Babylon 5 redefined TV science fiction, so why isn't it better known? - <AUTHOR> http://www.avclub.com/article/ibabylon-5i-redefined-tv-science-fiction-so-why-is-88413 <comment><USER2> I just finished re-watching B5 a couple of weeks ago. It's one of my favorite sci-fi shows of all time.

I have to admit, watching it again after the revelation that Michael O'Hare was written out of the show due to mental illness puts the whole thing in a very different light. The introduction of Bruce Boxleitner in the first episode of the second season always felt a bit weird, and now the reason is clear. It's hard not to imagine how it could have been, as a lot of things in the story would have been much stronger if Sinclair had remained the commander of B5 until he went back in time (which I imagine would have happened later in the series). A whole bunch of major plot events in the later seasons would have made more sense with Sinclair, foreshadowing in the first season had to be re-done in the second season in order to fit Sheridan into the story. It's especially apparent since Sheridan is IMHO one of the weaker characters in the series. Most of the actors grow into their roles, but Boxleitner's Sheridan never seems to get comfortable.

And of course, the pacing gets really weird at the start of the fourth season. They race to finish the shadow war plotline in the first few episodes, but I suspect that was supposed to last the whole season. Then they have to power through the earth civil war which really was supposed to be fleshed out better before kicking into high gear.

B5 is a great show. If you haven't seen it, you should. But man, I'd like to see the B5 that could have been, where Sinclair was the commander and the writers had time to flesh out the end of the shadow war and earth civil war storylines properly.

</comment><comment><USER3> I love Babylon 5 so I appreciate the thrust of this article, but I'm not really sure what he evidence is that it's under appreciated. Most people who like science fiction TV know and love Babylon 5.

</comment><comment><USER4> B5 also suffered from the whims of syndication, and god help you if you were in a market like mine where it came on at literally midnight.

<comment><USER5> Australia? Here it was midnight if you were lucky, but sometimes 11pm or 2am depending on the output of a magic 8-ball. If you wanted to know when it was returning so you didn't miss a cliffhanger you'd have to check the TV guide religiously because it wasn't advertised, then hope the TV guide matched reality.

I don't miss network TV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Some concrete things that B5 contributed and innovated on (as I understand it, perhaps I'm missing some things):

 _Extensive use of CGI to drastically reduce set costs_. The core of the B5 show takes place on relatively extensive sets that are reused throughout the series, with one-off locations presented with large amounts of composited CG backgrounds. All of the space and planetary footage is rendered, and this choice of setting (simplified lighting and shot composition) played heavily to the favor of the tech at the time--I think most if not all of the work was done on Amigas and Video Toaster.

 _Heavy interaction with the fanbase using Usenet_. I think that B5 was probably one of the first times, if not _the_ first time, that fans got to significantly interact with the folks who were creating a show in a meaningful way. These days, it's pretty obvious and common to have shows use their online presence and discussion panels and whatnot to create organic advertising, but back in the day having JMS show up and answer questions and explain why things happened the way they did was pretty amazing.

 _Tightly and long-plotted series storyline._ Compared with basically any of the Star Treks (and DS9 is quite arguable because reasons), Doctor Who, Buffy, X-Files, or other contemporary shows, B5 Had 5 years of plot to get through and managed to do so. Every episode (barring some crap chunks of season 1) brings in a new plot line, advances an existing plot line, or closes up a plot line. This is a series that really bears watching twice specifically so that you can see how seemingly little things telegraph well in advance important later points. At least through season 4 I never felt that there was an ass- pull or a moment where the narrative didn't know where the hell it was going. I felt like the writer(s) _respected_ me and were going to take their time to weave a good narrative, however long that took.

 _Genuinely terrible characters and no-win situations_. Nowadays it's become somewhat in-vogue to have darker and edgier storylines, but at the time seeing a show willing to do just really evil things (killing children) and having horrible tragedies occur (depicting the _permanent_ loss of at least one alien race that we'd gotten used to seeing around) was rare. Not only was it rare, but it did so in conjunction with a fundamentally optimistic view about people and the future--which is exceptionally rare these days.

 _Displaying competent and important women and LGBT characters_. Delenn is an obvious example for her work with the Minbari and later actions, but Susan Ivanova is probably one of the most capable yet human characters I've seen in television science-fiction. Additionally, the way the show explored her interactions with Talia Winters was basically pushing those themes about as far as you could in television at the time it came out.

Honestly, the only show I'd put in the same ballpark would be the anime epic _Legend of Galactic Heroes_. I'd strongly suggest, if you enjoy these things, treating yourself to B5 seasons 1-4 and seeing just how well done this material can be even in the absence of large budgets or well-known actors.

<comment><USER5> > Genuinely terrible characters and no-win situations

Did they really have completely evil characters? Even the most hitler like character had a really fleshed out personality.

> Displaying competent and important women and LGBT characters.

Also, normal looking women (and men), not the supermodel level that you find in most american shows.

<comment><USER6> They had a few characters that were pretty much completely evil, for example the lady who had the key for immortality (not as lame as it sounds). I'd give more examples, but spoilers. :)</comment></comment></comment>


Red Hat: Linux on ARM Is No Joke  - <AUTHOR> http://www.serverwatch.com/server-trends/red-hat-linux-on-arm-is-no-joke.html

<comment><USER2> I'm searching for a 11"-13" ARM notebook with atleast a half-HD resolution or more. I want to use it for C/TeX/HTML&CSS/LibreOffice, so Android is a no go for me at the moment. The only solution I've found is using the Motorola Lapdock together with a MK802 or similiar ARM usbstick.

Does someone know a device who will meet my criteria?</comment>


Efficiently Getting Delicious Save Count of Your Posts - <AUTHOR> http://www.moretechtips.net/2010/07/efficiently-getting-delicious-save.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Although there are many sites that describe how to get Delicious bookmaking count of some URL. I learned that you can get the save counts of multiple URL's in one request! And since I didn't see that mentioned anywhere -even on Delicious feeds API page- I thought I should do..</comment>


JPEG XL: Next-Generation of Image Format for the Internet [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYJf7kelYQQ <comment><AUTHOR> Slides: [https://www.slideshare.net/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019...](https://www.slideshare.net/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019-jon- sneyer)

Background: JPEG XL is a combination of Cloudinary's FUIF [1] (successor of FLIF [2]) and Google's Pik [3].

Committee Draft (Aug 2019): [https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03565](https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03565)

Technical Details: [https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings- of...](https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of- spie/11137/111370K/JPEG-XL-next-generation-image-compression-architecture-and- coding-tools/10.1117/12.2529237.full)

Features / Goals:

\- high quality compression (> 60% over JPEG-1)

\- royalty-free with open source implementations available from the start

\- versatile: supports alpha transparency, high bit depth (16-bit), lossless compression, animations

\- progressive decoding / "responsive by design"

\- legacy-friendly: reversible transcoding of JPEGs with 22% size reduction (demo available [4])

Comparisons:

\- JPEG 2000, JPEG XR: only marginal compression improvements

\- WebP: limited (8-bit, 4:2:0), no progressive decoding

\- BPG/HEIF (HEVC): patent-encumbered (not royalty-free), no progressive decoding, complex

\- AVIF (AV1): no progressive decoding, complex, slow?

[1] [https://cloudinary.com/blog/introducing_fuif_responsive_imag...](https://cloudinary.com/blog/introducing_fuif_responsive_images_by_design)

[2] [http://flif.info/](http://flif.info/)

[3] [https://github.com/google/pik](https://github.com/google/pik)

[4] [https://google.github.io/brunsli/](https://google.github.io/brunsli/)

<comment><USER2> From the video I was expecting even higher compression than HEIF, but > 60% over JPEG-1 seems to be about the same as HEIF.

And what are the downside? Whenever something sounds too good to be true it often means we are overlooking something.

<comment><USER3> There is a Japanese independent (simple) comparison between av1, bpg, WebP and pik for use in photo compression. Pik won it. JPEG XL is an improved from pik.

[https://qiita.com/fg11894](https://qiita.com/fg11894)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why can't HN commenters stay on topic, on any given post? - <AUTHOR> The pattern has been consistent for a while. At any given time, and at any given topic. A post's topic would be 'A' but the crowd here would never have a straight up comment stream on that exact topic. Why must comments diverge all the time from the topic at hand when staying on topic is exactly what one can do online in concise manner?  Doesn't this render the value of comments useless?  If any given post/article can stay on specific topic (which it most certainly does almost all the time) then why can't the collective group of people do the same, particularly when the technology is specifically designed to achieve that goal?<p>I don't mean to start a flame war over the so called pathetic nature of commenting in general on the web, but HN is the last place one should expect to see such a behavior (but we do).  What can be done to bring the focus back on quality so everyone's time can be spent on reading comments on topics on any given post? <comment><USER2> I think this is a product of how humans think in general. A topic may remind someone of a related topic and then that gets brought up. Someone may say something that isn't quite right and it gets pointed out that's wrong. But then there will be some nuance to that point and now you're discussing the nuance.

A great example of this is the fact that when I read your post I was reminded of my biggest complaint about HN and was about to write what that is. It's very hard to stay on point. Here's an example of a type of interaction that illustrates this.

There are a number of times that I've responded to someone to point out what I think is an error. People will then assume what my opinion on the topic is and comment. My comment, logically speaking, didn't imply any beliefs on my part. I just pointed out something that is wrong. But we sometimes tend to make assumptions on what someone says about that person based on past interactions or media influence. And then things start to deviate.

I don't think anything can be done about this. I think it would make HN too sterile if something were done about it. This phenomenon is part of us being social beings.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I think this is a product of how humans think in general.

Yes, that's exactly what I am questioning. Why does it have to be exactly the same when we are online, as opposed to being in person?

A submitted article, opinion piece (or news, etc, anywhere) is almost always on a particular topic or main idea. Who would consistently and daily read an author who goes all over in his/her thinking on any given article? There is almost always a "point" of any given article and the submitted story. Why then the comment stream goes all over?

> I don't think anything can be done about this.

Well I don't know if I agree entirely. If nothing else, people can stay silent if they don't necessarily have anything in particular to say about the topic at hand (expert or somewhat expert opinion or additional info). Staying silent wouldn't necessarily lead things to 'too sterile'. This can possibly be achieved by being cognizant and conscious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _Doesn't this render the value of comments useless?_

I don't find it so.

 _If any given post /article can stay on specific topic (which it most certainly does almost all the time) then why can't the collective group of people do the same, particularly when the technology is specifically designed to achieve that goal?_

I reject the premise that _" the technology is specifically designed to achieve that goal"_. I believe a good conversation _does_ branch out and lead one into a myriad to topics, where those topics relate back to the primary topic.

If conversations here were routinely jumping to something _completely_ unrelated, then I could see your point. But I don't feel like I see that, at least not in the conversations I participate in.

<comment><AUTHOR> My point is that a thread (topic) + comment mechanism provides a feature for humans to stay consistent at any given time. You have a submission box and you have a comment box. That's what I specifically mean by 'technology is designed to achieve that goal'.

> I believe a good conversation does branch out and lead one into a myriad to > topics

If you look at this from your personal/individual perspective, then yes, that's no issue. But look at it from the perspective of the platform and the audience as a collective whole. The "branching out" leads to reduction in quality for everyone (may not necessarily so for one or two people who are engaged on the branched out topic). People who are not engaged, may not necessarily achieve anything if there are tons of branches under one topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You have to consider that the purpose of a forum is to have a discussion, not to post articles, dissertations and theses at each other. That most comments carry low relative intellectual gravity is a feature, not a bug. Comments don't exist to provide "value", they exist to facilitate communication between posters.

And it's a fundamental aspect of the threaded nature of the forum that comments deviate from the central topic and become more narrowly focused and relevant to fewer posters as a branch diverges. I supposed if they switched to a purely linear format, where every comment was explicitly to the OP, then that might focus threads more, but they would also be less interesting.

<comment><AUTHOR> All good points.

But why 'less interesting' when comments are meant to be explicit to the OP?

Wouldn't the fact that there are ample opportunities to post diverse topics through multiple individual posts, provides even more ample opportunities to comment in-context on each one of them individually?

Contrast this to an offline world scenario, where let's say, you are in a setting with limited time on your hand. Your conversation (on any given topics) will start and end at some point because you are not going to be around together for long. In such offline contexts, you naturally may have various continuous topics to discuss and it is fine if things diverge.

But online, you technically do not have such time restrictions. Plus, you have a platform which facilitates contextual discussions which can stay neat and tidy. My argument here is, that we tend to not take advantage of the real value of the online forums (by being all over, as if we are not going to get the second opportunity).

I tend to think that the concise comments online, on an exact topic at hand, provide collective value, as opposed to diverged sentences or two. This does not mean that 100 people would write counter-article and/or dissertation on the OP (that would really be boring for sure). But instead of 100 short and diverged comments, 5 focused comments (counter, etc) are better overall in providing better value for the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> >What can be done to bring the focus back on quality so everyone's time can be spent on reading comments on topics on any given post?

I don't at all share your assumption that quality=strictly on topic.

>Doesn't this render the value of comments useless?

Do you think it does? Well..I guess you're in a very small minority there.

Maybe start a new site where there's a penalty for commenting off-topic? You can be the judge of that - I suppose someone will have to be.

If someone comments more generally, philosophically, 'a level up', is that off-topic? If someone comments on one tiny part of the topic, is that off- topic? I suspect one person's off-topic is another's insightful comment.

<comment><AUTHOR> As an OP, I'm engaged in this topic (you can look at my other comments on the primary thread).

I'd provide a comment back to your comment here but two of your first sentences fall into the category of ... not providing any direct value to my original comment. In your first comment you disagree with me. Fine. In your second comment, you are asking a question to a question, and then you judge me back. There's nothing I can say about this.

WRT to your third sentence/paragraph, about ..

> If someone comments more generally, philosophically, 'a level up', is that > off-topic? If someone comments on one tiny part of the topic, is that off- > topic? I suspect one person's off-topic is another's insightful comment.

I agree with you above. It is a subjective matter for sure. But you probably missed my point about this question asked as collective whole. If you look at things individually, then yes, it makes sense what you're saying. But I am asking this question from the collective-whole perspective. It isn't about one or two person. It is about everyone, looking at things from the platform's perspective. I tend to think, all comments (short form or long form) if they are on topic, provide value to the post at hand.

<comment><USER5> >In your first comment you disagree with me

Well, I was saying "You are making an assumption here that I don't think is justified. Anecdata: I for one don't believe it." The way you were writing, you didn't seem to realize you were making that assumption, but that it was the plain truth, so I was letting you know.

>In your second comment, you are asking a question to a question

Your question seemed to be rhetorical, i.e. you were assuming that being off- topic renders comments valueless. If it wasn't rhetorical - No, I really don't think "off-topic" comments are valueless. (Besides that being not a clear-cut category, value on one side of the line, valueless on the other)

>all comments (short form or long form) if they are on topic, provide value to the post at hand.

Well, that's doesn't seem tru either - quite a few are downvoted and flagged for being abhorrent, or devoid of value etc. Maybe you get value from each and every on-topic comment. But that's different from what you were saying earlier, which is assuming that quality=on-topic and off-topic=valueless, and asking what to do about that problem. I was questioning your assumptions, because they don't sound right to me. (e.g. The only good response to "What do we do about the aliens making crop circles?" is to question the assumptions made.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Tbh, I don't see most articles staying on topic. They'd be much shorter if they did not add the human angle, some backstory, and that time somebody did something that hilariously failed but led to whatever somebody is writing about today.

And how do you even decide what's on topic and what's not? Is pointing out some flaw of some pattern on topic for an article that says "this pattern has this great advantage", or is only that advantage and its greatness on topic? I'm pretty sure the perceived width of any topic varies between readers, so others might not consider that same things off topic that you do.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is almost always a main idea to any given topic (it starts and ends by saying something specific).

> And how do you even decide what's on topic and what's not?

Good point. But in general, one can sense an overall picture emerge out of a comment stream. As you scroll and read comments, you can tell when the stream provides value or not. My point here is, that when people do not stay consistent to the original topic, the value of the comment stream goes down. And here, I'm not talking about comments being totally out of context of any given original topic. Even a slight divergence leads to unnecessary path down the road.

<comment><USER6> You are right about there being a main idea. And then there's all the off topic-stuff that surrounds that main idea and makes the article long enough to be considered an article ;)

The value of comments are very subjective. To you, they might not be valuable, to me they might be (depending on my mood, maybe).

When talking about things, especially with people you don't know and without all the non-verbal side-info, you'll often have to agree on what you actually mean with some term you're using, and off you go from an article about any topic to a discussion of not-really-related things.

I don't have the impression that people just jump to very off topic things, but then again, you might be reading totally different submissions on HN based on your interests vs what I click on. Maybe if you gave some examples of low- value off-topic-discussions, it'd be clearer.

<comment><AUTHOR> How about an example of say, someone shows something new on HN, and the number of commenters providing alternate services, line up? I guess the 'shameless- plug' types are fine (because they provide value) but my point still would be, why not just discuss the pros and cons of what is being shared?

Or, another example may be. It has been consistent, that whenever a thread starts up about any given password managers, the discussion right away diverge to myriad of other password generators. Back in the days, it used to be about bookmarks managers.

I agree that this is a subjective topic in itself. My main concern is that as the number of people commenting gets large, the value being derived out of any post, gets challenging. My argument here is, that this should have been potentially managed better online.

<comment><USER6> It sounds like you're weighing depth vs width in comment sections. By depth I mean "more detail on this single thing", by width I mean "more over an overview of things like this single thing". Maybe you can tag users accordingly, and ignore comments based on the "this user tends to go wide, not deep"-score. Would be something to show (and get annoyed with endless possible alternatives mentioned in the comments ;).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Did you know that that the average cruising airspeed velocity of an unladen European Swallow is roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles an hour?

</comment><comment><USER8> /newcomments is probably contributing to this behavior. As comments there are out of context and people jump to respond within the context each specific comment brings, not the story.</comment>


LinkedIn phishing vulnerability - <AUTHOR> http://sigkill.dk/blog/archives/311-LinkedIn-phishing-vulnerability.html

<comment><USER2> Ok, so for this to work you have to click on a phishing email.

A few weeks ago I was working on the linkedin api and I noticed that if I was sending messages to multiple contacts, they would all see each other's email on cc instead of ccn. I reported this to the team and I hope it's fixed by now. It's not a big deal, but it's a way to know the email address of all your contacts.

<comment><USER3> You can see the email details on your contacts on linkedin anyway, no ?

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure about that. But anyway your contacts will see your contacts's email.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow. So easy to exploit...</comment>


Why Aren't Hiroshima and Nagasaki War Crimes? - <AUTHOR> http://fff.org/2016/05/12/arent-hiroshima-nagasaki-war-crimes/ <comment><USER2> Winners of wars have historically written history and decided how wartime actions are viewed. Hence Allied forces as the victors got to choose who would stand trial for war crimes.

In modern wars (practically starting with the Vietnam war), the growing power of media and plummeting costs of acquiring and transmitting photos and videos have given even the losers the power to subvert narratives put out by victors, hence the necessity of even powerful forces to take additional precautions.

</comment><comment><USER3> The comments in this Quora article on this very subject[0] make a good case that the atomic bombings weren't war crimes. As much as I disagree with the atomic bombings on moral and humanitarian grounds, and have a general knee- jerk bias against American militarism in general, it seems the US didn't violate the rules of war which were understood at the time and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. The atomic bombings were acts of warfare, but not war crimes.

Of course, it's worth mentioning that the #1 answer in that article is "Because the US won," which is also true. Even if the atomic bombings had been war crimes, who's going to put the world's only (at the time) nuclear superpower on trial for them?

[0][https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-face-a-human- rights-t...](https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-face-a-human-rights-trial- for-dropping-the-bombs-at-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki)

</comment><comment><USER4> > On the one hand, we're told that the intentional targeting of civilians in > wartime is a war crime.

It is not that simple, consider the WWII bombing of Dresden (which is defendable IMHO), for example...

<comment><USER5> Wikipedia: "researchers have asserted that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, was targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre. Critics of the bombing argue that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, and that the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Simply becauase the sensibilities and perspective that would make it one came into being after WWII.

</comment><comment><USER7> Because it wasn't done by Russians

</comment><comment><USER8> The incendiary bombings of Tokyo killed more.</comment>


The Inner Path to Clear Thinking: Thoughts from a CIA Veteran - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mmeditations/the-inner-path-to-clear-thinking-thoughts-from-a-cia-veteran-f13912c1bbb <comment><USER2> Always the good ones behind the paywall

<comment><USER3> 1\. intelligence is a matter of applying the correct model without allowing your emotions to interfere.

2\. your models and your application of them are affected by your experience, emotions, and social constraints; and the specific information you have been exposed to. it is important to continue to attempt to understand how your perspective is distorted by your own self.

3\. in order to do that, train yourself on common mental biases and iteratively seek improvement.

links included- [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of- intellig...](https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of- intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence- analysis/PsychofIntelNew.pdf)

[https://www.fs.blog/2014/02/decision- journal/](https://www.fs.blog/2014/02/decision-journal/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)</comment></comment>


Flight Attendants Don't Drink Coffee/Tea on Airplanes - <AUTHOR> https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/the-surprising-thing-flight-attendants-say-you-should-never-do-on-an-airplane-though-youve-probably-done-it-many-times-before.html <comment><USER2> The interesting thing is, this article sounds scary ... "ooooh, e.coli, fear, tremble, shake". But while people _could_ get sick from drinking airplane coffee/tea, I question if there's any evidence that this is __actually happening __. That is, where 's the long line of people who actually got sick as a result of drinking a cup of coffee or tea on an airplane.

Anecdotally (and we all know what that's worth) when I was a consultant I flew around all the time and I always drank coffee on planes and I never got sick. And I can't recall a single case of a colleague getting sick in any way that would have any apparent connection to this "problem".

Hey, maybe it's a real thing, and I was just very lucky. But color me skeptical with regards to the idea that drinking airplane coffee/tea is actually any particular threat.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why is it that so many industries cut corners and only fix problems when a light is shined?

It's always tricky with food/drink because the result of cutting corners is not death (usually) but just inconvenience for the victim.</comment>


Python Release 2.7.12 - <AUTHOR> https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-2712/ <comment><USER2> This is an old release. The release schedule is outlined in pep-373. Looks like python 2.7.13 is due next month.

[https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why has this been submitted? It's not a new release (Release Date: 2016-06-25) and it's just a link to the download page.

</comment><comment><USER4> End of life is 2020, and this release is from June, so it's a bit surprising it shows up on HN now.

<comment><USER5> Heh, didn't notice until you and orf mentioned it. Good thing there's an unvote button.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is there an end of life planned where they stop all updates?

<comment><USER7> Yes, but it will be forked and maintained by other people anyways.

Python 2 is forever, best get used to it.

<comment><USER6> I guess they wouldn't be allowed to call it "Python"?

<comment><USER6> Seems weird to downvote. Python is a trademark of the Python foundation and if you de-eol something they want to eol I don't think they'd let you use the name.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


OkCupid's setting up threesomes - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/08/okcupid_threesome_dating_market/ <comment><USER2> It's sad that they are promoting it as a step towards polyamory. You can only tag one of your partners. Also on the website itself they only speak about open relationships.

This only plays in the hands of those "We're searching for a women to pep-up our love life"-couples.

</comment><comment><USER3> I mean, honestly... it makes sense. I'm in a vanilla relationship now, but in my more wild days it was always challenging to find a female to have a threesome with. So hard they call those girls "unicorns."

People want a safe place to find threesomes that doesn't being the element of sleaziness that CL brings.

OKC is legitimate and seen as less scuzzy than CL, and less bot-overrun than Adult Friend Finder.</comment>


RFC: linear history vs merge commits - <AUTHOR> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-January/129723.html <comment><USER2> There's an option between #1 and #2 that they're not listing. They could allow merges, but only merges after a rebase on top of upstream produced with --no- ff.

The advantage of that is that you get "linear" history as far as the just- pushed topic topic building upon the last one, and you can use merges to group commits, which allows e.g. easy reverting of an entire buggy feature introduced over N commits by reverting out the merge.

<comment><USER3> Yes this.

I've enforced this rule with my team for years and our git tree is a completely flat tree with the occasional branch diverging from and merging back into master.

Here's what it looks like in practice: [https://imgur.com/a/OMplzuv](https://imgur.com/a/OMplzuv) (although in this example you can see that someone messed up and thought they rebased before merging but actually didn't; mistakes happen.)

<comment><USER4> > you can see that someone messed up and thought they rebased before merging > but actually didn't

we use a pre-receive hook which checks that the "oldest ancestor" between the branch being pushed to (i.e. current master's SHA) and the branch being pushed (i.e. the tip of what is to become the new branch) is actually the current master's sha; else, the push is rejected with "Rebase a merged branch before merging it into master".

"oldest ancestor" being:

* take git rev-list --boundary $current_master_sha..$new_sha

* get the last line matching ^- and remove the ^-

* that should be $current_master_sha; if not, error.

<comment><USER5> > we use a pre-receive hook

But in the context of this discussion, LLVM is moving to GitHub and there is no possibility of custom pre-receive hook there as far as I know.

<comment><USER2> As discussed in the linked E-Mail thread they're either talking about using GitHub as a publishing platform for something where they do have custom hooks, or making everything go through GitHub pull requests.

Using either of those methods they can enforce this. E.g. if they go through PRs just write a script that e.g. grabs the refs for the PR, rebases (and --no-ff merges, depending) the commits there, pushes them to master, and closes the PR as merged. The user running that script would be the only one allowed to commit to "master", and would use its own scripted method of integrating them, instead of clicking "Merge" in the GitLab UI.

<comment><USER5> LLVM allows direct push to master from its contributor.

If we were to go through pull-requests, we wouldn't need anything as GitHub has this setting built-in: [https://help.github.com/articles/configuring- commit-rebasing...](https://help.github.com/articles/configuring-commit- rebasing-for-pull-requests/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As I've explained before, at Sun we used a rebase workflow -- linear history -- for decades. Here's one comment on HN from me about this:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19012599](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19012599)

IMO: linear history all the way. Please!

<comment><USER7> How many developers contribute to a given repository using this model? A problem we have with rebasing is that developers wanting their code merged are constantly having to start CI pipelines over because they had to rebase because another developer's code merged into master before theirs.

<comment><USER6> At Sun, just in Solaris engineering it was over 2,000 during the 8 years I was there.

For large projects, the upstream would get closed for a few hours (or days, even, like when SMF and ZFS integrated) so that tests could all pass without getting reset.

Optimizing CI/CD is still important for the smaller pushes.

A merge workflow doesn't really prevent pushes the get in ahead of yours from resetting the testing of yours, so anyways, I think the CI/CD thing is _orthogonal_ to merge vs linear history.

<comment><USER7> So were developers constantly having to rebase their feature branches trying to race them into master before another developer merged? How did you solve that problem?

<comment><USER5> Parent should clarify, but I doubt they were actually _using git_ (Sun is quite old, and comment said "for decades", git isn't that old).

In other VCS systems than git, you don't have the same "immutability" issue which means a "push" can be (for example) just sending a "diff" to apply to the server.

<comment><USER6> We used Teamware, then Mercurial. Always in a rebase workflow, at least from 1992 onward IIRC (I was there from late 2002 through one year past the completion of the Oracle acquisition).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Our current policy in GitLab is like a combination of 1 and 2:

> Merge commit with semi-linear history

> A merge commit is created for every merge, but merging is only allowed if > fast-forward merge is possible. This way you could make sure that if this > merge request would build, after merging to target branch it would also > build.

<comment><USER8> Exactly, we prefer that too. But we haven't found a way to enforce that on GitHub. Is there builtin precommit hooks for that on Gitlab?

<comment><USER7> Not sure about GitHub. In GitLab it's just a Merge Request setting[1].

[1] [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/#semi...](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/#semi- linear-history-merge-requests)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In my organization we use merge commits because references to the original commits in the PR discussion (including code comments) get all confused after a rebase.

Is there a good way to avoid that?

</comment><comment><USER10> A nice thing about merges is:

If you have CI on every PR, and you require all merges into master to be fast- forward merges, then you a) guarantee that master is always green and b) don't need to run CI again on the master branch.

If you want a) integration tests that may take some minutes, and b) a bullet proof guarantee on always having those tests green on master...

..then I don't think linear history can be made to work (without a lot of real rebase pain in daily work). I would love to be proved wrong.

<comment><USER7> > b) don't need to run CI again on the master branch.

Not _exactly_ true. We have a different CI pipeline run based on whether the commit is on a feature branch vs. master.

On a feature branch you probably just want to make sure it builds and passes tests. On master you might want to do things like generate documentation, generate a code-coverage report (doing this on a feature branch might be very time consuming), push to production, etc.

<comment><USER10> I definitely want those things you say done on the feature branch. Whether push to production happens before or after integration to master isn't critical, but it should be a close 1:1 between master and prod (within minutes).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I believe that I am on some level OCD and like things to be nice and neat but I think the the push that some people have for these linear histories on git take things way too far. It could be that I'm OCD on the other side of this in that I don't want to do things that modify or attempt to hide the messy realities of distributed development. I do merges, never squash, never rebase, and my tree may be busy but it's easy to follow. A linear history in my opinion only really works for small projects where development is actually linear.

</comment><comment><USER12> Feature branch, review, squash, merge - only way to roll imho.

<comment><USER13> Squash or not depends on the nature of the change. Sometimes it can be a feature branch with enough work in it that rolling it all up into a single large commit is doing a disservice to somebody who's going to be doing code archaeology later while debugging.

<comment><USER12> For longer running larger features I would use interactive rebasing to selectively squash the larger feature into several more bite sized commits that declare intent and then merge that

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This discussion is bound to LLVM's current process: phabricator reviews and commit-but-revert-if-it-breaks. Several folks on the thread suggest that it can be decided independently but IMHO it should not be. Want to leverage GH? Then let's really leverage it!

Use pull request reviews.

Use a sane subset of existing buildbot configurations in webhook-triggered CI to maximize coverage for some "reasonable" build+test duration, optimistically batch commits for test. Pay for CI service from Circle/Azure/Travis/whoever, or use existing LLVM infrastructure to execute CI. Some of these CI services are downright simple to enable and start using.

Yes, unfortunately, this will probably involve duplicate configurations between CI and buildbots. Yes, unfortunately, commits will still escape the limited CI tests and cause buildbot regressions. It's still a net win IMO.

After having contributed to projects like Rust and others that use an integrated CI, phabricator & arcanist feels too disconnected to me. Whenever I upstream a change to llvm I'm never confident that it's going to work and it feels so dissimilar from a 'normal' workflow.

</comment><comment><USER15> Please, never rebase published commits if you are an open source project. If your project is used as a submodule anywhere, it screws up release tags hard.

<comment><USER5> This is about rebasing "user branches" and/or "pull-requests", if your project is referencing un-merged pull-request as a submodule, there is something fishy.

<comment><USER15> > if your project is referencing un-merged pull-request as a submodule, there > is something fishy

I did not mean incomplete pull requests, I meant master and release branches. Though using unmerged stuff is quite common if the project is yet without an established release process, or not maintained well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The only arguments I hear against the linear history model are:

1\. A branching history allows use of git bisect to identify where breaking bugs were introduced. 2\. An aesthetic argument to the effect of: it's awesome to have that branching history to explore, to see alternatives and choices. A linear history is a recitation; a branching history is a multiverse.

I don't find either convincing. 2 is a personal preference, but seriously, who has time to go wandering through commit histories looking for precious gems?

1 seems like a more valid argument, but against it: who actually uses git bisect? In both essays I've reading arguing for it, they cite "once I used it to find a really gnarly bug". It doesn't seem like a useful everyday tool, or am I missing a larger set of use cases for it? Is git bisect happening a lot more than it seems to be?

<comment><USER17> git bisect is actually _easier_ to use with a linear commit history. And it is useful; I've root-caused regressions with it multiple times. So I think this is actually an argument in favor of linear commit history.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should you be 100% honest with the media re revenue? - <AUTHOR>

How accurate should you be when discussing revenue /no. of employees with the media? Is it ok to exaggerate? If so, where do you draw the line? <comment><USER2> Honestly, if it were my company, I wouldn't comment on either revenue or number of employees with the media. It's none of their business.</comment>


How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/how-to-raise-a-creative-child-step-one-back-off.html <comment><USER2> _In adulthood, many prodigies become experts in their fields and leaders in their organizations. Yet only a fraction of gifted children eventually become revolutionary adult creators._

My daughter is being treated for Leukemia by some amazing doctors at Boston Children's Hospital. To my knowledge, none of the health care professionals at this world-class institution have won Nobel Prizes in medicine. All the same, for my daughter's sake, I'm still glad they hit the books for a couple decades.

There are great honor and value in doing an important job consistently and well. This idea that a life is wasted if you don't remake a field in your image seems hollow when these prodigies often end up with the power to save lives.

<comment><USER3> Maybe I'm biased because I'm a no-name physician at a community hospital, but the "best doctors" in my eyes are the ones with the best outcomes, lowest utilization, highest efficiency and highest patient satisfaction. These measures don't correlate well with the physician's credentials. I learned this in residency, which I did just down the street from a "top" university hospital. We out-performed that place on every level except our doctors went to "lesser" medical schools. They simply spent more money (on wild things like ECMO, which makes everyone feel they're making more of a difference even though the outcomes are the same without it).

Our profession is moving toward identifying these doctors and promoting their behavior to the entire field.

There's a study that showed lower heart attack mortality when all the "top" cardiologists were out of the hospital attending a cardiology meeting. Too many confounders to make any real conclusions from that, but it lines up with my point.

Of course, if your child has a serious life-threatening and/or rare disease, then you want her to be treated at a vanguard institution like the one you took yours to. No dispute from me on that one.

But in the system as a whole, we make the most difference reducing complications of cardiovascular disease, sepsis, pneumonia, COPD, and kidney disease (which are orders of magnitude more common). And we're starting to find out how to identify doctors that do it better, with fewer complications, and with much higher efficiency than others. I think those are the best doctors and it's what I'm striving to be.

<comment><USER4> > "These measures don't correlate well with the physician's credentials."

This. I think I've even posted about this here before. This has been my wife's experience too (surgeon). She trained with highly regarded academic surgeons that set the treatment recommendations and standards for her field. Then during her job search she went to a center with, well, surgeons not at all academic and she had a life changing moment because she realized their operations and outcomes (utilization, efficiency etc.) are far far better. At the academic centers you are recognized based on your research and publications, not on your surgical skills. These academic surgeons with relatively little experience are setting the standards for how the operation should be done and what the treatments should be. This is not at all recognized in her field unfortunately and is quite literally harming patients every day because of substandard treatment standards.

<comment><USER5> I don't have the original source handy, but I recall a study showing a high correlation between hand dexterity and surgical outcomes.

<comment><USER6> I was pleasantly surprised to find that applications by 17/18 year olds to medical school here in the UK require that you demonstrate manual dexterity - one person sending in a video of them plaiting their hair which apparently went down well!

[NB This is in addition to the very high academic standards that are required for places at medical school].

<comment><USER7> The problem with this is that dexterity beyond a certain level is very specific to what has been trained.

I have a friend who is an eye surgeon. I'm definitely better at playing guitar and piano than him, probably equal at things like juggling and card tricks, but absolutely inferior when it comes to cutting people's eyeballs apart.

It doesn't invalidate your point completely, but just because someone is good at plaiting hair doesn't mean they'll be good at surgery!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _The parents of ordinary children had an average of six rules, like specific schedules for homework and bedtime. Parents of highly creative children had an average of fewer than one rule._

I grew up in a household where compliance to parental authority was the prevailing rule. This made me fairly compliant as an adult (which opens you up for exploitation by peers and authority figures), but this wasn't too difficult to unravel with a few dozen sessions of therapy.

As a result, I pass down very few rules as a parent, and it's been a joy to watch my daughter's creativity blossom. We've done what the article suggests - provided moral guidelines to live by, rather than any strict set of rules.

She loves real estate - specifically interior design, but also analyzing neighborhoods, improving curb appeal, and understanding what makes a good school district. I think the seeds were planted when I was taking her with me in the evenings to do various handyman tasks at our rental property. We would stop for ice cream and she would sit there and eat it while I put together furniture or changed light bulbs or swept common areas.

And while our lax rules have certainly inspired creativity and fed into her individuality, it hasn't done a great deal to build work ethic. I'm aware of the stereotype of parents believing their kids are lazy, so I'm open to being wrong here.

Striking a balance between giving a kid a framework to discover herself but also emphasizing the importance of work ethic is probably my greatest concern as a parent. I don't want to stifle her from dreaming, but I want her to do what's necessary to accomplish those dreams too.

My big question is this: when the time comes to put in the work the accomplish what she wants, is she going to be ready to put down the ice cream spoon and pick up a screw driver?

I don't know. But I'm going to continue with the light touch and hope for the best.

<comment><USER9> From one of the comments on the article

> Backing off will no more produce a creative genius than pushing your child. > Neither strategy makes the slightest difference to what is essentially an > autonomous process. Beethoven's father did not back off. And Lars von > Trier's parents left him to his own devices. Both are geniuses and both > hated their childhood.

> My guess is that most parents who follow Adam Grant's spurious advice (one > rule or none is better than six) will end up with the rude obnoxious brats > whom you can see bouncing off the waiting room walls of any upscale > Manhattan pediatrician's office. Maybe one of a million such brats will > spontaneously become a creative genius as an adult but so will one out of a > million drones who win spelling bees and piano competitions.

> But guess what, a large proportion of the remaining brats will be all > attitude and no skill while the drones will at least become doctors and > corporate lawyers. By using creativity as the ultimate-and perhaps only- > benchmark, Mr. Grant falls into the same trap as the Tiger Moms he so > despises.

> Enjoying a thing does make it more likely that a child will own it. But > sometimes the initial drudgery is necessary to make the breakthrough to find > something worth enjoying.

> When it comes to raising children the golden rule is that there is no golden > rule. The greatest scientific creative genius of recent memory, Richard > Feynman realized this when he tried to teach his children and discovered > that what worked for his son did not work for his daughter.

<comment><USER10> Good point about Feynman. The only thing I've found to work is trying everything until something starts to work. Of course, you start with the books to get ideas for what to try next. Ive got one of those kids that bounces off the walls. The older I get though the less I care. Some kids just can't sit still. Kids are society's problem and when we don't build spaces for them to be kids, its gonna happen.

<comment><USER11> _> Kids are society's problem _

Respectfully, I'm sad for children whose parents think society is going to look out for them. Every kid deserves a couple of people who take personal responsibility for their behavior and well-being.

I have a pretty high tolerance for kids being bouncy and boisterous, but it's always nice to see parents giving the sort of information that helps them become considerate:("Look, that woman's trying to read. She wants it quiet!" -or- "That lamp could break - can you find a safer place to bounce your ball?")

Another big issue that isn't always mentioned is diet. A kid who eats a "normal" amount of sugar, corn syrup, and zero-nutrient high-carb products will understandably be going berserk on the outside because they're on a blood sugar roller coaster on the inside.

As an alternative perspective, I think that in France "kids are society's problem" doesn't mean building special places where they can run rampant, but training them to appreciate the culture and society they're inheriting. French kindergarteners spend 90 minutes sitting down to a white-table-cloth four course meal each day during school. This is done because it's considered essential for them to learn the table manners and appreciation of the cuisine that will allow them a lifetime of enjoyable, civilized dining.

(I think the creation of lots of "good", dignified jobs in the kindergarten- chef field is a wonderful side benefit, as opposed to cafeteria workers in the US who can hardly feel fulfilled while dumping bags of frozen nuggets onto trays.)

<comment><USER12> > French kindergarteners spend 90 minutes sitting down to a white-table-cloth > four course meal each day during school.

No they don't, I'm not quite sure where you could've got the idea ?

<comment><USER13> table-cloth is embellishment, but four-course does seem to be part of the system: [https://karenlebillon.com/french-school-lunch- menus/](https://karenlebillon.com/french-school-lunch-menus/)

<comment><USER14> Four-course sounds grandiose but it's nothing more than a little carrot salad, a meal, a little piece of cheese and a yogurt (and some bread), that you get on your meal tray. No kid spend 90 minutes eating that; they rather spend their time playing during the time of lunch break. So it's top 20 minutes swallowing everything (or half of it actually) as fast of possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I may be biased from my own experience, but I remember being incredibly frustrated at a young age from the lack of help understanding things I was "too young" for. My role models and teachers made zero efforts to help me learn analog circuit design and my first programming language, Perl. This made it much harder than it would have been if I was attending actual classes, and probably set back my understanding many years.

I'm not sure how much of an outlier I am, but our education system is not built for creative types. It's too hard to get placed in anything significantly above your grade level, especially if your brilliance is restricted to a single subject. I remember showing an bistable flipflop design to my science teacher in 5th grade and getting a puzzled "that's nice Johnny" type look when I wanted help figuring out why my breadboard version wouldn't oscillate. A few of my skills were so beyond what anyone expected that they didn't know what to do with me, or what they were even looking at, so they did nothing.

It took another eleven years before I had contact with any teachers that matched my experience level with programming and circuit design. During that time I advanced my skills slightly, but not having any peers made me an outcast and certainly left me far behind where I could have been.

Backing off is a bad idea. You need to take your child's curiousity and do everything you can to keep it alive. I'm sure a lot of kids started out like me but eventually let their dreams die.

<comment><USER16> I share your frustration. Unfortunately, public schools are not places where remarkable people tend to congregate, and those near the mean are typically not equipped to teach such technical subjects, or even recognize the value in having young children learn them. There is vast potential wasted in our [U.S.] public school system.

<comment><USER15> The problem for me, and perhaps many others, is that the "smart" are sorted out early and carted out of regular classrooms. If you miss the boat it gets substantially more difficult, almost impossible, to get back on that track.

I remember my parents trying to get me into advanced classes in sixth grade but the school rules said it needed to be done by third grade. I couldn't skip a year either, it was too late.

The second (harder) way into double advanced classes was to pass a test going into high school. That test contained math that only those already in advanced classes had been taught. I aced the reading portion, scoring at 11th grade reading level, but it wasn't enough.

The same year I was sponsored to be an exchange student to Europe but my family couldn't afford the plane tickets. A year later, bored out of my skull and disappointed, I gave up completely on public school.

I embraced mediocrity because I figured out I could get by with no real effort. I concentrated my creativity outside of school and learned more programming languages and electronics. I never got above a C average again until college.

Some teachers saw promise but I let them down because I didn't show up to class and was always in trouble. I knew I had missed the boat to the good classes that led to good scholarships and onto good colleges, and I was bitter and didn't give a shit anymore. To get into the caliber of school I dreamed about I would have needed more than just good grades in regular classes, and all the windows except sports closed before highschool even started.

There's been some articles about "lost diamonds", which may explain why smart people do better as a whole but the large majority still end up living average lives and doing nothing of note. I might not have been any smarter than average, but I definitely feel like I was one of those kids who the system left behind. I knew many others I considered smart that shared my company at the troublemaking fringe of highschool society, definitely a pile of wasted potential at the bottom.

<comment><USER17> So it's their failure and not yours?

I have a comparable story; dropped out of school at 15 and didn't touch education since (>15 years ago now), then spent a few years high and drunk: but I'd learnt perl from the camel even before then.

What do you think you are owed? If i hadn't read k&r or learning perl by myself I should then blame my teachers who hadn't read them either? Most of the best folk I've worked with found these things on their own too.

You feel you're "a lost diamond that the system left behind?"

Bitch, who are you blaming here? The only job I could get in that situation was as a cleaner, and I worked my way from there to where I am now while definitely fitting into your category of those the so called "system" couldn't deal with..

If I hadn't learnt to do our thing regardless should I blame someone else?

I think not. Work hard or don't; blaming the system for your failure, while there are people around you who demonstrably made it from worse situations than yours is pathetic in the extreme.

<comment><USER18> You're making a false dichotomy.

Yes, you are personally responsible for your own circumstances and society isn't going to take care of you if you don't work.

However, it's also incredibly shitty that society let you down enough at 15 to stay "high and drunk" for several years, which, for most kids, doesn't turn out well.

There's enough blame to go around. Taking personal responsibility and blaming the system aren't mutually exclusive.

<comment><USER17> Well;

I think I would actually be considerably _worse_ off if I had behaved myself, made it through high school and gone to university than I am currently; I know it seems counterintuitive but my point was just that it makes no difference how things go for you in "the system" as my experience is that those who seem to have been let down by it and still work at our level are better than those who went through the traditional process.

Yes; clear case of survivorship bias.

Parent says that being failed by the system was a disadvantage. I say, come conversely that being ignored/misunderstood by my teachers/authorities/family then going wild/rebelling as a result for a bit was essential/positive part of my development..

I don't see any of those events as shitty or sad, I wouldn't be where I am without those experiences, right?

Yeah, that's survivorship bias; I'm not really talking about one experience being better than another though; the only reason I went into my story was to counterbalance OPs statement.

I was only trying to say that being failed by "the system" doesn't count as a measure when So many seem to make it regardless...

<comment><USER18> It's true that many seem to make it regardless, and the negative things we go through often make us stronger (when they don't kill us).

I wouldn't change anything in my own life. I also wouldn't wish some of the experiences I've had on anyone else. I don't think those statements are contradictory.

The Spartan children that reached adulthood may have been tougher than the kids we raise today, but that is not an argument in favor of the Spartan system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _Consider the nation's most prestigious award for scientifically gifted high school students, the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, called the Super Bowl of science by one American president. From its inception in 1942 until 1994, the search recognized more than 2000 precocious teenagers as finalists. But just 1 percent ended up making the National Academy of Sciences, and just eight have won Nobel Prizes._

8 out of 2000 is a lot higher than most any other sample group.

<comment><USER20> This is a classic "sounds small, but is actually _huge_ " statistic. Most of these pop up when people are trying to be deceptive, but this one looks like a mistake. I'm surprised it slipped past both the author and editor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > just eight have won Nobel Prizes

You pick 2000 teenagers, and 8 go on to win a Nobel Prize, and you're still not satisfied? High expectations much...

<comment><USER22> That means 1 in 250 go on to win a Nobel Prize. An absurd rate.

I'd bet money that the only group to perform better over the same timeframe is the list Nobel Prize winners themselves.

Edit: I stand corrected. Solvay Conference had 15/29 one year. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference#Fifth_Confer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference#Fifth_Conference)

<comment><USER23> Isn't the group of CalTech alumns slightly worse but on around the same order of magnitude?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> A dull article ridden with blatantly false claims and oversimplification of an otherwise complicated topic.

>Gifted children who have a noticeable head start and whose skill development begins remarkably early _do not_ usually end up being game changing professionals in their respective fields.

Really now?

>Developing a skill set early on leads to competence in what is learned but stumps creativity and chances of innovation.

So having an deep, innate, intuitive grasp of a certain set of knowledge, made possible by said early exposure and disciplined training, has nothing to do with genius and potential inventive achievement in later life? But rather, it only allows for uncreative competence in what is learned and practiced, that and only that?

Really?

Is this man serious? How does something like this even pass for an article? How much thinking goes into writing something like this? Christ almighty.

I love it because the very things that Mr. Grant here paints as inhibitory to creativity are exactly the essential components of creative genius! His information is not only incorrect, it is the exact opposite of how things do work in real life.

It's not a zero sum game. Both of aspects in question - Disciplined skill development as well as Creativity - are essential for intellectual success and are interdependent.

Structure, discipline, strong parent engagement and emphasis on learning and skill development, AS WELL AS creative undertakings, play, leisurely engagement, passionate tinkering / creation - both aspects are crucial.

In order to be able to create, the child has to imitate first. In order to fall in love with a pursuit, it has to be exposed to it first. And in order to be creatively successful in a pursuit, the child has to be very skilled in it first. And parents' intervention, guidance and support are very important in this regard.

<comment><USER25> >>Gifted children who have a noticeable head start and whose skill development begins remarkably early _do not_ usually end up being game changing professionals in their respective fields.

>Really now?

Um, yes? Are you challenging the article's claim here? Depending on how strictly we're defining "game changing", only a small handful of people, even those who were "gifted" as children, ever accomplish anything really notable.

You can look at this [1] followup of "mathematically precocious" youth, for example. Around 10% ended up tenured at a top-50 university or became CEO of a Fortune 500 company. It is unlikely that anyone in the other ~90% is doing anything "game changing". Not even everyone in that 10% group is doing something "game changing".

[1] [https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/01/Article-PS- Lubi...](https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/01/Article-PS-Lubinski-et- al-2014-DEC-FINAL.pdf)

<comment><USER26> I see two problems with this.

1\. You're defining "gifted" in a much narrower way than the article's arguments. Being a high achiever in math doesn't really encapsulate the meaning the article assigns when it creates a gifted vs. creative dichotomy.

2\. It's pretty pointless to talk about the achievement of one group without comparing it to your control group. Do you think 10% of the general public is tenured at a top-50 university or a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? What about 10% of the creatives the article lauds? You know, without seatbelts there's only around 25 deaths per billion vehicle miles in the US. Nevermind that seatbelts cut that rate in half. . .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > The gifted learn to play magnificent Mozart melodies, but rarely compose > their own original scores.

Performing music and writing music are really very different art forms. I'm surprised this NY Times author has conflated the two. Writing music is not the next step after learning to play music.

<comment><USER28> Within the Western classical music academy, these indeed are currently quite separate. That is not universal to all musical traditions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r#E...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r#Education_and_career)

I remember reading some of László Polgár work after becoming interested in how he raised three daughters, two became chess prodigies, the third a concert musician. He posited that "that any child has the innate capacity to become a genius in any chosen field, as long as education starts before their third birthday and they begin to specialise at six". This seems at odds with the notion that parents should "back off".

<comment><USER30> At least it works if your kid has the genes of a parent with the patience to read through 400 biographies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> My personal theory on this is twofold:

1.) High achievers are used to pushing at things to win. Creativity is like a garden - you have to do some tending, but then you have to back off and let the plants grow. Fiddling doesn't help, in fact you're liable to end up killing the plants.

2.) Smart people actually learn too fast. Creativity requires very broad neural connectivity, and I think fast learning tends to produce neural networks with sparse connectivity to different areas. This is supported to a degree by learning in artificial neural networks. When the learning rate in artificial neural networks is too fast, this can cause the network parameters to converge prematurely. This premature convergence typically results in poor generalization performance. It is also worth noting that human brains mature more slowly than those of previous hominids and great apes.

<comment><USER32> 2) This falls into the just world fallacy. Intelligence does not seem to come with real drawbacks. Highly intelligent people often have upper end reflexes, are unusual attractive, highly creative, social, and or content. They are more often taller and live longer as well.

The trappings of intelligence are different, but very high raw intelligence is seen across most walks of life including actors, athletes, and salesmen.

<comment><USER33> >are unusual attractive

Source? I've never heard of intelligence being correlated with visual attractiveness.

<comment><USER32> Like height the link is probably though health and generally freedom from birth defects. It's not a 1:1 correlation, but it is a positive one.

 _Consistent with such views, meta-analyses (Jackson, Hunter & Hodge, 1995; Langlois et al., 2000) show that there is a small but significantly positive correlation between intelligence and physical attractiveness_ [https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/I2011.pdf](https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/I2011.pdf)

That said, selected populations may show a negative correlation such as when more attractive people are more easily given a job etc.

<comment><USER33> >That said, selected populations may show a negative correlation such as when more attractive people are more easily given a job etc.

How is that possible? If intelligent people are attractive, wouldn't they be the ones getting the jobs?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> It's so important to let your kid think. I see parents helicoptering and it's very damaging. I had met a couple at a friendly gathering that brought their 2 year old. Not only could he hardly talk, which was surprising to me, he had no chance to make any decision. The child and his parents were paging through a sales flyer, because they didn't think to bring suitable activities, and they were ogling over toys. So I pointed to the knives on a page that came up and joined in, "oh let's get these" and the child instinctively said yeah! Then I could see the clockworks moving and before the kid could say anything the parents chimed in. A missed opportunity to let the kid make his own, good, decision. I fear he'll grow up and fail to make decisions at all.

Conversely, with my children, I try to talk with them as much as I can, and let them talk too. I let them order food themselves and I demand good table manners. That doesn't mean they can't be children, but they are not allowed to climb under or on the table, or be a nuisance. An easy fix for a problem child in a restaurant is to leave. The child must learn that there are consequences. The child wont go? Leave without them and they will freak and catch up. They fail that drag them out. Saying no and sticking with it is important, but equally important is giving the child a chance to catch up, mentally, with decision making and situational awareness.

<comment><USER35> I didn't talk at all till I was 5 years old. I turned out well. But my parents were the opposite of helicopter parents though. I literally just did whatever I wanted all the time. I use to walk around a swamp near by, by myself or with friends, to catch turtles and snakes. Never got in trouble for grades. Got in a fight once when I was in 5th grade. Most my Mom did was ask me if I got any good hits in. lol

<comment><USER34> I think extemes in general are bad, but off the cuff I would suspect no parenting to be better than overparenting. At least you got to see the consequences of poor choices, and that the world really doesn't give two shits about you (or anyone).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > When Dr. Bloom's team interviewed tennis players who were ranked in the top > 10 in the world, they were not, to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, doing push-ups > since they were a fetus.

And then you see a clip of 5-year old Messi ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DWZ0fD64Uk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DWZ0fD64Uk)) demolishing the other 5-year old kids who happened to share the same football field as him and realize that "letting your kid be creative" and all this mumbo-jumbo talk doesn't mean anything unless your kid doesn't have the inside genius-like quality. Bonus link, the Maradona childhood tricks: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAjQ7NF8Hj0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAjQ7NF8Hj0)

<comment><USER37> It's even more laughable for any sort of endurance sports, where the genetic components are very well known.

The best marathon runner is probably sitting on a couch eating a bag of cheetos.

<comment><USER38> The best marathon runners are from an African community of genetically strong marathoners , who run a lot all their lives. Nature + nurture beats either alone

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> >What holds them back is that they don't learn to be original.

More than likely, they simply lacked the capacity to be original (as in, world-class historical originality, which is the subject under discussion here), just in the same way that almost all people lack this capacity. It's only particularly surprising that child prodigies rarely become adult geniuses if you confuse genius with the capacity to learn information and acquire skills. Mastering calculus at age 6, though highly unusual, does not in itself constitute original work, and, going off of the data, is not an extremely strong indicator of the presence of the capacity to do original work.

So you can't necessarily expect creativity-focused interventions on child prodigies to produce more revolutionary geniuses than normal.

<comment><USER39> Excellent point. If anything the anecdotal data points to the opposite being true. Hendrix didn't learn guitar until 17. Einstein showed signs of having a genius for math and science in his education, but not anything above warranting anything, but being accepted to a middling teachers college. Edison didn't graduate high school and invented the phonograph in his spare time in his late 20s as a telegraph operator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nurture should follow nature. No single parenting style will fit every child. Some children need to be pushed harder, some need more freedom; what's important is to recognize what works and what doesn't and accommodate as necessary. Of course, this is not an easy task, and you only get one chance.

I think the most important thing, however, is to provide resources for learning, far beyond what is available in our pitiful public education system, which is designed more to cater to the mean and less to allow remarkable students to fully excel.

</comment><comment><USER40> My Step 1 would be: Don't listen to an internet article on how to raise a fucking child... specially if it's a NYT article.

</comment><comment><USER41> Being a good parent is becoming an increasing concern of mine as I am reaching an age where I could probably get married in some parts of the world. Its giving me anxiety, wanting to be not a shitty father...

Digression aside:

> Creativity may be hard to nurture, but it's easy to thwart.

There are many parents though that do just to opposite by not backing off no? This is sort of generalizing, but kids from Asian countries are a great counterpoint to this. With that in mind, couldn't we also amend that theory, and add culture as a factor?

Furthermore, isn't it also the case that since kids are getting into school earlier than they used to (say 50 or so years ago; random number, don't goto imright.com and disprove it xD), wouldn't they be more susceptible to other kids/teachers? I mean now a days parents see their kids less than their teachers. They basically work 9-5 just like adults.

Addendum: Forgot which famous book this is from: But appraising a child for their hardwork over natural talent is one of the best things we can do. So to that end, creativity should be garnered as something one has to work towards. Man.. I can't wait to test all this shit on my kids.. (obviously joking)

Edit: Change wording and add more meaningful question.

<comment><USER42> The book might be 'Brain Rules for kids' by John Medina. A scientific account of what we know and don't know of brain development from the womb to 5. Really enjoyable and full of useful insights

<comment><USER43> or 'Nurture Shock' that also has a chapter on that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> "From its inception in 1942 until 1994, the search recognized more than 2000 precocious teenagers as finalists. But... just eight have won Nobel Prizes."

Just?!?

Said differently: slightly less than 1/2% of identified gifted teenagers in this group went on to win Nobel prizes. Given the rarity of Nobel prize winners and the difficulty of predicting future Nobel prize winners (as teenagers) that strikes me is pretty amazing.

<comment><USER26> To put that in perspective (thanks to another comment), there have only ever been 8 Nobel Prize winners from India.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I think 'genius' is more about tuning the innate plasticity of a child's mind to be good at a certain type of task. World class chess players see positions and variations like how 'normals' might recognize an old friend. The 'creative' part comes in when you have brain that is marvelously tuned for one thing, you can iterate and experiment very quickly.

</comment><comment><USER46> While there is plenty to criticize about this article, knowing when _not_ to intervene or help is one of the tougher and critical tasks of parenting.

As an anecdotal example my toddler was often the smallest kid in a given group of playing children. He was at the mall play area one day and he kept getting knocked down onto the foam floor. I kept thinking man I've got to step in and helicopter a bit. I almost did, but right as another kid was about to bump into him he did something new. He bowed at the legs, leaned and braced with his elbows causing the kid to bounce off harmlessly and they both ran on.

I'm often reminded of that moment now when I see him in safe but precarious situations. I'm always there for him if he needs me, but I have to wonder if I step in am I denying him a life lesson?

</comment><comment><USER47> Let's take a big step back and remember that even if you set up the most creativity-nurturing environment, it does not guarantee that your kids are going to flourish creatively. Kids are autonomous creatures that still choose their own activities.

My siblings and I had the same imperfect parenting, same resources, similar genetics, etc, and at the end of the day I was the one that went hardcore down creative pursuits during childhood. I could see a similar spark in my siblings, but for whatever reason they put their 10,000 hours elsewhere. It was only during college that one of my brothers picked up writing and the other picked up music. The potential (and opportunity!) was always there, but for whatever reason they didn't capitalize on it in childhood.

</comment><comment><USER2> Tiger Woods and Serena and Venus Williams are arguably the most iconic players in their sports in the last two decades and both are famous for overbearing fathers who forced them to practice from the time they could hold clubs and racquets.

<comment><USER48> They're also famous as athletes and not creatives.

<comment><USER2> The article's author referenced athletes as well as creatives:

 _Even the best athletes didn't start out any better than their peers. When Dr. Bloom's team interviewed tennis players who were ranked in the top 10 in the world, they were not, to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, doing push-ups since they were a fetus. Few of them faced intense pressure to perfect the game as Andre Agassi did. A majority of the tennis stars remembered one thing about their first coaches: They made tennis enjoyable._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Step zero: Get to know them. Then decide if you should back off or do any other of a thousand things that might help them.

All kids are different. Child rearing is as far from "one weird trick" territory as you can get.

</comment><comment><USER50> Over time, I see articles bouncing between discipline your children (aka tiger parenting) and let them free (aka nuture creativity.) There are passionate camps and black/white discussions. I think the most successful professionals need to have both. So it's best to work on both.

In the case where you can't have both. I think it's better to focus on discipline. At least you'd get something tiny done, not just wandering around.

</comment><comment><USER51> In cultures like Korea, hierarchy and unconditional respect for their elders is so deeply rooted that it is evident in the language itself (When addressing elders or someone more important, you have to speak a specific way). This gives a false sense of righteousness and superiority. In societies like these, could the culture itself be an obstacle to creative growth?

<comment><USER52> It is similar in many countries. In Thailand, where I live, it is also built into the language. There are many different pronouns for addressing others based on your relative social standing. There are pronouns not only for normal societal interactions, but special pronouns for when you are speaking to monks and another set when speaking to/about royal family members. In fact, there are even different verbs that are used when talking about common activities of monks and royalty. Makes for a very pretentious culture and it certainly does inhibit critical thinking in much of the population.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'd be really curious to hear from engineers that were made to play a musical instrument in childhood.

I know some people believe there's a correlation between good engineers and musical study (no idea if that's true, only that I've read it before)

I also know that I've rarely met a child that wants to practice their musical instrument. Usually they have to be made to do it "No TV, no internet, no video games until you've finished your piano practice!" "But Mom!!!!!"

I know lots of adults that are happy they can play a musical instrument or speak a second language (parents sent them to language school as a child) but I know of few children who would chose to do either of them.

<comment><USER54> 100% true. Learning to play a musical instrument in childhood has positive long term effects in a variety of ways (improved neural plasticity past middle age, improved spatial reasoning ability throughout life, etc.) There's a pretty substantial and growing body of research on the subject now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> There is no way quite as certain to accelerate a child's pursuit of great goals, than to instill confidence in them. In my experience, it is the first and most important step with which they begin to choose their own pace in learning new skills, by convincing them that any failures are temporary, and that they can believe in their vision because those they trust believe in them.

I believe that the second step, making things fun, mostly consists of letting young people be with their friends, with no more than some open space, and only the minimum adult involvement needed to maintain safety.

</comment><comment><USER56> >prestigious award for scientifically gifted high school students

I find this somewhat offensive. Gifted kids should be encouraged (cautiously & organically) - not be turned into a beauty pageant style competition.

</comment><comment><USER57> _In adulthood, many prodigies become experts in their fields and leaders in their organizations. Yet only a fraction of gifted children eventually become revolutionary adult creators._ This sentence, which the article hinges around, has no meaning. A tiny fraction will become revolutionary adult creators by definition - if their achievements were more commonplace then our understanding of what a revolutionary creator was would change to become more exclusive.

</comment><comment><USER58> > In adulthood, many prodigies become experts in their fields and leaders in > their organizations. Yet "only a fraction of gifted children eventually > become revolutionary adult creators," laments the psychologist Ellen Winner.

Why on earth is that something to 'lament'?

<comment><USER59> I think their point is that, for some reason, it is lamentable that they did not fulfill the whole of their potential. Whether or not that is lamentable is its own argument. The privilege exhibited by the talented who consciously do not use their potential is the ultimate insult to those who are not given the opportunity - not only is it in no way controllable by humanity, it can in no way be granted by any kind of affirmative action. I imagine the lament is probably sourced there somehow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Having not yet read the article, I would say yes, there is truth in that statement, but holding people accountable is a big part of what drives success. Compromise: Tease them into and help them create some of their own rules but enforce them(?)

</comment><comment><USER61> Every child must be raised by the book - unfortunately every child has their own book...

</comment><comment><USER62> I don't think there is a fixed pattern in raising a creative child. Every child is different. Instilling creativity is not like a program running under specific conditions.

</comment><comment><USER63> I'd like to know how to make an adult creative, not just a child.

</comment><comment><USER64> This article in the NYTimes is like Duchamp's urinal in a museum.

</comment><comment><USER65> Why do you feel entitled to foist your own or other peoples problems onto strangers?

<comment><USER66> Why do you assume kids are problems to begin with? I have met hundreds of kids during my adult life and the highest any of them has risen to for me is minor annoyance. I've had more trouble from my cars.

<comment><USER65> I'm not the one that used "problem" to describe kids, btw. FWIW I quite like kids. But saying strangers kids are my responsibility because of "society" is not true at all.

<comment><USER67> Kids are a part of society, and society has a stake in what kind of adult they become.

In the same way drug addicts are society's problem, or unemployed people are society's problem, or sociopathic second generation rich never-worked-a-day drunk drivers are society's problem.

This isn't to say that you'll be conscripted in to a psudo-parent role against your will, but they are your responsibility as a member of society in a very abstract way.

<comment><USER65> In that case, I revoke my membership to society. I have my own problems.

<comment><USER67> You can do so by moving out in to the middle of nowhere and becoming a self- sufficient hermit.

Anything less and sorry, but you're a part of society.

<comment><USER65> who are you to tell an individual what responsibilities they have, and to try and make outcasts of people who don't want them?

I don't have to move anywhere to absolve myself of the responsibility to strangers.

<comment><USER67> I don't think that you quite understand the point I'm making?

By taking part in every day life, using civil infrastructure, having contact with other people you're a part of society with all that goes with that.

It logically follows that the only way to extricate yourself from the situation is to _leave_ society and all the benefits it brings. There are people who have done that!

However I don't see how you can possibly do so and have the convenience of a doctor available when you're sick, coffee sold by the cup and roads on which for you to drive. These are physical and organisational manifestations of 'society'.

By remaining in proximity and contact of other humans you're their responsibility and they are yours.

It's fine to want out but that does need to come with a realisation of what benefits you draw from societal organisation and what you'll need to lose to withdraw from the uninvited, unwritten, yet tangible 'bargain' that society represents.

I'm trying to picture what remaining with other people yet rejecting 'society' theoretically looks like and I can only see it as a kind of parasitic relationship. When aware of parasites humans have a tendency to try and kill or remove them. After all, you would be rejecting all the protections legal and otherwise that society offers its members.

<comment><USER65> _By remaining in proximity and contact of other humans you 're their responsibility and they are yours._

I reject this completely. That's your reality, not mine.

<comment><USER67> Please respond to the rest of my post, not just the weakest line.

<comment><USER68> I agree with lacampbell that we're not responsible for other people's kids. In western society the individual is sovereign and our only responsibility is to do no harm. It is equally important to note however that the individual is missing out if he foregoes the pleasure of friendly interactions with other people, and is free to be a good neighbour and to give where he chooses. He is also wise if he aligns his ambitions with the general good of all.

But he may not be compelled. Indeed, it is the societies where people have _talked_ about us all being responsible for everybody else that have murdered the most people (e.g. Soviet Union).

The foregoing interaction with lacampbell might be an analogy of how society fails creative types. They are often awkward, abrasive people who insist on doing things their own way. As a result they are denied jobs, ostracised socially (in the name of friendliness) and generally swept under the rug.

Society would far rather give academic posts, for example, to those who fit in enthusiastically:

[http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the- head-g...](http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-head-girl- syndrome-opposite-of.html)

The desire to be accepted and to fit in, despite appearances, is not really about friendliness, is my guess. It is actually rooted in the _fear_ of others and the fear of being cast out of the tribe. Like all emotions this fear enacts behaviours which tend to install it in other people. As a result of early socialisation most of our creativity goes into being/appearing normal instead of into making original stuff.

<comment><USER67> Hmm, I think I can see where we're failing to connect here. I'll reply to you by replying to lacampbell.

> _All of your post hinges on the premise that you feel responsibility for > individual problems should be collectivised, by force presumably, and that I > am required to morally feel obliged to help any and all strangers by virtue > of being born or living in roughly the same area._

I categorically reject that this is my position and am sorry I wasn't able to explain it better. Let me try further:

I'm not suggesting that you be required to do anything. At all. It is your choice to choose to do nothing.

However as a member of society, of which the only way of really escaping is to escape the proximity and influence of those who comprise 'society' you do have a collectivized stake in the outcome of society. If you for example choose to do nothing about drug addicts, and the rest of society does the same... society is then responsible for what happens as a result of untreated drug addiction. You, as a member of society, have some small part ownership over what happens.

Does that make sense? I'm talking in a very abstract sense, not a direct "here is a kid -> take care of it" sense.

<comment><USER68> Yes there are such things as social problems, and the keeping the peace (which is the government's responsibility) entails addressing them. Sometimes keeping the peace will even entail looking after other people's children. For example, children evacuated from London in WW2.

But problems are solved by individuals. So part of the gauge of the strength of a society is how receptive it is to knowledge originating in the minds of rare individuals. Does it protect them? Or does it shut them down with censorship, disemployment and so on?

It's vital that people realise that they are not responsible for the fall of every sparrow, lest they be burdened with undue guilt. Their minds are then at least capable of remaining free and creative.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Disrupt – Recruiting - <AUTHOR>

I wanted to start a periodic series of brainstorming where we could write down our ideas and views on existing practices of one particular industry which may (or may not) be ripe for Disruption. We could focus on emerging trends and pain points that this community of Technologists can adopt and solve for.
As a start, I wanted to open the conversation on a topic whose current state of play we all find difficult to accept and cope with - Recruiting.
Some questions that I could think of:
* What trends are you seeing that you think should be more widely adopted? * What practices could promote a better dialogue between recruiters and candidates? * How can we solve for some of these problems using the technology we have at hand? * .....
For mutual benefit, lets keep this conversation as constructive as possible. Lets keep the criticism limited to the extent it can be converted to positive motivation for change. <comment><USER2> I like the spirit of this thread. Kudos.

 _What trends are you seeing that you think should be more widely adopted?_

Recruiters that behave more like community-managers / outreach-coordinators. Roles whose purpose is to engage with (and build relationships with) the developer-community as a whole, not just pluck talent ad-hoc.

 _What practices could promote a better dialogue between recruiters and candidates?_

I find it easier to engage with a recruiter (instead of circumventing them) when they personally offer me something of value. For example: The recruiter who says "if you apply online you'll just get a phone interview, but if you go through me I'll get you a 1-on-1 lunch with the CTO". When they start off with a clear value-proposition like that, then the headaches and bureaucracy of dealing with them are much easier to stomach.

 _How can we solve for some of these problems using the technology we have at hand?_

I wish the application process could be a bit more standardized for the early stages (like the college / grad-school admissions process). I think it'd be an interesting thought-experiment to envision a standard-format for application packages. Imagine a package.json ~esque file that pulled in your github repos, recommendations, personal statements, etc. I wonder what else would be necessary.

It seems like the beginning stages of working with a recruiter are always the same ("where'd you go to school?", "show me some stuff you've done", "have you heard of Big O notation?", etc etc). I wish we could just put together one standard packet, throw it up somewhere online, and let the recruiters line up interviews for us. If that would allow the recruiters to contact us with an "I've got you an interview" type of message instead of a "hey let's talk" message, I'd be all for it.

</comment><comment><USER3> This post reminded me of a recent Nick Corcodilos article:

The reason the labor market seems less efficient is because applicant tracking systems (ATS) and job boards fail to match job applicants to jobs, and instead, stimulate phony recruiting activity by human resources (HR) departments. The employment system is now clogged with so much crud spawned by these databases that even Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen is confused. ATS databases like LinkedIn and Oracle's Taleo — these darlings of the stock market — are making it more difficult for employers to hire. [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/ask-headhunter- recr...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/ask-headhunter-recruiting- technology-costs-job/)

One piece of technology-- often overlooked, good old-fashioned phone conversation. Sadly, a dying art.

</comment><comment><USER4> As a recruiter, I would be very interested to hear what engineers have to say here.

One thing I believe that makes a good recruiter is not only the ability to find good talent, connecting w/ people who have the right experience but also to remember this is a human experience.

I transitioned from QA engineering into recruiting because a) I was tired of QA and couldn't code to save my life and b) because a lot of the recruiters who reached out to me where just horrible and just treated me as a number - not even know what I did - and not even caring.

What I discovered upon transitioning is how frantic it can be. I'm going to use a 3 round process for this example - To get 1 engineering hire, recruiters could need to have 2-4 candidates make it to final round, which means realistically there should be 6-12 onsite interviews, which means 18-35+ phone screens, which means a recruiter would have to have to 50-100+ engineers willing to talk to them w/ regards to the role. Meaning they'd have to reach out to 150-300+ engineers. Obviously I'm picking an arbitrary 3x multiplier as some recruiters are better than others and may not need to reach out to that many, or some might even need more.

If a recruiter has multiple positions they're trying to fill (which happens all the time) that means they really don't have a lot of time to put onto each position and less time if they need to spend time working w/ candidates currently in process and Hiring managers.

Creating software that might help a recruiter make more accurate assessments of candidates skill sets really only work if engineers are forthcoming and totally accurate w/ their skill sets. However even then the best algorithms can be fooled. Sites like Linkedin, Bright or Whitetruffle (just pulling from the top of my head) can have poor matching because of how a descriptions/requirements on both the candidates and the company's side are misrepresented. The other thing to remember; software can never properly replace "high touch" human interaction - which, at it's core is what recruiting is often about. Thoughts?</comment>