Ask HN: My boss ask I take my emails while on vacation - <AUTHOR> Hi HN !
I recently took on a managerial role / project manager (I manage 2 programmers) at my work. Now that the summer holidays are approaching, my boss asks me, that during my holidays, I take my emails or that I be available to be called (~ 3h week).
He tells me that this is normal and that it comes with the role of manager.
On your side what is the vacancy policy in your company when you are managers ? Have you any advice on how to handle this ?
For the context it is a small business of 6 people. <comment><USER2> This is somewhat cultural: it would not be considered unacceptable in many startups in the US, where I am right now.

But your username and grammar make me wonder whether you're French and in France, are you? If you are, I think it may actually be an illegal request. European attitudes towards work are _extremely_ different to US ones, which are themselves more relaxed than e.g. East Asian.

From [https://newatlas.com/right-to-disconnect-after-hours-work- em...](https://newatlas.com/right-to-disconnect-after-hours-work- emails/55879/) :

==

"France, in particular, has been ahead of the world in establishing legal frameworks protecting a person's right to disconnect. Back in 2001 the idea was first floated when the French Supreme Court ruled that employees are under no obligation to bring work home, and as technology progressed the Court continued to update its ruling. In 2004, for example, it was established that it was not misconduct if an employee was not reachable on a smartphone outside of work hours.

The right to disconnect was solidified at the beginning of 2017 with France introducing the El Khomri law, which suggests every employee contract must include a negotiation of obligations required of an employee regarding how connected they are outside of office hours. The law is reasonably vague and doesn't restrict after-hours work communication, but rather obliges organizations to negotiate these terms clearly with prospective employees."

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha you almost got me, french yes, france no: Québec Canada :)

I will look up the law to be sure !

<comment><USER3> In my opinion, law is a bit irrelevant here. You should know what you want to do, if you don't want to do it then decline and see how it goes; If you feel like doing it accept it. Do not let those small details alter your aspirations, in the end all it matters is what you want to do. You are obviously skilled enough to find another job, so do not be afraid to stand up for yourself.

<comment><USER4> I think this is a bit of a narrow view. Even if I probably do what you say and decline it myself, personal circumstances will vary. I think law here is relevant since it is the minimum that the company will have to uphold and your case to decline will be stronger. You are right in that each person should think about what they want, but they should also balance it with their circumstances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is completely unacceptable. I work for a small company of 9, with 3 programmers (me being one). On vacation we all unplug to the fullest extent. It's all about setting expectations, having redundancy and backups. In fact, the boss hired me so that he could do exactly this, unplug and leave the country to have a solid vacation. I tend to either unplug all the way, or make it impossible to contact me by either being somewhere remote. I haven't come back to a burning fire yet.

<comment><USER6> For every position in the company, there needs to be someone who can fill in if the need arises. You already need that anyway in case someone has a serious accident or something, so you might as well make use of that when people go on vacation.

<comment><USER7> With 3 programmers, I seriously doubt there is a backup for every function.

<comment><USER8> Then they either need to tolerate less than 100% availability for those functions or hire more people.

<comment><USER7> For a company of the size we are talking about, it would definitely by the former. Even at 20 people, it's not possible (financially) to have backups for every function and we have to tolerate downtime for people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From the corporate perspective, the problem is that work should not, and cannot, shutdown, because you've gone on vacation. In a company of sufficient resource, you would normally be able to offload the management onto someone else for the duration (eg your #2, or a peer)

But this is not your case -- you have only 6 people -- there's no one to offload onto. The size of your group is such that everyone is presumably _vital_ to the operation, and cannot be removed without surgical intervention.

So you're in the state of having to do one of two things:

1\. Solve the problem for the company, and somehow institute policies, tasks and responsibilities to allow your resources to survive on their own for some time (you need to eventually do this anyways so you can work on higher level things)

2\. Work minimum hours during vacation to make sure nothing blows up

3\. Work no hours during vacation, and if it blows up, it blows up (and accept the backlash for it)

The key thing is that having such responsibilities means that you can't leave things in a broken state -- if that means you have to work extra hours to keep things working, so be it.

<comment><USER10> The only reasonable option there is the third one, and the company itself suffers the backlash for running on such a high bus factor.

Vacation is for vacation, not work. If you're asked to stay on call then you better be paid for it. After all, you're not one of the founders, you're an employee.

If a business can't survive with a week or two of planning or delegation then it has other problems. Eating vacation is just a cop out.

<comment><USER9> However, you're not a low-level resource; especially in a 6-man company. Being given responsibility for your team, you are responsible for it -- good or bad. It's your duty to ensure your team is capable of limited autonomy (if they were believed to be capable of full autonomy, your role as manager is redundant, and the hierarchy shouldn't have been created in the first place)

If you haven't yet created the necessary environment that you can just step out for some time, then working beyond working-hours is the inevitable result.

If you've noted and escalated the problem -- that this environment cannot be setup without whatever additional resources/support -- then that's your safety net against any backlash. (It's now your bosses fault if he's aware and does nothing). But if you haven't... the onus remains on you

<comment><USER11> Again, you continue to describe the role of a FOUNDER, not an employee.

Your use of words like "blow up" and "duty" need some serious reflection. One of the biggest failures of or modern corporate culture is the mindset that we should live to work instead of work to live. A vacation requires disconnect to be truly valuable, if your brain is still in work mode, you may as well have stayed in the office.

<comment><USER9> I'm describing the role of a manager, versus a contractor/leaf-resource.

A vacation is valuable, I agree, but your position within a company is a reflection of our position within it's operation -- the higher you are within it, the more people you screw over when you say "it's 5pm goodbye" and don't have things setup to handle it. Your power, and pay, is a reflection of that: you have less and less leeway, as you have greater impact, to screw around.

It would be a very poorly run company that allows everything to shutdown because a VP (key: not founder) went on vacation -- the same is true of a department head, and his department, and a team lead, and his team. But it's also the CEO's job to make sure he picks VP's who ensure this not the case within his domain, and the VP must pick the department heads, and the department heads their team leads -- if you are willing to allow, or unable to prevent, such scenarios to bust forth, you really shouldn't be managing that particular domain.

The more important you are, the less freedom you have, because the greater the impact your choices will have.

And to be clear I'm not using duty as an implication of loyalty or whatever -- I mean that a manager, or manager of manager's job really boils down to one thing:

Ensure productivity within your domain

Not letting your team implode in two weeks of your absence is part of that

<comment><USER12> > the higher you are within it, the more people you screw over when you say > "it's 5pm goodbye" and don't have things setup to handle it

disagree. in fact you should be doing this, especially if you're in a higher position in whatever hierarchy. because you then have more power to dictate culture, and properly set boundaries.

all these arguments have been mentioned before. it can be seen as a mini- drill/game day to see how the business copes when you're gone (for whatever reason). if you've set up/helped set up a robust business, nothing bad will happen. if not, you've already failed the business. i guess that requires trusting your employees though.

being liable to burn out is also a risk to the business, not an asset. if you are a knowledge worker, not unplugging and coming back refreshed is also a risk to the business, not an asset.

<comment><USER9> My key requirement is that _you need to have things (processes, roles & responsibilities) setup to handle it_.

I'm not arguing whether its good, or bad, to setup such a culture -- go ahead, I won't stop you; hell, I'll enjoy it. But things need to be setup to actually survive that model.

If things are _not_ setup properly, and you try to enforce your hardline stance _anyways_ , regardless of how it impacts your domain, then you are operating as very poor manager. You can't just randomly drop the ball like that -- if you want a strict 8-5 working culture, or a 100%-offline vacation culture, you need to do the preparation for it.

And if it _can 't_ be done, because of whatever local constraints, then it would be absurd to go forward with it anyways; then your goal should be to find some reasonable alignment with those constraints. The same way that a programmer can't simply decide that functional programming is THE ONE TRUE GOD, and inject haskell into everything when no one else knows it, and then rewrite everything, when no one else can participate.

You can't just go ahead with it randomly, and say it's not your responsibility (it's your domain: it is your responsibility), and really, its the FOUNDER's fault for allowing this situation to occur, I'm actually not involved anywhere in this -- because then the FOUNDER should, and hopefully will, execute according to his responsibility: replace you with someone who does realize he's responsible for his domain, and set things up to run efficiently/effectively within the culture he chooses to instantiate.

That is, from the corporate perspective, the culture really doesn't matter -- as long as it works. The criticized culture is simply the common, default, good-enough solution that works just about everywhere (and features the IBM property: no one gets fired for buying into it); another culture is fine, as long as you do the prep work for it.

But if you don't, and try to enforce it without preparing for the consequences (both to extract the good and mitigate the bad), then it's entirely your own failure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Two things:

1) If there is a legitimate concern that some crisis will arise and be heavily exacerbated by you not being at work during vacation, that is an operational problem in the organization that needs to be dealt with. Who is your backup? What would happen if you suffered a medical emergency and were not in the office for a month? How would they deal with that?

2) It sounds like your expectations and values do not align with your manager's expectations and values. This is something that you should resolve with your manager or consider finding work elsewhere.

The intent of vacation is for you to recharge mentally and emotionally. A vacation where you are still plugged in, still on call, still expected to work, is not much of a vacation.

</comment><comment><USER14> I would track how much time you spent doing it, and deduct it from your vacation hours. Instead of charging 40 hours, I would charge 37 to vacation.

That said I check my email on vacation, typically redirect it to someone to address. I would say I spend 10 to 20 mins a day doing this while eating breakfast or in the library (if you know what I mean).

<comment><USER15> I agree this is how it SHOULD work, but it really depends on the company culture. Ideally you set up systems in advance where they don't have to reach you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> With the disclaimer that I am not a manager: this is somewhat normal at smaller companies I've been at, but it is still completely unreasonable to ask you to check emails while on vacation, even at a 6 person company. I have always taken a hard line on this as a non-manager, and so should you. If they give you actual vacation hours that they have to pay out instead of nonsense like the "unlimited vacation" policies a lot of companies have (meaning they don't have to pay out and can rely on most employees feeling pressured to come back quicker), you have the choice of accepting their terms but only if you deduct the time from your vacation hours taken (although trust me, for your own mental health, take the time and don't think about work at all).

<comment><USER17> Re: "nonsense like "unlimited vacation" \- I've worked at a few companies with unlimited vacation and felt no such pressure. I not only took more vacation than the typical American two weeks, but it gave me flexibility to take advantage of things like last minute ski/camping trips. This really allowed me to put my life first and be a relaxed productive member of the company.

I gather that some folks do feel this kind of pressure, but maybe the answer is to help them overcome that feeling, rather than call the policy nonsense.

<comment><USER16> Lucky you. It's not just a feeling though (although there is that). My bosses have basically all constantly asked me when I was coming back if I tried to take more than a few days, and with no chance to earn vacation time there was no chance of it being paid out when I left.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Didn't you tell me recently that you started to get really into backwoods camping? It's unfortunate that signal is so bad in the woods, eh?

<comment> em-bee not to mention the lack of electricity, and the weight limit on my backpack. and the kids needing constant attention. we'll also be kayaking from place to place, through some wild streams. the only electronics i'll be able to take is my waterproof camera.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> That's normal, sort of. For context: I've worked in a 6 person startup as a founder, a 60 person startup as management, and right now a tech giant as a peon. My policy for myself and anyone under me has been the same in all three cases, and it's been consistent with my colleagues in all three cases. (Exception: there are 100%, definitely, guaranteed, examples of unreasonable managers at the tech giant I work for, I'm just not personally aware of them.)

1\. In general, talk to and designate someone to cover for you for the responsibilities that have to continue while you're on vacation. If that's not possible, see #2.

2\. In general, don't answer emails. Activate your out-of-office auto-response feature. Set a protocol with your colleagues for how to flag urgent issues in email, such as an [Urgent] tag, and mention it in your out-of-office auto- response. If you're not going off the grid, then once a day check for urgent emails and respond to those. Ignore the rest. If you're going off the grid, make sure everyone knows you're off the grid (mention it in your out-of-office auto-response).

3\. If you anticipate potential emergencies where you have to be involved, then set a protocol for how to contact you quickly in case of emergency, and bring your work with you just in case everything catches on fire. I always used "email me, call me on my Google Voice number, leave a message if I don't pick up, text me, and message me in company chat, in that order."

The key point is that sometimes it's urgent and the bus number is 1, and you're that one person, and in those cases it makes sense to ask that you be reachable. In all other cases your vacation should be respected and you should be left alone.

<comment><USER15> This is all great advice. My company uses slack instead of email, what's helped me is silencing slack but telling people they can call me if there's a fire. Before then I set up all the systems I can to prevent anything from slipping through, so I haven't been called on vacation yet.

It's all about setting expectations and delegating responsibility in advance.

<comment><USER20> Having a backup plan helps.

Also making full use of the available tools:

\- calendar OOO messages

\- automated email replies

\- slack status messages showing OOO dates

<comment><USER15> Yup! All these are very simple things you can do. People forget to do the simple things because they think work is more complicated then it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you have to work during your holidays then they shouldn't be called holidays.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's my feeling

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Vacation isn't vacation if you're doing work. Take a hard line. Make sure the same happens for the people you're managing as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm always available for call whenever physically possible, mind you I work in finance. Depends what kind of ownership of the project you take, but you should NOT be forced into it; That should have been discussed when you took on the managerial role, as obviously you didn't have full understanding of responsibilities. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with that request (again it should be request not forced), but bigger problem is that you might have other hidden responsibilities and that is a bit of a red flag.

<comment><USER23> When someone with power over you makes a request, you can never be sure it's not forced, regardless of how they word it.

This is one reason that most organizations disallow romantic relationships between a superior and a subordinate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> If you are expected to reply to email then you are not truly having a vacation. The only "3 hours" thing is disingenuous because if you are required to look at work email then inevitably you will wind up thinking about work. That is not a real vacation. Giving up the ability to truly enjoy your vacation is not some default that is accepted when taking on a management role. I don't think its normal, maybe it's normal for him but that doesn't mean it should become your normal. Tell them unequivocally "no" and explain why. It's important to set proper boundaries early or this can become the beginning of these types of encroachments on your work-life balance.

</comment><comment><USER25> Putting up with that kind of nonsense in 6 person company isn't worth your while.

</comment><comment><USER26> Just be clear between you and your boss what the expectation is.

If the expectation is that you'll check your email at least once a day at a set time and do maybe 15 minutes of work tops, then yeah, that absolutely goes with the territory of small company management. Pick a time and put it on your calendar for each day you're away, "Respond to emails", 15 minutes long.

If it's more than that, and the expectation is that you'll be available on short notice to resolve anything that comes up, then you're effectively on call and should use that language explicitly.

What would be unreasonable would be for you to effectively be on call for 8 hours a day during your vacation and to still be deducted the normal PTO rate.

<comment> blaser-waffle I would frame it that way as well.

Be clear on what "respond to emails" means -- no more an 30 minutes of typing out answers to emails, or does that mean following up on their requested tasks, tweaks, code fixes, etc?

If you're not doing work but are responding to emails I'd keep a To-Do list so stuff that doesn't fall through the cracks, post vacay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Your boss in the wrong for asking you. At the same time, you will probably be viewed negatively for not doing it. Your call.

<comment><USER28> A potential reply to avoid coming across poorly could be something like: "what time code or project number should I report my time under when I stop my vacation and go on-call?"

<comment><AUTHOR> I find this is a great response, unfortunately we are a SASS, only one project number :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> You say that you manage 2 devs in a 6 people business: You and your team are half the whole company so I'm thinking that you are critical.

Based on that I think it is not crazy to ask you to touch base a couples of times a week while on holiday.

Very small businesses often have big problems operating when even one person is missing because there is no slack in the system: Everyone has an important role and has to be on deck.

Hopefully, there is a big upside for you that compensates for this.

In a large company it's possible that no-one will even notice that you went on holdays...

</comment><comment><USER30> So much of this is commentary by people who have never worked at a successful startup that grows from zero to 100M+. Purists who would do well with a union and have never felt what it is to be part of a core team that brings something from zero to changing the world. They focus on questions like what has the company done for me? And ignore the basic tenets of employment. Go work for a 10,000+ company with that attitude.

1) Decide if this company is in this category (you're proud to be part of it and think it can change the world); 2) Decide if you are someone who is capable of doing this (it's a huge commitment, are your ready and able to be a world changer?); 3) Determine if you're in an early enough group to justify this commitment (~first ten? 20?); and, 4) Set reasonable parameters around checking in / email to be available in an emergency, but otherwise are on holiday (i.e. if it's not an emergency / meeting agreed upon emergency requirements, you're on holiday and not working) — you're not just answering questions via email).

Above all, say what you mean (I will / will not do this) and do what you say.

For context, I'm founder of three startups collectively >$500M exits. And any first five-ten employees who didn't understand the above would have a short tenure. They're simply not startup material.

That said, we strive for 40-hour weeks, we take evenings and weekends off, and we expect all statutory holidays and personal holidays off — always with the caveat that if the fit hits the shan, we're all available to band together and solve the problem.

<comment><USER31> This is such baloney. If the company has no ability to function without you for a week or two (barring emergencies) it's clearly a doomed enterprise.

Any boss who makes these demands does not understand how employee burnout effects the long-term health of the company and does not value your role enough to safeguard the contributions you make through well-managed redundancy plans.

<comment><USER30> Given the criteria I set above - I would love to know your experience with it before you call it baloney.

If you've never been a critical employee in building a company from zero to something, I think that says enough.

Failing that experience and focusing on what the company is doing for you is the brightest light ever telling you that you'll never be part of a successful startup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm not a manager, but my managers are typically available by phone for "oh shit" situations. I say typically in the sense that they keep their phone around, and will answer if it goes off, but don't make a promise that they will have cell service, etc.

That is with the explicit warning that it is only to be used in situations where the site is down and we've called everyone else.

Whether they answer email is hit or miss. The ones that do I think are just workaholics.

My take is that I don't generally mind, because typically the reason I'm getting called is that I dropped the ball on something. I've been called twice out of work hours when I wasn't on call. Once because I developed a system and did a shitty job training other people on it, so when something broke that wasn't a simple fix, I got called. The other time was because the solo dev for the product was on vacation, his replacement on call didn't know much about the system, and I had worked with it the most other than the main dev. I should have documented how I worked with the system and fixed it in the past, but I didn't, because documentation always ends up as the last thing I want to do. The org likes documentation and would have given me time to do it, I just didn't want to. So I reaped what I sowed there.

</comment><comment><USER33> _Is this normal?_ Sadly, yes.

 _Is this legal?_ Maybe. Probably. IANAL but as far as I'm aware, there is nothing wrong with the request itself. That said, if he fires you based on inaction during holdiay periods, there may well be legal recourse depending on your country etc. But get legal advice before you go down that route.

 _Is this acceptable?_ Maybe. As manager, it's up to you (and in your best interests) to maintain control of the situation. In your "I'm off, have a good couple of weeks" message, set limits on what kinds of communications you expect to deal with while on holiday. Remind everyone that they too are expected to enjoy the freedom of their time off, and if you expect them to be unacceptable about it then be clear that anyone found abusing your free time will be ignored or worse.

Ensure that, where possible and appropriate, you nominate deputies with the experience and good sense to deal with the kinds of issues that are likely to come up.

Also, check what they expect from your 3 hours a week. If it's 3 hours reporting on the activities of the team, kindly inform them that the answers will be a couple of weeks old, or that you will refer to members of your team for that information.

Remember also that it is your responsibility to help set the tone and atmosphere for the company. How you deal with this determines how others will deal with similar situations. So sure, be accommodating up to a point, but remind those around you that team morale pivots on valuing each other and protecting each other.

</comment><comment><USER34> Especially in the context of a small business of just 6 folks... yes, I think keeping tabs on your email is understandable.

There are 10 people that work for my company... half of them engineers like myself. It's expected that we aren't completely disconnected on vacation... but at least available if a true emergency crops up that needs our niche expertise.

That said, my boss is awesome and encourages healthy work-life separation, so stuff has to really escalate before you're expected to jump in...

</comment><comment><USER35> I can tell you that on my side, it is expected that you are completely unreachable when you are not supposed to be working. That applies during your holidays, when you are sick (you still need to open the door to the work's doctor if he comes visit you) or before/after work hours and during the week- end. Not only your boss or collegues wouldn't try to contact you (or would not expect a response), but they would not even try, as it could lead to you (rightfully) complaining to HR.

The reality as always is more complexe. It is true that some role come with an (implied) expectation of general availibility. While it would be your right to decline any work-related phone call, I'm sure it could one way or another impact your relation with your boss, especially if 'it comes with the role'. I guess it all depends on what you want. If you don't want to be answering work calls during your holidays, you can always fake being unreachable. It's not unreasonnable to not have your phone with you at every moment. Or, if you don't mind being reachable, maybe arrange for a predefined time slot (from 9 am to 9.30 am every day) when they can call you, so that you don't have to worry about it all day.

</comment><comment><USER36> I see it this way:

As a manager you are responsible for your department those responsibilities dont magically poof away because your on vacation. If you have successfully set up your team/department in a way that you can "go dark" for your time off (e.g. no need of your knowledge, and proper key teammates can step in for you to interface with other teams/departments) then great, otherwise you should expect backlash if something goes wrong.

</comment><comment><USER37> Because it's a small company[1], I'd suggest as a compromise that you provide a way for them to reach you in emergencies, but otherwise do not check in.

That way someone has to make the choice to disturb you when it's truly necessary, as compared to preemptively laying claim to some vaguely-defined portion of your vacation time.

[1] For a larger company, my answer would be no - your vacation time is your time, and not the company's.

</comment><comment><USER38> At the last 3 companies (all small startups) I have worked for, this would have been considered unreasonable. When a person is away, we would not attempt to contact them unless it is a true emergency, and there would be no expectation that they should check their messages. You should be able to delegate your responsibilities to one of your colleagues.

</comment><comment><USER39> Depends on the situation, I would play the wait and see card.

Go ahead and ask them to call.

Don't be afraid to say when the can check it ( eg. 3 hours later).

And check what the request is. If it's a bullshit interruption, than say you don't appreciated it for this.

If it's a good question, don't worry. You will understand why they did it.

In my case: totally fine, bit I never got an interruption for bullshit :)

</comment><comment><USER40> I went through a period of my life over several years where I did this. I was pretty much on, checking emails and responding whenever I was awake. I found it to be a horrible life balance when I finally stopped, realized my health had deteriorated and I had missed key moments of my daughters early life.

If the company will truly fall apart when you become unavailable, then you are doing it wrong. Hire people you can trust, train them, maintain well-defined processes in some Body of Knowledge repository. Then let people know who to contact for what. Give clear and accurate criteria for the emergencies when you should be called/texted. Then be present always, whether it is work or vacation. You'll find your happiness increases, your job output increases, and the people you work with will grow and be happier for it.

</comment><comment><USER41> Not unusual but a little interesting that your boss is explicitly asking that you be available during holiday. And I don't think it's unreasonable for them to ask.

If I were you, I would see if you can work something out with your boss that's agreeable to both of you. Maybe it's fine just to glance at the emails for 5 or 10 minutes in the whenever time window is convenient, with no expectation of action until you actually are back to work. If that's no good enough (i.e. they want you explicitly looking at your emails for a set window) then try to see if there's some other form of acceptable recompense in exchange for you to be working on holiday, for example extra pay to compensate for the fact that your giving up some vacation time to do work.

</comment><comment><USER42> For a startup with only 6 people and you are one of the managers/leaders of managing others, there could be exceptions the team needs your decision while you are out on vacation.

This depends on the work culture at your company and in the country you are in as the labor law and norms varies. My own experience has been that it's entirely possible (imaging your 2 direct reports are roadblocked waiting for you to make a decision) and your role is so crucial that your boss depends on your to make an informed decision, your attendance on email responses could be important. Obviously, if it's a short vacation and everything is planned out and prepared for, your response on emails would probably not needed.

Again, I don't think there is a common scene here you can find on HN.

</comment><comment><USER43> I work at a small company too. When I go on vacation, one of the owners steps in for me as much as he can. If there's a true emergency he can't deal with, he will call me.

I never check my email on vacation. I also try as much as I can to do the same for them so they can go on vacation.

</comment><comment><USER44> If the company is only 6 people I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to check email. Small companies need to project as bigger than they are to potential clients and answering your emails helps that illusion. Just take 20 minutes and do it after lunch.

<comment><USER45> It is unreasonable. It's just been normalized in certain settings. I've been in teams like that, and having to check in while on vacation makes it hard to take your mind off of work. Its one thing if my manager asks for my cell phone in case there's a true emergency. But having me check my email every weekday? No. Boundaries are healthy.

I'm never again working in an environment like that if I can help it unless the company _really_ makes it worth it, and let's be frank most small companies can't afford to do that.

<comment><USER46> People "vacation" in radically different ways.

For some people, a vacation is just spending all week at home playing video games. Others will just sped time at a B&B or visit family. For them, checking email is not a big deal.

Other people are way more active and want to go camping, surfing or something else that gets them away from their phone/laptop. For these people, checking email is unreasonable because it interferes with their plans.

The two types of people cannot understand the other side. One of them thinks "Why can't you spare a little time in between checking Facebook and Twitter to check your email?" The other side thinks "Who wastes a perfectly good vacation by spending any time on Facebook and/or Twitter?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'd come at this from the point of view that no, holiday means no contact.

It is _not_ "normal" for managers to be available to be called while they're on holiday. When I've been in management roles the rules have been the same as non-management rules. Holiday is holiday: you're not there.

What that means is, if your manager needs support while you're away, you and he need to have a discussion about what cover looks like such that you personally don't need to be there. What can you delegate up or down? Is there a peer you can hand some responsibilities off to temporarily?

If he's not willing to have that discussion at all, that's a real problem, but I'd approach it as a problem to be mutually solved.

</comment><comment><USER48> There is both opportunity and threat hidden here.

Threat - if the program/project genuinely requires that the manager needs to on emails regularly and if you don't give what it takes to a manager of those programs/projects, they might replace you with someone who does.

Opportunity - if you check your emails in vacation and take proper action, then you will gain trust from management and they don't even bother whether you are in office or in vacation. they might even give more responsibilities.

Because business never goes on vacation, you cannot tell customers that key person is in vacation. You can find someone to act as a manager when you are on vacation. But _that_ person might replace you, if you are not very careful.

<comment><USER49> Both of those seem to imply that checking your email is the right thing to do. So just for balance let's consider the following as well:

Threat - Checking your emails means agreeing that it is normal and to be expected, this will be hard to undo.

Opportunity - Not checking email for a few days will force both yourself and the team to be more independent, and will identify obstacles to further independence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Here is my suggestion, given the size of the company and your role. Ask your boss to try and answer your work emails while you are on vacation, or send a reply saying you will get back to it when you are done with vacation. If he encounters something he isn't sure about, he can email you. That way you will only be bothered about things that really require your attention.

Offer to do the same thing for him when he is on vacation. This is a better strategy for co-workers, but since you are a small company you can see what your boss says. At the size you are at it is important that you offer to reciprocate what you are asking for, to show that you want to be treated fairly and appropriately.

</comment><comment><USER51> > For the context it is a small business of 6 people.

I think the size of the company explains why you were asked to take emails while on vacation. In a bigger organization, with more redundancy, handling vacations would be less of a problem.

I've never been told take emails while on vacation, but I've volunteered to do so when there was nobody available with the skills and/or specific knowledge to replace me.

Since you're asking for advice, I'd advise you to accept taking emails and just try to ensure it doesn't take you to much time. Avoid doing too much hand holding in your messages and just answer the critical stuff. Before you leave, explain to the two programmers what they can decide on their own and what they can't.

</comment><comment><USER52> I have always applied the unofficial policy that if an employer needs me in an 'emergency' (ie. to do something at short notice when I wouldn't otherwise be working for them), then I will do it, but will round up the time rather generously and take that amount of extra time off elsewhere.

For example, boss calls interrupting my sunbathing session needing advice on how to fix something. Call is 14 minutes. I'm going to either bill that as an hour, or take another hour off sometime.

Doesn't apply if its because I've done my job badly (ie. didn't properly document some procedure, so now someone else needs help following it).

</comment><comment><USER53> Totally unacceptable ask in my opinion, for reasons many people have touched on. I would also add that even from the company's point of view, it's a bad deal to ask you to work. The peace of mind you get from taking an unplugged vacation, and also from knowing that your company wants you to fully enjoy that vacation, is going to make you happier and more productive when you return to work. It's going to make you trust your company and think that they have your back as a human being. In the end this is going to be worth infinitely more than the two or three emails you would be expected to answer that week.

</comment><comment><USER54> Assuming that this is not already covered by your contract, and that you are not going to flatly refuse, it may be worth thinking about possible areas of negotiation.

For example, if you have to be available for 3h per week, you might suggest retaining 1 vacation day of that week. Similarly, you could suggest that you retain the vacation day if you end up working more than one hour on any given day of your vacation.

As well as ensuring you aren't giving away your vacation time for free, this also sets boundaries. The risk here is that your 3h a week effectively turns into you being on call for the vacation.

</comment><comment><USER55> One way to think about this is traveling to places where connectivity is literally unavailable -- national parks, mountains, etc. Your boss cannot prevent you from traveling to those locations, so even if you aren't somewhere where you are unreachable, why should you be expected to be available?

Most of my bosses have left their contact information for when they are away from the office, but I've never had reason to use it. I would feel bad interrupting someone's time off except in cases of true emergencies, which might happen more often in other company cultures or industries.

</comment><comment><USER56> Very easy to handle. There's just one word you have to learn.

The magic word is

"No"

Just say the word. That's it.

</comment><comment><USER57> Compromise. Ask for an extra week of vacation. I got three days for the mere possibility that I would be around in case production went down. It didn't. I was the only engineer on the team at the time. Come to think of it, no different from you. Since you will definitely have to work, a whole week or even longer is completely appropriate. Ask for a bit more and compromise if you have to. But you must get compensated for this well. One day for every hour you need to work seems fair.

</comment><comment><USER58> I've seen business owners of startups picking specific days to communicate like every Wednesday during a holiday. If you're worried about checking your mail all of the time you just as well could've kept working.

It's your decision ultimately but if it was a nice company otherwise and I could check in only once per week or in case of a "the house is on fire" emergency I probably would accept it.

Also make sure the days they ask you to check in are not counted as days off.

</comment><comment><USER59> Depends on the situation, you could say he's wrong based on how people here draw a line, but to just pick and choose their principles it is risky. You didn't explain enough of the situation, your work culture, boss personality, your relationship with him, and company size for a more accurate assessments. If he's an ass he could look for ways to push you out, and if you are in certain financial situations you may want to play it a certain way

</comment><comment><USER60> If its America yes I think its normal you're available for important decisions and emergencies, esp in a small team. 3hrs/week sounds too much though.

</comment><comment><USER61> It doesn't matter what other people find acceptable. It only matters whether you find it acceptable. Listen to your own needs, not others.

</comment><comment><USER62> In a larger company, you have people who can realistically take on your duties. In a company that small, it doesn't seem like anyone can fully. You are a small enough company that you're almost in that realm of nobody really gets a vacation, you just take time off and hope there's not any emergencies that require you jumping back into work.

</comment><comment><USER63> As a manager for a small team myself, I think an important part of the job is to making sure that no one person on that team is irreplaceable -- including yourself.

Vacations are an incredible forcing function for proper documentation, backups, knowledge, whatever. If there's _anyone_ on the team who can't be 100% offline for a week, that's a problem.

</comment><comment><USER64> I'd prefer to read and - within limits - respond to emails on vacation over the anxiety coming from being completely out of the loop.

Many companies or departments, especially smaller ones, don't have the capability to make all employees redundant. Not always just because they can't afford to have twice the employees they normally need.

</comment><comment><USER65> Completely unacceptable.

All of my managers were available during vacation if something truly blows up. But they never planned to dedicate a few hours for work on their vacations.

What your company needs is better processes and policies. iirc, most my managers planned their vacations so that it was not right before or after major releases or other events.

</comment><comment><USER66> People are saying this is normal. Normal doesn't make it right.

I would check what the local laws for you are regarding this, but I would personally say "no". Work with your team to make sure they know exactly what they need to work on and clear the path of anything that may get in their way, then go enjoy your vacation.

</comment><comment><USER67> If you are so critical to the company's operations, then can you deduct 3 hrs every week from the PTO you are taking? ie, if you are taking off 40 hours, then only log 37 hours PTO taken, because you're expected to work 3 hrs a week? Not ideal, but at least you will preserve your hard-earned PTO?

</comment><comment><USER68> Nope. Speak to your Trade Union about this. If you're on the clock, you're not on leave and you need to be paid for it.

If you're not a member of a Trade Union, then I recommend taking your holiday somewhere which has no phone reception. A nice mountain hike, or similar.

</comment><comment><USER69> Tell him no and start looking for a new job. If you go along, your manager is just taking advantage of you. If you don't, I expect that you'll have a really hard time especially in a business this small and with a manager this bad.

</comment><comment><USER70> Tell your boss that if they are willing to pay 2x your normal hour rate for work done during your vacation then that's OK. If they are not then clearly the work isn't important enough for your vacation to be interrupted.

</comment><comment><USER71> It's getting more blurred since the flue.

Remote work vs work from home vs vacation vs time off

</comment><comment><USER72> In the company where I worked that was expected of professional level staff. We could not afford to lose clients. We typically checked email daily and were available by phone in an emergency. People did not abuse this.

</comment><comment><USER73> Sounds normal to me.

I've always had to email a little on the weekends when in manager roles.

</comment><comment><USER74> This is an acceptable ask in the companies I've worked in the U.S., especially for a small business. My experience is that people will email you much less than you expect, and it's just for emergencies

</comment><comment><USER75> I did this for a company of the same size. I spent 15 minutes each morning (during coffee) answering important emails. The rest I left for when i got back.

</comment><comment><USER76> Companies value people who are dependable, including being a little bit available on vacation. Its not fair but it's true.

</comment><comment><USER77> I mean, what if your vacation is 3 weeks hiking in the wild with no reception?

</comment><comment><USER78> Welp. So that also rules out going to places with no connectivity.

</comment><comment><USER79> I would say asking for a fixed time commitment is not reasonable, that's not vacation.

However, as a manager it can be hard to truly disconnect and take vacation without either (a) missing a big decision and not being happy with the decision that was made, or (b) delaying the rest of the team by asking them to wait to make a decision until you get back.

So your options for this are:

(1) Have a designated substitute person who will cover your responsibilities while you are out. As a manager this is an important part of your job actually, succession planning. You should be teaching and grooming someone to replace you when you leave. This should be a person who you trust and who you work with a lot, so whatever decision they make will be okay with you. Then you have to be zen about it and actually accept whatever decisions they make while you were out.

(2) Try to pull forward any decisions that you can, so that everything is settled before you leave. There's a lot you can probably decide in advance, but obviously that doesn't help with the random unknown things that can pop up at any time.

If you do both of the above then it really is reasonable to disconnect.

You should be able to tell your boss your goal is to truly disconnect, and he or she should respect that. If your boss pushes back on these things, then you should seek to understand why. Is there a specific meeting or a specific conversation that can only happen during your vacation and your boss really wants you to be there for it?

I don't think it's crazy to join in a specific conversation during a longer vacation if it's something that you really care about and it can't move. Ask yourself if it's gonna drive you crazy not knowing what decision was made until you get back :)

However, as everyone else has said, you aren't really disconnecting if you have some things from work you need to check on during your break. This is a legitimate struggle for managers, and it means that sometimes you take partial breaks where you get some rest but not a full vacation because you can't completely cut out.

It's OK to take partial breaks sometimes, but not ideal, you also need full breaks. Therefore is my final suggestion is this:

As a manager you end up scheduling your vacation time around your work. Meaning, you probably know when the team is likely to have a stretch where nothing major is going to happen, and that is when you should take a true disconnect vacation. Obviously you can't predict the future perfectly, so you need the first two techniques to compensate for whatever unknown things may pop up while you are gone. However, as you get used to being a manager you will start to have a good feel for when you really need to be around and when you don't, and the best thing to do is to take vacation when you don't really need to be around. You're not an IC anymore, so you can't just peace out and leave your manager to deal with it ;)

I hope this helps. Good luck, and welcome to being a manager :)

</comment><comment><USER80> Just find a new job, life is to short

</comment><comment><USER81> Why is this on HN, and why are people upvoting it? Isn't WP.SE a thing any more?

</comment><comment><USER82> 3 hours per week is not a big deal. The higher you go the more you should expect to live the job. If that's a tough pill then don't become a manager.

But really you only have 2 guys. That's piss in a pond. Surely somebody can account for your two people for a short time. Where I work managers have 40 people.

<comment><USER66> I'm sorry that you've been trained to think this way by current corporate culture, but this is not okay and it has nothing to do with choosing to swallow the manager pill or not or whatever that was supposed to mean.

People should be allowed to have a vacation. Full stop. No conditions.

It is a strength to want W/L separation, not a weakness.

<comment><USER82> > People should be allowed to have a vacation. Full stop. No conditions.

When you move up to Vice President levels of a large company and are responsible for hundreds of employees and a major product portfolio the company should have the ability to reach you in case of an emergency. If a product under your responsibility fails in production and critically damages the company's reputation should the company be able to call you during a scheduled vacation day or should they respect that vacation day full stop?

At the same time, as a manager, you should be able to plan for contingencies so that you can have a vacation with minimal disruptions. If you cannot put actions into place to temporarily account for your non-emergency regular tasks you either need to have an honest discussion with your boss about that failure of leadership or re-examine your ability to plan.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best books on understanding recursion? - <AUTHOR> I have a basic understanding of python, but would like to understand really intuitively how recursion works. are there any good introductory books that teach about recursion? <comment><USER2> I recommend this hacker news thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934434](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934434)

I also found this book helpful, when I was starting out with experience with imperative languages and thinking iteratively:

[https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Recursively-Java-Eric- Robert...](https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Recursively-Java-Eric- Roberts/dp/0471701467)

</comment><comment><USER3> The book you're looking for is The Little Schemer (just noticed another commenter suggested this as well). Even if you're not that interested in LISP, you'll come away from this book with a solid grasp of "programs as recursive functions." I found that the format of the book lends itself well to reading during a commute. It's easy to pick up and work through a few pages. If you get to a section that you don't understand right away, slow down and make sure you get it before moving forward.

[https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/little- schemer](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/little-schemer)

<comment><USER4> Seconded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would recommend Chapter 8 of `Common Lisp: A Gentle Introduction` by David T. [1]

It is the most lucid explanation of recursion using the story-telling format.

After working through this chapter, I have never failed to write/understand programs using recursion.

[1] [https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/LispBook/](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/LispBook/)

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbWb0u8bJrU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbWb0u8bJrU)

Recursion is a very simple concept and really doubt you will find a whole book dedicated to it.

Checkout Computer Systems: A programmers approach

It explains what is happening in memory when you call a function.

</comment><comment><USER7> Try a lisp-book, they are often heavy on recursion. One book I see recommended very often is "the little schemer", I want to pick it up some day, it'll teach you about scheme, computation and recursion.

I haven't read any books about recursion itself however, only books that teach recursion amongst other topics.

</comment><comment><USER8> Your best shot is to use paper and pencil. Write it down the call stack and see what happens...

</comment><comment><USER9> Goedel, Escher, Bach. Nothing comes close. It will blow your mind.

<comment><USER10> [http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/humanities-and-social- science...](http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/humanities-and-social- sciences/godel-escher-bach/)</comment></comment>


$541M Dollars Printed Everyday – Where Does It Go? - <AUTHOR> https://achainofblocks.com/2018/09/04/where-does-money-come-from-who-controls-all-our-money/ <comment><USER2> There's a fair amount of editorializing in this post that isn't born out by the limited references included.

One example is this line: "Why was this all done in secret? Simply put, the American people did not want a Central Bank. In 1910, unlike today, people had a better understanding of exactly central banking was and what it tried to do."

That's a pretty strong claim that I'd love to see justified using appropriate references but, even if they exist, the author doesn't appropriate link them to their claims.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think this was a good read and well written. It is hard to summarize such a concept as our banking system is allowed to print money in the form of paper assets (loans) and then cash it in for low interest debt through fractional reserve lending. The part left out and where I'd like to see the article go if expanded, is the public company stocks and bonds. People are separated into the haves and have nots through the accredited investor distinction and have nots are mandated to use the 401k type retirement plan which is usually backed by another form of printed asset called a stock. Then some dude/chick is appointed control over that empire as a CEO making a huge amount of that stock guaranteed win or lose with the company. He pays the labor force, which can be quite substantial, with cash derived from selling those paper assets to the workers 401ks and then borrows on bonds backed by it from the banks who turn those loans into fake money at the fed. I saw one comment about a tin hat scenario. I may not be spot on 100% with how it works, but this is how it appears to work to me. This broken system is what I think crypto can fix. When you think about how much actual power crypto puts in the peoples hands... basically the power of a federal reserve, it is not that hard to imagine the restof the infrastructure forming around it. Only this time it has something that the fed does not - a true intrinsic value. As ridiculous as it sounds that computers processing power values the currency - is it not a lot less ridiculous than the concepts outlines in this article? After reading the bitcoin whitepaper and realizing the hash protected the network and turns would be bad actors into a support mechanism, I realized that crypto is so much better than a central bank system. As we decentralize the surrounding industries to this new type of federal reserve we might be able to get the value back into the money we use.

</comment><comment><USER4> > The Bankers also passively fought against Congress, by putting clauses in > the bill that limited their power and removed them completely once the bill > was passed.

That's...a quite implausible claim, supported by no cited evidence of any kind. (And not unique in the article in that respect.)

Much of this reads like the kind of conspiracy theories goldbugs have long spread that were later adopted by the cryptocurrency community, and is not supported by the few sources you list at the end (but do not specifically cite for particular claims.)

</comment><comment><USER5> Assuming you're not intentionally being disingenuous, can I suggest that you put the bit where you say you don't really know much about central banking and money supply nearer the top?

As a piece where you're writing down what you've found out so far, it's fine.

As a piece that's intended to be genuinely informative about modern money supply, it's substantially less so.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure 1 line in a 3,000-word article is a fair amount? Especially considering, the research I have concluded makes this seem like a fairly popular common public opinion of the day.

<comment><USER2> That was the one line I picked, if you did a fair amount of research please add citations in line.

Quickly, a couple other lines that are editorializing without adequate references:

"Inflation is the tax we all pay for the fraud of money printing."

"We currently operate under what is widely known as the debt-based monetary system, this system has a requirement that debt continues to grow. The system relies on people getting further into debt which in essence creates more money into the system."

My opinion about central banks and their background _can_ be changed but it requires a lot more citation to justify your reasoning. This article is trying to further an agenda associated with crypto-currencies while stating opinions as fact without appropriate references.

It's not poorly written but it is poorly referenced.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your time.

I really appreciate you taking a read and providing feedback. Admittedly I am more of a tech nerd than a formal writer.

Recommendations have been noted, and I look to improve in future posts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> olog-hai Re the title, "$" and "dollars" are redundant, and you might want to Google _every day vs. everyday_.</comment>


Debugging the problem of women in tech - <AUTHOR> http://www.women2.com/debugging-the-problem-of-women-in-tech/

<comment><USER2> Warning: sweeping generalizations to follow.

Most people who end up being programmers are nerds. Nerds who, in their teens, spent time playing with computers instead of partying with friends and crowning the high school social pyramid.

There are many more outright nerdy high school guys than there are girls, and the nerd boys are more likely to turn to computers.

What makes someone become a nerd? Probably a combination of social aptitude and physical attractiveness in the early teens. It doesn't help that girls reach puberty much earlier than boys do. Combined with the fact that girls are easier on the eyes than boys, and that they tend to be a little more socially adept, probably leads to there being more boys than girls who have difficulties in middle and high school, and end up falling back on computers.

Lastly, the nerd guys tend to occupy themselves with things more technical than girls, for the same reason boys play with transformers action figures, while girls play with barbie dolls.

\--

PS: I'm no PhD in social studies, this is all conjecture and probably wrong.

<comment><USER3> Likewise, I'll defer to anyone who can present hard data to the contrary, but my intuition is that you're spot on here.

I've always been a geek. When I was 12 my father's coworker gave me a BASIC compiler, and I would stay inside working through introductory programming tutorials while my equally intelligent sister spent her free time with her friends. As a result, by the time I graduated high school I already had significant experience programming in BASIC, C, C++, Perl, JavaScript, and Z80 assembly language (TI-86 graphing calculators).

Now when I got to college I still had plenty to learn about the theoretical underpinnings of computer science, but one thing I noticed right away was that my six-year, passionate head start on programming gave me a massive advantage over many of my peers. The ones who lacked this advantage eventually switched majors; the ones who had it stayed... and were invariably male.

I propose that the phenomenon of so many kids entering computer science and engineering programs with years of self-taught experience under their belts has unconsciously shaped these programs to the point that they are unfriendly to anyone trying to start programming from scratch. And maybe that in itself isn't a bad thing; if CS programs can assume a certain level of experience from new students, then perhaps they can produce graduates with an even higher level of education. Generally speaking it's not gender discrimination we see in these programs, it's experience discrimination.

If we're to go searching for the cause of the gender gap in software engineering, I think we need to stop trying to assign blame to phantasms of gender discrimination in higher education – or worse, trying to just shoehorn more young women into a career path for which they are not necessarily prepared. Instead, we need to look at the social factors that lead so many more boys than girls to engage programming at a young age, and discuss what might be done about that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "The fact that computer science is ill-suited in preparing new engineers to enter the workforce"

You can argue that colleges aren't preparing students all you want, but it's definitely not a FACT. I was very well prepared to enter the workforce after school, as were many of my friends. I've met plenty of recent college grads that absolutely had the skills necessary to be successful developers at my former and current job. I personally think that the university level is the place that we can start solving this problem.

The problem of women in tech is a social problem. As long as there is a major imbalance, it will make women uncomfortable. Things can absolutely be done to make this environment better for women, but it also is going to take some strong women to really stand up and deal with it to start balancing the scales.

<comment><USER5> The place for this rebalancing is middle school. By college, as we have seen, it is far, far too late.

</comment></comment><comment> jack-r-abbit _At the college level, some universities have instituted a policy of having a 50% ratio of women to men entering computer science, but high attrition brings the number down between 10 and 20% for graduates._

And this is why "quotas" are complete and total crap. If a school has 1000 openings for their CS program and the policy says the 500 should be women and then half of them drop out that is 250 spots that could have gone to someone else. Quotas do not allow for the most qualified/capable people to get the spots. It is a shame that these policies keep going on. I understand they were designed to combat discrimination but they just traded one bias for another.

</comment><comment><USER2> The expression Women 2.0 always makes me wonder... what was wrong with the first version of women?

</joke></comment>


Old dependencies are your second biggest technical debt - <AUTHOR> http://blog.codeship.io/2013/04/08/old-dependencies-are-technical-debt.html

<comment><USER2> Can't agree more. Having a solid test suite makes updating dependencies and sleeping well way easier :) Code hygiene.</comment>


Ask HN: How are you authenticating rest service clients - <AUTHOR>

I've been playing with asp.net webapi and basic auth header (with user:pass in base 64).
If you have a angular or knockout front end, are you storing the login details in a cookie and passing in the header, or via a token? Where are you storing that token?
I am new to this sort of api / javascript front end and want to deal with security according to best practice.
What do you recommend? <comment><USER2> Don't use usernames and passwords as API authentication. Generate a random 128 bit token for each user (RNGCryptoServiceProvider, GetBytes on a 16-byte array) and pass that as a header (or as Authorization). Make sure your API endpoints require HTTPS.

<comment><USER3> I assume this is predicated on an initial username/password auth for identification? If not, how do you deal with token assignment?

E.g., if I log in today, then come back on a different computer, how do you know to give me the same token?

I've always copped out on REST auth and just gone client/server for authentication, with REST for everything else, for fear of fucking it up.

<comment><USER4> The token is held by the client using the API.

<comment><USER3> Let me explain a little better -- I completely get how to handle token based / API key authentication over REST. That's pretty straightforward... but in order for the client to get the API Key, they have to sign up, log in, potentially activate the token, or at least visit a page that gives them the token, and then they can use that token for subsequent API transactions.

My question revolves around how one secures the username/password authentication over REST for those initial phases.

I've been just handling traditional logins in the old client/server, non-REST model, and then, on login, setting a cookie with the token, that I then use to authenticate the other application interactions.

For username/password over REST, is SSL good enough? I don't know, and I've never wanted to guess and be wrong. I've looked it up a couple of times, but advice on the subject ranges broadly between "don't ever do that" and "sure, it's fine."

<comment><USER4> I actually just wrote a bit about that :)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6858572](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6858572)

> is SSL good enough

In my opinion, no.

It will protect the password from potential MITM attack (assuming the user hasn't accepted a bad SSL certificate & you are checking that the cert is valid).

However, if someone MITMs your app for the purpose of reverse engineering, they will very easily see that the username/password API call is available & there will be nothing tangibly stopping them from using it.

By using a client SSL certificate in addition to the normal server-side SSL for 'restricted endpoints', other apps will not be able to replicate the request & it will also not be visible even in MITM attacks where the certificate is trusted.

If the private key for your client SSL certificate is leaked/found/reverse engineered/disassembled though, that protection is gone. Assuming it is actually compiled into your binary though, this is not trivial.

<comment><USER2> I like client certificates and use them myself, but be forewarned that requiring them is a good way to ensure that very few people use your API.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Speaking purely from the backend, our login function takes the IP address of the requester, the login name, and password, then checks the password against the database. If the password matches up, the current date and time, the current IP, the current time, the session expiration date, and a buttload of details about the host machine are hashed together and encrypted with the system's public key before being sent back as a token.

It's up to the client to store the token however it likes, but our reference implementation stores it as a cookie on the local machine.

If a new request comes from an IP address which doesn't match the encrypted token, or if there are system details in the encrypted token which don't match up with the one on file (we restrict sessions to single instances), then the request is rejected.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, so basically you're hashing a token a each time a request comes in you decode.. do you increase the session expiration date or keep it as is?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> We use ServiceStack with .NET and love it.

ServiceStack uses a HTTP cookie and supports a variety of authentication options out of the box, including basic auth.

[https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/wiki/Authentica...](https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/wiki/Authentication- and-authorization)

We also use the easy hooks that ServiceStack offers to validate API developer / app tokens as well.

Social Bootstrap API is a backbone example:

[https://github.com/ServiceStack/SocialBootstrapApi](https://github.com/ServiceStack/SocialBootstrapApi)

[https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.Examples](https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.Examples)

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15862634/in-what-order- ar...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15862634/in-what-order-are-the- servicestack-examples-supposed-to-be-grokked/15869816#15869816)

It also has various other goodies, such as:

[https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/wiki/Metadata-p...](https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/wiki/Metadata- page)

[https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/wiki/The-IoC- co...](https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/wiki/The-IoC-container)

[https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/wiki/Plugins](https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/wiki/Plugins)

[https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/wiki/Clients- ov...](https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/wiki/Clients-overview)

It also doesn't require ASP.NET and can run on Unix under Mono.

Try it, you won't go back to WebAPI is guarantee it!

<comment><AUTHOR> gees thank you for all that Junto!</comment></comment>


What software to use for support/new development? - <AUTHOR>

As a web developer, there's always new products being developed as wells as old products that need to be supported, what systems or software do you use to manage this mess? It coming to a point where I need a real system because items are starting to fall through the cracks. <comment><USER2> Lighthouse app: <http://lighthouseapp.com/></comment>


Linux-insides: How does the Linux kernel run a program? - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/0xAX/linux-insides/blob/master/SysCall/syscall-4.md <comment><USER2> This book is great, I'm really enjoying it. However I find that sometimes it takes too much pain to annotate the source code itself, rather than the ideas behind the code. This comes at the expense of being pedagogical and directing the reader's attention to the interesting bits where the mechanics happen.

For example, anyone who is reading this will understand that the kernel does lots of checks for null pointers and other errors here and there. Why not just skip over the mundane descriptions of IS_ERR() and PF_NPROC_EXCEEDED?

</comment><comment><USER3> Brilliant; Helps you to write better quality code for your apps;</comment>


This Font Makes Sparklines Out of Numbers - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcodesign.com/90139343/this-font-makes-graphics-out-of-numbers-in-seconds <comment><AUTHOR> The font is open-source, available here: [https://github.com/aftertheflood/spark](https://github.com/aftertheflood/spark)</comment>


Ask HN: Why did Apple decide to go with HEIC? - forgot-my-pw There's currently no wide support for it, even Safari cannot open it: https://caniuse.com/#search=heif<p>HEVC adoption is still pretty low too: https://caniuse.com/#feat=hevc <comment><AUTHOR> Lack of support in Safari feels like it must be deliberate - I can't believe they just forgot to do this. I wonder if heif/heic is currently to be considered a 'private variable', and that the 'public getImage()' type method that we use returns as a jpg, regardless of how it's stored internally.

It's somewhat difficult to actually get the raw HEIC file, so from a users point of view this is more of an implementation detail.

I wonder if this is partially in response to how webp started out, e.g. this thread about Facebook's implementation: [https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/forum/?fromgroup...](https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/webp- discuss/GvLSXBnATXk) \- you can see there a user saying:

"As of yesterday, I've been able to download funny pictures from facebook from friends in correct formats, but now they are downloading as an additional extension of .webp??? How do I fix this? It states that I'm downloading a .jpg, but it keeps coming up with "Save file as .webp" I"ve tried scrolling down and click on all files to save it as, but then the picture will not show up. Help???? "

So, it seems Apple are keeping this internal to the OS to avoid this sort of problem.

</comment><comment><USER2> Apple was one of the first adopters of (standard) MPEG-4 and MP4 and IMO that paid off. Clearly they're not afraid of being an early adopter of HEVC either. Once they went all-in on HEVC then HEIF becomes a no-brainer, although maybe they see it only as an authoring format not as a delivery format.</comment>


Deposing Tim Cook - <AUTHOR> http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2016/02/an-open-letter-to-tim-cook.html <comment><USER2> He has absolutely no understanding of the technical differences between allowing the FBI and other government agencies with the proper subpoena access to iCloud data which is not encrypted and Apple has done, with hacking a phone and installing custom software.

<comment><USER3> I completely agree.

At what point do we get completely fed up with the increasing lack of technical competence in the government?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Kindle or Nook? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN!
I would like to buy an ebook reader to use it in a non-US country. Please suggest whether I should go for a Kindle or a Nook or some other device, perhaps.
Features I am not interested in: 1. Wireless connectivity (whispernet/wifi). I do not need constant access to the web. I can use my PC to sync my reading content. 2. Physical keyboard. I can work with a virtual one. 3. Wide selection of titles in the bookstore. My reading is mostly going to be custom PDF files.
Features I would want: 1. Instant boot-up, long battery life 2. Easy to use dictionary, ability to annotate 3. Support for a variety of ebook formats, especially good rendering of PDFs. 4. As much storage space as possible.
Based on the reviews, I am leaning towards Kindle. What do you guys think? <comment><USER2> I own the Kindle and I've played with the Nook.

Nook felt odd, the touch screen wasn't very responsive and I had to press twice a few times. It felt a bit heavier too.

In regards to the features you want: Kindle boot-up is instant with a flickr (~2 seconds max) if coming from standby, which it goes into when you just leave it there after reading (or manually place it). Battery life is ok, but not the 3 weeks it's advertised as. Dictionary is a snap, just point the cursor to the word you need to know about and a little blurb shows up on the bottom of the screen; Simply beautiful and you can expand it to view more of the definition. Variety of book types are ok. PDF support is available, but I haven't used it yet because Kindle for Mac isn't out yet.

My girlfriend has been using the Kindle a lot as well for reading novels, myself mostly the paper and we both are in love with it. There's a lot of small, neat things that it does a good job at, while being awesome at being a reading device that you can forget about and focus on your material.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like (and own) the Kindle 2, I don't like the Nook. Its thicker and heavier. It felt like it might fatigue your wrist after reading a while.

Skiff looks cool, but I'm a fairly loyal Amazon customer at this point :).

</comment><comment><USER4> I would go with the Kindle as well. I've used both and the Nook seems much slower when doing things that you do a lot with an e-book reader, like turning pages.

</comment><comment><USER5> How about Sony PRS-600? I'm in the same situation as you (thinking about buying an ebook reader in a non-US country), and the Sony seems to be one of the few valid alternatives to Kindle. It doesn't have that ugly keyboard and unnecessary wifi/3g connections. Regardless, with Calibre (<http://calibre- ebook.com/>) even blog reading should be possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sony's touch screen makes the display (which is the most important feature in a reader) inferior to Kindle's. Also it's expensive compared to Kindle.

<comment><USER5> Well, Kindle is $259 and Sony is $273 at Amazon.com, so the price difference is negligible. Don't know about the screen quality, though. Real side-by-side comparisons would be interesting; assuming that Kindle is better, how much better it is?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have a Kindle 2. Though I like everything about it, it has the following issues:-

1) In India, free internet on Kindle does not work. But Wikipedia do work.

2) All the Magazine, Blog subscriptions will be stripped off the Graphics. Amazon is 'Saving' on the bandwidth costs they pay to the country specific Mobile Operators!

</comment><comment><USER7> I would say also try to play with both of them at some point. The Nook can be played with in most stores - and playing with it sold me on the Kindle.

The Nook was quite slow in switching pages, extremely difficult to scroll down, and the goofy color/touch screen at the bottom was more of a nuisance than anything else.

</comment><comment><USER8> If you want one to be used mainly for PDF you need to go for a larger screen, so neither the small kindle nor the nook. I think price tag starts at about 500 and non of them has internet access or keyboard anyway.

</comment><comment><USER9> I use my Kindle DX (best for PDFs) outside the US all the time. The new DX will also have international access (which can be disbaled). Plug it into a USB, and drag and drop your files.

<comment><AUTHOR> Kindle DX's $490 price tag (compared to Kindle's $260) is intimidating, which brings me to the question: Is it worth spending (almost) double the amount and buying a Kindle DX instead of a Kindle?

<comment><USER10> This really depends on what you plan on reading. I read a ton of PDFs: research papers, online manuals, natve PDF books and some books that are scans packaged as PDFs. My previous ebook was a Sony 505 but the screen size was too small to make this a practical reader for me. most PDFs out there do not support the "tagged" format that makes text reflow with the ebook posible. To make a PDF usable I would have to do an elaborate conversion dance of trimming and tweaking contrasts with some PDFs needing to be re- converted to landscape mode after several attempts at squashing them to fit portrait mode.

My eventual conclusion was that I needed an ebook with a bigger screen. After waiting and waiting for an apple tablet announcement I went with a kindle dx and it has been great. It does not hit all of the items in your requirements list (I keep the wireless off to conserve battery, the keyboard is almost never used except to jump to specific pages, and it's support of annotation is "weak" at best) but it is probably the best option out there for my needs.

My advice would be to start by deciding what screen size you need and letting all other requirements and feature comparisons flow from that decision.

<comment><USER11> DX seconded. I have the regular Kindle and while it still reads PDFs, having to constantly press buttons to go back and forth on the same page and to rotate the display to be able to read the text is a big pain. I tried the DX and the larger size is definitely better for PDF viewing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would pick the Kindle. It hits all four of your points and will have the greatest battery life, especially if you don't use the wireless connectivity.

</comment><comment><USER13> Assuming I did want all those features (wifi, access to web, physical keyboard and wide selection at the bookstore) would it change to the nook?

</comment><comment><USER14> Can you wait for the Skiff? Looks pretty amazing. And bendy.

</comment><comment><USER14> Skiff.</comment>


Hapi.js project is reaching its conclusion - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/hapijs/status/1275887984114413569 <comment><USER2> From the Hapi Slack:

> eran 6:38 PM

> Over the past few years I have tried many different ways to keep my work on > the hapi ecosystem sustainable. I was trying to secure enough funds to keep > the lights on but also to innovate and improve the framework. This has > worked well for a while but over the past year both commercial licenses and > sponsorship dropped to an all time low. At the current funding level I can > only address critical issues and keep things stable. It doesn't allow me to > invest in the future of the framework, add meaningful new features, or keep > up with community support.After 5 years of working outside of a major > company, I have reached the point where I am no longer finding this work > rewarding. The resources available do not allow me to spend the kind of > quality time needed to have a meaningful engagement with this project. I no > longer believe that this can be fixed or reversed. Go through another round > of begging people for money in hope of another year or so for project runway > is not appealing to me.I don't know exactly how this will unfold. I plan to > communicate this to the wider hapi community over the next few days to start > a conversation and see what's the best way for me to bring this project to > an appropriate conclusion. This channel is the beginning of this process. > While I am not expecting others to take over the work, I have not ruled that > out yet.I want you to know that regardless of how this ends up, I am going > to keep supporting the project until the end of the year. After that, I am > going to offer some kind of continued commercial support for at least 2 > years. I still need to work out the plan for what that support looks like > and make sure that it is priced in a way that allows me to offer it.

<comment><USER3> This is the death of open-source. This is _not_ open-source software.

And exactly why OSS needs to exist - true community projects that are not dependent on sponsors or have any strings attached. I hope we find a way back there.

<comment><USER2> I hope Hapi and Joi can find a home in the Open JS Foundation.

<comment><USER4> The more important question is: is there a community around it that will develop and support it? that's what makes or breaks a project, and isn't something you get by joining a foundation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is very sad. Hapi.js seriously tried to bring some sanity back to node.js development. Eran Hammer is a rock star. He did an amazing job, brought a super clean codebase, secure defaults etc but i feel the timing was bad. Hapi.js was good just for API's. Do you want to use it with a database? Good luck finding an orm and setting up migrations on your own. Meanwhile, in the last couple of years golang exploded and the node.js found it's niche in react server side rendering.

I feel that every node.js MVC backend framework or the MERN stack of the 2015 era will become obsolete. That includes adonis.js , nest.js , meteor etc. I still haven't found any job description mentioning these frameworks. If you're looking for a backend language for your next project, look at python, php and rails and use javascript where it's good at, the front-end.

<comment><USER6> This opinion doesn't seem to be backed by much evidence.

The single-thread async-by-default execution model that nodejs shines at is brilliant for io bound tasks, like REST APIs.

Go is fine and has it's strengths, but is by no means a nodejs killer. It's another tool in the toolbox.

Reducing one of the most popular and effective modern server-side languages to "react server side rendering" is inaccurate, at best.

It also ignores node's massive use in the embedded space, desktop (electron, nwjs, etc...) and emerging data science space.

When I'm looking for a backend for my next project, it would be very hard to convince me to move backwards to python etc...

Those feel very legacy to me. Slow, apartment threaded model with blocking io, tons of context thrash from thread switching, bad package management, difficult environment configuration, etc...

I'll stick with node until there's another truly innovative technology that comes along.

<comment><USER5> Most of the web apps are mostly CRUD at the end of the day and boring stacks like rails,php,python are perfect for this kind of job. The most popular node.js framework is express.js and it doesn't even have anything built-in to parse request bodies. You'll have to reinvent the wheel in every single step of your app.

Sails.js, adonis.js, nest.js meteor etc are all pretty much dead. They try to poorly re-implement everything we love about rails/django. Heck, even modern PHP with type-hints and symphony/laravel is better than full-stack nodejs these days.

If you're so lucky that your django,rails api can't scale your load, you can use Go which is also way better than node.js in every single aspect (standard library, language, tooling, deployment, performance).

That being said though, i'm really excited and curious about graphql servers and prisma.js and how all these tools could eventually introduce a new way to build crud apps but for now i'll stick with proven tech and wait.

<comment><USER7> NestJS seems very much alive, although is a little bit bloated for my taste. I would recommend TS+GraphQL-Modules+GQL-Codegen instead.

Apollo is a must too both server and client.

GraphQL Subscriptions = WebSockets = Real Time bi-directional channel.

Lots of cool stuff on TypeScript/GraphQL being done. Nothing wrong with one framework fading off

<comment><USER8> Yes, because GraphQL is a fix for everything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This hurts. I've been using Hapi professionally for 5 years now, and it is a joi (hehe) to work with. Modules in the hapi ecosystem, ie boom, joi, and lab, are baked into my servers from top to bottom.

Much thanks to the devs that made this possible over the years. It is a shining example of what a JavaScript tool should be like. I wish it could be given the money and time it deserves.

</comment><comment><USER10> This was originally from Walmart Labs, no? Anyone know why they stopped being the corporate sponsor?

<comment><USER11> Most of the devs quit WalmartLabs a long time ago (including myself, Eran, etc). Sponsored in the sense that WalmartLabs paid us to use it to build their services and we developed hapi.js/joi to support our jobs.

<comment><USER12> I'm genuinely curious if anything produced by Walmart Labs had any sort of "commercial" success or was even adopted within the main Walmart ecosystem. I've certainly heard of hapi, but don't know if it ever gained all that much adoption. Or was it mostly a recruiting tool to make Walmart attractive to a better class of devs?

<comment><USER11> While I was there, hapi.js was extensively used by the Global eCommerce department and was responsible for fronting the entire mobile API. You can check Eran's blog for stories of how it handled all of Walmart's mobile API traffic especially during the massive thundering herd of Black Friday traffic. It was used on many other projects including some "big name" projects, however, I don't know if hapi's involvement was made public for those so can't name them directly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is really sad :( I hope there is more communication soon about the timeline.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would also like to hear more about this decision. Could probably be a financial decision?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Terrible news. This framework needs a future!</comment>


SpaceX's Starship SN1 prototype blows up during pressure test on its Texas pad - <AUTHOR> https://www.geekwire.com/2020/spacexs-starship-sn1-prototype-blows-pressure-test-texas-pad/ <comment><USER2> Elon just said this 12 hours ago: "Failure has to be an option. What you want is to reward success but there should be minor consequences for trying and not succeeding. And major consequences for not trying #AWS2020" [1]

They are rapidly iterating, and I expect them to destroy up a lot of Starship hardware in the next few months as they perfect it.

[1] [https://youtu.be/dPwxfzvhlLA](https://youtu.be/dPwxfzvhlLA)

<comment><USER3> we've come a long way from "failure is not an option".

this is typical musk spin. of course we can't be afraid to fail, but that isn't what happened here. catastrophic failures should not be considered "oh well" situations. move fast and break things isn't a design and engineering approach worth subscribing to. i'd appreciate a more measured response from spaceX. the quote "Not much to worry about here" from spaceX is pretty annoying. a less dismissive tone would be better, because from my point of view, they just had a pretty large and expensive failure. that's bothersome from someone getting a ton of public funding.

a response of "we take failures very seriously" rather than basically "yea, that'll happen" would be more professional.

<comment><USER4> If you don't own any SpaceX stock and aren't planning on flying on one of their spaceships when the time comes, why do you care?

<comment><USER5> How, exactly, would one own SpaceX stock?

<comment><USER6> [https://www.baronfunds.com/product- detail](https://www.baronfunds.com/product-detail)

One of the Baron Funds invested in SpaceX.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The pressure vessel failed during testing with nitrogen, no explosion occurred.

This probably isn't that much of a surprise, they knew the welds were far from ideal and already had improvements on the way.

> We had the wrong settings! To make the welds super flat & strong, we're > building a heavy duty, custom planisher, but just having the right settings > is a major improvement.

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1232556310874533888](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1232556310874533888)

The next version is already being assembled right beside where this one failed.

<comment><USER8> It definitely was an explosion. I think you mean it wasn't a combustion.

>explosion > a violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outwards as a shock wave. > a sudden outburst of something such as violent emotion, especially anger.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If the SLS blew up during testing, it would set the program back a literal decade (or more).

If the James Webb telescope failed during deploy, it would be a $10-$20 billion loss -- and it would never be re-attempted.

NASA needs to re-learn from SpaceX's ability to iterate on cheap designs and flush out flaws quickly. I say re-learn, because they DID know how to do this correctly during the Gemini / Apollo eras (TONS of rockets blew up before they attempted human spaceflight).

But culturally, something went deeply wrong, perhaps when we reached the Space Shuttle era, and they lost the willingness to ever accept failure or pushing limits -- the same process we tell tell children is critical to ever learning.

<comment><USER10> Safi Bahcall's _Loonshots_ describes the phase-change transition which happens in organisations as they grow in size and value safety over innovation.

[https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250185969](https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250185969)

[https://www.worldcat.org/title/loonshots-how-to-nurture- the-...](https://www.worldcat.org/title/loonshots-how-to-nurture-the-crazy- ideas-that-win-wars-cure-diseases-and-transform-industries/oclc/1129600169)

New Books Network interview: [https://newbooksnetwork.com/safi-bahcall- loonshots-how-to-nu...](https://newbooksnetwork.com/safi-bahcall-loonshots- how-to-nurture-the-crazy-ideas-that-win-wars-cure-diseases-and-transform- industries-st-martins-2019/)

<comment><USER11> It would be interesting to apply those ideas to American society in general.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Maybe somebody can explain this to me.

Welds are supposed to be tested at the weld level, not at the vehicle level. So what is wrong with their process or QA?

<comment><USER13> You are right. At the very basic levels we have PT. This is a test with dye sprayed on the weld and a developer sprayed on to show the defects. This is very commonly done.

Next we have UltraSonic(UT) testing. This requires expensive equipment and a good examiner to interpret.

Third we have X-Ray. This is used on welds that are very important as it is also hard to do and interpret. It also requires the weld to be ground smooth to distinguish flaws from ordinary weld.

I am sure there are a variety of other non destructive testing (NDT )techniques. These are the common ones used in industry.

I do want to mention that pressure vessels are hard to make. Especially something so large. This could actually be a design problem and not welds. Pressure vessels are often tested at 5/3 their working pressure. So failures at testing are not uncommon.

<comment><USER13> I really don't understand the build method they use. Ideally you would use a turntable to rotate the cylinder while welding the sections together with a sub-arc machine. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-hfExEmGsE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-hfExEmGsE)

Elon blaming "settings" seems like a silly explanation. There should be weld engineers and destructive testing done before the first beads are welded on an actual tank.

<comment><USER7> > Ideally you would use a turntable to rotate the cylinder while welding the > sections together with a sub-arc machine. > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-hfExEmGsE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-hfExEmGsE)

Uh, at least in the video that steel is pretty thick. Starships skin is slightly less than 4mm thick... while in that video they have a 2cm deep groove, would the same technique actually work?

For what it's worth, ULA stainless steel (<1mm thickness) upper stages are resistance welded instead [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fG_lnVhHw&t=41m10s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fG_lnVhHw&t=41m10s)

That said, I think a lot of the decisions right now are based on "what can we quickly experiment with" not "what is a good long term plan". Building a 9m turntable (diameter of the rocket) would take a long time.

<comment><USER13> I agree a 9m turntable would take some time to make. But once made you could crank these vessels out very fast. 4mm skin sounds OK and I am sure there are some structural supports inside to keep it from collapsing. I am not a weld engineer so I cannot say if Sub-Arc would be the best technique. I know that ships skins are being built with it.

<comment><USER14> You're talking about production engineering. You don't really do that until your design starts to be nailed down. It's not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How much has SpaceX had to "start over" from what NASA and others have researched over the decades?</comment>