means to a raise you can be sure others will follow suit. But that secrecy also has some benefit to the person who accepted a counter, as any potential questions about your loyalty or (in some situations) your perceived willingness to abandon the team during a crunch time won't be exposed and the accepter can continue business as usual to a degree.

<comment><USER20> Secrecy is the enemy of trust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Can we quit with the "rock stars", "ninjas" and all that? We're not teenage boys, stop talking to us as though we are.

<comment><USER22> A+ers? 1%-ers? MVPs? Cream of the crop? Apex-ers? Acmeees?

People are going to end up using some term to denote their top performers. Verbal shorthand is very hard to get rid of.

<comment><USER23> I'm all for verbal shorthand. I also agree that we can do better than the "rockstar" and "ninja" as they immature, embarrassing, and male-centric.

<comment><USER24> Psst: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunoichi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunoichi)

<comment><USER23> Sometimes I worry that I am too pedantic, thanks for reminding me that there are others playing at a much higher level of pedantry :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > Pay market, or above, as soon as you can. It's a sign of respect.

And just as importantly, the lack of a decent compensation/raise is a sign of disrespect. I also factor here places that expect their developers (especially young ones who advance exponentially at the beginning) to either stay at the same pay grade for years or suck it up with a 5% raise.

<comment><USER26> I agree, I'd also add that when you let the juniors sit at the same pay for longer than a year and a half they'll start to build a bit of resentment (even if they don't change jobs as they probably should). Even a pay rise at that point might not help because they can think the next one is going to be just as far off and if they feel they deserved it at an annual review a few months ago they might think of it as lost money.

At least that was my experience. Of course being younger and less mercenary I hung around longer than I should and jumped, just after a pay-rise, to a similar position similar pay job. I couldn't hang around knowing my heart wouldn't be in working there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> If this contains one great truth it's this

> By The Time You Give Them a Raise, It's Too Late.

I have seen this happen often. If you get a higher offer from a second company, you will think that the first employer paid you below par, which leads to a feeling of being taken advantage of. At that point, it doesn't really help if the offer is countered, the feeling of being exploited has already taken root.

Unfortunately, most managers just don't get this, or they somehow believe that they can counter offer. Maybe that works in sales/marketing, who knows, but I think it's different in dev.

<comment><USER28> If you are dissatisfied with your compensation, speak up before you go looking elsewhere. If you say you're leaving, do it.

Accepting a counter-offer is almost always a bad idea; no matter how much money is on the table. After accepting a counter-offer you are bought and paid-for, you decided to stay for the cash and, unfortunately, your loyalty to the company will be questioned forever after.

<comment><USER29> > your loyalty to the company will be questioned

If loyalty means "you can fuck me over and I'll stick around," it's a vice, not a virtue.

Loyalty keeps sweatshops fully staffed while keeping good businesses from replacing anyone who is a bad fit.

In fact, why would any business want a "loyal" employee, someone incapable of recognizing or acting in situations that have grown lopsided? If someone struggles with strategic decisionmaking in their own life, why trust them to aggressively act in the best interests of the business?

Feudalism is long dead. The occasional job change shouldn't merit a scarlet letter.

<comment><USER30> Your model is too simple.

In my mind, a loyal employee is one who will ride out the ups and downs in a relationship, and put in the effort necessary to make things work. The same is true for a loyal employer.

To that end, I think a loyal employee should speak up when they think they deserve more money, because it is in everybody's best interests that they be fairly paid. And I think a loyal boss should a) do their best to make sure that employees are already fairly paid, and b) when they slip, to be grateful that an employee has taken the risk of talking about something that can be difficult.

<comment><USER31> I get what you're saying, but I don't feel like calling his model "too simple" is fair when yours is predicated on loyal employers. They exist, but I think I'd be hard-pressed to rely on their beneficence.

<comment><USER30> I don't think any healthy relationship involves relying on beneficence. Loyalty for me at work is more about recognizing and acting for long-term benefit, not short-term gain. I think loyalty, along with trust, gets built over time, and it's something both parties have to work toward.

By "too simple", I meant that his model of the world was too black and white. Trust isn't a binary condition. It's a continuum. A collaboration.

<comment><USER31> In your estimation, how often does loyalty come from the side of the table with all the money? :p

<comment><USER30> I can't really estimate that, but I've seen it happen a fair bit. And I've benefited from it as well. But then, I'm choosy about where I spend my time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I don't know if it is the writing style or something else, but this comes across to me as being written by someone who has difficulty empathizing with their employees.

After all, the opposite of the advice presented would be to ignore the ambitions of your most important employees, underpay them, and never speak to them.

The fact that not doing the foregoing is seen as a novel insight is not encouraging.

<comment><USER33> Sadly this kind of "don't be an asshole" common sense is insanely rare in management.

I would love to work for the author. I've worked in so many places where the management vibe was "how can we squeeze more blood out of the talent" and not "how can we support the talent to make awesome things."

<comment><USER34> Agreed.

I read management-oriented things from time to time to get an idea of the mentality, and it's very, very split between the two kinds of 'advice': common sense, and exploitation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Though not the focus of the article, I have a huge problem with the idea that leaders should pick out their best employees and reward them, while leaving the others treading water on their own.

I am in the middle of watching a team constantly churn, unable to retain many talented developers, specifically because the managers are only rewarding those they think are the best engineers, but are actually rewarding very mediocre employees they trust. My advice to everyone, especially managers, is do not try to pick out your "best" employees and reward them exclusively!

My team has hired 6 engineers over the last 2 years; the distribution has been pretty even: 2 really great engineers, 2 decent ones, and 2 sub-par ones. Going in to the 2 years, the team had 5 engineers 1 really great, and the rest swimming between mediocre and great. The two managers try to follow the advice in the article, and it has been disastrous. Of those 6 engineers they hired, the two really great ones were out the door in 8 months and 1 year respectively, and just last week the 1 great engineer already on the team announced he was leaving. The problem feels like failure to launch. These talented people come in, are doing good work, and then feel there's no room to grow. The source is obvious, the managers have picked out 2 of the mediocre engineers who they feel are their "best", the "talent" doing the most work and attracting other great "talent". The "talent" is rewarded with the big projects, which in turn makes management think they're working harder, while the other engineers are left with the scraps. The result is simple -- genuinely great engineers take a few steps in the door, quickly realize the problem, and turn around to get out the door as fast as they can. It's really sad.

The advice of the article is good for the most part, just really be incredibly careful about choosing your "best" as a manager. It's far better to make sure you're fostering your whole team.

<comment><USER36> Does your company have a peer feedback system that's considered in addition to the management's opinion?

<comment><USER35> They do, I'm not sure how effective it is. They've been tweaking it a lot, which is a good thing. Ultimately though, management is the biggest influence by far on retention and team development.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This thread is both illuminating and depressing for me. I hire engineers at an academic medical center who work on really tough biomedical problems. Let's just say that I would have to move heaven and earth to get annual percentage raise amounts that are being thrown around here. I wonder how industries like healthcare can hope to have the best people with this job market. At some point, even if you are doing work that really matters in a big way, you can't be stupid about your career and leave money on the table. I wonder if this further drives non-IT focused organizations to SaaS offerings since they can't get talent to do things in house?

<comment><USER38> > I wonder how industries like healthcare can hope to have the best people > with this job market.

It's like saying "I wonder how I can hope to have steak dinners with Safeway charging such high prices for steaks."

 _That 's what they cost._ If you can afford it, _pay it._ If you can't, _don 't have steak dinners._ This is the market. It's not a special problem for you that requires an intervention.

You aren't entitled to anyone's labor at any specific price.

If your business cannot be sustained unless certain people are coerced into working a lower price, your business is not sustainable!

Anyway, in reality, the US healthcare industry has a massive and powerful lobby, so it can exert a lot of control over markets through its purchased representatives. For example, everyone in the country has to throw business their way (for good or ill).

The healthcare industry isn't about to go belly up because engineers aren't cheap enough. Maybe your job is hard because you have a small budget. So sorry, but don't blame the candidates.

> At some point, even if you are doing work that really matters in a big way, > you can't be stupid about your career and leave money on the table

You make an offer and because it's dodgy or not good enough, you have to belittle people and call them stupid in the hopes that they will be insecure and weak-willed enough to believe you and back down.

I guess this is one solution to the exorbitant expense of keeping people happy: "Don't be stupid, baby. You can't live without me. You're nothing without me."

<comment><USER37> Your tone is incredibly rude and uncalled for. Where in my post did I ask anyone to intervene? You are imputing motives that I did not state. Furthermore you are interpreting my last comment in a way that I did not mean. I meant that there are limits to people's altruism. At some point, no matter how personally meaningful the job is, a sane rational person can't afford to limit themselves when they can do better elsewhere. I don't get to set the rates I pay software developers. I have no say in that at all beyond a very narrow band dictated to me. Nowhere did I state that I expect people to work for below market wages. I do not expect this and I do not begrudge anyone for making such decisions. It sucks for me when recruiting, but that is my problem.

My larger point is that there are finite numbers of employable people who write software and that it appears to me that it is becoming more and more professionally rewarding for those individuals to concentrate themselves in dedicated software companies. As this happens, it becomes harder and harder for non-software companies to employ such people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I was very happy to see this one:

> Find a Growth Path for Everyone, Especially the Great Ones.

I've done a few interviews in the last few years, and whenever I ask about career path, they always stumble, even companies with 50+ employees. "We have a flat org chart." I've pretty much decided that it's up to me to advance my career via freelancing, because as an employee you hit a ceiling very fast.

<comment><USER40> Flat is a terrible organizational structure for employees who take their career seriously.

<comment><USER41> As opposed to having 9 managers?

<comment><USER42> I'm thinking there's probably a happy medium in between yours and OP's extremes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> >The thing is — you can't counter. It's too late by that point.

Unless the employee is leaving for money. Junior employees HAVE to jump jobs 2-3 times to get to their market rate.

<comment><USER44> At what size company? Start-ups or in general? That doesn't sound right to me, but I don't have anything to back that up by my anecdotal experience.

<comment><USER45> I think if you come out of a good school with the right degree and jump right into a good company you can expect market-rate pay or better. If you get a CS degree from Stanford and join Google you'll be doing fine.

But maybe you didn't have the money or quite the grades and extracurriculars so you get your degree from San Jose State or City College of San Francisco, you could still be a very good programmer, but you'll have to start by taking lower-paying jobs while you prove it and learn, and at most companies you won't get much of a raise unless you threaten to leave.

A friend of mine ended up a technical lead of about a dozen people. He got there by leaving his company for another company, leaving them to go back to the first company, then leaving them again to go back to the second company as a lead. Each time he got a substantial pay raise. For the four years before he adopted this tactic he was getting the customary 5% or so as a mid-level programmer. In the four years he employed this tactic his salary almost doubled.

<comment><USER46> > _" If you get a CS degree from Stanford and join Google you'll be doing > fine."_

I disagree. The problem isn't that people are paying below market - <USER3> pays just fine for new grads. You won't find many places paying more than Google does for fresh grads. The problem is that the pay scale for software developers increases _rapidly_ with experience, at a rate no company (Google included) is willing to keep pace with.

A new undergrad may be worth $100K starting. Assuming they're reasonably good performers, in two years he/she will be worth $130K+. I don't know of any company that gives 15% annual raises like clockwork, even to solid performers.

Personally I've doubled my salary in about 5 years in the industry. That works out to 15%, yearly. Is there _any_ company out there that's willing to keep pace? I've been at companies where the typical non-promotion raise is 1-2%, that's laughable in a market where salaries are skyrocketing.

<comment><USER44> I've seen companies who do keep that pay increase pace. Not that it's the normal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> My last boss, when I asked for a raise, said "Explain to me why I should give you a raise". I said nevermind, started looking for a new job and left. Shockingly, when I informed them, there was a higher offer waiting. You seriously wonder what goes on in these people's brains.

<comment><USER48> > _" You seriously wonder what goes on in these people's brains."_

Perhaps it's something like: "I'll need to get approval/budget from higher up and they're going to ask me why. Maybe he can help me by telling why he thinks he should get one."

I respect that your experience may not have been pleasant but it's unfair to paint everyone in that position with the same brush. It would seem odd to me if simply asking for a raise out of the blue results in one.

<comment><USER49> OK - there's always a sort of equation related to compensation in developers' minds that should be at the forefront of managers' minds:

happiness(job) = a * job.workEnvironment + b * job.compensation - c * (possibleJob.compensation - job.compensation)

Some developers attach low values to b and c, but part of a manager's job is to maximise the work environment, and minimise the difference between compensation for jobs that the employee is qualified to do elsewhere and employee's current compensation (as long as management wants to retain the employee).

<comment><USER48> > _... but part of a manager 's job is to ... minimise the difference between > compensation…"_

In principle, I agree but in practice I don't see how this is workable (unless you're trying to retain a star -- as opposed to all employees). It means the direct managers need to know how much the comp is elsewhere at all times. Who has energy to figure that out _and_ meet all the demands of the day-to-day? On top of which, the spread of salaries/benefits might cover a wide range so how do you figure out where you fit (who should you really compare yourself to)? The simplest way is when you hear internally that X has left for company Y and got a pay-bump of Z%. It's the kind of thing people would expect the folks at HR to be looking into, rather than the engineering managers.

I'm not trying to justify the above but it does seem easy to understand why things are this way.

<comment><USER49> Compensation is not a manager's fulltime responsibility, obviously. But something they should check up on with a annual or bi-annual frequency. There are ample tools (e.g. Glassdoor) that give insight into how competitive a given worker's salary is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm not getting paid as much as I would like. I've brought it up with my manager on multiple occasions. I'm now about 18 months with no raise, and I've been told that this round of performance reviews does not come with a raise either. But I'm constantly reminded of just how valuable I am to the company.

So, I've done what I think anyone else would do and have talked to someone at another company about another position. If I get an offer, I'm likely to take it. I'm highly unlikely at that point to accept a counteroffer.

It feels like I'd maintain a better relationship with my current employer by quitting for a better offer than by seeking and accepting a counteroffer and then leaving later.

Accepting a counteroffer would feel like the company would expect me to "owe" them, and I don't owe anything to any employer.

<comment><USER51> just out of curiosity, are you shopping around? Don't stop with just one offer—if you're going on the market, _really_ go on the market. You might be surprised how effective that can be in getting what you're worth.

<comment><USER50> I have not been shopping around. I contacted one person out of curiosity, because I told myself I wasn't really looking. That's a fair point though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> To be blunt, when you are earning less than $100k, when someone else is offering 10-20k more than you are currently making, you are (and probably should) going to take that deal. I've worked at companies with great culture and companies with crappy culture, and the reality for both was the same. When someone else values you higher, you start to feel like you're getting a bad deal and the things that you normally sweep under the rug start to grate on you.

Having a cool culture seems like the hot thing lately, and it can be a great thing, but if you use cool company culture to be cheap on salaries, you are putting money in the wrong place. I think most people at some point would rather work in shabbier offices and get paid more than have some fancy building that only serves to impress outsiders.

When you get over 6 figures, I'm sure it's the same deal, just takes larger numbers to move the needle. In either case, lack of above market compensation is going to cause talent to move if for no other reason than because they are in demand.

</comment><comment><USER53> First off a link on Quora did not bug me about a login - weird.

Second, all this talk about hiring "rock stars" and retaining them but I heard no one talking about bad hires. Does any one want to share stories about bad hires and why it was a wrong decision? I believe companies put too much emphasis on hiring the correct person. I understand if its the first few employees but after that does it really matter? Unless the person is a real asshole (and he did not care enough to hide it during the interview) does it really matter?

<comment><USER31> _> I believe companies put too much emphasis on hiring the correct person._

You literally can't put too much emphasis on hiring the right person. Not because of you. Firing someone, at least in the U.S., is easy. But you _hurt_ people when you hire the wrong people. You turn their lives upside-down because you made the wrong decision. If you have a shred of a conscience, you'll hire scrupulously because doing otherwise makes you shitty.

"Hire fast, fire fast" is immoral. "Hire slow, fire fast" less so, if you compensate the worker because in almost every case (that is, this isn't true in cases of criminality, harrassment, etc.) it's your mistake, not theirs, and you owe them.

<comment><USER54> This only applies if you actually allow people to assume that "hired" means "staying." If you "hire" people on a tentative basis, _and tell them that you 're doing so_, then this can work. (And you don't tentatively hire people who would have to relocate, etc.)

<comment><USER55> Why would an employee who is not desperate for a job give up their current job in exchange for a position that's probationary? Setting up a situation where the employer can bail out with no cost to themselves indicates that they have zero commitment to making the relationship work.

<comment><USER54> How about an employee who is not desperate for a job, but who also currently _does not_ have a job? This would be the situation created by a Basic Income Guarantee.

<comment><USER56> As per TFA, we're talking abot 0%-unemployment industry here. Such situations happen, but they're the exceptions, not something to base your policy on.

Seriously, even all the quality 2nd year undergrads I see are working already, at least here if you want to hire people who don't have a job then most of them are seriously incompetent people or extremely young.

<comment><USER54> I guess I'm thinking of a different definition of "unemployed" than you are. Maybe replace your mental definition with "independently wealthy." E.g. "I'm happy just spending all day coding my own projects, but if you give me the right incentives, I'll join your company... _tentatively._ With the tentativeness going both ways."

<comment><USER31> Which doesn't exist...so what's the point of this subthread you well- actually'd me about?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'd go even further. If you're in the mentality where you're trying to _jjjuuust_ time that minimal raise to prevent desertion, you've already lost in the way the author is pointing at.

The best companies see high performing employees as systems _(1)_ that receive relatively small amounts of money as input and produce great amounts of value in output. The more money in, the more value out. The question should be how much money they can shovel in the front end before the "unit _(1)_ " burns out. (Active cooling via free food, daycare, and flexible schedules doesn't hurt either)

 _(1) Yes they see you as a simple value proposition. As an employee, you are accounted for in exactly the same way as the contract for that big Xerox printer out front. That 's not necessarily a bad thing. Any company that leans too heavily on that "part of the family" schtick is a place you want to be wary of._

</comment><comment><USER58> > There are some very tell-tell signs of someone interviewing. Out of the > office at weird hours. Talking on their mobile phone on the sidewalk

I've been that employee. As my dad (a farmer) says, "the hired man wants a day off to go look for another job." There are many tell-tale signs that an employee is looking for another job, and the article is absolutely right that—until the they put in their notice—it is rarely too late to change their mind.

<comment><USER59> Very much depends on their reasons for leaving. If it's money, sure, though that ties in to why didn't you respect them enough to pay them market ASAP, if you're able to once you know they're trying to leave.

If it's something other than money, chances are real good you won't be able to keep them.

<comment><USER60> I'm all for what what the author is pitching but this article also ignores the fact often in smaller companies the only upward mobility to jump ship.

<comment><USER56> Small, rapidly growing companies are actually the best places for meaningful career growth, getting a 'organic' experience of growing together with the changing roles.

If in your smaller organization _really_ the best mobility is to jump ship, then you have to factor that already in hiring that you need someone who would like an organization that _stays_ small, and beware of ambitious key people who'll not be good for you. But for startups it shouldn't be so, unless you fail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> This is solid. I constantly remind my co-founder he can walk out and get a $100k+ salary somewhere else (I actually told him to go interview elsewhere - and I would provide a reference - just to prove it). By doing this it opens the discussion for why he wants to stick it out, and I'm quite confident by the aforementioned actions that I know I'm not wasting his time nor is he wasting mine.

</comment><comment><USER62> A good senior engineer these days costs somewhere around $200k/year (if not more) in a major US tech hub, factoring in overhead costs of salary and benefits. This is something that most seed or series A companies can't really afford.

So my question is, as salaries rise, how will this affect the startup industry? Where $1 million could buy you 8 people for a year before, now it can only buy you 6. This seems to make bootstrapping much more difficult. It also seems like this may end up causing certain startups to be impossible, since they require much more money than they would have normally.

Anyway, thoughts?

<comment><USER38> If only there were people who had free access to the labor of a sufficiently capable engineer. Then these people could do things like starting companies or working at an early stage in exchange for major equity, until the business had enough to pay for more people like them. I know it's a radical idea, since these people wouldn't be "ideas guys".

Oh well, no such people seem to exist, too bad for the clearly moribund startup industry.

<comment><USER62> That's not what I'm saying.

If the cost of labor is increasing, the amount that funding gets you decreases, as I assume that most of what funding is used for is paying salaries. Equity is also a cost. If before you gave early hires 1% equity, now you have to give them 1.5% equity to make up the same dollar amount - so if you're using equity to offset lack of cash, you end up having to give up more equity.

5 years ago, $500K maybe was enough to launch a serious version 1.0 of a product. Now you might need $800k or $1MM. So what do you do? You either have to give away more equity in early rounds, or in lieu of salaries. If your company is worth $5MM, before where you were giving away 10%, now you're giving away 20%.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's a bad thing - I'm a programmer, I've more than reaped the benefit of this - just that it's worth thinking about.

<comment><USER63> >5 years ago, $500K maybe was enough to launch a serious version 1.0 of a product. Now you might need $800k or $1MM.

I'm struggling to make sense of this. By "a product", do you mean a piece of software sold for its own sake (as opposed to some other type of product that merely requires that someone in the company write software)? Either way, has the barrier to entry really increased so much in so little time? Why?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> throwaway-to1 I'm presently confused about what to make of my renumeration where I am now...

I was supposed to have my yearly review three months ago, and the owners are out of office or busy so much I can't get a moment of their time.

Last year I got an 8% raise and 8% bonus. This year I got a 2.5% raise and a 10% bonus. I don't know why, and feel communication is unattainable to me now. I've been pondering looking for jobs... I know how hard it is to simply find a skilled and well rounded programmer in Ontario, much less one who can write clean complex systems. I just want to know why that was my deal this year. It doesn't help that I'm paranoid I'm grossly incompetent at what I do, and fearful others think that about me despite the fact I have stronger skills than most programmes I meet in this city.

I look at careers sites more and more as my career-paranoia fluctuates.

I'm posting this as a data point in the model of programmers looking to quit.

<comment><USER38> From outside the valley bubble, your raises sound fine to me. Tons of people would think it totally crazy to expect sustained 8% raises year after year during recessions. And you don't cite any other reason you want to quit. I wouldn't over-interpret the numbers. There are so many other reasons you might be paid a smaller raise on a given year, it's no good to overload your interpretation of this. You need, not a justification for giving you a lower raise, but just specific feedback on whether your performance is adequate and what you could improve.

If the money seems fair to you and you are treated reasonably otherwise, it shouldn't matter that much about the number fluctuations, once you have clarified your anxiety about performance.

<comment><USER64> I don't mean to take away from your main point, but Silicon Valley is not in a recession. The difference in energy between here and the rest of the country over the last 5 years is palpable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I've jumped to a greener pasture a couple times. I always gave plenty of signals but I never made threats about leaving. He's right, by the time I've made the decision to look elsewhere and found another job, there isn't much that can be done to reverse that course of action.

Also, if you don't pay severance or have me on contract, you aren't likely to get much notice.

<comment><USER66> When I first started working in the industry nearly 20 years ago, severance and notice were frequently outlined in the contract. Generally it was the 2 weeks that is "professional".

When it is mentioned at all, the only thing I ever see mentioned now is notice. So much for professional.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Fine, I'll share my true story of how to negotiate a raise when you are an introvert and without being seen as a job-hopper.

Tell your boss: I'm getting unsollicited offers for 20-30% more than I'm currently making here. Can you fix that?

This has worked successfully to go from low $100K to >$130K.

It works for two reasons

      1. It shows you know your market value - this is not a number you are making up
      2. You are not being unfaithful to your boss, you didn't go out and sollicit those offers, they just happened

<comment><USER68> However you have to actually get unsolicited offers for 20-30% more, which is pretty difficult I would imagine.

Sure, I get cold called, and emailed frequently, but never an offer.

I think the interesting follow up to your post would be what you've done specifically during your career which you think resulted in unsolicited offers.

<comment><USER69> He meant enquiries rather than hard offers. I'm a bit baffled how you misinterpreted that, people quite obviously don't offer jobs blind.

<comment><USER68> Perhaps I am being too literal but to me "unsolicited offers" is quite clear in that it was an offer of employment.

I wouldn't be as shocked if the OP is a high functioning software professional with an extensive network of peers familiar with her work that do indeed make unsolicited offers. That is the information I am interested in so I can position myself similarly.

If that is not the case I'm surprised anyone is walking into their bosses office asking for a raise because they got an email or cold call from a recruiter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Feedback, yeah!

It's odd how so many software companies claim to be Agile and when it comes to employer/employee relations they toss the Agile Manifesto out the window. Agile is founded on communications and short feedback loops.

Please apply this wisdom in all of your internal business affairs, not just in development activities.

</comment><comment><USER71> This is so true.

At my previous job, my boss continually told me that I was the most profitable employee and I was obviously one of the most valuable. One year in, I requested a performance review and it kept being delayed. 18 months in, still no formal performance review or raise. So, I started looking for another position and was offered a position with a great team.

I was set to put in my 2-weeks notice, the day after accepting the new position. Already "out the door", just prior to putting in my 2 weeks, I was asked if I was available for a review later that day.

Had my review come anytime between that 12 and 18 month mark, I likely would not have even looked for another position. I'm glad I did though, all things considered.

</comment><comment><USER72> Great read. Seems to me that the trend of signing people to a specific contract term limit (2 or 3 years @ $X + benes) would solve some of this. When the contract is due for re-negotiating, there's none of this uncertainty over compensation.

</comment><comment><USER73> Article says to talk to your talent at least once a quarter. You should do it once a week.

<comment><USER74> Once a week for sure when you small, and with your direct reports. Once you are bigger (say 50-100+ employees) and have more indirect reports -- it's hard to meet with all of them every week in an unscripted fashion, especially when most don't report to you anymore. If you force yourself to do it once a quarter, especially in the functional areas you work less on ... it will make a huge difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> This goes along with my One Universal Truth: "You get what you pay for."

The only real way to win on price is to find employees who don't know any better, and then, well, you have employees who didn't know any better. Did you really win?

</comment><comment><USER76> Does anyone have good resources that describe what new engineers should expect in terms of salary during the first few years of their career?

<comment><USER77> It's hard to say because it depends on where you work. Are you talking the valley or somewhere else?

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Just out of interest - where's the best place to find market rates?

<comment><USER64> Glassdoor isn't bad, but the gold standard is to apply for ten jobs ;)

<comment><USER79> Actually I feel that salaries on glass door are lower than reality. At least that was my impression after getting 6 job offers - all materially higher than glass door median.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> I think a harder thing is making the decision to cut someone if they aren't making the cut. A lot of times it's like a bad girlfriend. The thought of being alone is worse than the pain you're going through... Especially if it's early and everyone is drinking from the proverbial fire hose.

</comment><comment><USER81> I believe a handful of motivated, and skilled engineers is more valuable than a large team. I think it is very wise for employers to spend lots of time finding a few great engineers and motivating/retaining them with high salaries and equity exposure. The advantage of having a smaller yet more talented team also has a wide variety of business-level benefits including better cultural direction, less management overhead, more accountability, etc.

</comment><comment><USER82> How about this algorithm ? Whenever someone leaves, present two choices to the team: 1\. Divide the salary of the person just left equally among the peers. For example, In the team of 5 developers, Joe was making 100k per year and he left the position. Give $25 raise to each developer in the team. OR 2\. Hire new person.

There should be a self-stabilizing compensation system where employee don't have to leave purely on the issue of low compensation.

<comment><USER83> That would create an incentive to have people leave.

<comment><USER84> Take the 25k bonus, give 10k to the original guy for leaving, and 15k for yourself. The original guy makes 40k for doing nothing and everyone else gets a raise.

<comment><USER82> Good improvement on the idea. People in the higher places (CEOs) do get severance packages, why not developers!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Fit. Fit isn't about any one thing: money, manager, work or culture, but any one thing badly out of alignment can destroy fit. Retention means having lines of communication open with important roles and important people (not always the same) and judging the health of the fit.

</comment><comment><USER86> As the type of employee described here, I think companies would do well paying their employees what they're worth. The only reason I've had to consider switching so far is due to significant pay differences.

<comment><USER87> on glassdor you can sometimes filter salaries by different levels of engineer's experience, but it only works for large companies

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> You know, sometimes I look at these figures and i have to laugh, in Spain I make about 25k$ yearly pre-taxes and I'm considered "lucky"

</comment><comment><USER83> Rather than say "givem a raise" have the constructive dialog: are you happy, and what can I do to keep you happy.

</comment><comment><USER89> If I don't get at least a 10% raise to match inflation without even asking for it, I start looking for greener pastures.

If I deliver, you should reward accordingly without bargaining or brownnosing.

If I don't deliver, just fire me, no questions asked.</comment>


Edward Snowden SXSW live stream - <AUTHOR> http://new.livestream.com/texastribune/events/2823117

<comment><USER2> The Streisand effect is in full force here. I only knew about this interview because Congressman Pompeo asked conference organizers to rescind their invitation to him on the grounds that Snowden is a "traitor"[0].

I can't watch this right now, but I'm looking forward to seeing it later tonight.

[0] [http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-sxsw-snowden-speech- has-...](http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-sxsw-snowden-speech-has- conference-buzzing-congressman-stewing/)

<comment><USER3> Do you really think his goal was to get them to rescind their invitation? I don't think I'm typically cynical on such matters but I have little doubt that his goal was to get publicity for _asking_ for this invitation to be rescinded. I suspect he got exactly what he wanted here -- go on record against Snowden _and_ get liberals attacking him. That can only help him fend off potential threats in a primary later this year...

<comment><USER4> > _" and get liberals attacking him"_

If there is one thing I don't understand about this entire issue, it is how partisan politics are actually playing out. Normally I just look at what people in my extended family think, but all of the Republicans/conservatives in my extended family think that all of this NSA stuff is _A Big Deal_ (tm) and think Snowden a patriotic hero _(presumably because they think that it paints the Obama administration in a bad light, which they are always all for.)_

I agree with their conclusions, though I have a different motivation for doing so.

Furthermore, I would say that all or almost all of the pro-NSA viewpoints I have heard from people around me are from not necessarily liberals, but people who buy into the Democratic party line very hard. They seem to have the same basic motivation as my conservative relatives, though different political alignment.

What is the deal with pro-NSA Republicans/conservatives though? I haven't actually met any in person so I haven't been able to grill any. Has anybody else had the opportunity?

<comment><USER5> _> >but all of the Republicans/conservatives in my extended family think that all of this NSA stuff is A Big Deal(tm) and think Snowden a patriotic hero (presumably because they think that it paints the Obama administration in a bad light, which they are always all for.)_

I'm glad there are republicans/conservatives that are against what NSA is doing because it supports my wild theory[1] about what would happen if things finally reach a boiling point.

I'm not glad that they hold Obama responsible for something that probably started before he showed up and he probably doesn't have absolute power to shutdown.

Of course, I'm not happy that Obama publicly defends NSA's behavior. Since he doesn't need to be re-elected, I'm assuming the opinions he has these days are truly his own without any other motive. That hurts. :(

1\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7003678](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7003678)

<comment><USER3> > Since he doesn't need to be re-elected, I'm assuming the opinions he has > these days are truly his own without any other motive. That hurts. :(

If you believe he's doing it because it's what he believes is best for the country, that's the best you can hope for I guess. He's a smart guy, with an appreciation of the Constitution, and a lot more information available to him than the vast majority of people on any issue put before him. Given that he's not up for re-election again, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on his motivations in his second term.

That's not to say that I agree with every thing he does, just that I take comfort in knowing that he's _relatively_ unencumbered at this point.

<comment><USER6> Any president would act thusly. He doesn't think he will abuse the power, and closing down the programs could risk him being blamed for any and all bad guy stuff for the rest of his term.

There is no upside for someone with power to ever give it up, for any reason at all. I'm still trying to figure out Gorbachev.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There were a few gems in the interview...

"We need public oversight ... some way for trusted public figures to advocate for us. We need a watchdog that watches Congress, because if we're not informed, we can't consent to these (government) policies."

A somewhat ok paraphrasing is here: [http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/tech/web/edward-snowden- sxsw/](http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/tech/web/edward-snowden-sxsw/)

One remark stuck with me "....the NSA surveillance was setting fire to the future of the Internet". Absolutely!

</comment><comment><USER8> if, like me, you can't get the stream live (?), afterwards the ACLU will post it here: [https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/coming-soon- virt...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/coming-soon-virtual- conversation-edward-snowden)

</comment><comment><USER9> 1\. Did he really have the US Constitution as a backdrop? Is he Saul Goodman?

2\. It's a shame no-one asked him about his opinions on Russia's recent actions. I know it isn't anything to do with the revelations he exposed, but seeking asylum in Russia makes him part of the broader political game.

<comment><USER10> There's a right time and right place to publicly criticize a country's actions, and I think it comes after you no longer depend on that country for political asylum

<comment><USER11> So basically he's just an opportunist who lives in a country as long as it suits him and then leaves it when he's being inconvenienced?

<comment><USER12> Yes because he thought his life would be a lot more convinient by realeasing the NSA documents to the world. Generally whistle blowers are seen as having incredibly cushy lives. I too believe that Edward Snowden did it for the fame and fortune that were sure to follow the leak.

I'm sorry if this is overly sarcastic but I do not know what other kind of answer you'd expect. The basis of your question is seems not to be based in reality you might as well ask why the founding fathers didn't believe laws applied to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If the connection is this bad, why waste your bandwidth on video? I turned it off because I did not find the echoing effects tolerable to listen to.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure it's bandwidth and not just that they're not muting their microphones while he talks. Either way, the experience is terrible.

<comment><USER15> Seriously. Manually mute your mic. This applies to everybody who uses hangouts or conferences with anything, ever.

<comment><USER16> It also makes a big difference to use a headset or headphones so the other person's audio is directed into your ears, not played out loud.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is there any transcript? The video ([https://youtube.com/watch?v=CPrDqoaHHSY](https://youtube.com/watch?v=CPrDqoaHHSY)) has a horrible echo. I couldn't understand half he was saying.

<comment><USER18> [https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/coming-soon- virt...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/coming-soon-virtual- conversation-edward-snowden)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Does anyone have a link to the transcript? The echo is really hard to ignore in the video.

</comment><comment><USER20> I can hardly understand anything, so here is a transcript -

[http://blog.inside.com/blog/2014/3/10/edward-snowden-sxsw- fu...](http://blog.inside.com/blog/2014/3/10/edward-snowden-sxsw-full- transcription-and-video)

</comment><comment><USER21> I'll wait for a transcript. The audio quality is too poor.

</comment><comment><USER22> whats' that awful echo ? can't understand a bit

</comment><comment><USER23> video of the event?

<comment><USER24> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPrDqoaHHSY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPrDqoaHHSY)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Not on first page? lol.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, I feel pretty ashamed of the HN community today, and I'm going to take the day off from it today. There were like 10 submissions and none of them were upvoted too much.

<comment><USER27> In all honesty, it wasn't a great interview and didn't raise any points that most of us here on HN didn't know already. Snowden didn't speak all that much and what he did say wasn't incredibly insightful if you're a technology professional. His main gripe is that secure tools are too hard to use, and real security will need to come from the Googles and Apples of the world, but it's not in their best interest given their reliance on private surveillance for advertising purposes. So basically it was a plea to the next generation of the "next big thing" to think about doing security in a way that actually secures information.

<comment><USER28> > _So basically it was a plea to the next generation of the "next big thing" > to think about doing security in a way that actually secures information._

So basically, another entity ready to be co-opted by its aligning self interests with the State?

It's like we never collectively learned anything from the cyhperpunks:

"They think they can always find someone to protect them. No, you can't. You've got to protect yourself."

Society doesn't want to hear that… The same society that wants to elect people to solve their problems time and time again… and you know what? Maybe what society gets is what it deserves time and time again… but it doesn't seem to stop individuals that do achieve what they seek, despite it all, and at the end of the day that's what it always seems to come down to, and the steps snowden took to even conduct the interview (that is intolerable to listen to for the echo) is a prime example.

<comment><USER27> No; his point was that companies like Google and Facebook will never be truly secure because true security is at odds with their business model. They're advertising companies, so they need to look at your communications to serve you ads. On a private level, that's fine, because you implicitly choose to submit to this surveillance in exchange for the service, and if Google oversteps their bounds, there is legal recourse.

What he was asking for was for the _next_ Google or Facebook, which will likely not be based on an advertising-centric business model, to take privacy seriously and do things in such a way that it can't be turned over to the government en masse. He didn't seem against surveillance as a concept; there is a place for targeted surveillance and he wants to use the technology to force individual surveillance to be the only viable option.

<comment><USER28> Sure, if one thinks the Facebook's and the Google's (and future ones) only misalignment is with their business model. I think it's more fundamental than that.

<comment><USER27> I don't know it gets more fundamental than the business model. Everything about a company supports its business model; not the other way around.

<comment><USER28> What about the formation of any corporation? To whom does the potential corporation submit itself to? And what benefits does it receive upon incorporation even well before any business model can be in sight or capital gained?

<comment><USER27> Corporations submit to the shareholders. Those shareholders submit to the government, because let's face it: governments have real power in the form of men with guns. Different governments have different rules about how and when those men with guns do things, and yes, that is a conversation that needs to happen in the US.

This was a talk targeted at technologists. All technologists can do is try to make it harder for governments to collect data on the entire population at once by using secure crypto schemes. If they want YOU, they can still get you, because one man vs. a government is never going to end in the man's favor.

<comment><USER28> _All technologists can do is try to make it harder for governments to collect data on the entire population at once by using secure crypto schemes._

I disagree with that statement, because it assumes all technologists pick the state as the enemy, or that they all think mass collection is a problem. I personally see the information asymmetry between who can have access to such information and those who do not as the problem, and one that I am personally working on solving.

And then there's this: look how many people you see advocating for "secure crypto schemes" and how many of them are actively developing them and have been for decades, and wonder about how effective they have been so far for the greater population or even to the population that is still advocating for it. Because I sure do wonder about that…</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Announcing CodeConf 2011 (GitHub is putting on a conference) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/780-announcing-codeconf-2011

<comment><USER2> I wish conferences weren't so damned expensive.

<comment><USER3> I recently got a "exhibitor kit" packet that lists the costs of renting certain items for your conference display. You know, tables, monitors, booth structures, rugs, plants, extension cords. Stuff marketing teams don't want to deal with packing in and out.

$65 to have power available in your area. $100 for a table. $200-500 for area rugs. $80 dollars an hour for labor to help setup or tear down. A 22" monitor is $200 - you could buy it and throw it away for that price.

I'm not saying it's highway robbery, but it's shocking, and probably indicates running a conference that pops up and then tears down efficiently is simply more expensive than you would initially guess.

<comment><USER4> Dude, those are low rates from my experience.

The rates are outrageous partly because all the work (from moving crates to Internet) is done by union workers. The convention centers have exclusive contracts with companies like GES, also driving up costs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article's link is to an informationless blog post. The conference site is <http://codeconf.com/>.

<comment><AUTHOR> Argh, really sorry about that, had the wrong url on my clipboard when I submitted — and unfortunately there's no editing urls :/ I guess maybe I should learn to read what I'm typing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Conferences are valued by their ability to capture the energy of a focused audience. OSCON lost most of its value as open source 'won': the featured technologies were too diverse and the rallying cry of 'open source!' was mostly met with "duh! of course".

I'm curious to understand the focus of this one: folks who love github? Cutting edge technology, as blessed by github?

<comment><USER7> I hear you. The lineup of speakers _does_ look pretty interesting though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> For a minute, I thought CodeCon was coming back. Darn! That was a cool conference. I somehow managed to scam my way into speaking at the first one -- I was the least smart person there by far!

<http://www.codecon.org/2009/>

</comment><comment><USER9> Just bought my ticket. I'll see you there!

(also, if any HN-ers are around and want to get lunch or something, lemme know. I might go a day early and just putz around SF.)</comment>


WordPress 3.3 "Sonny" - <AUTHOR> http://wordpress.org/news/2011/12/sonny/

<comment><USER2> List of improvements: <https://codex.wordpress.org/Version_3.3>

Since I didn't spot the link right away.

</comment><comment><USER3> Software developers can really learn a lot from the wordpress video style of showing new updates and enhancements. Great work!

</comment><comment><USER4> Yay! :)

<comment><USER5> Hi Matt! Congrats on the release - I just moved back to WP mainstream from a performance-oriented fork I'd been working on.

Was about to hit the downvote button, but then I realized it was you :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looking good. The flyout vs accordion wars seems never-ending.

I won't complain, but still prefer the accordion style, it's more visible, memorable, requires less dexterity from novice users, and adapts better to input methods other than a mouse.

<comment><USER5> Great job "not complaining" ;)

<comment><USER6> Commenting here instead of at WP.org makes it more of a rant than complaint :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm glad to see that, after so many years, WordPress will no longer create a URL like

yourblog.com/i-said-"here's-johnny!"

whenever you enter a title that includes quotes

</comment><comment><USER8> Stitt over Rollins? woah...thats brave

<comment><USER9> As far as I know, WordPress has never been named after a living jazzer.

<comment><USER10> How can you name a release after Sonny Stitt before naming a release after Charlie Parker?

<comment><USER9> We plan to be around for a while. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> how does the "ipad optimization" affect onswipe and similar companies?

<comment><USER12> It shouldn't. The optimization is just responsive design for the admin area. Twenty Eleven[1], the default theme, has a responsive design as well. I don't see either of those things taking away from a business like Onswipe. Until more responsive design themes get into the WP repository, that is.

1\. <http://twentyelevendemo.wordpress.com/></comment></comment>


Business plan competiton - prize = meet Mike Moritz + $15K in free services - <AUTHOR>

Pitch 2009: Napkin Startup Competition
Grand Prize: Meeting with Michael Moritz of Sequoia
Deadline: April 10, 2009
Do you have the world's next big idea? Here's your chance to PITCH.  Michael Moritz (Sequoia) is listening! Put it on a paper napkin!
Women 2.0's third-annual Startup Competition will provide your alpha, beta, or prototype-stage startup with exposure to early stage investors. Our judging panel includes investors and experienced startup executives who will provide valuable written feedback on your business.
NOTE: *only ONE of the founding members needs to be female to qualify.
HUNDREDS of submissions will receive valuable feedback from the judging panel of investors and experienced startup executives.
FIVE startups will be chosen to pitch live on Pitch Night: May 7th, 2009.
ONE winning startup gets a meeting with legendary investor Michael Moritz from Sequoia Capital in addition to $15K of free office space,legal services, marketing support, PR support, and more - everything you need to win with your new idea.
Entering the competition is easy. Just fill out information about your startup online, record a 2-minute video pitch, and snail mail us a cocktail napkin with your business plan scribbled on it. Deadline to submit your startup is April 10th, 2009 (firm deadline) -time to get started!
Are you in? http://pitch.women2.org <http://pitch.women2.org/> <comment><USER2> Hey, you get to meet with the guy who, out of paranoia to "protect his investment," hired a private investigator to stalk Sean Parker (as founder/CEO of Plaxo), and then spread nasty gossip about him throughout the Valley when Parker "crossed" him! And nearly ruined Parker's life / ability to do anything in SV, if it weren't for (the utterly brilliant) Peter Thiel! Yeah, let's get in bed with THAT guy! Because, you know, when times are tough (read: right now), he'll TOTALLY be there for us!

</comment><comment><USER3> Those guys should be calling me, not the other way around.</comment>


Using the Golden Research Engine to Query the Y Combinator S19 Batch - <AUTHOR> https://golden.com/blog/using-the-golden-research-engine-to-query-the-y-combinator-s19-batch/ <comment><USER2> The batch looks like it's full of established companies with polished products and big clients.

Wasn't YC about funding people before they even have a product?

<comment><USER3> Now that YC has deal flow from more established companies, it no longer needs to take the same kind of risk.

<comment><USER4> Also, it's gotten substantially easier for a team of 1-2 to build a polished product on a shoestring budget than it was when YC originally started.

The claims of big customers are likely mostly exaggerated—product-market fit is as difficult to achieve as ever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How is this different from AirTable or any other of the dozen of online spreadsheet tools? Just looks like an auto-aggregated table.

Serious question: Where's the "research" here? Sorry, not trying to be antagonistic, just not seeing what's new here.

</comment><comment><USER6> YC is really operating at scale now!!

</comment><comment><USER7> Thanks, Jude! From a quick scan, it seems there are quite a few companies in direct competition--particularly in: 1) incoming sharing education, 2) bespoke computer processors, 3) medical billing, and 4) recruiting software.

<comment><USER8> Where are you seeing the YC companies building computer processors?

<comment><USER7> Tensil.ai and Vorticity.xyz. If they are not both on Golden's list (I'm on mobile right now so cannot easily check), they can be found on YC's companies page. Ycombinator.com/companies</comment></comment></comment>


Meshbird – Distributed private networking - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/meshbird/meshbird <comment><USER2> Just took a quick look at the crypto implementation. It uses AES-256 in CBC mode but..... without an authentication tag (HMAC).

<comment><USER3> Also known as "The Cryptographic Doom Principle".

[https://moxie.org/blog/the-cryptographic-doom- principle/](https://moxie.org/blog/the-cryptographic-doom-principle/)

<comment><USER4> I hadn't come across that post that I can remember; a very nice explanation by Moxie. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Development seems to be.. on hold, at the very least. The last commit was almost 6 months ago (2016-08-23), and the most recently closed issue was closed over 8 months ago (2016-06-06), and before that a year ago (2016-02-22).

<comment><USER5> Or maybe the project is complete. ;)

<comment><USER4> Not based on the open issues and roadmap. I realize you were probably joking, but it's a valid point anyway; I considered addressing it in my original comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How is this doing discovery of other nodes? Says it is fully decentralized but just doing a `meshbird new` to get a key and then running `MESHBIRD_KEY="key" meshbird join` doesn't explain the discovery mechanism to me. Haven't dug into it much though.

<comment><USER7>
      > Technologies used
      >     DHT

<comment><USER6> Thanks!

<comment><USER8> It sounds like you figured it out from that...but I'm having trouble. Does it do discovery the first time you attempt to connect or something?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hey! I'm MeshBird's author. Feel free to ask a questions.

<comment><USER10> @rickette posted this:

 _" Just took a quick look at the crypto implementation. It uses AES-256 in CBC mode but..... without an authentication tag (HMAC)."_

Any response?

<comment><USER9> Good point. We are going to implement AES-GCM encryption based data transfer. Why AES-GCM to solve HMAC missing? Because Go have low-level asm optimisations. This is open way to full utilization of 10G/40G networks.

<comment><USER11> Seriously, I'd advise that you implement an HMAC today, and implement GCM tomorrow — using raw CTR mode really is that dangerous. And make sure that you never ever ever reuse IVs, ever.

This sort of thing is incredibly dangerous. Props to you for coming up with a great UX, but crypto is very, _very_ difficult to get right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Soit's like zerotier?

</comment><comment><USER13> It's a bit misleading to say no gateways are required. As far as I can tell it uses STUN/TURN for NAT busting. When NAT busting does not work (in case of corporate firewall for example), communication falls back to the TURN server as a relay.

IIRC according to google a few years ago, something like 10-20% of STUN/TURN traffic needs to be routed over the TURN relay server.

This is a gateway.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't fully understand purpose of this project after visiting the website and other links provided in comments. How is it different from regular VPN?

Edit: found explanation on ZeroTier blog: [https://www.zerotier.com/blog/?p=833](https://www.zerotier.com/blog/?p=833)

<comment><USER9> 1\. now central server 2\. node autodiscovery across Internet

For example, you can easily build Cassandra, MongoDB or PostgreSQL cluster on top of Meshbird networking in different countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Does anyone here have any experience with other distributed VPNs?

<comment><USER16> Tinc ([http://www.tinc-vpn.org](http://www.tinc-vpn.org)) works well for me and can do meshing.

<comment><USER17> gvpe is similar to tinc, and I wrote up a small piece about using it on Debian here:

[https://debian- administration.org/article/695/Joining_dispar...](https://debian- administration.org/article/695/Joining_disparate_hosts_into_a_VPN_with_gvpe)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why not just use cjdns?

</comment><comment><USER19> The real win here is clearly that abomination of a GoPher

</comment><comment><USER20> "Better encryption" in the roadmap and then "curl ... | sh".

No. Thanks.

<comment><USER21> "curl ... | sh" is absolutely fine. If you want to complain about something, complain about the fact that the URL being used is an http URL instead of an https one.

<comment><USER22> "curl | sh" is not in itself any less secure than "npm install" or "go get", but it is often a good indicator of a project that takes usability more seriously than security. IMO, it's also seen as "the new way" to do installs, and implies a lack of respect for the fodgy old way to do things (e.g. with a package manager).

<comment><USER21> > _… is not in itself any less secure … takes usability more seriously than > security._

You're contradicting yourself. If it's not any less secure, then how does using it mean you're not taking security securely? And you're also treating usability as if it's not important, when in fact usability is very nearly the most important part. If your software isn't usable, then nobody will use it, and if nobody is using it then it doesn't matter how secure it is.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Official Google Blog: Sorting 1PB with MapReduce - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/sorting-1pb-with-mapreduce.html <comment><USER2> If my math is right:

(68sec * 1024) / 60 / 60 / 4 \--- (68 sec for 1TB) (1024 to make 1TB) /60/60 (hours) and /4 as there are 4x as many computers....

So ideally taking the 1TB sort to 1PB on 4x the hardware would be 4.83hrs.

Google's 1PB sort was in 6 hours - So that's fairly linear. Impressive.

<comment><USER3> Isn't the mapreduce sort NlogN in the number of entries? That would make 1e13 log 1e13/(1e10 log 1e10) 68s/4 = 6.1h. So they were actually _faster_ than the possible scaling? Doesn't sound right...

<comment><USER2> This is a really good point.

I was assuming that the sort was actually a partial sort - returning the top "x" (admittedly - even then isn't linear). However, I was also assuming (n << x), which would almost certainly be the case with a large data set. It's a fairly common approach, but not sure why I automatically assumed it.

If the sort is complete, then yeah, that changes things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _We were writing it to 48,000 hard drives (we did not use the full capacity of these disks, though), and every time we ran our sort, at least one of our disks managed to break (this is not surprising at all given the duration of the test, the number of disks involved, and the expected lifetime of hard disks)._

I'm a bit at lost here. Does that mean that one in ~50K hard disks fail within six hours of usage?

<comment><USER5> Not at all surprising given the large number of disks involved. Here is a very interesting analysis of actual Google failure rates: [http://storagemojo.com/2007/02/19/googles-disk-failure- exper...](http://storagemojo.com/2007/02/19/googles-disk-failure-experience/)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the pointer; it's interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Heh... I guess this is what Yahoo gets for talking smack about how quickly they could sort 1TB: [http://developer.yahoo.net/blogs/hadoop/2008/07/apache_hadoo...](http://developer.yahoo.net/blogs/hadoop/2008/07/apache_hadoop_wins_terabyte_sort_benchmark.html)

<comment><USER7> Google have been working on Map Reduce for 4 years longer than anyone else.

I'm actually pretty happy that we (Yahoo!) are talking about what we are doing in the Open and contributing in an Open project.

You could reproduce what we did. Obviously you can't reproduce what Google did. What's more useful?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 4000 computers over 6 hours... Makes you wonder about electricity costs of this experiment.

<comment><USER9> Speaking of electricity, at one point Google claimed that during a Web search your PC uses more energy sending the request, waiting, and displaying the results than Google uses to perform the search. So the next time you need to sort 1PB of data it may be cheaper to send it to Google. :-)

<comment><USER10> Lol, good idea. Although I could see M$ or Yahoo! looking to make some sort of a deal like that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> OK. Zhuangbility.</comment>


Growth Hacking BLOCKS' Kickstarter Campaign to $1.6M - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@alfundi/on-growth-hacking-blocks-kickstarter-campaign-to-1-6-22b0f431c9a5#.flu7fd2bi <comment><USER2> I hate the term "growth hacking" because I have never seen a single genuine person who proudly uses that term in sentences even if that is what they do. Most "growth hackers" are good at "growth hacking" their own career by writing blog posts like this. Notice how he doesn't even link to whatever this BLOCKS thing is, but does link his own mailing list at the end which he will probably will spam the hell out of once you subscribe and call it "growth hacking".</comment>


Hedy Lamarr - a movie star and an inventor - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr

<comment><USER2> not to be confused with _"Hedley Lamarr"_ from Blazing Saddles...</comment>