The Food Bubble (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://theglobalrealm.com/2011/02/04/the-food-bubble-how-wall-street-starved-millions-and-got-away-with-it/

<comment><USER2> I usually don't do this, but this article is long. The summary (tl; dr) is as follows:

1) Large institutional long investments in a certain type of wheat future (Chicago soft red winter) started crowding out the real customers of physical wheat, such as bakers.

2) Because wheat varieties are moderately fungible/exchangeable, the downstream bakers started to use a different brand of wheat (Minneapolis hard red spring) and changed their recipes accordingly.

3) This second class of wheat is very widely consumed, and bidding up its price caused riots and food shortages around the world (or so the reporter states. He didn't provide specific examples, as this predates the Arab Spring).

The overall effect is if a particular food staple suddenly became a fashion item, with wealthy people buying it off the market for non-dietary purposes at such a rate that poor people could not afford it.

However, the key bit I don't understand, and which the reporter doesn't explain, is how commodity fund investors didn't lose their shirts by betting on wheat to keep going up. If they did lose their shirts then this bubble is unlikely to repeat in the near future.

<comment><USER3> This article is basically shooting the messenger.

The roiling agricultural commodity prices in the last decade were largely the result of dollar currency devaluation by the Federal Reserve. The same patterns occurred across other global commodities like copper and oil.

<comment><USER4> Disagree. The fed does not devalue currency. They set interest rate policy on reserves aka the federal funds rate. Biggest factor in supply and demand for a currency is fiscal policy. Second biggest factor is trade balance and the desirability of foreigners to save the given currency.

<comment><USER5> Increasing the money supply devalues the currency even if that's not the intended goal; that is basic economics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I thought this was a pretty poor article.

For one, there's debate over what actually drove up the price of wheat ([http://www.economist.com/node/16432870?subjectid=2512631&...](http://www.economist.com/node/16432870?subjectid=2512631&story_id=16432870)). The author glosses over or fails to acknowledge some of the major counterpoints.

He also seems to have a pretty superficial understanding of futures markets. For example, there's nothing inherently "hysterical" about contango (future prices higher than current prices). It's a perfectly natural state for many commodities (browse some prices on <http://www.cmegroup.com>). He also paints a pretty rosy picture of the history of futures markets, but people have complained about speculators causing wild price swings since the beginning, long before index funds came on the scene. And there's nothing new about the way index funds maintain their long positions. Speculators have always had the option of rolling their contracts forward.

Index funds have opened up investment opportunities for a lot of people. Imagine if you had to buy and maintain a server for every app you wanted to put on the web (this is like buying a futures contract directly). Now compare that to a VPS/shared server (this is like buying an index fund). Not a perfect analogy but pretty fitting.

Speaking generally, if people are investing foolishly (i.e. mispricing something) well then they're investing foolishly. This can happen in any market. They'll either adapt or get weeded out. What's the alternative? Does Big Brother or anyone else know what the "correct" price of something is at any point in time?

</comment><comment><USER7> It is a bit disconcerting to me that commenters here are fascinated by the technical analysis of this system and appear quite oblivious to the problem of _starving human beings._

Perhaps I am not intellectual enough to appreciate the empathy hiding behind this analytical ruminating about the problem - but I wish that I got the impression that there was more reaction happening than "Wow, what an interesting phenomenon in the commodities market- how do all of these moving pieces fit together?"

To quote the sometimes poignant Jack Johnson: _"Why don't the newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eyes"_

<comment><USER8> I thought the human angle of the piece was far overblown. The underlying story being presented is "Goldman Sachs raises prices and people starve as a result". I think that was mostly to add a dramatic point to the article. In reality it's a "look at how all of these pieces fit together, and here's how Goldman Sachs hacked the system" story. While hackers love that kind of thing, we're a relatively small market and a story with a spin about the evil of corporations is so _in_ right now.

The reason people aren't reacting to human suffering is because we can see that it isn't a real factor in this story. We're talking about a small change in the world's supply of food here. It would be very difficult to image (or prove) that anyone actually died of starvation as a result of this. It's more like a loaf of bread that used to cost $4.50 now costs $6.00. That extra $1.50 can be enough to make an unpleasant life significantly less pleasant (believe me, I know), but I don't think it equates to the starving human beings.

tl;dr - Capitalism is a dick move. Don't blame the flaws in the system on the people who benefit from them.

<comment><USER9> Unfortunately, people at the margin DO starve. All economic activity happens at the margin.

What usually happens is a country at a large scale imports less subsidized food commodity, and this limits government distribution of that commodity -- they usually stop some feeding centers, which makes the marginal trip more difficult or impossible for some people.

It might also lead to scaled back or eliminated aid programs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wow. I had no idea this happened. I'm surprised this story has not had more attention.

<comment><USER11> I used to work at Goldman's. This story doesn't surprise me at all. This is what all good bankers do. I think the story hasn't gotten attention because it is not a story. It is just how things work.

<comment><USER12> This comment is...amazing.

Much like Paul, most actual people are genuinely shocked about this. It is one hell of a story. The general population does not understand how markets work.

Billions are hungry. The streets are full of protesters worldwide. Retirement funds are gone. Markets are failing. Countries are failing. These are _humans_ , who just want to _eat_. And for what? To turn $100 million into $200 million?

 _This is not "how things work". This is not "what good bankers do". This is what greedy sociopaths do. It is reprehensible and disgusting. These people are malicious and should be in prison._

<comment><USER11> First of all - I wasn't making a value judgement. Personally, I agree with you - it is reprehensible and disgusting. That is part of the reason I don't work at Goldman's anymore. I always found it a bit embarrassing to be associated with them. By "good" bankers - I ment the one's making all the money. Not those who are morally good.

Second - it is how things work. Not just in commodities, but in everything Goldman's does. There is always an angle which greatly reduces risk. That angle might be insider trading, advanced statistics, or just a rigged market. Goldman's is doing nothing illegal that I am aware of or anyone can prove. ...it is just how things work.

<comment><USER13> Maybe it should be illegal.

<comment><USER14> Well, it is illegal with Onions, but the prices of those tend to be even more volatile than the ones that people speculate in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Something seems wrong with this story. I understand how speculation can push the price up but if the price goes too far above the true value for too long there has to be a drop - the bubble needs to burst at some point. Has there been a drop in price since this article came out? Have farmers adjusted to grow unusual amounts of wheat? Are there parties to the events who have been shielded (bailed out) from any downturns?

<comment><USER16> According to the article, the bubble did indeed burst:

> Then, like all speculative bubbles, the food bubble popped. By late 2008, > the price of Minneapolis hard red spring had toppled back to normal levels, > and trading volume quickly followed. Of course, the prices world consumers > pay for food have not come down so fast, as manufacturers and retailers > continue to make up for their own heavy losses.

<comment><USER15> Thanks, I must have skipped over that part. Also I was able to find a good chart at <http://www.wikinvest.com/futures/Kansas_City_Wheat_Futures>

The article still isn't clear (at least to me) on who took the losses for the speculators.

<comment><USER17> The same people who always take the losses - speculators. Some of them are the same people who bid the market up; some of them are people who foolishly bought at the top.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article totally glossed over how the long orders were "rolled over" from one trading period to the next. This seems like a critical detail. What happens when all the orders come due and you're holding a bunch of long orders?

Also, wasn't this on HN a while ago? Or did I see it somewhere else?

<comment><USER19> Frustratingly, the post you are probably thinking of _was_ here: [http://www.cpeterson.org/2011/03/10/why-gas-is-so- expensive-...](http://www.cpeterson.org/2011/03/10/why-gas-is-so-expensive- today-hint-its-not-libya-2/)

(Aside: this is one reason why I have so little trust in the web as a long- term historical medium.)

Although that article focused primarily on oil futures, it also discussed commodities futures, and specifically addressed the rollovers. Unfortunately, I neither understood it well enough at the time, nor remember it well enough now, to regurgitate it. Maybe someone else will come along with a cached copy.

<comment><USER18> I think that's the one I was thinking of. I guess I followed the link from that one to this one, and therefore I remembered reading this article.

<comment><USER19> Nah; the previous version of the article I linked was completely different. For some reason, the author felt the need to take it down and replace it with links to these other articles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> An understated but key idea from relatively early on in the article is that investment firms like Goldman Sachs have a strong incentive to destabilize markets, since a commodity that never changes price cannot ever yield an investment return. Seems like a bit of a perverse incentive, pitting investors against the common good

</comment><comment><USER20> While I'm sure that this may be a component, I don't know if it has as deep as an impact as it's implied. With rising worldwide demand due to an exponentially increasing global population, as well as things like Ethanol in the US driving up the price of corn, protectionist policies on things like rice in Thailand, and things like possible inflation from QE2 this may be just a component of a veritable plethora of issues that are effecting the global prices of food. Still though it's fairly interesting to hear about this side of it.

<comment><USER21> _things like Ethanol in the US driving up the price of corn_

You can't really drive up the price of an individual crop. If the price of one crop goes up, they all go up. There is only so much land, so if one crop looks to be more profitable, farmers will shift their growing plan to include more of that crop, leading to shortages of the other crops.

Given this article, if true, means that ethanol may have play little to no role in the commodity price increases. I remember at the time it was really only the mainstream media that jumped on ethanol. In the farming communities, investors were thought to be the source of the price increases even then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Food prices have swelled many times in history, but Goldman Sachs wasn't to blame for those bubbles and I doubt they're at fault for these. See a short list of previous food riots which catalysed political upheavals here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_riot>

Derivatives are actually incredibly useful tools in agriculture because they allow a farmer to embark on the long-term commitment of growing crops with the peace of mind that (s)he'll have guaranteed customers for the final product. This is why the MGEX has been running since 1883: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Grain_Exchange>

</comment><comment> daniel-cussen Current suspected, unpopped bubbles:

Food bubble;

Commodity bubble, esp. the

Gold bubble;

Higher Education bubble, esp. the

Student loan bubble;

Health care bubble;

Tech bubble;

China bubble;

Developing world real estate bubble; and the

Luxury bubble.

</comment><comment><USER23> Obligatory <http://xkcd.com/552/>

I read an article in The Economist some time ago about speculative trading in oil markets. People were raising a ruckus about how it raised the costs of heating for the poor. Turned out that the evidence showing causation was extremely flimsy, and many other global trends were much better explanations.

I think burden of proof is on the article to make the case for causation, and I didn't see it (although I skimmed the second half).

</comment><comment><USER24> This article omits important details and is factually wrong. In its attempt to 'blame the bankers' it glosses over the role of ethanol policy and the federal reserve on food price rises and wrongly presents the link between futures markets and actual prices.

At the end of a futures contract term, an actual delivery of physical product has to take place. "Rolling over" long futures contracts does not mean the holder can get out of physical delivery. Exchanges do not raise prices of physical products by themselves. They also provide valuable price signals for producers about expected future events.

Blaming speculators is easy, but a factually incorrect way to see the situation.

A world bank report written in July 2008 stated that "large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices responsible for 70-75% of the price rise...with higher oil prices and a weak dollar explain 25–30% of total price rise."

It is a common theme these days to blame bankers and market participants for problems created by government policies. Market actors are agnostic. Governments set the rules of the game and should be the ones held accountable.

</comment><comment><USER25> I just don't get the point. You buy something if you expect its price it is going up. If the price is going up, it means there is higher demand. If there is higher demand, it means somebody does actually need more food (think of China and India).

I think the whole point of this article sounds a bit ideologic. Also, again, no really good data to prove his point.

<comment><USER26> You buy something if you think the price will go up, but this also makes the price go up. If a whole bunch of people think a commodity will go up, and start buying up, this will drive the price up a lot. A commodity does not have to change it value, or for there to be an increase in demand for the price to go up, all it needs is some speculation that it will go up, and a whole bunch of people looking to profit.

<comment><USER25> I still don't get it. If people are buying and the value is not there, they will loose money, right? Speculators can also bid on a lower price (derivatives), right? So, who are all those crazy people bidding only in 1 direction (higher prices)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm wondering if there's something preventing the government of vulnerable countries from buying futures themselves to shield their own people from violent price fluctuations like these, i.e. hedge against price increase for food commodities that need to be imported. Trading commodity futures may be inaccessible to ordinary people, but I don't see why the government of a country, even a developing one, cannot do it, other than because of some idiosyncratic rules of the game.

<comment><USER28> The governments don't need to do it. This is exactly why futures contracts exist. So that bakers who know they need wheat in six months can know today what the wheat will cost them and can price the bread with that assurance.

But maybe your point is that by doing this they would avoid the transient price spike due to the indexes rolling over in the near months. Which might make sense, but that phenomenon was noticed by traders anyway and you would expect it to be smoothed out because of that.

<comment><USER27> Sure, bakers who know they need wheat in six months can buy some futures for six months from now. Then, what is the problem that TFA is talking about? I thought it was about poor countries being impacted by the price spike resulting from the long speculation. If the people in these countries had bought the futures they needed well in advance, why were they getting impacted? I inferred that the problem was because people there were not sophisticated enough to buy the necessary futures.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It is truly sad to see that some of the smartest minds in the room are using their brains in this fashion. Interesting times ahead.. as a man sows.. and the love of money..

</comment><comment><USER30> We need to get rid of our highly distortionary tax policy. We incentivize "saving" over 'spending" by taxing capital gains at a lower rate, but we've got too much saving now and all that money is looking for places to go.

</comment><comment><USER31> At the risk of being the ugly capitalist in the room, it's worth mentioning that farmers have long used financial instruments to help them hedge against very severe volatility in their industry. Volatility caused by Acts Of God[1], like droughts and diseases.

So while I'm all for more regulations, I think we shouldn't demonize an entire sector without considering that some of what it does can and has be helpful.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God>

<comment><USER32> Did you read the article?

It talks extensively about how the markets were set up for exactly this purpose, and that the balance of long and short positions for the futures kept the market relatively stable in exactly this way, until the relatively recent (1990s) influx of commodity indices pushed a whole bunch of money purely into long positions and destabilized the market by, effectively, buying far more futures contracts than there was actual wheat.

Edit: and buy not buying any short futures to counterbalance them.

<comment><USER33> It's not true that long-only funds destabilize the market. Those funds invest only in long positions, but in the futures market a long position always has a short counterpart. It's like stock options: in order to buy a call option you need someone to sell it to you. That seller will be short on the stock.

The author of the article doesn't seem to understand that. He says:

> _The managers of this new product would acquire and hold long positions, and > nothing but long positions, on a range of commodities futures. They would > not hedge their futures with the actual sale or purchase of real wheat (like > a bona-fide hedger), nor would they cover their positions by buying low and > selling high_

But that is irrelevant since there were other market participants selling the futures. The author also fails to understand that rolling a contract implies covering your position at contract expiration and then buying another contract.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Here in the UK I've seen price of bread double, and the price of pasta triple over the last couple of years. It has never dropped. It is like this everywhere.

Perhaps it isn't in america, where you guys have even more ridiculous agricultural subsidies than we do in the EU.

The people responsible for this shit don't ever look at the prices of things at retail anyway.

</comment><comment><USER35> Thank you for this insightful and informative article. Had no idea!

</comment><comment><USER36> Most kinds of trading are just fucked up.

<comment><USER37> Agriculture and trading are inextricably linked. How f-ed up is that?

Care you tell us your opinion of foraging? Also know as ...trespassing... now that almost every acre of land on earth is owned by someone.

<comment><USER36> My fault for not being a native english speaker. I meant trading as in _speculative/electronic/realtime/valueless_ trading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The root cause of speculation is cheap and easy money. The cheap and easy money comes directly from the Federal Reserve. They provide it in the misguided hope that it will be put to work in the real economy.</comment>


Essential home office software tools? - <AUTHOR>

I'm relatively happy in my current job as a web developer, but I live in a provincial city in New Zealand where the IT market is unpredictable. At the moment business is booming but we've had some dark periods during the year and I'm thinking in my spare time I should put effort into setting up some sort of basic infrastructure at home to work on projects in my spare time or if I lose my job.
At work we use Trac for project management and TortoiseSVN for version control simply because we always have. Reading HN over the past few weeks has convinced me I'm a dinosaur. Because I work alone it can be hard to get a handle on what the new standards in the industry are.
My question: what would HN suggest as indispensable home office software tools -- for any operating system -- for the modern web developer? I work mostly in PHP but am not averse to learning a little Ruby. I am mostly thinking of version control systems (git?), project and bug tracking tools (Bugzilla?), development environments (Eclipse?), and anything I should be running on a home server (I am quite good with Debian boxes).
I would like to avoid purchasing new hardware. <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=460693>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=546444>

[http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8bhy6/do_you_te...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8bhy6/do_you_telecomute_what_is_in_your_toolkit_post/)

[http://www.myintervals.com/blog/2009/04/09/the-remote-web- de...](http://www.myintervals.com/blog/2009/04/09/the-remote-web-developer/)

[http://www.writebetterbits.com/2009/02/working-remotely- succ...](http://www.writebetterbits.com/2009/02/working-remotely- successfully.html)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=614215>

(hit search engines, searchyc.com for "telecommute" "remote worker" "distributed developer team"

<comment><AUTHOR> I only just checked my submissions again and found this. Thank you very much for such a helpful series of links!</comment></comment>


Google's Top Stories Promoted Misinformation About the Vegas Shooting from 4Chan - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/googles-top-stories-promoted-misinformation-about-the-l-1819053288 <comment><USER2> If you are searching for "Geary Danley" after the shooting then the result you want 99.999% would have been the 4chan article or similar.

Google gave the exact information people wanted, no? He was a meme, people searched for the meme and got it.

They offer up no evidence that this "Geary Danley" story was brought up incorrectly on other search terms where it would have been inappropriate such as "shooting", "shooter", "las vegas" etc

Do we want Google to hide a meme spreading around the community?

<comment><USER3> > _Do we want Google to hide a meme spreading around the community?_

How is this even a question? Of course you want them to hide the "meme" of a man falsely accused of mass murder. Google placed the 4chan threads in the section normally reserved for news.

<comment><USER2> So exactly why are you searching for "Geary Danley"? Are you interviewing him for a job next week? Randomly sat on the keyboard?

Or like everyone who is searching on him you want more information.

Which is, it's from a 4chan thread, the exact information you'd be looking for. The source.

As more reputable news sources get on board with alternate stories on the name they will displace the 4chan article for searches on the exact name, as should happen.

Until then you are hiding the narrative and the stories origin.

So no, in a educated, free society I don't want things hidden from me. I can decide for myself if 4chan is reputable as a news source.</comment></comment></comment>


Why don't developers dress better? - <AUTHOR> http://kellysutton.tumblr.com/post/10768909848/why-dont-developers-dress-better <comment><USER2> I hate ties and collared shirts in general. Any wedding or other formal event where I have to wear a suit, I'm constantly tugging at my neck and ripping off my tie within 5 seconds of getting back in my car to drive home after the event. I have no idea why Steve Jobs wore his ubiquitous turtleneck, but I'd like to think the fact that it was a lot more comfortable than a shirt and tie was one of the reasons.

Also if I'm at any sort of business or social event and someone is comes up to me and says something like: "Hey bro, I've been sitting on this great idea for a startup that I came with when I got my MBA at Oswego College, and I need a cofounder. Here, sign this NDA and I can tell you about it. Okay fine, don't sign the NDA, bro. It's called 'Fratastic.com,' it's like frat-oriented humor videos. It's gonna totally be the next youtube, it's ridiculous how much money it's gonna make, bro. I have the domain name and everything, I just need someone to actually do all the coding and I'll do the marketing, bro. How does 4% equity sound to you?"

... well, that person is almost always wearing a shirt, coat, and tie.

So why would I want to dress up beyond a t-shirt and jeans? It makes me uncomfortable, it has nothing to do with my production, technical or otherwise, and I'm less likely to be associated with the expensively educated clueless douchebag I described above.

Also, I know a lot of hackers who do go to the gym or otherwise keep active and look just fine in a t-shirt.

<comment><AUTHOR> Chances are if your tie/dress shirt makes you feel uncomfortable, you bought the wrong size. Comfortable dress shirts and ties do exist.

<comment><USER3> _Comfortable dress shirts and ties do exist._

I disagree, at least for off-the-rack clothes. I have a 17.5" neck, and looking at me you wouldn't think I'm a no-neck football player. When I get a _fitted_ shirt that is correct for my neck, it means that I've got to fold in at least 4" extra fabric around my waist. It seems that all clothes here in America assumes that some people are obese, and the rest of the population is merely fat.

I think the only way to get a dress shirt that's anywhere near the right size is to have it tailor-made.

<comment><USER4> Look for slim fit shirts. I've heard good things about Brooks Brothers Extra Slim Fit shirts. H&M also makes good slim fitting shirts if you're on a budget. In American clothing lingo "extra slim fit" just means "not overweight."

Alternately, have your shirts taken in by a tailor. Most will do it for about $8-12, hardly an imposition for a developer who probably makes 2-3 times that per hour.

<comment><USER3> _I've heard good things about Brooks Brothers Extra Slim Fit shirts._

Holy mackerel! They're $79.50 each!

<comment><USER4> I'm told they last. With some brands you pay for the label, but with others you're paying for quality. For example, if you buy a pair of $300 shoes from Allen Edmonds and treat them properly you can expect to get 20 years out of them. The concept of disposable clothes is fairly new, and there are still a handful of companies who want to sell you a shirt that lasts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "my talent supersedes my necessity to follow the guidelines of society" is a fairly mindless observation.

90% of the "guidelines of society" is cargo cult thinking. The best developers are wired to avoid this kind of thinking. With respect to clothing, they optimize for comfort and individuality rather than looks. There's no big political statement going on here (and I'd argue that dressing casually is a practical choice rather than a sign that one is misinformed, sloppy or lazy).

I'm writing code this morning in my pajamas. This evening I'll go out to a mixer and I'll throw on a nice sport coat. Clothes are tools, and you need the right tools for the job. This is why electricians and plumbers don't wear neckties.

</comment><comment><USER6> There is a signalling mechanism involved in dressing like a slob, every bit as loud as the signal you are trying to send out by dressing well.

In some contexts, putting on "whatever" sends the signal that I'm a slob, in other contexts it sends the signal that I have better / more important things to think about. In some contexts, dressing well sends out the signal that you are conscientious and trust-worthy, in other contexts it sends the signal that you are a vapid tool.

Your job is to tailor your message for the audience you are trying to reach.

<comment><USER7> Also, I noticed this:

 _(For guys) Girls like guys in ties. Show me a young woman who doesn't like a well-dress guy and I will show you a liar. This doesn't mean putting on a suit every time you step out of your apartment, but just putting on clothes that make you look good._

For long-term relationships, men are just as picky as women. Many men probably don't want to date the kind of woman who will be impressed by wearing a long string of cloth that symbolically represents the cutting off of bloodflow to the brain. Rather, men want to signal to women that they're looking for someone who will look beyond the surface appearance of fancy clothes and towards something more substantial.

Show me a young woman who finds the wearing of a tie the marginal tipping point at which she'll sleep with a guy in a tie and I'll show you a young woman who probably makes me think, "I can do better over the long term." And, even over the short term, I'm not convinced the tie is all that important.

<comment><USER8> Girls like guys who convey high social status. Depending on the context, that may be the guy in a suit, or it may be the guy who commands enough respect to dress however he wants. Consider musicians.

<comment><USER9> It's fascinating to see musicians who can afford (socially) to dress neatly in spite of the assumption they'd dress in ripped jeans and T-shirt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From Tom Ford's five lessons:

> You should put on the best version of yourself when you go out in the world > because that is a show of respect to the other people around you.

I try to dress well (note that there is a difference between dressing well and dressing formally) because I want to show respect to those around me. I find poorly dressed people almost as off-putting as catching a scent of someone who didn't put deodorant on seeing too much of someone who doesn't have the decency to wear a belt. Again, it's not about level of formality: someone wearing an ill-fitting suit isn't dressed as well as someone wearing properly fitting jeans and a polo.

Developers value elegant code as an indication of programming skill, so why not value elegant dress as an indication of interpersonal skills? (The answer is that a lot of developers don't value interpersonal skills at all).

"Why This Matters" from Jesse at Put This On is a good read: <http://putthison.com/post/665640307/why-this-matters>

<comment><USER11> I find this sentiment mildly offensive, for reasons I'm sure you can predict. I'm wearing a t-shirt covered in paint stains today and ripped up jeans, and I do not agree that I am expressing disrespect for you.

I find not agreeing with someone else's sensibilities (in fashion, in art, in cooking, in coding, or what- have- you) to be passive and innocuous.

I find "taking disrespect" from someone else's choices to be something other than those things.

(It's the sentiment I'm remarking on, not you; I do not find you to be offensive.)

<comment><USER10> You touch on this, but to be explicit we should note that between respect and disrespect there's indifference. I'm indifferent towards most people. It's when they cross into the "nuisance" range that I take offense.

Much the same way I would find it disrespectful if you were talking on your phone too loudly in close quarters or if I overheard you making a racist comment to your friend, I would take offense if you're clothes showed me too much of you or if they gave off some sort of smell. A lack of care of how one's behavior affects those around them is, by definition, disrespectful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Relevant snipper from _Cryptonomicon_ :

It is trite to observe that hackers don't like fancy clothes. Avi has learned that good clothes can actually be comfortable—the slacks that go with a business suit, for example, are really much more comfortable than blue jeans. And he has spent enough time with hackers to obtain the insight that is it not wearing suits that they object to, so much as getting them on. Which includes not only the donning process per se but also picking them out, maintaining them, and worrying whether they are still in style—this last being especially difficult for men who wear suits once every five years.

</comment><comment><USER13> I once had lunch with PG after having come back from a VC meeting. I had just moved to California then and was wearing business attire. PG stopped mid- sentence to ask me if I had on french cuffs and then told me how investors like startup guys to be scrappy haha.

And from a PG essay <http://www.paulgraham.com/bubble.html>

"And what would be wrong would be that how one presented oneself counted more than the quality of one's ideas. That's the problem with formality. Dressing up is not so much bad in itself. The problem is the receptor it binds to: dressing up is inevitably a substitute for good ideas. It is no coincidence that technically inept business types are known as "suits."

<comment><USER14> >> It is no coincidence that technically inept business types are known as "suits."

I thought that term originated back when working people had to wear uniforms, and that it was more of a class separation thing.

<comment><USER15> It's actually a truncation of the term "empty suit." In other words: all style, no substance; all looks, no accomplishments; all money, no ideas; etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Dressing better is not necessarily dressing up.

Dress for the situation but wear high quality clothes with the right fit. Just because its business attire doesn't mean its good clothing or that you're dressed well. Stand outside the local courthouse at lunch time and watch all the dumpy ill-fitting suits pour out and you'll see what I mean.

Fit and Quality are far more important than type of clothing.

<comment><USER17> Amen, you should dress in a way that makes you and the people you meet feel comfortable.

One of the worst fashion sins are cheap ill-fitting 99$ suits. Man...

My recommendation guys, buy some nice shoes and a coat.

<comment><USER18> Would be nice, if I knew how to tell the difference between "nice" and "ugly". It all looks the same to me.

I'm still mystified as to how people decide that one piece of clothing "goes" with another, or looks bad with such-and-such.

<comment><USER19> Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but it sounds like what you are saying is that you would wear better fitting / more appropriate clothes, if only you would know how to do so. This is definitely a valid point, but I think it just shows that there is room for learning!

Embracing new things can be intimidating and downright scary. I remember the first time I heard about the benefits of lifting weights, I was apprehensive. I thought I could just call others 'meatheads' and use my advanced degrees in computer science as a shield. But life does not work like that; we must continuously improve ourselves, in all aspects of our lives: social, personal, physical, intellectual. Learning to buy clothes and put together outfits is just another part of growing up, just like learning how to work out, or how to apply design patterns to a programming project.

On a more practical note, there are tons of resources on the Internet that can help you with figuring out what 'nice' clothes are, or how to put together outfits. Maybe start with this: [http://www.kinowear.com/blog/science-of- style-introducing-th...](http://www.kinowear.com/blog/science-of-style- introducing-the-highly-awaited-series) . Or check out reddit's r/malefashionadvice guides, or maybe go on styleforum.net, or try putthison.com . Good luck!

<comment><USER17> Sorry if I'm late here.

Yes, you should wear clothes that fit. For instance, if your suit is too large, it will make you look clumsy. Rather than buy a suit for 99 bucks, I'd rather buy a good quality shirt. Invest in quality, I guess.

Secondly, I think you should wear clothes that make yourself feel comfortable not just because they fit from a physical point of view. They should be appropriate to your persona, don't wear something that you are not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For myself, I due to an accident I had when a tutor / counsellor (door knob caught on the neck strap with id and sent me to the floor - lots of blood), I don't like wearing things around my neck including ties. I'm ok with slacks but not in the winter here because that's jeans weather and you never know when you might need to help someone out. Polos are ok and I mostly wear them instead of t-shirts.

I also grew up in an area where wearing a suit indicated that you were probably here to take money, land, or rights away. Suits were really the first sign not to trust that person. This belief is very hard to shake (along with the thought that anyone calling a noon meeting without providing food is sending a clear insulting message).

I hated my time in places that required a suit and tie and believe that culture is corrupting ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3015969> ).

</comment><comment><USER21> It's not about respect. It's about taste.

Ira Glass was once asked about how he became a great radio host [1]. His response was that he continued to work on his craft even when he knew it was terrible. Knowing your work is terrible is crucial because it means that you have taste - you know what needs to be done, and you know what would fulfill it, even if you don't have the ability to execute it.

Style is about taste. And note, style is not equivalent to 'dressing up'. Style is knowing what pieces go together to create an aesthetically pleasing form. Style is knowing your body type, your personality, and your needs and putting together outfits that compliment and combine those strengths.

When developers get made fun of for not dressing up, it's not because you're wearing a t-shirt and jeans. It's because you've put no thought into which t-shirt with what jeans. There's no thought about how the pieces fit together. There's no taste.

Taste is critical for us because it's what makes or breaks a product. What makes Apple great? Taste. What let Instagram beat out the plethora of other photo apps? Taste. What allowed Facebook to take over MySpace? Taste. Taste is what will give me confidence that when you are on my team, you will do exactly what is necessary to make us win.

Taste is imperative. Take every chance to show that you have it.

[1] [http://kottke.org/11/04/your-taste-is-why-your-own-work- disa...](http://kottke.org/11/04/your-taste-is-why-your-own-work-disappoints- you)

<comment><USER22>
       What makes Apple great? Taste.

I worked at Apple for 5 years. Some of the best engineers I know would routinely show up to work in pajamas. There are just as many, if not more, "poorly-dressed" people working there as at any other tech company.

The casual clothing trend, at least in Silicon Valley, has roots in 60's-70's counterculture. The idea that you need to wear a suit in order to do your job, or to dress like an IBM drone, was _explicitly_ rejected, along with a whole slew of other ideas which were perceived as needing reexamination. Apple was one of the companies which best represented that counterculture influence and its success in shaking up entire industries. To tie them to some notion of stylish dress equaling success is ludicrous.

<comment><USER4> You are not responding to what he wrote.

"And note, style is not equivalent to 'dressing up'."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think dressing up is fun. I love fashion, but I hate this sentiment:

 _"Unless you're going to the gym twice per week, you probably won't look good in a T-shirt."_

Fuck that. We live in a society that is constantly telling us we look bad, unless we are skinny, unless we have "good" hair, unless we have clear, light- colored skin...

Fuck that. People are fucking beautiful. All kinds of people are fucking beautiful, even if they're wearing a t-shirt.

It's one thing to encourage people to take pride in their clothes. It's another to call them ugly, and feed into our culture's (literally) deadly skinny-worshipping obsession.

<comment><USER24> I don't think he was trying to "feed into our culture's (literally) deadly skinny-worshipping obsession." When most people buy t-shirts, they don't buy well fitted t-shirts. That goes for both fat and really skinny and tall people (i was part of the skinny and tall). I found that once I started working out a few times a week, I was actually able to fit in my clothes better. They wouldn't be so frickin' loose on me anymore. So on the contrary, I think his argument applies to both fat and skinny, and his observation has dual intent: be more healthy and fit better in your clothes.

<comment><USER25> Specifically, well fitting clothes accent your body where you want it accented. If there's no spot you want accented... well...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A programmer from a very large computer company went to a software conference and then returned to report to his manager, saying: ``What sort of programmers work for other companies? They behaved badly and were unconcerned with appearances. Their hair was long and unkempt and their clothes were wrinkled and old. They crashed our hospitality suite and they made rude noises during my presentation.''

The manager said: ``I should have never sent you to the conference. Those programmers live beyond the physical world. They consider life absurd, an accidental coincidence. They come and go without knowing limitations. Without a care, they live only for their programs. Why should they bother with social conventions?

``They are alive within the Tao.''

2.3 - <http://www.canonical.org/~kragen/tao-of-programming.html>

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm glad to see someone else musing on something that I have always wondered about.

You don't have a wear a 3-piece suit to be taken seriously. But when you wear faded/ratty jeans and a t-shirt it's hard to be taken seriously. Look at the pictures of the Great Depression: every man on the street waiting in line wore a suit. Not just business shirts, a _suit_. And these were guys like dock workers, laborers, &c.

I think it's because of a counter-cultural movement of preferring ratty, grungy, grimey-looking things. And, lets face it, people do judge you by what they see.

I don't want to look like a 20-something guy in ratty pants and a t-shirt with some obscene rockstar; I want to be taken seriously, just like I try to take others (even a weirdo in a t-shirt) seriously.

<comment><USER28> > Look at the pictures of the Great Depression: every man on the street > waiting in line wore a suit.

I think in the '30s a suit was just what men owned - a durable, practical, all purpose set of clothing. They'd wear the same to the beach, because that's what they had. It probably cost them a lot of money, and owning any more clothes would cost a lot more. It didn't mean the same thing it does now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> article is total trollshit, but still:

"You are building the future, so dress like it."

If we're building the future, we'll build one where we can dress how we like.

"Even Zuck has been sporting a suit more and more. He's the last person that needs to impress someone based on how he dresses."

Tell that to his shareholders.

"It's a "my talent supersedes my necessity to follow the guidelines of society.""

If people like you are going to speak the way you do on behalf of society, maybe this society thing isn't for me.

</comment><comment><USER30> Developer culture is a meritocracy, and if you're putting out good code you can wear whatever the fuck you want.

My favorite part of the Zucks mythos is the flip-flops. What he wore didn't matter, because what he and Facebook were doing was so amazing.

Most people just happen to want to wear t-shirts, shorts, and flip-flops.

<comment><USER14> >> Developer culture is a meritocracy, and if you're putting out good code you can wear whatever the fuck you want.

Yeah. My problem with what you're saying is that if you're putting out _great_ code, you can probably wear whatever the f you want.

But if "good" represents average, and you tell any _competent_ employer that you can wear whatever the f you want, you're just telling him/her that you've got an attitude problem.

<comment><USER31> an employee who insists that he be judged upon his technical abilities and otherwise left alone has an "attitude problem?"

i'll take someone with that attitude problem over a doormat any day.

<comment><USER14> No, I'm saying that there's a scale. If you're a rock star, more is tolerated of you.

If you're just average, you can't insist on rock star treatment.

<comment><USER32> There's nothing rockstar about wearing comfortable clothes.

<comment><USER14> Comfortable clothes and dressing up are not mutually exclusive. Just because a nerd might not know how to find comfortable dressier clothes does not make a suit uncomfortable in itself.

And what I was trying to say is that a rock star (insert profession here) is more likely to be able to get away with saying "I'm going to wear whatever the f--- I want to wear" than someone who is just good, especially in a workplace where wearing jeans and t-shirts is not an accepted norm. And that's usually the case outside of the tech startup and creative worlds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> What does "dress better" mean, anyway? Once you start unpacking that phrase, you realize it has very little to do with optimizing functionality. It's not the same as "eat better" or "sleep better".

Imagine if someone showed up for a swim race in a suit and tie!

</comment><comment><USER34> I read your post but I still don't know why I must care about fashion? I try to develop my programming skills, I try to educate myself, I try to be a kind person, I go to gym frequently and I eat well. But the fashion sense is not something I'm interested, I just want to be comfortable. I checked Put This On and I didn't like the style.

<comment><USER35> Exactly - when I work, it's to get things done, not be part of a fashion show. You think Jobs, Zuck, or Brin care about being fashionable on the job?? I respect the OP's opinion, but it felt very high school-ish to me.

That said, I'm not against people dressing however they want. I don't roll into the office looking like a slob, but I definitely don't obsess about my outfit for the day.

I obsess more about the thought and effort put into the products I'm creating..

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I work at a startup in San Francisco and I'm "that developer who wears a tie every day".

The traditional adage is that when you dress for success, people take you more seriously. I'd like to believe that this particular industry is beyond that, which may or may not be true, but the truth is that when you dress up, you take _yourself_ more seriously.

The benefit of having everybody at the company know who I am is pretty nice, too.

<comment><USER8> Honestly, my instinctive first impression of overdressed developers is that they're trying to suck up or cover for a lack of ability. That's not fair, and I try to compensate for it, but it's no more unfair than assuming that dressing comfortably means you're a slob who doesn't care about your work.

 _but the truth is that when you dress up, you take yourself more seriously_

It just makes me want to get home as soon as possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> "You've got nothing to lose, save for some "geek cred.""

Maybe you underestimate the importance of feeling like you fit in. Being ostracized from your group is painful and can even lead to being left out of new information, like the up-and-coming programming languages, etc. It can lead to people saying, "He's not a team player" and it actually affecting your job.

Another problem is that you've defined 'better' as you see it, and not as your peers see it. You think you're better than them, but you aren't really. It's all an ego trip for you.

<comment><USER11> I read _Put This On_ (not because I aspire to "dress better", whichbelievemeanyonewhoknowsme &c &c but because it's well written and enthusiastic and I'd read a blog about Hummel figurines if it was graceful and engaging) and I think "ego trip" is the wrong word here.

I think for these "dressing up when their social situation doesn't really demand it" people, dressing up is a hobby. They'd ( _a_ ) like it people shared their hobby, because that's more fun, and they'd ( _b_ ) like not to be judged based on that hobby, which is what happens to developers who show up in ties.

<comment><USER37> Dressing however you want is fine, until you start calling it 'dressing better' and looking down on those who don't do it with you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Dressing differently is not necessarily dressing worse. Personally, when I see someone that obviously spent an extra 30-60 minutes getting ready in the morning to make themselves appear to be a professional, my first impression isn't "This guy is really professional". Instead, it is "what is this guy trying to hide?", or "does this guy think appearances are more important than results?" You really shouldn't assume you're making a good first impression because you're wearing a tie. It all depends on what the atmosphere of the workplace is.

</comment><comment><USER39> Why is the assumption that a T-shirt and a hoodie "worse dressed?" There are fricking $500 designer hoodies out there if you want one.

Anyway, the entire article is silly. Grownups know that some people will judge them based on how they dress. Sometimes we care, sometimes we don't, and so we dress accordingly. I'm not going to give a presentation to our Senior Business Team dressed in a Linux User Group t-shirt and ragged jeans, but don't expect me in a suit at any other time if I don't have to be.

<comment><USER40> Don't conflate "expensively dressed" with "well dressed." Well-dressed does not have to be expensive. And there is always lots of really bad fashion for ridiculous prices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Dressed UP isn't always the same as dressed NICELY. Programmers like efficient, but that doesn't mean that it can't look good too.

I've recently taken an interest in upgrading my wardrobe after a very long time of not caring. Frankly, without the internet I'd be totally lost. I dislike browse-shopping, and still have limited understanding of what makes things look better than others. I've found that the worst things are generally just ill-fitting, and I can't rely on size information (as any woman would tell you). A medium tshirt from one place might fit me perfectly, and look like a giant sack from another place. Same for pants, 30x30 jeans can be loose or too tight depending on the maker, the factory, etc.. Even men's clothing is getting vanity-sized which is frustrating, and makes me want to go back to "Whatever, I'd rather be doing something important!"

</comment><comment><USER42> Negatively judging someone for dressing poorly is as bad as judging someone for dressing well. For that reason, I can't agree completely with either side of the argument expressed in this thread.

With that said, it would be nice to wear a jacket/tie over jeans without feeling overdressed and negatively judged as a "suit" among developers. I agree with the sentiment that developers should wear whatever the fuck they want, but does that not include dressing well?

</comment><comment><USER43> Well I was dressed well for YCNYC. But that's because I'm a girl and I enjoy dressing well. So I wore a nice dress and a short sleeved jacket.

I felt really confident about what I was wearing until someone told me I looked like I didn't belong there. Now I'm left wondering if this suit stigma applies to females.

</comment><comment><USER44> Because a) There are usually negligible amounts of women around

b) I sweat in dress shirts which makes me less productive

c) I stay seated a lot changing posture constantly, which makes shirts look wrinkled

d) My job does not depend on how someone perceives me physically or socially so... Occam's razor.

It's not just developers, it happens with many people who work in science. I know a guy in a biology lab who only dresses in suits, and i 've heard his supervisor say that he sometimes can't give him real work to do for the fear of ruining his suit.

</comment><comment><USER45> If you're wearing a suit at an event where everyone else is wearing t-shirts and other casual dress, then _you_ are the one who is dressed inappropriately. You're communicating that you're either too clueless to understand that, or you that think you're somehow "above" everyone else. (Or, you're Aaron Patterson.)

It's just as disrespectful to wear a suit to, say, RailsConf, as it is to wear a t-shirt and wrecked jeans to your sibling's wedding.

</comment><comment><USER46> Suits aren't the only way to not look like a slob. Here are a few tips on how to dress for a "corporate" job without abandoning your sub-culture: <http://www.waningmoon.com/corpgoth/survival.shtml> and <http://steampunkworkshop.com/corporate-steampunk-fashion>

</comment><comment><USER14> The "dress for success" mentality is an anachronism, at least in North America.

Casual workdays used to be an employer granted privilege, but in this day and age, casual everyday is an entitlement in a lot of companies. The definition of "workplace casual" has become more lax in the past 20 years too.

Being middle aged myself, I'm not a fan of the shift towards casual dress every day, but times change, and that's just how it is.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm glad there are other developers out there who have decided that they want to look smart. My usual work attire is: shirt, jumper, smart trousers, and smart shoes while the rest of the team tend to turn up in t-shirts, jeans and trainers.

I was asked recently why I always choose to come to work dressed smartly and my answer? "Look smart, think smart"

</comment><comment><USER48> This reeks of a heavy east coast banker/lawyer mindset. That somehow you have to fit in and play by the rules in order to be a good employee. That if you aren't dressed above business casual you aren't capable or worthwhile enough to be considered. I can't tell you how happy I am to be out of that world.

Now, that being said, if you expect to go into a business meeting with a government or enterprise client you had better not roll into the meeting in flip flops and a t-shirt if you expect to win their business. But that is a far cry from having to dress up to some old fashioned standard every day.

Basically, there are two worlds when it comes to business. There's the old, entrenched, formalized business world and the new, scrappy, meritocratic startup world and you need to know how to float between them as necessary to be successful.

</comment><comment><USER49> Style is a celebration of the self. It's another language to learn and master.

Dismissing it as nonfunctional or damaging to your well being is the same as ignoring the utility of a new programming language because your old ones get the job done or because using traditional languages is "hardcore."

</comment><comment><USER50> Heh, I think the objection to suits and ties is that they are often no better looking that shorts/t-shirt.

I had no style for the first 20 years of my life, regarding it as simply vanity and not worthwhile.

Turns out it can be fun to develop your own style. It is a lot more than 'wearing a tie three times a week'. It means moving beyond Dr. Who tees and thinking about colors and lines; and looking in a mirror once in a while.

It doesn't take too much time or money, and is great when you get complements from strangers.

It is correct that fit is important. I would say the most important. Get rid of the too-large t-shirts and too-short pants.

And never ever buy an uncomfortable dress shirt.

</comment><comment><USER51> I can't speak for other people, but I'm a developer and I put very little effort into my wardrobe. This doesn't derive from a conscious decision as much as it is that I simply hate the concept of "dressing up". There is no relationship between how good someone is at technical tasks and their affinity for fine clothing. In actuality, I've only ever observed the opposite.

Ultimately, I'm not a peacock, so I have little interest in human plumage.

</comment><comment><USER52> "I'm a developer and I've been attempting to dress better for the last few months."

I´m a developer and I´ve been atempting to code better for the last few decades. ( Never got me unemployed/bad employed, by the way )

"For a group of people constantly trying for improving development ability, I'm surprised more aren't trying to develop their dress."

Maybe they´re to busy with the kernel to mind the shell. I´m glad inteligence gave some people power to chalenge traditions, prejudices, judgments...

"You are building the future, so dress like it." Suits are the future ? Silly me, I always thought they´ve been around for a loooong time. Maybe the future will be more about substance than appearance. Maybe the future will be about respect for diversity. Maybe some people are just afraid of change. Maybe having to really conect with somebody else for what he/she IS and not the uniform he/she wears is too frightening.

I´m not religious but I think Christ said something about the big bosses of the time looking like tombs: very fancy on the outside, rotten on the inside. It´s somewhere in the bible.

Ah, last but not least, being comfortable makes my mind really free to go. Probably releases some neurons to more pleasant/significant/important tasks.

</comment><comment><USER53> Most days, I wear a t-shirt, basketball shorts, and Rainbow sandals to work. I'm a strong believer in wearing what's appropriate for the job. If I'm sitting in the office all day just coding, I don't need to be dressed nicely would rather be in something comfortable. If I'm meeting a client or going to an important business meeting, I damn well better be dressed well.

</comment><comment><USER54> It's ENGINEERING people: Wear what you want, be comfortable, but be sure to do REALLY good engineering.

Different jobs have different norms. Wear a suit to your job as a software engineer at Apple or Microsoft or Google and I guarantee you'll get lots of attention... the WRONG KIND of attention. People will think you're demented. But even then, if your engineering is good, they'll simply think your a good engineer with an odd style of dress.

I can't emphasize enough that it's about the ENGINEERING. Working as a dev isn't making an impression at fashion week. You sit in your office all day long, and some days you might not even TALK to another person except to say "excuse me" when you push you way to the coffee pot to refuel.

If your engineering is on point, nobody is going to give a flying fuck how you dress.

</comment><comment><USER55> "Girls like guys in ties" Absofuckinglutely. Attracts goldiggers like flies flocking to a pile of shit.

</comment><comment><USER56> I usually wear button-up shirts (and sometimes a sport coat) when going out or meeting with clients, but I am a firm believer that neckties cut off blood flow to the brain.

Also, slacks are just not comfortable. I much prefer a nice pair of dark, well-fitting, ironed jeans.

<comment><USER57> Find better slacks.

I don't often wear dress slacks, but when I do they feel _more_ comfortable than my usual khakis or nice jeans. Hm...maybe I should wear those dress slacks more often.

Oh yeah, dry clean only.

<comment><USER58> Seriously. Good pairs of slacks are about as comfortable as you can get in any situation. Part of the genius is the variety in materials that go in. You have everything from lightweight, super breathable pants perfect for the summer (when jeans and even khakis become miserable in any humidity) to thicker wool trousers that will feel comfortable even in the middle of a blizzard.

That said, the peak of summer comfort is seersucker, but I won't even don that often because it does make you look like an anachronistic dandy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> _Maybe it's the New York City in me speaking_

Got it in one.

</comment><comment><USER60> hmmm, spend 500$ on the elegant jacket, or buy this new gadgets that just came out. I cant decide.

Kidding aside (or maybe not, its a dilemma sometimes, first world problems).

As a sysadmin by trade, that actually attends not a small number of social events, I often dress in a suit. I feel great wearing them and get complimented often. But i cant imagine myself sitting in my office, in front of my screens wearing the latest fashion, it just doesn't work, I will feel overdressed and uncomfortable.

Oh and i love my t-shirts, I go to some lengths to find cool ones, silly and geeky. I know.

</comment><comment><USER61> "Maybe it's the New York City in me speaking, but the days of T-shirts and hoodies are over." The days of t-shirts are over? Are the days of pants over? Were t-shirts in and of themselves ever "in"? I wear unscreened/printed colored t-shirts every day. I take care of my body and choose t-shirts and pants that fit well. I have as little respect for a coworker or potential client that judges my ambition or skill set as inferior because I don't dress myself off a rack or blog as they do for me.

</comment><comment><USER62> How often are developers put 'out there' in any sort of public role to _need_ to dress up in the first place?

I think programmers in general find clothing to be arbitrary and stupid, it's simply not important compared to code or what we're doing.

I'm a lady software dev and pretty much just wear jeans, t-shirts, and hoodies. Some of the developers at my company wear slacks and a button-up shirt, some don't. It's personal preference over any sort of nonexistant obligation to do so.

</comment><comment><USER63> this post is just as short sighted as the quote it's arguing with. strange to see banter about what people are wearing in a place like this. wear whatever you want.

</comment><comment><USER64> I see on your site that you say, "recently, I also got rid of all of my possessions through a project called Cult of Less."

That must not have included all of your nice clothes.

</comment><comment><USER65> Sometimes I use shirt and tie to go to work for fun. In a building full of t-shirt and jeans guys, it's easy to stand out like that. And sometimes I want to (or need to) stand out. And doesn't matter what I wear, I'm still doing my job (making stuff). I think looks really don't matter, but it goes both ways.

</comment><comment><USER66> I imagine the answer to your question probably has something to do with the fact that most developers are staring at a screen for the majority of their waking hours. If you want to dress up in your 3 piece Armarni to impress your 27" LED then good luck to you...

</comment><comment><USER67> Maybe I'm just not used to it, but I honestly find it harder to write code when I'm well dressed. I really don't know why this is the case. Perhaps my subconscious thinks I'm performing physical labor when I code, and thus being well dressed causes discomfort.

</comment><comment><USER68> I'm not sure citing Tim Ferriss' work while advocating for developers to change their habits, helps with the credibility of your argument.

His body of work is infamous for being poorly researched, counter to a quality that technical people, like software engineers, value.

<comment><AUTHOR> While I don't buy into Tim Ferriss whole hog, the effect he's had is undeniable. I've seen friends get interested in their health and be much better for it, partially thanks to his book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Because nice clothes are the epitome of form over function: they aren't comfortable to wear (loose fit == airflow), they're more expensive than is reasonable, and "good taste" in dress is mostly arbitrary.

T-shirts and jeans are comfortable, versatile, and inexpensive.

<comment><USER70> You think they're cost effective and comfortable, you haven't lived until you've coded in just a big 'ol burlap sack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> This article can only be beaten in its ridiculousness by the corporate ritual called casual Fridays.

I thank the lord I am no longer employed in a place that feels it's doing its employees a favor by instituting such policy.

</comment><comment><USER72> Totally agree.

What shoes have you found to work? I'm usually in nice jeans and a button-down shirt (no tie or blazer, most of the time), but haven't found shoes I really like. Thoughts?

<comment><USER73> I try hard not to buy clothes made from animal products. Any suggestions? I have some saucony vegan shoes but they fell apart pretty quickly and aren't very classy.

<comment><USER74> I have a pair of Novacas shoes that are pretty dressy. I haven't worn them heavily, so I don't know how well they will hold up over the long run, but they're comfortable. All their stuff is vegan.

<http://www.novacas.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> In the words of Barney Stinson:

"To score a ten would be just fine, but I'd rather be dressed to the nines. It's a truth you can't refute, nothing suits me like a suit."

Suit up, Men!

</comment><comment><USER76> Because of the following reason:

<http://toblender.com/engineer-ranking-system/>

</comment><comment><USER77> I think this is what happens when nerdness/geekiness goes mainstream.

</comment><comment><USER78> Seriously just be yourself - what else is there really...

</comment><comment><USER79> We dress great. We just have different std of "better".

</comment><comment><USER80> This post is completely ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER81> Kelly, I hope you read this.

There is, historically, a significant divide between hackers and suits. A classic example is the Jargon File's entry on "suit": <http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/suit.html> . Whether or not you subscribe to the hacker philosophy, it would be good to understand that many of the people odious to hackers, such as marketroids and PHBs, wear suits regularly, and hacker dislike of their clothing is ingrained.

"You've got nothing to lose, save for some 'geek cred.'" For some of us, this amounts to a betrayal of culture. It's not about looking nice -- I own a tuxedo and wear it when appropriate (opera, weddings, etc.) but I would not wear a suit to work. I am not a suit. I'm a hacker. I write code. I eat crappy pseudo-Chinese with all the spice, get 44Oz drinks at the Circle K because they run out of 64Oz cups, grok more programming languages than spoken languages, and I am not a suit.

I'm not offended, but I just want to impress on you that this idea is far older than either of us and, as such, deserves at least some recognition on par with the idea that hackers should dress in more professional or formal clothing on a regular basis.

<comment><USER11> It is probably not a good idea to eat lots of crappy pseudo-Chinese and drink 44oz Circle K drinks just to signal your nerdiness. T-shirts and ripped jeans aren't slowly killing you.

<comment><USER81> I was going with things which are a part of my life. I don't eat these things because hackers eat these things, I eat these things because I like them. Incidentally, lots of hackers eat these things too. :3

I could have mentioned things like my beard, glasses, and hair longer than any female coworker, but I felt that that might be antagonistic or countering the point I was trying to make about fashion.

Incidentally, I hate jeans. I wear lots of cargo pants and keep them carefully patched up, mostly because my mom's a seamstress and I get obsessive- compulsive about things.

<comment><USER11> Please stop drinking 44oz sodas from Circle K. They're harming you.

<comment><USER81> It's Gatorade these days; I've been cutting back on my caffeine steadily for the past few years. I can't quite make the switch to tea like my coworkers. I don't like tea. :c

<comment><USER4> Gatorade is just as bad. This is going to come off as judgemental but I'm saying it out of concern: if you can grok a lot of programming languages you can DEFINITELY grok nutrition.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


It's about time: Xilinx FPGA with embedded ARM cpu - <AUTHOR> http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224600583

<comment><USER2> [http://www.xilinx.com/technology/roadmap/processing- platform...](http://www.xilinx.com/technology/roadmap/processing-platform.htm)

Here's a link to Xilinx where they talk more about this. It still baffles me that news outlets can't figure out what bloggers have known since day one: Link to the relevant parties.

<comment><USER3> I agree, but consider that MSM journalists are probably writing stories based on embargoed press releases, so the relevant Web sites are not available when the stories are written.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A big problem with Xilinx/Altera FPGAs is how closed and expensive developing for them can be.

I still shiver when I think about the times I spent with WebPack.

<comment><USER5> A bigger problem is how awful the development tools are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I still prefer a Xilinx FPGA embedded in a Cray XD1! <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_XD1>

</comment><comment><USER7> They've been doing this with PowerPC CPUs for a while now.

<comment><USER8> I haven't seen any with PowerPC processors nearly as fancy as the dual-core 800 MHz Cortex-A9 they're putting in these new FPGAs, though. The fact that they're building the whole thing in 28 nm technology also kicks ass. This thing is a beast.</comment></comment>


Steve Jobs Resume - <AUTHOR> http://web.archive.org/web/20090204025538/http://homepage.mac.com/steve/Resume.html <comment><USER2> Looking round the rest of the pages [1], it doesn't look like it's Steve Job's .mac site.

On the other hand, this is a fascinating glimpse of how things you put on the internet can stick around for a long time (courtesy of the internet archive) . MobileMe was rolled out in 2008 but the url here is from a .mac site (so was in use before that roll out).

[1] e.g the family photo [http://web.archive.org/web/20090215001259/http://homepage.ma...](http://web.archive.org/web/20090215001259/http://homepage.mac.com/steve/PhotoAlbum1.html)

Edit: And site goes back to June 2002, which is interesting as .mac was launched in July 2002 [1]. So either this site is from the predecessor (iTools) or perhaps it was a showcase site to demonstrate what .mac could do. I wonder, since we can only see a couple of albums, one video, one newsletter and an event as well as a cheeky resume. None of these things appear to change from 2002-2009.

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MobileMe#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MobileMe#History)

</comment><comment><USER3> TBH, not extremely interesting because I want to see famous people's first resume before they became famous and well established. I am not sure if Jobs had a resume before he made Apple.

But interesting enough to see how he writes about his and his company's accomplishment. Neat and concise, but you can only do that if you have done something really neat.

</comment><comment><USER4> "that vision"

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The funniest thing are

1) Who is going to hire the Steve ?

2) And, Steve will show whom reference ? Woz , Mark zukerberg? haha

</comment><comment><USER5> As funny as this is, it's not real. Jobs never had a daughter named Sarah.

</comment><comment><USER6> is this real?

<comment><USER7> I would say no - if you look at the other content of the site, it has nothing to do with jobs.

it is a fun perspective though.</comment></comment>


The Code Less Travelled - <AUTHOR> http://www.wilfred.me.uk/blog/2014/12/21/the-code-less-travelled/

<comment><USER2> Here's an interesting thought I just had. Instead of just thinking of ourselves and what language we'd use, lets think about a team we're trying to build, and then revisit the motivations for choosing a tool or language.

1\. One really good reason to use something is to pick something because you would learn something from using it. I think this cuts to the title of the original article. Learning has fallen by the wayside with this bubble. People have become preoccupied with making a quick buck.

2\. What advantages does it provide, and at what cost?

With that in mind, lets look at two of the languages mentioned.

I'll start with Go. What can we learn from it? Almost nothing. Ditto with D. Both languages were meant to be better systems-level languages than C/C++. But I just fail to see how they are better enough to warrant a shift. Rust seems much more compelling but Rust is still a bit young. Go and D seem to be advocated by fossilized C++ guys who just want to keep on doing things the old way which is averse to (1).

Now lets talk about Scala. Most programmers could really learn something from it. A Stanford/CMU grad wouldn't get anything out of it, but they could at least leverage what they learned in their ML/Haskell classes. Scala also has robust access to the JVM libs, so enough said there.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think it's more interesting to do new things with a language I'm comfortable with, than to do things I'm comfortable with using a new language.

Assuming the languages are comparable, of course.

</comment><comment><USER4> I occasionally use technologies from my dislike list as well to try and keep my biases at bay.

</comment><comment><USER5> tl;dr Wilfred Hughes identified five reasons why he doesn't use certain technologies. He finds them lacking and resolves to test out some of the tools he's avoided, in the coming year.</comment>


Facebook to Change News Feed to Focus on Friends and Family - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/technology/facebook-to-change-news-feed-to-focus-on-friends-and-family.html <comment><USER2> As someone who runs a niche news site, it's hard to see the point focusing on running a Facebook page anymore. We kind of go through the motions to keep up with appearances, but Facebook is less than 5% of our total overall traffic, and 95% of that portion is all from individuals sharing our content, not from our page directly.

It's just impossible to "bid" on traffic via Facebook and win out over companies that have far bigger budgets, and most importantly feel that eyeballs are far more valuable. A visitor landing on one of our news stories likely is worth less than a few cents. A visitor to a consumer retail site could easily be worth hundreds of dollars. Guess who has the budget to bid big on traffic acquisition here.

There isn't _that_ much real estate for advertisers on FB, and with that it has become incredibly expensive for a media company to grow a legit audience through FB anymore as well.

As a regular FB user though, I think this is an interesting move. I stopped using it to see what my friends are up to long ago as everyone moved to Instagram and Snapchat for their daily happenings. Facebook became a news aggregation service for me, much like Twitter. Might just be my friends, but only a handful are active on the service much anymore with daily updates.

<comment><USER3> Generally speaking businesses doesn't have to be on Facebook. It was cool and all when Facebook was the new hotness, but at this point it's wasted energi.

The whole idea that "users will engage with your business via Facebook (or any other social media)" is pretty much snake oil. Facebook engages your customer if they can win a price, or they want to complain, loudly and in public. Neither of these things helps your business.

Assuming no click baiting, I would like to see an honest business that could not function, if they where not on Facebook.

The only change I would like to see in the Facebook news feed is the ability to remember that I just want everything sorted by newest first. Perhaps simply the ability to disable "curated feed". My feed is already curated, by me.

<comment><USER4> Check out the Facebook pages of mom and pop stores, grocers and other local businesses in your area. Chances are you'll see a lot of interaction with loyal customers. Check out the Facebook pages of your favorite musicians, lots of interaction there too. It's not because you don't see it that it doesn't exist.

<comment><USER3> For very local or niche businesses I would say you're right. It's much easier, and cheaper for them and their customer to just maintain a Facebook page, rather than trying to build a website. I don't see a way for Facebook making money of these companies though. It's the companies that bring the audience to Facebook in this case, not the other way around. Facebook in these cases are just a glorified mailing lists.

For mainstream businesses, like chain supermarket, Coca Cola and car makers, I still maintain it's wasted effort.

<comment><USER5> > For mainstream businesses, like chain supermarket, Coca Cola and car makers, > I still maintain it's wasted effort.

I'm working at one of top digital advertising agencies in EU. National and global brands save no buck on their spending on social media presence, and there are plenty of cheap (for them) tricks that result in both additional sales, positive PR and new customers. We also have strong data to back this up and justify our budgets.

Sometimes it costs real peanuts. Its easy to pump sales for soda brand by going to Snapchat with staged clip going "PEOPLE!!! I WANT TO SEE HOW THIS SODA HELPS YOU BEAR WITH CURRENT HEATS!!!" with people in 13-30 range flocking back with clips of them demoing how soda helps them out stay cool. Then brand gifts dozen or two best submissions and next action ran month or two later attracts 120% the number previous one did, word of gifts and possible response from social media make sure of that.

Whats in for, say, Lidl (large market store in EU), when it gives away stuff to guy who complained to them on twitter that he got diarrhea from expired pizza he bought at their place? It lets them save face, improve recognition of their brand and makes more people bring their feedback, allowing them find potential rotten apples within their chain.

For young peopple especially the fact that large brand @'s them on twitter/face/insta or elsewhere is enough to go nuts, go to store, buy crazy amount of brand's product and then stage some photo or clip alone or with friends. And then there are followers who mimic this in hopes of getting social fame as well.

<comment><USER3> I'll assume you're right, because you actually work with this.

A few questions on the Snapchat thing, if you don't mind: Aren't you just "buying" interaction with the prospect of a potential price? Does it actually increase sales figures significantly, long term and beyond the people that participated? Wouldn't the participant have been very likely to buy the product anyway? I mean they already follow the brand on Snapchat.

<comment><USER5> Their participation in activation usually makes some of their followers/friends to try their chances as well (or just buy it to see whats so great about it). Those people will try the product themselves and hopefully some will pick a liking for it and even recommend it further.

Social media is simply new channel in BTL and is important to Brands as they grow the awareness that there's increasing number of people that's simply oblivious to ATL.

As for sales figures, we actually work within targets, sometimes esoteric ones like "get hastag trending on specific day". We also rarely work alone, more often than not being just part of bigger picture happening simultanously. Brand then reviews performance using market research companies or sales figures and tell us results, so its hard to say if sales change would be same or different without us.

As for long term sales, that depends more on Brand's strategy and its reception by the market. Digital is part of this strategy's realisation, but due to nature of the medium, we are playing short game here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is how Facebook operates. Open up the platform until everyone piles on and basically ruins it, then tighten it back up and start charging those same people to do what they were previously doing for free.

They did it with games (they became basically spam until they locked it down). Then when they opened things up to advertising, you could basically run any ad you want to any offer you want. Then they tightened that down once it got adoption. And now they're going to lock the news feed back down a bit.

It's interesting how well they've pulled this off without poisoning the well and alienating their user base.

<comment><USER7> Personally I've been alienated, and many of my non techie friends have been too, but the network effect is just too strong and pulls you back in when old- so-and-so plans their birthday party or whatever.

<comment><USER8> That's it. I use it purely for answering invitations to events and a handy address book. Otherwise my social media time is away from FB, though, I still spend time on FB in the form of Instagram.

<comment><USER9> I deleted my FB account several years ago and you'd be surprised how many actually find my email when they want to invite me for something. If someone can't be bothered to send me an email I'm not too concerned about going to their party.

<comment><USER10> I never had one, and you'd be surprised how many don't. This has caused me to miss camping trips, parties, dinners, and _weddings_. Of course it's possible that I'm just such an obnoxious person that nobody wants me around, but if that were the case, I doubt I'd have received such abject and clearly heartfelt apologies from people who didn't invite me to things because I wasn't on their Facebook friends list.

Of course, such apologies always come with the implicit "...but if you don't get on Facebook, it's going to keep happening." I actually started to create a Facebook account, but refused to continue past the point where it asked for my email account credentials in order to construct a friends list from my correspondents.

Yes, I'm aware that's optional and can be bypassed - but when the relationship _starts out_ with a boundary test as blatant and extreme as that, I'm really not interested in hanging around to find out where my new abusive partner is going to decide to go from there.

So I still don't have a Facebook account. As a direct result of this, I also don't have a meaningful social life any more, which is a shame, because I rather enjoyed the one I did have. I'm hardly alone in this. Is it any wonder there are people who want to kill Facebook with a hatchet?

<comment><USER11> Weddings really? That's sad. Using FB to send out wedding invites seems pretty gauche.

<comment><USER10> No, using a Facebook friends list as a basis for an invitation list, and forgetting to add in the couple of people you know who aren't on Facebook because you haven't noticed that Facebook has become your address book of record.

It's just not something people think about, and that worries the hell out of me. We've never before seen a world where a single, rather secretive corporation, which has already shown itself willing to experiment with its users' perceptions in order to better serve its own purposes, mediates practically every interpersonal relationship of a significant fraction of the species. When I was growing up, that would've been nothing but fodder for third-rate dystopian sf, and yet here we are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am so tired of seeing "things my friends liked" as essentially my only stream of posts. The sponsored posts haven't been too bad, but around 80% of my news feed is "John liked this" (picture of someone I've never met), "Mary commented on an article" (some stupid comment like an emoji), "Sam reacted to a photo" (picture posted by Sam's friend of a friend who again, I've never met). I think in the last week I've seen maybe ten actual posts from friends and thousands of reactions, likes, etc. that i have no interest in.

<comment><USER13> I would really like an option of hiding "things my friends liked". I constantly click on "Hide this post" to see if the algorithm can learn from that, but it doesn't happen.

<comment><USER14> Hide the source. "Mary liked this" hide all from HuffPo, "Steve liked this" hide all from Energy Crystals Whatever, "Joe liked this" hide all from Sue McWhoever (you've never met her anyway).

My feed is much more manageable since I started hiding just about all the pages, leaving it pretty much solely picture and text posts of people I know.

<comment><USER13> I'd do that, but it would be a battle fought daily, one at a time, against individual friends of friends you never met... A "Hide all posts from friends of friends" option would be great but not that interesting for Facebook.

<comment><USER15> It actually is pretty effective. I went through an unfollowing frenzy a couple weeks ago and my feed became far less cluttered since. I'm glad Facebook is making some adjustments, because absent aggressive unfollowing the news feed became even more of a waste of time than it already was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I guess they need to do something to increase engagement because - anecdotally, yes - the amount of sharing and engagement in my feed has dropped dramatically in recent years. A rough guess would be ~3/4 of the content I see now are just likes/reactions and comments my friends made on other content (usually articles or memes). I'm sure most of my friends have no idea I'm seeing this, and if they did they would probably interact with FB even less. I'm very hesitant to interact with FB at all now, and just do a quick scroll through every other day.

<comment><USER17> Yeah. When you are "friends" with your grandmother, boss, Mary from elementary school and your ex's mother you won't share that much. And those who will share anything in that kind of environment are the people you don't want to hear from ...

Yes, you can group your friends and just share with some of them, but who has time for that?

I'm even hesitant to write anything in semi-open groups as I'm not sure if what I write will show up on my friends wall. It's not like what I'm writing is extreme or private, I just don't need it to be actively shared with all my "friends.

<comment><USER18> This^100.

It's interesting that facebook got it initially right, and NEVER implemented 'who's viewed your profile/picture' \- as they know that this (possibility of others seeing our actions) would greatly reduce our actions/viewing (us fearing it being visible).

WHILE now, they're not getting it right and publish our actions (likes/comments) like a mad spammer.

It looks like they crossed the border while playing with our curiosity what- others-do, but forgotten that this means, that our actions need to be revealed to others also which will make us reluctant the moment we understand implications.

Snow ball effect to come?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> All I want from facebook is a time-ordered list of everything all my friends post.

No filtering, no reordering by 'importance', no weighting by how often I 'like' or respond. No "you clicked off the page and back, we're gonna show you different stuff!".

Just a simple time-ordered list. Apparently this desire is wrong.

<comment><USER20> That, and the ability to conceal my birthday from everyone, would go some way towards persuading me to use it.

<comment><USER21> For the birthday thing:

From your Profile page > About tab, then Contact and Basic Info. Click on the pen icon to edit your birthday and you'll see a dropdown to determine who can see the date and/or year of your birth. I've got mine set to "Only me".

<comment><USER20> Thanks, I didn't realise that it was possible to hide it; if it is possible to conceal both date and year then that leaves only the timeline, sinister data collection and general tediousness as issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's smoke screen move. FB knows that family and friends emit not enough content to keep us on FB as long as FB would like to.

This is simply to be able to charge companies more for sneaking their content into your so-called FriendsAndFamilyAndHighPaidAdContent.

In other news: Tesla can give you any model you want. If you pay.

</comment><comment><USER22> This might get me to browse a little bit more. I have about 1000 friends on Facebook but 60℅ of my feed is news from a small group of publishers (ESPN, The Onion, NYT) and ads.

<comment><USER23> Completely OT and I apologise, but I've just noticed that your "60%" doesn't use the percent sign but instead ℅, a symbol I'd never seen before that appears to be the abbreviation for "care of". I'm fascinated by that -- how did that get there? What kind of keyboard did you use?

<comment><USER24> You don't want to know! [https://xkcd.com/1530/](https://xkcd.com/1530/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Smart move by Facebook...though I say that as someone who, when I want the news, I use Twitter or HN, or direct visits to newsites. FB is where I go to keep up with what my friends are doing.

Not so great a move if you're a news publisher who has invested time in optimizing your reach on Facebook, though...

<comment><USER26> Look at the bright side. If people leave facebook because they don't see friends' and family's photo, but ads and ads and ads, then the number of active users will decline and facebook will eventually become nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Most of my "friends" post lots and lots of political annoying rubbish. I hope it doesn't start showing me more of that,

<comment><USER28> If you click the small Arrow in the top right of a post, there are usually some options to manage that post.

Often, there is "See less of X person", "See less of this kind of post", "Unfolow X person" and other other similar options.

I use it all the time and ended up with a feed that doesn't change much (maybe one new post per day, but that contains content I actually care about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> That is 10 years overdue and the main reason I closed my account years ago. It was like looking at a sponsored gawker newsfeed.

Today people do not even mention it anymore. Wether i meet new people or when i connect with old friends. Facebook disappeared from my life as quickly as it came in.

Do HN people still use Facebook?

<comment><USER30> Yes. It's still the only decent way to organize a party, group trip to a museum or anything like that - Meetup costs money, Slack costs money or requires a dodgy hack, other groupchat programs are too noisy, setting up a dedicated mailing list or website is too much effort, emails-to-everyone it's too hard to get everyone to add or remove someone from the list.

I put events on there, occasionally a few holiday photos or whatever, and check updates on my commute. I defriend people I'm no longer close to, and hide as much political news as I can, so mainly I see photos, personal-blog- like posts, and events. It's great for short-notice events - if I see someone's going to something cool tonight I can ask if they want to meet up. It's great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is hilarious. Wasn't this supposed to be Facebook's original goal until they got greedy and started pushing all sorts of other nonsense to a user's feed? Now they're realizing that that same greed is making them lose users over the long term. Whoops.

</comment><comment><USER32> It was focused on that until they introduced all the features people hate

</comment><comment><USER33> Pretty straightforward goal like others mentioned - de-prioritize publishers, get them pay more to promote their posts, prioritize them back. Nothing has changed, publishers pay more. So much for "focus on Friends and Family".

</comment><comment><USER34> i.e. - facebook wants to be paid by advertisers instead of being a free promotion platform.

Really it makes sense all around though, and you have to wonder what took them so long.

<comment><USER35> They are already getting money for ads, I don't know why you think they aren't

<comment><USER36> Free promotion in the sense that you could create a page for a product or company, and be promoted significantly solely by the likes and shares you get.

<comment><USER35> Ah yes, but those type of posts have been having their reach diminish in the past years

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Tech companies have demonstrated over and over that they love to flirt with journalism, but they never want to commit (a notable exception is Amazon's Jeff Bezos at the Washington Post[1]).

I hope this encourages news organisations to disentangle themselves from tech companies as fast as possible.

[1] [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/washington- post...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/washington-post-jeff- bezos-donald-trump.html)

<comment><USER38> After overloading the world with information it can't ever process, I don't think either news companies or tech companies know what the fuck they are doing or what they need to do next.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Good for them if true: FB goes back to being user-driven engagement. Getting news from FB would be like getting news from television. Neither reliable nor practical.

</comment><comment><USER40> IMHO what is likely happening is that FB is trying to change things because of recent world events. I'll admit that I've stopped going to FB often because it's filled with very depressing news events. Some of it comes from pages I follow or friends of mine, but overall it's just filled with depressing content. So perhaps they're hoping the community will post more positive life experiences.

</comment><comment><USER41> Too late. It used to be cool to post your pictures on Facebook, and now it's cool not to post your pictures on Facebook. The show is over.

</comment><comment><USER42> Can't help but wonder if this has something to do with the recent allegations against them of having a bias against certain kinds of news.

</comment><comment><USER43> I think the changes have big effect on Indian Media ,they already lost 100 million page views [http://factordaily.com/indian-news-sites-lost-100-million- pa...](http://factordaily.com/indian-news-sites-lost-100-million-page- views-500k-three-weeks-no-clue/).

<comment><USER44> There's also been submissions here regarding Indian media where they've started blocking adblockers.. Maybe there's just a lot of people using adblockers and this is coincidence?

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Facebook tweaks its algorithms constantly. Facebook's algorithms tweak the algorithms constantly. This is just PR fluffery.

</comment><comment><USER46> I am sure they are making these changes based on their engagement data but ultimately how many of us here believe that their engagement data is really down because some of the activity between friends is happening on Snapchat.

</comment><comment><USER47> My facebook feed has helped me realize how much I hate my friends and family

</comment><comment><USER48> I get the feeling Facebook is running out of ideas and just rejigger the same thing over and over again. How often had the newsfeed changed? How often for the better?

</comment><comment><USER49> Anyone else think this is related to the meeting they had with Glenn Beck, et al.?

<comment><USER50> (disclosure, used to work for GB), but doubtful that changed much. It's likely the fact that feeds have been dominated by published and pirated content for a long time. Individuals are publishing less: [http://www.inc.com/jeff- bercovici/facebook-sharing-crisis.ht...](http://www.inc.com/jeff- bercovici/facebook-sharing-crisis.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Life is easy for 9gag now.

</comment><comment><USER52> how is this even a news?</comment>