Ask HN: Fake résumé generator - <AUTHOR> I'm looking for a job. I've had a lot of conflicting advice from different people about what to put on a résumé, and how long it should be. Although my background is in hardware, I've had more work experience in software, including recently doing some big data processing and machine learning. I feel like my applications are being auto-filtered and aren't even being seen by humans. The only interview I had simply asked questions about each part of the job description.
Therefore I'm considering writing a fake résumé generator. It would take a job description, find key words, and patch together a realistic profile based on a dataset of real résumés.
If my bots could get an interview, I would then attend and reveal my true identity. Having successfully built a machine that passed their HR deparment's Turing Test, I'd hope that some engineers might be impressed with my sheer audacity. However, I'm worried that it might get me blacklisted from some companies. I feel like there's nothing to lose though, because I'm already unemployed.
What's your opinion? Is this a system that's worth gaming? Would you be impressed or offended if you discovered that a shortlisted candidate was AI, not human? <comment><USER3> Based on another comment you made, I looked at your resume, here are my thoughts:

* Skip the crammed-together logo crap and links on the left.

* More whitepace, it's hard to read.

* Don't jam the position/company/location/dates all on one line.

* It's impossible to figure out what you (think you) know without reading everything: without a summary section you likely won't get past many automated or human systems.

* Even _after_ reading your experience I have almost _zero_ clue what languages and environments you know, have familiarity with, prefer, or enjoy.

* Stop with all the freakin' icons, flags, and pictures.

* References on request.

* Elide all/most of the "Personal Interests"

* Nobody cares about your iBooks in 2005

* I _would_ keep the language, education sections; academic awards, meh; as a hirer, I don't care.

* Add a better summary section.

* Add usable, relevant info to the job history (e.g. "I wrote this", BFD: what did you use to write it?) or add an overall technology section, and don't lie, because if whoever is interviewing you is anything like you, I _will_ ask about the weirdest shit you put on your resume.

Bottom line: lots of wasted space, way too light on actionable data. No clue what you actually know, what you want to do, how any of your experience is relevant to what I'm hiring for.

Tangential: For better or worse, your religious views will raise certain feelings in certain people. And if your life was predetermined, then this is all what's supposed to happen anyway, right? So why complain? Just sayin'.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've emailed you with 3 alternative versions based on contradictory advice I've received in the past. Please read those and tell me whether there's a specific position at LittleBits that you think I should rewrite the résumé for.

I won't answer all your objections here, because I fear that it might sound defensive and I don't want to turn a comment thread into a flame war. I do appreciate advice.

<comment><USER3> I have responded to your email, although it's borderline creepy, and _telling_ someone you've internet-stalked them is probably not the best approach.

It doesn't bother me if you sound, or are, defensive--people are naturally invested in their work, their image, their "self". Won't change my opinion(s), it takes two people to have a flame war, and I'd ignore anything war-like because I have actual stuff to do.

<comment><USER4> This is a very classy reply - you've offered OP some wonderful help and dealt with a strange situation with tact and class. Have a great weekend!

<comment><USER3> Ironically, that I would ignore anything war-like was parroted back to me as a _bad_ thing in one of the OP's emails--he was offended because I used "profanity" (the word was "shitty") and he left in a huff after I spent the time to deal with both his post here, and his unsolicited emails asking for advice, with three resume versions to read, and asking how to get a job where I worked.

Some people... _shrug_ wth.

<comment><USER4> That's sad. You went way above what most people would do and it's upsetting that OP would treat you like that after you did so much. From my perspective, what you did is absolutely amazing and I hope that one bad apple doesn't make you change how you'd react in the future.

This is one of those moments when Hacker News really needs an 'upvote' button and an 'upvote and buy lunch' button. Since I can't buy you lunch, at least accept my gratitude and respect. You're a good man and I have a lot of respect for the way you have handled this.

<comment><USER3> I (more or less) tend to operate, despite my cynical nature, that everyone's nice until proven otherwise. I genuinely enjoy helping people and providing feedback/mentoring/etc. My brevity is often taken for callousness, but that I spend the time at all is generally enough to offset concision--I _do_ actually have stuff to do ;)

 _shrug_ It takes all kinds and all that :) But thanks, appreciate the appreciation. His knee-jerk reaction was just that, and while annoying, ultimately inconsequential.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would be neither impressed nor offended, I would be irritated.

It takes hours or days of clock time to find candidates to bother phone screening, let alone bring in for a face-to-face. Someone comes in that I'm not expecting to talk to... you'll meet the door with some velocity.

(And anybody that wants you to come in for a face-to-face before a phone screen... they deserve whatever they get, because that's dumb unless they're across the street and bring you lunch.)

If you can't figure out what to put on a resume how will you solve an _actual_ problem?!

</comment><comment><USER5> To add to the great advice you got by davelnewton already, you should consider a few more things.

It's obvious that you're at the point of frustration, and you're taking it personal. It's either affecting your style of communication, or your style of communication is combative as a whole.

Speaking of personal, your resume is very personal, where it should be professional. Reading your resume should be a succinct representation on your professional skills. Your personal style and hobbies are something that co- workers learn during interviews and after you start your job. As other people have said, less is more in this aspect.

Hiring managers find objectives in a resume mostly useless. Even if you insist on including an objective, the current one is weak. It's about as generic as the label you'd find on white bread. It should be a summary of who you are (professionally). For example: "A Software Engineer with over 10 years worth of experience with a track record of delivering exceptional quality on time with a focus on electrical engineering"

Your resume should sell, and you are the product. With that in mind, you should write it in a manner that describes the value you bring, not a laundry list of things you've done at your previous positions. It's great that you wrote driver software, but what impact did it have?

Everything on the resume that adds no value can be removed, that includes all of these 1-2 month long internship (it's ok to combine it into 1 "job" with multiple bullet points demonstrating value). It also includes everything that's extracurricular, hobbies, interests, languages, GPA, etc. (Use judgement here, if the job requires multi-lingual proficiency than you'd want to keep that)

References should not be on your resume. If someone wants a reference, they will ask for it.

You should list major roles and describe you VALUE and not day to day tasks. 3-4 bullet points each one a paragraph elaborating on how your contribution was valuable. Small roles can be combined, but the same rule applies - <USER2> place/title doesn't matter only the value.

<comment><USER3> I have a minor disagreement with the "Objective" section. I use mine as a (relatively) succinct window into my personality, goals, and ambitions: mine is a bit silly, but honest, and informative. If they don't like what I say in my objective, they will _not_ want to hire me, and I wouldn't want to work there.

I use mine as both information, and a "gatekeeper" of sorts, and I believe it's saved everyone involved a fair amount of time in the long run. If they like it, and my skills or aptitude match what they're looking for, it's _probably_ a good fit on multiple levels.

That said: it's a _minor_ disagreement. For most people it probably isn't quite as functional--but I'm a unique snowflake ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd highly recommend patio11's fantastic post _Don 't Call Yourself A Programmer, And Other Career Advice_, in particular this section:

 _" Read ad. Send in resume. Go to job interview. Receive offer." is the exception, not the typical case, for getting employment._

[0]: [https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a- pr...](https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/)

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree entirely. I don't expect that my real persona can succeed on a typical job board (e.g. Indeed, Seek, TradeMe, 104).

After trying with that method, I experimented with many other routes. Most expect me to already have a work visa. I've been trying since March. I rewrote my résumé twice. I updated my LinkedIn. I asked recruiters for help. I put side projects on the web to try to get attention. I asked friends who I worked with at a local company when I was there before. I found random people on Github and offered to work for free on open-source projects just to get an introduction. I contacted computer repair shops and asked them to put up posters advertising data migration services that I could do with my old Apple II. Nothing has worked. Now I'm spamming every company on the Accredited Employers list (whether in the tech industry or not), just to try to get some new ideas of how to approach the application process in that country.

<comment><USER7> Why do you think nothing has worked? Also you don't have an e-mail contact or anything in your profile for anyone who might actually be interested in your background!

<comment><AUTHOR> Valid point; I've added contact details to my HN profile. I think that nothing has worked because although some people reply, the answers are always negative. I've had only a single interview.

Writing custom cover letters and tailoring my résumé for each separate application is very time consuming and involves exaggeration to the point of stretching the truth. What I'm considering in this project is to build a bot that could take over that process. Blatant lying, just not in my name. I think that fraud is wrong for a human, but for a bot, passing the Turing Test is a feature.

<comment><USER8> "I think fraud is wrong for a human, but if it's the human pressing a button that tells a lie, no harm done."

<comment><USER3> The armed drone approach to resumes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think this is a bad idea. Odds are very high that this will end with an immediate rejection and maybe even blacklisting, if I were you I wouldn't risk it.

Thing is, even if the field of work is relevant (AI), most companies consider their HR process as some kind of sacred rite of passage and they tend to be very inflexible in changing their mode of operation per candidate. Not to mention that even if companies advertise otherwise, disregard for status quo || authority is not really a marketable character trait.

To answer your question on a more personal note: actually, I'd at least be a bit impressed if the end product is of high quality, and would like to learn more about the code and your reasoning behind it. Yet I believe this would be an uncommon approach in the industry.

<comment><AUTHOR> Your résumé is 3 pages long, whereas DrNuke below recommends getting everything onto one page maximum.

Thank you for your opinion though, I'm trying to evaluate whether this is a situation of Asymmetric Risk [1]. When I have no job to start with, I feel like I have nothing to lose.

[1] [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment- id...](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/how- savvy-investors-know-when-odds-are-in-their-favour/article626125/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd end the interview and put you on the do-not-hire list.

I find many kinds of hacks amusing or impressive. But not lying about your background.

<comment><AUTHOR> The bot wouldn't be using my name. It would be creating an entirely fictitious persona.

<comment><USER3> ... which you're using to get an interview:

> If my bots could get an interview, I would then attend and reveal my true > identity.

So you'd be hijacking the interview of your fictitious persona. I'm not even sure which is worse, but IMO it's a dick move, and I'd show you the door before anything of value was discussed.

Although any place that's doing in-person interviews w/o a phone-call sanity check, and maybe more, isn't a place I'd want to work anyway, because that's un-sustainable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "The game is hard so I cheated!" Do you think it's a good way to start a business relationship?

<comment><AUTHOR> Some say cheater, others say "gifted analyst".

"A visa too! Wow, a fascinating problem with multiple dimensions to consider. And here at the center of it, a gifted analyst. I wonder what kind of theory or model could be drafted, something that fits the situation like a glove _and_ exposes critical leverage points. If anyone could do it...(points at you)"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17927183](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17927183)

I haven't cheated yet because I have ethical doubts about it. But my resolve is slipping because I have tried every other conceivable option for trying to get a job.

<comment><USER12> I looked at your resume for exactly 5 seconds before I closed it again, so I think it really might be you(r resume).

Also I'm not sure if you tried ever conceivable option. If you know some Latex, fill out this template and you should be off a lot better: [https://github.com/xdanaux/moderncv](https://github.com/xdanaux/moderncv)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What is YOUR opinion? If you were spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to recruit people and someone said, "Ha! Just kidding, here's my real resume." What would you do?

<comment><AUTHOR> If the role is related to AI, and the interviewer wants to know about previous experience, does "Making a bot smart enough to fool your HR department" count as a demonstration of skills?

The HR department is already using AI to filter candidates. It's called Applicant Tracking Systems. It's a thing [1] [2]. If the companies are using bots against the candidates, why should candidates not use bots against the companies?

[1] [https://www.analyticsindiamag.com/top-use-cases-ai-human- res...](https://www.analyticsindiamag.com/top-use-cases-ai-human-resources/)

[2] [https://medium.com/@deadlocked_d/to-all-recruiters-use- machi...](https://medium.com/@deadlocked_d/to-all-recruiters-use-machine- learning-to-hire-better-candidates-c5aad22f3319)

<comment><USER13> It isn't a matter of using a bot. It's what the end result looks like. You can use a bot to determine which of your real skills would likely get your resume looked at. You CANNOT use a bot to build a fake resume.

<comment><USER3> Well... not so sure about that; I think I could probably spin out a reasonable resume bot. I gave the idea some thought; I think the hardest part would be a reasonable-looking work history (which of course would crumble almost immediately), but I suspect it's easier than I think it is.

I may have to take a run at it just for giggles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The person with a hireable mentality would have created Show HN: Fake Resume Generator

<comment><AUTHOR> I might, but I made several Show HNs that didn't succeed.

Before making a controversial project like this, I decided to weigh up the attitude of the community. If the comment thread were encouraging, then I would probably have done it. But instead it's turned to personal attacks on my existing résumé. I think it's a toxic idea that's likely to breed flame wars, and that's not going to help me find a job.

Intriguingly, nobody doubts that AI could produce these bots. Somebody probably will do this, but I don't think they'll then show it off.

<comment><USER3> You can't make personal attacks on a resume, you can make personal attacks on... a person.

I didn't see _anything_ in this entire thread that was a personal attack. I saw attacks on your _idea_ , because it's deceitful, and I saw criticisms of your resume, which AFAIC, seems pretty valid under the circumstances.

If I write a fake resume generator, it'll be on Github for all to peruse and improve upon--don't know why people wouldn't want to "show their work". It's not like it's going to get a lot of people hired, and even if it did, it'll be rare that they're kept in their position for long.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A clear-cut, honest one-page CV stiil beats fakes and bots.

</comment><comment><USER16> As an engineer who gets a lot of resumes from HR to make decisions about who is coming in for in person interviews, I would be rather annoyed. I would feel that you were dishonest and lacked respect for my time.

Saying you have nothing to lose because you're unemployed makes no sense. You would be losing potential job opportunities.

You'd be far better off putting your time into creating a neat, readable resume.

</comment><comment><USER12> Well I do actually read resumes and cover letters. If I figured out you wasted my time with a fake resume (even if it's cool to create them programmatically), I'd blacklist you from future applications and move on with life.

</comment><comment><USER17> You are likely being auto-filtered for a reason, ask for feedback and build on that. Also manage your own expectations, you are in a highly competitive industry with finely balanced requirements - you're not perfect for every role but there is a perfect role for you.</comment>


Joy of Being a Woman in Her 70s - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/12/opinion/sunday/women-older-happiness.html <comment><USER2> This was a good read. It resonated with me because I've been noticing this happening with my mother and father as they get older. I hate to say it like this, but I used to think that my mother was sort of a "simple person" (I can't think of a better word) because she used to tell my brother and I to try to be happy with what we have, to try to enjoy the small things in life, and to try to be appreciative of the things around us. My father, on the other hand, had high ambitions and that mentality always resonated with me more. I used to think that my mother was complacent.

Now that my parents have gotten older, I've noticed that my father is becoming more and more bitter and resentful over how his life turned out, while my mother is becoming more and more at peace with how things have turned out. My father never quite hit his high ambitions, and I can tell that it eats away at him constantly throughout the day. My mother, on the other hand, seems very content with the life she is living.

The study in contrasts is interesting to me, and I think there is something to be learned from both schools of thought. As with most things in life, the optimal path seems to be the middle way. My mother has a very good job and part of that is due to my father encouraging her and pushing her to step outside of her comfort zone and go back to school in her late age. Similarly, my father seems to be (very slowly) mellowing out a little in his late age due to my mother helping him come to terms with how things turned out. Still, there is a lot of bitterness and envy and resentment within him, and it's hard to watch. My mother seems far more well-adjusted now, in comparison.

At the end of the day I think that is what matters most--your relationship to your life. When you strip away all the external things, everything eventually comes down to your thoughts and your mindset and how you think about things. That was the vibe I got from reading this essay, that ultimately things come down to how we reframe things, and that might be the most important "skill" / practice to cultivate.

<comment><USER3> great post!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > We all suffer, but not all of us grow. Those of us who grow do so by > developing our moral imaginations and expanding our carrying capacities for > pain and bliss. In fact, this pendulum between joy and despair is what makes > old age catalytic for spiritual and emotional growth.

Never thought of it this way. An extremely humbling, optimistic and heart- warming read.

<comment><USER5> Reminds me of what Bob Ross said on his show after his wife died:

> Gotta have opposites, light and dark and dark and light, in painting. It's > like in life. Gotta have a little sadness once in awhile so you know when > the good times come. I'm waiting on the good times now.

I'm not a Christian, but between Bob Ross and Fred Rogers, PBS really exhibited the best face of Christianity as a life philosophy.

<comment><USER6> Funny you should mention those two. There's a (false) urban legend about Fred Rogers fighting the Viet Cong, but what _is_ true is that Bob Ross _was_ in the military -- and hated it. His experience being "the guy who makes you scrub the latrine" is what led him to grow out his afro and cultivate his nice-guy persona.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > There is an amazing calculus in old age. As much is taken away, we find more > to love and appreciate. We experience bliss on a regular basis. As one > friend said: "When I was young I needed sexual ecstasy or a hike to the top > of a mountain to experience bliss. Now I can feel it when I look at a > caterpillar on my garden path."

This makes me wonder how much teenage/adulthood is a layer of stress onto our brains. A very high load of impatience and craving for intensity that clouds a lot of things and even hooks many of us (refusing to quit this chase and to ~settle). And then as it fades off, you get back to childlike perception of the world (and when bad times people do regress a bit chaotically in that state partly)

<comment><USER8> Gazing at caterpillars on a garden path does not generally lead to passing along your genes. Impatience and a craving for intensity does often lead to passing along your genes, I think the calculus is pretty straight forward.

<comment><USER9> I think you are probably approximately correct (although a relaxed outlook might lead to helping your grandchildren thrive, thus passing on your genes).

However, your comment could be actionable in a number of ways, for example:

1\. "You should embrace the intensity to make sure you reproduce."

2\. "You should understand the source of that intensity as something that might oppose your goal of happiness."

3\. "You should accept the biological inevitability of that intensity."

I'm partial to number 2. Even if the calculus of reproduction is straight forward, how that should inform your life choices is not.

<comment><USER10> FWIW, I've found that viewing bringing children into this world as a kind of higher calling has done a pretty good job of counteracting the daily stresses of raising children.

<comment><USER11> Based on countless examples in history, the same thing seems to be true for basically anything… Murder, rape, genocide, withstanding or inflicting abuse or torture are all much easier for people to bear mentally if they believe it is part of a greater goal.

<comment><USER10> There's a pretty big difference between justifying something you want to do and making yourself feel better about something that you don't want to do.

<comment><USER11> What are you saying the difference is?

<comment><USER10> It's the difference between good and evil.

<comment><USER11> Are you commenting on the effect on the person who is withstanding the distressing situation through rationalization, or just mentioning that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's great that this story can feature high up the rankings on HN. In spite of focusing on a group that (probably) has limited representation here, people can see the bigger picture and empathise with the points it makes.

</comment><comment><USER13> Beautiful. And I must say, it looks much the same from the male perspective.

</comment><comment><USER14> This was a warming read. I'm not a woman. I'm not even in the 70ies. Anyway.

</comment><comment><USER15> Here's a link with the paywall removed: [https://outline.com/Z5mD98](https://outline.com/Z5mD98)

</comment><comment><USER16> The link on this is showing up as "[https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=nytimes.com"](https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=nytimes.com") for me...

<comment><USER17> Don't click nytimes.com, click the name of the post

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Couldn't you write this stuff of anything? Ultimately, isn't it just empty rationalizations that we all have to go through as we grow old or what we do given any situation? What the fox in Aesop's story did when he could get at the grapes? Just rationalize and move on.

People can write the "Joy of Being in Prison", the "Joy of Being Homeless", the "Joy of Impotence", the "Joy of Losing Your Limbs", etc. But is that really joy or rationalizations?

I'm failing to see what the point of the article really is and also, what is "news" worthy about this?

<comment><USER19> Couldn't you write this comment about anything?

> _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A > good critical comment teaches us something._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER20> I didn't find the comment shallow. Shallow would be "what a dumb article".

That said, what the OP calls "rationalization" could just as well be "perspective".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This could/should be

"Joy of Being a (Human) In Their 70s"

Very little is relevant to gender, at all.

<comment><USER22> Though some of it is, so it's written this way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Most of us don't miss the male gaze. It came with catcalls, harassment and unwanted attention. Instead, we feel free from the tyranny of worrying about our looks. For the first time since we were 10, we can feel relaxed about our appearance."

I call bullshit. People spend Billions to become more attractive, and rarely anything to become less attractive.

If these women would have suffered so much from the "male gaze", they could have taken steps to look as unattractive as possible way earlier than in their 70ies.

<comment><USER24> This logic appears to presume that women are responsible for changing themselves in order to avoid being mistreated, and that their desire to change their looks is at all intended to draw catcalls, harassment, and unwanted attention.

I understand wearing makeup (for example) is an external thing meant for other people to see, but it's reckless and illogical to go down the path of assuming who the makeup is for and why it's worn. It's also unfair to say they should or could have taken steps to change themselves in order to solve a problem unfairly imposed upon them by other people.

If a farmer has problems with raccoons eating their crops, would you ever suggest they should simply destroy their crop fields to make the land less appealing to raccoons?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Sage wisdom and advice. Should be titled something more like _How to Find Joy at Any Age_.

</comment><comment><USER26> Easy for a baby boomer. Won't be so sweet for our generation. I hope to die soon after I reach 69 :)

<comment><USER21> Why?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > happiness is a skill and a choice.

but worrying about looks is not?

> we feel free from the tyranny of worrying about our looks. For the first > time since we were 10, we can feel relaxed about our appearance.

<comment><USER28> >but worrying about looks is not?

Social pressure is so strong! I don't know if you are a woman or not but from my perspective (as a woman) I am truly grateful for each year I live, as I become less and less worried about my appearance in detail, and more about the expression on my face and my body language - how happy and welcoming I look when I greet people. This knowledge wasn't obvious as a young woman.

<comment><USER29> Lol, as I am getting old I care less and less whether I look happy and welcoming :). I am increasingly less and less concerned about projecting socially expected emotions when I don't have them.

Through, I do care also less about how I look, through I am trying to force myself to care bit more.

<comment><USER28> Maybe it's a bell curve - when we do reach 70 we'll not care about either, much as we did as toddlers!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: We want to help startups poach engineers from Google and Apple  - <AUTHOR> http://www.loftjobs.com Hey HN,
All our startup friends are having trouble finding good engineers to hire, while some of our friends who work at big companies are looking for new challenges.
But they don't read HN or TC. They don't know where to start looking.
So we put together a place for the best opportunities.
We'd love some feedback, ideas or suggestions...
Some people call us "The Ashley Madison of Job sites". <comment><USER2> "Only current employees at the bay areas top tech companies are invited to look at our positions. "

So unless the HN readership is largely made up of employees of Google and Apple, why exactly should they care? There seems to be an implied equivalence of "works at big company" with "is a high quality engineer", which is a little dubious when you include companies like IBM and Adobe.Any startup that restricts recruiting efforts to "big companies" must be really _really_ dumb. Why would good engineers want to work for them in the first place?

Adobe? IBM? Does anyone think focusing on these companies gives you a better chance of finding better engineers?

"The startups you'll find at LoftJobs are the next Googles and Facebooks "

Oh please. If you know that with any degree of confidence, you should be investing every dollar you can get your hands on in them vs asking people to fill your databases for free. The first thing to learn about talking to good engineers is to avoid easily dismantled exaggerations and keep it factual.

I'm sure calling yourself "The Ashley Madison of Job sites" inspires confidence in your target population ;)

I suspect really good engineers at the big companies in the Bay Area are fairly informed about the startup scene (or can ask friends who _are_ plugged in) and can get a job in a startup of their choice fairly trivially without a middleman.

In any case, How do _we_ know that loftjobs actually has some kind of exclusive job listings from these interesting startups that aren't available elsewhere? What makes your claims credible? Is this some kind of recruiter spam trying to get HN readers to do their work of populating their database for them?

<comment><USER3> Hi, cofounder of Loftjobs here. Our target user isn't "plugged-in" into the startup world like most HN readers. He/she probably has a vague interest in startups but doesn't know where to start.

We put together the developer positions at some exciting startups - this is a great place to start.

I promise this isn't recruiter spam :-) We're hoping the savvy readers at HN could give us some feedback on both the site and the idea.

Cheers,

Ted

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like the idea, although I'd be careful - I'd imagine the various companies involved might not be too keen on such direct action against them. Is this something you've investigated, in terms of their/your legal standpoint or indeed how these companies react to recruiters approaching their employees?

<comment><USER4> That said, based on things we read here, there certainly seems to be a demand for this kind of thing - just letting people see what they _could_ do could be the catalyst to get them into start-ups from some of these bigger companies.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN,

All our startup friends are having trouble finding good engineers to hire, while some of our friends who work at big companies are looking for new challenges.

But they don't read HN or TC. They don't know where to start looking.

So we put together a place for the best opportunities.

We'd love feedback!

Some people call us "The Ashley Madison of Job sites".

<comment><USER5> tip: don't call it the The Ashley Madison of job sites

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like the "only emails from X companies can join". Reminds me of how Facebook started :)

Why not focus on 1 company? Illegal?

<comment><USER3> We are considering narrowing the companies down even further - we wanted to see what the reception was with this current list. You're spot on with your FB comment.

TR

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What are you going to do if Apple block all emails from your website, or monitor employees who receive emails from your website? It could hurt them in their current job?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is just a start. We have some other ways to sign up in the pipeline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> nice post!</comment>


Winning Venture Capital Pitches - <AUTHOR> http://startupalpha.com/chatter/2008/03/29/winning-venture-capital-pitches/ <comment><USER2> "DayJet performed extensive econometric modeling involving detailed census data to build geographically-targeted service roll-out business plans that accounted for diverse consumer demand and logistics scenarios to demonstrate how regional air transportation could be successfully disaggregated."

lol, Do you think they used this:

<http://dack.com/web/bullshit.html>

<comment><USER3> Yeah, must have... this article really reads like made-up gobbledygook...

Daniel</comment></comment>


Gluten-Free Diet Has No Benefits for Autistic Children, New Study Finds - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2019/11/11/gluten-free-diet-has-no-benefits-for-autistic-children-new-study-finds/ <comment><USER2> Because gluten-free probably means adding other lectins. There are a few autism cases on meatheals.com</comment>


What, no talk of about the impending Y Combinator S11 decisions? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Allow me to introduce you to the "search" function on news. (There are several posts already on the impending YC S11 decisions.)

<comment><AUTHOR> What is this is?!? Actually I've never used HN's search. Trying it now.

<comment><USER2> I overlooked the "search" button at the bottom of the page for weeks until I actively went looking for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> We're on Convore, come join us!

<comment><AUTHOR> Here I assume?

<https://convore.com/hacker-news/yc-s11-applicants/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Correction, here's a better place: <https://convore.com/yc-s11-apps/></comment></comment></comment>


Adobe Acquires Web Typography Innovator Typekit - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/adobe-acquires-web-typography-innovator-typekit-2011-10-03

<comment><USER2> Congrats to Mr Veen et al, but ... Ugh. Typekit was a great service.

I have little faith that Adobe won't completely screw it up.

<comment><USER3> Count me among the (presumably few) HN'ers that think this is going to be a win for web typography. The "cool kids" know who Typekit is, but the mainstream trusts Adobe (look how much crappy Flash there is out there solving problems that Typekit solves elegantly).

And whatever you may think of Adobe- the- company, it seems to me they've been an impeccable steward of digital typography. They clearly care about it more than any other major software vendor.

<comment><USER4> I think Adobe has a better chance of getting the mainstream foundries aboard. If you think the music industry has been resisting modernisation, the type foundries are practically Amish.

<comment><USER3> I can't blame them even a little bit. High-quality typefaces are extraordinarily difficult to design, trivial to misappropriate (I've done it accidentally several times), virtually impossible to track, and depend totally on a business model that charges big companies huge amounts of money for para- exclusive access to those faces (in part to allow those companies to use them as signaling mechanisms for their brands).

Nerds will never, ever get it through their heads that typefaces aren't cheap. They're expensive. That's a problem for nerds, because bits are very very cheap, and naturally anything that can be represented in bits and put on a web page should be cheap-as-free. It also doesn't help that most nerds can't appreciate the difference between what's on Google Fonts and what's in Typekit's portfolio, which only reinforces the notion that fonts should be cheap... after all, good fonts appear to be free! Silly designers!

But! But! But! I anticipate the multi-paragraph responses from HN's vast army of copyfighters and respond only with "well that's why we get to choose between Adobe's service and the crappy fonts on Google Fonts, and Trebuchet and Arial". Thanks, copyfighters!

<comment><USER5> The thing is, if it was as simple as you make out, iTunes would never have worked, no-one would be running massively profitable stock photo sites, etc.

High quality fonts _are_ difficult to make, but I suspect enough people who know enough to take advantage of those good fonts appreciate that and would be willing to pay for them in return. (I have put plenty of my own money where my mouth is on this point.) As a consequence those who use premium fonts well would wind up with better looking sites, and the foundries would wind up with more money.

If those foundries paid attention to other markets, everything from software to music, they could surely find a far more lucrative business model than the mess they've created now where everything is available but most of us can't buy it for most projects. But first they have to get the basic fact that most creative industries have realised by now: in the age of the Internet, when copying is free, the market will not accept your masterpiece at its traditional price, but a lot more people might buy it for a lot less money due to some combination of convenience and sense of fairness.

Funnily enough, services like Typekit almost seem to be aiming for that model, except that they've kind of got the worst of both worlds: prices so cheap for the average small/non-commercial site that they aren't really worth much in aggregate, but legal terms that mean they can't be used for a large proportion of otherwise potentially lucrative commercial sites.

<comment><USER3> Digital distribution of music has been catastrophic for music labels. The foundries are doing OK today. Why would they embrace a new model?

<comment><USER5> I don't think it's fair to compare record labels and font foundries. The labels are basically glorified middlemen, and they're middlemen who had been overtly price gouging for many years before the Internet came along. The foundries typically are the original sources of new fonts and do actually pay real money to the staff who work on them.

Even then, I think you're overstating the case for the music labels.

> Digital distribution of music has been catastrophic for music labels.

They bitch a lot, but Big Media still seems to make an awful lot of money, despite obvious competition in the Internet age from both less than legal alternative channels for the music and from other ways people can spend their leisure time and money.

Considering the amount of rip-off pricing that was going on prior to the Internet age, the fact that the Big Four still make as much as they do today is remarkable. And that's on top of Apple, Amazon et al making a fortune off it as well, which obviously cuts into the profits of the record labels themselves, and on top of all the other smaller players like Spotify who are redistributing music via different channels.

Digital distribution has been catastrophic for bricks 'n' mortar music stores, but that's about the only group that has lost out disastrously AFAICS. The rest is just a bunch of middlemen who don't create anything themselves finding that their services aren't as valuable as they used to be.

> The foundries are doing OK today. Why would they embrace a new model?

Because otherwise competition from cheap/free fonts and the illegal black market in pro fonts _could_ seriously hurt them. Unlike Big Media, most/all of them are far too small to actively hunt down sites using their work illegally and take the necessary action to get some money out of enough of those sites to survive.

Or if you prefer a more constructive view, because they could make $#!%loads of money selling web fonts, probably at far higher prices than they are making for the equivalent usage via services like Typekit, if they stopped worrying about the people who are going to rip them off anyway and catered for the people who are willing and able to pay them hard cash they won't otherwise get.

<comment><USER3> I didn't make the comparison, you did, so I'm going to refrain from pursuing this thread.

I think foundries are as likely to lose money to web fonts as make it, because the people who truly value distinctive typography already pay for it, and the mass market uses Papyrus and Comic Sans.

<comment><USER5> > I didn't make the comparison, you did

My comparison was not between foundries and music labels, but between selling fonts and selling music, stock art, etc. The point wasn't who was doing the selling, it was that you can do just fine selling at much cheaper prices to a much wider audience, and that such a model fits the reality of the Internet much better.

> I think foundries are as likely to lose money to web fonts as make it, > because the people who truly value distinctive typography already pay for it

But prior to the web font services, there was no way for people to give money to the foundries to use their fonts on web sites, even if they wanted to.

And for those projects where an ongoing rental payment is not a suitable pricing model, there still isn't, which means the foundries aren't even accepting money from people who do value high quality typography and would happily pay for the chance to use it. I just don't see how that makes any business sense at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Now. One thing to keep in mind before everyone cringes hearing _Adobe_.

Adobe has always been a _very_ web friendly foundry. They permit things like Cufon use under their _standard_ EULA that covers hundreds if not thousands of fonts. Few years ago, when asking a foundry for a web license would typically produce "La-la-la-la. Can't hear you. Web doesn't exist.", it was unbelievably liberal. It wasn't a fluke either, it was an intentional decision driven from the inside by those from the font group.

In other words, if there _is_ a larger company that I would like to see acquire Typekit, that would be Adobe. They may have screwed few things here and there, but they totally get the webfonts.

</comment><comment><USER7> More innovation dying before it gets the chance to thrive. I thought Typekit needed a few more years on its own to become prolific, and though I don't fault them for selling, I think this blows.

</comment><comment><USER8> If this gets adobe fonts into typekit's library, that would be great.

I just really don't want the pricing to change, even if it means no adobe fonts.

</comment><comment><USER9> I couldn't get over the pricing. I'm not doing a yearly subscription based on pageviews to use some nice fonts on my site. Just me?

<comment><USER10> I think their pricing becomes much more compelling at the portfolio level. $4/mo is completely reasonable for web designers building sites - as is their Performance pricing for more pageviews.

Though, I wouldn't be shocked to see Adobe jack those prices up. They've never been keen at competing on price.

<comment><USER9> $4/mo is definitely reasonable. However, I would much rather pay double and host the fonts myself. I realize that's the tradeoff with the type foundries, but for client work, I think I would get a lot of pushback billing them monthly for a design they paid for a year ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I, for one, am shocked that I didn't see this one coming. Adobe has a great suite of fonts, and with HTML5 and the open web killing flash they'll need some new thinks to keep in the market.</comment>


The Economist: Deflating IT - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/people/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12052307&fsrc=rss

<comment><USER3> I'm a manager in an in-house corporate IT dept. Far from running scared from this kind of thing I'm constantly trying to get the rest of the business to except off the self software for all the little tools that they ask for so that we can focus on the key business differentiators.

Problem is, they're a big company and they want slick corporate branded stuff that integrates with our ActiveDirectory and where the drop downs have sucked values in from other apps so it all just works. Which is fine, only, it costs loads and its in most cases it's not worth it.

I think it'll be hard for a lot of big corporates to accept that it's better (for example) to adjust their business to Zoho CRM than to hire people to adjust SAP CRM to their business. I think a few startups will have to adopt things like Zoho and then grow big, before the incumbents change.

<comment><USER4> I think businesses have to pick and choose, but: if inhouse CRM is part of the competitive advantage, then it makes sense. If it isn't, and the only goal is for it to be acceptable, then it makes more sense to license an existing product.

Except for state/government institutions, which very often have many other regulatory hurdles that commercial software doesn't handle well. That's one of the ways in which regulation can be very expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> While I am a bit worried about how scatterbrained AdventNet seems to be - I do think that they have a chance to disrupt a very inefficient and parasitic software eco-system that exists in Business Software. They only need to figure out the integration piece and the fact that they have played with some Microsoft Active Directory tools and embrace outside identity systems may help them get there.

I have found that the biggest draw to "integrated" software is not having a new set of credentials to login into it.

I am finding some success with technologies that can play nice with various directories. I am currently playing with Novell's EDirectory and its Identity Management solutions and it surprises me how few companies focus on what I see as one of the central problems in business IT: the seamless integration between the company's CRM, the team's contacts and the directories that power each business solution.

There is a huge need for a business class 'identity-in-the-cloud' solution that speak to many internal systems using software hooks/drivers that are very transparent, have good auditing and can be controlled by the company/customer.

I bet a large percentage of software projects at companies have overlapping user management sub-systems that could be better addressed by an identity-in- the-cloud system like the ones emerging from Microsoft, Google et al.

And for those who say that your company has too many secrets to possibly use an outside solution for identity - get over it, it is not true. You have many people forwarding things to their Gmail accounts and many mobile devices around the country without even a pin code to secure them. Your sense of security is an illusion, embrace solutions that can provide complete audits of what happens with them, then you will know how insecure you really are and plan around the fact that total security is impossible. And your internal development team will never reach the self-auditing stage of the solution because as soon as it half works they are pulled to something else.

</comment><comment><USER6> "Microsoft, having grown up making money selling traditional software, will have a hard time being successful online, he argues. He thinks Google is unlikely to invest much in enterprise applications, because profit per employee is much lower than in its advertisement-financed consumer business."

I hope for his own good that he's not staking the future of his business on those basic assumptions. If Google and Microsoft were to ramp up their development of online enterprise software (which IMHO will undoubtedly happen), he'll have very little room to maneuver and no time to react.

<comment><USER7> Google & Microsoft will both do very well, indeed. Even then we will have a decent business if we execute well.

First, we are much smaller, so it takes a lot less to be successful. Second, even in the face of the most successful business on the planet, Intuit and Adobe succeeded well. Third, monopolies are exceptionally rare, and fairly transient - so Microsoft's Windows/Office monopoly is likely to prove to be the exception than the rule, even for Microsoft itself. Linux on the server side, Mac on the client, Firefox/Chrome in browsers ... all point to that.

Dell is an outstanding success, and still only holds somewhere under 20% of the global PC market. That's what I expect to be true in cloud computing.

Bottomline: there are going to be many players with many successful strategies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> IT needs are a moving target. I don't see how you can commoditize custom software.

<comment><USER9> You refactor your product to need as little customization as possible, and make it easy to extend and modify. The more OSS you can build on, the more money you save. One IT employee is easily $100K/yr after benefits, so if you can eliminate that much custom work, that's what you can charge. I'm not saying that this is easy to do.

<comment><USER10> I was thinking that understanding the problem (the business's "IT needs") is hard to commoditize, and can't be done with 100% automation (unless all businesses were cookie-cutter, automatically formally describable - <USER2> almost true for some franchise-style businesses).

But much can be done without reaching perfection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _He thinks Google is unlikely to invest much in enterprise applications, because profit per employee is much lower than in its advertisement-financed consumer business._

I know this isn't the article's centre of gravity, but...

It bugs me to hear this thrown around so easily. There is no existing business model that produces that type of cash from online advertising. Search is the exception. Not the rule. Google's hedging bets, tying their hands but at the end of the day, these free web services will either need to be:

1\. subsidised by a giant (like google does now) for whatever reasons they can get together

2\. very cheap to run. IE web-services will replace companies many times their size, taking only a fraction over the revenues. You can always get _some_ revenue from ads.

3\. paid for by users

4\. a business model will emerge that will do for apps what overture/adwords did for search.

I wouldn't be putting all my shells on 4. Unless i'm missing something.

Gmail is probably one of the 'best-bet' ad-supported apps. If it was a yearbook, they might get 'most likely to succeed' Anyone have an idea how much they make?

</comment><comment><USER10> > "I was convinced that something big was about to happen with software in > India," he explains. "I wanted to be part of it."

> Customers must be convinced that they can entrust their business to the > software.

The first kind of convincing is harder.

</comment><comment><USER10> disruptive adoption: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=297597>

</comment><comment><USER12> Deflating IT? Oversimplifying IT, rather.</comment>


Why are there so many science PhDs? - <AUTHOR> http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2014/01/07/why-are-there-so-many-science-phds/ <comment><USER2> Could it be that many people are actually interested in science?

There is nearly continuous hand-wringing that kids are no longer interested in science, yet many go into fields like physics, astronomy, and biology despite knowing the job prospects are better elsewhere (finance, programming, petroleum engineering, etc.). And then many continue on for a PhD despite it not making financial sense to do so. One possibility is that they are either highly misinformed or just irrational. But one could be that they actually want to advance physics, astronomy, biology, or whatever their chosen field is, and they see it as a necessary prerequisite (finding a career _in physics_ with a physics BSc is difficult).

If so, then we have one of two problems (or perhaps a mixture):

1\. _Too many_ kids are interested in science. We should stop trying to encourage interest in science as a career, and rather encourage kids to develop interests elsewhere, to reduce the glut. No more kids-oriented physics or astronomy programs on public TV!

2\. The existing scientific career pathways are not sufficient to provide productive scientific careers to enough of the people interested in pursuing a scientific career. We should figure out what to do about that, whether it involves debugging/debottlenecking some of the pathways, increasing funding, producing new funding models (perhaps research funding not tied to universities), etc.

<comment><USER3> This was certainly my own motivation. Contributing something to our collective knowledge was the goal. The value of that in my eyes was worth the time.

On a slightly different topic, why is HN so obsessed with PhDs? PhDs represent a very small fraction of the population, and they are not particularly vocal either. Yet you see article after article here about PhDs, the majority of the comments being negative or hostile.

<comment><USER4> I think it's the status; there are a fair amount of people on HN who have PhDs (I have no idea what the actual fraction is; ~5-10%?) and a lot more equally smart people who don't have one. And some (surely small) fraction of those people either have their own insecurities, or feel badgered by PhDs (like michaelochurch below, who I am glad explained his negativity).

But it saddens me a bit, because getting a PhD really can be a wonderful and valuable thing.

<comment><USER5> HN's local PhD-holders are interesting examples of how having a PhD doesn't really mean you have to do any specific thing (or pursue an academic career). When I was doing a little research on the most prolific HN posters [1], I found 3 of the top 20 have a PhD, and none are in academia: Paul Graham runs YCombinator, John Graham-Cumming is a programmer and author, and Colin Wright works in maritime technology (while also giving mathematics talks to students on the side). Another only-slightly-less-prolific poster is Colin Percival, who runs a one-man technology business (Tarsnap).

[1] [http://www.kmjn.org/notes/hacker_news_posters.html](http://www.kmjn.org/notes/hacker_news_posters.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's simple: the immigration system rewards advanced degrees.

While Americans often pursue Ph.Ds because of a desire to pursue academia or pure research, most people coming to the US for educations are looking for a way to stay in the US, and there are H1-B slots specifically for those with advanced degrees from US universities.

Further, the life of a graduate student on stipend is remarkably similar in lifestyle comforts to working in their native countries, and they will be rewarded with better jobs in their native countries even if they do not stay in the US.

That is what fuels the graduate student STEM system.

<comment><USER7> {{citation needed}}

What if people came to the US simply to get an education? Let's face it, the education at good American universities is very, very good, and anyone with a PhD degree from Harvard, Berkeley or UIUC has a good shot at getting a decent position back home.

For H1-B purposes, a US Masters degree is sufficient, and there are more than plenty such programs to go around. (Why are there so many taught masters? It's because they are cheap for the university to offer, and lesser places are in urgent need of income from tuition.) No need to pain oneself with five years of serious PhD work when a year or two of taught masters will do the job.

On the contrary, the road to a green card is complicated, it really shouldn't be done through H1-B because then you are at the mercy of the employer, and with a PhD from somewhere decent it's best done though E1/E2 with national interest waiver, no H1-B needed. (If you know what I'm talking about it's because you are a lawyer or applied for a Green Card. May God have mercy on your soul.)

It's more likely that Americans don't shoot for PhD in the sciences because it's hard work that isn't well rewarded at the end. The market is speaking.

<comment><USER8> I thought most PhDs go the route of E1 outstanding researcher, which requires a job. Is E1-NIW common?

<comment><USER7> E1 - Persons with extraordinary ability doesn't require a job offer, neither does E2-NIW. Yes, E2-NIW is rather common because it's a catch-all category that does not require sponsorship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Are there many people doing a science PhD for the job prospects? I mean, my understanding is that in America it involves an extra couple of years of specialization on top of the (four?) years average of the PhD itself. It's not like someone with no background in science is going into them "because market forces" (why does everything have to be done in terms of what the market demands?).

Most of the people I have met doing my PhD is doing it because they love their field and want to gain a deeper understanding, or work in the field.

<comment><USER10> Something I've found as a quant and data scientist without a PhD is that PhD Bigotry is common. Really fucking common. Plenty of companies will give you second-rate projects just because you don't have a PhD.

That said, it would _never_ make sense for me to get a PhD for job-related reasons: the opportunity cost is too high. (In fact, it's too high even considering that I have a lot of intellectual reasons why, if I had more time, I'd do one.) Economically, I'm better off to deal with the annoyance of PhD bigotry (and leave jobs if it is an issue) than go into a program that has almost (and possibly over) $1 million in opportunity costs and that I'll exit (if I'm lucky) at the unfundable age of 35.

I know why PhD bigotry exists; people conceive that the alternative is to admit that 4-6 years of time were wasted, so they have to build up this bullshit belief that without a PhD, you're just not research-grade. But I find that ridiculous. 4-6 years learning things you're passionate about and can use is _never_ wasted; but don't bring me down (by insisting that everyone who hasn't made such an investment is somehow inferior) just because you're insecure about your choices. (Who isn't?)

<comment><USER5> I agree there's a reasonable amount of that, but in technology research specifically, my impression has been that publications trump degrees. If two people without any recent impressive publications are being compared, then the person with a PhD gets to pull that card. But if you're looking at graphics researchers, say, if and how recently you've published at SIGGRAPH is often a bigger factor than what degrees you have, when it comes to whether other graphics researchers consider you a legit graphics researcher. Industry guy with a BSc who publishes there regularly is seen as more of a real graphics researcher than PhD-holder who used to work in the field but last published there in 1995 (unless what they published in 1995 was truly revolutionary, maybe).

<comment><USER11> I've found that demonstrated competency & achievements count for more than both publications and degrees. When I was working on Google Authorship, I was the only one on the team without an advanced degree, and only two others lacked a Ph.D. I never once felt like I was looked down upon - actually, it seemed like I was quite well-respected, and for a year after I left the team they continued to ask my manager to keep me sitting in the same office for occasional consulting. Why? Because I had written much of the code that got the project off the ground, I understood how everything fit together, and I was very willing to consider and advocate for ideas of how it could all be improved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is plenty of demand for PhD students and fresh postdocs. They help the Prof. with her teaching load, grant writing, etc. They are dedicated, work long hours and cost little.

There is however, much lower demand for PhDs who would wish to run their own research program, after all the PI can take the same ideas and work and do it under guise of their own research program without giving too much credit to the grad student or postdoc.

The result, at least in biomedicine, is an increase in the size of research groups, and very protracted postdoctoral periods.

</comment><comment><USER13> I agree with michaelochurch's argument and extend it to a escalation of commitment / sunk cost fallacy effect.

No jobs for BS grads other than waitress? Well, I'm not going to quit physics after 4 long years and go into being a waiter... I know, go for a MS! Whoops no jobs for MS grads other than barista? No problemo, go for a PHD!

I would also propose the "professional sport" model now applies in academia. 1000 students will get a BS, 100 will get the MS, 10 will get a PHD, 1 will get an actual PHD level industrial job or tenure track professorship. The other 999 can pay off their student loans working at Starbucks. There is less difference between a physics major and a phy ed major than ever before.

</comment><comment><USER14> As pcrh hinted there is a bit of an echo chamber effect in academia. I noticed it as well. Many professors will advocate and encourage students because they themselves chose that path. Some just see it as a good career, some want postdocs and TA students to help with grading and TAs.

One professor I had I heard telling the student, you can have a stable teaching job, good vacations, good life. It wasn't about contributing to science, about advancing research, being interested in the subject it was about trying to coast and mooch of the public university system.

<comment><USER13> denigration of "... stable ... job, good vacations, good life... " = Stockholm syndrome victim.

Let me make a wild guess, that whoever convinced you those are bad things to be avoided, personally financially benefits from your lack of a stable job, lack of vacation and lack of a good lifestyle?

I wanted to go into physics when I was about 17... I couldn't figure out why ruining my theoretical future families life by grinding poverty would contribute to science, so bye bye physics. I can read a book if I want to.

<comment><USER14> > Let me make a wild guess, that whoever convinced you those are bad things to > be avoided, personally financially benefits from your lack of a stable job, > lack of vacation and lack of a good lifestyle?

It wasn't me, it was someone else that was being convinced. I was encouraged but not as directly. The idea is that at least public universities, should probably be spending resources grooming students who intent on advancing particular specialties or fields not just mooch off of tenure system.

And I guess I would have expected them to make that a bit more veiled and not as direct. That is why perhaps tenure is harder to acquire and what separates average and below average schools from top tier ones (this wasn't a top one, just an average state college).

<comment><USER13> The Stockholm Syndrome thing is related to the language choice. Being able to take a vacation, or having a good lifestyle, does not equal "mooching".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It do think the article and the articles Daniel is referring to have a point, there is indeed an industry - PhD gap. But this gap is not more than logical; It has todo with the "raison d'être" of a PhD:

PhD are tracks of several years to advance human knowledge by doing science. It is often a low payed 'job', done by people who are passionate about the thing they are studying. If you just want to get a good paying job, doing a PhD is probably not advisable, though Universities may inform students otherwise (like Daniel is mentioning).

I myself am working in industry and am well payed, however I'm considering pursuing a PhD related to autonomous driving.. Why? Because I'm passionate about it. Because i'd rather spend time advancing the human race than to fix a race condition in our backend servers (also fun ;-)

Anyway, i think this partially explains why a lot of people or doing PhD. Its because of the human endless interest in science. Its a good thing. In the end the research these PhD students are doing will cause revolutions in our industry.

In a few years people will be driving autonomous cars. And this is mostly due to universities. Google is standing on the shoulders of giants.

Probably I'm viewing this with too much optimism, but I think thats a good thing. At least i'm aware of it.

</comment><comment><USER16> I have an undergraduate degree in an unrelated field (from software engineering, which is what I do). I have never really wanted to go on because the income opportunity loss was too great. But I once thought if I were independently wealthy I would go back. I recently had a chance to do a graduate-level coursework for my job. It was a real shock to remember that "getting the right answer" was more important than learning anything or making something. So if it's about learning something, I think there are better things you can do than get a degree. Especially now that education has become such a business and totally employment-oriented.

<comment><USER17> Getting the right answer on known problems is a prerequisite to getting the right answer on unknown ones. At least, if you can't get the right answer it's very unlikely you can solve ones where the answer is unknown. Also, there's a good chance you didn't really learn the material. Having taught courses at all levels I would say it's relatively rare to assign problems that are truly hard. Most just are testing your understanding of definitions and if you can't get the right answer you probably didn't understand something.

Getting a PhD isn't just about "learning" but also how to create/discover new knowledge. If all you want is to learn something get a second undergraduate degree or read on your own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics data still indicate that PhDs have higher lifetime earnings and lower unemployment than those with lower levels of educational attainment. [1][2] (Those with professional degrees do somewhat better, though it's unclear if it's statistically significant.)

Those who study the sciences tend to have higher lifetime earnings than others. Here's indication of that at least at the Bachelor's level: [3][4] (I can't find the PhD earnings breakdown , but I'd be surprised if this suddenly inverted at upper levels.)

[1] [http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/acs/infogr...](http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/acs/infographics/index.html)

[2] [http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm](http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm)

[3] [http://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/056/](http://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/056/)

[4] [http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-10.pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-10.pdf)

Note that the BLS link (2) includes median earnings, indicating that this is not just skewed by a handful of overachievers in the top couple percentile. It's not as if the top two percent of PhDs are landing eight figure jobs and every other PhD is unemployed.

There seems to be a shortage of jobs within academia, and it may be that those with more investment in skills have more search costs to find the ideal fit for their skills with appropriate compensation.

On the other hand, Jeff Sauro found that in the Usability field, PhDs never catch up. [5]

[5] [http://www.measuringusability.com/usability- phd.php](http://www.measuringusability.com/usability-phd.php)

So there's the possibility that some professions don't follow the trend, but the results overall are fairly clear that a PhD is a good idea in general. More rigorous analysis probably needs to be done profession by profession though.

<comment><USER19> Bachelor's degree holders encompass a much larger set of population, with a lot more variance than the set of PhD holders. I'd think that if you can get a set of "people without PhD that could have been capable of getting one" and compare it with PhD holders, the difference would be far smaller, if any.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> One possible reason is that the PhD in some fields can be an "easy" way to get a paying position after graduating. There are a lot of smart people graduating from undergraduate programs, and there is a general paucity of good jobs for these people. A PhD provides a few good things:

1) Credentials look good on paper

2) Work is generally perceived as interesting and worth doing (at least, until they start doing it)

3) Some fields/programs offer stipends. In many cases, a small stipend doing what you think will be interesting work is perceived as better than a larger salary doing an uninteresting task.

</comment><comment><USER21> As an undergrad, the main reason I would pursue a PhD would be to have some kind of intellectual freedom after graduating. A lot of my CS peers and friends would rather immediately jump to industry to make that magical $100k/yr, but I see a PhD as a way of being able to pursue my interests much more freely. If I have to be a slave/code monkey, I'd rather be a slave for myself first. That's worth the difference in salary for me at this moment.

</comment><comment><USER22> For me at least:

1\. I want to improve the world

2\. Intellectual freedom matters to me

3\. Money doesn't matter to me

Market forces be damned.

<comment><USER23> This is market action. Market != money. You're making a value choice between different outcomes and exercising an unrestricted choice to pursue what you want out of a marketplace of options.

You should also consider that nonprofit != "helping the world". There are lots of non-profit efforts that don't wind up helping one bit, and just consuming resources. (for that matter, this happens with for-profits, too).

And, having been through the mill, A PhD does not guarantee you intellectual freedom. I'd say it might even be worse in some sectors of the academe.

<comment><USER22> Agreed on all points. But market action != market forces. I was not persuaded by a disparity between supply and demand in the market to do a PhD.

My PhD has a very direct route to helping the world, and I chose it because after about a year of searching I considered it the most efficient way to use my skills to do so. My next move might well be in the for-profit world; Ive seen some very effective stuff happening there.

Similarly, the PhD in general doesn't guarantee intellectual freedom, but mine does. This was a major factor in choosing my supervisor (there are ~20 in the consortium I wanted to work in, and I rejected several).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> part of it is simply due to the inertia of already being in an academic environment. students commit 4 years to do their undergraduate degrees. instead of pursuing the unknown (ie. searching for a job, moving potentially, meeting new people, becoming more independent, etc.) students stick with what they already know in academia, albeit in a different, more serious form.

</comment><comment><USER10> The answer is that we're farther away from full employment than we think we are in the US. We think we're off by some 5% rounding error we can attribute to friction or economic cycles, but we're actually off by 20-25% (include: discouraged workers, our gigantic prison population, et al). For most people, extended schooling (for those whose parents can afford it) is a way to replace the marginal, vulnerable years with something that doesn't involve the stigma of being unemployed. For science PhD programs, there's even (meager) pay.

Why are there so many law students who don't give a shit about the law? MBA- school students who just want to network and drink but don't care about business fundamentals? For these same reason as there are those surplus, academically unemployable PhDs. For most people, the alternative isn't "$800k seed round". It's no job or non-college job or some other situation that makes graduate school a better option.

Of course, this floods graduate programs with people who shouldn't be there, often don't care to be there, and clog up the job market for everyone else with that degree.

<comment><USER25> Very interesting perspective. Why do you think there's so much unemployment?</comment></comment>


How to evaluate a non-technical co-founder - <AUTHOR> http://blog.hirelite.com/how-to-evaluate-a-non-technical-co-founder <comment><USER2> I'll probably get down-voted for this being as though this is Hacker News and the majority of people here are "tech types" as opposed to "biz types". However as a biz founder its probably necessary to speak up:

Common philosophies I hear exposited in tech circles is, "Biz co-founders are a dime a dozen" and "Good ideas, in and of themselves, are worthless". The argument being everyone on the planet is capable of formulating ideas, thus "good" ideas can be found in overwhelming abundance. One may hear this suggestion advanced amongst mostly "tech types", such as programmers, developers, engineers, etc. Many of them believe value is derived from the conversion of an idea into a physical product. What group of people are typically required to convert the idea into a physical product? Why the programmers, developers, and engineers of course! In this type of climate, the notion that good ideas alone being worthless or that biz co-founders are worth less than their tech counterparts becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This notion is advanced by none other than those that stand to gain the most from it: the programmers, developers, and engineers. Sorry guys. I don't buy it. Read more on this phenomenon here: <http://thegeoffreyhull.com/post/3767537182>.

<comment><USER3> Part of your blog is a verbatim duplicate of [http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/we-dont-get-out-of-bed- for-...](http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/we-dont-get-out-of-bed-for-less- than-10000-per-day)

For someone who values original ideas highly, this is a theft of the highest order. Wouldn't you agree?

<comment><USER2> Interesting how you completely missed the section where I cited Sebastian's blog as a source of inspiration for my article. To prevent any further misunderstandings, I've denoted the origins of the text with a big block of quotes to make it absolutely clear. I reject your assertion of "theft".

<comment><USER3> I never saw a link to Sebastian's blog in your original article. So, yes, maybe I missed it. However, it was not "inspired". It was a verbatim copy without any indication of it being so.

I am glad you edited the article to explicitly give credit where it is due.

<comment><USER2> My apologies. I'm hoping its more clear now

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Being a biz founder I picked up technical skills and built a crappy (MVP of MVP's) prototype to pitch to tech founders. If the non-tech founder can't even learn enough code to get anything built then I would be concerned for their level of dedication for their own idea.

Even though my prototype was terrible and even made the other founders laugh, they could see my level of dedication and my ability to get something done.

To me being a biz founder we need to be the scapegoat of the startup, no pride all humility and can sell the shit out of anything.

<comment><USER5> If the non-tech founder can't even learn enough code to get anything built then I would be concerned for their level of dedication for their own idea.

\</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

I think thats a little much.

Part of being a good business man is knowing where you weaknesses lie, and knowing how to plug those holes in your game. So why would you waste valuable time trying to pick up a skill that you're probably not interesting in having and will probably not put to use, when you can spend that time raising money to hire a developer or get one to come in with you and handle the development?

<comment><USER6> There's as much skill involved in managing/leading a software development process as there is in actually doing software development.

I've got a lot of respect for somebody who can scrape up some dough, envision a product, and get somebody to make it. Unfortunately, too many people think that their skills as a salesperson, manager, hairdresser, chemist or whatever empower them to lead a software development effort and too frequently they fail.

<comment><USER5> Right, but you can learn enough about the software development process without getting into the nitty gritty of how anonymous functions in Javascript work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 1) Non-tech co-founders need to really understand their target segment on an intimate level. They may not be able to write all the code, but they should be the masters of the user domain and/or business domain that the product is going to serve. They should know what the right strategic goals of the business should be, given their target user. They should know exactly what problem they're trying to solve, for whom, and (roughly) how.

2) They should also have strong, well-informed opinions about UX. Take them to task on what makes a good UX or even a good UI. Press them for examples of good and bad UX design, or have them walk you through a mockup of something you've done in the past. You should be interviewing them just as much as they're interviewing you. They should have theories and opinions on how UX affects _business strategy_ , and vice versa, and not just opinions on what looks pretty or simple. You want to get the impression that this person would have made (or was) a great product manager at a big company, had he or she not been a founder.

3) They should be great salesmen (or women), but _not_ bullshit artists. There's often a fine line here, but the red flags are usually obvious. Look at his or her track record. Look at the realism of his or her vision. Look at his or her ability to model and properly account for risk, competitive threat, etc. If you can pinpoint a critical dependency or risk to the business that he or she can't, that's a bad sign.

4) They should be willing and able to bust their asses and constantly learn. They should not expect to kick back and let you build the product for them. Sort of hard to suss this out in conversation alone, but track record evaluation -- and careful probing about the vision -- should tease out some hints in this direction. A sense of entitlement, or of learned helplessness, usually outs itself under polite conversational fire.

<comment><USER8> As a non-technical guy, I'd like very much to be evaluated on those criteria. I think ya'll should be looking for something else though: Will this guy need to hire a ton of employees?

If you're looking at someone with a history, that history needs to be evaluated both in the context of the corporate resources available and the size of his team. Be aware that managing a large team might mean helplessness in a small one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article oddly seems to be a converse of the often asked "how do i find a technical co-founder?" It seems to assume that you're a technical person who is looking for somebody else's start-up to join.

Personally I'd like to know what to do if you're a technical person with some technical ~AND~ business ideas, who's got a product that's got a little traction and is looking for someone who can help with marketing and execution.

<comment><USER9> I think it depends on what type of marketing you need, e.g. online ad sales? B2b? Where you're trying to go with your startup or business probably should determine what type of help you need.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A lot of good points in there, but it seems to be a little bit on the "developer centric fantasy" side of things, particularly on the _Traction_ section.

Non tech cofounders that are getting 30 users before trying to find a technical cofounder aren't having trouble finding tech cofounders. Non tech cofounders that have 10 people committed to paying up to 1000/mo and signed letters of intent from the 5 of them (120k/year, 60k guaranteed) before building a product are few and far between.

These guys are gems, and betting on them is a good bet. Its like non-tech founders trying to partner with proven Facebook employee #13. Unless you're equally proven as a dev, its hard to justify asking for that level of accomplishment from your cofounder.

Much of the "find a cofounder" game is about making good decisions when its not such an obvious call.

<comment><USER11> "Non tech cofounders that have 10 people committed to paying up to 1000/mo and signed letters of intent from the 5 of them (120k/year, 60k guaranteed) before building a product are few and far between."

What? I would suggest that the abovereferenced set of cofounders is equal to the null set.

I can't imagine anyone dumb enough to commit to a $12k annual contract for vaporware from a company whose very existence is contingent on finding 9 other suckers just as dumb as you are. The closest model I can think of is games software publishing, but that exists in an area with a known customer base. Nobody in the real world, running a real enterprise, with real money on the line, would gamble like that - at least none of the people I work with.

<comment><USER12> Well definitely not the null set. Bloomberg had Merill Lynch basically fund his entire development before the product even existed.

<comment><USER13> Merill Lynch also took an equity stake in Bloomberg, which isn't the scenario under discussion here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good points. The contrary is way more difficult i think... (me being a biz founder, finding tech partners or employees can be really tricky).

For the non-tech guys, in an early stage startup, i would definitely look at :

\- product skills => can the guy understand what customers/users need ? and if he doesn't, will he ask them?

\- tech skills => you guys need to speak the same language. even if he's a beginner, has he tried coding in RoR, php, python, ...? will you speak the same language?

\- network => does he know investors and bloggers? or at least know people who know them?

\- traction and community => can the guy move heaven and earth to get people on board?

\- recklessness => is he okay with the risk, the absence of salary, the non- benefits, ...?

<comment><USER14> And actually, the most important thing: he crashed a startup already, and one of the reasons, he reckons, was the lack of a tech cofounder. You got yourself a jewel in that case :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> As a technical founder, should I bring in a business co-founder? I think the article is pretty good. I'd want someone who is:

\- Can sell without BSing.

\- Knows how to get in touch with important people

\- Good at pitching to investors

\- Real personable and good at communicating with customers

\- Can write well

\- Has an eye for UX

\- Has enough technical knowledge to communicate technical issues with customers

\- Understands startups

A non-technical co-founder needs to have skills. They just aren't technical. I think the term non-technical co-founder is misleading because it defines someone but what they can't do. I'd rather say sale founder or biz-dev founder.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm a NT co-founder trying to become a technical founder, so this is an interesting read. To be honest, I think the most value that someone like that can bring is a network. If you can get introductions, some PR, and some buzz, then you can get enough cash from sales to buy some of the other necessities.

</comment><comment><USER17> Easiest way: what have they done in the past. Past performance and future performance and all that.

</comment><comment><USER18> I am curious here. Does a UI Designer fall in the category of a Non technical co-founder? If so how do the dynamics change when a designer approaches a developer to co-found a team for an idea that the designer came up with?

</comment><comment><USER19> In my opinion the following 3 key traits will get you at least 90% of the way..

a. the "right attitude",

b. someone that can "challenge you" and

c. "know the industry" which your competing in really well.

The rest can be learnt on the job.

</comment><comment><USER20> To answer the question, I would advise you to go on a startup weekend.

(54 hour hackmarathon, but not just developers, but marketing and biz people also)</comment>


CoffeeScript, Flower and Fancy were created using this system - <AUTHOR> http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/286436/Creating-Your-Own-Freaking-Awesome-Programming-Lan

<comment><USER2> Direct link to the product: <http://createyourproglang.com/>

The author also has a live course from time to time covering some of this material and other stuff: <http://proglangmasterclass.com/></comment>


Show HN: Lyp – a package manager for Lilyond - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/noteflakes/lyp <comment><USER2> Lilypond is a language used to render sheet music?</comment>