The Konami exodus - <AUTHOR> http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/The-Konami-exodus?page=1 <comment><USER2> One thing we're overlooking is that even if these actions are illegal, employees are rarely in a position to do anything about it. The power asymmetry is vast. Most employees don't have savings, especially in the game industry, and they'd regret spending any of it on courts. Could the courts even do much?

Having newspapers write an article about it is probably one of the more effective ways of dealing with this.

<comment><USER3> Well, this is what unions are for. In the countries I know, union membership gets you legal costs insurance for work related cases (for exactly these power dynamics). And economies of scale usually mean that unions have pretty good employment law attorneys.

Granted, I have no idea how it works in Japan.

<comment><USER4> Union can't force a company to rehire you when you're "untouchable". In a lot of these environments corporations like Konami have enough power to essentially make you unemployable. Not having a positive reference (or even having an unofficial black mark against you) from them can easily be end of your career in the field. Especially if you slandered (or, god forbid, sued!) your previous employer.

<comment><USER3> As said, I have now clue about things in Japan, but in Germany, a court can definitely order the company to rehire you if the reason for firing was unlawful. In smaller companies coming back to that job usually isn't fun (as your boss usually was directly involved in the case), thus in these cases you usually get compensation of about a year's worth of wages.

Bigger companies are usually pretty professional about these things. (Completely different domain, but just look at Apple and Samsung being in court while Samsung still being a supplier for Apple.)

<comment><USER5> I don't know about Germany but in the US, we apparently have a do not hire list that goes across company lines for even positions like bank tellers? There was no visible public outrage against any company that refused to hire former Wells Fargo employees for example

<comment><USER6> > ...we apparently have a do not hire list that goes across company lines for > even positions like bank tellers? There was no visible public outrage > against any company that refused to hire former Wells Fargo employees for > example

For bank tellers, I believe this is tracked via the federal agency FINRA, through AWC submittals. For the Wells Fargo employees, you likely are thinking of the brokers who were ordered by Wells Fargo management to fraudulently open accounts. Allegedly, many of these brokers then found out later after they were terminated from Wells Fargo that the bank marked their termination on a U5 form in a manner that all but ejects them from the financial services industry, forever [1]. In both of these cases, they are via mandatory regulatory notifications, and not like the Japanese cases discussed here where it sounds more informal.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/business/dealbook/wells-f...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/business/dealbook/wells- fargo-faces-scrutiny-for-black-marks-on-ex-employee-files.html)

<comment><USER7> Finance is different get caught doing naughty things and you can be banned for life in the same way a Dr can be struck off

<comment><USER8> The most famous financial criminal of the 1980s United States, Michael Milkin, is now a wealthy philanthropist living large in Los Angeles. The disincentive for large-scale financial crime in the United States is just not there.

<comment><USER7> I think he was before the finance industry put this in place

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You know what one of the absolute defenses against libel is?

The truth.

Konami treated Kojima like shit, Kojima left and took most of the talent with him. What Konami has left is a pretty cool engine and a hot IP, no creatives. MGS fans know it and don't respect Konami's next project even a little. Zombie-survival alternate universe, really?

In contrast I don't even know what Kojima's next thing is, it'll probably be pretty cool though. Kojima is good at over the top absurd and awesome.

Also, it's a fucking travesty that Fox Engine won't be used for anything important ever again, because for an open-world engine it runs like a dream. Too bad the online multiplayer is a non-stop cheatfest.

<comment><USER10> > Zombie-survival alternate universe, really?

But spirits of enemies killed in combat, levitating psychics, phisically impossible robots and horseriders literally made of fire are okay with you?

<comment><USER11> Zombies are not OK with the guy who was the main creative force behind the entire series so you can try and argue the rest of the series is just as ridiculous but if Kojima says they have no place in it then they have no place in it.

This isn't a series like Assassins Creed, Final Fantasy or even Star Wars where countless people have had their hands on the lore this is a single creatives vison.

<comment><USER12> I mean, MGS5 effectively had zombies...

I get the point though. I'm also bummed out by the exodus. I love MGS and I want to see what he can do on that engine given enough time. MGS5 was great but felt like Konami told him to cut it short and GTFO.

<comment><USER9> To echo my point above, Fox Engine runs like a dream and looks fantastic. It's one of my few go-to examples of a one-off/scratch-built custom engine working out really well for a game, along with Witcher 3/RED Engine 3 (which also looks/runs great but is definitely slower).

It's a real shame that Konami is probably going to euthanize it after a few quickie moneygrabs from the handful of interns they have left from Kojima's team.

A lot of open-world engines have pretty severe stutter problems (examples: Fallout 4, GTA:V, etc), and Fox Engine's performance is fantastic. With MGSV I get 60 fps locked with 1440p and 1.4x DSR at max settings on a GTX 1080. And it actually does look really good too - a chopper extraction with a sunrise over the desert will startle me every now and then with how great it looks.

I have a few complaints but they're fairly minor.

* Some weird bayer-mask alpha blending effects (example of a similar problem in Witcher 3: [http://i.imgur.com/8neiqOg.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/8neiqOg.jpg) ), which are solved by running at 1.4x DSR, which is easily doable with this engine

* 60 fps locked physics - c'mon, really?

* Clipping planes cause bullets to abruptly stop working at 250m range, which MGSV tries to hide with map design by breaking line-of-sight, but it's noticeable in some desert/plains areas with longer sightlines

* Online play has rampant cheating. Gotta design in security from Day 1 if you're going to do it... and FOB combat was obviously hacked in by a couple interns way after the fact as a money-grab.

<comment><USER13> Worth noting that the Fox engine somehow manages to pull of great performance on very terrible configurations too.

<comment><USER9> Yup. I could actually boot it on a Atom/Baytrail-M Celeron N2808 with integrated graphics although I was just using the menus and performance was still pretty rough even at minimum settings.

It's certainly not up to the graphical quality of Witcher 3, but it's not bad either, and performance is very good for the quality (especially given that open-world engines are tougher to do well).

With FreeSync or Gsync or Mobile GSync it would be very playable on an APU or a low-end discrete laptop graphics chip. Can't wait for consoles to start driving FreeSync adoption in the HDTV market as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> That seems very counterproductive to me, who will want to go work in Konami once this behavior is known? This will probably severely hamper their ability to recruit, especially recruit experienced people.

Am I missing something? Perhaps it's more common in Japan's video game industry to work in the same place for life?

<comment><USER15> Actually the video game industry is one of the more labor liquid industries in Japan. Teams leave, producers with track records go solo, key guys get poached, etc.

Definitely more liquid than manufacturing, finance, insurance, IT consulting, publishing, aerospace, shosha, semiconductors, etc.

<comment><USER16> Do you have examples of key guys getting poached in the Japanese market? From my experience here most people tend to stay a long time or move on their own will (not as often as US IMO though)

<comment><USER15> The Tactics Orge team from Quest getting poached by Square back around 1995.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> That's crazy. Ok, "you can't put on your resume you worked here or we will take you to court."

The judge will only want to know one thing: is it _true_ whether or not that person worked for Konami.

Is there no paper trail to substantiate that? Contracts?

Did they have no signed contracts, and get paid in cash?

<comment><USER18> My guess is that there's an overly broad NDA involved, and some enterprising Konami lawyer figured out it can apply to divulging that you were employed there at all.

<comment><USER19> You can bypass the NDA by doing: ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → Ⓑ Ⓐ Start

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wish the ex employees of Konami luck. This blacklist behavior will only help in further developing the independent game scene in Japan. We've seen great games in the past from Japan such as Cave Story, La Mulana, Downwell, and also Kickstarter-ish campaigns for spiritual sequels to classic genres. Kojima's name itself carries a ton of industry weight and I'm sure he and his team won't find trouble finding funds and talent for their endeavors as hinted by teasers of his new IP.

It's unfortunate that a slew of IPs will go down with Konami, but they haven't been looking great in awhile and this is just a conclusion of the signs in the past. Silent Hill, Metal Gear, Suikoden, ZoE, even those weird late 90s PS1 games like Broken Helix will always be remembered by me.

</comment><comment><USER21> > Ex-Kons are not allowed to put their Konami experience on their public > resumes.

I had a start up that tried to do this a year or so later, after I left the company on bad term mind you. The lead basically tried to bully me. I just up and left on the same day that he tried that.

I read this and look around where I'm at, palm trees and beach. Oh right I'm in California.

I tried several emails to explain to the lawyer. He made bunch of bs excuses.

So I immediately googled for a cease and desist letter and send it to the buddy.

He basically asked me if I know who he is.

I don't care if your Donald Trump. If Trump couldn't pass the muslim ban good luck with you trying to ~~force~~ coerce me to remove this experience from my linkedin.

After that I never hear from the lawyer again or his company again.

<comment><USER22> You did the right thing by leaving the experience on your resume! It's your experience, not theirs.

Also by standing up to these bullies in the tech industry who think having lots of brains and very little compassion for others is somehow a divine quality. Trump-like ego-maniacs everywhere I turn in this industry it makes me so sick. Kojima did good by going out on his own and not letting the empty threats of a has-been corporation like Konami shake him from his vision as a legendary creator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think this will backfire and just make Death Stranding and Kohjima more popular. As a developer Konami is really struggling and I wouldn't be suprised that it closed down soon or got consolidated .

<comment><USER24> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the assumption that Konami shuttered all their console games to focus on pachinko machines because the profit margins are just too delicious to pass up.

<comment><USER25> They're developing another game with the engine used for MGSV, but you could account that to just trying to recoup costs involved in making that engine. Otherwise I don't know of other console or pc game projects of theirs.

<comment><USER26> As far as I know there's another MGS spin off they are working on and they continue developing and releasing their annual Pro Evolution Soccer. With the latter my guess is they want a piece of the money-making pie that is Ultimate Team and works so well for EA Sports' FIFA series.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is this a cultural thing? I know a lot of Japanese people and I get the feeling that some things that are completely outrageous in the Western world are not frowned upon in Japan. I can't imagine even the most shady company doing the stuff mentioned under "Persona non grata" in my country without causing a complete shitstorm.

<comment><USER28> Yes, very cultural. What's not being mentioned, because it's taken for granted is that the CEO to employee salary ratio in Japan is like 16 versus 300 for us. Loyalty to your company is very important, in return the company is pretty loyal to you.

<comment><USER29> That's really far less true than it used to be; Japanese companies want to have it both ways, where employees remain as loyal to them as before but they don't return the favor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> One other thing worth mentioning is that gaming companies work famously punishing hours, Japanese companies work famously punishing hours, so unsurprisingly Japanese gaming companies work _really_ punishing hours... and Konami is infamous even by those standards!

[https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp...](https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2015/8/3/9089247/konami- nikkei-report-workplace-culture-metal-gear-solid)

</comment><comment><USER31> It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. If someone is gonna apply to another game company and the company sees konami in the resume, they could call up konami and ask about them. Then, Konami will give a bad review. That alone is a risk employees do not want to take

<comment><USER32> > Konami will give a bad review.

In some countries this is illegal - the worst you can say about a person is "no comment."

<comment><USER33> Which would those be, out of curiosity? I know it's a widespread urban legend in the US that employers can't give negative references, but I've never heard of a country where it's actually true.

<comment><USER34> You _can_ give them, but it's so worrisome to HR that they usually just outright forbid it. It isn't worth the legal hassle if someone tries to sue them over it, no matter how 'right' they are.

We're talking about an ex-employee here. It's not like giving negative feedback will really help the company. It can only hurt them.

Fortunately, lack of good information strongly implies negative information that is being withheld, so it's all fine.

<comment><USER32> Yeah, you don't want to hire a dud.

In my case, my manager was particularly fearful about losing me. When I told him that I was entertaining other gigs he plainly told me that "I will black mark you across the industry if you leave." I was young, naive and scared, so I took it seriously (luckily things have improved vastly since). I now know that I would not put him on my CV; instead the myriads of other employees who have interacted with me. This is why those laws are in-place: preventing hostage situations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is why you should take care of your stars well, even if they make weird requests. Konami will probably win the battle, but lose the war for the customer's hearts. In the end just everybody involved loses. If Konami instead supported Kojima, maybe even invest in his company, both could have made loads of money together.

<comment><USER36> they only make 2 video games now. the metal gear knockoff and PES. and even though pachinko machines are the butt of people's jokes about konami, they actually don't make as much for konami due to declining revenue (degenerate gamblers)...

<comment><USER37> And their massive lineup of rhythm games.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Funny gamers are blacklisting Konami, for putting out an unfinished game like MGS5, firing Kojima and trying to ruin his legacy with Metal Gear Survivor....

<comment><USER39> I can never forgive them for what they did to Kojima. That man is a treasure and helped create some of my most formative games. I'd say I won't buy any more of their games but they don't seem interested in making any.

<comment><USER11> It's awful his IP (Not just MGS but ZOE, Snatcher and Policenauts) will be locked up in a company with zero respect for it.

But the man is so prolific and Kojima Productions is clearly serious business, it'll probably mean his next projects have the potential to be his best yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Hopefully this is included in Jim Sterling's next 'Fuck Konami News' segment, because fuck Konami.

</comment><comment><USER41> This could just be my experience but one thing I have learned working in games is that Asian companies can be really authoritarian to their employees. I have experienced this with Japan, South Korea and China. Game companies are very secretive and authoritarian with their workers to begin with but culturally it seems more acceptable in teams I worked with in Asia.

A team I worked with in South Korea regularly slept at the office because the Korean lead was there slave driving the crunch. South Korea in itself is hard to even launch a game there because they demand percentages and you must have internal teams/representatives, similar with China. China team, the employees were always in a fear state of making the boss angry or doing the wrong thing. I noticed that it led to releases just to meet dates even if the work was incomplete just so the boss would not get mad. Working with them the devs told me they regularly ship when not complete just to satisfy dates and it led to many issues especially at hand off points because they knew it wasn't fully functioning.

I think overall companies in games think they can get away with this ownership/authoritarian type attitude anyways, but it might be easier in Asian cultures where there is a more authoritarian lean.

</comment><comment><USER42> > In 2014, Konami workers who liked a Facebook post by an ex-Kon saying he > started working for a different company were shuffled to different > positions.

I know it's generally a bad idea to badmouth employers, past or present, on Facebook or other social media... but punishing employees for merely "liking" a post is more excessive than I've heard before. Maybe it's a cultural difference, but it seems very Big Brother of them nonetheless.

</comment><comment><USER43> Are these actions legal in Japan?

<comment><USER16> I work for a Japanese company. Even if something is illegal in Japan it still happens. One particular thing is unpaid overtime. Most employees are hourly and they can be "forced" to work overtime for 50+ hours/week (all the time) without overtime pay. If they bring it up they will get "relocated" or just get harassed the entire time they're there until they quit. If they bring it to the government work agency (hello work) the company will deny the hours and say it was all voluntary. I have been told this personally by hello work. Also, I only have experience in one Japanese company so surely this does not occur at _all_ companies.

<comment><USER44> I am sure there are companies like this. Yet, I also see a wind of change. I see Japanese who leave on time. Strangely enough, I also see foreigners who stay late. Above mentioned voluntarism, though, is very difficult to explain even by Japanese themselves. Many of them stay long and couldn't tell you why. It's not that simple. It is entire culture, ethos of group member (not necessary an employee), who works hard for the sake of a group.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Konami put out a lot of classics in the 90's that I enjoyed, but after Hideo Kojima's departure there is just no reason to support them as a company. I'm pretty sure they were the reason Project M was canceled, but we'll never really know. They won't be seeing any more of my money.

</comment><comment><USER46> " _In April this year, a Kojima Productions executive applied for the company to join ITS Kenpo, a health insurance society for companies in the gaming and internet service industry. Joining such insurance organizations is crucial to employee welfare, but the application was not even accepted. When the executive asked why, he was told by ITS Kenpo that all applications are screened by the board chairman before being reviewed by the board, and it could not show this application to the chairman._ "

I'm sorry, "could not show this application to the chairman"?

<comment><USER47> It's explained in the article. The chairman is also a chair in Konami. You literally cannot show him the application without ruining your career.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I can't wait for Konami to go bankrupt so that somebody will finally do something with the great stuff they made. How on earth is there not a modern 4-player Contra game?

</comment><comment><USER49> Damn, and I thought I was a vengeful person.

Goes to show you once more how many people on positions of power have the emotional intelligence of a bully teenager but they can't be touched.

</comment><comment><USER15> Well konami wanted to diversify out of the video game business (for example they run a large chain of sports gyms) so hey they're getting some help in that regard.

</comment><comment><USER50> This reminds me of some of the drama surrounding Keiji Inafune (creator of Megaman) leaving Capcom. Not nearly the level of company push back / employment issues, but there was lots of blame slinging on both ends. Then the appearance that Capcom cancelled an in development Megaman game that Inafune reportedly wasn't very involved in just to spite him (which I'm still sad about).

</comment><comment><USER51> So instead of an "up or out" culture they have an "up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right" culture?

</comment><comment><USER52> How I'd love to make some app that would help protect IP workers some way :( This is more of a policy issue, unfortunately.

<comment><USER53> Why does it have to be an app? The obvious way to go for protecting workers is unionisation.

<comment><USER29> The idea of replacing a union with an app approaches self-parody.

<comment><USER52> just going to quote my self here.

> This is more of a policy issue, unfortunately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> GuB-42 The Konami exodus, when people are leaving up, up, down, down, left, right, left and right.

</comment><comment><USER54> I love how the society we currently live in places so much confidence in the statement that "corporations = efficient, rational market actors"...

and yet here we are, slaves to whims of a few thousand people globally who control 35 trillion dollars in assets.

This virtually guarantees that if you want to make a liveable income, you either need to work for or sell to a truly psychotic group of individuals who control an arbitrarly large portion of wealth thanks to a host of monetary and legal policies.

<comment><USER2> Are there any other ways to effectively organize an economy?

This subthread doesn't seem too promising, but I'd genuinely like to know.

<comment><USER55> I actually like the idea that the workforce own businesses instead of Capital owning them. There is no reason not to have cooperatives run everything, however often successful co-ops tend to float because the workforce can see a big payoff. Greed doesn't need to define the reason why businesses are created though.

Maybe instead of pay defining where you are within an organisation it's how much vote you get in the business. And obviously you can engage in peer to peer performance review system like Valve. To be honest I'd only ask one question; How much do you want to work with X again? 0 - 10.

<comment><USER56> All of this is possible in the current economy – Many companies are founded by employees. However, I'm personally comvinced they are not efficient, neither in decision-making nor in usage of the workforce. So what happens to them, and why aren't they the most common form of employment? Maybe some don't keep their form of cooperative decision-making, maybe others never make it big on the market, maybe creators of such companies don't intend to become AirBnb or Amazon and prefer a lifestyle business – all in all, traditional companies still dominate them.

<comment><USER47> I think it's because being a cooperative is not a stable state. You can go cooperative->traditional, but it's much harder to transition from traditional->cooperative.

Ultimately, a hierarchical society is instinctively easy to grasp, while a more fluid mostly-equal one is not. People still instinctively understand hierarchies better than full-on democracy.

<comment><USER57> > People still instinctively understand hierarchies better

instinctively? Citation needed. If anything, humans are wired to interact in small and non-hierarchical groups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Companies that do this are screwing themselves hard in the long-term. No one of value will want a job there.

</comment><comment><USER59> _Mostly offtopic, but:_ Is it just me, or based on both politics, social dynamics and economic indicators, Japan is economically speaking a _house of cards waiting to fucking fall apart in a huuuuge crysis?!_ I mean, I guess that aged population coupled with pro-peace/buddshit-style mindsets in some younger ones stabilized things a bit... but for how long?

(Don't tell me US is the same: the transparency with which they wash their dirty laundry in international public waters, and the fact that they have many layers of "social backups" are just two reasons to believe otherwise.)

<comment><USER60> The Japanese would rather kill themselves than defaulting on their debts. Until that holds true, and assuming they don't get attacked militarily, the country will continue to be what it is.

<comment><USER29> Most of the holders of Japanese government debt are Japanese citizens, so repudiating the debt is not likely to be a popular move.</comment></comment></comment>


Videogames Might Be Keeping Young Men Out of the Workforce - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2017/07/13/videogames-might-be-keeping-young-men-out-of-the-workforce <comment><USER2> Is correlation != causation not a consideration anymore? They should have spent much more time seeing if the causation analysis was any good whatsoever.</comment>


Show HN: Competitive Analysis of Government Vendors - <AUTHOR> http://advantageprices.com <comment><USER2> If the goal of the 'Show HN' is general feedback on the site from HN users (as opposed to lead generation regarding GSA vendors) then the requirement for an email to sign-up is working at cross purposes to the goal.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you elaborate? There is no requirement for an email sign up or any kind of registration.

<comment><USER2> I clicked on the link I thought would take me to the tool but got a request for email instead. Maybe it's not clear enough to random visitors how to access the tool.

Now that I've revisited, I found the search field. I probably missed it because it appears below a paragraph of text and over a horizontal rule and is grey.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's good feedback. I will make it stand out a bit more.

<comment><USER2> My advice: make it look more like Google for GSA: less explanation on the landing page [that can be linked]. If I hit a page that said 'Search GSA Vedors' above a textbox way above a few links at the bottom, I would get it because the search results _show_ what the product does much better than the text _tells_ what it does.

Good luck.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon is building another multibillion dollar business that you haven't heard - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/interview-amazon-business-bill-burkland-017-7 <comment><USER2> An HN discussion from a while ago, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9454829](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9454829)

</comment><comment><USER3> I guess a lot of people have heard of it, they had an email campaign going where you would get an echo if you signed up, if I remember correctly</comment>


Super Bowl 50 telecast will hit all the angles, even 360 degrees - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Super-Bowl-50-telecast-will-hit-all-the-angles-6810870.php?t=4cd49fade1 <comment><AUTHOR> "After raising $9 million in private financing rounds, Replay – led by co- founder and CEO Oren Haimovitch-Yogev – went on to sign multi-year agreements with American teams, such as the New York Yankees, the Dallas Cowboys, and the Cleveland Cavaliers. They have also installed cameras in the Maracanã Stadium in Rio de Janeiro after signing a deal with TV Globo, and soon, their cameras will be in Asia" [1]

Replay Technologies, from Israel, has 100 employees [2], raised $9 million excluding debt financing [3] and established contracts with teams in multiple leagues. Impressive. Specs of system architecture and good samples. [4]

[1] [http://nocamels.com/2016/01/replay-technologies- freed-3d-spo...](http://nocamels.com/2016/01/replay-technologies- freed-3d-sport/)

[2] [http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Super- Bowl-50-te...](http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Super- Bowl-50-telecast-will-hit-all-the-angles-6810870.php?t=4cd49fade1)

[3] [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/replay- technologies](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/replay-technologies)

[4] [http://iq.intel.com/360-degree-replay-technology-brings- fans...](http://iq.intel.com/360-degree-replay-technology-brings-fans-into- the-future-of-sports/)</comment>


In Wisconsin, you can go to jail for selling cookies you baked at home - <AUTHOR> https://youtu.be/7E3-agQSI-M <comment><USER2> I sympathize with the people in this story, but I wonder where the line should be drawn when it comes to regulating the sale of homemade goods for consumption. There has to be some protection for the consumer—just hopefully not like this.</comment>


How Can the New York Times Endorse an Agreement the Public Can't Read? - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/how-can-nytimes-endorse-agreement-public-cant-read <comment><USER2> What stunning misdirection in this thread by anigbrowl. In a way it reflects the NY Times opinion piece, which tries to simply characterise the TPP as a 'trade deal'.

Any reasonable, honest observer would halt the discussion immediately at the point they realise the TPP is being negotiated in secret (with the public and even political representatives kept in the dark over TPP contents over the many years it has been negotiated).

That corporate interests have unfettered access to the text and negotiations and democratic citizens do not is evidence enough of exactly whose interests are being negotiated.

That the text and all associated material must remain secret _for four years after_ the negotiations have ended (whether successful or not) shows the level of trust negotiators have in engaging with an informed democracy.

It gets to the heart of the sickness of secrecy that has infected whole swaths of our democratic institutions. Trying to guide discussion towards whether people are 'pro or anti trade' is risable misdirection or wilful ignorance at best.

The TPP is a full-frontal assault on democracy and national sovereignty from what we have learnt through leaked draft texts, and its contents are _highly likely_ to represent a backdoor check-mate across internet censorship, DRM, copyright, and many other issues this community cares about.

<comment><USER3> _That the text and all associated material must remain secret for four years after the negotiations have ended (whether successful or not) shows the level of trust negotiators have in engaging with an informed democracy._

^ not actually true. The final text would most certainly be public; you're probably referring to an agreement to keep negotiating documents secret for a 4 year period as described here (by an organization opposed to that approach): [http://www.citizen.org/documents/us-transparency- letter-2011...](http://www.citizen.org/documents/us-transparency- letter-2011.pdf)

I'm actually in favor of this approach. WTO negotiations involves full transparency, as mentioned in the letter above; it's also true that the WTO has been unable to reach agreement on what's known as the 'Doha round' for almost 13 years now. There are multiple reasons why that might or might not have happened, but the upshot is that trade liberalization has been stalled for over a decade. If negotiations out of the spotlight increase the parties' willingness to conclude a more limited and offer _that_ for ratification, I'm willing to put up with it. Most of you here seem to be assuming that this is the result of corporate secrecy; it seems as likely, if not more, so, to be at the request of the various countries involved in the negotiations.

 _Trying to guide discussion towards whether people are 'pro or anti trade' is risable misdirection or wilful ignorance at best._

It's interesting that you complain about this when I made no effort whatsoever to guide discussion in that direction. I called out the EFF article for being factually incorrect on its face and I stand by that. I mentioned elsewhere that I was personally pro-trade but uncertain about the TPP pending futher details.

<comment><USER2> > not actually true. The final text would most certainly be public; you're > probably referring to...

Yes, the _final text_ , if it becomes law, will be public. The _leaked texts_ show how dedicated the negotiators are to weakening sovereignty and empowering vested interests.

This is the issue. Lobbying groups have worked out how to hack sovereignty (with those pesky democratic processes and a desire to consider the public interest) by negotiating 'trade agreements' which are a bulk insert of desired laws around patent, copyright, and DRM into the legislative frameworks of multiple countries at the same time, without consultation or input by the citizens of each negotiating country.

These efforts are serious attacks on fundamental ideas we hold around self- determination, consent of the governed, transparent democratic processes.

So when you continue to try to focus the discussion on trade agreements, historical negotiations, 'trade liberalisation' you're plainly engaging in continued artful misdirection.

<comment><USER3> That's _your_ take on the issue. I see IP as just another market with a variety of interested parties, not of all whose interests coincide. From my perspective, a lot of people want to build consumer services without having to pay for content, just as many content holders are engaged in rent-seeking. I don't like the copyright lobby, but nor do I subscribe to the proposition that because the marginal cost of production in some industries is terribly low, no ownership interest should entail. And in case you're wondering, I do not lobby for or even own shares in any media or IP portfolio companies.

 _So when you continue to try to focus the discussion on trade agreements, historical negotiations, 'trade liberalisation' you're plainly engaging in continued artful misdirection._

Sorry, those happen to be my actual opinions. copyright, patent, and DRM issues are not the whole story of economics. I'm also interested in things like environmental and labor standards, public health policy, food security and poverty reduction, and I'm not going to apologize for having an interest in broader economic issues or willingness to compromise; it's my firm opinion that half a loaf is better than no bread, especially so in matters of economics.

That's why I'm broadly in support of a TPP and ardently in support of TTIP, not withstanding the numerous likely imperfections.

<comment><USER4> You do realize that many of the people who object to IP laws don't object because they want to build consumer services without having to pay for content, but because they want to produce hardware and software without having to cripple them, right?

This is not "just another market with a a wide variety of interested parties." This is people telling me what I am legally allowed to do in my own home. This is passing laws saying that you can't produce an innovative new device because someone, somewhere may use it to subvert someone else's IP interests.

And the issue with the treaty process is that a treaty can be used to bypass the democratic process within a country. A proposal that would be shot down due to public outcry can instead be done in a secret treaty, only revealed once it's fait accompli, with everyone involved being able to disclaim that "I didn't want that, but that's what we had to do to get the treaty passed" and thus dodge the political ramifications.

<comment><USER3> I've been hearing this since the late 80s and the sky still hasn't fallen. If you don't like it by all means call your senator, donate to opponents of the trade deal, fight against it/ I'm not trying to get you to support the TPP (not least because I don't know what's in it either, so far); my reason for jumping into this thread is to point out that the EFF is making flat-out false arguments, which strikes me as an absolutely stupid way to gin up opposition about it.

If they had written an article saying 'TPP negotiations should be public' I wouldn't object in the least - that's a perfectly reasonable view, even though I am not very exercised about it. Indeed, I linked to a letter from a group articulating exactly that position up thread. But saying 'NYT endorsed secret trade treaty' is simply a falsehood.

<comment><USER5> > If you don't like it by all means call your senator, donate to opponents of > the trade deal, fight against it

Well, I would _LIKE_ to do that. I would _LIKE_ to contact my president and the administration officials who are negotiating the treaty and provide them with my feedback and comments on the proposed wording. I would even like to spend some of my hard-earned money paying world-renowned experts (such as those who work with the EFF) to review it and provide even more insightful feedback.

Unfortunately, the text of the treaty is secret so I cannot do these things. I complain that I am being prevented from participating in democracy and you write that if I don't like it I should participate in democracy. Perhaps you don't understand the complaint that is being raised.

<comment><USER3> You'll be able to read it when it's presented to the Senate for ratification. There seems to be some notion that the Senate is going to vote on it in secret, but I don't find any evidence of this being the case.

<comment><USER5> When it is presented to the Senate for ratification is too late to have any influence on the text -- at that point the agreement can only be accepted or rejected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's simple. the NYT is and has been for some time, a mouthpiece for the sitting administration in Washington. They were under Bush, they are under Obama. The administrations trade 'towing the line' for access. Don't toe the line, no access. I hate to say it but there are few if any large news organizations which do the kind of Journalism we're taught about in school.

<comment><USER7> I also take issue with this Editorial and agree with the EFF, but this...

       a mouthpiece for the sitting administration in Washington. They were under Bush, they are under Obama

That kind of characterization borders on absurdity.

I'm sorry of the NYT doesn't bow to your personal politics but to say its a "mouthpiece" \- especially for Bush is more than a stretch of reality.

<comment><USER8> The NY Times stopped using the word torture to describe what the US was doing because of the Bush Admin. The New York times supported the Iraq War and was the leading the charge for a war with Iran during Bush's second term.

<comment><USER9> Supporting certain action of the administration and being a mouthpiece for the administration is a very different thing. Do you think any media org that supports, for example, the killing of Bin Laden, which is commonly attributed to Obama administration, is an Obama mouthpiece?

There were many people that supported Iraq War, from many political persuasions. Some regretted it, some didn't. It doesn't mean they all were Bush's mouthpieces, there is place for genuine agreement even in today's politics.

<comment><USER8> How do you characterize changing the language reporters are allowed to use in the paper to appease the Bush admin?

<comment><USER9> Israel just released 26 terrorists from jail about a week ago to appease Palestinian government. Does it mean the government of Israel is now an agent and mouthpiece of Hamas and PLO?

<comment><USER8> The notion that Israel does anything to appease Palestinian is kinda funny.

<comment><USER9> I don't see anything funny in it, but maybe your sense of humor is different. In any case, it is a fact - a quick Google search would produce ample confirmation that it did really happen if you doubt my words. In any case by changing the topic I assume you concede the initial point.

<comment><USER8> I asked you a straight forward question and you side stepped it with some ridicules notion that Israel is appeasing Palestine.

<comment><USER9> 1\. The word "ridicules" is a verb. You meant "ridiculous".

2\. It is not the notion, it is a fact. Widely confirmed by independent sources which you can find by simple Google search or on any "current events" page in any major media outlet.

3\. I brought it as an example that appeasing somebody and identifying with somebody is not the same. If you don't like this example, take example of Chamberlain appeasing Germans. I didn't use that because that has a high chance of taking discussion offtopic, but you managed to take it offtopic anyway.

4\. The original point was that appeasing and being a mouthpiece is far from being the same. You still did not manage to bring any argument to the contrary. NYT published a lot of things harmful to Bush. It also published a lot of things useful to Bush. Thinking that the same newspaper that published the story of Stellar Wind was parroting Bush doesn't make any sense.

<comment><USER8> your lack of understanding of the world around you is frightening

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm going to contact Margaret Sullivan, the Times' Public Editor, and ask her to write about why the paper is endorsing something they haven't seen. If enough folks join me, she might weigh in. [http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/](http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/)

email@example.com

<comment><USER11> _I 'm going to contact Margaret Sullivan, the Times' Public Editor..._

^^^This should be top post

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is complete and total bullshit. The NYT did not endorse anything. The editorial in question is here (following the link from the EFF page, lest I be accused of misdirecting people): [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade- de...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade- deal.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1383865633-4qrS4kyZ6fmMiDgkHadqTw)

It discusses the fact of the ongoing negotiations, mentions a variety of potential difficulties, and concludes by defining what it (the NYT board) considers to be the elements of a good agreement.

I'm generally a fan of the EFF but this article is ludicrous scaremongering. How the EFF spun this into an uncritical endorsement and thought it was appropriate to throw around insinuations of 'extraordinary cowardice' absent any evidence whatsoever. Essentially, the EFF is attacking the idea that there even could be such a thing as a good trade deal, equating the NYT's effort to articulate what that would be with an uncritical endorsement. It's fundamentally dishonest and has seriously lowered my opinion of the EFF.

<comment><USER12> A great deal of intent is telegraphed by how you say things and the words you choose to use. Starting out with something like "[the agreement] could help all of our economies and strengthen relations between the United States and several important Asian allies" definitely is putting a positive spin on something which I find a bit odd given the text of the agreement isn't even public .

<comment><USER13> It's not odd at all, because what they are coming out in favor of is having _a_ good Pacific trade agreement. They are neither endorsing nor disapproving of whatever is actually in this particular agreement.

Analogy: suppose Monsanto has a new pesticide that increases crop yields, but causes some serious environmental damage.

I write an editorial coming out in favor of increasing crop yields.

If the EFF were reading my editorial the way they are reading the Times, they would claim that I have endorsed Monsanto's new pesticide.

<comment><USER4> No, this is more like Monsanto announcing that they have a secret new pesticide that will provide amazing benefits.

Many people criticize it due to Monsanto's track record of causing environmental damage, and due to certain leaks of information that suggest it may be quite bad.

Then you write an article saying that you are all in favor of Monsanto coming out with a new pesticide that strikes a good balance between the interests of the farmer's increased crop yields and the damage to the environment around them.

Do you see what they did there? They not only blew off the concerns of people worried about intellectual property overreach ("balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property" implies that there are two distinct groups of people and that there is some kind of balance between them, which vastly oversimplifies concerns about intellectual property), but by stating their endorsement for this agreement that they haven't seen (even in the abstract, of "we support a good deal that does the right things") they are basically implying that they think the general direction of the deal is positive. Even though they hedge their bets, they are using pretty strongly positive language here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It seems to me the NYT editorial doesn't specifically endorse anything... it just says what elements would make up an acceptable treaty:

> A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and > services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability > of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and > balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property. > Such a deal will not only help individual countries but set an example for > global trade talks.

What part of the editorial is endorsing a specific secret text or giving blanket approval to any deal?

<comment><USER15> THE EDITORIAL BOARD (there's a link that tells who might have approved this) claim sources within the administration and put out their position, but didn't manage any reporting on the object of these negotiations (a draft treaty) and lack the critical skills to even mention that this document has stayed private. I see it as similar to their support of the WMD story: quite possibly fiction but critical thinking didn't enter the picture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> They can endorse it the same way they endorsed the hysteria of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and helped pound the drumbeat to war. _It 's the New York Times._ EFF is being rhetorical, of course. May they continue to push this into the light.

</comment><comment><USER17> It would appear that such an international agreement would comprise a "treaty" under the Constitution, requiring Senate approval.

In general, the Senate doesn't like being bypassed.

Is there an end-run here I don't know about?

<comment><USER18> No, the agreement will need to go for Senate review, which will be a very long and public process.

I like the EFF in general, but they have an unfortunate tendency toward being shrill and incomplete in their public statements. The NY Times here is clearly not endorsing any specific language, but the concept of a well-formed trade agreement. In fact they directly acknowledge the challenge of getting the IP provisions right-- which is the main concern of the EFF.

<comment><USER19> Hi snowwrestler, I'm one of the shrill and incomplete activists at EFF.

You're correct in the abstract that such an agreement would need Senate review, but as noted in the piece and as we described in a letter to the Senate signed by Amnesty International, FSF, Free Press, and a bunch of others, the USTR is currently seeking "fast track authority" to bypass that process.

Read the editorial: the NY Times is endorsing an agreement that the public can't read. If they wanted it to be conditional, they could have written it that way. But instead, they acknowledged concerns and then dismissed them without a good explanation. And the public can't explain it themselves because we can't read the text.

<comment><USER3> _Read the editorial: the NY Times is endorsing an agreement that the public can 't read._

I did. It isn't.

<comment><USER11> _the USTR is currently seeking "fast track authority" to bypass that process._

So when are we gonna get to read it? After the Fact? Who is supposed to "analyze" this? WTF

<comment><USER3> When it's offered to the Senate for ratification, which is entirely in line with Article II of the Constitution as far as I can see. The President is empowered to make treaties, and the EFF is being rather disingenuous in seeking to imply that Congress's role is being usurped in any way.

<comment><USER11> _The fast track negotiating authority (also called trade promotion authority or TPA, since 2002) for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that the Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster._

Are you taking issue with the premise of fast-track (ie, that it will go regular track)? Because based on the structure, it comes up for a vote in Y/N only. So debate is essentially pointless (unless the whole thing is rejected) as its take-it-or-leave-it. So all of the non-pointless debate needs to occur beforehand. Which is certainly inconsistent with complete secrecy. Or is everybody missing something?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29)

<comment><USER3> I'm absolutely fine with the debate being about whether to accept or reject it. There's so much bikeshedding and logrolling in Congress these days that I think they're more effective when confronted with the necessity of an up or down vote. YMMV of course.

Also, that's how the Senate votes on judicial and other nominees (Y/N, rather than having any control over a shortlist or setting criteria), and Article II says that treaty votes come before the Senate the same way. I have the impression that you and several other posters would prefer a more parliamentary system of government where the executive was a member of the legislature and directly subject to its authority* but that's not our constitutional scheme.

* A key difference in a parliamentary system being that a vote of no confidence in the executive can force a general election.

<comment><USER11> My issue with this is selective discolure. The idea that you only disclose XYZ treaty to PQR special interest and then not show it to the public is BS. I understand the logic of the fast track, and I also understand to concept of too many cooks in the kitchen. But strategic, manipulative, selective disclosure is another ball of wax.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6694617](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6694617)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Original NYT editorial

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade- de...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade- deal.html?_r=0)

To summarize: a good trade pact would be good.

<comment><USER21> Too bad TPP isn't it, and they will try to pass it anyway.

Besides, that sort of thing should be made public, and not signed and agreed upon between countries in secret.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sorry but there's no endorsement of something unread here by the New York Times. You can interpret the Times's positive spin on the potential agreement as a de facto endorsement, but it is not an endorsement. It's as if the Times said that it's good a new Avengers movie is coming out and the EFF said that the NYTimes gave the movie a positive review without seeing it. Disagree with what the New York Times said, but they don't claim to have seen the agreement.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm going to have to trust the government on this one. Clearly they have the people's best interests in mind. In fact why should they ever let us see anything in the future, it makes us angry and leads to silly arguments. Instead they can simply tell us when the business is complete - signed, a North Korean.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sorry, but I must be missing something - what/where is the actual endorsement? Did they run an article about this?

<comment><USER3> There isn't one, but only a small percentage of the outraged readers will have bothered to click through and discover this for themselves.

<comment><USER25> _A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property. Such a deal will not only help individual countries but set an example for global trade talks._

from [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade- de...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade- deal.html?_r=0)

<comment><USER3> That's the sort of agreement they would like to see. Whether or not that's the sort of agreement that emerges from the TPP negotiations remains to be seen. One assumes they would be unenthusiastic about an agreement that did not include such elements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Just so ya'll know, the main crux of this deal for the US is that they're going to be a major natural gas supplier to the United States of Europe to cut off Russia from it. This is part of the reason Russia has probably been to supportive of Snowden, which would normally be a bad idea politically, because they're trying to mess up the US/EU relationship. Natural gas is going to unfortunately be the way forward for awhile in all the post-Fukushima paranoia/propaganda cycle.

<comment><USER3> This is TPP, not TTIP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> While this story might be sensational, does anybody know the rationale behind keeping treaties like this secret.

I could come up with all kinds of explanations like our leader being fearful of criticism, but I would like to know if there an actual practical reason.

<comment><USER28> Author of this blog post here.

They claim that they need to keep it secret to maintain a strategic advantage as each of the countries trade off different provisions that could benefit or harm their economies. US Trade Rep says that if they make the draft texts public, then it will somehow effect their "game plan" against other nations.

This justification has become ever more dubious (or at the very least, extremely hypocritical) given the fact that the NSA has been spying on trade delegates and shares that information with the US Trade Rep. (Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/no-morsel-too- minusc...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/no-morsel-too-minuscule- for-all-consuming-nsa.html))

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Because the Obama administration told them to.

</comment><comment><USER30> For political leverage

</comment><comment><USER31> Just their way of saying, most everyone in the country is an idiot and we recognize that.</comment>


Show HN: Parity – The learning platform and community for entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> https://parrity.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hey everyone,

Thanks for checking Parity out. I'd love to hear your thoughts and feedback on the platform I'm making.

I know it's still quite empty at the moment, two-sided marketplaces are tough to get off the ground, but I'm working on that and on bringing the best possible content and authors you can learn from.

In case you have something that's worth sharing, I'd be happy to give you the podium.

You can also help me out by voting for topics you'd be interested in reading here -[https://community.parrity.com/t/what-subject-topic-do-you- re...](https://community.parrity.com/t/what-subject-topic-do-you-really-want- to-learn-more-about-poll/40)

Thanks,

Lubo</comment>


A Point of View: Why it's time to turn the music off - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34801885 <comment><USER2> >music made by computers

This is repeated ad nauseum by the musicians community and really annoys me. Music is about what you hear and feel, not about how it's made.

There are also a lot of guitar musicians who play a couple of basic chords, add some cheesy lyrics about love and call it a day. Nowadays, people prefer the same, with electronic sounds instead, not too different IMO.

<comment><USER3> Music snobbery is really annoying. However, his complaint about the bass going into your bones... I would complain about that if it happened. However, I haven't gone anywhere that has that kind of music playing that is not explicitly for that kind of music. Besides that, it feels like the author is complaining just for the sake of complaining.

<comment><USER2> Funny thing, I read this right after reading an article about 'microcomplaints' on HN. Kind of validated the previous one.</comment></comment></comment>


How do I get my daughter interested in computers? - <AUTHOR> https://elaineou.com/2017/09/26/how-do-i-get-my-daughter-interested-in-computers/ <comment><USER2> Rant piece, be warned, nothing to do with the title</comment>


Wikipedia edits have impact on tourism, say economists - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/sep/18/wikipedia-edits-have-massive-impact-on-tourism-say-economists <comment><USER2> > A senior editor on the Dutch site had spotted the experiment in progress, > and proceeded to ban all future updates from the team. Commercial editing is > not allowed on the site, and the research was deemed to cross the line.

From the paper:

> Community reaction:

> In the first day after the treatment, we checked the articles, and in French > and Italian language, no problems occurred. In German Wikipedia, an > administrator contacted us and asked about the purpose of the content > uploads and whether we have any commercial interest. We replied, providing > information about our institution and the research group, and about the > research project. This response was sufficient.

> In Dutch Wikipedia, a single editor reverted all our edits within 24 hours. > We discussed the issue with this editor, but the editor was not willing to > accept our contributions and therefore we decided to stop the uploads on the > Dutch Wikipedia and accept the reversions.

I am not surprised.

The Dutch Wikipedia has one massive drawback compared to other non-English Wikipedia editions like the German, Spanish, or French; most Dutch capable of contributing to Wikipedia with any kind of depth of knowledge are also proficient in English, and seem to prefer to invest their energy in the English Wikipedia instead, if at all. This leads to the Dutch Wikipedia being even more insular and cliquish then the English one. If you encounter the wrong editor unwilling to accept your edit (even if it is factually correct, non-commercial, and fully compliant with Wikipedia's values) you will need to invest literal work-weeks in hours to get it fixed via arbitration and other such instruments (after carefully studying the Wikipedia policies the editor uses as munition), or, you just give up.

</comment><comment><USER2> Massive impact even, according to the headline.

The full paper referenced in the article is available here:

[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3046400](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3046400)

<comment><USER2> I didn't find a list of the actual Spanish cities for which they edited Wikipedia though. This unfortunately makes it impossible to view a diff of their edits. That would have been informative.</comment></comment>


Tutorial: How to create a webworkers driven multithreading App – Part 2 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-create-a-webworkers-driven-multithreading-app-part-2-3c5b3c2d1adb <comment><AUTHOR> Just got selected by Medium into Javascript & published by "The Startup".

Definitely a new way to create Apps, including complex components, view controllers, routing etc.

Feedback appreciated!</comment>


The Unexpectedly High Cost of a Bad Hire - <AUTHOR> http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130716151946-2967511-the-high-costs-of-a-bad-hire-and-how-to-avoid-them <comment><USER2> "How costly? The U.S. Department of Labor currently estimates that the average cost of a bad hiring decision can equal 30% of the individual's first-year potential earnings. That means a single bad hire with an annual income of $50,000 can equal a potential $15,000 loss for the employer."

I think this dramatically understates the cost. What's the cost when 3 people quit because you hired a PM that threw them under the bus in front of a client? What's the cost when 2 women quit because they were sexually harassed? What's the cost when an employee defrauds a client?

The cost of a hiring mistake is not a fraction of a years compensation, it's many multiples of a years compensation. This is one reason many places let slightly sub-par people stay.

<comment><USER3> sorry the last sentence seems to be a non-sequitur. Why does the high cost of a hiring mistake justify letting slightly sub-par people stay?

<comment><USER4> Very risk-averse people might prefer a known meh to an unknown potential apocalypse.

<comment><USER2> You answered it much better than me. Every hire that comes in without someone at the firm personally vouching for their character is a risk. Sometimes an honest meh is better than risking the apocalypse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The author starts off with some data, but it's far from complete. $15k in lost productivity for a 50k hire? Sure, then there's the retraining costs, potential hits to morale, and then the opportunity cost. Opportunity cost for a bad hire varies, but the profit you could enjoy from a motivated person can be huge depending on their role.

Now then, we get into solutions and suddenly things start getting fluffy. "... find an expert in the candidate's specific field and get some advice on the best questions to ask." Fluff. This is opinion piggybacking on fact.

There's a _huge body of research_ that could tell you how to hire better people. If you've read any of it, you'll know that unstructured interviews are not the way to go! You're essentially testing a person's ability to perform in an interview rather than their ability to do the job.

I'm continually shocked that businesses who rely on their employees for every penny of revenue have no idea how to hire the best employees. Everyone thinks they have some sort of sixth sense gut feeling that can guide them to the right people. Some of the research in this field is very good, and it could be better if business owners and managers paid it any mind.

<comment><USER6> Do you have any links handy to some of this research? I'd be interested to check it out.

<comment><USER5> I'm not joking when I say there's a body of research. You can find a lot of it in journals that deal with organizational behavior, strategic management, and strategic HR.

I mentioned specifically the oft-used unstructured interview. Here are some links for that point:

>Meta-analysis: _" structured interviews produced mean validity coefficients twice as high as unstructured interviews"_ [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988.tb00467.x/abstract)

>Meta-analysis: All interview validity estimated at .19, but structured interviews estimated at .39: [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1989....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1989.tb00491.x/abstract)

Outside of boring journals and texts that you might not have access to, we can always just Google Scholar for things like "employment selection instrument": [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=employment+selection+ins...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=employment+selection+instrument)

<comment><USER7> If you're looking for practical info about implementing better interviewing practices, check out this book: [http://www.amazon.com/Hiring-Geeks-That-Fit- ebook/dp/B00AUYN...](http://www.amazon.com/Hiring-Geeks-That-Fit- ebook/dp/B00AUYNM38)

Highly recommended. Covers some subsets of structured interviewing as well as effective techniques for the rest of the hiring process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The problem with these 'how to hire' articles is that they're not based on empirical evidence. Therefore they might be just as wrong as Google's interview puzzles (which were found to be worthless).

>So if you're hiring for an IT role, find and talk to an IT person about what makes a good team member.

Not sure why that's relevant. People can be good team members without really thinking about what makes a good team member (and vice versa).

>Savvy HR departments are already looking through candidates' Facebook and LinkedIn profiles. I recommend going as far as checking a candidate's Twitter feed to gain insight.

That's illegal in most of Europe. It's pretty dangerous to check somebody's personal social media feeds. The interviewer will probably be affected by the candidates politicial or ideological positions (possibly subconsciously).

>People tend to be the most alert and thoughtful during this initial stage of the job application process.

And some people submit a lot of job applications and don't have time to pay perfect attention during that process (even if they are alert and thoughtful on the job).

</comment><comment><USER9> Does a bad hire explicitly mean those who engage in office politics, lower the morale, engage in fraud, malice, etc.

Or

Does it mean an entry level dev/intern who is just learning the ropes and might commit a few mistakes out of genuine incompetence/inexperience rather than malice.

I see most hiring managers, HRs and what have you intimidate potential entry- level interviewees that if they weren't upto and in some cases over the company standard they'd end up costing the company a lot.

<comment><USER10> I take it to mean both. They're both bad hires, though obviously in different ways and degrees.

Generally speaking though, in places I've worked, simply being not up to snuff is not in and of itself evidence of a bad hire.

If you're not competent, cannot learn quickly, or are unwilling to train and learn, then you may be a bad hire.

<comment><USER9> I can understand if they cannot learn quickly but I haven't come across or ever heard of hires unwilling to train. Why would entry-level employees be unwilling to train?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> He quoted the tweet as is, which led me to the identity of the poor job seeker who had the misfortune of applying to work at this company. Looks like bad form to me.

I'm curious what about the tweet thing turned this guy off.

<comment><USER12> Yup, it shows... let's see going through this thread... it shows that the company had piss poor judgment, doesn't take hiring seriously, aren't prepared to hire the best people, ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So how I read this is he stalks applicants on Facebook, won't hire people who drink socially during their own personal free time, and demands that applicants reveal the web sites they hang out on, or it's an instant no hire.

None of these things have anything to do with capability to do a job.

Sure, bad hires can be costly, but this article's advice is terrible and the author comes across as a crazed tyrant.

<comment><USER14> And how I read it is that somebody who shows up drunk to a job interview does not use good decision making skills and is likely unreliable.

I love a beer in _my time_ , and I would be happy to enjoy a beer with my coworkers in _our time_ , but I find it hard to believe that somebody who shows up drunk to an interview (even a phone interview) is a "good hire".

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > We found it and needless to say, he was not hired.

I guess it's good to know that Hootsuite considers consuming alcohol during non-working hours - while attending a conference intended to improve one's social media skills - to be a firing offense. They should probably include that in their job ads to make sure "bad" candidates don't apply.

<comment><USER16> They didn't fire him. They just didn't hire him. Tweeting that you're drunk going into the interview says a few things: you don't take it seriously, you aren't preparing as best you could, and possibly that you're driving drunk to get to the interview.

<comment><USER17> While I agree with you, the article mentioned it was a phone interview, so hopefully he wouldn't be driving drunk. I suppose he could be driving drunk while talking on the phone, which would explain some of the people I see on my morning commute.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _The ability to work well with others is a skill that benefits any workplace. An obvious way to gauge this is to contact the candidate's references. But, why not take it a step further and dig into a candidate's social media profiles?_

Ehh. I like to keep my personal life separate from my professional life. The way I conduct myself with friends is not how I interact with coworkers.

An employer who insists Facebook and Twitter are among the best indicators of compatibility around the office should probably review how well they actually work with others.

</comment><comment><USER19> Feels like an oversimplification. One issue is your work output. An independent issue is the team-building and motivating (or demotivating) effect you have on your co-workers. Tough to find someone who is a "A+ player" on both dimensions, while also affordable, honest, loyal, etc. Everyone has some limitation.

This article seems to promote risk aversion (and HR consulting services) without providing usable insight.

</comment><comment><USER20> I found this article extremely helpful. I now know the CEO of Zappos thinks he can snoop into my personal life, because hey, it can cost him some money if he doesn't. What is my privacy in the face of that?

<comment><USER19> If I remember the book correctly, Tony Hsieh credits his success to insights gained from going to raves and doing drugs. (Ecstasy, I assume.) So he's probably not looking for Puritans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "3\. The curveball: Hide an unexpected question in the fine print." So in addition to putting you through pointless interview puzzles they also want to send me on a scavenger hunt?

</comment><comment><USER22> I love the secretary test! Our CEO at Lucidchart used to sit right at the front door (best natural light) and it was always funny to watch how potential hires would interact with him. The smart ones recognize his face and immediately engage, and others don't say anything on the way in or out. Who doesn't visit the website of their potential employer and at least read up about the management team? Especially when at the time it was a startup of 10 people!

<comment><USER21> Are you saying you don't hire people because they didn't instantly recognize your CEO? Honestly I could look up the company, see some standard headshots, but I'm not sure I would instantly recognize them in person. Sounds like someone has a "I'm so important everyone should know me" complex.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> In my opinion, for product based companies, it is a small subset of brilliant employees which bring the most value to the company.

Although the goal is to maximize such hires, due to the broken(both ways) nature of the hiring process, the company ends up hiring many employees who turn out to be average, and some even go on to become the subject of this article- mediocre.

More importantly, following this line of thinking, the cost incurred due to a manager causing the top talents to leave the company is much more(esp. compounded cost), than the cost of hiring a bad employee.

</comment><comment><USER24> "How costly? The U.S. Department of Labor currently estimates that the average cost of a bad hiring decision can equal 30% of the individual's first-year potential earnings. That means a single bad hire with an annual income of $50,000 can equal a potential $15,000 loss for the employer."

"How do you find your "cream of the cream"? What are your unique or tried-and- tested hiring strategies?"

Am I the only one who was thinking "How do you expect to hire the "cream of the cream" if you only pay $50K a year?"</comment>


Atul Gawande - Failure and Rescue - <AUTHOR> http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2012/06/atul-gawande-failure-and-rescue/

<comment><USER2> Direct link to article: [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/06/atul-...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/06/atul- gawande-failure-and-rescue.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is one of the better things to hit HN in awhile, and is uniquely relevant to professionals. Shame it's taking a back seat to The Oatmeal and Kittydar.</comment>


The Myth Of Creativity - <AUTHOR> http://hanson.gmu.edu/press/BusinessWeek-7-3-06.htm

<comment><USER2> While I see value in the overall message, I think the author sets up a false dichotomy that somehow suggests there's a gulf between creative invention and pragramtic diligence. This is often something I run into - this notion that creativity equals flights of fancy, non-realist, ungrounded. On the contrary, creating, is in my mind, the wisdom to use the opportunities and resources close by, whether internal or external, to be productive in ways that exceed beyond what would be easy. Creativity and results can not be separated.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I think there's this odd view that creativity is _ex nihilo_ , an unexplainable intercession from the cosmos that disrupts the usual ways of thinking. Since an area I care about is creativity in AI systems, we very much hope that isn't true, because simulating intercessions from the cosmos on computers is hard. ;-)

Although it's got all sorts of things I disagree with, a decent overview of, "can we nail down creativity more specifically than just 'flash of inspiration'?", and in particular how it ties in with "normal" problem solving, is Margaret Boden's book: [http://www.amazon.com/Creative-Mind-Myths- Mechanisms/dp/0415...](http://www.amazon.com/Creative-Mind-Myths- Mechanisms/dp/0415314534)

<comment><USER4> > _simulating intercessions from the cosmos on computers is hard._

Cosmic ray radiation affects computers all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The author, Robin Hanson, has done some really great work in prediction markets. One of his papers directly led to the founding of Inkling Markets (YC06).

I sort of get the feeling that this article was indirectly referring to his involvement in the very creative, but highly politicized "Policy Analysis Market" which was a DARPA sponsored prediction market that might have included trading on topics such "a missile attack by North Korea" or "the overthrow of the king of Jordan."

Given how that went down, this article makes much more sense.

Details at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Analysis_Market>

<comment><USER6> I knew that I recognized his name. He writes <http://overcomingbias.com/> which, along with <http://lesswrong.com/> keeps me making sense.

(Both are worth reading regularly.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I agree with him that mostly the bottleneck is not in idea generation, but in what you do with the ideas that you and others have. Unfortunately, he does not really address the "doing" part, except by saying diligence is good. Sure, but you also need audacity to push good ideas against resistance. You need an open mind to use the best ideas of others. To me diligence implies doing what you're told, but I don't think that will result in too much innovation, because that presumes that your boss understands the value of the new thing as well as you do, which is very rarely the case.

</comment><comment><USER8> Words always get mangled in meaning when the enter the business vocabulary. "Leadership" is a good example. We don't really need that many Winston Churchills, and probably couldn't survive having them. Nevertheless we admire the quality of leadership want to emulate it. From what I have distilled over years in the corporate world, its practical meaning there has become "Having the guts to suck it up and get with the program."

So it goes with the word creative. No longer will we judge an artist to be creative by considering only the impression their work makes on the mind, without reference to the price of their work. Instead it will refer to the ability to generate unexpected profits with a limited set of resources by "delighting" the customer.

Exit leadership, enter creativity.

</comment><comment><USER9> >Instead, the innovations that matter most are the millions of small changes we constantly make to our billions of daily procedures and arrangements.

This is true, but it's important to understand that whole categories of employment actually discourage and even forbid employees from adapting their own workflows to be more productive. Instead their workflows are imposed, often haphazardly or arbitrarily, from above - and often from people who have never actually performed the work they're managing. Workers who are denied any ownership of their own work are all but guaranteed to be cynical and unproductive.

</comment><comment><USER10> Successful innovators usally knows that genius is 1% inspiration or creativity and 99% transpiration - hard work to implement the idea or several ideas until the successful idea and it's implementation is found.

<comment><USER11> "successful innovators" lol. I have this idea that it takes more than one person to be successful. I think you rarely find the guy with the revolutionary idea and the guy that is the determine hard worker to be the same person. The ideas person is normally a dreamer and likes to change ideas quickly while the determine hard worker is diligent and hates change.

According to Meredith Belbin - "NOBODY'S PERFECT - BUT A TEAM CAN BE" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Belbin>

Although on the surface one person gets all the glory, it takes alot of persons to be successful.

<comment><USER9> >I think you rarely find the guy with the revolutionary idea and the guy that is the determine hard worker to be the same person.

I disagree. The only way to arrive at a workable revolutionary idea is to iterate aggressively until you hit on a model that works.

<comment><USER11> Absolutes... words like only...Successfully Entrepreneurs. Be reasonable and say for some workable revolutionary idea. You'll are creating a dogma about entrepreneurship.

It only takes one counter example to brake your false notion of entrepreneurship.

Facebook - when it came out was a hit.

Google Search - they were good from the start, the interface rarely changed

eBay - Unexcepted hit. [The majority of their iteration was done after they were successful] -There is something called luck. For people that arent superstars maybe you are right. All am asking is to be reasonable and say some, not all.

<comment><USER9> You can't warn credibly against absolutes right after writing a generalization like this:

> I think you rarely find the guy with the revolutionary idea and the guy that > is the determine hard worker to be the same person. The ideas person is > normally a dreamer and likes to change ideas quickly while the determine > hard worker is diligent and hates change.

These are caricatures that reinforce the false dichotomy between creativity and hard work.

<comment><USER11> Rarely is not an absolute.Rarely leaves room for outliers, And before rarely, i added i think, making it clear i have no evidence to back this up.

Only - is an absolute. You made no effort to indicate it was an opinion but you present it as an absolute truth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The only time I was ever told to "think outside the box" it was because, in my arrogance and hubris, I stubbornly refused to believe or accept something that was completely untenable.

<comment><USER13> I frequently see "think outside the box" on many job postings on craigslist as if you can either have it or you don't type of attitude.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This author sounds boring.</comment>