Ask HN: Is there something akin to "agents"  in the software industry? - <AUTHOR> As a writer or an actor, my understanding is that you usually hire an agent who negotiates on your behalf, and you give them some percentage of what you make.
All of the job placement middlemen I've seen on the IT side of things are paid by my counterparty, and thus work against me when it comes time to negotiate.
From what I've seen, the difference between negotiating well and negotiating poorly is often quite large.
Does something like this exist for people in the "almost $200K/yr total compensation" range?    Should something like this exist?   What are the barriers to creating something like this? <comment><USER2> There have been attempts to create something like this, yes. I don't know how successful they've been however. See:

[http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-04-10/silicon- vall...](http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-04-10/silicon-valley-goes- hollywood-top-coders-can-now-get-agents)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5400055](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5400055)

<comment><AUTHOR> It is unclear to me who pays this agency, and "how much" is more unclear. I think that if I am your customer, it needs to be transparent to me... e.g. I know how much the end company is paying, I know how much my negotiator is taking, etc, etc.

Actually, that might be the closest we'll get to my idea; just start an agency that gets on the "preferred vendor lists" the usual way, then be transparent with the worker you are placing on what the fees are.</comment></comment>


Removing a motorway to bring back the original waterway in Utrecht [video 6:25] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsQQ8Ujbua4 <comment><USER2> Fantastic! More cities should do this (even if they didn't have a canal in the first place:) )</comment>


The Indian 'Spy' Who Mapped Tibet - <AUTHOR> https://www.livehistoryindia.com/history-daily/2019/06/14/the-indian-spy-who-mapped-tibet <comment><USER2> Thanks, that was interesting ! Why do they say that Tibet was locked ?</comment>


Diplomats targeted in sonic weapon attacks in Cuba have suffered brain damage - <AUTHOR> http://www.iflscience.com/technology/bizarre-sonic-weapon-attacks-story-just-took-an-extremely-dark-turn/ <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14979979](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14979979)

</comment><comment><USER3> Article with some motiv speculation:

> While I have not served in Cuba, my experience in a number of similar > hostile, high counterintelligence threat countries suggests that this is > more likely a surveillance effort gone wrong, than the use of an offensive > sonic weapon.

> We have very little experience anywhere in the world with directed attacks > designed to physically harm to our diplomats. However, the use of intrusive > technical collection and surveillance which sometimes causes harm in its own > right is consistent with past practice in Cuba and elsewhere.

Source: [http://www.newsweek.com/whos-making-our-diplomats-cuba-go- de...](http://www.newsweek.com/whos-making-our-diplomats-cuba-go-deaf-655219)

</comment><comment><USER4> > What type of sonic weapon could engender that kind of harm?

> Although low-frequency infrasound systems can "silently" cause a wide range > of symptoms in human targets – including fairly severe inner ear and even > hair cell damage – the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) doesn't > suggest that any brain damage can be caused.

> High-frequency microwaves, however, could certainly cause brain damage > without making a sound. If targeted at a person, small bursts could induce > "shockwaves" in brain tissue, as well as the inner ear. Prolonged exposures > could cause permanent damage.

I'm not sure exactly what is being discussed by this article which is thinly sourced.

However, it is true that _ultrasonic_ waves can change brain activity. It is typically difficult to couple ultrasonic waves to the head. We hear up to 20kHz. 100kHz is marginally attenuated by air. 1Mhz and above are highly attenuated by air, and that's why ultrasound imaging requires a gel to couple the ultrasound generator to your skin.

 _IF_ the article is correct that some kind of sonic weapon caused low-grade brain injury, perhaps it was a super-high-amplitude ultrasound in the 50-300kHz range?

<comment><USER4> Update: from the justsecurity article: >The Russian security services were also known to flood the U.S. embassy in Moscow with electromagnetic radiation. They would beam concentrated microwaves and electronic pulses at the Embassy in an attempt to eavesdrop on U.S. typewriters and conversations.

If very high levels of microwaves were used, perhaps this could explain the injuries. Microwaves are electromagnetic, not acoustic, but they are absorbed very weakly by water. It could be that people were injured by heating inside their ears or brain.

<comment><USER5> I'm curious if the US embassy performs signal intelligence or other broad spectrum EM monitoring of the embassy facility.

<comment> ju-st Surely, considering they even listen to other communications from their own embassies: [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed- brit...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-britains- secret-listening-post-in-the-heart-of-berlin-8921548.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Mild TBI:

"While MRI and CAT scans are often normal, the individual has cognitive problems such as headache, difficulty thinking, memory problems, attention deficits, mood swings and frustration.

[...]

Common Symptoms of Mild TBI

        Fatigue
        Headaches
        Visual disturbances
        Memory loss
        Poor attention/concentration
        Sleep disturbances
        Dizziness/loss of balance
        Irritability-emotional disturbances
        Feelings of depression
        Seizures

[...]

These symptoms may not be present or noticed at the time of injury. They may be delayed days or weeks before they appear. The symptoms are often subtle and are often missed by the injured person, family and doctors." [http://www.traumaticbraininjury.com/symptoms-of-tbi/mild- tbi...](http://www.traumaticbraininjury.com/symptoms-of-tbi/mild-tbi- symptoms/)

It doesn't really sound like a meaningful diagnosis to me.

</comment><comment><USER7> [https://www.justsecurity.org/44289/sonic-attacks- diplomats-c...](https://www.justsecurity.org/44289/sonic-attacks-diplomats- cuba-dont-rush-conclusions/)

this suggests it might be more of an accident than an intentional attack (ie. weapon)

</comment><comment><USER8> I read somewhere that it's much more likely they contracted neurosyphilis.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually done by Russia to harm US-Cuba relations.

</comment><comment><USER10> Demonization of the enemy.

Cuba has this tech? Yeah, right.

<comment><USER4> >Cuba has this tech? Yeah, right.

Cuba's got a fairly solid secret service. They're not the completely backward nation you envision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> this is fake news, isn't it?

<comment><USER3> I am not an intelligence expert but there are no obvious reason why Cuba (even if it is a hostile country) would do this now. The article link I shared above speculate if it is a intelligence gathering malfunction. Other theories also exists, but seems more unlikely.

<comment><USER12> It probably isn't Cuba doing it, but rather some other country's invasive spying tech that wasn't intended as a weapon.

<comment><USER9> cough Russia cough</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Be a big business for small bucks - rent a virtual office - <AUTHOR> http://marketplace.publicradio.org//display/web/2007/09/11/virtual_office/

<comment><USER2> On this topic: Does anyone have any experience leasing from Regus? We're thinking of using them for (non-virtual) offices and conference rooms in a few areas where we don't have full-time offices (for sales staff, mostly.) Regus/HQ is the biggest company for virtual/executive leased offices, I think, and I've heard some good things about them...and some outright horror stories. I'm not sure what to believe...

<comment><USER3> I was pretty close to going with them. But they don't tell you their rents up front, and when they do, it's not counting all the random additional fees.

Even when I added them up and found they charged less than the coworking space I was using, I decided not to go with them because it was ambiguous if there were perhaps other fees that I didn't know about.

<comment><USER2> The "horror stories" I mention mostly involve surprise fees and/or odd contract interpretations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> When I first started on my own I worked from a back-office in my house and this terribly bothered me. I found virtually no limitation or problems with any of my Clients (they actually perceived that I was giving them a bargain with my rates, by not having high overheads). The only problem I found was attracting the right staff (employees like to work in real offices!)</comment>


IAmA Ex-Digg Employee - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/wjars/iama_exdigg_employee_ama/

<comment><USER2> _> For me, personally, we never really thought about Reddit too much. It was always just this poorly designed site that was slowly gaining traction._

Wow. I always thought Digg was a poorly designed site and thought reddit was brilliant with a minimalist bent.

I suspect it means something significant if a site can slowly gain traction over a long period of time, versus a flashy site that can seem like the next big thing for a week.

Easy come, easy go.

<comment><USER3> How is Reddit considered minimalist? With every new day that I spend on Reddit, I lament the passing of Digg because Digg used to be superior to Reddit in design.

Here's one example. On my computer, using reddit in fullscreen means that I have to deal with article titles and comments that span 1000+ horizontal pixels, whereas Digg constrains the width of its comments to 600 pixels wide. The same can be said for Hacker News.

I absolutely cannot stand this because reading text on screen at that width creates a tremendous amount of cognitive friction. Plus, there's no easy solution to this problem. If I snap the window to take up half my screen, the dumb (un-hideable) sidebar ends up eating most of that screen space. That means I have to manually resize my browser window to force a width that makes the site readable to me. I hate this about reddit.

This is a just a drop in the bucket of nitpicks I have with reddit. I use it because it entertains me, but I'm not a fan of its cluttered, low contrast, haphazardly designed UI.

<comment><USER4> Reddit is minimalist because it doesn't have a feature that resizes the link to a suitable size for your screen. That's the essence of minimalism, technologically.

Perhaps you could argue it doesn't fit the "minimalist" design aesthetic. Which as popularly understood is not itself the embodiment of the philosophical concept of minimalism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _I felt like there should have been more moderation tools for the users so > they could better decide what they wanted to see. I like the way Reddit > allows moderators and that's something Digg should have done a long time > ago._

That was the ex-employee's view of how a few users can ruin it for the rest of us. Something to keep in mind anytime someone complains about the moderators on Hacker News or Stack Overflow.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Q&A version

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/wjars/iama_exdigg_empl...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/wjars/iama_exdigg_employee_ama/c5dwteu)</comment>


Is it OK to Hire People from Your Friend's Company? (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.bhorowitz.com/is_it_ok_to_hire_people_from_your_friend_s_company <comment><USER2> What a bizarre kind of possessiveness. Companies don't own their employees. Slavery is supposed to have ended quite some time ago (yes, I know it still exists).

If you want to hire someone, hire them. If an employee leaves, let them leave. No hard feelings. If you really don't want them to leave, offer them more. Preferably do that before they think about leaving. This sort of unfair limitations on employee's employability is or should be illegal.

<comment><USER3> I feel like that is not the point though. The analogy he made was fairly reasonable: people have fairly demanding (sometimes irrational) restrictions on who they decide to keep in their lives as friends. This is about that. Not about slavery. Not about mismanagement of a company.

<comment><USER2> Well, I don't need "friends" who make demanding and irrational restrictions on our friendship.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article was written just a few months after the Justice Department in late 2010 announced its agreement with Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit and Pixar regarding their anticompetitive practices. It is clearly a reaction to that agreement and its purpose is to lay out an argument that can be used to maintain plausible deniability regarding anticompetitive agreements by arguing that these activities are just friends being polite and displaying good manners, rather than a conspiracy to defraud top talent of market wages.

<comment><USER5> It's not this post that's terribly wrong, but the widespread fallacy of equivalence between tiny companies and large corporations. It's not inconsistent to think it reasonable for small startups to avoid hiring each other's employees, yet that scaling this up to a significant part of the labor market is problematic.

<comment><USER6> Owning a small company doesn't magically exempt you from obeying the law.

<comment><USER5> Sure, but when discussing morality, the current legality is irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Such a terrible article.

Just ask your friend. In 99% of cases, it's okay to ask. I mean if the guy or the girl want to leave, your friend is gonna to tell everything you need to know, what matters. And maybe, you aren't gonna to hire him because he is actually terrible or maybe your friend will just say he is fantastic and give you a green light.

> It is important to note that just about all of these kinds of policies > violate the Right to Work laws in California.

There is no right to work in California. [1] It's the actual opposite. Coming from a VC, that's shameful.

1\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to- work_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law)

<comment><USER8> The 'right-to-work' doublespeak wins again. Horowitz is right (I think) that this behavior may violate California labor laws but he used the wrong term. The article you linked to explains what I mean but the gist is that right-to- work laws are laws that restrict union organizing in various ways.

Edit: It's not actually very relevant to this discussion but to the extent that it is, the fact that California does NOT have such a law means that workers have more rights than states that do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > It is important to note that just about all of these kinds of policies > violate the Right to Work laws in California. Specifically, if you block a > hire based on this kind of policy and the employee loses their job and > cannot find work, your company is liable for his wages. As a result, the > business relationship with the other company must be extremely important for > you to employ any kind of "hands off" policy.

I think this is an interesting aspect about business reasoning that a lot of people don't understand. Even though another comment here points out this isn't correct. If something is illegal and carries a risk of large fines or a large civil judgement, that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it necessarily. It just means that you have to weigh that potential cost against the benefits of doing it. If the benefits are greater, you go ahead and pay the fine or the litigation as a cost of doing business.

You don't change the way companies operate by going on about whether something is right or wrong. You have to introduce a cost larger than any potential benefit. If not hiring person X costs you a couple hundred thousand dollars in a civil judgement, but helps you keep a business partnership that's worth hundreds of millions in revenue, you'd have to be crazy to go ahead and hire someone from a business partner in those circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER10> The similarities between this post and the actions that Google and Apple took and are now being investigated for are striking. At a small scale, it's just "good business" not to poach. At a large scale it's "evil" and illegal. Seems rather arbitrary to me.

<comment><USER2> I don't think it's good business at all. It's stupid and evil. It's very small scale, so it doesn't have a lot of consequences outside the one employee that gets screwed, but scale is really the only difference here. And even one employee getting screwed unfairly is one too many.

<comment><USER11> Right. We need to stop treating human interaction and people's livelihood, their very ability to earn a living and have a home and feed themselves and perhaps their family, as something that can be statistically gamed.

Grow the fuck up or do not run a company. Childish viewpoints are for the playground. If your friend can't deal with the fact that you offer a more attractive work environment, he or she deserves for their company to tank and the smart employees will follow the first one who leaves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is it OK to sell for cheaper than a friend? Is it OK to use a vendor who won't give your friend the price that he wants? Ultimately, is it OK to compete with a friend?

Maybe they should just rename anti-trust law into anti-friend law, the bitter killjoys.

</comment><comment><USER13> "you should get the issue onto the table by informing the employee that you have an important business relationship with his existing company and you will have to complete a reference check with the CEO prior to extending the offer"

Is that even legal? IANAL but it seems highly unlikely that only hiring someone if they agree to a reference check with someone they didn't list as a reference is kosher in most states. Typically the way this would work is that you could make a conditional offer, and anything beyond date of hire and date of departure (that caused them to not get the job) would be grounds to sue their previous employer... in which case you really aren't doing your friend any favors.

IMO in the scenario described you should just hire them and apologize to your friend.

Edit: and even if it is legal in your state its unethical as hell. If your friend says not to hire they are most likely going to be looking to replace them ASAP with someone who isn't looking to leave.

<comment><USER14> IANAL, but the correct question to ask (the opposite of your question), is: Is that illegal? And I'm pretty darn sure it is not illegal. Why would the even be illegal? You can reference check as much as you want.

Be careful not to conflate social custom (it is customary that a company not reference check you with the company you work at) with law.

EDIT (reply to below): which has nothing to do with law. Parent claimed it was illegal, however. Not to mention the fact that it is perfectly ethical to make an offer conditional on letting you talk to their employer. What would be unethical is if you talked to their employer without asking them.

<comment><USER15> I would prefer to ask (a question you don't ask), is: Is that ethical? And I'm pretty darn sure it is not ethical.

<comment><USER16> I will tell you that I use all reasonably (and legally) available information in evaluating a prospective senior hire. That includes looking through my network for anyone who may have overlapped and getting their take on the candidate.

I will sometimes make an exception to that policy (hurting myself and my company) to not ask a current employer in cases where I probably wouldn't weigh that input very highly anyway.

I sure wouldn't expect that if you're applying to a company for an important position that they will entirely confine themselves to _your list_ of references. Why on Earth would they? I'm going to check my network, your public Google/github/twitter/FB presence, etc.

To me, it's not about doing a reference check with my friend the CEO of the other company to whitewash unethical colluding behavior nor to threaten a candidate, but rather because doing reference checks with people who know the candidate well is _good business_.

I should perhaps provide the following color to the above: I will also aggressively recruit from a friend's company, and I've been on the other side, with startups/spin-outs aggressively recruiting top talent from within my organization. I never took it personally, and am happy to see the success that allows them to hire great employees, and happy to see employees go on to a job they prefer. My job is to make my own company a great place to work and retain top employees that way, not try to cultivate some quid-pro-quo social obligation to prevent the prison warden next door from hiring my prisoners.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why shouldn't companies retain employees by paying them what they are worth and giving them a good work environment rather than colluding to keep them from leaving?

<comment><USER18> It's not about colluding, it's just that the new CEO is bound to not hire you out of loyalty to his/her friend. Social laws and laws on the books don't always line up well.

<comment><USER19> col·lude (kə-lo̅o̅d′) intr.v. col·lud·ed, col·lud·ing, col·ludes To act together secretly to achieve a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose; conspire. \--

Seems like colluding to me. Just like in the Google/Apple/Adobe case. It doesn't matter if it's done out of friendship or fear of upsetting almighty Steve Jobs.

<comment><USER6> If his CEO friend didn't know he was doing this, they would not be _acting together_ \- the friend would not be performing any action at all. But if they communicated with each other and agreed to act this way (like Apple and Google did), then it would be collusion.

But even if it wasn't outright collusion, it could still be ethically questionable to limit another person's opportunities just because you're afraid of losing someone's friendship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Most American's sign an at-will employment contract, meaning the employer can terminate you without reason whenever they want. Given that, why would you give the company any more loyalty than they are giving you? The only reason I can think of is money. i.e a financial incentive is in place for not leaving. In accountancy for example I know a guy who was given 1 year salary for leaving his company. His domain knowledge being so valuable to a competitor it was better to pay him for a year to sit at home than have him work for them.

</comment><comment><USER21> "You can hire people away from your friends' companies without damaging your relationship with that friend. You can fight to retain people while they're being aggressively approached by other companies. Sometimes you will win, and sometimes you will lose. But through it all, you should keep a very important lesson in mind: You must refuse to engage in any agreements with other companies that insist you not hire from each other. Because that's bad business. Plain and simple."

[http://www.eliastorres.com/blog/how-to-fight-illegal- recruit...](http://www.eliastorres.com/blog/how-to-fight-illegal-recruiting- practices)

</comment><comment><USER22> This article is terribly wrong except that it explains how otherwise intelligent people, advised by top-tier lawyers and employment compliance experts can go so wrong about a significant matter of law, ethics, and billions of dollars of the wage-earning economy in Silicon Valley.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've met (and quickly distanced myself from) many people here in the Valley who prioritize short-term/short-sighted goals over long-term relationships. Even if you're not yet part of a tight-knit community here, word travels fast, especially on Secret. Screwing someone over can have long-term repercussions, and the last thing you'd want is for something as trivial as a single employee ruining a strong relationship for life.

Plus, friendships can often lead to far greater payoffs in the long-term -- I've given and received many introductions to stellar employees among my circle of friends; having a reputation as a robber is the fastest way to stop this flow of introductions.

OT: Ben has a lot of really great material on his blog, and I'd highly recommend anyone who hasn't yet to read through everything! He also has a great book that compiles all his wisdom into one place [1]; if you're too busy to read it I've shared my notes on Evernote [2].

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Hard-Thing-About- Things/dp/0062273...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Hard-Thing-About- Things/dp/0062273205)

[2] [https://www.evernote.com/shard/s345/sh/7b35d8ab- daba-4181-8b...](https://www.evernote.com/shard/s345/sh/7b35d8ab- daba-4181-8b8a-2c69e16eda6f/0f10e830b0a7ce57eb384a29fa2b8f64)

<comment><USER24> So, the advice given here is certainly practical and useful, but it's also wrong. Not wrong as in incorrect, but wrong as it's effectively steeling an opportunity from an individual (and you!) in order to appease a relationship with someone who views their employees as property.

The "thing" there is not the employee, but the opportunity.

<comment><USER11> In addition to the fact that this is inhumane, even from a business perspective, it's important to look at the Apple Google relationship, appeasing Steve Jobs was not a winning strategy for Google and it becomes increasingly clear that they AND individuals who wanted to work for them lost out on great opportunities to do things that were clearly in their mutual interest because it might upset a fucking sociopath.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is so sad, on so many different levels that is hard to pretend is not true.

While my hearth fights the need of shouting "stop behaving like a whiny bitch about the company relationships", then you realize that companies in US are equal to peoples.

And that, as John Stewart was pointing out recently, maybe sometimes they also pretends to have religious rights.

So I am not surprised that something like hires get taken as betrayals.

However, if logic had to enter this equation somehow, we should realize the purpose of a business is business. So, if an employee is an asset you should treat him as such, and let him go.

And if you or your friend CEO get emotionally attached to an employee, you have larger issues. One, maybe, is a narcissistic disorder.

</comment><comment><USER26> When the friend is not also a business partner, this practice seems bad for the company - the CEO is hobbling the company's ability to hire to preserve a personal friendship. The CEO is not the only stakeholder - at the very least he/she should carefully weigh the effect on the friendship against the cost to the company of not making the hire.

On the other hand, Ben does point out that in practice you really shouldn't do this with very many companies, if any. And I'm not sure you could say that it's CEOs' (or any employees') duty to prevent personal considerations from affecting their work.

</comment><comment><USER27> > _many companies employ written or unwritten policies that name companies > where it is not OK to hire without CEO (or senior executive) approval._

This seems counterproductive. Executives should recuse themselves when emotionally compromised. A _bona fide_ independent decision should calm a rational friend.

Business relationships are more complicated. An employee of your largest customer, for example. Good protocol works most of the time. Commercial reason and the law fill the gaps.

</comment><comment><USER28> Looks like the understanding that most people in this industry had (not poaching employees of "friends") is being considered illegal on HN.

I understand that this particular case of Google-Apple happens to be considered illegal. However, I am not convinced that a law banning this practice will not make things worse for most people.

A cartel involves an arrangement where members REFUSE TO OFFER a better deal than the others - a pricefixing arrangement. On the other hand, this is very clearly about not going blatantly on each other's turf to solicit / poach. Consider this ... how did Apple find out about this? Was the employee called during work hours?

How come recruiters - internal HR or external agencies - can be instructed to not advertise job openings in venues like porn sites, but - it seems from all this outrage - cannot be instructed to not advertise on their competitors' websites? Why can't companies decide that the cost of reprisals for poaching key members is too high, independently and internally, before agreeing not to do it? To sum up - I do not see this as a cartel AS LONG AS neither company turns away candidates who applied on their own, based on a mutual agreement. To be fair, Google did have such a policy and to the extent that this policy existed, that WAS a cartel. But NOT if the agreement is limited to not advertising offers to each other's key employees. Those employees can easily find out job openings and average salaries just like everyone else can.

If you are going to make the argument that recruiters calling certain key employees of the other company to lure them away will give the majority of employees a better sense of how much they are worth and everyone's salary if going to go up, you'll have to work pretty hard to show the connection. Poaching key members of a team (e.g. to sabotage a competitor's project) seems to mostly benefit those key members. It increases the cost for everyone else including the companies involved. And that cost is very likely to be passed on to the other employees. You would also have to show that the companies will always choose not to pass on the cost of poaching to their employees -- because otherwise, you will have to admit that LESS poaching might actually lead to LARGER salaries. And in fact, the data seems to show this. (Once again, by poaching I mean reaching out and specifically cold calling key people in rival companies to advertise positions that they could have found on their own.)

<comment><USER29> > On the other hand, this is very clearly about not going blatantly on each > other's turf to solicit / poach

To the contrary, the article is clearly about the case where someone from another company's "turf" approaches you unsolicited:

> You check with your people to make sure that they did not approach Fred > first and they assure you that Fred was already looking and will go to > another company if not yours. Now what?

I think this is clearly about CEOs treating employees as the company's property in a psychological sense, rather than thinking about them as beings with agency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Its interesting to see comments that require the founder to gain some level of permission from the friend before hiring their employee. Then in a simultaneous thread Steve Jobs, Google and Intel are all complete scumbags for talking to each other about hiring.

</comment><comment><USER31> > _It is important to note that just about all of these kinds of policies > violate the Right to Work laws in California._

Is that the only law they violate?

</comment><comment><USER32> This provides a lot of insight into how executives think. Employees aren't people, just pawns to be traded and weighed against the value of their own friendships and animosities. It's pretty disgusting, but not surprising.

What I like about the new Silicon Valley elite is that those asshats are too socially gauche to realize that their attitudes are considered completely unacceptable by, well, everyone else. It's really fun to watch them humiliate themselves in Valleywag.

</comment><comment><USER33> This seems to be a little bit of golden rule, right? How would you feel if someone hired away one of your best employers? What if it was a close friend that was doing the hiring? Or an important business partner? Would it suffice to say, "They were looking anyway?" Would it make a difference if it was a customer? Does it matter to the morality if the other party will feel aggrieved?

My 2 cents is this isn't that black and white, but it's very delicate. The only way it works is if the employee in question approaches their current boss first, saying, "Here is why I think it's time to move one. I would like to approach company Y. Can I have your blessing?" This gives their boss a chance to either fix the situation, or encourage the move. You can give a wink and nod that the interview would go well (you would never do this without confidence based on work experience that you'd hire them) but you can't formally start the process before this happens.

<comment><USER34> _This seems to be a little bit of golden rule, right? How would you feel if someone hired away one of your best employers?_

How would you feel if someone refused to hire you as a favor to your old boss's boss?

<comment><USER33> If I knew in advance that they were friends, I would go to my current boss first. The future boss should suggest the same.</comment></comment></comment>


Happy Super Pi Day - <AUTHOR>

From Wikipedia:
>In the year 2015, Pi Day will have special significance on 3/14/15 at 9:26:53 a.m. and p.m., with the date and time representing the first 10 digits of π. That same second will also contain a precise instant corresponding to all of the digits of π. However, some argue that 9:26:54 a.m. and p.m. on 3/14/15 are more accurate because of the 11th digit of π being 5, which would cause the 10th digit to round up to 4.
&
>A sequential time will occur on 3/14/15 at 9:26:53.58979... following the sequence of pi to all digits.
---
I'm celebrating by being a geek at a Code Camp, and of course, having some pie with dinner.
Are you celebrating this Super Pi Day?  If so, how? <comment><AUTHOR> Mashable has some more interesting facts about Pi day - [http://mashable.com/2015/03/13/perfect-pi- day/](http://mashable.com/2015/03/13/perfect-pi-day/)

Edit to add:

I'm not sure how I missed mentioning - [http://www.piday.org/](http://www.piday.org/)

It looks like the most entertaining way to celebrate it will be at the National Museum of Mathematics, in NYC, which is doing a glow-in-the-dark demonstration of Pi - [http://www.wtrf.com/story/28282610/national-museum-of- mathem...](http://www.wtrf.com/story/28282610/national-museum-of-mathematics- to-host-pi-day-of-the-century-nycs-largest-math-spectacle)

</comment><comment><USER2> Not for most of the world where the date format is 14/3/15.

<comment><AUTHOR> I typically use an ISO format (e.g. 2015-03-14), but this seems like a day to enjoy a fun, numerical, side effect of the United States' date formatting.

<comment><USER3> But that is a date convention for innumerates. Any assocation between pi and MM/DD/YY is ironically tragic (or vice versa).</comment></comment></comment>


This could be the food of the future–if you can handle it - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/this-could-be-the-food-of-the-future-if-you-can-handle-it/ <comment><USER2> Given the much smaller carbon footprint and empathetic connection humans have with bugs, I wonder how most vegans/vegetarians feel about incorporating it into their diets.

Seems like an amazing source of complete protein and B12 vitamin. [http://www.cricketflours.com/5-reasons-you-should-be- eating-...](http://www.cricketflours.com/5-reasons-you-should-be-eating- cricket-powder-cricket-flour/)</comment>


Unionen (www.unionen.se): 15.9% improvement on other - <AUTHOR> http://www.abtests.com/test/38003/other-for-unionen-www-unionen-se

<comment><USER2> If anyone wonders, Unionen (literally "The union") is the second largest trade union in Sweden, with roughly half a million members. It was formed in 2008 by the merger of two older unions (HTF and SIF).

</comment><comment><USER3> This isn't just a test between paragraph and bullet format, though. I found the bulleted text to be much more meaningful. The paragraph talked about why the union was great (we're big, we want to make life better, etc). The bullets talked about what they could do for you (actionable things like job coaching, and "Income insurance that guarantees you 80% of your salary"). The text within the bullets is much more compelling!

</comment><comment><USER4> They should report whether 5.3 is statistically different from 4.6 given the two sample sizes.

</comment><comment> Asa-Nisse Now just let me alter those statements for you and explain to the swedish workforce why unionen et'al was one of the big reasons we now have a reality of losing volvo, saab and sony-ericsson from swedish borders. That would REALLY make a difference.

</comment><comment><USER5> Well yea, the second example "talks in their terms". When you're talking to a potential customer you should always be trying to use their perspective and not yours. You don't even need A/B tests to work that out.

</comment><comment><USER6> Somebody just made a conservatively a few million bucks in about an hour's worth of work.

What A/B testing software do _you_ use? ;)</comment>


Python Data Utils - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/jessald/python_data_utils/tree/master I put a couple of my routine utility files onto github in order to experiment with open source.  I'd appreciate any feedback. I'm completely new to open source and git and also fairly new to Python, so you'll have to forgive any noobish fumblings. <comment><AUTHOR> I put a couple of my routine utility files onto github in order to experiment with open source. I'd appreciate any feedback. I'm completely new to open source and git and also fairly new to Python, so you'll have to forgive any noobish fumblings.</comment>