An advanced browser fingerprint calculator aimed mainly at Tor Browser users - <AUTHOR> https://fpcentral.irisa.fr <comment><USER2> I worked on designing tracking scripts for six months (Sorry. Fortunately they aren't in production). Fingerprinting was very difficult to pull off in practice: even with canvas fingerprinting, font enumeration, plugin enumeration, etc. most mobile phones are still indistinguishable. Desktops are easier to fingerprint because they often have unique browser plugins or a unique set of fonts installed. Even with desktops, fonts and other settings usually change within a matter of days, so its difficult to identify a user unless they're browsing from the same ip address you've seen them at before.

What used to work really well were Flash cookies. Adobe had a security hole where Flash cookies weren't cleared when you cleared your regular cookies. The only way to clear your Flash cookies was to open the Flash application on your laptop and clear all content, or visit a special webpage Adobe built to help users clear their cookies. So for years marketers could store any cookies they wanted this way. This only ended when Chrome began embedding a version of Flash into the browser so Flash cookies could be deleted when other cookies are deleted.

The other mechanism that was really interesting was ETag tracking. When you request a picture or other asset from a website, the website can send you an etag id which is supposed to signify the picture's version. When the client revisits the page, the client sends back the etag to confirm the version cached is the same as the version on the server. The security leak is that the etag protocol allows arbitrary text to be set as an etag, so to set an etag cookie all you have to do is place a 1x1 pixel on each page with a random GUID, and when the user revisits the page the browser will resend the tracking etag in its request for the 1x1 tracking pixel. This works for browsers with cookies disabled, and will remain when cookies are cleared. The only way to clear it is to clear all browsing history entirely, including cached images. Fortunately, Chrome now clears cached images by default when you clear your cookies.

<comment><USER3> While you were working on it, how did you feel about the ethics of trying to unmask people who are clearly trying to browse privately?

<comment><USER2> I thought it was very questionable, but I was in debt and that was the only job I could get at the time. There's actually a positive use for browser fingerprinting in that it could theoretically detect Mitm attacks or stolen cookies. Basically, if you place a unique cookie on each device, and then a user/device shows up with that cookie but a totally different browser fingerprint, it's possible that the account was hacked. The client I was working for was a bank so I was pushing for it to be used in this way. But realistically, I knew it was probably going to be used for marketing or privacy invasion but felt like I needed to keep the job to pay the bills.

<comment><USER4> The detecting of hijacked sessions with browser fingerprinting (mouse movements, typing speed, etc.) is a very neat idea - something that could be used to throw off red flags or have users sign-in again with the appropriate warnings and education.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have a few questions about finger printing.

Why Tor sends window size to servers? If it has to, why it can't send closest multiple of 100 instead of real value?

Why servers request size of client windows anyway? I assume so they can serve different resolution images to clients or maybe different layouts, is this correct? But then instead of sending 1920x1080, simply sending 1900x1100 would also work right?

Same goes for fonts, as soon as you install a few different fonts, you are pretty much unique now. Why does a browser has to send the fonts you have? Shouldn't it be possible to only send the fonts you have? Default fonts of OSes enabled by default, and new fonts are disabled?

<comment><USER6> This is all done client side with Flash/Javascript. For Tor it is recommended to disable JS, and I believe the Tor browser bundle comes with NoScript by default. Plugins should be disabled because they are very exploitable to de- tor someone.

<comment><USER7> Tor comes with NoScript but JS is still enabled. The very first thing you should do after installing Tor is disable JS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Under the "Tor" tab it states that the browser should be set to a window size of 1000x1000 or a multiple of 200x100. Is this to stay consistent across all Tor users? I would have thought that 1920x1080 would be fine to help stay anonymous.

<comment><USER9> Assuming the browser window is maximized, even if most screens are 1920x1080 the browser viewport area will differ based on OS, window manager, and custom settings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Surely there's some way to detect when a script touches far too many APIs such as setting several font families in succession. Then pause execution, warn the user about potential fingerprinting, and either disable script or blackhole its network requests.

<comment><AUTHOR> TBB already does that for example with HTML5 canvas element, it shows you this box: [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1_n50BW8AACLKq.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1_n50BW8AACLKq.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Have used several browser fingerprinting services and have tried a few of the techniques myself, they're incredibly useful for fraud prevention when said fingerprint is reported against a central database alongside with the fraud that happened to _you_. The next time said fingerprint shows up at an eCommerce site, they'll be blocked off from purchasing or at least flagged for additional verification.

They're also just useful for super targeted ads.

 _shrug_

<comment><USER2> They could also be useful, in theory, for detecting session hijacking through cookie sniffing. Did somebody's device fingerprint change mid-session? It's possible that person's account has been hacked, so they should at least be made to log in again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why don't we just create a VM with the tor browser preinstalled ? Surely, it would be a lot harder to do fingerprinting. ETags would still make you vulnerable, but caching can also be disabled. Then you're left with cookies.

<comment><USER13> TAILS exists, but that doesn't necessarily prevent fingerprinting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A good fingerprinting method (only applies to devices on private networks), is using JavaScript to enumerate the devices/services on a user's network (running HTTP(S) or other services if they are in the 'safe' port range).

You can also test for models/versions of a router on their network (for example, many routers allow access to static content such as images without authentication), so if a unique/uncommon image, CSS, or JavaScript URL can be accessed without authentication, then the user can be fingerprinted not just across browsers, but across devices as well (even in a VM). This is done using network timing (to test if TCP servers exist) and the onload/onerror XHR events which can be done even for 3rd party origins, by creating img or iframe elements.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm confused at the "Aimed mainly at Tor" part. A lot of these techniques use Javascript and the Tor browser blocks Javascript in general and warns strongly against enabling it. So it seems that part of the technique will be ineffective against most Tor users.

<comment><USER16> What? JavaScript is enabled by default on the Tor Browser Bundle, and users are not actively encouraged to turn it off.

<comment><USER17> It's complicated. Javascript is enabled, but NoScript is installed. But NoScript by default allows all "honest" scripts, although it does block some stuff. But that's in the default "low security" mode. The goal is having websites work, so users won't give up on Tor, while providing some security. Users can increase security, but there are only three options (low, medium and high). That's to keep user profiles in fewer bins. In the "high security" mode, all scripts are blocked.

<comment><USER18> I used NoScript roughly ten years ago and it was a lot of work to manually enable JavaScripts all over the place. I used it for a couple of years solid, but eventually gave up on it, since I was practically just enabling JavaScripts on every site anyway. Everyone I tried to introduce it to gave up on it after a few weeks at most.

To NoScript's credit, it did block a phishing site that I otherwise would've fallen for once.

That was before the era of single-page apps. Like it or not, JavaScript is mandatory for even basic functionality on the modern web.

Telling users to introduce 4 clicks to load every new domain and potentially experience some significant breakages (e.g., I remember some checkout processes failing because they'd bounce the request around between scripts from processors, fraud prevention, etc.) just on the remote chance that they'll encounter malicious JavaScript is simply a non-starter. Something like Ghostery that mostly-transparently blocks things is a better proposition for ordinary adoption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've noticed that the Tails and other privacy focused tools go to great lengths to look the same as other users. And as far as my understanding goes, this is somewhat tricky with things like canvas fingerprinting.

Is there a reason why they want to look the same? Could the same result be achieved as looking unique every time? e.g. Instead of attempting to make every canvas fingerprint the same, instead make every fingerprint unique by introducing noise.

</comment><comment><USER20> There's a layout bug where the nav bar covers content at >768px of with to whenever the logo and nav links are on the same row again.

</comment><comment><USER21> I symphathise with that, but HN is a US-centric liberal echo chamber when it comes to political issues, so everything that got to do with government, intelligence and surveillance is automatically labelled 'evil'.

<comment><USER22> It's common for ideologically committed users to see HN as being aligned against them. But this perception is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. it's a cognitive bias. Plenty of comments make opposite claims about HN; the difference isn't in HN but in what the commenter identifies with.

Edit: I've written about this in plenty of places: [https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...](https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20cognitive%20bias). Not all of those posts are about perceptions of political bias; some are about perceptions of astroturfing. But the two phenomena are variations of the same thing.

We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13930232](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13930232) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER21> Why did you mark my comment off-topic? Wasn't it directly related to topic discussed in the parent thread?

<comment><USER22> Your comment was about Hacker News, not the topic. Also, it was unsubstantive, and those are always off-topic.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Upper Middle Class Crunch? - <AUTHOR> It seems (in the US) landing in the upper middle class means that you might face an unusually bad crunch in finances and lifestyle, despite making a salary at or above 95th %:
(1) There's a gray zone in financial aid, so you could be upper middle in gross household salary (say $150-250k; outside the Bay Area) and be expected to pay full bill at a private college (right now ~$250K).
Costs may keep inflating at a rate multiple % above inflation, implying a worse crunch in the future. Much of the surplus savings people in high-paying jobs are accruing will be garnished by colleges in the form of increased tuition + room and board down the road. In a weird way, you could argue this affects the decisionmaking about the number of kids you can have.
(2) High salary + need enough space => moving away from the city, a massive detractor from wellbeing. The obvious problem is the commute; the less obvious one is becoming disconnected from friends, which is particularly acute in 'transient cities' like SF and NYC. Marginal commuting costs also somewhat offset the marginal gains of a high-paying job that's further away.
(3) High-paying jobs generally mean longer hours, increased stress, and are often higher risk. Vacation in the US tends to be very low. These days there's also an increasing obligation to be 'always on'.
(4) Some costs tend to scale with salary: prop taxes near high-salary regions, insurance. Home ownership itself (arguably unrelated to being upper middle) is usually net losing or poor ROI vs renting.
So it seems like a surprisingly bad game to be upper middle class: you work harder to make not that much more marginal wealth, with less time to live well and (likely) fewer enriching social connections.
What are some ways to hack around this? Save up in the US and then move to France or Germany just before your kids go to college? Squirrel away assets to shield them (legally) from financial aid calculations? What else? <comment><USER2> 1) Why do you need to go to a private institution? Is there evidence to suggest that it's superior to a public institution?

2) Affordability of housing is definitely a problem, but it's not just isolated to the upper middle class. Look at teachers, for instance, many of whom can not afford to live in the wealthy districts that they teach in. Or look at teachers in Oklahoma and WV and AZ, they can't afford their cheaper locales.

3) The upper middle class have it much, much better than low-wage workers, many of whom may be fired if they need to take a day or two off for an emergency. Nevermind paid time off, that's a rarity for many below the upper middle.

4) Yes, costs do scale with higher salary. It's not true to say that ownership vs rent is definitely "net losing", it's entirely situational based on interest rates, property taxes, local rents, and many other factors.

Overall: The larger problem is this: everyone outside of the corporate top echelons is getting squeezed. It's less about which non-top-tier you're in, but if you're not a millionaire or billionaire, you're getting a much less good deal. To say the upper middle class have it particularly bad is not fair at all to everyone below them, who have it far worse.

You might counter that these people do not have the skills the upper-middle does. But developing those skills is probabilistic and is aided by a good home life, strong schools, and an environment conducive to learning. Many poor individuals simply do not have the life setup they need to gain top level skills over the years.

I taught in public schools in Chicago's warzones, the South and far-West sides. It's hard for a kid to pick up a STEM career when their cousin just got gunned down, when they need to join a gang based on what block they are on, lest they be jumped by a rival block's gang on the walk to school. It's hard for them to skill up and get ahead when their father is incarcerated and their single mother is struggling to pay the bills. If their classmates and cousins are getting gunned down due to some cycle of pointless violence, how likely are they to learn their way to the top 95%?

<comment><USER3> Lots of good points here. I think the key takeaway is that there are really two classes: the labor/wage class and the capital class. As long as you're in the labor class, you're trading your time for money and by definition will never see more than marginal gains over your wage class peers. The only way to truly pull away from the pack is to join the capital class, otherwise you're stuck in a hamster wheel, even if does have a golden track.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A lot to unpack in your post, but some things worth mentioning:

A. Savings rate is everything. How much can you save and get compounding?

If you're high earning early in your career and can keep your costs of living down, you come out way ahead. This is much easier said than done. Also a big deal in college savings—being able to put away $5k / year in a tax advantageous account for your kid(s) makes a huge difference if you can do it when they're infants. If you're not a high earner until they're in high school, it's a different scenario.

2\. Have seen a lot of friends (particularly engineers) go freelance and build up consulting work while in a city like NY or SF—and then once they have stable income they move to a cheaper location.

Kingston, NY in the Hudson Valley is a really interesting example of this. A small but steadily growing community of technical talent that works remote, but knows each other—making 90%+ of what they'd made in a major city and only two short hours to NYC by train or bus to meet clients, etc. And very nice housing stock in the $200-300k range. I would expect to see even more of this as we move into an age of autonomous vehicles, etc.

3\. Cities. It's not clear that the party line of cities for the past decade is true. The 2008 crash did a number on younger people's ability to buy homes and finance them. They opted to stay in cities and rent instead. That trend seems to be reversing quite quickly.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-18/growing-m...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-18/growing- midsize-cities-like-boise-could-replace-urban-future)

[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-03/millennia...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-03/millennials- moving-to-suburbs-will-change-economic-development)

</comment><comment><USER5> Speaking from a personal standpoint, not from the entrepreneurial I-must-work- hard-to-change-the-world-for-the-better standpoint, I've often felt that the best way to take advantage of the current trends is to work in your standard high pay, high cost area (SF, Silicon Valley) when you're young, all the way up until you have children, and your children start school. I would aim to live in ways that allow you to save as much money as possible. Rent or buy in cheaper areas and brave the commute, cook meals most of the time instead of eating out, don't waste money on drinks at bars. When you're in your mid-30s or early 40s when your children start school, ideally you will have saved $1m or close to it, from 15-20 years of high pay work. This requires discipline of not spending extravagantly even while you're making good money, so it might mean not buying that Tesla even though you could afford it. At this point you have the means of relocating to a much lower cost of living city, buying a house there (maybe even with cash), and hopefully landing a job that pays lower but have much lower stress, and have a short commute. Then you get to enjoy family time, have low stress from commute, low stress from work, and maybe even solve that financial aid issue by the time college time for children comes, because you will have been making $30-50k/year for a while now instead of $150-200k.

Of course, this "way to hack around it" isn't for everyone; for one thing, it most likely means you shouldn't take your chance at building that startup, and just work in a GoogFaceAmaAppleSoft (or any other established companies) for many years; and then you will have to be OK with living in a low cost city when you have a family, meaning giving up the city life of SF (and the like), which perhaps not everybody wants. Finally, not everyone is ok with "going down the career ladder", both in status and monetary values. For some, their ego might simply not allow it.

</comment><comment><USER6> On the one hand, if you're making that much then you are fortunate enough to be generally insulated from a whole range of problems/stressors that most of the nation doesn't have. On the other hand, it really does feel like barriers are raising to maintaining that level life or being able to use that level of compensation to finance a way to the next level of stability. Especially if you're new to that socioeconomic level, and have a family and want to do responsible financial planning for their futures (college) while maintaining some quality of life and involvement with that family.

You get the harder burden of higher expected contributions for college (as it should be), but there's a valley where it hits upper middle class harder than the next economic class strata up while taking away supports that the low/middle financial levels receive. I joke (and cry) that the college pricing is one of the only negotiations where the other side gets to look at exactly where the buyers are coming from financially, and then dictate their price. It sets up a mechanism where families have a lot of potential wealth basically siphoned off by colleges and student loan arrangements - upper middle, middle, or lower economic class. (and btw the college financial formulas in the US heavily favor income over assets as inputs to ramp up expected contributions - another way that the capital wealthy, vs income wealth classes win out...)

The recent tax changes also seem to hit hard to if you're already a homeowner and might sell and buy to relocate for a job. So that's an special added mobility dampener if moving to places like silicon valley where the home cost might go up - but now the tax advantages for mortgage interest hit limits much earlier, taking away more of the salary bump from moving.

Oddly enough, if you have the resources, starting up a business a year or so before kids applying for college is an interesting thought - one that I doubt I'd try due to the risk. But potentially then, you get a big drop in the income input in the college expected contribution calculation which can come back as an investment if you later make good on the business. But again, it's an approach that is much more available to the capital wealthy, and more difficult and risky for high-income earners to employ.

Edit: on the college thing: I've had friends in the same economic class seriously run trade-off analysis on wether they should pay for college for their kids or use that same amount to offer their kids a startup/personal- investment fund thinking if they get the same or better value on experience + potential payoff vs the non-college option.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the answer! It's disappointing to find someone else who clearly appreciates the problem, but also doesn't have great ideas about how to mitigate.

Sheltering wealth in a business doesn't work, unfortunately. My dad is an SMB owner and his business' financials were included in the financial aid calculation, including the value of all its assets like real estate.

<comment><USER6> It's a side option, but have you shopped overseas public universities? Depending on what the major interest is and where you're comfortable going, even the out-of-nation rate can be competitive with private universities in the US.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've heard as much. For context, I'm only 27, unmarried without kids, and just trying to think ahead :)

<comment><USER6> Ah, good for you for planning ahead! Then my advice is save early and consistently, and look into Bernie Sanders or other progressive politicians. I'd rather be paying higher taxes for very low cost to free public universities than the current system - I think that's much more economically efficient. The current structuring of public universities is actually a drag on our economy. It's a financialized extraction of wealth from most income- earning people of any class, and reduces economic activity by pulling working cashflow out of the real value-producing portions of our economy and into the banking/finance sector.

This is said as a parent with a kid going into college soon. None of what I've advocated for there probably lands soon enough to make a bit of financial difference for me, but maybe for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha I wish I was a less cynical person when it comes to political reform.

I don't quite agree with Sanders' approach because I think it's very hard to make his numbers work without meaningfully detracting from aggregate economic performance.

But I also think there are far better measures that can be taken and I'm not sure he ever mentioned (some) of them: (1) adjust federal student aid/loan programs to prevent manipulation; that unregulated money has actually done more than to inflate college costs than almost anything else, (2) eliminate medical industry price gouging through regulation, particularly around Medicaid, Medicare, and ACA spend and perhaps more directly if legally viable, (3) incrementally (as opposed to wholesale) widen the social safety net from the bottom up in a fiscally responsible way, which is precisely how ACA was structured and deployed imo, (4) cut military spending dramatically. Maybe one day we can get to a place where this is possible.

Of course none of that helps any of us in this particular wealth/income gray zone :)

Good luck with the college financing though! Hope you figure out something that works.

<comment><USER6> One (1): Direct public university funding would be a mechanism to regulate college costs by putting budget level strings on it which is more of a direct control rather than roundabout via loans. It also puts better market pressure on tuitions at private colleges.

Right now, Harvard for example has a large enough endowment that students could go there free indefinitely, but they still charge a tuition that then gets in-part funded by government backed student loans. That makes no sense to me at all.

The rest of it, I think I'm in agreement with and think that the Progressive side of Democrats and independent groups are the only ones seriously after that...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yeah, poor people have all the same commute and housing problems. Its just called the life crunch. Send your kid to state school.

</comment><comment><USER8> Don't forget the assets that are going to evaporate when interest rates go up. And, the insane premiums for health insurance since you don't qualify for assistance there either. Oh and don't for get insane day care during the summer and after school.

<comment><AUTHOR> I deliberately omitted most of those. ROI on appreciating assets depends on allocation and macro factors, not your socioeconomic position. You can also choose to buy cheap health insurance and your employer typically covers it anyway in the US. Costs related to children like day care similarly apply to every strata and you can choose to optimize those expenses no matter who you are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Your problems can all be solved by giving away your money to charity.

As for how to get around this you could work part time or take a job that paid less but came with benefits.</comment>


My Tiny TodoList: A simple open source todolist written in PHP and jQuery  - <AUTHOR> http://woork.blogspot.com/2009/05/my-tiny-todolist-simple-open-source.html

<comment><USER2> That's actually quite a nice design and looks like it would work well on the iphone as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like it.

I'm not sure what it is about lists that I like, but I must say I'm enjoying the fact that they seem to be the next step past tutorial lately. Lots of fine looking projects coming from it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Not to take anything from this, but there is Todoist.com for the lazy like me. I do wish todoist have a few more features but it does what it's supposed to do.

</comment><comment><USER5> What's happening with this link? It looks like it redirects to itself, preventing a single back button click to HN.

<comment><USER6> Not seeing that behavior. History remains intact and back works fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Cleverly done. This is much better implementation than many of the more popular to-do sites out there.

</comment><comment><USER8> Warning: the zip file unzips itself in to your current directory, rather than a sub-directory.

</comment><comment><USER9> cool. thanks for sharing this nice example code.</comment>


If companies interviewed tech recruiters the way they interview programmers - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@NTDF9/if-companies-interviewed-tech-recruiters-the-way-they-interview-programmers-f18e1a980cdd <comment><USER2> I am, now and on occasion, a hiring manager. Naturally, every freelance recruiter wants to be my friend.

They often start cold calls with a description of a person's technical abilities, and then ask if I would be interested in interviewing that person.

When that happens, I ask them to define one of the buzzwords that they have just used. "Could you tell me what 'big data' means?" or "What's the difference between AWS and GCE?"

I don't do business with technical recruiters who aren't familiar with the meanings of the terms that they throw around. They have never been more valuable than a regex.

<comment><USER3> Please, _please_ share one of the funnier stories you have about grilling recruiters who didn't know the difference between AWS and GCE.

<comment><USER2> Most recently I asked if the recruiter knew the difference between Java and JavaScript, since he had just mentioned both of them.

"Uh, they're web technologies... in very high demand."

"Yes, but is there a difference between them? What kind of web technologies are they?"

Long pause.

The background silence changes a little, as though a hand were placed over the telephone's mouthpiece.

I can't hear the word in the conversation he's having, but it's clear that he is talking to someone.

The hand goes away.

"Java is a general purpose computer programming language with concurrent objects, and JavaScript is the script version."

Pause.

"Did I get that right?"

<comment><USER3> Perfect.

Next time you should respond, "Hmm...that's not what I have here. The answer is, 'JavaScript uses Electron and Java uses Spring.' I'm sorry, I don't think you're a great fit for us. Best of luck and have a good day."

Then hang up, and kill two birds with one stone in the process: the tone-deaf recruiter finally understands how the buzzword bingo interview feels, and you have one less incompetent recruiter to deal with.

<comment><USER4> I like you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When I read articles like this, I tend to assume that they are exaggerations written by people who feel burned because they didn't get the job they want and that the reason was unfair interview questions.

In other words, I simply don't believe that interviewers are, as a group, so stupid that they regularly ask obscure Excel questions when they are plainly not relevant.

To continue with the recruiting example, I suspect what is more common is that interviewers are expecting candidates with some Excel experience, and ask questions to gauge some basic level of competency. And interviewees have conflated using it one time with any depth of experience.

I can attest to seeing this many times during programming interviews. If I see something towards the top of someone's resume, I will ask a basic question to see if anything whatsoever is known about that thing. Yes, book knowledge. Stuff that you would know if you had actually read any docs.

I don't want to work alongside someone who claims knowledge or experience of something and doesn't know the basics. Or doesn't know that they don't know the basics.

<comment><USER6> Yes I think you are right, buuuut...

Lots of times the initial screen is done by someone totally non-technical, and they are asking questions from a sheet and judging whether you are saying what is in the answer field for their sheet. This is super stupid, but I have seen it, usually when some headhunting firm is deciding whether to add your resume to their database which they pull resume's from to send to clients.

The moral: Don't use headhunting firms, because they will basically never send you a decent candidate. In the very rare cases where they by pure luck do send a good candidate, this is rarely worth the dozens of crap candidates they have sent you (not to mention that they will try to push candidates on you if they think they can get away with it).

<comment><USER7> My past initial screen was hilarious:

      - I see that you worked for a consultancy firm on your previous job. Do you
        have experience working with clients?
      - Yes. My client at the time was XXX Bank where I was involved in foo bar
        baz...
      - So you don't have experience working with clients.
      - What? Yes, yes I do. I worked and interacted with them on a daily basis,
        with meetings and the like.
      - Okay. Do you have experience with databases?
      - Yes. Mostly Oracle and MySQL. Some postgresql. I'm also quite comfortable
        with NoSQL databases such as Redis and MongoDB.
      - Good. Do you have experience with programming languages?
      - ... Yes.

Some codility tests and interviews later I was notified I was not getting an offer due to lack of first hand experience with AWS (previous interviewers were apparently fine with that, but this one saw it as a red flag, although it was not listed as a requirement in the job offer).

Definitely a good call for both ends, as this was one of those modern companies where everyone are supposed to be friends, play with nerf-guns and have after work drinks. I think I'm too old for that.

For the record, it feels good for once being rejected on lack of technical merits rather than failing some "culture fit" interview. A trend that is giving me the worst interview streak of my career and is making me consider a change of profession.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8>
        Interviewer: It means we do Agile. Everything is in a flat structure, except
        when it comes to salary and responsibilities. We have a Recruitment Master,
        that coordinates all the other recruiters in Sprints.

Absolute gold.

<comment><USER9> To give credit where it is due, this especially funny quote is nearly verbatim copied from the original article ([https://medium.freecodecamp.com/welcome-to- the-software-inte...](https://medium.freecodecamp.com/welcome-to-the-software- interview-ee673bc5ef6)) from which "inspiration" for this one was taken:

        It means we do Agile. Everything is in a flat structure,
        except when it comes to salary and responsibilities.
        We have a Translator Master, that coordinates all
        the other Translators in Sprints."

<comment><USER10> """inspiration""". It's a flat-out and less funny rip-off of the original. In fact, several of the responses don't make sense in this version that did make sense in the original.

        Candidate: Forget it. Just give me a second ok? I think I will organize
        rows as candidates and columns as dates/times and use NOW, TODAY, WEEKNUM
        and the rarely used called YEARFRAC

        Interviewer: Oh, no, that's from the answer sheet in the "Cracking the
        Recruiting Interview: 150 Spreadsheet Questions and Solutions."

        Candidate: No, I mean, that is something I have used in the past for simple
        fractions

        Interviewer: How would I know? I'm not a spreadsheet wizard like you.

<comment><USER8> Oh yeah, I read this as like "you fail for giving me a standard answer" but reading the original it's clear they missed the point here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I get at least 5 phone calls from recruiters a week, being a contractor. The amount of times i get someone that asks me something like:

      Recruiter: "We're looking for someone with React experience, do you have that?"
      Me: "Yes"
      Them: "Ok, how about Javascript?"

I want to explain to them but i end up just saying yes to every acronym on their list since they've no idea what they're asking for.

<comment><USER12> It's funny because in a different context, that's exactly a sequence of questions that I as an engineer would ask:

> Do you have experience with React?

> Okay, do you have experience writing pure, vanilla JavaScript? Absent a > framework like jQuery or Backbone or Angular?

The second question can often screen out people who simply maintain framework apps rather than those who actually know JS.

<comment><USER13> Are you assuming that people who haven't maintained a vanilla JS app don't actually know JS?

<comment><USER12> Not at all. I'm getting at the fact that many frontend devs don't know JavaScript, they just know cut-and-paste jQuery or how to fiddle with/maintain React/Angular components in a large app.

<comment><USER14> I doubt you can really just cut-n-paste jQuery in any nontrivial web app...

<comment><USER12> Correct, and that's one way to decisively filter out people who haven't worked on a nontrivial web app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> 20 year recovering recruiter here (now more focused on providing services to help job seekers).

I think at least some of the animosity job seekers have for recruiters is that they may feel recruiters are designing these types of esoteric interview questions and exercises. The overwhelming majority of recruiters are entirely incapable of designing them because they lack the technical skills (myself included).

The recruiter is primarily responsible for identifying a (hopefully) qualified candidate and managing the hiring process along to ensure the "candidate experience" doesn't get in the way of a hire being made. The recruiter might be just as frustrated with that hiring process and the methods as the candidate, but probably has little control over it.

If we want to end these types of interviews, the people to change them are engineering managers. If the engineering manager wanted to end whiteboard exercises and trivial questions on minute details, I assure you the recruiter wouldn't be against it.

<comment><USER16> Exactly. My interactions with tech recruiters are, by and large, pleasant and effective. There are some bad ones, but most just seem overworked at best, flaky at worst. I don't see recruiters as a major part of the tech interviewing problem. It's not until the point where the recruitment process gets tossed over into to the hiring manager's hands where things go feet-up and I start feeling like a piece of steak being graded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> On the flip side I recently interviewed for a programming position at a civil engineering company and at no point in the process did anybody ask any questions that would in any way test if I actually knew any of the things I claimed to know. The entire "programming" part of the interview was essentially:

"We use quite a bit of python. I see from your CV you've used python".

"Oh absolutely, I consider python the language I know best. I've worked on a couple of larger python applications as well as used it extensively in a number of smaller projects"

"Great!"

<comment><USER18> We all deserved to be treated with that kind of dignity.

I'm not sure where our industry went wrong. You'd never ask a doctor medical school trivia during an interview.

<comment><USER19> Doctors take a test and go through a verifiable apprenticeship period.

If Dr. Nidal got his MD from Johns Hopkins and did his residency in pediatric oncology at Sloan Kettering where he is a fellow and has published 2 papers on Nueroblastoma you can safely assume he knows a thing or two about high risk pediatric solid tumor cancers.

What do we have for programmers?

<comment><USER20> I have a shipping product I worked on for 12 years and that is used all over the industry. I have a public mailing list you can search where I answered questions from developers about the product during that entire time. I have a profile on some well-known programming web sites (like Stack Overflow, etc.). I have a degree from a well-known university and actually have at least 1 paper listed on Google Scholar. I still have had to do stupid whiteboard programming exercises of 1st year data structure and algorithm nonsense.

<comment><USER19> Yes I'd say you deserve more respect than someone with an unknown background, which is to say most candidates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That really was funny, but man, it's hard to stomach "inspired by" when realistically it's a Mad Lib of the original post from Free Code Camp.

</comment><comment><USER22> Total rip off of the original post. What does it bring? The jokes are the same ( and sometimes lose their meaning in "translation")

<comment><USER23> Yes, almost byte by byte translation, and a bad one. The original is much better.

I guess this title is better aimed at audience though, since many people may not have interest on translation.

Strongly suggest people not read yet to read the original post [https://medium.freecodecamp.com/welcome-to-the-software- inte...](https://medium.freecodecamp.com/welcome-to-the-software-interview- ee673bc5ef6)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> These pieces always tend to feel to me like complaining. It assumes the reader already agrees that tech interviewers are broken and does nothing to convince others. I for one don't see whiteboarding questions as a problem, so the scenario rings hollow.

<comment><USER25> Would you allow me to interview you and ask you some questions on algorithms and data structures and have that recorded for everyone here to see. I bet you that I can ask relevant questions that you'll struggle and most likely fail to answer in the 20 minutes time allotted. And no they won't be from any standard 'cracking the code interview' questions. The point is, the relationship between interviewer and interviewee should be reciprocal. Both should ask questions and the winner gets the job (maybe even the interviewer's job) Now, I think companies would love that as it exposes weakness in their ranks, but interviewers would then join the rank of complainers. You haver to think more deeply about this stuff, not just state whatever you feel like as your righteous opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Time is the most valuable resource which can be saved tremendously if really competent recruiters/interviewers are involved in the recruitment process.

I was recently interviewing for a position with a company behind pushcrew/vwo, it took me roughly 55+ hours (cumulative) to work on their assignment, attend interviews, company/business analysis etc.

I knew the the assignment which I had created was really good given the time constraint on it. Even recruiters acknowledged it (!), but at the end the decision was made on basis of team diversity!! They wanted to have a diverse set of team. I'm not against their decision, it's their company and their team. But to come to this conclusion, there's no need to make a candidate spend this much amount of time.

Just by glancing over resume and previous history, they could have rejected me straightaway OR maybe on the very first call! Both of my interviewers were good, I think, but I doubt they weren't sure what exactly they were looking for? It is simply another set of people, who I believe are from tech background but lack experience in recruitment.

The equation should be managed properly: Tech knowledge + People Skills/Management = Good Recruiter.

A good recruiter should be skilled equally in tech + his/her people reading skills. It saves a lot of time, money and efforts for both of the parties involved in the process.

</comment><comment><USER27> Recruiters usually aren't good at programming. If they were - in most cases - they wouldn't be recruiting, but writing code... So their "identification of good programmers" is somehow limited...

<comment><USER28> There are places where good technical recruiters earn substantially more than programmers - if they get 10% year salary (which I understand is not the highest number you might see), they only need ~1 successful placement a month to make reach parity.

<comment><USER29> Not only that but they may just enjoy recruiting more than they enjoy (or don't enjoy) programing.

<comment><USER17> The two recruiters I know basically did it has a mid life career switch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why are we suddenly inundated with "If companies interviewed * the way they interview programmers" posts?

<comment><USER8> because the community is super frustrated with the state of interviewing.

<comment><USER31> It's quite interesting how different submissions on the front page build on each other and there is a sort of meta-conversation happening with the flow of articles.

I think AI or whatever you want to call it is not up to it yet, but it would be an interesting investigation for in a few years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > You see, we are looking for the very best Recruiters, and it has been proven > by major companies that the people that are able to do the job best have a > very solid foundation in spreadsheets for quick applicant tracking.

Doesn't the punchline hinge on the above quote from the interviewer being false?

In other words, if the research really did show that testing on spreadsheet desiderata would get you the best recruiters, there would be no joke here.

edit: clarification

</comment><comment><USER33> This is a picture perfect description of my interview with stitchfix.

<comment><USER34> I'm sorry to hear that. For which position were you interviewing?

<comment><USER33> Engineering. First job ive never gotten an offer for. I feel like they werent serious about hiring and maybe they were required to interview a number of non internal candidates and were just checking boxes. Huge waste of my time.

Granted I acknowledge Im not perfect and desirable in every way, but the interview felt really silly

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I get that the point of the article is to point out the flaws of technical interviews, but I see a lot of people griping and quite frankly circle jerking about how bad recruiters are.

I am definitely "mid career" at this point and a manager and I consider my "recruiter bench" to be a huge asset, both for when I am hiring, and also looking. The thing is, yes absolutely 80% of them are garbage- they are mere regex's and will likely be out of the industry in a few years.

The other 20%, that really know their shit, and have deep connections in the industry are gold though. What you need to do is find those guys and build relationships with them over time, so when you have an open head, or decide its time, you already have a half dozen people you can call that you have a long relationship that you trust to help get you a job. These guys can also just give you good intelligence- what is hot right now, what is not, who is paying well, which companies despite their darling status at the moment can't seem to keep an engineer in their seats more than a year.

To get that kind of info though, you have to build a relationship. If I see someone that writes a well informed, grammatically correct email to me, I will look them up on LinkedIn. If they have been around awhile, have some shared connections with me, maybe shared some posts that are interesting, I will usually give them a call back and say "hey I am not interested, but lets keep in touch- here are some things that might interest me in a new role, you are welcome to bounce stuff that fits this off me any time." They will inevitably continue to call you over time- and that's when you can start asking them stuff- who is good/bad, etc. Even offer to get drinks (they will almost always pay)- that's when you can get the really good gossip.

If you keep that bench warm, you will likely find that the quality of potential positions thrown your way improves dramatically, as well as the quality of potential candidates. At least that's been my experience.

</comment><comment><USER36> Step 1: Copy post from Free Code Camp

Step 2: s/translator/recruiter/g

Step 3: ?

Step 4: Profit

</comment><comment><USER37> Why-is-the-title-written-like-this?

<comment><USER38> because-it-makes-you-read-it-faster?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I actually created an Excel question for interviewing help desk candidates:

If you were to type in 5+2 into a cell, what would be the result?

:-)

</comment><comment><USER40> Instant classic. Hilarious -- and spot-on.</comment>


How Israel, in Dark of Night, Torched Its Way to Iran's Nuclear Secrets - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/iran-israel-mossad-nuclear.html <comment><USER3> Netflix should make this into a movie or series. Plenty of good material to draw from: this heist, assassinating Iranian scientists with magnetic bombs on motorcycles [1][2] and Stuxnet [3].

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/11/iran- nuclear-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/11/iran-nuclear- scientist-killed)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nucle...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists)

[3] [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxne...](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html)

<comment><USER4> Given that there will be people insisting that the main objective of the program was nuclear power, not weapons, a show like that would be risky. Does Netflix want their shows accused of glorifying murder? I'm aware that there is the argument, perhaps with evidence, that Israel was halting weapons research aimed at them, but Netflix may not want to take the risk that the debate goes against them.

<comment><USER5> Maybe those people should read the quoted article.

 _Last week, at the invitation of the Israeli government, three reporters, including one from The New York Times, were shown key documents from the trove. Many confirmed what inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, in report after report, had suspected: Despite Iranian insistence that its program was for peaceful purposes, the country had worked in the past to systematically assemble everything it needed to produce atomic weapons._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't really get it. If all they had to show were 15 year old documents, so dating before the Iranian nuclear accord, wouldn't this indicate that Iran did in fact fulfill its side of the agreement ? The main argument seems to be that if they kept the archives then it must mean that they want to resume their research program at some point in the future. I'm sure if Israel had any clear and direct evidence showing that Iran violated the deal they would have shown it.

<comment><USER7> I've heard responses from former Obama appointees that the documents in general were not surprising. They believed that Iran had an active nuclear program, was lying about it, and was hiding it. So they tried to create a deal that would not require countries to trust that Iran was complying. Overall it looks like Iran was complying with the deal, even if we can't assume good faith. So Netanyahu's speech came across as overtly political.

<comment><USER8> The "problem" with the deal form Israel's point of view is that the restrictions are temporary on both the enrichment and the long range missile programmes.

The Iran deal would work out only if there would be a regime change before the restrictions expire, and while 15 years are enough for the US it's not enough for Israel considering that the Iranian nuclear program has started even before the revolution, then with the full support of the US.

While the documents should surprise no one their release by the Israelis was done to make it harder for Iran to continue to run "we never worked on nuclear weapons" story they at least from Israel's point of view manage to successfully sell to quite a lot of people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > But if sanctions resume, and more Western companies leave Iran, it is > possible that Iranian leaders will decide to resume nuclear fuel production.

and

> By the time the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya > Amano, was finally permitted to visit the site in 2015, it was empty, though > the agency's report indicated that it looked as if equipment had been > removed.

I don't understand the authors conclusion. He is saying that without a nuclear deal Iran will try to develop the bomb. Later he shows that even with a deal Iran tries to make a bomb and not report it. My intuition says that the solution is to create a new deal. One that makes it harder for Iran to hide nuclear bomb making facilities and doesn't involve sending them $1.7 billion dollars in cash [1]

[1] [http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran- payment-c...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment- cash-20160907-snap-story.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> Why is it flagged?

<comment><USER11> It's quite a politically heavy article, on a Technology first board.

<comment><USER12> It's about Israelis killing scientists and engineers, hitting dangerously close to home on a technology first board.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Real life Ocean's 11? This seems more like The Bank Job (2008)!

</comment><comment><USER14> > Netanyahu...proved Iranian...intent to resume bomb production

Israel has dozens, if not hundreds, of nuclear bombs. Why should Iran not have nuclear bombs as well? The US and US industry was pushing for Iran to turn more towards nuclear production in the 1970s.

Iran also has made offers for a nuclear-free Middle East agreement - <USER2> Israel has always rejected. What is the line - Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East are not allowed to have nuclear bombs, but Jewish ones can?

Some people might say Iran has theocratic and undemocratic elements. But the US and Israel had little problem with the Shah's lack of democracy. Also the US and England backed the conservative, fundamentalist mullahs in Iran from the 1950s to the 1970s against democratic republicans like Mossadegh. The US only turned against conservative fundamentalist mullahs in Iran at the very end of the 1970s who wanted US (and USSR) interference with Iran's internal affairs ended.

<comment><USER15> There's a non- Jewish-vs-Muslim argument: no country that does not today have nukes should be allowed to develop them. Hold the line. It may not be "fair", but it's safer for the world.

<comment><USER16> The history is that France gave the Israelis the Dimona Reactor originally as payback for helping the French and British with the Suez Canal nationalized by Egypt. The next French PM said he was giving Israel the technology to prevent another Holocaust.

Although the Arab nations have tried repeatedly to destroy Israel they are not afraid of Israel using the bomb against them. Nor can they conquer Israel because Israel has the bomb. Hence it provides an excuse to never start another war with Israel.

The Saudis and other Sunni Arab countries are terrified of a nuclear Shia Iran and would build their own bomb if Iran had one. As one might imagine, the Saudis are very supportive of Israel's efforts against Iran.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The leaders of Iran have called for the destruction of Israel many times, so of course Israel will do what it can to thwart the nuclear weapons program of Iran.

</comment><comment><USER18> Finding a way to bomb another nation for fossil fuels

<comment><USER19> This is a simpleton's way of looking at an issue as complex as this. It's intellectual laziness to try to water down geopolitical/historical motivations by claiming that "ooooh they did it for the oil!".

<comment><USER20> It is true that the problem is more complicated than just Oil. However, if you look beyond the superficial aspects, the bottom line of all conflicts throughout history boils down to the two interchangeable currencies of money and power.

Perhaps the reason Oil seems such a convenient rationale is because it is readily convertible to power and money.

<comment><USER21> Well yes, with money as a proxy for power, but that makes it so oversimplified as to be meaningless. Ideology, religion, a desire or freedom, resources, sheer malice, and much more is the nuance that matters too. You can boil anything humans do to power and resources, but is that really informative? If you do that, then the Allies and Axis in WWII are indistinguishable, and that's unwise.

<comment><USER20> Just because that level of abstract thinking renders other activities meaningless does not mean it should be the case with conflicts/wars too.

The superficial and nuances of wars only matters when you want to justify them. For an outsider, it is pretty clear who is fighting for more power and resources, and who is fighting to maintain their power and resources.

The point that I am trying to make is that we as humanity need to look at wars for what they are, bloody murderous missions on quest for power. And until we stop glorifying wars with various superficial reasons, we are doomed to forever repeating these conflicts and murdering our own kind.

<comment><USER21> I don't want to justify wars, or as you're doing, judge them. I want to _understand_ them, because that and not justification or judgement is probably the best way to stop them.

<comment><USER20> I am not judging wars, I am only trying to _understand_ what wars are, as a general concept, not least because I don't want to judge wars but because trying to judge specific wars without committing to one side or the other is a futile.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Troubleshooting Red Hat OpenShift Applications with Throwaway Containers - <AUTHOR> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2019/08/22/troubleshooting-red-hat-openshift-applications-with-throwaway-containers/ <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting how we develop tools and techniques to fit the environment.

I remember all sorts of tips and tricks from the mainframe and app server eras. Time to add to the current bag of tricks!</comment>


'I Had A Funny Feeling in My Gut' (1999) - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter021099b.htm?noredirect=no <comment><USER2> Just in case — he didn't have the authority to launch the missiles. His job was to evaluate the situation and give the immediate report to the top of the chain of command, if the situation is critical, and if they decide to counterattack — relay their orders (and presumably some unlock codes) to missile operators. In other words, he was at his place exactly because the command authority didn't trust the system enough to rely on automated reports, and needed a human in the loop to make the interpretation for them.

He decided (correctly) not to relay anything to the higher ups. However, later he was not commended for that, because his job was to make the call and tell something like "I have an alert of five incoming Minuteman missiles — I am sure though it is a false alarm from the new system", instead of unilaterally deciding to block the message. He was right not to escalate, but if he did, it would not have immediately ended the world.

<comment><USER3> According to the article, "the reports of a missile salvo were coming so quickly that an alert had already gone to general staff headquarters automatically".

<comment><USER4> Re: _he didn't have the authority to launch_

While true, if he _had_ claimed the missiles were real, those with authority may have pushed The Big Button.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Chilling story, the key point to me as a programmer is:

>According to Petrov and other sources, the false alarm was eventually traced to the satellite, which picked up the sun's reflection off the tops of clouds and mistook it for a missile launch. The computer program that was supposed to filter out such information was rewritten.

Every programmer should read this as a reminder of how a software bug can have catastrophic consequences. And I know it's hard, as deadlines come closer, the time dedicated to find bugs drops accordingly.

<comment><USER6> It probably wasn't really a bug, but untested behaviour or designers didn't think there could be such strong reflections from clouds. I suppose there wasn't too much real data to test detection algorithms against.

<comment><USER7> Untested behavior leading to unexpected results.. is still a bug.

<comment><USER8> Not a bug caused by programmers, but a bug caused by the domain experts who wrote the specifications for the code. I doubt the programmers writing the code were experts on cloud/satellite imagery interactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We had some oopsies too, like the time someone left a training tape in the machine. The UCUSA has a series of articles pleading for a more careful and thoughtful response instead of this hair-trigger ten minute stuff, especially in the new age of unstable leadership.

[https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/nuclear-false- alarm-950](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/nuclear-false-alarm-950)

<comment><USER4> We are really lucky to be alive. Then again, if an event did trigger WW3, most of us wouldn't be around to wonder what happened. It's sort of a variation on the Anthropic Principle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> From a system's perspective: when you build a nuke early-warning system you don't really have any good test cases to make sure your system actually works. This guy erred on the side of caution.

<comment><USER2> You have your own missiles (with dummy warheads) to check against. This is how it is usually done.

<comment><USER11> > This is how it is usually done.

Was that typical for testing in 1983? Or is that how systems are tested today?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I remember reading this elsewhere and the russian official was quoted in the lines of "It felt wrong cause if you wanna launch nukes, you launch them by the hundreds".

<comment><USER13> Also if you want to do a sneak attack you don't start it with the weapon your opponent can most easily detect.

So, the control center hasn't been taken out by a cruise missile and the submarine pens are untouched and the bomber airfields check in as OK... it just doesn't make sense as a sneak attack vector. Maybe every sub launched cruise missile in the fleet failed to work; unlikely.

Something not declassified yet, but probably would clear up a lot of confusion, is if the detector code was fooled by sunlight on clouds or whatever, the trajectory solver likely came up with bizarre results like the ICBM launch site was the center of Lake Michigan or downtown Chicago or the trajectory of the other missile has a best fit predicted impact point of Ohio or Mexico City.

They have plenty of practice analyzing the huge horizontal velocity vector of normal spacecraft launches. A strange sunlight reflection would tend to have zero horizontal velocity; the opfor seems to be bombing its own missile sites by tossing the ICBM exactly straight up and down? That seems a little odd unless someone's trying to set off a false flag leading to a real attack.

I would think it would be good defensive coding strategy to have different teams write and deploy the detector code vs the trajectory analysis code, such that if one messes up it really doesn't matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> We need Petrov statues.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is what makes the MAD doctrine so scary in reality, little mishaps and hiccups in a fallible system that could accidentally blow the world back to the stone age.

</comment><comment><USER16> Archived copy without GDPR nag screen:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20180926083157/http://www.washin...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180926083157/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter021099b.htm)</comment>


Study Results Suggest Human Aging Can Be Reversed - <AUTHOR> https://www.leafscience.org/study-results-suggest-human-aging-can-be-reversed/ <comment><USER2> Aging of the Thymus, not human aging. This is clickbate.

<comment><USER3> Human aging, as measured by the epigenomic clock</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How Do You Keep Advisors (Both Formal and Informal) Informed/Engaged? - <AUTHOR>

Just curious to know some methods you use. There can be issues like time conflicts, not keeping them in the loop enough, and advice that comes like after you've already made mistakes.<p>Is it hard to make sure you get the most out of relationships from advice-givers? <comment><USER2> _Is it hard to make sure you get the most out of relationships from advice- givers?_

In my experience, yes. I would assume you're seeking advice from successful people. Successful people are busy.

 _Just curious to know some methods you use._

I send weekly updates (same day and approximate time so they can expect it) on progress, challenges/solutions, and next steps. This is so they can be "in- the-loop" without actually being involved in what's happening. It keeps what I'm doing in their minds so they can think over things as time permits and not get a dump once every quarter.

Then I meet once a month with them to discuss strategy, results, and how we're going to move forward. This is a discussion that's scheduled for the first Thursday of every month. They do their best to be there and it's easier for them to accommodate because the day/time is known well in advance.

Is it a perfect model? No. But I don't seem to run into the same problems I hear from others in my city (not a startup town, others have problems with feedback/face-time).

The greatest thing I've learned from this is: _your success is up to you_. Don't wait for their feedback, don't rely on their feedback for the answers, and don't get frustrated if you're not getting what you hope for. It's _your_ business and its success is _your_ responsibility. Keep going and focus on what you can deliver to your customers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, thanks so much for the input. How much time does it take you to do those weekly updates and face-to-face meets?

<comment><USER2> It takes me anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour for my weekly e-mails and our monthly meetings last about two and a half hours on average.

<comment><USER3> Do you meet with all mentors/advisers at the same time/place?

<comment><USER2> Every month, yes. I also meet with each individually when required/as time permits.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you know if these advisors advise multiple other startups or entrepreneurs? When you meet with them individually, is it usually something fresh from each of them or do they repeat the the same things over?

<comment><USER2> All of them advise other startups and have their own companies/practices to run.

As mentioned earlier, I update them at the same time every week so they're up to date on what's happening. In fact, if they didn't make the effort to be up to date I would cut them from my Board of Advisors. I'm not sure anything really valuable can be distilled if they don't know what's happening and keep asking the same questions.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there a way to get access to my comment voting history? - <AUTHOR>

I tried to find a way to contact pg directly to ask him, but couldn't. Anyone know if this is possible? I'd like to analyze my personal voting record. I know I can find my saved stories, but would like to see voted upon comments as well.
At some point it would be interesting to get access to other people's voting records as well, but I hope that isn't easy to come by.
For those curious:
My goal is to look at whose comments I've been voting on, and overlay that information on their usernames whenever viewing comment threads. I want to give personal context to the users on HN. Essentially I want to mark commenters with my personal contributions to their karma. <comment><USER2> It seems like PG wants people to vote on the content with less biases than before i.e. not knowing how it's been voted. If you now introduce the bias of how you have typically voted for that user, once it again it may affect how you vote for that comment.

Each vote is independent of the last vote essentially.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for posting the "why" for the curious, but I'm curious what you are trying to achieve?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it might make HN a smaller place. Because the current design of the site puts so little emphasis on usernames, it is difficult to know if a comment I am reading is coming from someone I've read before. Just as in the real world there are some people who I listen to more carefully than others, I'd like to discover who those people are here.

The current voting system shows us on a comment by comment basis what is liked most by the entire community of HN. I'd like to be able to see who _I_ like on a person by person basis.</comment></comment>


How Gut Bacteria Are Shaking Up Cancer Research - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/how-gut-bacteria-are-shaking-up-cancer-research <comment><USER2> One of the ironies is that a very common side effect of standard issue chemotherapy is a marked and often permanent weakening of the immune system by altering a person's microbiome. Advances in oncology perhaps within our own lifetime will make today's treatments seem as embarrassing as medieval blood- letting.

<comment><USER3> _One of the ironies is that a very common side effect of standard issue chemotherapy is a marked and often permanent weakening of the immune system by altering a person 's microbiome. Advances in oncology perhaps within our own lifetime will make today's treatments seem as embarrassing as medieval blood- letting._

It's embarrassing now, never mind later. We just don't often have better alternatives than to pump already sick people full of poison in the hope that the poison kills the cancer faster than the rest of the person. It is horrible, and has (in my opinion) only improved slightly in the last few decades.

<comment><USER4> > pump already sick people full of poison

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for explanation/references/proof of what you mean when you say 'poison'. I don't know your particular experiences with chemotherapy, but I hear this soundbite parroted too often without any effort to actually research what chemotherapy is actually trying to accomplish. I'm not saying people shouldn't investigate their recommended treatment plans, but this often unwarranted suspicion of modern cancer treatment techniques is mystifying to me.

<comment><USER5> Chemotherapy, for most cancers, achieves tumor shrinkage and a temporary extension of life, at the cost of severe life quality degradation. It's a tradeoff that most cancer patients think is worth it. I think that this therapeutic benefit puts us in a grey zone with regard to the definition of poison. The substances would undoubtably be considered poison in other contexts (e.g. mustard gas) but the doses are carefully calibrated to just- barely not kill a patient. Maybe "poison" is a function of usage intent?

<comment><USER6> "Chemotherapy, for most cancers, achieves tumor shrinkage and a temporary extension of life, at the cost of severe life quality degradataion."

This is just not true.

I provide you with this list of cases where chemotherapy can cure people (established in phase III double blind randomised controlled trials):

Early stage breast cancer

Early stage colon cancer

Acute myeloid leukaemia

Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

Diffuse large B-cell Lymphoma

Paediatric neuroblastoma, retinoblastoma, nephroblastoma etc etc

Testicular seminoma and non-seminoma

Testicular germ cell tumours

Note that breast and colon cancer are among the top 3 most common cancers.

<comment><USER5> Let me revise that: for solid tumors, chemotherapy _can_ cure people, but typically doesn't.

At one extreme, early stage (solid) cancers are primarily cured by surgery. At the other extreme (metastasis), chemotherapy is a terminal rollercoaster.

In between those extremes (e.g. some limited local progression), adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be useful for breast cancer, but has only a very small effect for colon cancer ([http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607618662)) and none for lung cancer ([http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/19/1453.short](http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/19/1453.short)).

<comment><USER6> When you say adjuvant chemotherapy 'seems' to be useful in breast cancer, what exactly do you mean? How does a meta-analysis of 20,000 patients in randomized controlled trials showing a persistent reduction in risk of recurrence and death equate to 'seeming'?

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25917869](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25917869)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Unrelated gut flora personal story:

Few years ago I was in bad health. Got sick 4 times a year had a lot of pain going to the bathroom and was in a general state of depression. Started taking probiotics in 2 weeks I felt happier and my over all health improved. Did some research and found that it is estimated that 90 percent of the body's serotonin is made in the digestive tract. Who knew, get your body right added some probiotics in your diet.

<comment><USER8> Another piece of anecdotal evidence. My wife has had allergy attacks constantly for years and years. Every morning she would wake up and have to blow her nose for a half hour. We started making fermented food (saurkraut, pickles, fermented garlic carrots) and at the same time buying/drinking keefir daily. This was just to be healthy and as a new hobby. However, within a week or two, her allergies subsided substantially. To the point where she would go for weeks at a time without having the morning nose blowing session. When she dials back the intake of fermented foods, allergies come back.

We haven't spent much time tracking it closely, but the relationship is obvious enough to be a no brainer for us.

<comment> atom-morgan I've heard stories like yours, witnessed a few myself, and have noticed changes within myself as well. Yet no matter how many times I tell people they look at me like I'm an idiot.

<comment><USER8> I sincerely hope there will be more research into this in the coming years. The problem I think is that we need to do more personalized research and experiments, but somehow figure out the baseline to compare individual results against. Someone who has a system with X properties will respond differently from someone with Y properties, and we don't know enough about those properties to understand the different response types.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Incidentally, one of those gut bacteria, helicobacter pylori is the leading cause of gastric cancer in the world (and maybe even a deterrent of some forms).

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952980/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952980/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Alternative to expensive probiotic supplements: fermented foods. It is easy to:

1.) Brew your own kombucha

2.) Turn milk into kefir

3.) Make your own sauerkraut.

I do all 3 of the above, feel free to email me w/ questions!

<comment><USER10> Why would you make your own vs. buying it from a shop?

<comment><USER9> For me it's a fun hobby. With that said, as a software developer making $XXX,XXX per year, your time is worth more than the money you save by DIY. So it's up to you.

The final caveat is that w/ milk kefir in particular, the stuff you buy in the store is different that making it yourself. Commercially made milk kefir is inoculated w/ ~7 specific bacteria strains whereas homemade kefir is made with kefir "grains" \--- a symbiotic culture of 40+ different strains. Interesting scientists have not been able to directly synthesize kefir grains in a lab due to how complex the symbiotic ecosystem is. All Kefir grains around the world today are from other grains stretching back thousands of years to when the first grains were discovered (people suspect in the digestive track of a ruminant).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just wait till the same damn companies who have been piping out antibiotics start patenting bacteria.

<comment> atom-morgan I don't see why people blame companies for this. Don't hate the player, hate the game. If you give the government the power to provide people with monopolies of ideas companies will fight for that power. If they don't, someone else will.

<comment><USER11> My comment was bitter, but it wasn't so much about blame or hate as it was about deep frustration.

While I acknowledge that this is a systemic issue, it's an individual ethical issue too. There are individuals lobbying for the power to _own entire species_. That powerful people seriously think this way, let alone act on these beliefs, leaves me bewildered and upset.

Beyond that, the player and the game are inseparable. The player you talk about, playing "the" game... they are playing _a_ game. There is not one game. In the game I aspire to play, his rules are cheating. Now, I can't blame him _on a human level_ for doing what his life has led him to do, for believing what his experiences have led him to believe. But I have extremely serious doubts about the consequences of this sort of belief system. In my worldview, this is a kind of fascism extended into the microbiological scale. That might seem far away, be we are entirely composed of microscopic ecosystems such as the ones that this "player" wants to insert his or her manipulative, magical control mechanisms into.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _" To therapeutically influence the microbiome long-term in humans is a big hurdle," said Sander van Deventer, managing partner at venture-capital firm Forbion Capital Partners. "The microbiome is very stubborn. Everything we've done so far has only had a temporary effect."_

I am guessing they are looking at one shot drug therapies. This is totally doable if you make dietary and lifestyle changes and are persistent. Yes, actually moving the numbers (so to speak) is tough going, but it can be done.

</comment><comment><USER13> Obligatory xkcd comic: [https://xkcd.com/1471/](https://xkcd.com/1471/)</comment>


Ask HN: Legally Scraping Reddit Images - <AUTHOR> I'm considering working on a project related to GANs and started to research where I could get training data for it.  I came across a subreddit full of community-filtered images of exactly what I need.  There's also roughly 100K of them which is exactly how many I was hoping for.<p>The only problem is that I don't have any experience with collecting that magnitude of data.  Does anyone have experience with scraping reddit and can offer pointers on how to approach it?  I'm also having a difficult time figuring out if reddit even allows this. <comment><USER2> You can look at the "legal" aspect of it by Googling "is it legal to scrape". My understanding (IANAL) is that it is OK as long as the user agreement is "opt-out" as opposed to "opt-in" (eg: clicking a consent box before viewing the content). You'll have to read up on this yourself and weigh the risk/reward of doing your project. I (NAFL) would assume the risk is quite small. The reward -- that's your call.

As for the other part, getting the data: it's called scraping. Depending on your experience with scraping, you may need to pay for certain aspects of it (eg, getting a large list of proxies so Reddit does not block you, or using a scraping API). Or maybe your project is small enough (or time constraints large enough) that you can slowly siphon the data via your own means.

As per Reddit allowing it: Refer to the legality of scraping, and apply it to Reddit.</comment>


Apple unveils video iPod, new iMac - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/Apple-unveils-video-iPod,-new-iMac/2100-1041_3-5893863.html

<comment><USER2> Wow amazing how do they think this stuff up? [http://realdanlyons.com/blog/2008/09/09/apple-still-no- space...](http://realdanlyons.com/blog/2008/09/09/apple-still-no-spaceship-or- flying-car/) says it all for me

</comment><comment><USER3> ah..2005...a very good year for apple.</comment>


Ask HN: Who are your programming heroes, and why? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I can't call them hero's but definitely a couple of the people I admire engineering wise are Bjarne Stroustrup and Martin Fowler. Mainly because both of them take a very pragmatic approach to things and I've never gotten the sense that they feel they have all the answers or stopped learning. Both from my very limited interactions with them and from reading their work and interviews appear to be humble and value intelligence and the principle of question everything.

There are others, such as Pat Helland, again, I wouldn't call him a hero, but he definitely influenced a lot of my thinking. Mainly because he asked hard questions that makes you have to defend your position from a place of intellectual strength, logic and reason. I've kinda lost track of him in the last number of years.

One more modern engineer I can say I think is pretty damn awesome is TJ Holowaychuk. I do not know him, never interacted with him (that I know of), but his work is pretty awesome and his depth of digging in is just insane.

BTW I don't consider just because someone influenced me or that I respect them that I agree with all their opinions/ideas, sometimes their opinion/stance/idea was the catalyst that made me defend my position to know I was right (or at least that I felt right).

<comment><AUTHOR> Great response, thanks for that. I admire all of the engineers you mentioned as well.</comment></comment>


How Hard Is It to Generate a 10X Return on an Investment? - <AUTHOR> https://bettereveryday.vc/how-hard-is-it-to-generate-a-10x-return-on-an-investment-9c1656d6c3af <comment><USER2> People perform services or produce goods for their community, and they are given resources in exchange for their efforts (aka "return").

Unfortunately, we are now tainted with a lust for more. And then we ask how to get 10x more (aka "return") before we even think about what it is we are providing.

We all just want to be "rich", and all we can think about is the end, not the means. Then we must read articles like these - the likes of which do not provide any practical insight on how one should live a fulfilling life.

It's all about just waiting for numbers get bigger.

<comment><USER3> Money can be a tool or a high score.

I maxed out three years into my career, the amount of money I felt I needed to make. All I've been doing now is trying to figure out how to work less and maintain that income.

What I want is a 20% paycut and every Friday off in addition to the weekend. But it's seemingly not compatible with this world.

<comment><USER2> " But it's seemingly not compatible with this world."

I was told by a ~50 year old yesterday that the Christmas holidays used to be two weeks. That means that it was common for businesses to close for an entire two weeks, instead of one day.

Now, it's all about the maximum grind.

[https://chriskresser.com/busyness-badge-of-honor-or- cultural...](https://chriskresser.com/busyness-badge-of-honor-or-cultural- disease/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just of out curiosity to the HN crowd - why is understanding the finance behind venture capital so interesting to people? I regularly see posts like this (including stuff I've written) and people are absolutely enamored by it. VC's likely represent a small fraction of the people on here, and are definitely a small fraction of the overall finance community, so why so much interest from _non_ VC folks?

<comment><USER5> I'm not interested in this.

I wished there was an article on "How Hard is it to generate a 10X return" for normal, Average-Joe investments (ie stocks, bonds, real estate), and how a 10X return is actually at most 6X return, because you need to take into account taxes, costs, and inflation.

<comment><USER6> if you are \- a passive investor and dont want to spend much time thinking about it \- want your money to earn a good return over inflation (5%+) \- dont need the money for ~ 3 to 5 years (its ok not being liquid)

then an sp500 index fund is probably best. not the 10x return you are looking for, otherwise you have to be a lot more speculative

<comment><USER5> For a middle-aged person, what % of my money should be in that index fund?

<comment><USER7> A good rule of thumb is 100 minus your age is your % of stocks to hold. Those stocks should be diversified index funds, so if you're 40 years old 60% in S&P500 ETF is pretty decent.

The exact index funds to hold is a constant matter of debate (including whether to hold international). Doesn't matter as much as having that equity exposure and keeping the fund fees low.

Lots of resources out there to do it yourself ([https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three- fund_portfolio](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio)) or you could use Betterment/Wealthfront/Personal Capital for extra fees.

<comment><USER8> I agree about equity exposure, low fees, and simple approaches like a three fund portfolio. Here is a slightly more sophisticated way to think about the percentage that should be in equities. One year from now, equities could be up 25% or down 50%. Twenty years from now, equities are likely to be up, likely to have outpaced inflation, and likely to have outperformed "safer" alternatives (money market funds, bond funds, etc.). If you have a $10,000 bill coming due in one year, and $10,000 in the bank, it would be risky to invest any of it in equities. If you have money to invest that you won't be forced to liquidate for 20 years (e.g. your 401k at age 40), then it is probably fine to start with 100% of in equities. The percentage should be based on when you might be forced to liquidate each available investment dollar. In many cases this will agree with the rule of thumb.

By equities I mean low cost equity ETFs (or index funds) that invest in broad indexes. I do not mean a portfolio of 10 to 30 stocks hand-picked by you or any fund manager. The hand-picked portfolio could be down 100% in 20 years, or in 1 year.

<comment><USER7> We're on the same page mostly, but I think if forced liquidation is a real risk you should lower your equity % at the start to compensate. 100% at age 40 is overly aggressive, pretty sure you'd have better risk adjusted returns by including bonds in there from the start.

<comment><USER9> With bonds at historic lows (negative interest rates have never seen since the beginning of money in ~600BC), I would not be so sure about that. What bonds would you invest in?

<comment><USER7> We're also at record equity levels and low interest rates, but that can change really quickly. I only put them in there because a lot of MPT models say it's a good idea.

I have LQD, JNK, and BNDX.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a cryptocurrency investor, I can confidently say it's hard not to generate a 10X return.

<comment><USER11> Which one do u suggest to buy now ?

<comment><USER12> If you're asking that question you've already lost.

<comment><USER13> The difference between investing now and staying in now is a single transaction fee.

<comment><USER14> You're forgetting capital gains tax.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> People act under the assumption that the power law is some fundamental property of the universe. But it seems the 10x effect exist partly due to network-effects, and partly due to a minimum barrier requirement for liquidity. It's economically infeasible to support mini-size IPOs because the fixed overhead cost of regulation, auditing, legal work, and underwriting is too high.

With all the stigma associated with ICOs, lower barrier to liquidity may be a good thing overall. The power law phenomenon incentivize entrepreneurs to take excessive risks and force VCs to adopt extreme portfolio management strategies.

</comment><comment><USER16> For comparison, the 11:1 payouts in roulette are a 7.89% chance.

</comment><comment><USER17> whew it's not about crypto. Getting fatigued by the btc talk.

</comment><comment><USER18> "The problem arises when multiples are inferred from incomplete data."

I heard the collective clacks of Command-W's at that line closing the tab from every single Crypto investors laptops sighing relief saying "See yeah crypto isn't overvalued it's just ya know people have incomplete information"

</comment><comment><USER12> Answering the question in the title...

Easy.

Doing it consistently?

Hard.

</comment><comment><USER19> Not hard at all, given a long enough timeline.

<comment><USER20> Just 34 years at 7%!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> VC is a very tough business.

<comment><USER22> Poor darlings.

<comment><USER23> It just got tougher too :)</comment></comment></comment>


What happens when Bitcoin mining no longer yields new coins? - <AUTHOR>

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining
> Mining is the process of adding transaction records to Bitcoin's public ledger of past transactions. This ledger of past transactions is called the block chain as it is a chain of blocks. The block chain serves to confirm transactions to the rest of the network as having taken place. Bitcoin nodes use the block chain to distinguish legitimate Bitcoin transactions from attempts to re-spend coins that have already been spent elsewhere.
The current incentive for helping validate the block chain is a mining reward.  This is an award given for discovering a block.  However, the total number of Bitcoins cannot exceed 21 million, so this reward will taper off.  But there is also a fee mechanism:
> Additionally, the miner is awarded the fees paid by users sending transactions. The fee is an incentive for the miner to include the transaction in their block. In the future, as the number of new bitcoins miners are allowed to create in each block dwindles, the fees will make up a much more important percentage of mining income.
This suggests that fees will become the new incentive for "miners" (who at this point are no longer "mining" new coins, but rather just validating transactions in exchange for the fee).  What will this fee become at 21 million coins, such that those validating the block chain have an incentive to do so?
Moreover, what institutions could take advantage of validating the block chain, if fees were low enough that it were not profitable? <comment><USER2> Each Bitcoin transaction has a set of inputs and outputs. The sum of the BTC in the inputs must be strictly greater than or equal to the sum of the BTC in the outputs. If sum(inputs) > sum(outputs) then the miner who wins the block containing this transaction gets the residual sum(inputs) - sum(outputs) as their "fee".

The fee charged on transactions is purely a convention, and is not fixed in the Bitcoin protocol. If a sufficiently large group of miners say "We will include transactions in blocks that we mine if and only if the input-output residual is 0.05BTC.", then transactions without this fee will have a low chance of making it onto the blockchain.

If this fee becomes too high, then people may abstain from paying it, reducing the number of transactions that miners are processing, reducing their profit, thus inducing them to lower the fee to capture a larger number of transactions and hence greater profit. There must be some kind of equilibrating fee, modelling this would make an interesting paper / blog post.

</comment><comment><USER3> They would raise the fees (just testing HN, it won't let me post).

</comment><comment><USER4> The word you're looking for is deflation</comment>


Google built an AI that will play piano duets with you - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/google-ai-experiment-plays-piano-duets-neural-networks-2017-2 <comment><AUTHOR> Link to actual Google site:

[https://aiexperiments.withgoogle.com/ai- duet/view/](https://aiexperiments.withgoogle.com/ai-duet/view/)</comment>


Show HN: Material design messaging app for sharing real time location - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=co.getintouch.play

<comment><USER2> Looks fantastic! I noticed your other app is open source. Any chance of open sourcing this one?</comment>


My web app (online e-reader): Librarus - <AUTHOR> http://librarus.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I was wondering if this app has any potential. Any feedback is appreciated.</comment>


One on One: Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/one-on-one-fred-wilson-union-square-ventures/

<comment><USER2> Wow, that's a pretty rare behind the scenes at someone who is so public, you'd think there wasn't that much that Fred hasn't talked about already.

Didn't know Fred was almost broke before the Geocities sale went through, or that he started in VC at 25 but didn't make any real investments till 30. Perhaps tenacity/persistence is not just a desirable quality for entrepreneurs but for VCs as well...

EDIT: Wonder if he ever thought about giving up and/or trying something else pre-Geocities? and what made him keep going?

<comment><USER3> This is actually the most inspiring part for me. Why we all strive to make it no matter what the cost...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nick B? Is that you?</comment>


Ask HN: How are Reddit and HN different for you? - <AUTHOR>

What do you use reddit for and what do you use HN for? How are reddit and HN different for you? <comment><USER2> Given that you created your HN account 4 minutes ago, I'm going to give you a quick answer. If this is a real question and you post a more detailed question, I'm happy to give you more info.

Reddit is an entertainment site for me. Funny gifs, videos, etc.

HN is more about tech and the industry.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your response. It is a real question. I am a passive reader for over 2 years (not in tech, not in media, not very opinionated. Just trying to learn from others' wisdom). I have never read anything on reddit directly. The news of sama leading a $ 50 M made me wonder about the differences. And this is the only place I know to ask. Apologies for the wrong signal I sent by creating an account and immediately asking the question. Thanks again for your response!

<comment><USER2> It's ok. Sometimes people just post garbage or spam, which is why new accounts are displayed in green, so we know to be cautious :)

Reddit is more of a general-audience kind of thing. It's like CNN or BuzzFeed, but the key difference is that anyone can go in and create a new group ("subreddit") to discuss whatever they want (hence the value of the community, and the potential for advertising & marketing). This ad-marketing potential is likely what's causing people to put money in.

To me, HN could be thought of as a single subreddit focused on tech-startup- business. I see political things and other non-tech-startup-business things on here sometimes, but that doesn't appear to be the priority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> They can be the same or very different depending how you use them.

There are a few subreddits which would match just like HN, but there are thousands more that are filled with cats and boobs.

</comment><comment><USER4> HN: news, occasionally discussion. Reddit: discussion, never news.</comment>