SpaceX CRS-7 Failure Investigation Teleconference Thread - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3dyvta/rspacex_crs7_failure_investigation_teleconference/ <comment><USER2> _"Now before every flight I always send out an email company-wide saying, 'If anyone can think of any possible reason to hold off on launching, they should call me immediately on my cell phone or send me an email, whether their manager agrees with it or not.' But thats sort of something I've always sent before every flight, but the 20th time I send that email it just seems like… you know, 'There's Elon being paranoid again', so maybe it doesn't resonate with the same force. But I think now everyone at the company appreciates just how difficult it is to get rockets to orbit successfully and I think we'll be stronger for it."_

Elon at 36:15

[http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/07/spacex- releases.html](http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/07/spacex-releases.html)

<comment><USER3> > 'If anyone can think of any possible reason to hold off on launching, they > should call me immediately on my cell phone or send me an email, whether > their manager agrees with it or not.'

Two thoughts: if you need to send a message like that, the culture of your organization needs some work. Also, does he really think a person can send a message like that - when their manager does not agree - without torpedoing their career?

<comment><USER4> That's probably a direct reaction to some of the NASA issues that have happened in the past. (Most famously the Challenger disaster)

<comment><USER3> Yeah. It is also the sort of thing NASA actually has in place - "anyone can escalate a safety issue!"

It is worth studying how that kind of thing has NOT fixed the issues as NASA, and how it did not prevent us from losing Columbia. You either have a culture that puts safety, engineering and problem solving ahead of politics and expediency in all cases, or you don't. There are absolutely not any shortcuts to that.

<comment><USER5> I don't think it's intended as a short cut, just as one component of the right culture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So I know very little about rockets, but here's my simplified understanding:

The liquid oxygen tank provides the liquid oxygen which fuels the rocket. They use helium to keep the tank pressurised as the liquid oxygen gets used up (why helium? it's light and unreactive). The helium is stored in its own tanks, which are secured by struts like in this picture: [http://i.szoter.com/741dc2bcf5762a48.jpg](http://i.szoter.com/741dc2bcf5762a48.jpg) (via reddit). The strut failed, causing a helium leak and a complicated series of events (including the helium tank bouncing around the liquid oxygen tank?), that basically resulted in the liquid oxygen tank being over-pressurised and exploding.

Bonus (very cool!) gif of the liquid oxygen tank during a previous launch (unfortunately cameras apparently weren't included in this launch): [https://i.imgur.com/WRp2ujX.gif](https://i.imgur.com/WRp2ujX.gif) (also via reddit)

Some extra cool things:

(1) They narrowed down the source of the failure using "acoustic triangulation", which, I think, is essentially using sound sensors (accelerometers?) located at various locations to pinpoint the location of the failure in 3D space.

(2) The Dragon capsule could have been saved if it'd had the right software (which would deploy the parachutes). They'd already planned to do this, and will now have a software update for the next launch. Why hadn't they done this already? Because if the parachutes deploy accidentally, it could result in launch failure, so it's something they have to be careful about. But the capsule survived the explosion and they remained in contact with it until it was below the horizon.

<comment><USER7> As final note the 'big explosion' was the air force blowing up the falcon9. This is standard procedure to stop the rocket doing damage in further locations and stopping a much of the fuel hitting the ground as possible (it's apparently nasty stuff).

<comment><USER8> For pedantry's sake: Falcon 9 blew itself up once an anomaly was detected. The Air Force kill command was not sent until dozens of minutes after the vehicle disintegrated.

<comment><USER9> The rocket can initiate range safety itself like that?? What happens if a pressure sensor in one of the tanks fails a second after liftoff?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's amazing what profound effects the culture of a company can have on its results, and how that changes over time.

> He said the early team had "an extreme level of paranoia" because of the > difficulty of learning how to design and launch rockets. But now, "the vast > amount of people at the company today have only ever seen success… when > you've only seen success, you don't fear failure quite as much."

> Musk said the night before each launch, he sends a company-wide email asking > employees to send him an email or call his cell phone if they have any > reason to believe the rocket should not launch.

I think it's good such realities are being realized, then handled in a gentle (but firm) way.

Source: [http://mashable.com/2015/07/20/spacex-launch-failure- strut/](http://mashable.com/2015/07/20/spacex-launch-failure-strut/)

</comment><comment><USER11> I've done a lot of manufacturing with all sorts of metals. I am not sure one can blame a vendor for a grain structure problem. This is a testing failure. A failure to identify parts that don't pass tests.

The problem might very well be that the very tests a part must pass will weaken the part to the point that it is not usable or less reliable. In other words, some tests are destructive.

Here's on of many interesting pages that came up by searching for "how to test aluminum for grain structure".

[https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&ion=1&e...](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20to%20test%20aluminum%20for%20grain%20structure)

I guess I am saying I hope a vendor isn't blamed for this when the reality of the matter might very well be that testing to 100% certainty is impossible.

<comment><USER12> But there's so much margin for error on these specific parts. Even if the test only ensures 60% strength, and weakens the part by 50%, that's still strong enough.

A part being mildly out of spec might not be a vendor problem. A part being 20% strength is absolutely a vendor problem.

<comment><USER11> The real question rattling around in my head is:

Why was this designed such that the failure of A SINGLE STRUT would be catastrophic?

I don't like to blame a vendor for what should be an engineering problem, whether this means design or testing.

The problem here --assuming it is as described-- is that someone designed a system with the assumption that none of these struts would fail. And, furthermore, executing on a design where the failure of ONE strut could cause a disaster.

Anyhow, that's what it looks like to me given what's been released.

I could be totally wrong.

<comment><USER13> _Why was this designed such that the failure of A SINGLE XXX would be catastrophic?_

There are plenty of things in a rocket that can fail that would take the entire vehicle with it. Structural mechanics is pretty well understood and loads are well predictable, so it seems perfectly reasonable to me to design with the assumption that a part with a 10x safety factor will not fail.

If you didn't, your rocket would never get to orbit anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Kind of sad to see the reddit group /r/spacex wasn't afforded access to the conference. I think they are probably one of the best moderated and one of the most intelligent groups of fans spacex has.

<comment><USER15> If /r/spacex wants to pass the hat and buy a flight, maybe they can get priority.

Being a fan and all is admirable, but I don't think it's "sad" that the Internet wasn't given a seat on the call. SpaceX has a business to run.

<comment><USER16> As opposed to the small local/regional newspapers who were represented? This was a media call, not a customer one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Acoustic triangulation of accelerometers in upper stage helped pinpoint the strut, and using only 0.893 seconds of data (unless the accels were in the part that kept transmitting). That means the streaming sample rate must be quite high!

<comment><USER18> assumong 330m/s for the speed of sound, you can get 1 inch of precision at a sample rate of just under 13kHz. With 3 channels of 12-bit accelerometer data that's ~ 58kBps with no compression which doesn't seem too out there. Of course you can get a pretty close approximation at much lower sample rates (/2, /4, /8, /16) using band-limited interpolation

<comment><USER19> Aren't we talking about the speed of sound in helium, though? That should be faster.

<comment><USER20> helium is 972 m/s, aluminum 5100 m/s, steel 6100 m/s. depending on what they actually measure, correct triangulation sounds like a non-trivial problem; good job spacex for solving that. (unless your cad software does that for you :))

<comment><USER21> > _(unless your cad software does that for you :))_

As far as I can tell, they write quite a lot of their CA* software ;).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> snippet summary: prelim failure cause might have been strut holding up helium tank inside of oxygen tank failed well-below rated stress causing tank to release helium into oxygen tank > failure.

snippet:

"Preliminary conclusion is that a COPV (helium container) strut in the CRS-7 second stage failed at 3.2Gs. A lot of data was analysed, it took only 0.893 seconds between first sign of trouble and end of data. Preliminary failure arose from a strut in the second stage liquid oxygen tanks that was holding down one composite helium bottle used to pressurize the stage. High pressure helium bottles are pressurized at 5500 psi, stored inside in LOX tank. Several helium bottles in upper stage. At ~3.2 g, one of those struts snapped and broke free inside the tank. Buoyancy increases in accordance with G-load. Released lots of helium into LOX tank. Data shows a drop in the helium pressure, then a rise in the helium pressure system. Quite confusing. As helium bottle broke free and pinched off manifold, restored the pressure but released enough helium to cause the LOX tank to fail. It was a really odd failure mode."

<comment><USER23> Indeed, it appears that they had to test thousands of struts. Most passed but they found one that failed. Microscopic examination showed bad grain structure. They're made by a vendor so it would appear that vendor has a quality control problem.

The delays will be in setting up a QA process to test each individual strut part, as well as eventually testing all vendor-supplied parts. If anyone can do it, SpaceX can. No reason they can't design robot systems to test every part.

<comment><USER24> I worked for a while for a vendor that produced some critical components for ... let's say major entities. NASA, US military, Boeing, and so on. I was in electrical QA, next-to-last step before shipping. My job was to electrically scrutinize individual pieces (in some cases) or random samples from a batch (depending on how much the customer was paying) and compare their output to customer's spec.

If your stuff is mission critical, if anybody could potentially die, you really can't trust the parts from these vendors. A few of their smarter customers would repeat all of our tests and send back defective parts. The thing was, we had a lot of borderline stuff come through from bad production (poorly paid or poorly trained staff or defective tools or materials), and once some of these parts hit QA, they had a _lot_ of expense sunk into them. The company didn't want to eat that cost, so there were a lot of arguments between myself and the general manager. I failed a lot of stuff that previous people in my position had let slide.

They also had a really stupid hockey-stick output graph each month. The beginning of the month was slow, we were all cleaning our work areas and retesting our test equipment, and then the last week of the month they'd try to produce 90% of their expected output for the month. Because of my reputation for rejecting stuff, he'd hover over my work area for the last day or two each month.

Given the size of the company I worked for, I have to assume this is not uncommon practice.

It was a heck of an experience, I finally got a better understanding for why so many things seem to break all the time.

<comment><USER25> I'm bookmarking your comment. It is just the slice-of-life that I want to show newbie engineers. Like some people say you need to spend a year or two in the service industry to learn empathy, I feel engineers likewise need to spend time in QA to learn what their ethics _really_ are. QA is _hard_ , and the pressure to pass is difficult to withstand; eventually you take the "my boss told me to do it" attitude or you learn to make ... Well, not _enemies_ , but certainly rock the boat.

Kudos to you!

<comment><USER24> > _I feel engineers likewise need to spend time in QA to learn what their > ethics really are. QA is hard, and the pressure to pass is difficult to > withstand_

You really nailed it. The GM's position -- and he said this more than a few times -- was that the parts were designed with extra tolerances already, so if they were a little below spec it was OK.

Engineers have to keep that in mind when designing products: production knows there's a margin for error and they'll take that into consideration when deciding whether or not they can get away with shipping something.

(And the GM was a pretty OK guy, we got along fine otherwise. He in turn was just under a lot of pressure from further up the ladder to meet certain production goals.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The official statement is at [http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/07/20/crs-7-investigation- up...](http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/07/20/crs-7-investigation-update)

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder if they'll be looking to recoup some losses from the strut manufacturer. Would be an interesting case. They can prove that the struts can fail well below certification, which should be worth something, but unless they can prove that this particular failure was due to the strut, or at least more likely than not, it would probably be difficult. Also might be unwise from a business perspective as it could make other (potential) suppliers nervous.

</comment><comment><USER27> Sometime in the future, in a book...

"And thus it was learnt that on the twentieth repetition, company-wide emails cease their function, having been seen and imprinted many times, as it was with the boy who cried wolf. But with the experience of failure comes wisdom and strength for the future of the civilization who wishes to become spacefaring." Elon 36:15

<comment><USER28> Jesus Christ, I know you're "joking", but can y'all just drop the pretense and start a religion dedicated to worshiping Musk already?

<comment><USER29> No quotes necessary, that was a joke.

<comment><USER28> [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kidding%20on%...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kidding%20on%20the%20square)

The way half the people on this site worship Musk is freaking creepy. Just let it go, Daddy Elon doesn't love you.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How I Wished My Best Customers on Their Birthdays - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketlocomotion.com/your-best-customers-and-their-birthdays/

<comment><USER2> This is great. For the past two holiday seasons, Discover has sent me a seasons greetings card in a non-business envelope with an actual stamp and my name and address handwritten.

Both times, the card included a $5 gift card to Starbucks and a "thank you" for being a Discover customer. Both times, I opened the card expecting to find a message from a friend or relative based on the appearance of the envelope.

That's much different and more personal than an automated birthday message or an automatic discount on an item during the month of your birthday. It might sound cheesy, but these kinds of things really do stay in your memory and help to create a human connection, even with big companies.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great reminder on building and maintaining relationships. The only part I disagree with is 'not bothering with spell check.' Even your best and most familiar customers would like to see intelligent, competent emails from the vendor they spend the most money on (no matter how close you are to them).

<comment><USER4> It's true. Something more than lip service is also nice; I'm not sure if I'm one of Zappos' best customers, but I get free overnight shipping with them. That makes me happier than yet another piece of spam in my inbox.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How do you collect your customers birthdays?

<comment><AUTHOR> A few ways:

-Ask them when they are inputting in any kind of sign up form for your product (if you have one). Probably best to make it an optional field though

-Mine the data using facebook (if your clients are on your facebook list)

-Send out a survey with some incentive, and with some q's that would gain some knowledge about them plus their date of birth</comment></comment>


Pondering a Monorepo Version Control System - <AUTHOR> http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/monorepo_vcs.html <comment><USER2> > In a monorepo you can do an atomic change across everything. This is what > enables you to change the API and update all users in a single commit.

I think this begs the question should all software in the whole world be in a single mono-repo?

Assuming you have lots of code which is not in version control, should you put it all into a single mono-repo? Or should you divide it into TWO monorepos? or THREE?

What would be the rule on how many monorepos is best?

I think the rule should be that things which do not or should not depend on each other, should NOT be in the same repo.

<comment><AUTHOR> The rule does not work right. Let's say A and B do not depend on each other but both depend on C. Now we want all three in the same repo, because if Cs interface changes we can fix A and B in the same change. So even such indirect relationships are relevant.

<comment><USER2> The rule could be phrased better in terms of what should be in the same repo:

A depends on C therefore A must be in the same repo as C.

B depends on C therefore B must be in the same repo as C.

THEREFORE by logic A and B must (or should) be in the same repo too.

But so in general is this the right direction to be thinking about what all should go into a single mono-repo? And what about big companies who are said to have "everything" in a single repo? Does that make sense?</comment></comment></comment>


Would you like to sponsor me in return for advertising? - <AUTHOR>

Hi there, My name is Jacob and I am a 16 year old student at the Scottish high school Linlithgow Academy (Situated in Linlithgow) But in my spare time I am a budding web developer, coder and graphic designer working on a run down laptop from 2006/7 with no battery, no functioning track pad or keyboard and a screen with no backlight. So I have come up with the idea of seeking sponsorship from companies and/or individuals such as yourself in order to purchase a 15'' MacBook Pro in order to ease my studies and further myself in the world of coding and design. What I would offer in return is a space on the lid of the laptop for each company or organisation to have their respective logos or artwork engraved. This would provide advertisement as I would frequent in large cities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Falkirk and Stirling and would have my laptop out in coffee shops and parks for the world to see. I eagerly await your reply.
Yours sincerely
Jacob Edgar Anderson <comment><USER2> Email? Or contact info?

<comment><AUTHOR> email@example.com</comment></comment>


The taming of the dog, cow, horse, pig and rabbit - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-11-dog-cow-horse-pig-rabbit.html <comment><USER2> I've been wondering for ages why we don't continue activally domesticating other species - what better way to protect them than to ensure we can integrate? It may take a while, bit we've managed it in the past with a fragment of our scientific knowledge

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't this make these animals totally dependant on us for survival? This would be a massive and complex operation on a world already populated by billions of humans.

If we want to protect these species, we should concentrate our effort in protecting the environment.

<comment><USER4> I don't think it has to be a binary choice. I've often thought Tasmanian Devils¹ would be a great candidate for domestication, at least while they're under threat from the facial tumour.²

Tassie Devils live and breed in captivity fine, and they're super cute!

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_devil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_devil)

2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease)

<comment><USER5> The problem is that they have a crushing bite to break bones and bad character. A extra powerful bite in a cute small animal is a complicated recipe for petting. Sharks have similar issues. They interact with other sharks biting even when they are trying to express romantic interest.

<comment><USER4> I wonder if the bad character would be bred out. Could take a while. Dogs have a lethal bite too so I don't see that as necessarily an impediment.

<comment><USER5> Dogs are of social nature. Tasmanian devils are solitary and oportunist cannibals. With exceptions of females and its cubs, Tasmanian devils only tolerate other devils around when there is a lot of food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Related specifically to the pig and our relationship to them, the book Lesser Beasts ([https://smile.amazon.com/Lesser-Beasts-Snout-Tail- History/dp...](https://smile.amazon.com/Lesser-Beasts-Snout-Tail- History/dp/0465052746)) is a great read.

</comment><comment><USER7> Cats not mentioned. Because they're not fully tamed?

<comment><USER8> There has been a lot of stuff in recent years arguing that cats domesticated themselves, whereas we domesticated these other animals.

<comment> crooked-v Domestic cats are also still nearly identical to African wildcats physically and in social behavior, with the primary differences being lower aggression levels and greater general sociability. Compare to dogs, where even the most "wild" dog has morphological differences in skull shape and distinct differences in social interactions from wolves [1].

[1]: [https://particle.scitech.org.au/earth/eye-contact-between- di...](https://particle.scitech.org.au/earth/eye-contact-between-dingoes-and- humans-reveal-clues-of-domestication-process/)

<comment><USER9> From the articles linked research: " Recent work comparing dogs and wolves suggests that eye contact is an important behaviour underlying these social bonds; however, it remains unclear how this feature of interspecific social bonding evolved"

<comment><USER10> Eye contact is a big part of it. There was a documentary about dogs recently, where they did a simple experiment by placing a piece of food inside a cage that could not be opened by anyone but a human. First they let the wolf go at it, and it just went crazy trying to find a way in, inevitably giving up to do something else. The dog on the other hand tried for a bit, and then turn around and looked directly at the human for assistance.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


THE FUTURE (of) CRM - <AUTHOR>

They say innovation happens on the edges so don't look for it in the middle. Salesforce.com is undoubtedly the most successful company that helps business people close more business. They roughly own half of the market and have close to 5 million users. Yet there are around to 200 millions small companies in the world which serve customers cause that is the main purpose of any business. So, as you can see , the world of these small entrepreneurs remains vastly underserved when it comes to software With the rise of smartphones this is all going to change. There are three companies that fight for the future CRM customers will actually want to use and they are not based in the middle , that being Silicon Valley. Rather they are slowly revolutionizing the edges , all three were started in the Eastern Europe. They are BASE (www.getbase.com) Inch (www.getinch.com) and CallerQ (www.callerq.com) and come from Poland, Hungary and respectively Romania. They all recognize the fact that for a true future CRM, something should happen immediately after a call has ended in terms of setting a followup and reporting should be done automatically and manually by the user. For now , they have launched Android versions but soon IOS versions will follow. Which one do you think has the better chances to succeed? <comment><USER2> I am fan and follower of the space however I don't use CRM in my daily job.

I think to compete with Salesforces, more 'insightful' organizations are considering the inclusion of the big data aspect of it (whether its a buzz thread of recent that people are all leaning towards).

Lattice Engines, InsideView, etc... adding intelligence behind it. Also sales people hate re-entering information and likes the possibility of scoring sales. CRMs and Gmail CRM Plugins would be brought no-doubt about that but are they actually useful from the sales person's POV? - if you are trying to think whats the next step in innovation for CRMs.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not every business believes they really need a CRM. Plenty of old school businesses are skeptical of technology. 200 million companies includes every plumber/electrician/restaurant and a whole bunch of other mom and pop / small local business. The businesses that have bought CRM apps understand the ROI of a CRM. Not all businesses do though.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> in my view everyone that makes phone calls to set-up meetings needs a crm, even though this would be the basic one

i think technology should help people do business not eliminate human interaction

with these two in mind, we've created CallerQ , which is the most basic crm app

you can download it free and give us feedback which will be kindly appreciated</comment>


ABC's Nightline looks behind the scenes of Apple's factories in China - <AUTHOR> http://www.hulu.com/watch/331947/abc-nightline-tue-feb-21-2012#s-p1-so-i0

<comment><AUTHOR> FWIW, posting this without having seen the episode. However, watching it, I'm struck by the hyperbole. "iFactory"? Really?

"the launch of an apple product is a cultural event, and that cult following..." -- going from "cultural" to "cult". Cute.</comment>


Ask HN: What stopwatch do you use? - <AUTHOR> I use a stopwatch to monitor the time I spend on tasks.
Although, I didn't found any web stopwatch tool that I'm satisfied with.
I think they all look terrible and are not suited for dev time monitoring.
The ones I have tested so far: - https://stopwatch.onlineclock.net/ - https://www.timeanddate.com/stopwatch/
Do you know any stopwatch that satisfy these criterias ?
- Web based - Distraction free - Taking notes - Support multiple timers - Simple look - Doesn't look like it was made in 2000 <comment><USER2> Why not buy a physical one?

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you take notes on a physical one ? :D</comment></comment>


How to keep someone with you forever - <AUTHOR> http://issendai.livejournal.com/572510.html <comment><USER3> It's depressing how much of that matches up with personal experience.

My first job right out of school had points 1 through 9 covered. It was only when I managed to get out that I realized I was right on the edge of a burnout. After leaving I felt like a weight was lifted off of me and I could breathe again. It felt like I had been holding my breath for months.

I was lucky because on top of 1 through 9 they also massively underpaid so when someone else came along offering nearly twice as much for more interesting work (which never materialized but that's another story) it was easier to jump ship. 500-1000$ bonuses a few times a year will let you massively underpay naive people for quite a long time.

\---

The one point that I've seen at _every single_ job I've ever had is a combination of "Things will be better when..." and "Keep real rewards distant.". The former is almost always used as a justification for reneging on vague allusions to future bonuses, promotions, team or personal growth or whatever.

I've grown cynical enough that anything promised (though it's rarely a promise, it's usually more of a comforting insinuation) for more than a month in the future I assume will never materialize. I'm almost always right.

<comment><USER4> Sounds like a cynical old guy (I'm one of those). But probably, delayed gratification is a sign of maturity not naivete.

So how to tell the difference between legitimate delayed reward, and smoke? Trust I guess

<comment><USER5> Hmm,

Actually, I think this kind of thing is more common now than twenty years ago. Not it didn't exist but now the techniques have become more polished.

<comment><USER6> I'd say this has been around for thousands of years. Cults and religion have these undertones built into their belief systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> what, do people think about the ethics of a manager using the 'intermittent rewards' part in the form of unpredictable bonuses over and above regular salary (which would be regular) with the intent of harnessing the addictive nature of intermittent rewards, without using the rest of these things (which clearly cross the line into unethical.)

I'm considering implementing a bonus plan... and the question is, do I make them predictable, based on measurable stuff that I share? or do I add some randomness? do I assign them based on my own shifting perceptions? (the sort of people I hire are going to be better at manipulating the set rules than manipulating my perceptions... This is not true for all employees.)

Furthermore, would it still work if I used a predictable bonus schedule that included some random input... e.g. the chance of getting the bonus is, say, some metric based on increases in revenue or profit multiplied by a random value between 0 an 1 or something?

<comment><USER8> Personally, I would avoid a bonus system entirely. The latest happiness study I've seen showed that a bonus system is a net loss. The system existing sets expectations, which means you have 3 possibilities: exceed, meet or don't meet expectations. If you meet expectations then nothing changes, the employee got what they expected. If you surpass expectations then the employee gets very happy and works even harder! For about a week.

However, if you don't meet expectations then you cause disappointment, resentment, etc. And if the employee is unhappy this can affect other employees (poor attitudes are infectious). Disappointment is tricky and will be made even worse by your proposed semi-random reward schedule [1].

Personally, I prefer the safer route of skipping any tit for tat scenarios (e.g. "if you do X you _might_ get Y at some point in the future").

[1] With the semi-random schedule there is the additional risk that the employee completed something they thought was a big deal, but you didn't or didn't even know about it. Disappointment by not acting on something you weren't aware of.

<comment><USER9> I think the bonus system can be very effective at preventing turn-over for the better part of the year. If you just hang on a few more months you get that big bonus!

<comment><USER8> It is good at lock in ("sheesh, I've been here for 8 months, I've only got 4 to go. If I leave I could be leaving $20k on the table"), especially since bonus payouts are often months after hearing the number so you've already began earning the next one before you get your current one paid.

The problem is, when you get that "big" bonus and it's not big then you can't help but be disappointed. I recently saw a company lose about 5 key people at one time because of the disappointment caused by this. Before bonus time those people were happy with their job and even their pay. But they all got nice bonus the year before.

In my estimation, that's 5 people they lost by a non-existent problem they created themselves.

<comment><USER9> I call that doing it wrong. When you are hiring, you need to promote the bonus as part of the salary, and make sure you pay most of it, even if tough times. You can skip the raise, but don't skip the bonus. That is penny-wise, pound foolish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "If somebody is investing time, resources, and energy into convincing you of your own worthlessness, that same somebody has revealed to you that they have a lot to lose if you don't believe them. They're protecting their own loss of power."

From related article: [http://www.fugitivus.net/2010/06/10/on-interpersonal- badness...](http://www.fugitivus.net/2010/06/10/on-interpersonal-badness/)

</comment><comment><USER11> (un?)Suprisingly, his four rules of the 'sick system' lay out a pretty good groundwork for social games and MMORPGs.

<comment><USER4> Right. Name ONE "social game" that is really social - involves personal interaction, trust, risking yourself for others. How many are creative, social AND cooperative? How many could survive lifting the "no aggression rule" for city centers without devolving into anarchy?

That term is the biggest double-speak of this decade - "Social Gaming" operates on OCD/addictive personality snaring, pyramid schemes and plain greed.

My last YC app was to try to reinvent this paradigm. Not convincing enought I guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This sounds too much like life in academia as a post-graduate student. It hit too close to home... too close.

<comment><USER13> Ha, same here buddy. What department were you in?

<comment><USER12> I'm still in it... I'm a Ph.D. candidate in Distributed Systems, virtualization, Cloud Computing and so on.

Everything fits perfectly. I always wonder if I'm employing my time properly in academia. But they keep me too busy to think about it deeper. Research also keeps anyone tired, too much time dealing with the same problem, lacking some fresh air once in a while to breathe. We are emotionally involved with the work, loyalty and devotion and so on. Intermittent rewards when some of your articles are accepted... And the real awards are distant, the Ph.D. itself.

<comment><USER13> Well I hope you make it and don't become like the academics surrounding you.

<comment><USER12> Thanks! I'm seriously thinking on finishing my Ph.D. and getting out of the university. The university is full of huge egos (with very few exceptions), and people are very hard to deal on a daily basis. There are hard people everywhere (I've worked on the software industry before, I know them), but in the university this is the rule. Also, as you predicted, I'm afraid I may become like them.

<comment><USER14> "I'm afraid I may become like them" was a big factor for me leaving academia - I was starting to play all the silly games that drove me mad when I joined.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Also known as how to spot a dysfunctional work environment! Lots of good advice in there, especially if you've never experienced cube-land first hand.

I wonder how many people are filing this under "useful but morally grey", versus "i need to quit my job and fill out a YC app"?

<comment><USER16> Cube-land?

This sounds like many startups, too.

<comment><USER3> That's what I was thinking.

It sounds much more like startups to me than cubes. The emotional attachment, the promotion of the lack of work/life boundaries, the deadlines or the company dies and the world implodes, all features of startups, not really cubes.

(They have their own massive set of dysfunctional features.)

<comment><USER17> Nah, there are plenty of large tech companies that are run by sociopaths, with bad work/life balance, etc. At least at a startup, there is a small chance you'll get rich, or meet some productive people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's even easier to do all of this to yourself.

</comment><comment><USER19> I find my Chinese government is doing exactly what the article says. Especially on Rule #1 and #2. Most of the Chinese people have to work hard for 20-30 years to pay the house debt. Chinese economic has grown at the speed of 10% for many years from the government report. It has to grow like this at least another ten years. Or there will be a disaster. Workers will lose their jobs. The bank will take back the houses. Then most of them will feel like they get nothing in all their lives.

<comment><USER20> How is this different from how it is in the west?

Work hard to pay off the house (or to save to buy a house), an economical crisis that doesn't seem to end no matter the company profits. Etc...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I do agree that this does happen in large companies but its not done intentionally by the founder of the company. Rather when your organisation starts to grow it eventually succumbs to becoming this kind of system.

Sometimes the government will give you the perfect carrot-stick combo - <USER2> green card! For the longest time I never understood why american citizens would actually put up with the stuff I see going on in the office month to month.

Also, even these systems are gameable because there is so much randomness that with a little skill, you can get away with doing hardly any work and focussing on your own priorities. Of course you have to trade in the possibility of promotion etc but you'll get the occasional semi-big reward thats doled out to everyone :) ...

</comment><comment><USER22> see also "The DENNIS System"

<comment><USER23> Demonstrate Value

Engage Physically

Nurture Dependence

Neglect Emotionally

Inspire Hope

Separate Entirely

<comment><USER24> Let us not forget the MAC system: Move in After Completion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It reads as if my ex girlfriend wrote it, every single bit. :) I consider me lucky to be here being able to write this.

<comment><USER26> Or the CIA, explaining how to prevent a political revolution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a great description of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Although I haven't seen something define the mechanics of the relationship so well. The real question is, why would you want to keep people trapped in a failing system? It has to do with the the aggressors own fears of inadequacy.

Also, if you find yourself a victim of this type of relationship, usually there is something that you need to fix about yourself. Seek _good_ professional help. Otherwise you risk "escaping" into an identical situation. A healthy person would probably run at the first signs.

</comment><comment><USER27> Honest question: Why does this article resonate so much and has over 200 upvotes as of now? Is this really such a wide-spread phenomenon?

Can't one detect such behaviour very fast and get out of the rollercoaster before any damage is done?

<comment><USER4> Cults can last for centuries, and ensnare millions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> That's how all governments work. Keep your citizens as disheveled as possible and they won't know what hit them during election time.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is so good.

I'm sure if you just push yourself a little harder you can get past this current crisis and everything will be ok.

</comment><comment><USER29> Weird, I know of a couple of web communities/businesses that work like this. Some astute members have even noted that they work like a dysfunctional relationship... here it is all laid out like a game plan.

</comment><comment><USER5> The other way to do this is being part of solid, established social system.

That's what kept employees, husbands and wives together in the US fifty years ago or I'd imagine in Japan twenty years. It's not just that the situation asks you to stay but that everything outside the immediate situation also asks you to stay.

But I'd agree this is what will work in a climate of overwhelming atomization and choice. Makes you really think...

</comment><comment><USER30> Video Games Development is done exactly like that :)

</comment><comment><USER31> It's a bit spooky when an article/link you've read a while back turns up on the front page of HN with quite some discussion around it.

Especially because the link is the _:visited_ colour, and you have to go there just to confirm that what you'd read before remains the same :)

</comment><comment><USER32> I think King Arthur had the last word on this. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ZUibOUX28>

He was the Joel Spolsky of the Middle Ages, I'm telling you.

<comment><USER14> Nitpick: If there was a actual historical character who was anything like "King Arthur" he lived a long time (probably about 600 years) before the first accounts of him written in the Middle Ages.

<comment><USER33> A good nitpick. I'm definitely on the 'Arthur as fiction' side of the debate. The first proper account of 'King Arthur' was from Geoffrey of Monmouth in the first half of the twelfth century; historical details place that Arthur in the late sixth century.

Ignoring the accuracy of a tale told more than five hundred years after the event, if Arthur was real and such an important figure, why did the Venerable Bede fail to mention Arthur at all during his remarkable (for the 'dark ages') history of Britain in the ninth century? /nitpick

<comment><USER34> Bede's was not a history of a homogeneous socio-political people, and Arthur, if he was any kind of early mediaeval king, was certainly not King of all Britain. The island was politically fragmented. Record keeping was poor. The very exceptionality of Bede's history would be one reason for its incompleteness. And wikipedia, at the time, was notoriously unreliable.

<comment><USER33> True, but Bede's history was wide-ranging and made no mention of Arthur or any other elements of his legend.

To the extent that Arthur could have been real, he likely would have been a warrior-leader, rather than a king, fighting against the spreading Anglo-Saxon invaders.

<comment><USER14> Wasn't Bede very much on the side of the, ultimately largely victorious, Anglo-Saxon invaders?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This seems like pretty twisted advice if you ask me. Maybe the only redeeming thing in the post is understanding power-hungry people so you don't fall for their traps. Though that's a bit depressing because sometimes what you study "to try to avoid" is what you become. <rant>As an example, some people study all the bad crap going on in the world, and they do it all the time. They study the power-brokers in high places doing shady deals. They look deeply into conspiracies -- some of which are probably true. They look at the deep and dark parts of the world; always justifying with things like, "if I don't understand these things how can I be a part of the solution?" Sometimes they get sucked in though to all the crap and they become some of the most depressing, annoying people. While it's true that you need to understand the dark parts of the system in order to fix them, it's important to remember balance.</rant>

edit: I suppose the relationship version of my example is those who are afraid to trust others and have happy relationships because they are focused on the dark and scary things that have happened to them in the past by those who have taken this post's advice and other similarly poor advice, or bad things that they've heard have happened to others, etc. Reminds me of something attributed to Shakespeare, "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a hero only one." It's almost always better to look at the bright side, because you will probably end up having a few great relationships, than to look at the negative, and definitely have none. Easier said than done....

<comment><USER10> I'm fairly certain you've read this with the incorrect tone.

While it is written as a how-to-abuse type guide, the tone clearly shows it to be a how-to-avoid-abuse-and-recognize-it guide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wonder how much of that just corresponds to being alive? Intermittent rewards, keeping you busy, being tired, emotionally involved, crises occur --- perhaps much of this is just a fact of life and not intentional on the part of others? Yes, you can intentionally do this to people. But can't it also just be a natural part of existence?

<comment><USER37> Have you considered that maybe you are stuck in a system that the author is describing? "Intermittent rewards, keeping you busy, being tired, emotionally involved, crises occur" is absolutely _not_ a description of life. It describes some of my worst weeks, but I think I'd go insane if my life was like that all the time.

<comment><USER38> It depends on what is the cause of the crises. If it's one person or organization, you have the situation described in the article. If it's just all the things around you (your wife leaves you, your car breaks down, and so on), all at the same time, then it's life, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> b-man I have posted this before in here, but it seems fitting to do it again in here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1200226>

</comment><comment><USER39> That sounds exactly like what I wrote about in 'the start-up from hell the other week'. Uncanny.

</comment><comment><USER40> Seems like it would take a lot more energy to be manipulative than it would be to excel at something.

<comment><USER41> It only seems that way. Sometimes being manipulative is easier than trying to excel (otherwise we'd see more people doing well

<comment><USER40> But in order to keep that person you have to make a chaotic environment. Who wants to deliberately have crushing debt?

It's more like if you're already a loser, you can use some of that to your advantage by dragging someone else down with you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Sounds like emotional slavery and a recipe for future prozac customers.

</comment><comment><USER4> Scary how similar to a cult the process runs.

</comment><comment><USER43> sounds like democracy

</comment><comment><USER44> The advice is great on both fronts wish I read it about 10 years ago. Really bad work places and a really bad relationship, it works even better when you're doing both at the same time. Lesson learned, you can't save the world, shitty people and shitty companies will always be so, the key is to move on and surround yourself with great people both in business and in life.

It's really the same effect in both cases, they always threaten to fire you / leave and when you say OK, they beg you to stay. The crazy part is how effective it really is. I think the article really best describes sociopathic behavior. At least it only really takes about a year to recover from it all.

<http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html>

<comment><USER10> Wow. After reading the OP's article and your follow up link... gah.

This hits terribly close to home in my recent (though now past) life.

Glad to be (largely) free of that though, these days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Apple. LOL

</comment><comment><USER46> Duct tape works too.

</comment><comment><USER47> Pray together. The rest will follow.

<comment><USER48> Religiosity and marital satisfaction don't seem to have any statistically significant correlation. This suggests that praying together probably won't do what you expect it to, on average.

<comment><USER49> Citation needed =)</comment></comment></comment>


Polyphonic C# - <AUTHOR> http://research.microsoft.com/%7Enick/polyphony/

<comment><USER2> Interesting. I'd love to see a FAQ or Q&A on what brought this about. They do a good job of explaining what it is but I found myself wondering when/where to use.</comment>


Bubbles vs Growth - <AUTHOR> http://bernardi.me/2012/05/bubbles-growth/

<comment><USER2> Some more statistics:

      - Active Facebook users:  800,000,000
      - Price per user at current valuation: $125/user
      - Annual profit per user: $1.20

The late 1990s saw enormous growth in the tech industry, as have the past several years. But in contrast to what the article's author would like to believe, growth and bubble are not mutually exclusive conditions. In fact, growth begets bubble: One easy way for businesses in a sector to become overvalued is as a result of the hype that tends to accompany periods of growth.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that growth and bubble are definitely not exclusive and that the former is usually what triggers speculation and ends up in the latter.

I also think that right now we're in a phase of growth, without financial speculation. It might be very well possible that this will kick in pretty soon, but I'm leaning towards the idea that it's still going to be difficult given the hard time that their public stock is having.

(btw you miss 3 zeros on your FB active users).

<comment><USER2> Thanks. Fixed & double-checked the other numbers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's different this time.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sometimes I have the impression that some entrepreneurs like to say that there is a bubble because so they can say: "Yes, he raised all that money, or had that big exit, but not because he is better than me, only because there is the bubble".

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a very nice piece by Fred Wilson related to that: [http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/05/wheres-my-billion-dollar- che...](http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/05/wheres-my-billion-dollar-check-i- wonder.html)

<comment><USER5> Because God forbid someone start a business to make a living rather than to burn up their life savings on a monetarily pointless _passion_.

I could probably make more money by literally selling tickets to have people come see me set my life savings in cash on fire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Infomation technology means that cost are falling, old business models are getting over turned and innovation is happening in established and new markets.

Bubbles can occur in equity markets independently of this.

Due to easy credit over the past 20 years a lot of debt has built up which is retarding real growth now via the financial crisis.

In summary money introduces a layer of indirection into the system which can mean that growth is slow even when technological conditions promote in some sectors.</comment>


Mailchimp to Sendy: Cutting Email Costs by 100x - <AUTHOR> https://victorzhou.com/blog/mailchimp-to-sendy/ <comment><USER2> Really interesting blog article, thanks. I think you forgot to mention maintenance/support and availability in the costs which are a huge part of MailChimp or any other mail provider. In fact, that's why I'm paying those kinds of services.

What do you think about it? Thanks</comment>


Ask HN: Working for Huawei Research - <AUTHOR> I just finished my PhD and have an opportunity to work in one of the Huawei Research Centers in North America on a topic that really interests me.
I have other good opportunities available in the valley, some of them being better salary-wise, but from the point-of-view of the topic and what I really would like to work on, the position at Huawei is by far the best.
I am however worried about whether working at Huawei will close me too many doors due to its ties with China (e.g. how easy would it be to work at Google, Amazon or Microsoft after having worked at Huawei?).
Are my worries unfounded? Does anyone have any kind of experience with these types of situations?
Thank you <comment><USER2> Google, Amazon and Microsoft all have branches _in China_ (yes, even Google. Search is blocked, but that doesn't mean they stopped doing business in China) so it's unlikely they'd see working for a Chinese company as a negative. Jobs where you need a security clearance are another matter.

</comment><comment><USER3> Your fears are unfounded. Nobody cares who you work for, just your experience (provided you're working for a large firm, not some small startup like thing).</comment>


Generation X Stymied by Baby Boomers Refusing to Give Up Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-15/generation-x-stymied-by-baby-boomers-refusing-to-give-up-jobs.html <comment><USER2> It's very easy for those of us in Gen X that do software development to be smug. After all, I don't know of any 65 year old Java programmers refusing to retire so that we can get a job.

In other industries where ageism is not so rampant, they might have it tougher than we do. Industries like healthcare, finance, etc, there are many positions that they are just not going to give up.

In a way, it makes me very cynical towards the older generation. They had the world given to them on a platter in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Instead they squandered everything they had. They started "Reaganomics" in the 1980s and since then median household income has decreased as adjusted for inflation. They started unnecessary wars, squandered our nations standing in the world, destroyed the housing market, the stock market, and the global economy. Now, when they finally retire they are going to dump themselves on us, broke, sick, and old, and expect us to take care of them with welfare payments, because they squandered all their money on McMansions and SUVs.

It's hard not to be bitter if you are Gen X and Gen Y. I know we all love our parents, but our parents generation is pretty fucked up.

<comment><USER3> There's truth in what you say and boomers in general have to take responsibility for having close to zero foresight with respect to how they've squandered their fortunes but let me counter a couple of your points. 1\. The vast majority of boomers hit the job market between the middle 70's and middle 80's. This was the worst job market between the Great Depression and the Great Recession. While many things were peachy during boomer's youth, reality bit pretty hard for a really long stretch of time. 2\. Reagan was largely voted in by the boomer's parent's generation. 3\. And yes, under a boomer government, the housing market, stock market, global economy tanked, but I'm hard pressed to believe that these results didn't hit the boomers as hard or harder than they have hit the following generations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ha ha, those darn baby boomers, refusing to give up their jobs like their parents did! The fact that their parents' retirement was in defined-benefit pensions whereas the baby boomers' retirement is in 401ks that dropped hugely in value just as they were planning to retire has nothing to do with this, obviously.

<comment><USER5> _"Don't be dependent on anything or anyone," Neu says. "It's safest to plan as if the government isn't going to take care of me, companies aren't going to take care of me."_

Doesn't appear the boomer generation figured this out. As a Gen X, I think and hope I figured this out early enough.

<comment><USER4> But 401Ks were sold as "you taking care of yourself" because "you" controlled your retirement, not some pension fund. What's your alternative for retirement savings? The mattress?

<comment><USER6> Spend less and Save more. If you save ~18-20% starting in your early 20's you can stop caring what the stock market does. Basically plan for 4.5% ROI and deal with it. If you happen to be able to retire at 50 great, if not your still going to be ok. Don't go to an expensive school and get someone else to pay for grad school. Also don't skip out on insurance because cheap does not mean good.

PS: An Indian friend of mine saved 20k over a year while making 42k and living in an expensive area. He had no car, never eatout, and had a lot of roommates, but he wanted to save up for his sisters dowery. You can still splurge a lot more than that and still build a nest egg quickly.

<comment><USER7> Extremely good comment, just a minor important point here -

> Basically plan for 4.5% ROI

Warren Buffet notes that a nation's ROI overall basically can't exceed its GDP growth for an extended period of time. So if your country has a 1% to 3% growth rate and you're investing in an unsophisticated way, then 4.5% might be optimistic.

(It's still a thoroughly good idea to do the rest of your comment. I'd save most of my income even if my ROI was -10%, because money is more useful in large quantities, especially when you break certain thresholds like "can take 2-3 years off work when it's a good time to do so" and "can mix cash and and labor when joining a company to get a big equity stake" and "can buy tools and gifts without even looking at the cost if there's a productivity benefit" - cash is more useful/leverageable in large numbers than small for most middle class-ish people.)

<comment><USER8> 1-3% is real GDP growth rate, net of inflation. With inflation at 2-3%, then planning for 4.5% growth, not adjusted for inflation, is not unreasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> According to my own calculations very few of the baby boomers will retire. Most of us spent our lives fighting a losing war, the inflation of the eighties, the rising housing prices. Schooling for the kids from being a very small amount of a family's life to eating a major portion of one's work efforts. Personally add one wrong move where I lost all my capital and still fighting to recover.

Most of us are still supporting our kids as they are the kids of the recessions or helping them with capital for their start-up and hey we don't want to rust in the port like an old ship. Many other of us have build Companies where these X's are currently employed.

<comment><USER10> What part of rising house prices did Boomers have to fight? Surely that's a burden you've handballed to X/Y.

// Says a Gen Y from Australia where house prices haven't crashed yet.

<comment><USER11> Rising (and then dramatically falling) housing prices destroyed the wealth a large portion of established families. If they bought a house in say 2005, they lost money and are saddled with a huge mortgage. Even families who own their own home now have less money as people often viewed their home as a major investment.

<comment><USER12> Which is entirely their fault. You don't treat basic needs(food, water, roof over your head) as investments, because no matter what the actual price is of those, you still need them. Instead, you should buy what's affordable for you, so even if the price drops, it doesn't matter.

<comment><USER13> > Which is entirely their fault. You don't treat basic needs(food, water, roof > over your head) as investments, because no matter what the actual price is > of those, you still need them. Instead, you should buy what's affordable for > you, so even if the price drops, it doesn't matter.

This is a little harsh. Many families need to sell due to reasons other than treating their house as an investment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't know the details about the US but for Spain and most European countries the baby boomers are going to create dysfunctional states as they will be the majority of voters for the next couple of years and have the highest benefits accrued in history. Basically gen X/Y will be relegated to paying their pensions with higher taxes and cuts in benefits as the boomers protect their benefits.

I think we are looking at a generational war or a complete revamp of the welfare systems across the entire west.

</comment><comment><USER15> I hate it when people insinuate that jobs are some sort of magical commodity that there are only so many of and once they're gone that's it.

<comment><USER16> On reflection, there is a difference between the Lump of Labor fallacy and a particular job opening up. If your only way to advance (say within a company) is to wait for someone above you to advance/leave/retire, then you personally will be affected by later retirement ages. It's not always easy to see alternatives to waiting, and they might come with risks you'd rather not accept.

<comment><USER15> In one company for a particular position yes, the article seemed to be insinuating some sort of general notion that jobs are a finite resource. It especially comes across because of the finger pointing at an entire generation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Spaulding ... is a typical member of the relatively small group called Generation X,... born between 1965 and 1978: They're ambitious, squeezed by debt and frustrated by people who aren't retiring on schedule."

We're ambitious? Wait, all of those other articles say we aren't ambitious, and we like to settle for less. Which is it?

<comment><USER4> When the media first took note of Gen Xers during the early '90s recession, we were "lazy." Then during the dot-com boom we were ambitious. Funny how easy it is for a generation hitting a workforce when there aren't jobs available to look lazy, or for a generation hitting their late 20s/early 30s during a boom to look like sharp business types.

<comment><USER18> The boomers have had their own layers of identity as well. Hippies -> Yuppies -> ??

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> At the end of humanity, when the Sun finally burns out, and Earth drifts into a slow freeze in the final sunset - mankind will still not have grasped economics.

<comment><USER19> You got to elaborate on this. I'm going to guess that you're objecting to the way that the article seems to treat the number of jobs as a zero sum game, where boomers have to leave to "open up" one of a finite number of jobs for younger people (or anyone else, for that matter)? This was the first reaction I had to the article as well.

Thing is, it _is_ actually debatable, or at least more nuanced than this. I lean toward the belief that relatively free markets and a robust entrepreneurialism can provide a huge amount of flexibility, to the point where discussing who "gets" a job may miss the point. Certainly young people who prefer to create startups are demonstrating that there's no need to try to climb a ladder, or at least that there are all kinds of options for creating your own job.

That said, I think there's enough friction and inertia in society and markets that a younger generation can be meaningfully stymied by an older one hanging on to the reigns.

Anyway, I'm not sure I've responded to _your_ objection to this article - I'm really just responding to my own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you think GenX has it bad check out Gen Y.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm a boomer, have no debt, own my houses, and have a fair amount of cash. But I have no pension and don't foresee any particular income from my cash while the Fed holds interest rates at near zero. Hard to imagine retiring now.

And no matter how much money I save, it seems kinda crazy to retire before being forced to. You might say: "Things look good, time to quit!", but what'll the world look like in 5 or 10 or 20 or 40 years? I don't know, but a good income will help carry you through a lot of financial craziness.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's cool, if I have to, I'll make my own job.

<comment><USER23> Are you going to pay your own wages too?

<comment><USER24> Yes, that's the point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I doubt Gen X is stymied.much. It is the younger generations that are going to suffer due to fewer employment opportunities.

</comment><comment><USER26> Gen X'ers bitching about being employed.

I couldn't write better comedy if I wanted to.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm supposedly in that age group, and I don't give a shit when people retire or don't retire.

I only worry about my mom's retirement because her job sucks.</comment>


Congress Investigates iOS Privacy: Forkly sets Example with Full Transparency - <AUTHOR> http://blog.forkly.com/post/20003368506/forklys-privacy-policies-in-a-letter-to-congress

<comment><USER2> I'm genuinely curious as to how it is a possible competitive disadvantage to tell how many times your app has been downloaded. This sounds like you are trying to cover up something.</comment>


Godaddy DNS Outage? - <AUTHOR>

Is anyone else facing this ? I am seeing it on couple of my domains. <comment><USER2> Seems like it. We too see issues right now.

</comment><comment><USER3> I had one go down about 40 mins ago. Just came back up.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have domains on GoDaddy that are currently working.</comment>


Netflix's Worse Nightmare Has Come Trud - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenmcbride1/2019/07/08/netflixs-worst-nightmare-has-come-true/ <comment><USER2> How many different monthly services are people willing to tolerate?

It seems there's a business opportunity for someone to aggregate different services into a "golden ticket" where you pay some fixed fee and can sign up for an a la carte menu of different content. And I'm talking about just streaming services. This could be an umbrella for everything from magazine and newspaper subscriptions to other online services like ancestry.com, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> The famous Jim Barksdale quote....

"there are "only two ways to make money in business: One is to bundle; the other is unbundle"

Being part of a bundle though is a road to commoditization. If you have a good brand, there is no upside to doing so. There is a reason that Netflix refuses to be a part of Apple's TV app while lesser players will.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Has come "turd"?

Well, that's a stinker.</comment>


Pi to Five Million Places - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/Five-Million-Places-Kick-Books/dp/141169547X <comment><USER2> There is similar book in Japan (to 1M places): <http://www.amazon.co.jp/円周率1000000桁表-牧野-貴樹/dp/487310002X/>

The cover price is 314 JPY, though Amazon.co.jp unfortunately sells it for more.

In the back, there is a FAQ, including this:

Q. なにを血迷ってこんな本を作ったんですか? A. そんなふうに思う人はこの本を買わないと思います。

Which loosely translates to:

Q. Why the %&$# did you write this book? A. I don't think somebody who thinks that way would buy it.

:)</comment>


Ask HN: What books most impacted how you view the world? - <AUTHOR> What books (or blog posts / long reads) made the largest impact on how you view the world on a day-to day basis and daily life? <comment><USER2> Start with Why by Simon Sinek very much changed how I thought on a daily basis.</comment>


Ballerinas defy the corporeal in a quest for the ethereal (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/ideas/how-ballerinas-defy-the-corporeal-in-a-quest-for-the-ethereal <comment><USER2> Just responding to some of the comments here about how ballet is "tragic" in that it requires such sacrifice of it's dancers.

I disagree. Yes, it does require sacrifice, but no more really than any high level athletes. I think a lot of unhealthy ideals in the dance world are/have changed. Unfortunately, Balanchine was responsible for many of the worst tendencies in the ballet world, e.g. an obsession with skinniness and complete disregard for dancer's mental health.

Now, though, dancers are also rightfully seen as athletes, strength is seen as beauty, and much more attention is paid to their mental and physical health. Yes, ballet movement is unnatural, but it can be done in a way that doesn't destroy someone's body (and mind).

<comment><USER3> One difference with other athletes is that, as with gymnasts, dancers have to start really early in their childhood (because they peak earlier than other sports, due to the kind of preferred body type), so you are asking a sacrifice to a 9-12 year old that in most sports is not required until 13-18 or whatever, at an age where many things are decided for them by their parents instead of by them.

<comment><USER4> Not to take away from your comment, but I wanted to highlight another sport that requires similar sacrifice at an early age, which is the male dominated sport of F1 racing. Many top drivers are the result of training and competing at 7-8 years of age in kart racing. I would say they "peak" later than a ballerina/gymnast but require the same early sacrifice to be a top athlete.

<comment><USER5> You don't make many physical sacrifices in racing though. You have to be in good shape but You don't have to go to extremes like gymnasts do. There actually would be a big advantage if you brought up racers with stunted growth that are short and weigh little but thank god this doesn't seem to be happening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In college I took a course called Anatomy for Dance seeking to help my martial arts practice. The course covered muscular and skeletal anatomy as well as the basics of stretching and strength training. Other than myself everyone in the class was a dance major (and I think that all of them were specifically ballet majors but I'm not certain).

Two things that I recall:

Some of the girls already had arthritis.

Some of the girls expressed concern that if they developed the muscles that support dance (if I remember correctly it was specifically the hamstrings that were being discussed) it might result in a figure that was considered negative for a ballerina.

</comment><comment><USER7> There are a number of physical impositions placed on ballerinas. They are expected to have a small head, a long neck, small breasts, narrow hips and thin, graceful limbs. Mutilation of the feet to complete the illusion is simply part of the package...

<comment><USER8> Fortunately Misty Copeland has changed that somewhat.

<comment><USER7> Misty has the prototypical physique of a modern dancer but prefers the classical repertoire. Hopefully one day the two will merge and leave en pointe behind as a curious relic...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My girlfriend trained in ballet throughout her childhood and teenage years -- like so many other girls she wanted to be a ballerina. Today she has a hammer toe, her ankles are shot, and she needs a hip replacement.

Still the most fun girl to dance with, though, when she can manage the pain.

</comment><comment><USER10> It is tragic that ballet requires such physical sacrifice, because it is such a beautiful art form.

<comment><USER11> It would still be beautiful without the pointe. For some reason, in many activities, people tend to go to the greatest lengths for even the smallest gains... ballet without pointe would still be ballet, I think non-experts like me would barely notice if they stopped using those - yet all ballet dancers sacrifice their feet for that perhaps last 2%. Why isn't there any ballets that just don't use pointe? Perhaps there is, would be nice to get to know about them.

<comment><USER12> > in many activities, people tend to go to the greatest lengths for even the > smallest gains

It's a show-off / machismo thing. In our own field I'd relate it to the culture of extreme workaholism. If you are working 100 hour work weeks you are almost certainly not being productive for anywhere near that many hours unless you are on drugs, and that's sustainable for at most a week or two before you crash hard. In my experience people who claim that kind of loony work week are usually lying. The only exception seems to be natural manic personalities, but that mutation comes with its own set of serious drawbacks.

<comment><USER13> I think it more related to a mastery of a skill that is difficult to master. Such that knowing that skill sets one apart from the average programmer.

I am not sure of a good example tech, but maybe something like being the one person in the shop that has completely mastered a subject matter area that others haven't bothered to learn because it is too hard/confusing? Maybe, the device driver coder versus the application coder, etc. The amount of hours put in grinding at the office may be the same, but some people have mastered skills that are perceived as elite over other skills.

Pointe is a first level elite skill in Ballet. Some dancers may learn pointe faster or slower than others, but most dancers never will. By the time dancers are decent/comfortable on pointe and yet still far from professional level, they will be in an elite group.

edit-to-add: A big weakness with my analogous examples is that I feel that any decent programmer can learn device drive programming, difficult APIs, new data structures/algos, and so on, if they put the time in.

In contrast, many dancers that would like to dance pointe will be unable to, no matter how hard they try. Same with figure skaters who want to land a single Axel in competition. Chess mastery might be a good example too.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Twitter blocks, why no last message? - <AUTHOR> Someone on Twitter blocks you. You think he made the wrong decision. But there's no possibilty to tell him about that: no possibilty to tell him that you want to offer your excuse, no possibility that you just made a joke. Why doesn't Twitter allow blocked people one last tweet to people by whom they've been blocked? Sorry for my bad English! <comment><USER2> It would me a nice feature. However most of the people I block are spammers anyway.</comment>


How to launch a start-up and lose everything else along the way - <AUTHOR> http://marcanthonyrosa.com/jump-right-in-how-to-launch-a-start-up-and-lo

<comment><USER2> Respectfully, what is the point of this article? I got about halfway thru and I had to stop. There are too many frivolous jokes etc. with not enough actual content to keep me going.

Edit (I did not make an edit, I'm issuing a directive :p). Does it _need_ to be as long as it is? I'm sure you've got some good experiences to share but it's lost in the in the foam.

</comment><comment><USER3> TL;DR: Startup entrepreneur gets swept up into the startup process, with a promising young company. Parents are less caught up in startup frenzy, and feel that they're also part of the education vs. startup decision. Family wins. Best of luck to the remaining team. The entrepreneurial spirit lives on...

</comment><comment><USER4> Unlike some others, I liked the article a lot.

Sure, it wasn't very concise, but I thought it was a great story regarding start-up life and the sacrifices that accompany it.

</comment><comment><USER5> I read it all and found it interesting, but it saddens me to see that his parent's love is conditional. They should've supported their son instead of "removing him from the family" if he didn't return to school.

Best of luck to you Marc and hopefully your parents support you on your next venture.

</comment><comment><USER6> Shows how important family support is when building a company.

Not knowing about the VC process, what's the implications for the investor in this - were you not on the hook to deliver? Is the investor not upset that you bailed because your parents ordered you back to school?

<comment><USER7> While the investor incurs some liability for a situation like this, it's important to build a solid team from day one. A business will soon become bigger than any one person and be able to continue and thrive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. A company is not one person, and if it is, something is wrong with the company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> OK...I skimmed through that first part about two times trying to find out what the startup was and exactly what its idea was. Ideally, the first part of a 3-part series would have that info a little easier to find, but more importantly, some in-depth reflection on why you thought the idea justified making the jump to startup venture.

</comment><comment><USER9> family is definitely the most important thing... and without family support is is incredibly hard to start something. best of luck Marc -- you know I'm rooting for you and your love of starting something great</comment>


China's economy is 12% smaller than official data say, study finds - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/961b4b32-3fce-11e9-b896-fe36ec32aece <comment><USER2> I remember mentioning a double digit overaccounting to my econ prof in 2011 and being laughed off.

Economic stats of major nations are all being compiled, revised, and audited with involvement of no joke international institutes.

Now, how these no joke international institutes miss a double digit overaccounting for over a decade?</comment>


WSU statistician sues seeking Kansas voting machine paper tapes - <AUTHOR> http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article17139890.html

<comment><USER2> Related: "Time is passed, votes are sealed" ([http://www.kansas.com/news/politics- government/article174773...](http://www.kansas.com/news/politics- government/article17477357.html)).

How convenient.

<comment><USER3> Wow, that seems pretty absurd. 5 days and then sealed? Ridiculous.

What is the harm of releasing the paper records? Is there any reasonable argument for such strict measures?

<comment><USER4> It's good to be king, no matter how small is your kingdom.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't understand this point:

> "Republican primary results showing strong statistical evidence of election > manipulation in Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, Alabama, > Louisiana, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kentucky"

Primaries are crazy. There is very low turnout overall, so a few very motivated candidate campaigns or groups can really swing them and since many of those groups operate on the local level, they can cause noticeable blips.

In general, statistically weird things happen during elections, because there are so many possibilities for weird things to happen. For instance, there were around 60 precincts in Philadelphia that didn't record a single Romney vote. Those precincts represented over 19,000 votes, and on the surface that would appear almost statistically impossible. But it isn't really indicative of anything and can be explained by looking at the demographics of those areas.

</comment><comment><USER6> I was all behind this until a) she only thinks its wrong when Republicans get more votes and b) when it was not localized to a particular area of Kansas but instead claimed it nationwide.

as in, how can it be people cannot vote correctly... back to Florida we go

<comment><USER7> I'm with you on the nationwide aspect- the apparent consistency of the pattern suggests something non-malicious to me. Coordinating a multi-state election fraud would be very hard and disastrous if found out. My SWAG at what might be happening- large precincts end up having long lines, dissuading marginal voters. As a result, dedicated voters, which according to my politics courses tend older and Republican, are disproportionately represented in the final tally.

<comment><USER7> That being said, it sounds like she should have gotten a review of the rolls when she asked after the election.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is, or would be, if the data were made available, good news. Either the machines always tallied within epsilon percent of what is on the audit tapes, or they made significant errors _either way_ , and we should know about it.</comment>


Albert Einstein's Advice to His Son - <AUTHOR> http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/06/14/einstein-letter-to-son/

<comment><USER2> This is very nitpicky and I apologize for it, but any non-American here a bit miffed by the fact that this is from a book named "Letters of great Americans to their children"?

Einstein was only American for the last 15 years of his life, and it was forced by the politics of the time more than anything else. Unnecessary patriotism (wherever it comes from) is irritating.

Sorry, this is petty :(

<comment><USER3> > Einstein was only American for the last 15 years of his life

And hence, he was an American. You should also add 7 years as he migrated to the US in 1933.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not to thread hijack, but my dad is interested in genealogy. He turned up a letter written in 1883 from a relative to his sons who had just left home for school. I found his language really interesting, so I transcribed it.

One part I liked: "The world is open to you, and you can be anything that an honorable ambition may aspire to, if you are but true to yourselves. To be true to yourselves you have but to meet in a manly way and conscientiously discharge the duties of life in any and every sphere, that you may be cast."

Letters from fathers to sons, good stuff.

[https://gist.github.com/bsl/7344f9e0b76b60440061](https://gist.github.com/bsl/7344f9e0b76b60440061)

</comment><comment><USER5> He was not particularly a good father figure. He spent very little time with his sons (who his ex-wife Mileva Marić, took care of). If I remember correctly, he also had a daughter with Maric, Lieserl... he actually never really knew... giving her in adoption...

<comment><USER6> Yet that doesn't stop this from being a pretty nice letter from a father to a son.</comment></comment>


Ask: Good video lectures for studying Calculus? - <AUTHOR>

I am looking for a good online video resource to start studying Calculus. I am studying it alone, not part of any school or university. Trying to learn and enhance my mathematical skills.<p>Thanks! <comment><USER2> Khan Academy has some nice, easy to understand videos on calculus. It depends on your current level of knowledge of course, but I found them useful when I was going back over learning stuff I'd forgotten from school.

</comment><comment><USER3> The MIT opencourses are pretty good (18.01 is single variable calculus, 18.02 is multi-variable, and 18.03 is differential calculus, but there might be others).</comment>


JINS MEME, smart glasses you want to wear - <AUTHOR> https://www.jins-jp.com/jinsmeme/

<comment><USER2> Might want to link to [https://www.jins-jp.com/jinsmeme/en/](https://www.jins- jp.com/jinsmeme/en/) as that is the english version of the site.

Also, unlike GG this seems just like a bunch of sensors that communicate with a smartphone app(like a Nike Move), not really in the same league.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. posted the new link (didn't see the English translation first). Yes, true it's not a full fledged smartphone strapped to the head, yet I think the categorization of smart glasses is ok.

Did not want to compare them to GG. Yet, as you mentioned them. I think Meme has a higher possibility to get popular ... I have a Glass and while I applaud the engineering skills and the pioneer spirit Google shows, it's far away from a commercial product. I don't want another device that vibrates when I get an email ... :) Meme on the other hand has real potential in my opinion.

<comment><USER2> I think that at first glance I dismissed the product, but in light of your comments I could see it become more popular on a price standpoint and a clear "I am not going to be able to violate your privacy" standpoint.

However, it may just by my personal experience, but most of the people I have seen wearing that type of device are health/status conscious older white people, which I would think would limit their market.</comment></comment></comment>


Is Ev Williams ruining Medium? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/on-coding/c666fcdc91a0

<comment><AUTHOR> For those that write on Medium, would love to hear your thoughts.

<comment><USER2> I think having Ev's name in the link is a bit much.

Your subtitle:

How to make Medium the world's greatest "collaborative idea-generation and distribution" platform

is more accurate to the piece.

You have some decent criticism of the platform and provide some great ideas.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, Steve. I agree, that was a bit trashy of me. I am somewhat new to posting on HN and I am trying to figure out what draws attention and discussion.</comment></comment></comment>