Uber is destroying thousands of electric bikes and scooters following Jump sale - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52832791 <comment><USER2> I still can't get over this one. I printed it and taped to the wall in my office. I'll ask folks to guess what it is. First guess is almost always some type of plant:

[https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/Vtmg6k-JNp0wpEtDo_RvOcoT...](https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/Vtmg6k-JNp0wpEtDo_RvOcoT- _Y=/1200x801/media/img/photo/2018/03/bikes/b02_904982860/original.jpg)

<comment><USER3> Why selling these is so hard? There is a huge market for second hand bikes. I would think you can always get a better price than scrap metal for a functional bike. Any non zero profit is better than zero.

<comment><USER4> In the US? Liability. Uber has lots of money, so slippin' jimmy would have a field day

<comment><USER5> How are ordinary bike companies immune from this kind of lawsuit?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As much as I would love a cheap e-bike to tinker with and restore (even if it's old), I can't say I'm surprised these are being recycled.

On one hand, how would it benefit their/Lime's business to have loads of people owning electric scooters and bikes? On the other hand, there really are logistical and liability issues involved with distributing old gear in varying states of repair.

It's a shame they don't do something like gov/edu institutions and auction off the stuff as-is. At least then someone could theoretically buy it up to do something with it.

<comment><USER7> I was walking in our electronics department's hallway when I stopped and walked a few steps back. My peripheral vision picked up a pile of yummy: a load of lab gear in an office. I went in and asked about it. The person said they were to be discarded. I asked if I could take some. They said they were to be sold by the kilogram to a company. I asked if I could _buy_ a few kilograms of oscilloscopes, multimetres, stabilized power sources, etc. They said no. Regulations, auctions, etc.

Here I was, a broke electronics student, trying to procure electronics equipment, in an electronics department, with lunch money I was willing to part with, but unable to do so because someone needed to melt that thing down and make a horse shoe or some fork.

<comment><USER8> Somebody already bought the picking rights. I would have gone over the head of the person you asked, or call in a favor with someone at the same level of hierarchy. Ask them if you can have some of the stuff. If they say yes, tell the first person x said it's fine, and just take what you are allowed to take.

Their red tape is only your problem if you can't self-help. It's not your job to enforce their agreements with third parties who aren't you. It's also not your job to inform them of existing agreements with third parties which you are privy to.

<comment><USER7> Oh, the things I would have done in that situation if it took place somewhere where you don't get disappeared for a Facebook post, friend. I'll leave it at that.

The underlying context is that I was practically a persona non grata. Teachers would happily leave the class to me during labs but hated the fact I barely attended. I'm talking not even grading your exam sheet, or putting an arbitrary grade, and not displaying it until the recourse deadline has passed because "screw you" and I'm talking putting "0" on _all_ your grades because you missed one exam. Nobody will take the side of a student who'll be there for a limited time against a colleague they've worked with for 20+ years. Even if the behavior is unjust, the rationale for them is that you'll live and learn and forget about it and leave, but they're staying and have to work with the other person.

Sure, the obvious step is to go manoeuver or call out these practices, invovle lawyers, and the media, and what not. Which brings me to my first paragraph. What is obvious and possible somewhere isn't somewhere else, or is but the stakes are too high. If I wanted to manoeuver in a cesspool, I would have become a politician. If I wanted to go to war, I would have become a martyr. The former is frowned upon, the latter is admired in other people from a distance.

<comment><USER9> This sounds like you encountered corruption, not waste.

<comment><USER7> Not certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case in that specific instance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been sad about this sale for a few weeks -- was a pretty heavy Jump bike user in DC and they've just been sitting on the streets disabled -- vanished from the apps overnight. They were/are well built machines and I hope Lime or someone reactivates them. They also feel much more practical and safe than the cheap bird/etc scooters(having eaten shit on a bird before going over a curb) -- bigger tires for bump tolerance, more stable position, etc.

We have another dockless ebike entrant in town called Helbiz and they're pretty nice, plus have an unlimited subscription option -- hoping they get traction and stick around - I have already noticed some of the bikes being seemingly vandalized on purpose(pedals ripped off and strapped in the basket) which is sad.

It feels that the timing could be right with very limited Metro and Bus service(and widespread virus related public transit anxiety).

edit: I could also see this business model as being self cannibalizing -- I'd never ridden an ebike pre JUMP and now would consider buying one myself for 1-2k. How many people who really enjoy the JUMP experience would similarly leave the platform for a nicer model, long run cheaper experience. Introduces other tradeoffs like security, having to take the bike home(so you can't really ride it out if you're going to be drinking), etc.

<comment><USER11> For me, the biggest value prop was that I could leave them anywhere and didn't have to maintain them. I could buy myself one, but then I'd need to take care of it and make sure it doesn't get stolen. I'm not sure I'm interested in that.

<comment><USER12> You can buy renters insurance or something similar for your bike. Mine is covered for a few bucks a month.

<comment><USER13> A few bucks a month is a lot of money. Try buying an annuity for a few bucks a month over the lifetime of the average bicycle and you're probably doubling the cost of the bike.

<comment><USER14> It's not like bike share renting is cheap compared to owning a bike either.

<comment><USER11> It is if you only use it periodically. If I was commuting daily on a bike, I'd buy one. But I was mostly doing ~1 ride / month for tourist-y reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> All of this has happened before: [https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/may/01/unexp...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/may/01/unexpected- beauty-china-bicycle-graveyards-share-bikes-in-pictures)

<comment><USER16> Those were usually much cheaper & junkier pieces of equipment than the Jump bikes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I will say - I was a very frequent Jump user in SF, and before you shout "waste!", if you haven't had the experience of riding on one of the older bikes past it's useful life, you should consider this:

Jump switched over to a new model within the last year or two. Their older bikes - while yes, built like tanks - also aged like tanks (after battle). They were BEAT UP. The frames were mangled & scratched, the drivetrains were barely functional, and the brakes barely worked.

My general strategy for riding a Jump was to find the closest bike with the highest serial # (assuming it would be a newer one), because getting an old one was just not fun.

Anyway, this is all to say: While yes, almost everything can technically be repurposed, I wouldn't want to spend much time on an older Jump bike either first or second hand.

<comment><USER18> That is true for your value of time.

For others, they may think it is fun to take three beat-up old bikes and turn them into one good one and a pile of recyclable parts.

One man's trash is another's treasure...

(& Yes, Uber has no excuse for this kind of nonsense. That is exactly what As- Is-Where-Is-Not-Fit-For-Any-Specific-Purpose warranty & law is all about. Repurpose before recycle...)

<comment><USER17> Good points and makes sense!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm surprised they shipped them to North Carolina to be destroyed: I have seen very efficient programs here in San Francisco run by homeless camps.

</comment><comment><USER20> From the end of the article, Uber explains why they recycled the old bikes not transferred to Jump in the sale,

> But given many significant issues - including maintenance, liability, safety > concerns, and a lack of consumer-grade charging equipment - we decided the > best approach was to responsibly recycle them.

Unfortunately seems to most responsible way to handle these bikes. I see the charging issue being a major problem. Trek just switched their rentable bikes to electric in my city, I wonder if they face the same fate.

And settle down everyone, they are being recycled, not dumped in a hole.

<comment><USER21> >And settle down everyone, they are being recycled, not dumped in a hole.

Recycling is only slightly better than throwing away.

There is no conceivable reason these could not have been re-sued.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - is in that order for a good reason.

<comment><USER22> Why sell people a product when you can offer them a service and make even more money? Reduce and Reuse are bad for business, making Recycle the only economically viable option.

EDIT: @downvoter, can you tell me how our business climate doesn't suck this way?

<comment><USER23> You are absolutely correct.

Upvoter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The bikes actually had very good performance, I would gladly buy one of them to be honest.

<comment> kube-system How would you charge it?

<comment><USER10> Unclear if they are charged by battery swapping or being taken to a third location -- but either way in a world where they'd sell them would they not include a charger?

<comment> kube-system There are likely fewer chargers than bikes, and the chargers are not consumer friendly:

[https://therideshareguy.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/7b019...](https://therideshareguy.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/7b01981f-8041-4638-8802-6fb36957c525_IMG_2861.jpg)

<comment><USER16> The motors likely use a relatively standard voltage/current & would very likely be amenable to a consumer e-bike battery— an expensive component, for sure, but much cheaper than a whole bike.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is this one of those "we can't donate food we are about to throw away because what if we get sued" situations? Could also be a tax write-off!

<comment><USER26> Destroying the bikes would actually also be an equivalent write-off. Since Uber has no profits, it pays no taxes.

<comment><USER27> SF has a gross receipts tax, my dude. There are payroll taxes as well.

<comment><USER28> I don't think you can write off expenses against payroll taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Exactly like when restaurants would rather throw away food instead of donating it. If they sell bikes to people that would otherwise use their service, they wouldn't have any customers.

But they're wrong, people that own bikes aren't the same people that want to use a bike ad-hoc.

<comment><USER30> That's not why restaurants throw away food. They do it because of liability laws. There is a super high risk of getting sued if you give away food and someone gets sick.

<comment><USER31> Absolutely, 100% untrue. [0]

 _" There is no available public record of anyone in the United States being sued...because of harms related to donated food."_ [1]

[0] [https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/re...](https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/Liability%20Protection%20Food%20Donation.pdf)

[1] [https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/restaurants-that-dont- do...](https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/restaurants-that-dont-donate- because-of-liability-are-just-making-excuses-experts- say_n_577d6f92e4b0344d514dd20f?ri18n=true)

<comment><USER30> Because no one does it...?

<comment><USER31> Is that a statement of fact or a question?

The article I cited says one organization alone "has 650 cafes nationwide and donated more than 286,000 pounds of food last year." It also mentions several other organizations who do similar work.

The root problem is people spreading this misinformation. Please don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> In the UK, Jump bikes were a far superior option over Lime. My experience with both was that Lime bike maintenance was very poor; with two-thirds of all rides requiring a refund due to the bike not functioning or having physical damage.

Getting support and refunds from Lime was exceptionally painful. Uber also supported bike drop off in the East, where as Lime would silently fine you.

<comment><USER33> The Jump bikes were just a different league. Smooth ride. Lime bikes for me were a last resort when I was doing the bike share thing. Half of them were broken, more physical effort than riding a decent road bike and no refund when the bike is broken. I'd rather get a Boris bike than a Lime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The waste is just staggering.

<comment><USER35> ZIRP in action. Gotta keep everyone working full time, for uh, some reason. At least these ones didn't end up in gulleys and ponds.

<comment><USER35> This whole thread is full of people expressing lament over the glaring waste, but I suggested a concrete cause to consider and it was met with silent downvotes. Individuals don't generally destroy perfectly good bikes. It's the economy, stupid. ZIRP pushes capital to make far-off bets, in hopes that some _might_ turn into recurring income streams.

The e-rental industry is a glaring example of this in action, where "investors" are buying fleets of easily-affordable consumer goods, hoping to put enough on the sidewalk that people will trip over them and their credit cards will fall in. I know everyone in Silly Valley has been benefiting from this deluge of make-work, but eventually we're going to have to reconcile our goal of technology making us more productive with this regressive policy of "full employment". And sorry, I doubt the answer is obtuse "basic income".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is shameful. How can nobody want to repurpose these bikes? Wasn't this program supposed to be environmentally friendly?

Lebron James gives bikes away as charity to help kids have a sense of freedom and mobility. I dont see how there isnt a better solution here [https://www.bicycling.com/news/a22613790/a-bike-saved- lebron...](https://www.bicycling.com/news/a22613790/a-bike-saved-lebron-james- now-hes-giving-them-to-all-his-students/)

</comment><comment><USER37> Why isn't _reuse_ mandated or incentivised in the same way that _recycle_ is?

This is such a colossal waste of energy. I can't believe that offering these without warranty and a stipulation that they be debranded before use wouldn't have got Uber more cash, and the planet a better outcome.

</comment><comment><USER38> If they're still running this business in the UK... why not ship them there? It's unbelievable that there isn't a better use of these than recycling them (but I do think that's mostly their mistake to make).

<comment><USER39> Probably different certification standards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> [https://twitter.com/sanjaydastoor/status/1265667301526827009](https://twitter.com/sanjaydastoor/status/1265667301526827009)

</comment><comment><USER41> A lot of people are screaming about re-use... but man, these were never designed to be consumer bikes. You likely don't have a one-at-a-time charger, they probably have some sort of rack that charges 100 batteries at once. Similar issues around components... likely hard to get a replacement wheel, or what have you. And no way Americans wouldn't sue if they got a defective one. Totally understand, and impressed these didn't just go into a hole. Glad Uber is trying to recycle.

</comment><comment><USER42> Multiple US municipalities have convened conferences and created sort of joint task forces to investigate the use of micromobility to supplement public transit.

The scooters and bikes could have been donated to local governments who could then figure out how to support them, and used them for programs to help disadvantaged citizens get around easier. But that wouldn't really help Uber's bottom line I guess, and might involve extra work.

</comment><comment><USER43> I see a lot of people commenting on how good the Jump bike design is. I almost missed this excerpt, but it looks like that design might be here to stay:

> Lime's chief executive Wayne Ting has said he prefers the design of Uber's > bikes and will deploy more of them in the future.

> However, there were also "tens of thousands" of older-model bikes that Lime > did not inherit as part of the deal.

</comment><comment><USER44> Reminds me of the GM EV1.

</comment><comment><USER45> Why not sell them at a discount?

<comment><USER46> Typically it's liability. If they sold a defective scooter and someone got hurt, they could be in a world of trouble.

Reminds me of that article about the ship transporting new Toyotas that tipped over. Half of the cars didn't even get wet, but they pulled all the cars off the ship and destroyed them. It wasn't worth the hassle of inspecting and repairing and still being at risk for liability.

<comment><USER47> >Typically it's liability. If they sold a defective scooter and someone got hurt, they could be in a world of trouble.

This is/was something traditionally handled with a document signed by the buyer stating the sale is as-is. Tons of broken stuff gets sold all the time.

<comment> kube-system Waivers cannot always override laws that protect consumers, and these laws vary widely by locale.

For one example: Where I'm at, if you sell some things "as-is" and don't disclose all known defects, you can be held liable for those defects regardless of your "as-is" agreement.

<comment><USER46> I think the Toyota decision was also one of reputation. Do you really want to sell a bunch of cars that might have been exposed to salt water?

Nothing would ruin your brand more than having thousands of new cars breaking down.

<comment><USER47> Toyota has said "don't worry we've fixed the frames on the new ones" for ~40yr now and the Tacoma still sells. If anyone can get away with it they can. Still probably not smart to risk it though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Heavy Jump user here. They're perfect for commuting for me, dealing with hills and getting to and from the office, and then not having to worry about the bike once I got to the office. This news makes me sad.

</comment><comment><USER49> Wow, what a waste. Here in the UK at the moment it's difficult to get hold of "cheap" bikes, and even worse for ebikes. They could be selling those on rather than destroying them

</comment><comment><USER50> Because they goofed on the design at the start: design for reuse people!

</comment><comment><USER28> I take it that for security purposes to prevent theft, they probably used proprietary charging devices and some version of DRM to prevent opening the things up and self-servicing them if stolen.

</comment><comment><USER51> Environmental costs should be included in everything, air pollution, water usage and clear lifecycle of the product including where and if it can be recycled. Mindless production is unsustainable.

</comment><comment><USER52> This title is factually incorrect.

Uber no longer owns the bikes. Lime does. The title should read "Lime is destroying thousands of electric Jump bikes and scooters after buying them from Uber"

Other important details:

\- these bikes and scooters intentionally use custom parts to deter theft and make it so it isn't viable to strip them for parts. It will be impossible for the purchaser of a used bike to buy replacement parts or charging equipment.

\- the software used on these bikes is now owned by Lime

\- there is a liability and regulatory issues with selling devices with rechargable batteries. None of the battery parts involved in the bikes are certified for legal sale.

<comment> kube-system The title is correct. The article says that these are:

> "tens of thousands" of older-model bikes that Lime did not inherit as part > of the deal.

> Uber said in a statement. [...] "[...] we decided the best approach was to > responsibly recycle them."

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Are you kidding, these bikes are strictly superior to Lime's in every perceivable way like robustness, speed, brakes, ergonomy, maintenance etc.

</comment><comment><USER54> they should have shipped them to countries where the liability laws are not stringent, get them into the hands of kids who could tinker with them...

<comment><USER55> Could you imagine all the skills and the secondary economy having 10k of these bikes dropped on a 2nd world city?

These things would rock Kathmandu.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, someone would accidentally puncture a battery and it'll burn them and then the headlines will say "Uber is dumping exploding bikes on Third World people".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> So long as these things are allowed to be left out of proper stands then destruction is the best thing for them. Does seem a terrible waste though.

<comment><USER57> This should honestly be illegal, or at least there should be a massive financial penalty for destroying _anything_ that can be useful to others instead of giving it away. There should be a legal framework for zero liability if the alternative is trashing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Can you update the title? The vital parts are being recycled (battery, motor).

</comment><comment><USER59> Large quantities of used lithum-ion batteries that have been in heavy street use are not a great thing to acquire. There are recycling companies; if you have more than 500lbs you can get a free pickup. When the HAZMAT truck leaves, you can breathe a sigh of relief.

</comment><comment><USER60> I wish we could fine them for this. All of that landfill waste and they could have at least given them away... Really a shame.

</comment><comment><USER61> why not selling them, instead of destroying them?

<comment><USER62> Who would rent a scooter if you could buy one for $50?

<comment><USER61> but that's a massive waste of resources

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> #uberwasteful

</comment><comment><USER64> Given how bad their riders behave on the sidewalk, how they try to block the sidewalk, and how they ignore boundries. I love the fact that scooters are being destroyed.

<comment><USER65> On the other hand, if this means more cars on the road I think it's a net loss for everyone, including pedestrians.

<comment><USER64> What's wrong with cars on the road?

Too many cars on the road, that's a city/government issue. They should improve and increase public transit options.

Scooters detract from public transit and from resources used to keep the city clean and/or enforcement from the problems they create.

<comment><USER65> > What's wrong with cars on the road?

Pollution, traffic, accidents.

<comment><USER64> With cars those problems are easier to fix. (You need a license to operate a vehicle, but not a scooter).

Scooters do produce pollution (someone has to dive more than the distance of the scooter traveled to recharge, plus the environmental cost of the batteries, and the shorter lifespan), traffic and accidents as well.

<comment><USER16> The lower energy due to lower speeds and vehicle masses make ebike crashes far less severe than motor vehicle crashes. We have 40,000 dead a year in the US in car crashes, plus three million nonfatal injuries. I'm sure someone among your friends & family has been killed by a car crash.

This can be improved with lighter cars, lower speeds, and pedestrian safety standards, but it can also be improved by fewer VMTs by getting more road users on intrinsically-safer vehicles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Uber should not exist. If it's still alive after the pandemic, it will only be because of governments all around the world forcing the hand of people, with interest rates near zero or even negative, to pour money on unsustainable businesses like this. No company should exist that wastes as much money as Uber, with no path to profit shown till today. Americans 401ks are going to be devastated when this crazy easy money startup frenzy comes to an end on a (increasingly) near future.</comment>


Airbnb CEO Rented Out His Own Unregistered Airbnb - <AUTHOR> http://sfist.com/2016/01/14/airbnb_ceo_hasnt_registered_own_airbnb.php <comment><USER2> I'm sure all those renters will be much better off and safer now.

I understand the need to register for safety and health reasons, but it seems silly to require it for a couch in the apartment.</comment>


A Decade at Google - <AUTHOR> http://wp.sigmod.org/?p=1851 <comment><USER2> Just wanted to highlight a very important advice on the article:

 _You do not reach [work life] balance by reducing work. You reach balance by finding a passion that draws you out of work._

<comment><USER3> Not sure I understand this advice. How to explain to my employer that I'm going to spend less time working because I have better things to do?

<comment><USER4> The same way you explain to your employer that you have defined working hours, and will be working within them.

<comment><USER5> Thank you. I was reprimanded once for essentially "only" being at the office for the defined time we agreed I would be there. I spent some time racking my brain until I decided I wasn't being unreasonable.

<comment><USER6> There is this hyaundai commercial ( [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ8Klm8vPlI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ8Klm8vPlI) ) that hits home for me. "When did leaving work on time become an act of courage". It's so true.

<comment><USER7> I've always found it humorous that the clock hits 6:00 rather than 5:00. "Leaving work on time is an act of courage, but _let 's not get crazy_!" Presumably he courageously started at 10:00 or took an hour away from work for lunch.

<comment><USER8> Where I worked, official hours are 8.30 to 6. In Asia of course.

<comment><USER7> Is the official work week 47.5 hours?

In the U.S., while I think it's true that people tend to work closer to 50 hours, we pay lip service to the "40 hour work week".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This guy says that he's in 'Google Research' and talks about job titles like 'junior researcher'. Is there or is there not an actual Google Research organisation, similar to Oracle Labs or Microsoft Research? With people doing full-time research and publishing papers?

I was under the impression that their policy was 'you can do research anywhere in Google' and that there was no separate staffed labs doing more academic research. You may get research in the V8 team, or the systems team or whatever, but they were doing research as part of product teams. At least that's what I was told when I applied.

<comment><USER10> So, the answer to your question is really two fold:

Google Research used to be pretty separate. That is, it was a separate product area from other product areas. It is no longer. This is an organizational issue however, and while it would seem like it mattered, it did not. It only changed who was the SVP overseeing it at some super high level. The VP was the same for many many years, and the person really in charge.

But this is irrelevant to the second part of your question, where you mention: "and that there was no separate staffed labs doing more academic research."

They do not do "more academic research", so in that sense, your recruiter was right.

Research at Google is not about academic vs industrial. The practical difference between the research scientist and SWE ladders is that in research scientist, publishing is valued as well. Outside of research, it's certainly nice, but not really part of the job description.

However, unlike most other places, publishing alone is not the goal. If all you ever did was research and publish, you'd be fired :)

Google expects research scientists to do real coding, real work, and be as good of SWE's as their SWE's.

It is a very hybrid approach, and different from most other places.

<comment><USER11> I'm interested in learning more about the research ladder (and how it's different to the SWE ladder) at Google.

So I found this: [https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...](https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/38149.pdf)

If anyone has other interesting resources about the general employee structure at Google/other big companies, please reply :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Alon Halevy is pretty big in the field of data integration. Some of my undergrad project was about improving certain aspects on his work on LAV integration. You might also find his work by Alon Levy instead of Halevy. If you want a theoretical view of the field, checkout Maurizio Lenzerini's work.

For a perspective/survey check this out: [http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~degiacom/didattica/semingsoft/ma...](http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~degiacom/didattica/semingsoft/materiale/3-data- integration/references/Lenzerini-survey-pods-02.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER13> I found the part about coding interesting..

"My coding activities were always productive. They either launched a new project or a major change in direction of a project. They also enabled me to have discussions with my team members at a completely different level of detail (to everyone's enjoyment)."

This can be great. It sounds like it went well. However, I have personally seen a downside, some potential risks, when the boss "keeps coding".

Here's why - if the boss is coding but staying off the critical path, this means that the often detailed, difficult implementation work will be delegated to developers who report to the boss. The old adage that genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Well, the critical path is the perspiration part. Deadlines, estimates, glaring errors that shouldn't have happened and need to be fixed late at night or over the weekend… these are all part of the critical path. While coding can keep a boss closer to a technical team, it can also create a dangerous illusion, that the boss is still "technical" but insulated from the truly difficult aspects of a technical role. There is a big, big difference between coding on your own research project and coding under deadline pressure for a system that needs to work. This is only a risk, not a certainty, as a good manager will recognize this.

Perhaps a greater risk, though, is that if the boss gets to play around with new technology and launch projects for the rest of the team to finish off, there's a risk that the boss is pretty much eating the frosting of the team's dessert but making everyone else eat their vegetables, so to speak. If you're a manager who codes, keep in mind that autonomy and innovation may be key to the motivation and job satisfaction of the people working for you. This can lead to a very damaging management anti-pattern, where a manager who "keeps coding" essentially uses managerial authority to intercept and filter projects, make the key technical decisions, do the interesting bits that would lead to interesting conference talks, and then delegate the work of actually finishing the product to the team. This may deprive senior level developers the autonomy that they really were supposed to have on projects.

Once again, I want to emphasize that this isn't necessarily what happened here, in fact, it sounds like it wasn't. But the passage made me a bit nervous, since I consider this to be something of a management anti-pattern.

<comment><USER14> A manager who doesn't continue to code or work on the day-to-day actions may fail to keep up with necessary technical knowledge, effectively reducing their ability to manage.

<comment><USER15> The problem with a boss coding is that they don't dedicate enough time to management. Connections, management theory and functional knowledge are important.

Instead of a boss who is part-time manager, have we tried managing 3/4 of the year then doing a "developer rotation"? How does that work?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Down for me, Google cache link: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WpRJJJ-...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WpRJJJ-4DwwJ:wp.sigmod.org/%3Fp%3D1851+&cd=1&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=be)

<comment><USER17> Down for me, but is it just me or is Google's cache kinda broken? When I click the cache link I get a blank page, and then "waiting for wp.sigmod.org..." at the bottom, which hangs forever. I guess it hits the live site if it doesn't have it in the cache?

<comment><USER18> You can get the text-only cached version here:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WpRJJJ-...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WpRJJJ-4DwwJ:wp.sigmod.org/%3Fp%3D1851&hl=nl&gl=be&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

The normal cached version still tries to download images and whatnot from the original server.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Good tip for balancing work and life - just find other interests that pull you away from work.

</comment><comment><USER20> Some sound advice. Having worked with academics before, the ones who were most successful were able to switch gears between individual and team goals as he describes.

</comment><comment><USER21> > We then could inspect the query stream to estimate how many queries might be > well served by HTML tables.

Hmm.. humans are inspecting the query stream?

<comment><USER22> Yes. Click here and you'll be one of them: [https://www.google.com/trends/hottrends/visualize?nrow=5&nco...](https://www.google.com/trends/hottrends/visualize?nrow=5&ncol=5)

There's lots more data over here: [http://www.google.com/trends](http://www.google.com/trends)

(I don't believe the author was referring to this, I think he meant something far less interesting.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Congrats for completing a decade and for your achievements !!

</comment><comment><USER24> > (or if you cannot code, get involved in code reviews).

This is the worst advice ever, esp. if you don't know how to code and don't have code readability for the language being used in the code review. Learn from code reviews, see what other people are saying, but don't comment on a fix unless you found something glaringly obvious.

<comment><USER25> I'm a C++ developer at Google; I've been writing software "professionally"[0] for about 16 years, including a fair chunk of C, but no C++ until I reached Google. So, arguably I started in a position where commenting on code reviews was a bad idea.

Nonetheless, I commented on LOTS of code reviews when I joined, but almost always with questions asking (usually) 'why is this done this way?' or (rarely) 'could this by done this other way?'. It helps that our code review tool lets you mark comments as 'no action required'. This allows the first form to be a genuine question without judgement. I would usually learn something, and sometimes the original author would revisit a decision and improve the code. I reserve the second form for when I'm pretty sure I think what I'm suggesting is an improvement.

In my experience this allowed me to provide feedback without perceived ego or offense[1], but also accelerated the rate at which I came up to speed on both the language and the details of the project I'd joined. Despite being a few years in now and fairly familiar with our project, I try (although sometimes fail) to maintain this style today.

[0]: My father got me my first development job as a subcontractor building terminal emulation software for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission at 16. I'd learned C a few years beforehand on QNX. A number of other jobs from the same folks followed over the years while I finished up high school and undergrad.

[1]: Usually, anyway. There are some people who take ANY comment, question, or critique as an accusation. Thankfully I've encountered only one of these people at Google.</comment></comment>


Try F# in your browser - <AUTHOR> http://tryfs.net

<comment><USER2> Alas for me (in IE8) this isn't working. It doesn't seem to actually "execute".

<comment><USER3> Yeah, me either--I keep getting either (seemingly arbitrary) double prompts or "ajax errors" in Safari 5.0.3...

<comment><USER4> Not working in Chrome. I pressed send and it just printed back everything in the editor without executing.

<comment><USER5> I had this problem, and then I noticed that I had allowed scripts from tryfs.net, but not tryfs.com. It worked after that, though not very cleanly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does not work very well in Chrome, IE8, or FF. Does not allow pasting. Not really sure what it's good for except to show off an interesting hack, and the hack needs some improvement.

Ever wonder what the 200,000th Fibonacci number is? Last night with a recursive F# function I got it in FSI in just over 6 seconds. It would be cool if you could get this page to work well enough to do that.

</comment><comment><USER7> <http://urpc.dyndns.org/ocamlinterpreter>

In german though.

</comment><comment><USER8> It didn't like this :( It should list out all files from C:\

        let root =  "C:\\";
        let getdirs dir =
          try
            System.IO.Directory.GetDirectories(dir)
          with
            | e -> Array.empty

        let rec list_files dir = seq {
          yield! System.IO.Directory.GetFiles(dir);
          for subdir in (getdirs dir) do
            match subdir with
            | x when x.StartsWith("C:\\$") -> ()
            | subdir -> yield! list_files subdir

        }

        list_files root
        |> Seq.iter (printfn "%s")

        printf "done"

All types inferred.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this - I'll take a look. The same code works fine when run through regular fsi.exe, so presumably something is going amiss over the Ajax interface.

<comment><USER9> It works here, but lists certain files from the system, and stops at "Documents And Settings" - no rights etc.

I had to pad the first "let" to be at the same padding as the second one

<comment><AUTHOR> The app got into a state where new fsi.exe processes wouldn't start up properly - they'd raise an unhandled exception and hang. I started being more diligent about cleaning up old processes.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook Will Introduce Ads as Videos Start, a Move Long Resisted - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-revamps-video-ads-amid-publisher-concerns-1513269992 <comment><USER2> Facebook has become almost completely useless to me yet I waste so much time on it every day. No one posts anything on it except like 3 guys who post 10 times a day that I barely know yet find their extremist political posts mind numbingly amusing. The news on there is trash, I much prefer the WSJ and if I want sensationalist things I'll go to Reddit and my tastes are more niche now so I have some forums I visit occasionally for better discussion.

I have never in 10 years clicked on a single ad and I've removed the apps so I don't get autoplaying videos so I'm not bothered by the future ads on there. Messenger is important to me and the Birthday list is too. Without those I wouldn't deCtivate since you need it as social proof for Tinder, but I'd never go back on.

Honestly, I was busy for just 3 days and didn't log on and the "addiction" completely vanished. We need to have a no shave novemebr for Facebook, maybe a no Facebook February and I guarantee millions would get off the addiction and vastly limit daily social media use.

<comment><USER3> The greatest thing I did was delete Facebook off my phone. Here are the benefits I discovered:

\- I didn't miss anything. Turns out there wasn't any real quality content on there anyway.

\- My battery lasts 2x longer.

\- I seem to be happier. No joke. With all the rage articles and click bait headlines gone, I am far more happier.

\- I am way more informed now. I visit allsides.com and get the news there. I quickly get up to speed and find well written articles that inform me about what is really going on.

\- I am more productive. Without all the garbage Facebook puts out, I have more time to get actual work done.

\- I feel accomplished. I go home feeling more accomplished. I am happier, more productive, and more informed. It is a win-win-win all around.

<comment><USER4> I as well deleted it off my phone. There is just nothing personal on it anymore. They are also ruining instagram. Too many ads, suggested posts etc. They are morphing it in facebook light. Everything is just bad auto roll food videos, UNILAD shit, and identity politics clickbait sob stories.

The only reason I still have facebook is for group chat messenger during the day, and to keep track of underground parties. One of those chats is moving to discord, and other kind of moved to iMessage. Messenger now has intrusive ads on it as well, I would leave it if I could.

<comment><USER5> For that all you need is messenger app on your phone and messenger.com on your computer. You don't need Facebook main app or website.

<comment><USER6> Actually, you can even have the Messenger app with no Facebook account. Just sign in with your phone number, and it'll pick up acquaintances from your contact book (much like WhatsApp). You can still search for other people, but don't need an FB account.

<comment><USER5> Signing up with phone number doesn't work for lots of young people I suspect. We don't have phone numbers of friends anymore, for example I have no phone numbers of even my closest friends, we have been communicating via internet since we have been teenagers (started with ICQ, then moved to emails then FB then whatsapp, never really needed to share our phone numbers as we don't ever call anybody nor send SMS).

This might be just specific to very international people like me who travel and work in many different countries so our phone numbers change often and keeping track of that is almost impossible.

<comment><USER6> Huh, that's interesting.

I guess this also varies tremendously by region. WhatsApp completely dominates non-work communication in Argentina; we don't use SMS, nor phone calls, and FB is pretty much is second place.

AFAIK, in the US people actually use SMS a lot, and I'm sure it's a bit different everywhere else.

More on topic though; you can use Messenger without an FB account and still find people by username.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >The company also wants professional creators to post more videos to the site and make the platform a content hub on par with YouTube, a unit of Alphabet Inc.'s Google.

That's interesting, because I've never been able to find a second time a video that popped up in my feed. For my experience, videos on Facebook might as well be ephemeral. forever vanishing the moment my feed refreshes itself automatically.

<comment><USER8> I experience the same thing and it's really frustrating. I refuse to install Facebook applications on my phone, and they've needlessly crippled their mobile site (disabling messages except mbasic.facebook.com among many other things). If I so much as check a notification then go back to the newsfeed, it's different content and hit/miss as to whether I can find the top post again.

<comment><USER9> I had to wonder for a second whether I was looking at a post of mine!

A year or two ago they made the change to disallow access to messages from m.facebook.com, so I started using mbasic.facebook.com for messages. Recently they blocked the mbasic.facebook.com entirely for iPhones. It's clear that there reason is to force mobile users to install messenger, because messages are still available on m.facebook.com and mbasic if you visit in a desktop browser.

I already have a FB app on my phone, Instagram, which is more useful for messaging in my circle and less annoying. I refuse to be forced to install their app, so the only response to this is to stop using messenger. Already my messages are going unchecked and will stay that way until I get to a desktop.

The vagaries of finding content you saw minutes before, and the almost entirely random way posts and everything is organized, is frustrating too.

<comment><USER10> I just went to mbasic.facebook.com from my iPhone and it worked? I didn't login because I don't use facebook, does it block you after you login?

<comment><USER9> Oh, interesting. Thanks for letting me know. I haven't tried in a week or two, and it's back! I was definitely getting redirected to m.facebook.com for a week or two, but apparently see they have restored access, for whatever reason.

Edit: does anyone know of somewhere I can be informed of changes about this by Facebook?

Searching for previous discussions about this on a Hacker News, I see other people say that the mbasic Does or doesn't work for them at various times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Given so much of the video content (at least high 80s percent wise) on Facebook is simply pirated from YouTube and other creators, it seems more than a _little_ unethical for them to start emblazoning them with ads. But, they'll happily sit behind the DMCA Safe Harbor, slowly taking down videos and reaping the ad revenue in the meanwhile without giving any of it back to creators...

<comment><USER12> It's hard to imagine a less ethical company in silicon valley than Facebook so it's not surprising

<comment> ng-user Uber?

<comment><USER12> They provide a useful service though at least

<comment><USER13> You are really arrogant to believe Facebook is not useful to anybody.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> They're dying, it may be a very slow death but the process has begun. They will become like Yahoo, Myspace, Aol, etc. They are not a Google that can pivot and do a number of different things. Also I've come to realize that Google has a much different relationship with it's users, Google doesn't try to suck up all your time it just tries to give you what you want when you want it, Facebook tries to gamify everything so that you're constantly checking it's useless drivel.

<comment><USER14> Their active user count increases in every region every year. Their revenue is growing 50% per year.

They are not dying.

<comment><USER15> This isn't a precise way of thinking about things, but I really think the most important part of maintaining the success of a social network is being "cool", or rather, being the social network that cool people use.

I don't know the data, but my assumption is that facebook's user count isn't really continuing to grow among young people in developed countries. Like it or not, this demographic is usually what defines what it means to be cool. Would people in Indonesia and India join Facebook if it were mostly old people and people from their own countries? I doubt it - they would know what young people in other countries truly prefer, plus they would likely be better served by a local alternative. Would old people join Facebook if their children and younger relatives used something else? I doubt that too.

Facebook wanted to grab Snap, and did grab Instagram, so that it could maintain its monopoly on the social media that "cool" people use. All we need is more companies like Snap not willing to be bought out for Facebook to see a big hit in this market segment. I think that's the long term threat to Facebook

<comment><USER16> > Would people in Indonesia and India join Facebook if it were mostly old > people and people from their own countries

Shockingly, people join networks that are used by people they know and their circle of friends is in their own country, for most part. If you think young Indian people are desperately trying to copy what's cool in America you'd have to explain why Whatsapp has been (and continues to be) the dominant network in India, despite being a minor player in America.

<comment><USER17> > you'd have to explain why Whatsapp has been (and continues to be) the > dominant network in India

you have to pay for each sms in India so people preferred watsapp which was free for unlimited sms.

The interface is simple even my mom understands how to use watsapp without me explaining how to use it.

<comment><USER12> This is the case in many countries, is this way in Venezuela too, for example

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I got rid of my TV in 2003, I'd just lost my job and thought it'd be a good idea to lose a distraction. It worked and was not particularly hard.

Now I did unleash an enormous amount of smugness towards everyone about how good it was to not have a TV. Being snobbish about the choice I made with a side of judgement to other people not having the same preference.

I think a lot of people here do something similar as soon facebook is discussed. And I feel we are missing out on having a conversation about how something as transformative as a personalised mediafeed impacts society because signalling not being part of it gives more cred.

We all know that software companies in a very short time has amassed power never seen before. It doesn't matter if you don't take part because at the end of the day it will affect you anyway.

<comment><USER19> Not using Facebook is definitely the "I don't even own a TV" of Hacker News recently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If I was Facebook, I'd start to think about how to add more value to people's lives. Their monetisation strategy is becoming increasingly annoying and their service is not adding enough value to counter that. People will eventually leave if you irritate them enough (see also comments on [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922022](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922022))

<comment><USER21> This was the plan from the start though. Zuck took all that money in 2005 from VCs and the like specifically to corner the market on Social Media (or at least be #2 in the space). The entire idea with these start-ups is to become a monopoly by being really good at it, and then when the competition is dead, crank up the money making portion of the service to the point at which people will _just_ not use it. These are 'Unicorn' investments, they are there to make a billion dollars so that the VC is still solvent (1 unicorn covers the 99 other investments). Becoming a monopoly and then 'boiling the frogs' was the entire idea.

<comment><USER20> This is really sad. Makes me want to start a lean, open source social network that keeps the good stuff and does away with the bloat. I bet it could be popular with intelligent people! Anyone interested, email me (see profile) :p

<comment><USER22> Intelligence is orthogonal to the basic desires Facebook uses to addict its users

<comment><USER20> That's the point; it'd be nice to have something similar to Facebook without all of the addictive trash. In my opinion, the concept of a social network in itself isn't bad - it's just the monetisation bit that they've got terribly wrong, along with the use of addictive media to bolster ad revenues.

<comment><USER21> I'm less bullish on that idea.

The issue is the cost of the service. You have to pay for those servers somehow and for updating the site to the latest versions of iOS or Windows or whatever.

There have been MANY attempts at implementing a 'paid FB' or just a straight attempt to tackle FB outright (Ello comes to mind). None have _thus far_ worked. Not saying you can't try, but talk to the other creators out there first to learn from their mistakes.

Again, the issue is that servers cost money and you have to find the funding somehow. Ads are good at that. Subscription services aren't _thus far_ , but Patreon may be changing things.

Still, with NN out the window now, I'd chill and wait to see how the dust settles.

<comment><USER20> You're right, but I'm tempted to do it anyway! Who's with me? Anyone? Guess it's just me!

Seriously though, I know monetisation is tricky, but there must be a better alternative to ads. I'm thinking something which can perhaps enrich the quality of a user's experience for a fee, rather than earning via ads while annoying the user.

<comment><USER23> In some ways I think Americans are cheap. I'm imagining a paid FB-like service in the range of $5-10/mo, considering ISP packages can easily run up to $80/mo, and a FB-like site should ideally only consume a portion of that.

But I think you really need to re-think the core concept of a social platform. Can't find the comment on HN, but someone a few days ago mentioned: _social platform vs. social technology_. A social platform is likely to be closed; Facebook only wants you to communicate via Facebook, same with Twitter, G+, etc. If you decide to email your friends instead of using FB, they lose out. A social technology, however, doesn't care about other providers as much. Think about a telephone company. They obviously want you to use their service, but they don't care if you call someone who has a different carrier. Likewise, they won't listen in to the content of your calls to tailor their service to you, because them providing you phone data and the contents of your calls are completely orthogonal.

Try thinking along the lines of a social technology, rather than a social platform. E.g. my friends want to put together a movie/pizza night so they go to Facebook to create a poll to decide on a movie and pizza toppings. Why can't that be part of an SMS standard?

It seems to me like SMS has a lot of potential for future iterations. Right now you can send texts and images to one or more people. Why not bake in other features like polls, appointments, etc. It truly has frustrated me that my friends will use Facebook to organize something that could easily be done over SMS if it just had a few extra features.

<comment><USER20> Interesting points. I'm not sure if SMS is rich enough to support a full fledged social tech, but I kind the idea of keeping the technology open. I will definitely keep thinking about this!

<comment><USER23> Right, SMS probably wouldn't be able to bear that full weight of a whole social tech, but I believe with just a few additional features added to its spec (or a fork), the effort-to-payoff ratio would be large, if your goal is to help ween people off of sites like Facebook. There's no reason why I shouldn't just be able to use my phone to invite a bunch of friends to some event, and have them indicate with a checkmark or red X whether they will be going or not.

I have some other ideas that I was going to formally write up and thinking of submitting it to Mozilla. Feel free to email me (email in my profile) to discuss more if interested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> X-Istence I've noticed that FB started inserting ads about 10 seconds into playing a video. Now when I see the "about to start ad" I just go to the next video and skip it.

Ads before videos just means I won't be watching videos on Facebook.

<comment><USER24> I'm in the same boat for the first part. I'll be thumbing through my feed and see some quasi-interesting video but no matter how great it is, when I see that "about to start ad" text, I just scroll on. Like on YouTube, I could watch a pre-roll if I really, really want to watch it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> In a related move, Facebook disabled embedded videos from youtube/vimeo/etc last month.

[https://vimeo.com/forums/help/topic:291071](https://vimeo.com/forums/help/topic:291071)

[https://developers.facebook.com/bugs/1963535797258090/?hc_lo...](https://developers.facebook.com/bugs/1963535797258090/?hc_location=ufi)

</comment><comment><USER26> For anyone using Facebook as a messaging/group/event service, I cannot recommend the Facebook News Feed Eridactor more. It literally just blocks it all. Not perfect for all users, but it has really helped me spend less time wasting away scrolling out of habit.

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/news-feed- eradicat...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/news-feed-eradicator- for/fjcldmjmjhkklehbacihaiopjklihlgg?hl=en)

PS: The daily quote feature can be toggled off.

<comment><USER27> Can't you just block Facebook in your hosts file?

<comment><USER28> Yes — but the parent comment says this is for those who use it for the messenger/group/event features.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> You can go to [https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=videos](https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=videos) and turn off auto-playing videos. I did this over a year ago and haven't missed it.

<comment><USER30> THANK YOU

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Why are they allowed to monetize so much pirated/freebooted content?

<comment><USER12> It's doomed to fail. YouTube allows creators to profit and build businesses for themselves. Facebook shares none of it's revenue with creators and this is not a sustainable model in the long term.

<comment><USER32> They will be sharing the 6 second proceeds with creators to encourage more creators to post content to Facebook.

<comment><USER33> Even if they are sharing with uploaders, they're less creators and more freeloaders pirating other people's YouTube content in most cases so this is pretty irrelevant at best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I for one cannot wait for the American Facebook user to actually sit down and consider whether they pay their ISP $10 a month to be force fed ads in their time line now throughout all videos and the finally put down the 'free' drug that Facebook has become.

Edit: Not just Facebook but social media as a whole.

<comment><USER35> $10 a month? Perhaps you missed a 0 there... Americans pay a lot more per month to watch ads on the Internet.

<comment><USER36> I think the comment was a jab at net neutrality (or our newfound lack thereof).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've had a few videos on Facebook recently begin playing, and then 10sec in start to play an ad.

I have since stopped watching FB videos.

<comment><USER38> Imagine all the A/B/C/D/E/F/G testing going on at Facebook. I imagine that they fine tune a lot of things just for you.

<comment><USER39> Ad breaks are up to the video poster.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Facebook is just a feed of only fake promoted posts now. It's become like producthunt but promoting everything indirectly. I can't even see posts of pages I like anymore. Couple of times I found that Facebook automatically unliked pages that I had liked and haven't seen their posts in a year or something.

<comment><USER41> My wife make crochset things as a hobby, and she has decided to create a facebook page to share the passion and show what she made. Most of the fans are our mutual friends, but it has become sort of a side-income for her (friends like to order some of the stuff she makes). Last year she had lots of likes and orders for Christmas-themed stuff in Nov/Dec. This year all Facebook gave us was nagging to "boost" posts for money, and pay to promote to reach X more people etc. The content doesn't even reach our friends who are actively waiting to see new stuff unless we share it using our personal accounts (and even then it's nothing compared to last year). It's pay or fade away. That's why the feed becomes all sponsored stuff.

<comment><USER40> > pay or fade away

Facebook in a nutshell

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The slow, inexorable creep toward traditional business models continues.

</comment><comment><USER33> > Videos must now last at least three minutes to be eligible for an "ad break" > up from the previous threshold of 90 seconds. Facebook expects users will be > more likely to watch ads in the middle of longer videos.

Why would anyone be okay with watching a 3 minute video with an ad at the start and in the middle?

</comment><comment><USER43> I will never understand why people insist on using Facebook. What is the appeal? If you're worth talking to, I will give you my phone number and we can text. For longer messages, I will send you an email. I can keep track of my contacts inside the Address book of my phone. What need exactly is Facebook filling?

<comment><USER44> For me Facebook fills the need of a centralized place to communicate with my close friends via Messenger, a place to keep track of niche interests via groups, and a place to get invites to events by friends that I don't see or talk to as often. I also use it to keep track of a few news sources.

I get it that some people don't want to use Facebook, but you really can't understand why other people make a different decision?

<comment><USER45> Oh i get it. My wife loves Facebook. It gives her a perfect easy way to communicate with the people she wants to communicate with.

I don't hate Facebook. I just don't have any reason to use it.

I do hate ads though and i will keep trying to stop them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> King-Aaron I'm already blowing over my data allowance each month thanks to things like facebook, I don't see this helping me. I'd say "well, it's time to get off Facebook then!" like so many people say, except the actual execution of that plan is what seems to fail me.

</comment><comment><USER46> Of course.. this is the pressure that all public companies face; the pressure to forever increase shareholder value @ whatever cost :-/.. Sad. I wonder if FB is "too big to fail" or if there's a chance that more moves like this might actually hurt the platform?

</comment><comment><USER47> I have been instantly closing the Facebook app or Facebook page as soon as I get any type of video ad. I feel like some ML algo will learn that I will not watch video advertisements so eventually it may stop trying. This will make it so I will not watch videos at all on Facebook anymore.

<comment><USER48> Or it will ply you with them more frequently. Eventually it may be an ad when you first launch the site/app, but don't worry, you can buy coins to skip it!

<comment><USER47> Oh god, yeah this will be the quickest way for my account to go from multiple uses per day to 100% inactive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I use Messenger to get in touch with my friends from college and I'm a member of a private group about AI. I actually don't use the birthday list because, be honest, do you know if all your close friends and relatives on Facebook did send you a birthday greeting? I have other notifications for my immediate family's birthdays, I send them a text or call them at their birthday instead.

Deleting the Facebook app has been liberating. I spend more time learning new stuff, consuming entertainment I actually enjoy, and building stuff than I did before. Facebook was really unhealthy for me, and it could be that I'm approaching my 30s but it just gives me no lasting enjoyment anymore.

</comment><comment><USER50> I see some of the typical facebook hate posts but I personally don't mind it at all. I removed the app from my phone and check the website maybe once or twice a day. I get reminded about people that I would have forgotten otherwise and sparks interest again. I also get a dose of updates what's happening in terms of events and groups around me.

I also use it very successfully to sell things through free market groups when things like craigslist got me close to new results besides a few scammers.

And messenger I use for normal staying-in-contact.

I don't see the need to delete my account, or to do a 'facebook cleanse month'. It's a useful tool and I see it as that

</comment><comment><USER51> Did company resist X?

Does company need to generate more revenue?

Company will give in to X.

<comment><USER52> Presumably they didn't do it cause they wanted to build a userbase though. It was always gonna be monetized they just preferred growth to money initially.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Just in case someone out there isn't aware, there's an app called Facebook Local (formerly Facebook Events), which is focused on the events aspect of Facebook. Great for continued participation in friends' events without all the other stuff.

Surprisingly, it also seems to be good for finding local events if you're looking for something to do.

</comment><comment><USER54> Few weeks ago they started this for Watch shows; now they're rolling it out for everything.

[http://adage.com/article/digital/facebook-test-pre-roll- vide...](http://adage.com/article/digital/facebook-test-pre-roll-video-ads- ahead-watch-shows/311467/)

</comment><comment><USER55> You mean the ads that automatically play as I scroll down my feed? Oh yeah boys, we're back in 2005 again :)

</comment><comment><USER56> This combined with the fact that videos auto play means we're getting Video ads on Facebook now, great.

</comment><comment><USER57> Fortunately, videos don't run on Facebook if you have Ghostery and the EFF's blocker enabled.

</comment><comment><USER58> Don't people here use the 'block newsfeed' extensions?

I think that's a nice middle ground to be on. I can still participate in groups that I'm a member of, can still chat with friends, while not have the awfulness that is the newsfeed shoved down my mind.

</comment><comment><USER59> Will it be resource heavy for facebook to make the ads unblockable?

I remember when ublock stopped preventing spotify ads. It was when I stopped using the service for about 2 weeks, until the blocking functionality was reinstated.

</comment><comment><USER60> Worse is their current policy. I've seen my wife watch Facebook videos and an ad will INTERRUPT THE VIDEO with a video of its own. That's completely unacceptable, to me.

</comment><comment><USER61> Broadcast TV isn't dying, it's moving to the Internet.

</comment><comment><USER62> This might be what gets me to finally abandon my Facebook account for good. They couldn't find a more aggravating way to squeeze the last drop of blood from this stone.

</comment><comment><USER63> Anyone interested in developing and maintaining a tool that automatically erases Facebook activity older than N days, for the current user?

It would be much appreciated!

</comment><comment><USER64> So are they gonna introduce Facebook Pro for $9.99/mo? I gave up and just pay for YouTube now. I rarely watch videos on Facebook though.

</comment><comment><USER65> Facebook is more and more just a cesspool.

</comment><comment><USER66> Facebook is harmful to you and to society. Delete it.

I deleted it months ago and my life is better for it.

</comment><comment><USER67> so..i'll be scrolling through my feed and ill see my friend post what appears to be a video ad. I'm smart enough to know its just a facebook ad, but alot of people will be tricked and actually think their friend is endorsing a product.

</comment><comment><USER68> It's almost like you can choose whether or not to use Facebook

</comment><comment><USER69> Can I delete my FB account but keep Messenger with all my contacts?

<comment><USER70> Yes

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Another reason to delete your facebook account.

<comment><USER72> One does not simply delete their Facebook account.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Just more reason to watch videos on YouTube..

</comment><comment><USER74> mbasic.facebook.com -- this is the only interface I use. If you're hooked on Messenger, I can't help you.

</comment><comment><USER75> As i ~never watch a facebook video again

</comment><comment><USER76> Must be a push for ARPU growth

</comment><comment><USER77> They have to make up for the loss of all those Russian ad buys somehow now that election season is over.

</comment><comment><USER78> Paywall?

<comment><USER79> [https://archive.is/gDJXE](https://archive.is/gDJXE)

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> I used to like Facebook a lot. I would argue about politics there like a lot of people did in 2016. Facebook wss where I got my news for a while. Nah, I have unfollowed those toxic pages (e.g "Now This")

I was bothered by my mental illness this year and I live streamed my suicide attempt twice and it was not pretty to watch. Friends all freaked out and tried to get someone to help me. I guess I did that because "that's where people get to see me".

A few months ago I deactivated my facebook for about a month and I maintained my relationship strictly over WhatsApp. It worked great. There was no pressure. I eventually reactivated it so I can spend some more time with a really good friend.

Now, like my Instagram, most of the pages I follow now are about cats, some cultural stuff, and a number of youtubers.

I still get to see what my friends are doing and that's great. I still share pictures and updates with my friends. But I am not so attached to it anymore (and the stupid iOS app has been crashing every 30 seconds for no freakin' reason) - Facebook team please fix it.

You don't have to deactivate the account, but please clean up your newsfeed first. Unfollow pages you don't want and clean up friend list.

Use the good part of Facebook and you will be fine.</comment>


Spotify Co-Founder: Notion of Overnight Success "Misleading and Harmful" - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/spotify_co-founder_notion_of_overnight_success_misleading.php <comment><USER2> Link to original post: [http://www.spotify.com/blog/archives/2009/10/08/overnight- su...](http://www.spotify.com/blog/archives/2009/10/08/overnight-success- takes-a-long-time…/)

<comment><USER3> Thanks. The original content is much preferred over a rewrite on a site throwing 20 animated ads in my face.</comment></comment>


"My new product idea will be stolen" - and a cure - <AUTHOR> http://pietro.open-lab.com/2010/11/30/my-new-product-idea-will-be-stolen-and-a-cure/

<comment><USER2> I once had an "potential investor" come in to see my top-secret project (I was much more paranoid in those days). She loved it and called me back two days later and asked to meet with me for breakfast. When I arrived, she was wearing a transparent shirt and no undergarments, which freaked me out a bit (not relavent to story, but weird nonetheless). Instead of discussing money, she told me, flat out, that unless I hire her to be the president of my company, she will put me out of business. She claimed to have six people from Sun's Java team ready to start copying my software. She said she'd go to the Demo conference that year (where I was going to be presenting on-stage) and would badmouth me to everyone in the audience to insure that no-one would talk to me about financing at the conference. Then she stopped and waited for my answer. I thought about it (<500ms) and told her that I would not be hiring her. She basically told me I should should shut down my company because she was going to make it her job to ruin us starting that afternoon. Well, needless to say, even with complete insight as to what I was doing, a (supposed) team of engineers on tap, and a plan to ruin me, she never shipped a product. But I wish she had because we ended-up "pivoting" a few months later and it was the pivoted product that took us to the finish line.

Generally, copying won't happen until something has momentum in the marketplace. If, for example, I heard about Groupon before it launched, I would have reacted by saying "How are you going to get a lot of local companies to participate? Are you going to hire a team of door-to-door salespeople? It just can't scale." And I, of course, would have been wrong.

As far as bookmarking+todo lists goes, I was prototyping that idea a few years ago, but scrapped it because I didn't see it getting the kind of traction needed to be successful (at that time). Perhaps I will be proven wrong again!

<comment><AUTHOR> "copying won't happen until something has momentum in the marketplace": interesting point. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The cure to prevent people from stealing your idea before you ship... is to ship? Really?

I certainly hope he's not saying that shipping a product will prevent people from stealing them afterwards. Because it absolutely will not. We even had a post on here from a guy that said his success was mainly from NOT having his own ideas. He'd see something new and good and do the same, but better. And it worked really well for him.

These vapid posts are a waste of time.

<comment><USER4> I don't think he is saying that shipping a product will prevent others from copying... what he's saying is that shipping is the cure to overcome the fear of having others copying your idea.

Once you ship, it doesn't matter if others want to copy you, because you are already out there... there is nothing else to fear. It's your chance to execute faster and better than the others who were already there and the ones that join in (new competitors).</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why would stockholders vote to increase # of issuable common shares? - <AUTHOR>

Why would stockholders vote to increase the number of authorized shares as in the following?
http://bnymellon.mobular.net/bnymellon/fds/document_1/Proxy%20Statement.pdf  ( see: recommendation #3 on page 2)
The only benefit I see here is if I really believe in the company's governance and want to help them from being taken over, assuming there is truly a takeover threat present.  Though ownership looks diverse to me?:
http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-major.html?t=FDS
Can anyone help me understand?  Surely there is something else to it.  Thanks! <comment><USER2> This is just a guess but my intuition is that a company issues stock in order to raise capital. So if the company has a useful investment opportunity that would affect its long term profitability then raising the capital in equity markets might be a good strategy. Rational investors would weigh the possibility of stock dilution vs. long term profitability and make a choice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea that makes sense, so obvious now that I think of it. Presumably it's easier or more cost effective to raise capital this way than to try to issue bonds. Thanks!

<comment><USER3> I hope this was not a hw question for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> ? thanks for making my question seem dumber

<comment><USER3> No worries;) I only said that because of your username...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Doing It Wrong - <AUTHOR> http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/01/02/Doing-It-Wrong <comment><USER3> This is right on.

I've worked at big and medium size companies in the past decade. I worked at a startup that was acquired by a big company. I've implemented enterprise systems from design through support for governments and dow30 companies.

Those of you that think that these systems are symptom of the corporate culture are wrong. I'm not defending the poor corporate cultures that I saw. I am defending the argument that better technologies and processes could lead to better systems.

From a process standpoint the problem is it's counter intuitive to most management that smaller, higher paid teams using obscure* technology could out produce the highly polished cogs-in-the-machine process. For example, this usually isn't true for (most) mechanical engineering projects. We all know it as fact on HN but it doesn't apply to many enterprise industries. I remember times where as a team we were denied the ability to create scripts or tools to do work for us. Or we were denied the use of open source tools. Instead we spent days doing it manually. Then, when it needed to be done for the next project, we would again do it manually. We couldn't push a small but critical change without completing a multi-day code move process. When we did write scripts, IT had to approve them which meant you were at their mercy. There were many more of these sorts of poor process decisions. And there were smart capable programmers working there, often pushing to make the right decision.

When I run into old co-workers many still believe it's impossible to implement enterprise code in something like ruby, python, lisp, haskell, etc. It's Java or C#. Common reasoning - What happens if I need a new Clojure or Lisp programmer!? Or, where will ruby be in 20 years? We know today where Microsoft support will be in the future. Look at Microsoft's support plans. Etc.

I'll add a little bit of my own opinion in here too. It is my hope that eventually there will be a few elegant generic enterprise solutions where DSLs are implemented for business analysts. It's insane how much of this work is still done by programmers. How many more times does a programmer have to code a { main-menu customer organization admin ... } window or custom approval process, etc. (Yes, I know this has been attempted often without success, it's still a good idea. And I think in the end it'll happen. It just takes time to figure out what will work)

* obscure to management.

EDIT: Grammar

<comment><USER4> Do you have personal experience with mechanical engineering projects that suggests that most work best with large, lowly-paid design teams using management-friendly technology, or are you just assuming that they would?

I'm just curious, because I would have thought that this would work about equally well on software and mechanical engineering projects.

<comment><USER3> _Do you have personal experience with mechanical engineering projects that suggests that most work best with large, lowly-paid design teams using management-friendly technology, or are you just assuming that they would?_

Yeah I think they work differently in general. From my experience they do not benefit from iterative development the same way we do. They do but they iterate when solving the problem, usually on paper. If they make a design mistake and it's in production or prototype phase it's much more costly to address. And because of this development cycles are longer and a lot more time is spent upfront.

I've watched and assisted mechanical engineers that spent days working out the math on the reliability of a class of lasers (and belts, motors, fans) subjected to sitting in a warehouse, followed by periodic motion and change in atmospheric conditions then launched (missile launch or space launch).

After the analysis was complete I could code up the math in a matter of minutes. Then expose it to all sorts of boundary cases and add it into a mathematical model of the entire system. Sometimes, at this point, it would go back to analysis to address some new found issues.

I have great respect for such engineers. Solving real life problems, like this, thoroughly is worlds away from what most programmers enjoy - creating.

EDITED: Clarifications ~

<comment><USER4> _They do but they iterate when solving the problem, usually on paper. If they make a design mistake and it's in production or prototype phase it's much more costly to address. And because of this development cycles are longer and a lot more time is spent upfront._

This I agree with. Most engineers would kill to have the kind of feedback cycle that we have. (Disclaimer: my experience, such as it is, is with electrical rather than mechanical engineering.)

 _Solving real life problems, like this, thoroughly is worlds away from what most programmers enjoy - creating._

This I disagree with. Of course (mechanical) engineers enjoy creating - <USER2> example, read Florman's _Existential Pleasures of Engineering_.

<comment><USER5> I worked in the US aerospace engineer as a stress analyst: I can confirm that bit about feedback cycles. For missiles, the feedback cycle is _years_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the author is misled by survivor bias. How many Basecamp clones have been released and failed? How many more have been planned, half-implemented, and shelved?

Also, how many "enterprise" development teams can commit to creating and supporting one and only one (1) app over a multi-year period? How many can depend on thousands and millions of users to discover bugs, do load testing, penetration testing, usability, etc etc?

How many "massages" has Flickr had in the last 5 years? Is that uptime acceptable to a bank?

How many shoe retailers and state governments even know how to recruit and retain the type of talent that produces great software? How many could admit they don't?

<comment><USER7> _How many shoe retailers and state governments even know how to recruit and retain the type of talent that produces great software?_

IMHO, this is the truth nugget. Where the rock stars go is where you will find great software and the company culture that works is "stand back and let the rock stars do their thing". That culture can't exist in the enterprise. It doesn't even exist in most startups. I never wanted to believe this but after years of first hand experience, I find the conclusion inescapable.

Agile methodologies can't extract excellence from mediocrity, but they might allow _half-decent_ software to be made without the use of rock stars, by plugging the holes that mediocre developers typically fall into. But is half- decent software even worth making?

<comment><USER8> _Where the rock stars go is where you will find great software and the company culture that works is "stand back and let the rock stars do their thing". That culture can't exist in the enterprise._

XBox is an interesting counter-example. Microsoft completely let that team do their thing. They had total freedom to design and market it. Notice they didn't even have to call it Microsoft Gaming Console.

Source: Chris Capossela's talk at the Business of Software 2009 conference.

<comment><USER9> From what I've read, Microsoft's original corporate culture wasn't that far removed from "stand back and let the rock stars do their thing." For example, Spolsky likes to talk about how management's job at Microsoft was to keep people from bothering the developers so they could keep writing code. I think he also told anecdotes about developers coming into a manager's office to resolve a technical dispute, and the manager responding "Why are you asking me? Of the people in this room, I'm the one who knows the least about it." Then the manager sent them away to work it out between themselves.

That attitude probably had a lot to do with Microsoft's success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Everything tbray says is correct, but I had the feeling I'd heard this before. Then I realized, this post is a combination of Gall's law "all working complex systems evolved from working simple systems", and Joel's advice of "never outsource core competencies"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galls_law>

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000007.html>

</comment><comment><USER11> "Of course, we're not in the Promised Land yet. I'm actually surprised that Salesforce isn't a lot bigger than it is; a variety of things are holding back the migration to the utility model"

Many organizations still attempt to 'build' their own highly customized CRM system using SFDC as a starting point. It doesn't matter if they buy a system off the shelf, the IT organizations for big companies will manage to make these projects just as unsuccessful as their built from scratch counterparts.

The success of these implementations, and in turn the companies that sell the systems like SFDC, are dependent on how willing their own customers are to change their internal processes to match what the system does well. The biggest project failures for these systems occur when these organizations refuse to change how they do business and instead spend millions of dollars in customization fees to the vendor. SFDC isn't immune to the failures that the author describes, they just experience it from a different perspective.

</comment><comment><USER12> Been there for quite some time. I can't agree more - a lot of things are wrong in enterprise world. Couple big ones from my experience:

\- Process-centric culture. Most enterprises have processes for making processes. Process always complicates everything. And most people inside will blindly protect the process, so it's really difficult to question it.

\- Artificially complicated solutions from "big vendors" (read Oracle, IBM etc). They keep adding new "features" over an over only to have something to sell constantly. I have never seen an enterprise software being simplified. A lot of people inside enterprise will again protect these since their jobs may become redundant if simpler solutions are introduced.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think the author is missing the point. Large, overly complex, ineffective systems a symptom of corporate culture. It isn't something that you can just fix without fixing the underlying cause.

<comment><USER14> Exactly - it is NOT a technology problem. Well other then vendors capitalising on the corporate culture in selling "solutions" which just make things worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> And this is why I prefer to work for small companies/startups vs. large companies.

</comment><comment><USER16> He definately has a point, but then again to make an accounting package as simple as twitter you'd have to make the tax code as simple as twitter too :-)

</comment><comment><USER17> Really, the problem boils down to this:

Enterprise software is not written for end-users. It's written for companies. It's not marketed to the people who will actually use it and it's not paid for by the people who are going to use it.

So it should come as no surprise that the incentives and motives that shape enterprise software are completely orthogonal to the incentives for creating good software.

</comment><comment><USER18> Even private failures (outages, data loss) involving enterprise systems can cost an enterprise business gigantic sums of money directly or in fines or in customer perception or (for some applications) can put patients' health and lives at risk. Public outages can involve fires and building collapses.

Various of the customers I've worked with over the years have calculated their direct losses at thousands or more dollars per minute of outage.

This is a whole different world view from a web outage or a PC reboot; of how to upgrade an application or a server environment without restarting it. Up- times here can be measured in decades.

Your development processes and your management accordingly become conservative. Sometimes hidebound. This is a whole different world from what most folks are accustomed to working in, too. This in terms of scale and cost and speeds and feeds involved; thirty million lines of even the best source code around is not the most agile of platforms ever constructed, but it can be critical to the operations and profits of a business.

There are numbers of (quiet) successes here and there have been many successful COTS migrations; I've worked on a number of these migrations and application replacements over the years, and these projects just don't get the press attention of the screw-ups. And yes, I'm aware of both successes and screw-ups. And of one box that was up and running for seventeen years.

<comment><USER19> So the silver bullet is to reduce the cost of failure? So that you can allow failure, which seems to be a necessary requirement for fast iteration and hence fast development?

i.e. the hard thing to do is to find a way to slice off 5 or 10% of the problem space so you can have a fast-iterating pilot system which can be a little flakey.

As it beds down into maturity after it's period of rapid development (and higher-than-acceptable downtime), the new system can then be rolled out to the wider audience.

So the trick is to designate an "early adopter" section of your enterprise (maybe one branch office), give them a free reign and then scale their good solutions enterprise-wide.

<comment><USER18> The easy stuff usually gets sliced off and dealt with.

The folks working on these boxes are Not Dumb.

When you're dealing with financial transactions or stock trading or with medical records, you're either able to deal with the fire hose of data, or with the uptime requirements, or the scale of the data. Or not.

These servers and clusters are very different than what most folks are accustomed to dealing with; vastly larger servers, application environments, communications, storage. And unfortunately for upgrades and migrations and incremental work, usually also involving (often fragile and ill-documented and poorly understood) interconnections all over the place. And critical.

<comment><USER19> > When you're dealing with financial transactions or stock trading or with > medical records, you're either able to deal with the fire hose of data, or > with the uptime requirements, or the scale of the data. Or not.

But you might find that there is one stock market with a smaller trade volume than the others. Or one of the 50 hospitals in your district is smaller.

If you can peel off a bunch of "early adopters" and make them guinea pigs, you can get some of the benefits of rapid development. You either need the buy in of the early adopters or be able to push them around.

This happens all the time. The UK used to test their _laws_ on the Scots before rolling them out to the rest of the country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The design of a system will reflect the organization that creates it.

</comment><comment><USER21> _The time between having an idea and its public launch is measured in days not months, weeks not years._

I like and totally agree with most of the article but this myth annoys me. Exactly none of the the huge complex web apps he namedrops could have been made in under a week. And even if they were, that time omits what must have been an extended period of contemplation and conceptual design by a definite "rock star" level programmer.

<comment><USER22> Sure, creating an entire new product can take a lot longer, but almost everyone working in web startups has the experience of launching a new feature (for an existing site) the same day it was first suggested.

<comment><USER21> Sure, if it's a small feature that fits in well with the existing structure. But Tbray's talking like people can just knock up facebook or basecamp from scratch, in a matter of days. No-one can do that. Oh yeah sure, you might be able to make a decent stab at re-implementing one of them in a few days but it's a different story when you have to just make it up.

Anyway I do agree with him generally, just that I see this stuff a lot. Good web developers are stunningly productive compared to your average .NET corporate seat-warmer but they're not magic!</comment></comment></comment>


With So Many Startups, Where Does One Get Customers? - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/readwritestart/2009/09/so-many-startups-where-to-get-customers.php

<comment><USER2> There are more than 1B people online.

<comment><USER3> divide that by the number of websites wanting attention

<comment><USER2> I can arbitrarily, yet confidently, state that 70% of all websites are garbage and are not being maintained.

Secondly you are not directly competing with the remaining websites. People do not spend all their time online. If you convince them to use your product, it is not as if they will take time away from HN to read your blog. They will simply take that time away from their offline activities or hours of boredom.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> By finding a niche market and attacking.

</comment><comment><USER5> the best services usually attract the customers.

don't be a bottom feeder.

</comment><comment><USER6> If it's easy, everyone will be doing it.</comment>