Jeff Bezos' guide to life - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/05/jeff-bezos-guide-to-life/ <comment><USER2> Work life balance and Amazon ... sounds a bit ironic, but having worked there for a year, if you're at Amazon or thinking about working at Amazon, I want to leave you with one big, massive piece of advice - if you don't know how to say "no", Amazon isn't the place for you.

What do I mean by this? Amazon has an infinite amount of work they will gladly load you up with - on-call duty, maintaining legacy stuff and doing new projects.

If you don't know how to carve out your boundaries, you're going to be in a world of hurt at Amazon, get demoralized very quickly and either get axed after a bad review (like me) or you're going to quit or worse, stay miserable and go gray before your time.

Another tidbit of advice my boss - who also no longer is there - gave me, is you have to be a dick to succeed at Amazon.

I'll just leave you with that before you choose to surrender to the cult of Bezos.

<comment><USER3> Disclosure: Financially impacted by both Amazon and Apple. I know it's ironic to be in a position where I'm criticizing Amazon whilst owning shares, but I'm not the only one making decisions in my family's investment company.

Honestly other than Alexa, Amazon is such an underwhelming company.

Even AWS is completely overhyped and there are other products out there with betters interfaces (GUIs, APIs, and CLIs) and cheaper prices. Even S3 is a complete chore to work with and it's their simplest product.

I buy books and a couple knicknacks off of Amazon and I've semi-enjoyed one show they produced (Alpha House). But the list of things they've done to piss me off is getting pretty long:

1\. Sex toys in "recent purchases". Thanks guys, because what I wanted was to have my conservative family members have a view into my sex life. I'm bi and semi-closeted, so this is even worse than you're probably imagining.

2\. I've never had a more frustrating CLI than the one I had to interact with from Amazon for AWS. It was right during the transition to a new, better CLI, but that also just meant that the one I was using had wrong documentation. It literally took me 100 times longer than a couple DigitalOcean API calls would have run me.

3\. Chinese crap. I went travelling with a motion activated camera that would SMS me if there was motion in my Airbnb room. Of course the motion camera didn't work for more than 3 minutes. Crashed constantly, etc. Then when I appealed for a refund the company listed on Amazon gave me $2. Right, thanks guys, I paid way more than that but it got around whatever refund system Amazon had in place because I couldn't escalate it any further. Don't even get me started on the fake knockoffs for sale all across the store. It's turning into Ebay with all these fly by night stores.

I could honestly go on much, much longer. This isn't just a product of me having had such a long relationship with the company, I've had just as long of a relationship with Apple and the only thing they do to piss me off is their constant slowness at their stores. The products themselves are great.

And I pin all the blame for this on the stupid Amazon philosophy where people have to be dicks to succeed at Amazon.

<comment><USER4> You shouldn't buy sex toys on amazon precisely because of reason number 3. Shit is straight up dangerous and someone is going to get hurt before long, it'll be a huge lawsuit and a PR disaster for Amazon and they'll finally crackdown on all the counterfeit chinese bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is "treat your lowest paid employees like dirt" and "if people are desperate and really need the job, as long as you employ them you don't need to treat them humanely" part of it?

How about "If you are a rich owner you can safely distance yourself from lower management that does 'whatever it takes' to keep profits up and play the ignorance card"?

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/11/amazon- ac...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/11/amazon-accused-of- intolerable-conditions-at-scottish-warehouse)

[http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/its-like- every-s...](http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/its-like-every-single- bad-job-youve-ever-had-amazon-workers-warning-for-australia/news- story/238103f9c15052a1957c8d600b2af54a)

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2017/01/13/ama...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2017/01/13/amazons- jobs-creation-plan-comes-amid-labor-pains/96488166/)

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/22/amazon...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/22/amazon- brutal-work-culture)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/brutal-conditions-in- amazons-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/brutal-conditions-in-amazons- warehouses-2013-8)

<comment><USER6> As always, I'm surprised to see outrage over employee wages from a startup and business focused community (Hacker News). What is it that you purpose Amazon just pay everybody $200,000 a year and then go out of business? This is really basic economics, and I strongly believe in the American dream, you can work your way up and Amazon provides ample opportunities for growth.

Curious, are you a US citizen?

<comment><USER7> How about we let people have fifteen minute breaks and they don't start until they get to to the break area

Baby steps.

<comment><USER8> And have their daily security searches of employees (and time waiting in line for same) be on company time, not employees' time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well that was a waste of three minutes. Felt as if I was reading a child's "10 awesome things about my favoritest CEO" homework assignment.

I expected at least a little insight. Building your own crane (how long does that take?!) as opposed to paying somebody a modest sum to help you move heavy objects is not a good lesson.

<comment><USER10> Amazon built their own crane back when no one had cranes. You can't just build an online book store today and expect it to snowball into any business you choose to build a new crane for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was excited to read this, but didn't find any useful insights. Just the typical 1-2 childhood stories extrapolated to "success" and some superficial comments on work-life balance.

<comment><USER12> Yes, utter crap.

Some guy got lucky, nothing else...

<comment><USER13> Luck plays a role, but it's not the difference between some guy being Jeff Bezos and working at McDonalds. It's probably more of the difference between being successful in a way that many are - maybe owning a local company or something like that - and having something that blows up like Amazon has.

<comment><USER14> I'd argue the reverse is the case. Between someone like Jeff Bezos and someone working at McDonalds, without disrespecting the latter as there's nothing wrong with it, is not luck but education, aptitude and so forth.

But I have trouble seeing the substantial difference between Jeff Bezos and one of his dozens of colleagues at his former job. Many people tried to open online businesses like this, and often it came down to very specific moments in time where the circumstances, the money, the people applying to _your_ company specifically and so on all checked out. And there's really no or very little control you have about this.

<comment><USER13> As far as I can tell, you're arguing the same thing I am.

There are a bunch of people like him who are pretty successful people; quite a few who are very successful, but what separates him from them is probably due to some good luck on his part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's interesting that we tend to ask for advice from rich people. Once I've heard a very annoyed George Soros saying in an interview - CNN or similar - that "you got me here not because I know stuff but because I'm rich".

<comment><USER16> It stands to reason that a rich person would know more about how to make money than a poor person, unless you believe it is totally random.

Similarly, if I was interested in an athletic career, I'd be interested to hear from a gold medal champion more than from someone who is out of breath going to the mailbox.

<comment><USER17> I don't think it's totally random, but I don't think that rich people have some unknown knowledge or quality that allowed them to become rich. Plenty of rich people are rich because of circumstance, others, because they were in the right place at the right time with the right knowledge.

<comment><USER18> Or because they were born with it. Or at least born with advantages such as safe neighborhoods, good schools and social capital.

<comment><USER17> I said many rich people are rich because of circumstance.

<comment><USER16> 85% of American millionaires are self-made, i.e. they did not inherit it.

"The Millionaire Next Door" by Stanley

<comment><USER19> I am really enjoying this subthread and I appreciate your contributions to it.

I think it is a little of column A and a little of column B. I think a lot of people want to emphasize the luck, happenstance and inheritance angle in part to try to make peace with not being rich themselves.

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I am tired of being dirt poor and working so hard at solving my problems, seemingly without ever getting any credit while often feeling like the financial piece never really changes, no matter how much progress I have made. There always seems to be some reason why I am broke anyway.

I wish life would give me a break and I end up often feeling like the difference between me and more financially well off people is entirely "luck" (bad luck) that no amount of effort can reverse. On the other hand, I want success that I earned, not some winning lottery ticket.

I can't quite figure out if hoping for a break is worse or if wanting to stubbornly do it my damn self is stupidly and pointlessly masochistic.

I don't have the answer. I am just trying to say that I have a lot of sympathy for the people who want to claim that rich people were just lucky.

Yet, I have worked hard to get healthier and seen results for that while people dismiss that as wild coincidence and get incredibly defensive at the idea that making changes to their life might make a difference. And it gives me the sneaking suspicion that people who want to say rich people are merely lucky and that's it are people who don't want to examine what they might be able to do differently because it might involve admitting that their lack of money is partly due to not wanting to make certain hard choices.

<comment><USER16> Luck does play a role. But crucial to that is putting yourself into a position where luck can help you. I.e. if you're waiting for the wind to blow your way, you have to be out on the water in a sailboat with the sails ready.

I've read about many successful people, and in the early days they would take every opportunity for luck to happen, and one day it did. For example, the Beatles spent years playing for anyone who would listen to them, until one day it mattered. There's Ray Kroc, a 52 year old broke failed salesman, who one day noticed an opportunity to run McDonald's. It goes on and on.

Keep trying, and I wish you the best of luck(!). There's no country on earth with more opportunity than America, and it's never been easier in America. Heck, just recently on HN there was that guy who noticed he could buy stuff from Walmart and sell it on Amazon for a profit, and was making millions.

<comment><USER19> Well, technically, he wasn't _making millions._ At best, that was gross, not net.

The odds seem pretty stacked against me for various reasons. Though I am currently 52, so I appreciate the Ray Kroc snippet. ;-)

<comment><USER16> Yeah, Ray Kroc is a quintessentially American story!

Anyhow, it is not necessary to hit a home run to become wealthy. I've seen people do it with a series of base hits, and managing the results prudently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I like the parenting part: he let his kids use sharp knives at 4yo because if they hurt themselves, they'd learn.

"I'd much rather have a kid with nine fingers than a resourceless kid."

I love the idea in theory...but really wonder if I'd have the guts to actually pull off something like that in real life.

<comment><USER21> When I was a child it was normal to play with knives, go off somewhere without telling your parents and even play in the road.

Of all the people I knew back then I'm pretty sure they all survived into adulthood?

The only thing that has changed really is that roads are a lot busier nowadays so you may be forgiven for exercising some caution with that one.

<comment><USER22> I think that is literally survivorship bias.

<comment><USER23> A chopping knife is not a rifle. It's really difficult to kill yourself by mistake while chopping carrots, especially if you are given a small, rounded knife.

<comment><USER24> I've got relatives down South who bought my cousin a pink .22 rifle for Christmas at around 8-10. Not sure if I would do it for my kids but I didn't hear of any problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Millionaires advice about life, and for us normal people, hoping to get something out of it is like counting on the lottery to have a good life.

</comment><comment><USER26> I like the bit about how Pop would do everything himself. I think it's a huge skill just to realize how approachable things are. Especially with the increasing potentiality that the digital era gives us, it's important to have big ideas and go for them in smart & pragmatic ways.

<comment><USER16> I once hired a plumber to make some repairs around the house. Curious, and not knowing anything about plumbing, I watched what he did. Then I got an enormous bill.

Nothing he did seemed particularly hard, and since then I do plumbing repairs myself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Amazon is, based on my direct experience, on the list of companies partaking in some level of social shenanigans against US citizens, not completely dissimilar from folks who have overtaken content here on HN, and have done so on reddit in the past.

Seattle is a place full of extraordinarily smart individuals, and the probability that some non-empty subset of those extraordinarily smart individuals partake in sociopathic projects expressed through (and/or enabled by) technology approaches one.

This isn't necessarily related to Jeff Bezos, however.

</comment><comment><USER28> "Jeff's Pop once tore the top of his thumb off. He had tried to jump out of his moving truck and unlatch the farm's gate before the car slid through"

Jeff's Pop was a loony, but extremely characteristic of what Amazon became. Guy couldn't stop his TRUCK long enough to open a gate for that same truck to go through? That's an… unusual attitude to driving a truck.

</comment><comment><USER29> What a bunch of self selected myths. Jeff Bezos isn't a sociopath and he isn't Superman, he's a clueless fucking human being like the rest of us. He's not special, he hasn't "figured it all out" and he doesn't have some secret others lack. His shit stinks and I bet he can't even make an omelette.

Stop this cargo cult of CEO celebrity worship.

<comment><USER30> Yes, but somehow he has started an empire that ships thousands of packages every day and allows people to easily shop online. He might not be bright, but he did something right. Something that others didn't want to take the leap to do.

<comment><USER31> He did do something right. Mail order was always more expensive than shops, but Amazon wasn't ...

Why not ?

Sales Tax Evasion: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/03/27/tax...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/03/27/tax- free-no-more-amazon-to-begin-collecting-sales-tax-nationwide-on-april-1)

That is the only reason Amazon was ever price competitive. Without that, it wouldn't have grown. That's his great accomplishment.

Not just abusing workers, not just treating low paid employees like dirt, constantly firing the most vulnerable just to keep them down, and not just hiding from criticism on those actions [1], but also abusing the country as a whole, through massive scale tax evasion.

Jeff Bezos truly has something to be proud of !

[1] [http://gothamist.com/2015/08/15/life_inside_the_nightmare_am...](http://gothamist.com/2015/08/15/life_inside_the_nightmare_amazon_wo.php)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > If he feels like he's adding value and is a productive member of a team at > work, "it makes me better at home.

The constant switching in and out of first person quotations in this article is weird and off-putting.

</comment><comment><USER30> The raising kids part was interesting and took me a bit off guard, but I do like his view on regrets. Look for to 80 years old and think what you can do to minimize your regrets!

</comment><comment><USER33> Possessives in English only get a single apostrophe at the end if they are plural. "Besos" is not plural.

<comment><USER34> It's definitely not a settled issue.

> _" Proper Nouns Ending in S"_

> _" AP: Add an apostrophe."_

> _" Charlaine Harris' books"_

> _" the Joneses' competition"_

> _" Chicago: Add apostrophe-s if singular, and add an apostrophe if plural."_

> _" Socrates's tea"_

> _" the Obamas' garden"_

> _" Les's moor"_

[http://apvschicago.com/2011/06/apostrophe-s-vs-apostrophe- fo...](http://apvschicago.com/2011/06/apostrophe-s-vs-apostrophe-forming.html)

> _" Nouns, noun phrases, and some pronouns generally form a possessive with > the suffix 's (or in some cases just by adding an apostrophe to an existing > s)."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_possessive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_possessive)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Is funny that Bezos speaks about work-life balance.

</comment><comment><USER36> That was a nice summary — sounds like a great, insightful interview.

The inevitable congestive dissonance in readers' responses never cease to amuse me.

Starts with, "wow, yeah, Bezos is a legend. I'd love some insight into what makes him tick, so I can be more like him!!"

Then we quickly get to:

1\. Oh, no way would I risk my child losing a finger!

2\. Hey, work-life balance is important! It's bad to work so much!

3\. Maybe Bezos can focus on one task at a time — serial multi-tasker — but that's not how I work!</comment>


Calendar Blocking can boost developer productivity in Quarantine - <AUTHOR> https://veamly.com/blog/productivity/calendar-blocking/ <comment><USER2> I prefer having an unbounded provision of time for anything I'm working on. Ideally I'd minimize the amount of context-switches (ie blocks) in general. I'd rather get to some sort of finish line for what I'm doing rather than leave things half-baked and lose the build up of context / energy

<comment><USER3> Absolutely! But you're looking at it from the perspective of "calendar blocking will cause me to end a task early". The perspective where this is beneficial is "calendar blocking enables me to at least have this much uninterrupted time on a task".

<comment><USER2> True

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> To be honest you can remove in Quarantine from the title.

<comment><USER5> replace "developer" with "most people"

<comment><USER6> Replace "calendar blocking" with careful planning:

"Careful planning can boost productivity for most people".

<comment><USER4> Add life hack back into the title and now it's perfect clickbait.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have a standing fake meeting "Busy" at around the lunch time every day. It's purpose to show me as busy and deter folks from dropping meetings at inconvenient time.

When I'm pressed for time, I'm changing it to whole-day "Out-of-office" fake (I'm in the office, obviously).

Very effective tool!

<comment><USER8> I'm starting to get more into this practice and finding it very effective. With the kids home due to school cancelations, I've blocked off recurring time throughout the day for dedicated checkins with them, helps with both my and their productivity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've tried this and it didn't work for me. I would always have anxiety about the end time and if I got to where I wanted to be. Without the bounded time I can work till I like where I'm at.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is bottom of the barrel content even for inbound marketing pieces.

<comment><USER11> "Even Elon Musk does it"

Elon Musk who was living in his office? Work-Life-Balance! [https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-sleeps-under- desk-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-sleeps-under-desk-as- tesla-faces-model-3-production-goals-2018-6)?</comment></comment>


Stop Doing Shit You Hate - <AUTHOR> http://eastcoastblogging.com/2008/10/06/stop-doing-shit-you-hate/

<comment><USER2> I'd advise the opposite: Keep doing shit you hate. At least until the economy gets in shape.</comment>


They fought alongside the US for five years to be bombed by US NATO ally - <AUTHOR> https://m.jpost.com/Middle-East/They-fought-alongside-the-US-for-five-years-to-be-bombed-by-US-NATO-ally-604103 <comment><USER2> I know without reading this about the Kurds. My heart goes out. If the US ever missed an opportunity to pull a sliver lining from the pile of poo that was the Iraq war, it was the failure to establish Kurdistan.</comment>


My Clojure Workflow, Reloaded - <AUTHOR> http://thinkrelevance.com/blog/2013/06/04/clojure-workflow-reloaded

<comment><USER2> > It is dangerously easy, when changing and reloading code at the REPL, to get > an application into a state which could not have been reached by the code it > is currently running.

This is the key point people some comments have been missing. Since you can evaluate code whenever you want, the running instance might become a frankenstein, containing code and data that shouldn't be around anymore.

I'd like to see the point of view of Smalltalk users (who develop against the images).

<comment><USER3> I only used Smalltalk at the university back in the day, before Java was born and it was a very nice experience.

All the talks about live editing is nothing more than recovering the workflows we already had in Smalltalk and Lisp machines.

If you destroy the environment, just restart not a big deal.

If you already saved the environment into the image, just rollback to the previous image snapshot, not a big deal specially nowadays that image based source control systems are available, like Monticello and Metacello.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It seems to me that the central idea of this post, having all application state rooted in one top-level object/structure with no singletons/globals, with the ability to set up and cleanly tear down multiple instances any number of times, is applicable well beyond Clojure. Looks like all-around good design to me. I suppose some might argue, though, that it's all an elaborate work- around for a slow-starting runtime environment.

<comment><USER5> When working in Clojure, you tend to experiment a lot with the REPL. And the environment (Emacs, clojure-mode, nRepl and Lein) feels like having a dynamic IDE ... so you write code in your text file and with a single short-cut, you recompile your code and then move over to the nRepl window that you keep open in Emacs and you invoke whatever you wrote, to see if it works.

So it's like working with Ruby's irb, or with iPython, except that the integration with Emacs is so freaking nice. So the whole workflow ends up being a back and forth between the code buffer and the repl buffer. And it happens really fast too.

Clojure does have a slow startup, thanks to the JVM. It's not so bad on capable computers though. But that's not the point. The point is that having to restart a repl session interrupts your flow.

Note: I only played with Clojure, haven't done anything serious in it. My favourite is Scala and it would be nice if the Scala repl would do a fast reload on file changes. I don't need it in Scala though, as in Scala you tend to rely less on the repl.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was experimenting with integrated tools.namespace reloading in elisp as well, and I found a slightly nicer way to send commands to nrepl:

      (defun nrepl-reset ()
        (interactive)
        (nrepl-interactive-eval "(user/reset)"))

The original elisp function:

      (defun nrepl-reset ()
        (interactive)
        (set-buffer "*nrepl*")
        (goto-char (point-max))
        (insert "(user/reset)")
        (nrepl-return))

<comment><USER7> Note the former technique will display the output in the minibuffer, the latter will display it in the repl.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been edging towards something similar in my own code. Tomorrow, I'm going to just rip off this stuff wholesale. Maybe it could make a nice lein plugin.

</comment><comment> dj-wonk The linked blog post (above) is a nice write-up and elaboration from Stuart's Clojure/West talk this year: <http://clojurewest.org/sessions#sierra>

</comment><comment><USER9> wow - the workflow mgmt hacking Stuart has done seems much more in-depth and hacked on than any Clojure I've actually written.

I mainly play with Clojure for little things, but still, . . . I'm impressed. Heck, I barely use two or three commands out of nrepl.el

</comment><comment><USER10> I didn't know that Clojure puts function comments between the function name and the parameters. I personally find that a bit awkward - wouldn't it make more sense to have it after the parameters, to allow to simply glance at the function definition and see its signature, especially when comments extend over multiple lines?

<comment> Tuna-Fish Functions can have several different parameter lists and separate implementations for each one. In practice, this is done by grouping the parameter list of each version with it's body. Where would you put the docstring in:

        (defn foo
            ([x] "bar")
            ([x y] "baz"))
    ?

<comment><USER10> I'd probably put it after the parameter lists:

        (defn foo
            ([x] *docstring* "bar")
            ([x y] *docstring* "baz"))

because you want to be able to document the different implementations differently. The semantics would be: If the function body starts with a string literal, the latter serves as the documentation. If the body consists of any other code following the string literal, it will be ignored for run-time processing; if it's the only thing in the body, it also serves as the return value.

<comment> Tuna-Fish > because you want to be able to document the different implementations > differently.

I disagree with this. Since the normal functions cannot dispatch on type⁺, only arity, the different implementations are typically very related and should share same documentation. Your proposal would lead to massive duplication, and reduce the likelihood of people actually documenting the functions.

⁺ There are two separate mechanisms for providing richer function dispatch, both allow more granular documentation.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I guess you've got a point there.

However, if this only applies to different arities, please also compare to the following style:

        (defun function (a b &optional c d e)
          "Documentation string"
          "return value"))

I still think that the function signature is more readable when the doc string comes after the parameters, but perhaps it's just a matter of taste.

The above is obviously not Clojure. But as I commented originally, I just wasn't aware that this is the way Clojure does it.

<comment> Tuna-Fish That could be done as: (defn function "doc" [a b & rest] "body")

However, matching by arity at the front really helps make simple functions clean. I really like the multiple body approach, as in my code there's typically one "standard" case, and the rest are special cases that just call the standard one with new params. Having to deal with a rest arg with potentially multiple possible lengths just doesn't look as clear in practice.

It's all tradeoffs. I can see why you'd like the arglist first -- I have some Haskell background, and I do miss it's types in Clojure, just for the documentation they provide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Made me think of Racket's custodians:

[http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/eval- model.html#%28par...](http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/eval- model.html#%28part._custodian-model%29)

</comment><comment><USER12> It's a bit ridiculous[1] that one has to jump through hoops with Clojure to get the benefits that Java hotswapping provides out-of-the-box (i.e. changing a method and transparently recompiling and changing to the new implementation in the running JVM) with even second rate IDEs like Eclipse (which I am using). Note that this is without any third-party plugins and Oracle's standard VM.

[1] And by "a bit ridiculous", I mean completely archaic.

<comment><USER13> Clojure has excellent support for hot swapping functions and data; which in my experience is far ahead of anything that Java has. The system introduced in this article is for reloading code but with a consistent state.

For example, if your application includes some state from previous actions. Then you change a function that acts on that state, but with a different protocol (e.g. data structure expectations changed in the function). Then your application would not work, as the old state is invalid for the new function. With techniques like explained in the article, you can quickly "reboot" your state to be consistent with your new code by reseeding your system.

<comment><USER14> This is equivalent to restarting the JVM along with your application but only quicker?

I really don't see a good pain/gain ratio here. Clojure being a lisp you are already good for reloading functions. Only if you change data structures or macros you need to reboot. That I would think is a much less frequent operation for which a JVM restart is acceptable. (You also know that absolutely everything got reset.)

<comment><USER15> Note it's not just restarting the JVM, it's also restarting your repl as well, which can be as big a PITA as restarting your JVM.

If restarting your JVM is ok with you, go for it! But I like what Stuart has presented and find it interesting, I'm all about minimizing interruptions while I'm working on something and will be trying to adapt his workflow to mine.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


When valuable employees quit or resign - <AUTHOR> http://danielodio.com/uid/80627

<comment><USER2> This advice describes a terribly one-sided situation:

        Although two weeks notice is standard, give more notice
        if you're willing to. Give four or even six weeks. The
        only caveat here is that if the CEO reacts poorly when
        you give notice, you might find yourself escorted out
        of the building that very moment.

Please (especially recent grads, I'm talking to you here) don't let yourself buy in to the "the employee should be loyal to the company, but not expect loyalty in return" trope that is all too common. Your job (in most cases!) is not a matter of loyalty for either party. It's a business arrangement between two consenting parties that work be performed for pay. There is almost always a built-in part of that arrangement to facilitate a smooth ending.

By all means, act professionally and with integrity in your dealings with your employer. But remember your job is not a favor they are doing you.

</comment><comment><USER3> You've GOT to be kidding me with this.

"No surprises: Even worse than leaving is giving little or no notice. Then the company has to scramble to fill the immediate void. Although two weeks notice is standard, give more notice if you're willing to. Give four or even six weeks. The only caveat here is that if the CEO reacts poorly when you give notice, you might find yourself escorted out of the building that very moment. So you have to be ready for that. But hey, if you wanted to go anyways, then that might be OK with you."

So you should do the "right thing" for the benefit of the CEO who probably holds 10-30+% of this company compared to your 0.0X%, but willing to accept that they may insta-can you because they "react poorly" to this news.

Many people in this position may truly want to give 2,3 or even more weeks notice out of guilt, but they ALSO might financially really need not to have that income gap. Logic (or call it good business) would dictate that in that financial position, you give a standard two weeks notice and hope that if you DO get escorted out, they at least pay you out for the two weeks.

The author's take on this is "you have to be ready for that"? I don't get it.

<comment><USER4> You really shouldn't be considering job-hopping if you can't absorb two weeks of lost income.

This article isn't talking about low-class, factory work where most employees are living paycheck-to-paycheck. This is the middle class, and you're expected to bring a little stability to the table. If you can't do that, it's your fault, not your employer's.

<comment><USER3> Let me put it this way - It's not that you can't absorb the two weeks loss without going into bankruptcy. It's the fact that for a "regular" employee, losing 1/26th of your yearly income may be something you'd really prefer to avoid - and the loss may be disproportional to what the company stands to lose by canning you immediately despite you trying to "do the right thing" and give extra notice.

I think it's not crazy to say that many small companies may have even more motivation to make that move, as they don't want the morale drain on the other employees imposed by having someone around that has one foot out the door.

Because back of the napkin math is fun, let's say we're talking SF, a bright kid <2 years out of college that loves reading HN and decided she wanted to try the startup thing. They joined a startup as an early employee, but maybe past the first 3, and have a few basis points of equity, and took a salary of $100k/year instead of a fat offer twitter gave them for the opportunity to wear many hats and learn a lot.

Using this page

[http://www.adp.com/tools-and-resources/calculators-and- tools...](http://www.adp.com/tools-and-resources/calculators-and- tools/payroll-calculators/salary-paycheck-calculator.aspx)

and plugging in a gross yearly income of $100k for CA, that gives me a bi- weekly pay of $2,441.23.

That's easily a month's rent, which I'd posture is NOT trivial for a person in this situation. Absorbable? Totally, but NOT something it'd be a good idea to risk from a business perspective.

<comment><USER4> > Because back of the napkin math is fun, let's say we're talking SF, a bright > kid <2 years out of college that loves reading HN and decided she wanted to > try the startup thing.

Call up dad and ask for some cash to float you until your next payday. Your career will thank you when you don't externalize your rash decisions on your colleagues. Or did you move to SF for a dream with absolutely no safety net?

But whatever. If you're really in that position, sure, go ahead and fuck the people who took a chance on you and trusted you to build their business. If you're that scared they're going to turn around and fire you on the spot for taking another job, then be my guest.

But don't expect me to pat you on the back and say you did good when you're really just demonstrating a lack of foresight and a lack of faith in your coworkers / bosses.

I don't do business that way. My last job, I busted my ass to finish the project they gave me, even working on the weekend when I didn't have to, during the two weeks I gave notice. I told the guy who I was handing it off to to call me anytime if he needs any help.

If they'd just let me go, no sweat, I've got backup options. But generally, I don't take jobs anymore where my work isn't essential and I'm fungible. You shouldn't either, then you won't have to face this situation. If you're not damn useful to your organization, then what the hell are you there for then?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Never, ever give more than 2 (or 3 weeks if you're like senior staff) weeks notice. It's not your obligation to make sure the company is run well. You should also look out for yourself because no company will ever look out for you despite what you tell yourself. This is a shitty article.

<comment><USER6> This. What company acting in their best interest would give any sort of notice before a layoff? Maybe a frank discussion that things aren't going according to plan and we only have X months of runway, but that's about it.

<comment><USER7> The large companies I've worked for have done layoffs like "Surprise, we're laying you off in 6 weeks..." which is better than not telling you.

<comment><USER8> I've seen large companies lay off workers, some of whom have been with the company for many years, with no notice at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9>
      Although two weeks notice is standard, give more notice
      if you're willing to. Give four or even six weeks

I question why this should be asymmetrical.

If it were the other way round, and it was to the company's advantage for you to leave as soon as possible, how many CEOs would give three times as much notice as they were contractually obliged to?

<comment><USER4> Because when what you're offering is more fungible than what the other party is offering, then you have greater discretion to set terms. In other words, since the employer is buying a service from the employee, the employer gets the say.

If you went to a store to buy fruit, and they would only give you the fruit two weeks after you bought it, you'd walk out. You've got the cash, so they need to meet your timeliness terms, not the other way around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If 2 weeks isn't enough time, then why does the contract say 2 weeks? Instead of expecting one side to go above and beyond what's laid out in the contract (as many have said, the 2 weeks notice is a very asymmetrical part of the contract already), why not write it into the contract instead? Have incentives for employees to give 4 or 6 weeks notice, and maybe offer something back on the other side, like an employer-guaranteed severance of 4 weeks pay for any reason of termination that's not something like stealing from the company, etc.

When you start making blanket statements about "you should always give [something]," then maybe it should be contractual rather than an "unwritten rule."

</comment><comment><USER8> " _As a CEO it 's really hard to understand why an employee doesn't have the same commitment._"

Seriously? Let me spell it out:

The CEO has a significant amount of stock, unlike most employees, so the success of the company makes a big difference to the CEO. To the employees, it might translate into less money than they can get by changing jobs.

And to the employees, it feels like _they_ have more commitment than the CEO. As jwz pointed out[1], the employees sleep under their desks but the CEO goes home at night.

[1] [http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to- se...](http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-sell-a-con)

</comment><comment><USER11> Oddly enough the original question is what a CEO can do, but after discussion how hard it is for the CEO emotionally the all of the specific advice is aimed to the valuable employee who's leaving. I'm not clear on how exactly the post author missed the point of the question so impressively and then submitted it here - perhaps he couldn't think of anything else to write in response? The tips for the employee are good, though a bit patronizing and basic, but it's not exactly very useful to a CEO. I've been on both sides of that table (though as manager for the employee who was leaving, not CEO) and post that actually answered the question would have been more than welcome. It's usually too late to keep the employee when they're resigning, but there's often some room for a positive relationship when they leave. In my experience keeping up morale, keeping a potentially valuable contact (you wanted to them for some reason, right?) available, avoiding a reputation hit with other potential hires & partners, and maybe being able to tap them for tribal knowledge or the occasional bit of consulting is well worth a lot of effort for the CEO. How you do that tends to be a bit less clear...

</comment><comment><USER12> > _As a CEO it 's really hard to understand why an employee doesn't have the > same commitment._

Oh lawdamercy, cry me a river. Getting a new job is a PITA, and most employees aren't going to jump without very strong reasons.

      1. they got another offer to good to refuse. You should be happy for them.
      2. the company does not feel financially stable. That's your fault, bubs.
      3. they're being treated badly or morale has flatlined -
         that's definitely your fault, twinkletoes.

This article is essentially telling the departing employee to bend over, for free. Good one.

Here's some _better_ advice to a CEO:

      1. don't take it personally
      2. give the employee an opportunity for an exit interview *with you*.
         Don't fob the job off onto some underling.
         While some departing staff will decline as they don't want to
         burn imaginary bridges, most passionate staff will give you an
         unvarnished look at the company.
      3. talk to other seniors in the company and try to determine if the
         problem is individual or systemic.

</comment><comment><USER13> Two weeks, unless you have an exceptional relationship with the company. If you aren't _sure_ your relationship is exceptional, then it isn't, so don't worry about it.

You'll be forgotten in three weeks.

</comment><comment><USER14> For those who periodically ask why a start-up needs someone with HR skills, here's a good example. While the HR person may not be _needed_ , the HR person can handle things like release forms, exit interviews, care and feeding of the remaining employees, etc. -- the first 2 may not be required, but "care and feeding" certainly is.

Some CEOs can handle this, but most probably can't, due to time or temperament. Some companies may not need this, but most probably do. . .at least to help with the initial shock and/or readjustment(s).

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm in France right now and the usual legal notice here is a ... 3 month notice. This is a double edged sword: unless common agreement, the employer have to pay the employee 3 month (and if asked, the employee has to stay at work), but it gives him the time to replace it properly. I won't go in detail to the different legal issues for each case, but it avoids these kind of problem for startups (and create others).</comment>


Aaron is dead. From: Tim Berners-Lee - <AUTHOR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jan/0017.html <comment><USER2> Repeating with typos fixed:

        Aaron is dead.

        Wanderers in this crazy world,
        we have lost a mentor, a wise elder.

        Hackers for right, we are one down,
        we have lost one of our own.

        Nurturers, carers, listeners, feeders,
        parents all,
        we have lost a child.

        Let us all weep.

        timbl

(I'm heartbroken about Aaron Swartz. He had been helping Beeminder a lot and offered to be an advisor, to be formalized next time he was in Portland. He was a wonderful person.)

</comment><comment><USER3> This response is touching, sad, but somehow beautiful as well: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www- tag/2013Jan/0022.htm...](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www- tag/2013Jan/0022.html)

<comment><USER4> That made my eyes water.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I never met Aaron but I admired his work and his spirit.

I'm a little sad there's nothing on the front page of Reddit about Aaron yet.

<comment><USER6> Well, /r/truereddit had something up with some decent commentary but it isn't a default reddit. /r/pics sadly is now the default for news like this and the signal to noise ratio there is as bad as you can imagine it to be. No Lessig, no nothing, just a bunch of guys calling him a criminal and a coward for suicide. Fuck you reddit. You are eternel september's child now. Lowest common denominator trash for the lowest common denominator.

On the upside, I do have faith that once his story gets out of the eternal september kiddie's paws, the facts and deep moral issues here will percolate to the surface, eventually. It'll just take some time.

<comment><USER7> Amazingly enough the thread about his passing [1] has 34.340 upvotes and 31.742 downvotes.

[1] [http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/16fjjm/aaron_shwartz_r...](http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/16fjjm/aaron_shwartz_reddit_cofounder_rip/)

<comment><USER6> My understanding is that the system begins faking upvotes and downvotes at a certain point to fool spammers.

<comment><USER8> Which is still curious, because it's common knowledge at this point that the numbers are fudged. Why even display it at this point? It serves nothing but to cause confusion.

<comment><USER9> Even though people know it's fake, I am sure it still plays an important role in gamification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is so incredibly sad. I did not know Aaron, but I will try to honour his memory. I've decided to stop hesitating and publish some of my research of the past couple years freely online. I hope others do too.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is perfect. I have no words.

</comment><comment><USER12> Just noticing the black "armband" worn by hn today.

Many tributes for this impressive man.

</comment><comment><USER13> Very sad to hear this, RIP Aaron.

</comment><comment><USER14> I agree. Very eloquently put.

</comment><comment><USER15> Very eloquently put. RIP Aaron.

.

</comment><comment><USER16> That's a damn fine elegy.

</comment><comment><USER17> Anyone know which anti-depressant he's on?

<comment><USER18> That's a very poor way to comment, and even insulting to those who are genuinely suffering from mental illness.

Down-voted. Besides that, the fact that you're able to put a comment here (your voice) or anywhere else is first credit to Sir Timbers Lee [1].

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee>

<comment><USER19> > That's a very poor way to comment, and even insulting to those who are > genuinely suffering from mental illness.

Seconded.</comment></comment></comment>


Learn Blockchains by Building One - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/learn-blockchains-by-building-one-117428612f46 <comment><USER2> FYI: You might also be interested in Awesome Blockchains [1] includes blockchain samples (from scratch) with proof of work, transactions, etc. in Ruby, Python, and JavaScript. PS: I've also bundled up the samples for easy (re)use into libraries, see the blockchain-lite ruby gem or node package module (npm), for example. Happy blockchaining. Cheers. [1]: [https://github.com/openblockchains/awesome- blockchains](https://github.com/openblockchains/awesome-blockchains)

</comment><comment><USER3> I know all discussions about blockchains must include the obligatory mention of mankinds utopian future as a result of it, but damn did it feel jarring here. The article was such a rare and excellent technical explanation behind the concept of blockchains. It was all meat and no hype. And then it ends with "Blockchains will rapidly change the way we think about economies, governments and record-keeping.". Seems like a pretty amazing linked list, would love just a bit more explanation why you were lead to that conclusion.

</comment><comment><USER2> FYI: For more blockchain samples from scratch (in JavaScript) see the notes from last week's Vienna.js talk titled "Build Your Own Blockchain in 20 Lines of JavaScript - Blockchain! Blockchain! Blockchain! For Fun (and Profit)" \- [https://github.com/geraldb/talks/blob/master/blockchain.md](https://github.com/geraldb/talks/blob/master/blockchain.md) Cheers.

<comment><USER4> I can't tell if the author is being funny or being insane, but it's great either way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Damn, this is a great post. It really demystified a lot for me.

Question for those in the know (or the author, if you're lurking about):

> _At this point, the idea of a chain should be apparent—each new block > contains within itself, the hash of the previous Block. This is crucial > because it's what gives blockchains immutability: If an attacker corrupted > an earlier Block in the chain then all subsequent blocks will contain > incorrect hashes._

Grokking the idea of a chain is certainly apparent. However, it's a bit less clear in what specific way referencing blockchain immutability with this statement should be taken. If an attacker corrupted an earlier block in the chain, is that being mentioned as something that occurs _after_ all subsequent blocks have already been created, thus proving the corrupted block is, indeed, corrupted by way of identifying it via verifying hashes and seeing a corrupted one?

If a bad actor corrupted block _N_ , then all blocks after block _N_ would themselves be corrupt (and presumably invalid and a waste of mining effort), correct? At this point, it seems to me that protecting the integrity of the chain requires dismissing the corrupted block & all its children, right? Doesn't that kind of indicate mutability of the chain? Or is immutability maintained by allowing corrupted blocks to remain in the chain, but some other process stepping in to essentially invalidate blocks?

I think there's something I'm missing here. No doubt it's obvious, and I'm just looking past it.

edit: I'm also just starting the consensus section, so perhaps that will resolve my confusion.

edit2: After finishing consensus, I think I get it.

<comment><USER6> A block is connected or chained to the previous block by using the previous block's hash and connected to the next block by providing it's hash. So the immutability comes after the fact ie once the block is created.

So at N + M block, changing the Nth block means all M blocks will become corrupted and needs to be changed or recalculated. The consensus or the p2p will come in the way of re-doing the blocks as everyone except the attacker will be at N+M. So unless everyone agrees there will be no way to change those blocks ie forced immutability.

Though the part people have hard time getting their head that there is never a single blockchain in existence. At a given point there are multiple blockchains existing but only the block with "most work" or the most difficult to calculate hash is added to the main chain. That is why the "confirmations" are required for a payment. The older a block gets, the probability of it getting added to the chain is higher. In bitcoin depending on the site, some take 6 confirmations or 6 blocks before being sure that the coin cannot be double spent.

<comment><USER7> Yup, you got it. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some other useful points:

1\. Transactions can be secured using public-key encryption. This way Bob can't spend Alice's coins (unless he has her key pair).

2\. Wallets are typically a collection of public/private key pairs, where each pair is a ledger address/password combo.

Also, I could be wrong, but it looks like the example code will accept longer peer chains even if they're completely different.

Great article!

<comment><USER9> > Also, I could be wrong, but it looks like the example code will accept > longer peer chains even if they're completely different.

I think there is a problem with his proof-of-work algorithm in that his proof of work is not tied to the transactions in the blockchain. Should't it include the hash of the previous block or something, in order to prevent people from simply building a new blockchain while re-using the proofs of work?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you are interested in building one in Golang, here is a good article I read recently - Building Blockchain in Go [0]

Bonus: There is a pretty good Coursera course on the same - Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies [1] and it also has a really good companion book - Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction [2]

[0] - [https://jeiwan.cc/posts/building-blockchain-in-go- part-1/](https://jeiwan.cc/posts/building-blockchain-in-go-part-1/)

[1] - [https://www.coursera.org/learn/cryptocurrency](https://www.coursera.org/learn/cryptocurrency)

[2] - [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GGQJ2XW](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GGQJ2XW)

</comment><comment><USER9> Isn't there a mistake with your proof of work? Because the way you implemented the proof of work, it isn't tied to the transaction history. This means that somebody could re-write the transaction history, compute the new block hashes, and re-use your proofs of work. He could then mine a single new block, and thus create a new longest chain and cause everybody to accept this chain. The way to fix this would be to include the hash of the last block in the proof of work for the next block. This way, proofs of work can not be recycled on other chains.

</comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone if there is a formal verification mechanism for proof-of-work blockchains (kinda like Jepsen) ?

</comment><comment><USER12> this is literally the best explanation of blockchain

<comment><USER13> I always seem to internalize concepts like this better using code, vs. formal math or abstract explanations. I learned basic neural networks that way using this book last year:

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EER4Z4G/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EER4Z4G/)

Everybody learns different, but I'm wondering how many HN readers are "code- first" sorts of learners?

<comment><USER14> Cool! And yeah, count me into that camp as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Thanks for this. Any idea how to build a simple p2p network though (over the internet not local host) and make it decentralized? That's the hardest part :p

<comment><USER16> It's actually not that hard. Most blockchains use a variation of Gossip, which is quite trivial to implement. On startup, your nodes get a list of seed nodes, recursively ask for peer lists until they can connect to some "max peer count."

When they receive transactions (from a client, or a peer), they simply forward them to all other peers (if it's the first time they've seen them.)

That's basically it. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Aren't there existing implementations of decentralized data storage or database that use a blockchain?

I've thought a little about it, and I wonder what could be achieved. Storing the data on peers, redundancy, private or public access... I think it's possible, but I'm not really sure. Does anyone have already studied the idea?

<comment><USER18> Filecoin, Sia. It's actually a horrible idea. Can you imagine competing with Amazon?

<comment><USER19> ?

<comment><USER18> Do you have a point? Make it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> One thing I don't grasp is: are the transactions part of their block's hash?

Because if they're not, what's stopping an attacker adding random transactions to exising blocks, thus enabling double spending?

If they are, how is it possible to validate a bitcoin transaction in less than 10 minutes?(the average target time to mine a btc block)

<comment><USER21> Transactions are a part of block's hash. What do you mean by the second question?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> this one is in Go, and looks really nice: [https://jeiwan.cc/posts/building- blockchain-in-go-part-1/](https://jeiwan.cc/posts/building-blockchain-in-go- part-1/)

</comment><comment><USER23> When a software concept is explained in code it leaves no ambiguity, can anyone verify this is a legit explanation? I do find it make sense but some code such as the Proof of Work I had to just trust the writer without testing it out

</comment><comment><USER24> It seemed interesting until he started with the ideology...

</comment><comment><USER25> Awesome work! More tutorials like this are needed.</comment>


Mapping the world with 3 words - <AUTHOR> http://www.what3words.com

<comment><USER2> This has been submitted many, many times. The most significant discussion I could find is here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8614198](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8614198)

Here's a search showing previous mentions:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=what3words.com&sort=byDate&pre...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=what3words.com&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=all)</comment>


How much is a quarter cup of butter? - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/#q=how%20much%20is%20a%20quarter%20cup%20of%20butter

<comment><AUTHOR> dug into this following [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8430412](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8430412)

what I find fascinating here is that this query appears to show a "knowledge box" result based purely on the content of some site (the answer is a direct quote of the allrecipes page referenced) which leads to the question: can this be gamed? As in, can pages be created with content that leads google to believe it holds the answer to some question posed in natural language? It's interesting that the page quoted also contains a more appropriate response: "1/4 cup of butter = 57 g" but this is not used for some reason (perhaps simply because it comes further down in the page flow?). Even more interesting that a more specific search for "how much is a quarter cup of butter in grams" does not yield a knowledge box result, but rather gives the quoted page as the top search result.

Does anyone have examples of Google providing knowledge box results that are clearly the result of someone attempting to trick google into treating some snippet as a knowledge fact when it isn't?</comment>


Why are people thirsty for 'raw water'? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20190620-why-are-people-thirsty-for-raw-water <comment><USER2> Because it's raw?

And they're gullible?</comment>


Most Millennials are not on track when it comes to saving for retirement - <AUTHOR> https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/retirement/millennial-retirement-savings/index.html <comment><USER2> > _Most have less than $20,000 but some have much more. The average account > balance is $67,891_

It is amazing that the median is under $20k and the average is nearly $70k. This means there are some folks with very large retirement savings that are pulling the average up a lot. Considering this only includes folks up to age 32, this is really surprising. How much do these savers have socked away?

Even when I worked in a big law firm, I didn't put that much in my retirement account because I was mostly saving to be able to buy a house (in the Bay Area). I can't imagine who these millennials are that have so much in a retirement account — presumably they also live in expensive areas if they are able to earn so much?

Edit: Glad to see all the responses, including from folks who have healthy retirement accounts. It would be great if you could share where you live and whether you have bought or are planning to buy a home.

<comment><USER3> It was 10 years ago that I was 32, but at that point in time I had over $100K easily in my 401K. By the time I divorced three years ago, I had over $200K in there.

After the divorce, I have about $20K left after having to split it with my ex- wife, who had saved a grand total of $2.00 during our marriage.

I don't really have a point, except that some people are very good at saving, even from a young age, and some people will never save a penny. The key is starting young. As soon as you are able to contribute anything, even 1%, you get the advantage of compounding interest over time, which is the key.

<comment><USER4> How does that math work out? Why didn't you get at least half of it? Did you get full ownership of the house or something?

<comment><USER3> Sorry, I was sort of vague here. Basically, I had to give $105,000 (half) of the 401K to my ex-wife, I had to pay her out for potential values of my stock options and RSU's (have fun valuing those!), I had Smith-Ostler riders attached to any bonus income, I had three more years of spousal support ($1800 per month), legal fees to pay, etc. I used the 401K to pay these things, so technically, I did get half, I just had to immediately use it to pay it all to my ex-wife.

Yes, I kept the house, which was my separate property with a community property interest, since it was purchased in my name only before we were married. I cannot afford the house, so I am trying to play the foreclosure avoidance game and give my kids a nice place to live that provides them with some continuity.

I also had $1700 in child support (this is two kids, with a 60/40 custody share) that I offered to give her more money in the settlement if she would agree to $1400 instead. She agreed to that, and then before that judgment had even been processed, had me back in court to get $1700 per month, which she did, since the court will use whatever Disso-Master spits out. She owns her own business, and of course her personal and business accounts are mingled, so there is no way to pinpoint what she actually makes, but it was at least $3,500 per month part time when we were married.

But none of that matters if you earned a lot more than your spouse. Divorce is no joke, especially if you are the high earner in the relationship. A lot of people are under the assumption that if you split custody, you don't pay support or the support is a nominal amount. This is absolutely not the case. The court (in CA, at least) looks to maintain the children's standard of living DURING THE MARRIAGE until the child is 18 or emancipated. This is the case even if your divorce left you in very different circumstances.

That's just child support, which is only one of the many costs associated with divorce.

(I want to make it clear that I have no problem with paying _reasonable_ child support, but I'm sorry, the current child support calculations can leave you with an egregious amount of support payments)

<comment><USER5> Divorce entitles you to immediate liquidity on illiquid assets? That's crazy. I'd understand 50% on vesting. Unicorn employees tend to have more than twice as much illiquid stock as they have cash.

<comment><USER3> How it works (unless you settle for some amount, which I did, which ended up biting me in the ass when our stock took a 30% haircut, but I digress...) is that there is a community property interest in all assets earned during the marriage, regardless of future vesting schedule. It's all based on when the options were granted, when they vest, how long you worked there, etc.

If you have RSUs, you get to go through the fun process of either giving some value to these RSUs and paying off the other party's community interest in that valuation, or you can try to argue that RSUs have a zero dollars value until granted. Good luck with RSUs and stock options either way, as it can become a complicated mess of laws and formulas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> CNN really loves to write about Millennials and retirement: [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=millennials+retirement+site%3Acnn....](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=millennials+retirement+site%3Acnn.com&t=hi&ia=web)

My favorites are: [https://money.cnn.com/2014/05/02/retirement/retirement- mille...](https://money.cnn.com/2014/05/02/retirement/retirement- millennials/index.html) [https://money.cnn.com/2015/05/06/retirement/retirement- savin...](https://money.cnn.com/2015/05/06/retirement/retirement-savings- millennials/index.html)

written almost exactly a year apart and contradicting the other articles

</comment><comment><USER7> > "I see in practice that a lot of us are putting retirement down the goal > priority list, in favor of paying off student debt or buying homes,"

If that's the actual reason why retirement savings are low, then this sounds more like a paper crisis than a real one. If you're putting $30k a year towards paying down student loans or home equity, then – assuming nothing changes – eventually you're going to "fill" those buckets and start saving $30k a year for retirement, which over the course of a normal career should be plenty to retire.

That said, I have my doubts that millenials' low retirement savings as a group is really because they're saving in another bucket.

<comment><USER8> And what do you suppose is the real issue?

<comment><USER9> Not the parent, but I'd imagine that the real worry is less "they're just paying down loans" and more "once those loans are paid they still won't be contributing towards retirement".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm 32 and have enough cash on hand to last ~3 months in case of unexpected job loss, but that's all. "Retirement" isn't something I expect to be able to do.

<comment><USER11> I am exactly the same @ age 27. I have an emergency fund, but living in USA in 2018, retirement isn't something I expect. I expect nothing like what my grandparents experienced (all unionized, large pensions, SSI). I fully expect to be working until I die (not by choice) unless some massive union push happens, and I'm very skeptical that it ever will.

I'll probably never own a home.

My future is pretty bleak, but I feel like that's the general millennial view.

<comment><USER12> Why so pessimistic? I'm about your age and I very much expect to retire and to retire well and to make sure that happens I have short, medium and long term financial plans and goals set for my self.

<comment><USER11> I see workers rights being crushed even further every year, and a new Lochner era is probably about to begin with the Republican majority Supreme Court.

I haven't seen anything get better economically since I was born. I watched my grandparents lose their home & lose all economic security because their pensions and union payouts were crushed, their social security hasn't seen any reasonable increase in a long time.

I just see things going downhill and never getting better because that's all I've ever experienced.

<comment><USER12> >I see workers rights being crushed even further every year, and a new Lochner era is probably about to begin with the Republican majority Supreme Court.

That's vague and doesn't have any specifics so can't really comment on that.

> I haven't seen anything get better economically since I was born. I watched > my grandparents lose their home & lose all economic security because their > pensions and union payouts were crushed, their social security hasn't seen > any reasonable increase in a long time.

So your grandparents had it tough in their retirement years so you and everyone else has to have it tough economically?

> I just see things going downhill and never getting better because that's all > I've ever experienced.

So your 27, still early in your adult life and you have given up completely? Sounds like your setting your self up for a tough life. Do you not have plans? A career you want to excel in? Goals? Besides, being a union member or having a pension is not needed to retire comfortably. The S&P 500 index is up over 1000% since you were born if you were to reinvest the dividends. Prudent saving and investing will give you a comfortable retirement. Plus your young enough that even if you started now you could retire well off.

<comment><USER11> I do have plans, but I can't carry any of it out because I can't afford it. College prices are so high now that it's out of my reach, and debt of any sort scares me. I would like to get out of tech (corporate has ruined this for me) and peruse Meteorology, but Meteorology presents another problem, there aren't many jobs and they don't really pay well.

S&P doesn't really help me since I've always been low income.

My grandparents are an example, but with 80% of the country living paycheck to paycheck, 50% deemed poor or in poverty, 1/5 children in poverty, 60% of the country hasn't seen a pay raise since the 70's when adjusted for inflation, and workers rights being crushed daily, it's not just my grandparents, the majority of the country is feeling it. There's a reason most Millennials are "not on track", and it's because they have no money.

What do I have to look forward to? I don't have money to invest in my future, and I'm a very frugal person. Cutting 2-5% to put into some sort of savings would crush me monthly. I feel like this is how most Millennials feel too.

<comment><USER12> Your in tech, are debt shy but don't have any money? Doesn't add up, or am I misreading your reply?

<comment><USER11> I'm not a software engineer, so wages are abysmal. I also live outside of Seattle to be able to have this job in the first place, so rent is 1/2 my pay.

<comment><USER12> Move, you could find a tech job in many other cities that don't have ridiculous rental prices. Whats the point of living in an awesome city like Seattle if you can't afford to do anything? If you had a place here in Minneapolis you could live in a nice neighborhood and save anywhere from $600 to $1000 a month just on rent based on the average Seattle metro rents. That doesn't even factor in other cost savings from not being in an extremely expensive metro area. That would be more then enough money to have fun and save.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In spite of all the statistics that suggest I'm doing pretty well toward retirement compared to most of my generation, I feel quite a bit of anxiety about how much I'm saving.

I'm not confident that I'll receive social security. Huge health expenses may come up.

How do others feel? You're not all billionaire unicorns on this site, are you?

<comment><USER14> > I'm not confident that I'll receive social security.

This is a common sentiment, but it's a strange one to me. I think it's _extremely_ unlikely that a program as popular as Social Security is going to just disappear. Entitlements have alligator blood. They're going to be _really_ hard to get rid of.

And, anyway, it's pretty foolish to think you can predict what's going to happen in politics _30 years from now_. 30 years ago the Soviet Union still existed and nobody had heard of the Internet. And people want to tell me they know what's going to happen with Social Security?

<comment><USER15> Why would you expect it to continue existing just because it's popular now? Lots of things that were popular were eventually changed or removed.

The consequences are serious and the time it takes to determine whether it's worth worrying about is in decades. It's like global warming. If you wait to find out what happens, it's too late.

In South Korea, suicide rates are high because there is no social safety net. Old people just kill themselves. If SS gets made effectively defunct, what recourse will 2/3 of the aging population with no retirement have?

<comment><USER14> > _Why would you expect it to continue existing just because it 's popular > now?_

I'd like to turn this on its head: why are you _particularly_ worried about Social Security? Any government program could disappear in the next 30 years. So why is your focus on Social Security? Why is this subthread so predictable?

It's because of a deliberate, targeted, FUD-campaign against Social Security by people who are ideologically opposed to it. Their fears are not genuine. They oppose the program in _principle_ and benefit by sowing doubt. That's why you're making this comment in this thread and not in some other thread about some other government program.

> _It 's like global warming. If you wait to find out what happens, it's too > late._

I don't think it's generally useful to pick holes in analogies, but this one is too big to ignore. Social Security is a _man-made_ program. If we want to change it, we can just change it. At any time. For any reason. I'm not sure it could actually be any less like climate.

<comment><USER16> >why are you particularly worried about Social Security?

because the 1 of the 2 political parties in the USA, the one currently holding all three branches of the federal government, has been quite publicly trying to cut it for decades. Even if they don't get it accomplished _today_ they have another 40-50 years worth of trying before "millennials" hit retirement age.

<comment><USER14> Oh, right, so we have to distinguish two things:

1\. One party wants to cut Social Security. This is obviously true.

2\. That same party wants to convince you that it _has to be_ cut or otherwise changed in significant ways or it will fail entirely -- which brings us back to #1.

In other words, #1 is driving #2, not the other way around. If you're worried about #1, then I'm with you. You should be. But this is generally presented as a worry about #2, which is really just a cynical ploy to get back to #1.

They want to cut Social Security for _ideological_ reasons. But their plan is to convince you that it needs to be done for _practical_ reasons. It's a pretty good plan that seems to be working quite well, because a whole bunch of regular folks who don't know what the word "insolvent" means are sure it applies to Social Security.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Everyone viewing this thread is likely an extreme outlier. The majority of millennials are prob making less than 50K until their 30s/40s.

<comment><USER18> Just to provide a reference...

[https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age- calculator/](https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age-calculator/)

It's about $45K for a 35 year old.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I remember how much I had saved for retirement when I was 32. It was pretty much nothing. Also: note to past self, when it occurs to you that you should buy Apple at 16, yes, you should, even though you have no money, and hold it forever.

<comment><USER20> I hope you mean the stock.

<comment><USER2> or the first-gen iPhone, new in box.

[https://www.cultofmac.com/284247/rare-original-4gb-iphone- la...](https://www.cultofmac.com/284247/rare-original-4gb-iphone-lands- ebay-15k/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This thread got me thinking and thought I'd post. Made a throw away for this as my real account can be linked to me far too easily... $ are in NZD.

32, living in down south in New Zealand. Working for clients around the world, mostly in the UK.

Making $150-180K per year.

Bank accounts $15K in NZ ~$50K in the UK account from client payments over the last few months

Own the house we built for $580K in 2016, it has recently been valued at $650K. Have a mortgage on that of $320K.

Have another mortgage of $180K on a $260K house split with a friend when we brought a rental property at the start of this year.

Have about $10K worth of crypto, down from dizzying heights at the start of the year :D, from a $4k gamble just over a year ago.

I think we have ~$20K in a superannuation accounts, which we haven't put anything into since I've been working for myself.

Interest rates on the mortgages are 4.19% p.a.

Other than the mortgages we have no other debts. We being my partner and I, our 1 year old, a dog and 2 cats.

On one hand I feel like we're doing OK. But for the amount I'm making I feel like we should be saving / investing more.

<comment><USER22> I have a few kiwi friends and it seems like most of them (and most of their friends over there) are financially very successful regardless of their profession and background. Appears to be a very good time to be in NZ!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So it would be nice if they contrasted this again other generations - "About 66% of people between the ages of 21 and 32 have absolutely nothing saved for retirement". So? My impression is other generations at this age also hadn't exactly been saving a lot. Is this just saying the millennial general is just the same as others? Or way out wack?

<comment><USER24> Well, to be fair an equivalent statistic for baby boomers wouldn't be as alarming as it is for millenials:

1\. A higher percentage of the population back then were working towards a pension and didn't necessarily have to save.

2\. The long-term health of social security wasn't as much in question back then. Contrast that to today's conventional wisdom of "plan like your SS payout will be $0."

And there are probably several other factors that suggest millenials should be _more_ eager to save than their parents—rising costs of college for children, rising costs of end of life care, ever-increasing lifespans suggesting longer retirements, etc.

<comment><USER25> >Contrast that to today's conventional wisdom of "plan like your SS payout will be $0."

In all fairness, people have been saying that for decades.

You're right though that a lot more people used to have defined-benefit pensions. I'll even have a modest one from a long gone tech employer. Certainly don't see that much these days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I never liked the accumulate and pray you have enough to last model. If you don't die before you money runs out your plan fails.

Any plan that has death as a pre-requisite to be successful is not a very good plan in my book.

Acquiring income producing assets seems like a much better plan.

<comment><USER27> In response of retirement savings, "accumulate" generally does mean acquiring income producing assets. That's what stocks and bonds are. They just have a lower risk/reward profile than putting all your eggs into a single owned company.

<comment><USER26> Those a generally considered appreciation assets not income producing assets. You can't extract any value from them without disposing of them.

Income producing assets produce income while you still own them without you having to sell them.

Dividend paying stocks would be an exception.

Not suggesting putting all your eggs into a single owned company. That's a separate issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A lot of us aren't even on track when it comes to saving for just normal life.

</comment><comment><USER29> Millennials need to get off their duff and vote. 18% voting rate. One millennial I recently talked to said, "yeah, I just don't know anything other than the signs people put up in their yard.". Wtf.

</comment><comment><USER2> I wonder how stats like these will impact home prices in 20 years. Will it be a buyer's market because there will be lots of boomers downsizing/deceasing, and not nearly as many buyers flush with cash?

</comment><comment><USER30> This thread is a wake up call for me.

What are good resources to learn more about saving for retirement? IRAs, 401Ks, etc.

</comment><comment><USER31> I've saved roughly 15 million and gave away 10 million to my girlfriend.

From the sale of my company.

<comment><USER32> Realize that you're one of the lucky few.</comment></comment>


Seattle bar first to ban Google Glass - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57573387-93/seattle-dive-bar-becomes-first-to-ban-google-glass/

<comment><USER2> Do they ban cell phones with cameras as well?

<comment><USER3> It's not that easy to secretly tape someone with a cellphone.</comment></comment>


The Git game: Guess who on your team wrote a commit based only on their message - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jsomers/git-game?src=news.yc

<comment><USER2> Oh cool, this reminds me of a game we made for Github's game competition: [http://guesshub.io/](http://guesshub.io/)

<comment><USER3> This is awesome - how do you unlock the final two levels?

<comment><USER3> Ok - I figured it out- I didn't complete the hardest level. I'm partially color blind and distinguishing the orange and green was tough. I completed the final trial but when I saw 0/256 for Survival -- it wasn't worth attempting. Great game though, very addictive!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's easy for my repositories because I can just take a look at the Signed- Off-By: in the commit body. :-)

<comment><USER5> Isn't that supposed to be the reviewer's name, rather than the person who made the change?

<comment><USER6> Not as originally implemented for use in the Linux kernel. It's meant to identify the original author, who is signing off on agreeing to contribute the patch as open source.

See [https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches](https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches) section 11: "Sign your work".

<comment><USER5> Ah. I've seen it show up in the GUIs for a coworker or two, but I've never actually seen it filled in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems to be pretty easy if all of your team members share a common letter :)

          if author.downcase.include?(guess.strip.downcase) && !guess.strip.empty?

<comment><AUTHOR> you're on your honor to actually guess :), i.e., to type enough of the name that there won't be a false positive

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> the sad part of this is that of the team of developers I work with (when i was on the M$ side) NONE wrote commit messages, save for one guy. So this would be an impossible game, and quite a sad one as well.

I would like a game along the lines of "who wrote that and what were they thinking"

<comment><USER9> This reminds me of when I was first starting out as being a developer. I had played with source control a little bit before joining a company where they heavily used one. I wrote pretty verbose messages in each commit when I joined until one of the senior developers stopped by and told me "yeah you don't really need to do that; since it requires something I just put a period in the box". Then I found out everyone on the team did this.

It started me on a bad habit doing this as well. The source history was almost useless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would so rock in this game!</comment>


Memorial book about Art of Atari marketing covers to be released in October - <AUTHOR> http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/26/5482198/the-art-of-atari-a-celebration-of-game-packagings-golden-age <comment><AUTHOR> Tim's also currently ramping up a new Museum of Video Game Art @ [http://playmova.org/](http://playmova.org/).</comment>


Ask HN: What are the risks of working remotely? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a JavaScript engineer with a couple of years experience under my belt, but I'd like to get in to remote working. What are some of the risks involved? How likely is it that I could produce work for a company who then don't pay me?
I'm mainly looking at working for overseas companies, so essentially this would mean me being a contractor for other companies rather than being in a salaried role. I've done what I assume is the usual grunt work by searching for the companies on LinkedIn, attempting to Street View their office addresses, etc.
Any advice?
Thanks <comment><USER2> In an addition to an upfront payment, if you have can figure out a way to break the project up into multiple deliverables/checkpoints with some payment due proceeding to the next, that helps both you and your client.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, there is a risk. Last year, I was scammed by a company in California. Not a lot of money, but it still made me angry. But I'm not worried, because it was only one out of a lot.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I can imagine that would make me pretty angry too! And possibly homeless. I'm currently living paycheck to paycheck, meaning if I didn't get paid for a months work then I wouldn't have enough money to pay rent.

It sounds like this is probably something I shouldn't risk without at least a month's financial buffer?

<comment><USER3> I normally go for 3 months buffer at the very least, and currently have about 6. Always have done this, even when I had a regular job. It allows me to live without worries.

But in any case, you can lower the risk of getting scammed by asking for initial deposits. I always do that. Did it with the company that scammed me and I wasn't totally fucked. I lost about 60% of the total of the project, but not a 100%.

<comment><USER4> Agree with this guy. Cutting the work into small tranches is an option too. Remember that the one who is employing is afraid of being scammed as well!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bruce Schneier on the recent DNS vulnerability - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/the_dns_vulnera.html <comment><USER2> It's good old "worse is better" all over again. Of course we should design our protocols and our software as The Right Thing. Of course, it will take much longer to design and implement; or, worse, it might just fail because it's hard to find all the necessary smart people (like qualified security experts and whatnot).

Meanwhile, someone not so scrupulous just ships some ugly ad-hoc bug-ridden 80% solution _now_ , and gets 80% market penetration. That's how we get MTA landscape dominated by sendmail, DNS landscape dominated by bind, etc, etc. Heck, that's how we get unix boxes instead of lisp machines, and windows pcs instead of unix boxes.

<comment><USER3> The rest of what you wrote might be right, but lisp machines failed because they were impossible to create efficiently in hardware.

<comment><USER2> Not really impossible, just much harder, much more expensive, took much longer, etc. The usual story with The Right Thing.

And that's exactly the point i was trying to make. The Right Thing is hard, that's why it fails. What Schneier suggests won't work.

<comment><USER4> Also the The Right Thing is always at a disadvantage - the other products out there are more then aware that they are Not The Right Thing hence work harder at marketing (if applicable) or user penetration to make up for the fact that they are not perfect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _We need more of this, not just on the internet but in voting machines, ID cards, transportation payment cards ... everywhere._

I'm afraid insecurity in voting machines is a feature, not a bug.

</comment><comment><USER6> _That's what a good design looks like. It's not just secure against known attacks; it's also secure against unknown attacks._

This is why I tell people to not use SSL unless they have a reason for needing it: there have been enough bugs in SSL stacks in the past that you don't need a crystal ball to tell you that there will probably be others in the future.

<comment><USER3> That's about the same as saying that since plenty of people know how to pick locks don't bother locking your door.

Actually it's worse: there aren't any known ssl issues, so you're leaving your door unlocked just in case someone learns how to pick it in the future.

<comment><USER6> _That's about the same as saying that since plenty of people know how to pick locks don't bother locking your door._

Did you read the second half of the sentence I wrote? You know, where I said "unless they have a reason for needing it"?

I have a reason for locking the front door whenever I leave home, and I do so. Putting a lock onto the back gate would be utterly pointless -- that gate is in the middle of a fence which would be easy for anyone to climb over -- so I don't do that.

 _Actually it's worse: there aren't any known ssl issues, so you're leaving your door unlocked just in case someone learns how to pick it in the future._

Replace "door" with "back gate in the middle of a pointless fence", and you'd almost be correct. But security vulnerabilities in SSL stacks are not limited to breaking SSL; a buffer overflow could give an attacker far greater access. A closer analogy to blindly using SSL everywhere would involve a special type of lock which, if picked, magically unlocks everything else on the property, including things like wall safes which are much harder to pick.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I read the second half and I still didn't see how adding SSL could make things worse.

Your magic lock example makes sense, except for the fact that your analogy is broken: ssl doesn't actually work that way.

I suppose I could see that adding even a single line of code that you don't need increases your risk of a hack. But that's quite extreme, in reality it's not anywhere near that bad.

I just don't agree with your risk/reward ratio of not using ssl.

It's: possibility of a bug in ssl that allows remote access to a machine, and is not expolitable without ssl (you have to agree that that a pretty remote possibility), vs the known problems of not having ssl especially in a wifi environment + the possibility someone will not understand you and not enable it even when he should.

<comment><USER6> _possibility of a bug in ssl that allows remote access to a machine, and is not expolitable without ssl (you have to agree that that a pretty remote possibility)_

I don't think that's remote at all. The version of OpenSSL on my system is over 200 kLOC. Do you really think that it's a "pretty remote possibility" that one of those 200k lines contains an exploitable buffer overflow?

<comment><USER7> It's more likely that the application you're "protecting" by not using SSL has an exploitable security bug. OpenSSL is a lot of code, but it also has a lot of users who have uncovered subtle-yet-horrible security problems in the past. So it is somewhat trustworthy.

Your app has only been seen by you and perhaps a small team. My money says that if someone breaks your system, it's going to be through that vector, not the SSL stack.

<comment><USER6> _OpenSSL is a lot of code, but it also has a lot of users who have uncovered subtle-yet-horrible security problems in the past. So it is somewhat trustworthy._

OpenSSL has a lot of users. But many eyes only makes bugs shallow if the eyes are open -- and 99.999% of people who use OpenSSL have never looked at the code.

One of the dirty secrets of open source is that there are a lot of projects which almost everybody uses by very few people actually develop.

 _Your app has only been seen by you and perhaps a small team. My money says that if someone breaks your system, it's going to be through that vector, not the SSL stack._

Even if you believe that OpenSSL has had lots of people looking at the code, which is more likely to have bugs -- 20k LOC or 200k LOC?

<comment><USER8> The claim that many eyes makes bugs shallow is based on the number of eyes looking at the code, not the users.

It's not a dirty secret that there are relatively few developers for an open source project vs the number of users. This is well known, and documented in CREDITS and Changelog files. The "low" number of people working on open source is often trotted out during a FUD campaign, as if to imply that large software companies have millions of "experts" looking at and developing the code.

Give me a handful of guys who _publicly_ worked on a set of code and know it inside and out any day, over a hundred thousand developers who hide behind some corporate name and spin department and who only ever touched one part of it.

The chance of code having bugs is more likely directly correlated to the complexity of the code, not its size. The change of finding the bugs in the code to fix them (not finding that they exist) is more likely directly correlated to the amount of code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> _The real lesson is that the patch treadmill doesn't work, and it hasn't for years._

I haven't yet heard of any major fallout from this DNS vulnerability, so it may be going too far to say that patching doesn't work. Maybe other methods work better, but I don't know if the current method is as broken as Schneier says.

<comment><USER9> Patching has some serious flaws. The main problem is that the vast majority of people don't apply their patches, even when applications auto-check for updates. When a patch is released, that patch directs the bad guys to exactly where the security flaw is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is (another) reason why Biometric ID cards are not a good idea.

As a government official who wants to roll out ID cards, would you rather one that's available now, or one that's going to be out in 3-5 years and be more expensive, but which the vendor alleges will be an unquantifiable amount "more secure"?</comment>