I've been programming since I was 10, but I don't feel like a "hacker" - <AUTHOR> http://blog.lizdenys.com/2014/01/03/i-do-not-feel-like-a-hacker/ <comment><USER3> My initial reaction was "that's not the definition of hacker" but when I tried to find a written definition that matched what was in my head, I kept running into the related stereotypes and connotations (e.g. being completely obsessed with computers, Richard Stallman talking about coding until 7 in the morning).

I then read this link given in the article and I think I understand better [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/gendergap/www/geekmyth....](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/gendergap/www/geekmyth.html)

My takeaway is this: _a lot_ of us feel impostor syndrome, feel that we'll never be a _true hacker_. The difference is it appears easier for men, for whatever reason, to ignore or move beyond those feelings. And you know maybe that's a problem we should take seriously.

>Despite these feelings of difference, we find that male students report less distress, are less affected by the perceived difference between themselves and their peers, and leave the major in smaller proportion; and despite resistance to total absorption in computing, they do not feel like frauds. The 36% of male CS majors who say they feel different from their CS peers, regardless of experience level or obsession level, do not question their ability to become computer scientists if they choose to do so.

<comment><USER4> I enjoy RMS's take on being a "hacker": [http://www.stallman.org/articles/on- hacking.html](http://www.stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html)

Specifically, "Playfully doing something difficult, whether useful or not, that is hacking."

<comment><USER5> There's an argument to be made for the negative connotations contributing to the term's longevity and adoption. In an environment where the myth of the genius is alive and kicking, taboos need to be broken to qualify for the label, though it's not always important what those taboos (social or otherwise) are as long as you have some worthy advocates. A lot of this labeling is done in hindsight, unsurprisingly, and it's going to become more tame as the definition gets generalized and romanticized. Even the coding part is slowly becoming less important, as shown in some of the posts and links here. Eventually there will be some other club to place the exceptional in. We can pretend there's no value judgement in calling someone a "hacker" all we want, but that doesn't ring true. FWIW, my favorite hacker: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netochka_Nezvanova_(author)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netochka_Nezvanova_\(author\))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From personal experience, this resonated with me, complete from the rocky start with high school CS in Logo onward.

I know the feeling, and (though I'm male) I recognize many of the waypoints described. And I, too, don't feel like a real hacker. But of course, the word means wildly different things to different people. Even though I love programming very much and I'm doing it all the time, and especially doing it for fun, it was only after joining HN that it dawned on me I could be considered a hacker in some circles.

Still, my primary definition of being a hacker is someone who is insanely active in hacker and cracker culture, someone very interested in systems security, someone who knows to debug a defunct DSL modem given only an oscilloscope and a bit of tinfoil. That's not me.

If I were to apply for a VC program that looks for hackers, I'd probably feel like a bad fit or a complete fraud. Nevertheless, I probably _am_ a hacker. Labels are always an imperfect solution.

One other thing about getting people to program: Male or female, I wouldn't know where to start either. In school I was literally the only kid into actual programming, out of about 500 students. It was only much later in life that I made my first actual programmer friend, and I also recruited an unhappy English major into programming, but most people just aren't interested. And of those who can, and by necessity must, program most would never do it in their spare time for fun.

<comment><USER7> catb has the best definition of hacker I have seen:

\- [http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html)

\- [http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacker- howto.html](http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html)

\- The guys at hack-a-day or nyc resistor are hackers.

\- Fabrice Bellard is a hacker, for reasons you can see at [http://bellard.org/](http://bellard.org/)

\- People who are _really good_ at *nixen are hackers, because of the nature of the beast. Unix isn't about learning everything from a book, instead you could hack it with what you know.

\- PG is a hacker for using LISP to build Viaweb (and ARC etc), but not for "hacking" the startup ecosystem (that's just overuse of the term).

\- DHH is a hacker, for the creative ways in which he pushed Ruby

The key thing is "hack value". Hack value is about your technical expertise and your creativity, and both of these things have to be present.

<comment><USER6> Okay, thanks for the correction. You confirmed my suspicions, I'm not really a hacker. And neither are most people on HN I wager. That's yet another club where a geek can fail to get into. Maybe we shouldn't be here, but I can honestly say it's the most interesting community out there that matches my favorite subjects.

I'm definitely neither Bellard, nor a LISP millionaire, nor remotely DHH, and I already talked about the hack-a-day guys in my oscilloscope comment. The verdict is in: I can't call myself a hacker. So what's the message here for people like me? I guess the conclusion is for starters that I really am an impostor in a lot of ways, including participating on this site.

<comment><USER8> Dude, who care if you are a hacker, and in which case, according to which definition. Like many people here, you post insightful comments and have interesting side projects - I recall one of your post where you explained how you made a new language from scratch in five weekends with no experience in compiler theory or language design.

I don't know what it makes you, but I think that's pretty awesome - and since I'm not a hacker myself (for the same reasons you say you are not really a hacker), me saying you're a hacker wouldn't make any sens.

<comment><USER9> > you explained how you made a new language from scratch in five weekends with > no experience in compiler theory or language design.

I agree that the term is pretty meaningless, but I am pretty certain this would qualify under the most stringent of definitions. Personally, I prefer the term 'tinkerer', since it does not come with all the baggage but captures the spirit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Well, in my opinion the view a young person can develop by reading a site like Hacker News is a skewed reality of what it is to be a software engineer, a hacker.

One example of this is what I will generically call the "Google Interview". I know brilliant engineers how have done massive non-trivial projects that have generated millions of dollars in revenue who could not pass such an interview.

The other aspect is the constant exposure to the language-of-the-day and framework-of-the-day club. I can see a young aspiring developer becoming utterly disappointed when realizing it is nearly impossible to keep up with it all. Where do you start? How do you learn this stuff? Someone could very easily think they are not up to par if they can't walk in these mythical shoes.

The truth is very different from that. There's a huge world out there for software engineers. There are real problems to be solved. And, no, not everything in software engineering lives and dies on a web browser or a smart phone.

Is the OP saying that she needed to feel like a hacker to feel legitimate? That would be sad.

What the hell is a hacker anyway? Definitions abound. In many ways it is more about how someone might approach hardware and software problems than anything else. You don't have to be YC material to be a legitimate software engineer. One could very easily argue there are tons of software engineers out there doing far more important work than almost any YC developer has done to date. Most of them are invisible. Think about the people writing code for MRI machines, aircraft avionics or even your car's ABS system.

If you are young and love software engineering please don't think that building websites is the only way you are going to become somebody in this business. Explore what's out there and dare to learn about other interesting problems you might be able to solve.

<comment><USER11> > Is the OP saying that she needed to feel like a hacker to feel legitimate? > That would be sad.

Hi! I am not, and I agree that it would be sad. I am happy to be satisfied with who I am, what I do, and where I'm going. I may not identify with the term "hacker" due to some of its connotations, but I do feel like I get to playfully work on difficult things--one of the few definitions of a hacker I relate to and fortunately the one that I think best embodies its true spirit.

Unfortunately, many people I know who have yet to feel established in the field do feel at least a small need to relate to the "hacker" to feel like a software engineer. As there are parts of this I could relate to (even if they are not bringing me down right now), I thought I'd share my experiences.

<comment><USER10> You've accomplishe a lot. Realize you will never know everything there is to know in CS. How you approach what you don't know is what makes a difference.

There's a lot of folklore going around in places like HN. Very soon kids are going to think that if they don't use vim, reject the mouse and do away with Windows they will never be real software developers. It's a bunch of macho nonsense.

<comment><USER12> Well hold on. Windows _does_ suck, and we _should_ do away with it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It seems this discussion is going all the way back to high school and childhood. In that case, let's keep in mind that many (most?) of the kids who spent all their time "hacking" did so because they were often excluded from more social activities. Remember, there _was essentially no social reward_ for "hacking" (unlike getting good grades, being a great athlete, able to tell jokes, speak in public, dance, sing, play an instrument and most other skills kids might develop).

Sure, today hacking is "cool" .. because money, fame and power are cool and many hackers have achieved that. But until very very recently (last couple years), the only reasons a kid would start hacking were curiosity and having little else to do because _they_ couldn't (or didn't want to) fit in.

With that in mind, this article disturbs me in a way I can't easily explain. Particularly when she describes feeling like an imposter "in the face of the _desirable_ hacker stereotype" and even claims the nerdy clothes that hackers wear are _in and of themselves exclusionary_ simply because one might choose to be more fashionable.

This is _no different_ from her stereotypical "hacker" complaining about having to wear different attire to fit in at a school dance (or should he/she later choose to go into banking, law or any profession other than programming at a startup).

I went to a top high school, where academic excellence (grades, SATs, AP tests, what college you got into, etc) was definitely _cool_ and admired. _Even then_ , if you saw a kid hacking in the hallway (or painting or otherwise working on things completely of their own choosing) you knew that he/she was likely at the bottom of the social totem pole.

These very people are who pg was speaking to in many of his early essays like [http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html](http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html)

The fact of the matter is that a disproportionate number of the best hackers come from that population. Those who were the "cool kids" in high school may want in now, but they'll have to earn their place at the table. If that means working ungodly hours, having to change the way they speak or dress to "fit in" .. when in Rome ..

(please do not misinterpret anything I wrote as condoning sexism, which is despicable in any setting)

<comment><USER14> If her point is no different to complaining about fitting in at a school dance, which I think is true, then surely the better response here is to recognise the pattern - it's bad when people feel they cannot belong in an environment that should be welcoming.

The discussions should be "bad things are bad, let's make things better".

I'd summarise your comment as very different: "That bad thing that you didn't like? It reminds me of a bad thing I didn't like. But I'm doing OK now, so I find it disturbing that you even mention your bad thing. Why should I want to help stop it, just because it's bad? Why would I want to get rid of the irrational, selfish barriers that protect my position?"

<comment><USER15> I think he makes an interesting point, though: hacker culture is to a large degree the culture of modern social exclusion. There is a sort of horrible irony to more well-adjusted people feeling excluded from it.

I know personally, when I was a teenager, "hacking" was definitely an escape, not so much from social isolation, but definitely from Problems You Don't Want. I can understand why people might be offended by the authors stance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I want the education sector to start treating the ability to programme as they do literacy and numeracy. Everyone should know how to write a letter and read, but not necessarily write a novel. Everyone should know how to count, but not need to win the Fields Medal. I believe that everyone should be comfortable with looking at a script and tweak it to their needs, but not necessarily have to create a AAA game from scratch.

I was vaguely aware of programming as a child, but had no education (unless you count mailmerge and a broken floor-turtle) and certainly no encouragement at school (in the UK if my spelling hasn't given it away). I basically forgot all about it until the middle of my degree (physics) when C was mandatory. It took until two years after a PhD to work out that a career in programming was what I really wanted.

Do I regret the way I got here? Nope. I learnt a lot of cool stuff along the way. But had it not been for that C course I may never have worked out what I wanted. I got lucky, and luck should not be a factor.

<comment><USER17> > _I was vaguely aware of programming as a child, but had no education (unless > you count mailmerge and a broken floor-turtle) and certainly no > encouragement at school (in the UK if my spelling hasn 't given it away)._

I too was very vaguely aware, but in the mid nineties all I ever came across was Windows. Hell, I didn't start programming until I was 31, everyone else on this thread makes me feel like a real late starter.

> _I basically forgot all about it until the middle of my degree (physics) > when C was mandatory._

I thought FORTRAN would have been a good candidate for a mandatory language in a physics degree.

<comment><USER16> It was an option the year before, but not enough people wanted to take it and the class was cancelled. I'm glad to have learnt C, because it came with an introduction to bash and ssh. Whilst the terminals we used were windows, we were logging into a linux box via putty. This way I got to learn the UNIX way of writing tiny, single purpose programs that operate on STDIN and STDOUT for piping together. I guess the philosophical education was at least as important as the code itself.

<comment><USER17> > _It was an option the year before, but not enough people wanted to take it > and the class was cancelled._

Makes me wonder, if you were taking a physics degree now what would be on the table?

I started on C++, then downgraded to C, I prefer life to be simple (?$%?). I also threw out the IDE's and installed ubuntu alongside Windows.

A few weeks ago I lost my desktop and could only work in recovery mode. It was great, like living in the 1970's. tty only, using Vim and Joe as editors and reading help pages with elinks. Bash is smashing.

<comment><USER16> I believe python is popular these days, but I think C is still the language of choice. A few years back when I was a TA I was tutoring on a C course at Leeds university, and Sussex (where I did my undergrad) they're pretty hardcore, so I reckon it's still C with the occasional course in F77.

I started on emacs with that C course. These days I use sublime text for my own machines, and vim elsewhere (although I'm not very good). The end result of all this? I finish sentences with a semicolon and save with colon-w-q (or x, but wq is way more satisfying); :wq

<comment><USER17> I was wondering if Haskell would be good for scientific computation. It has bignum like Python, but I think it is more popular among mathematicians than physicists.

Joe can emulate Emacs, Pico and another editor called WordStar (which I think is hardly ever used these days), but it doesn't emulate Vi. Perhaps the guy who wrote it hates Vi. Interestingly I believe Vi was designed for writing C source. Bill Joy was working on the first BSD OS around the same time, the original Vi was probably involved in the bootstrapping process.

If you want a massive list of editors:

[http://texteditors.org](http://texteditors.org)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This resonated a lot with me as well -- elementary school computer science education in the '90s wasn't very developed. I went to a high school that had one of the better computer science programs for that level (in that it existed), but it still wasn't anything compared to the university level. The people who really learned the stuff were a self-motivated group who interacted outside of class as a club. These kinds of extracurricular studies were at best ignored by school faculty, and for students like myself, who was falling behind the curve in the school's demanding math/science/language program, were actively discouraged.

There's a crucial distinction between my experience and hers, though. I had the support of a core group of computer nerds, egging each other on and making simple games and the like. This group was almost entirely male, and were mostly interested in other stereotypical geeky hobbies like video games, anime, and tabletop role-playing games. We weren't consciously exclusionary, but anyone who didn't match the profile was probably going to feel very out of place.

I remember in my CS course, there were two girls in the class, and they were most definitely not part of the clique, even though they were brilliant by most objective definitions. One of them was definitely in the "gifted" category, and while the rest of the class was concerned with making video games, she was writing an equation plotter. We didn't talk to her all that much.

My point with all this rambling is that there's a lot of bundling of interests that goes on, all of them male-dominated, and if you aren't into those things, you don't get the same peer education as somebody who is. I think this explains a lot of the gender disparity we see in CS education today, and I don't know what to do about it. Education should not be tied to social cliques, but in reality, it often is.

<comment><USER19> You have explained perfectly what I also believe. My experience supports this. I wish I could upvote you more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't know if I ever thought "hacker" was only a term for someone who has been programming for 10+ years. I'm about to graduate from college, and I started programming my freshman year. I unfortunately never got to see the beauty and joys of programming until then, and it does suck a little bit. But does that automatically not make me a hacker?

Yet, I am arguably successful. I got a job offer from Amazon at the start of my senior year and took it, and of course, I eventually want to start my own company that's why I'm on this site. I understand the stigma because I personally have never told anyone I only started programming in college. I've never been asked either. I love playing around with new languages and learning all I can about software, but I don't feel I'm that far behind people who started programming early if even behind at all.

We need to stop acting like people who have been programming since kids have a huge advantage. It is much more about what you constantly put in, and there are numerous other ways to be a hacker then just programming. Most people who didn't program might already have the "hacker" in them and just need to attach the programming element of it.

<comment><USER21> People who feel alienated of the unique culture of programming will say anything to change it. They want everything to be normative, everything must be diverse everyone must have the same opportunities and pointing to gifted people and saying hey your a hacker and thats really good is a huge threat to that idea. It is almost like thinly veiled socialism.

<comment><USER22> You say "socialism" like it's a bad thing. I don't feel "alienated" from hacker culture, everyone I've met seems quite nice and receptive to me (although perhaps I'm in the wrong room).

But perhaps what I see is that this is really nice, and why can't we share it with more people? Hacking isn't a zero-sum game. If we double the number of people trying to write open source, isn't that a win for everybody?

It's not like encouraging somebody else to write code takes my job away, or dilutes the amount of genius to go around.

Think positively, my friend. "Socialism" may or may not work when we're building massive factories built out of atoms, but perhaps the economy of bits works differently than the economy of atoms.

Disclosure: [http://braythwayt.com/posterous/2014/01/03/hello-my-name- is-...](http://braythwayt.com/posterous/2014/01/03/hello-my-name-is-reginald- and-i-am-a-socialist.html)

<comment><USER23> To be fair, IIRC, you've been programming for longer than many people on this site have been alive.

(I listened to your interview on Javascript Jabber.)

<comment><USER22> I had some natural advantages, my mother was a systems analyst, and I had some early precocity.

But I also ran into some very encouraging people at key moments in my youth, for example there were various students at UofT who encouraged me to tinker with WATFIV and SNOBOL programs on punch cards. Some even let me use their terminals to play with APL.

I cannot say what would have happened if they had shooed me away and/or called security, but I think that my longevity in programming owes something to people who were welcoming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What gets held up as an ideal gets followed, especially as children, when we're looking to establish our identities. I wonder if promoting a more diverse image of "hacking" to be included in other hobbies will help. While programming has always been a passion of mine, I also like astronomy, travel, and politics. Perhaps there should be discussion of how to change the practice and culture of programming to be one that more children can follow if they desire?

<comment><USER21> No one is promoting the hacker image, the image is defined by those seen to be the hackers. Who are you suggesting we point to and say look at what this person did to make the image more diverse?

<comment><USER24> Perhaps someone like this?

[http://pando.com/2014/01/02/from-coding-to-the-catwalk- this-...](http://pando.com/2014/01/02/from-coding-to-the-catwalk-this-high- fashion-model-has-a-secret-double-life/)

I'm not really saying we need to promote pizza and staying up all night coding, it's that we need to maybe make it more inclusive, to encourage more people to join the tech party.

<comment><USER21> This is the point I making, she is hardly famous for being a successful hacker, and that's the problem. If you want more diverse role models they have to achieve something, this whole article is look I am pretty and smart isnt that amazing? If anything it is making things worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I can relate to a lot of this though I'm not female I had some of the same early experiences. I did some BASIC on a VIC-20, some Logo on the school's Apples. Some programming in a specialized adventure game development tool on a Mac. I got lots of ad-hoc "systems" experience because I wanted to know how things worked behind the scenes. I never really considered doing "programming" as a career because it was "too much like math" or something. I didn't find out about Linux till I was 20 (this was in 1996, but still...not much cred!). I never would have had this career except for a lucky first job where I had so much time on my hands I learned how to program and automate all my tedious help-desk work. So they gave me more. Later took some comp-sci classes though never did finish a degree in it - its too hard to schedule 300+ level classes at night at a real university. I remember reading the description for the first batch of YCombinator and thinking "thats not me...". Now - I feel more like a hacker at 37 then ever before.

Anyway, Paul was really talking about the fact that he can't make someone into a hacker in three months. Never did he say that people can't become a hacker at the advanced age of 22.

</comment><comment><USER26> I identify with the sentiment this person wrote about. My first language was GW basic/logo at around that age, learned some pascal/C around high school, and just tried to learn more.

I miss those days, being a youngster and programming: doing without totally understanding but still learning. I still do stuff on my own, though, but no one will look at it or care.

But now all I do is fix bugs. I got one job after school, where I created something new. Looking back on it now, it was garbage but it was my garbage. That was the last time, though. Now I do 'sustaining' work. I don't mind but it feels like the industry as a whole has turned their back on me. I'm considering doing a startup sooner or later.

<comment><USER27> Do side projects. A small web game, iPhone app, terminal utility... it doesn't matter what it is, what matters is getting back to that state where you're proud of "your garbage " :)

Spending a few hours over the evenings and weekends is totally doable, and within a few weeks you'll have gotten further than you may think!

<comment><USER26> > Spending a few hours over the evenings and weekends is totally doable, and > within a few weeks you'll have gotten further than you may think!

That's true. I do try to do stuff like this bug it's hard to find meaning, though.

<comment><USER28> An easy way to get started might be the daily programmer subreddit .. It's fun looking over other peoples solutions especially in the more esoteric languages & satisfying to be solving even trivial problems within a community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord I'm not really aware of any "hacker" stereotype?

I think the issue is that the word hacker has too many meanings, and some of them contradictory. A hacker can be a prankster, a skilled programmer, a creative programmer, a skilled/creative programmer with some vague ideology that supports freedom of information, a computer security breacher, a person who tinkers with electronics, a person who subverts any type of system or authority (reality hacker/culture jammer), any sort of whimsical and creative fellow who applies unorthodox solutions to his everyday life, etc.

In addition, a hack can mean: an unskilled or untalented person, a charlatan, an inelegant but efficient solution to a problem (a kludge), an inelegant and inefficient solution to a problem (cruft), an elegant but unconventional solution to a problem, a skilled application of marketing (growth hack), a culture jam (reality hack), hacking off a limb, a prank, a computer security exploit or breach, a program to cheat at video games and so forth.

As far as I know, the "hacker" stereotype is that of the skilled but evil and socially isolated computer criminal.

</comment><comment><USER29> I thought being a hacker was more of a mindset.

<comment><USER21> Agreed, to me a hacker was someone who liked to code at work and for fun and is probably better at it than the norm because of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Being a programmer does not make you a hacker. In fact, being a brilliant programmer does not make your a hacker. I suppose its like being a driver does not make you a racing driver. Hacking existed long before computers and programming.

</comment><comment><USER31> To me, a hacker is someone who thinks creatively about problems, and who views technology as a set of tools to solve them. The YC question about "the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage" is, to me, most resonant of the 'hacker' ethos. Although many answers I've seen to this question involve using a computer system to solve a non-computer problem, the sheer variety of non-tech "hacks" out there speaks volumes about what a 'hacker' is and does.

To me, the label 'hacker' isn't claimed, it's earned. I call myself a hacker, though I didn't until someone else did. I've never broken into secure systems armed only with a 28.8 bps modem and active matrix screen, though -- I use it entirely in the 'problem-solver' sense of the word, and proudly.

Having programmed since childhood doesn't make me a hacker. I owe far more to years of Latin study, an unhealthy interest in logic problems and strategy games, and being trained via school that there is always a solution to every problem if you apply yourself hard enough.

But on the other hand, if I were just learning to program now, how much of the 'hacker' mindset would come along with it? Very little, in and of itself; I tutor beginning students and I'm always trying to teach them how to solve problems and look for answers, how to be creative and elegant, and how to reuse other people's work -- it wasn't until I started mentoring that I realised how little of this some people do naturally, and I still don't know the reasons why that is.

On a side note, and having just re-read _Little Women_ , I have a thought about hacking and poverty. When you are poor, you have to be creative. How much of that mindset overlaps with what makes a good hacker? How many hackers grew up in disadvantaged circumstances and learned to make the most of the resources they had? How many hackers hung out in libraries, absorbing information like sponges, because it was free and warm and both their parents were at work?

</comment><comment><USER32> This article strikes me to centrer around concepts such as "impressionable", "self identify" or "feel like a hacker".

1\. The author tries to blame society ( everybody except herself ) for not noticing the field of computer science. This is a very strange statement. Anyone using a computer must realise it didn't appear on the earth from god almighty him self. "stumbled upon opportunities early on" here again the author is trying to blame the society for the personal problem of a lack of willpower and curiosity for finding out how computers works, instead she comfortably chooses to say that the society did not do its part.

2\. "Still, I imagine that this is unfortunately more common among women due to the ongoing sexism surrounding the field and the effects that this has on young, impressionable women.". Again with the personal lack of willpower. Being impressionable is a personal problem and the solution is not stopping to peruse an interest. Frankly I don't have any sympathy for anyone who refuses to do their own analysis of a subject and instead trust and conforms to other peoples view on the matter, which is what being "impressionable" is.

3\. " In addition to being unable to self-identify with the "hacker" stereotype,". This is at the heart of the authors argument, "unable to self- identify". How on earth can this ever be a problem? What does it even mean? She wants to erase her personality and become a profession completely? If you like something I assume you are interested in the technique, art or science of the sport or hobby. Not because you want to "feel" like a practitioner of that sport/hobby? I really can't understand an argument that is based on how much you feel like a practitioner. If you are doing something you are doing it because you enjoy it or find it fascinating.

Every child will during upbringing become exposed to computers and if they are interested they will ask as how they work or how the programs are made. Anything after that is a pure personal problem, a willpower issue. Blaming others for ones own failings is not a valid argument and I wont respect it.

<comment><USER33> I get furious at the types of comments that plague these submissions to hacker news. usually it starts when someone submits an article that in some way holds society at large accountable for things like the lack of women in STEM, or someone's difficulty in entering the "hacker" or "maker" culture.

this article hits both targets really well. and, like clockwork, the top comment does the following:

1\. immediately suggests that it's absurd that the author could blame society in any way for her difficulty/inability to enter the field of computer science.

2\. uses his now-accepted theory that it is always, unfailingly, willpower (and only willpower) that prevents one from doing anything to basically posit that sexism doesn't exist (because it's all willpower). he implies that sexism in tech is a fault of a character flaw - <USER2>

3\. completely invalidates the concept and social power of identifying as part of a larger group. this guy is so privileged and used to identifying as a "hacker" that he can't even comprehend the concept that someone might want to identify as a hacker (but have trouble doing so, say, because of comments like this)

if it's not something like the above, it's a comment that completely ignores the content of the article, and nit-picks about something like what the author _actually_ meant by the term "hacker" (which, if it was spoken by a man, would most likely not raise such questions)

I know I'm spitting venom, but I see this stuff so often and say nothing...I felt like it was necessary here.

<comment><USER19> Thank you for saying something this time. I agree this "impressionability is a character flaw" business is bull. As if reacting badly to other people behaving negatively toward you and excluding you is something only worthless people do. As if humans don't have profound effects on other humans through their words and actions. As if the author is somehow above being in anyway influenced by other humans. I'm sure he's not, but he wants you to think so.

<comment><USER32> So much talk about games and making an appearance. I assure you that I don't care either way what your opinion is of me.

It is always choice to handle your reaction. Also you are strawmanning, it is a far cry from that society didn't actively shove a computer and a programming book to you as a child and people behaving negatively towards you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> You're a hacker when a hacker calls you a hacker. All that "being able to self-identify" is narcissism.

<comment><USER35> > You're a hacker when a hacker calls you a hacker. All that "being able to > self-identify" is narcissism.

Hackers have called me a hacker, therefore I'm a hacker. I now declare that every human being is a hacker if they self-identify as one.

<comment><USER36> This has the problem of "where does the first hacker come from?" Then I realized the first hacker is almost certainly Ada Lovelace, who wrote the first computer program for Babbage's Analytical Engine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> _I don 't fit the stereotype and am okay with that: I wear dresses and heels instead of hoodies and sneakers, I keep a regular sleep schedule_

I dont remember that being the stereotype for hackers. I would be interested to hear from other people about what they think? But to me it has been someone who is intensely interested in computers and is very good at it. What they wear (wow really shallow much) hasnt really ever factored into it.

<comment><USER37> What they wear is (and has always been) a huge part of it. Here's a bunch of comments from years ago about suits at interviews, for a specific example: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1639740](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1639740)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Traditionally a "hacker" was someone who was obsessed with mastering computers to the extent that it was the most important thing in their life. I once had a friend complain about the time wasted in eating, sleeping and having sex, time that could be better spent in recreational programming. I once had an instructor that partially solved that problem by subsisting entirely on 7-Up (a type of soft drink). He almost died as a result.

So using that definition, being a hacker is a type of seriously negative affliction. No one chooses the hacker lifestyle. The only good aspect occurs if you "recover" and find you can make a living programming for others. Pre- recovery, hackers often deliberately work in low level non-technical professions.

There is a sort of low level legend that straight women are immune to this sort of condition. Interesting if true. Such a revelation could result in some much needed reverse discrimination. There is nothing worse than accidentally hiring someone with a hidden overriding agenda for a programming position.

</comment><comment><USER39> I remember when I got introduced to programming.

I was about 9/10, not sure exactly, I came across some article that taught you how to create a virus using the windows notepad (lame, I know), turns out the "virus" was just a fork bomb written in ms-batch.

I quickly got into the hacker culture, I went into some underground forum where there was a big "ms-batch scene", I have no idea why, but this guys were implementing games in ascii, trojans, interpreters... all in Batch.

And so I started learning, Batch is a horrible language, yet pretty simple to learn, in the meantime I heard about this mythical developers who wrote code in C or Python, languages I thought inaccessible and extremely complex.

I remember my first "big" project, I wrote some kind of graphical adventure where you were a "hacker" trying to "hack" into someone's PC by using commands such as "ping" and "telnet" (I had no idea about system administration or pentesting at the time).

Thinking about that horrid code, take in mind this was Batch, so no private variables, no functions, no structs... just an endless pile of GOTOs.

This is even more funny considering that this was 5 or 6 years ago, in a time where Python, Ruby and Javascript were a thing, I could have gone the easy way, but I took the side-path... and I'm glad.

I am now 16, I still have a lot to learn yet I've also learnt a lot. I do consider myself a hacker, just because I write code for fun and like reinventing the wheel when possible. But the definition of "hacker" is very wide, for me, a "hacker" is everyone who enjoys writing code, maybe they work 8-17 writing Java in the Enterprise, but, if you enjoy what you do, if you come back home and keep writing code, if you want to improve: then you are a hacker.

</comment><comment><USER21> _The prevalence of the 'hacker' stereotype hurts those who don't identify with it, such as women_

The stereotype of prodigies in sports is also hurting everyone like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, why should other sports people be disadvantaged by not starting at an early age. Really?

 _" Hacker" doesn't equate to the best software engineer, the best founder, or much of anything other than having benefited from a longer period of time to gain experience—extra time that may or may not have been used effectively to gain additional knowledge _

This hasnt been my experience, seems like a lot of what ifs.

<comment><USER40> Professional sports aren't STEM careers? Athletes are often celebrities that young people look up to, whereas hackers are not.

<comment><USER21> I never said professional sports are STEM careers. And young people do look up to celebrity hackers, what exactly is your point?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I've also been programming since I was about 10. I remember doing some Logo stuff, I recently just found a zip drive with my first program - Tic Tac Toe in logo. I certainly don't remember being encouraged to program until I was at the very least 17 when I was in high school being taught some bullshit 'computer ethics' course by a man with a PhD in Computer Science who just wanted to show people how to code. I guess I'm saying, the encouragement factor for any young programmer is very low, and should be much better. It sounds to me from reading this blog post that it was harder for you, possibly (probably?) because you're a woman. That really sucks, it shouldn't be harder, it should be equally hard for women and men, and it should be getting easier for both all the time. That's why things like Code Club and various online ways of learning programming are so important in my opinion. When programming is put on the curriculum at school, parents are more likely to take it seriously rather than act like my parents who tried to stop me using the computer. I really admire the work of people like @BenNunney who through stuff like Rewired State makes hacking more accessible to young, talented people. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4CC45E6TAY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4CC45E6TAY)

Just my two cents.

</comment><comment><USER42> I feel like "hacker" is the same as throwing around "hero" you cannot bestow it upon yourself and when someone calls you it, you pretty much are required to say "I'm not but so-and-so is the real h(ero|acker)". I have a friend who likes to say "I want to go down to the XYZ meetup and meet other hackers" and it starts to just sound somewhat pathetic.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm not a young woman so it's hard for me to say, but it looks to me like people are doing a much better job of encouraging young women to program. There are lots of programs to support women in CS. On the other hand, I don't know how effectively these solve the deeper cultural problems where it's not considered "normal" for girls to be interested in coding.

<comment><USER21> I have a lot of female coding friends, we grew up together and one of the biggest barriers they had when we were at university was from their female friends. Suggesting that their choice would stop them from getting a husband and they would turn into a basement dweller.

<comment><USER40> Sounds like they had shitty friends.

<comment><USER21> This was the normal situation for most of the women I graduated with, huge pressure from their female social groups to not do programming. On the flip side, they had lots of friends in the course because it was a massive sausage party. The point is the hardest thing they had to do was overcome all the vitriol being slung at them from their own gender.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I absolutely agree that the "hacker" label is stupid.

I've been writing software since I am seven years old. When I was younger, I actually did hack into my schools security system. Still, I cannot identify with the term "hacker". I'd say "builder" is a more apt description of what I do in my life.

</comment><comment><USER45> In humans, differences in physical and behavioral traits tend to lead to isolation, which leads to cultural differences¹. That's why the general trait of being very curious, experimental and focused on technology and problem- solving has given rise to (among others) the hacker culture and its associated persona. But, one need not consider oneself a part of the hacker culture if one does not want to. Indeed, one can be a programmer without having any of the above traits and/or consider oneself part of the hacker culture.

1) Regarding physical traits leading to culture, the same development can be seen to have given rise to Deaf culture, and also in the very concepts of "men" and "women", which are more cultural in nature than most people think.

</comment><comment><USER46> You're a hacker when a hacker calls you a hacker.

</comment><comment><USER47> Anyone that calls themselves (hacker|cool|awesome) is just a poser, by definition.

</comment><comment><USER48> I consider myself a professional, and not a hacker or a hack. It is a somewhat derogatory, and as a programmer I can tell you don't have to accept it. Just correct them if someone call you. There is an application for a incubator, they asked if there are any hackers on the team. We 3 programmers looked at each other and filled out: no, no hackers in our company.

</comment><comment><USER49> All labels and stereotypes are stupid and exclusionary. But what's the alternative? When you're hiring and don't have time to interview everyone, any easy filter that's even slightly correlated with technical ability is a valuable one; if, say, "watches star trek" is such a factor then an interviewer would be stupid to ignore it.

</comment><comment><USER50> There's this funny little problem.

There's a substantial slice of "hackers" who really enjoy saying Crazy Shit But No Wait It's Totally True And Makes Sense If You're Smart Enough To Process This Obscure Worldview That Makes It Make Sense. I know, I am one of those people.

Woz gleefully paying for things with sheets of $2 bills is a perfect example: [http://hackaday.com/2012/08/03/woz-prints-and-spend-his- own-...](http://hackaday.com/2012/08/03/woz-prints-and-spend-his-own-2-bills/)

And really, it can be super fun! Most of us get a little rush from seeing something new in the world, and it can be a fun way to give people that rush.

It also really pisses some people off, and it can be really counterproductive. The trouble is that these hackers live in a world where there's never a bad time for a fun intellectual diversion. _Fun intellectual diversions are the reason for being alive, of COURSE it 's a good time._ But other people live in other worlds, where getting to the school by 4:30 to pick up their child is actually higher on the priority list.

And so, to the word "Hacker".

I suspect there are a handful of people here who were hackers before the word "hacker" came to mean "cracker". But I suspect for most of us, myself included, "hacker" meant Kevin Mitnick first. Only later, when reading Steven Levy's "Hackers" did I learn about the MIT model railroad club, the "true" purpose of phone phreaking (it's fun, not profit!) did I start to understand the definition of "hacker" that Paul Graham espouses today.

The thing is, Steven Levy _explained_ that everyone thinks hackers are undersexed males who break into computers, and _we still adopted this label for ourselves_. For the lulz. Because we get off on that moment of misunderstanding followed by the superiority of knowing that we have a different definition for the word than everyone else.

And if I'm being honest, this happened on purpose. We wanted it to be a somewhat exclusive clubhouse where you have to know the secret definition of "hacker" and it helps to know what a y combinator is. We wanted to keep out all the MBA riff-raff, remember?

I'm not saying it's wrong, or a bad strategy. But this is the chickens coming home to roost. When you make a secret handshake, you're going to alienate Susie Derkins.

<comment><USER18> I think you can usually infer from context what a person means when they say "hacker," and while people over the age of 60 may have difficulty with it, most people in their 40s and younger have been exposed to the concept through sites like "life hacker." It would be insulting to suggest that the author does not know the difference between Steve Wozniak and Kevin Mitnick.

Even with that distinction, there's a distinction in my mind, and probably many others', between a programmer and a hacker. I consider myself a fairly skilled programmer, but not a hacker. Maybe I was back in high school, but not anymore. I like programming, and I like learning new things about CS theory, but I think "hacker" conveys something more than that. A hacker values speed over correctness, figures out ways to put their programming knowledge to use in their day-to-day life. A hacker believes that a few lines of Perl will save the world.

I, on the other hand, like building systems that work, and the intellectual satisfaction that comes from solving a data modeling problem. Real hackers are obsessed with the potential of 3D printing, the nifty gadgets you can make with an Arduino board, or a Raspberry Pi device. It's all about pushing the envelope. I don't push envelopes. I like to identify a problem, solve it once, and apply that solution wherever it fits. I can see how people might find that a bit dry, but I personally find it satisfying.

They're different value sets, and different skill sets, and I think both are necessary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> …you know how to write code. Why should it imply you're a hacker?

</comment><comment><USER52> Don't let anyone else tell you what is valuable in computing.

</comment><comment><USER53> I remember in the late 90s I was 10 or 11 and I figured out how to use the public library internet for more than the limit of 30 minutes.

I wanted to use internet so bad but I was not allowed a computer so I always hung out at the public library and I wished more than anything to use the internet as much as possible.

I thought by asking how does the computer know when the 30 minute is up? There must be a timer! Can I prevent the timer?

Sure enough, for half a second there's a dos terminal in windows 95 that is displayed when I restart the computer. It took a few tries but I managed to close it. 30 minutes passed and I was still on it. then an hour, another hour passes and I'm still not logged out!

I used the internet all the day from morning to dark. I let my sister use it too when I wanted to take a 'break'. I would see people check the wait list look over at me and leave very annoyed.

The next week, the librarian who remembered me told me they would need my library card as collateral, and that they will be keeping tabs on the time. the jig was up.

This was my hacker moment. not exactly sophisticated but I wanted something so bad and I got it.

<comment><USER54> Now I will have to share my own library story. When I was in middle school I loved going to the library, reading books, comics, manga , magazines. In summer I used to go very often to the library. I would walk from my house to my local public library and go straight to he bathroom so that I could wipe the sweat from my face and arms. I've had some of my happiest memories in that library. I will share my most significant experiences.

The computers at the local public library had Windows (XP maybe?), we could use them for an hour or more depending on how many people wanted to use the computers. They also had computers in a kid section which had some games and limited internet access (the library's portal) and some more computers in another section which only had access to the library's portal. Once I was using a computer which was only supposed to be used to check books, somehow I discovered that a lot of times the library's portal also had a link to the item in Amazon, and from Amazon I could get into Google and then to any website. I got caught and scolded by a librarian, she told me "If you ever used this computers to get into the internet again, we are going to cancel your library card" or something like, well I never used those computers for the internet again. I used the ones in the kids section and it felt awesome.

Another significant thing that at that time didn't seem that significant was when I checked out a thick programming book on C or C++ I am not sure. I had a vague idea about what a program was and I had read thick books before. I didn't even had a computer at my house but I was so curious. I opened it tried to make sense out of the text but I couldn't, it seemed like Chinese. The next day I returned the book and I never again got interested in programming until high school.

<comment><USER53>
        Another significant thing that at that time didn't seem
        that significant was when I checked out a thick
        programming book on C or C++ I am not sure. I had a vague
        idea about what a program was and I had read thick books
        before. I didn't even had a computer at my house but I
        was so curious. I opened it tried to make sense out of
        the text but I couldn't, it seemed like Chinese. The next
        day I returned the book and I never again got interested
        in programming until high school.

I did a similar thing, but being so desperate for a computer around the late 90s, I eventually found an old Intel 286 computer that was abandoned in the closet. It had monochrome monitor and I found something called QBASIC. I went to the library and took out very heavy book on it and ended up just copying the source code from the book. I didn't understand the code a great deal but the game ran after running through several pages. I thought it was interesting but realized trying to make a game is going to be very tough.

What sparked my interest soon after that was creating my own website after my dad helped me host it on a free server. I still have a copy of it backed up on a cd somewhere. It was created with Netscape Navigator. I showed my teacher and classmates. It was magic. It was so awesome.

I took a course that taught Visual Basic and also QBasic in junior high. It bored me because we were making very simple apps that I already knew. Wasn't learning anything new. Also whenever I sped ahead or began working on other things instructor would emphasize that I was to follow her step by step in an excruciatingly slow pace that the rest of the students had to follow. If she saw someone speeding ahead she would get angry and say STOP. Killed my interest in programming.

Then came along counter-strike and and things pretty much went downhill from there. It ruined my academic career playing it so much. I found out that the guy who created counter strike also graduated from the university I would attend some years after.

It wasn't until I saw my high school friend (nerdy guy who I used to tease in high school but was secretly jealous of his programming knowledge) in University that he inspired me to do what I thought was unthinkable, learn how to code again. "You just stick with it" is what he told me when I asked how he did it. He would show me the windows apps he made and I would be amazed how one could create something from nothing. Even now, that is the magic that drives me. Something out of nothing, and I stuck with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> "Hacker" is more about confidence, it seems, and cowboy coding isn't really a good thing in most cases. Don't get me wrong: there are a lot of good things about hacker culture's emphasis on flowful programming, fast iteration, and frequent engagement (demo early and often). Those are all good things, but I feel like (especially thanks to the VC chickenhawking) there is now more of an emphasis on the superficial-- the overblown confidence that is usually just massive ego and upper-middle- to upper-class entitlement-- that if you don't have that arrogant air, you're not seen as a real hacker. This is sad, because we need technologists more than ever to attack the truly hard problems (cancer, oil scarcity, global warming, economic inequality) and instead, the VC's have created this Disneyfied technology economy that is 99% hot air. It wouldn't be a problem if that nonsense were self-limiting, but it's now transferred _so_ much wealth to undeserving people as to have set off a terrible and probably permanent housing price problem in the Bay Area.

<comment><USER52> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_narcissism#Character...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_narcissism#Characteristics) ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> For the true hacker experience, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOHell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOHell)

<comment><USER21> Hacker in this context doesnt mean breaking into software and stealing stuff.

<comment><USER56> Didn't think it was necessary... but... /S</comment></comment></comment>


Parallels Apple's ARM Announcement - <AUTHOR> https://forum.parallels.com/threads/apples-arm-announcement.350218/ <comment><USER2> > Hello,

> We do not have any information regarding this at this time. Thanks for > understanding.

> Maria@Parallels (Parallels Team)

Guess everyone will have more information in a week or two after the Developer Transition Kits (DTK) have reached many developers and they try to push it in different ways to learn about things Apple hasn't explicitly commented on.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think the link should really be to their blog post?

[https://www.parallels.com/blogs/apple-silicon- wwdc/](https://www.parallels.com/blogs/apple-silicon-wwdc/)</comment>


Don't want Google tracking you? You have almost no choice, according to a study - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/08/22/dont-want-google-tracking-you-you-have-almost-no-choice-according-new-study/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.07955e2bfbad <comment><USER2> Archived copy without GDPR nag screen (oh the irony):

[https://web.archive.org/web/20180825120220/https://www.washi...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180825120220/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/08/22/dont- want-google-tracking-you-you-have-almost-no-choice-according-new-study/)

</comment><comment><USER3> How hard is it to "fuzz" this? I regularly look up weird things ("anal fissure", gout, knee problems), and have my kids use my google account every once in a while just to keep things loose. Also, my home network blocks a lot of ad-related domains.

It would seem that you could enlarge your search footprint to where it would be nebulous, include lots of garbage, and it would become useless.

<comment><USER4> why not go in the opposite direction? you don't need a google account to perform searches, so why not block google cookies (or use cookie autodelete) and do all your searches over a (shared) VPN?

<comment><USER5> I have a hard enough time getting Google to not stall in loading or redirects because they don't recognize me when using Firefox container accounts and things auto load in a different account. Or at least I did for a while until it seems the containers in question got enough history to be seen as legit (or were linked to my account...).

Google has expectations of what they get when providing you their service. If you aren't going to provide those juicy details when requesting search results, they just might make getting those results harder.

<comment><USER4> Are you using tor by any chance? I use cookie autodelete (equivalent to creating a new container every time I close all google tabs) and I only occasionally get captcha challenges. This is on VPN, so when that happens I just switch to another region and it works fine.

<comment><USER5> No, not using tor, and the problem wasn't actually CAPTCHAs as much as 10-20 second delays on page loads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> The study on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17817334](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17817334)

</comment><comment><USER6> It's not very hard if you know what you are doing.

\- Phone with Lineage OS without Google Apps \- Install apps with Apkpure since you don't have Google Play \- Startpage as search engine \- Disable accepting third party cookies

Done. No Google in your life anymore.

<comment><USER7> ... until you send the next email to an @gmail.com address. Or open a page with AdWord ads on it. Or Google Analytics. Or Google-hosted JS libraries. Or Google-hosted fonts. Or an AMP page. Or...

<comment><USER8> ^This.

Is it really worth the effort if you have to conduct your online life like a spy in a foreign land?

Where any mis-config or 'you missed a step' could expose you.

<comment><USER6> Your logic is basically "unless you can avoid Google seeing _any_ trace of you online, just let them see every single thing you do".</comment></comment></comment></comment>


NoPasswordLogin - Shopify app for Passwordless Login - <AUTHOR> We just launched a Shopify app that enables merchants to easily integrate a passwordless experience into their login flow. Store customers can use their Fingerprint or FaceID to login to their account https://apps.shopify.com/nopasswordlogin <comment><USER2> What if i acquire a picture of the individual or their finger print, will i get access to their account?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the question. we use are using the fido2 standard to ensure that would be impossible</comment></comment>


Useless use of kill -9 - <AUTHOR> http://sial.org/howto/shell/kill-9/

<comment><USER2> There should be a command that does kill and works its way up to -9.

<comment><USER3> <http://github.com/mmphosis/kill/blob/master/kill.c>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I always end up trying the others, but usually by the time you need to use kill at all, only -9 will do.</comment>


Freakonomics: Craigslist - A Company of Makers - <AUTHOR> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/craigslist-a-company-of-makers/

<comment><USER2> Gerald Weinberg recently said something very interesting about non-makers and meetings:

"When I walk a client's corridors, I frequently meet people on their way to meetings. Although these same people have told me that meetings are boring, they often seem excited when they're on their way to one. Why?

"... what these meetings are doing is playing out an emotional drama—conflict, blaming, flirting, one-upsmanship, random outbursts, anger, and so forth. For these happy people heading for meetings, it's those the soap-opera aspects of meetings are the most exciting parts of their jobs."

[http://secretsofconsulting.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-we- love-...](http://secretsofconsulting.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-we-love-and- hate-meetings.html)</comment>


Unintended Consequences, Part I: What if Chrysler was not bailed out in 1980? - <AUTHOR> https://ritholtz.com/2020/04/unintended-consequences-part-i-what-if-chrysler-was-not-bailed-out-in-1980/ <comment><USER2> Article talks about how a Chrysler bankruptcy would have made remaining automakers more competitive, particularly vs Japanese brands.

It should also mention that public would have had more money to spend on other things because 1) cheaper cars, and 2) they would have kept the money that was spent on the bailout. That could also have created jobs that the UAW was afraid of losing.

The increased productivity could then have been spent on transitioning the Chrysler workers.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would argue that Chrysler did not invent the SUV. Kaiser Jeep 1963 Wagoneer and 1966 Jeepster Commando were popular SUV's and the 1979 AMC Eagle was the first crossover SUV. Otherwise I really like the premise of too big to fail and how it has affected the US.

</comment><comment><USER4> Chrysler would have reorganized under the bankruptcy code, shed the pensions hobbling it and emerged as the most competitive US automaker.</comment>


Agencies, Quants, Hustlers and Hackers: The Personalities Building AdTech - <AUTHOR> http://ginzametrics.com/agencies-quants-hustlers-hackers-people-building-adtech.html

<comment><USER2> Future YC apps take note - this article showcases the depth of knowledge and critical thinking in a specific market that I'm sure made funding GinzaMetrics a no brainer for Paul & Co - nicely done Ray.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks very much!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Ditto. This article's so well written; so much meat and actual, rigourous dissection of a problem and it's landscape. Super applicable to the idea i'll be submitting to YC o:) This is spot on what I most needed to read right now. I've had experience with all these different ecosystems and personality types and really had no idea such a distinctive, robust pattern of relations was lurking therein.</comment>


Ask HN: How much did you sell your startup for? - <AUTHOR>

I'm curious to know what people have sold their startups for. We all are not as lucky as the many well-known startups that get acquired for millions, but I know many people on HN have sold their startups for 5 or even 6 figures.
Lets keep the format simple:
Business Name/URL (if you want to put it)
# of Years you owned it
Amonut you were looking to sell for
Amount you actually sold for <comment><USER2> 1] Due to legal reasons as the dollar amount was not publicly announced among other terms agreed upon, I would prefer not to disclose the business name here to avoid any repercussions.

2] If you count from the first line of code written till acquisition... 25 months. If you count from public launch till acquisition... 21 months.

3] We weren't looking to sell. Things just happened that way and the overall reason for selling is a lot more complicated than I'd like to dive into at the moment.

4] Total acquisition valuation was $15M. Since we didn't raise outside capital (no angel or VC investments), there was no dilution. There were two cofounders (myself and one friend) and two early hires that were vested. If it matters, we were cashflow net positive at the time of acquisition with over a dozen employees.

<comment><USER3> open - are you still open to ideas and businesses? I am close to launch. email in profile.

looking for python hacker / entrepreneur / angel</comment></comment>


SoftBank ditches $300M stake in dog walking startup Wag - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/0bb227a6-1ab9-11ea-9186-7348c2f183af <comment><USER2> Could this brilliant move be to divert attention from the other investments like WeWork?

Wag the dog definition: To 'wag the dog' means to purposely divert attention from what would otherwise be of greater importance, to something else of lesser significance. By doing so, the lesser-significant event is catapulted into the limelight, drowning proper attention to what was originally the more important issue.

Scott Galloway on SoftBank and real estate investments:

[https://www.profgalloway.com/unicorn- feces](https://www.profgalloway.com/unicorn-feces)</comment>


When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail - <AUTHOR> http://sittingonhands.blogspot.com/2013/06/if-you-have-hammer-everything-looks.html <comment><USER2> > A big (2B+ $) company. The division in the middle of UK. They make Set Top > Boxes - they are somehow good at that.

So, despite what the author thinks about their methods and their technology choices and despite anecdotal intermediate performance indicators ("Solving bug takes ages") whatever they are doing is working.

How many start-ups do we read about on HN that are using the latest and greatest language/framework/stack/methodology and yet don't yet have a business?

<comment><USER3> Interesting way to look at it. You could look at it another way and say what whatever they were doing before worked and got them this far. However, will what they are doing work for their continued future?

<comment><USER4> It might. It might not.

What would the technical and cultural cost of moving to a different toolchain be?

The author seems to think that _obviously_ moving to modern tools would be better.

Would it? Or would it just add to the chaos? Would build times really improve, would debugging become easier and more streamlined, would issue tracking improve?

My guess is that changing the entire culture to the point where there were real, measurable benefits would take from a few months to a year, with a lot of unproductive downtime.

The current toolchain is not optimal, but it still sort of works. And in a limited environment like set-top, it will probably continue to work.

Bottom line: don't innovate tools for the sake of it. Innovate if it's going to give you more customers and more profit. But not otherwise.

<comment><USER5> Real innovation doesn't lead with absolute certainty, it does not know whether it will lead to a reward. I really don't understand the mentality here where everyone thinks they know what they are doing before they do it. I can understand the need to have confidence and the desire to measure out a metric of predictive possibilities, but they are only predictions. For some things, you really don't know what will happen until it happens - especially when it involves chaotic systems such as people and their wants/needs/desires.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's this tendency I've started seeing more and more of in recent years. People pick an idea (be that a method, a technology or a philosophy) and make that their world. So you have people loudly proclaiming "We're agile", or "We're FOSS".

This isn't necessarily bad. It does get bad when it's exclusive of anything else. When someone tells me they only ever do something one way, what they're _really_ saying is "We're incapable of introspection. We like our self-imposed status quo, and have no interest in improving ourselves."

Of course the other extreme is just as bad - change for the sake of change is just as destructive.

<comment><USER7> Slight tangent, but, the funny thing about "We're agile" is that it means so many different things to different people.

I've heard people describe themselves that way when they meant "We have no process", "We have a very specific process that we adhere to religiously, that has been billed as agile", and "We have a process that we are constantly trying to improve, through retrospectives and the like to figure out what works and what does not". Only with that latter one has the work seemed to get done on time.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, there needs to be some maturity. It's rare, but it exists. I once worked for a consulting company where they chose their methodology based on the cultural environment of their client. It prompted me to put this post together - [https://www.wittenburg.co.uk/Entry.aspx?id=d84dff2a-c5cd-463...](https://www.wittenburg.co.uk/Entry.aspx?id=d84dff2a-c5cd-4638-9141-76568e4cc58b)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> All hardware companies I've seen on the inside are like this. Philips, FEI, Cisco, ASML, Océ. Somehow, when software isn't the only part that matters, people stick their heads in the sand and pretend like the 1980's never ended. I've given up trying to figure out why or change it.

It's the only reason I only do web stuff now. I like both domains, but the hardware / embedded software industries are just retarded.

<comment> nappy-doo Longtime embedded engineer here:

There is a reason they are "retarded" (BTW, please don't use that word). It comes down to the following:

1) Embedded engineers are generally EE that have taken a course or two in software. Generally they are the "best software guys" from a group of middling to poor software guys. As such, they reach for tools they are familiar with.

2) The product from embedded engineering is much different from web development. It might ship on a ROM, for a part with < 64kRAM. In circumstances such as this, knowing your toolchain won't add any complexities you don't understand is very important, and it doesn't get much simpler than C. (Also, most good embedded engineers use a restricted set of C that doesn't include things like printf and malloc.)

<comment><USER8> > BTW, please don't use that word

Good point. I won't anymore.

Your experience matches with mine (especially point 1). It's a sad state of affairs, really.

Wrt point two, true, but these days there's a vanishingly small number of problems that can only be solved cost-efficiently on microcontrollers and C.

My favourite example is ASML, world market leader in chip machines, which sell at millions of dollars a piece and could be specced to have any computing power needed, effectively, and has a software stack of 30 million lines of C.

Running on microcontrollers and Sun Solaris computers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If a team with extensive experience in CVS is already dragging it's feets to move to SVN, trying to get it to git is a fool's errand.

And SVN isn't the plague either, if they could be happy with, it should be good enough for a number of years. At least the migration path from CVS seems a lot more realistic.

Moving legacy systems is always a pain, and more often than not it's a matter of having enough people fluent in the target technology. I guess the point of the rant here is to urge people to get new hammers when their current one is getting old.

<comment><USER10> 10 years ago I managed to convince my employer at a time to move to Subversion from some proprietary system. Labelling a version of their customer facing application took all day as it copied every single file. We moved the code into Subversion as a test and showed we could label it in 1 second. Sometimes you have to show people to get them to understand.

<comment><USER9> I think convincing people is usually the easy part. More often than not they'll have shopped around and choose the solution themself. Or they hit a wall with the previous solution and need a new one no matter what.

I remember the tedious part being actually moving all the projects, all the teams over. Change the procedures. Change the tools, be it on the dev machines, CI, managers etc.

Then you remake all the weird scripts that were used to take stats, the commit hooks, or the stuff people didn't even remember existed but is still critical 0.01% of the time.

Usually it won't be done in one scoop, more like building the basic viable architecture and moving one project after the other, keep both stuff working in parallel with some people who'll trail behind and keep some translation layer between the legacy and the new system until everyone around has moved and they feel the peer pressure.

I've seen a lot of these transitions in mid size (70~200 people) corps, it would easily take 2 to 6 months to complete, even with goodwill on most fronts. Not the best memories.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been in a similar situation, though not nearly as dramatic. I've noticed the same effect: the talented people leave the company out of frustration. We talk about 3 people quitting in 6 months. In my opinion, it's a situation that happens when a B or C player manages to hire a B or even an A player.

And here is how it happened: In my case, I was transfered to a company that worked in cooperation with my initial company, so I didn't really have a choice. One colleague was very talented, but coming from a foreign country he couldn't really judge the company. The second colleague started at the company after graduation but grew out of it by learning and doing side projects after work.

I can understand the authors frustration, but I'd like to know how he got the job. If you knew the culture beforehand and joined with the naïvety that it would change for him, he should really be more modest.

<comment><USER12> My first programming job was in a company like this. I was there 6 months and that made me question if I wanted to do development as a career or was cut out to be a developer. I moved into operations/ systems in another company.

I gradually fell back into development in my new job, did a computer science degree part time. Now I really enjoy programming/ creating.

There were warning signs before I ever accepted that job (which ignored because it was well paid). Now I know that money isn't everything and there's work out there where you simply couldn't pay me enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I tried, but couldn't make any sense of this rant.

<comment><USER14> The author certainly hammered away at it, but I don't think he hit the nail on the head.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The situation described here looks to me like a team drowning in technical, product oriented difficulties that prevent anyone from having the available bandwidth to introduce new methodologies because of the chaos that doing this on the run would ( or would be perceived to ) introduce. In my experience, engineers need the headspace to learn new tools in a non impacting situation, which usually requires the introduction of low risk side projects to learn the new tools and techniques. In a way, this is actually a staffing / time related issue.

</comment><comment><USER16> I used to cite this saying all the time. Now I'm more keen to think that this saying can be twisted to support just about any argument.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think this is mostly a management issue. People dont like changes. So as long some changes are not forced nothing is going to happen.

And if a company only uses rakes to dig holes imho you can either try to convince management that using a spade is better or stop complaining or just leave.

</comment><comment><USER18> aytekin, your last three comments in your history are marked dead. I don't know why, they seem innocuous, but you may want to contact the mods.

</comment><comment><USER19> The actual phrase is _" When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."_

</comment><comment><USER20> Any blacksmith will have different opinion.</comment>


Ask HN: London based contractors, what's your day rate? - <AUTHOR> Would be interested to see the different daily rates for software developers based on industry and language used within the city.<p>Eg: Finance, Java, £500. <comment><USER2> I haven't done much work recently but when I did Python / Django:

For digital agencies :£360 Bank: £600

</comment><comment><USER3> Design, front-end, Ruby development. As of 30/04/14 it's £400.

</comment><comment><USER4> I would just do a search on www.jobserve.com to get a rough idea.

</comment><comment><USER5> Frontend Angularjs, Backend PHP £300

<comment><USER6> If you get £300/day what's left after tax and recruitment agency fee?

<comment><USER4> Recruitment agency fee would be paid by the client and wouldn't come out of the day rate.

This will give you a rough idea of take home pay after tax for any particular day rate: [http://www.sjdaccountancy.com/contractor_calculator/index.ht...](http://www.sjdaccountancy.com/contractor_calculator/index.html)

<comment><USER6> Thanks dude, I'm thinking to switch from permanent to contractor (front-end), any advise?

<comment><USER4> Get a good CV Get a good agent Get a Linked profile Get a good accountant, preferably one that uses FreeAgent

<comment><USER6> Thanks, and in terms of timing? Which is the best period of the year for doing the jump? In your experience which are the most flat or busiest months?

<comment><USER4> In my experience, I would avoid December and August. But tbh, if you are set on contracting you can interview any time. If you get a role, you can create limited company very quickly. The only piece that takes time is getting a VAT reference.

Also, JobServe is a good website to check to find agencies in your technology and industry sector.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What Makes an Electric Guitar Sound Like an Electric Guitar - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/what-makes-an-electric-guitar-sound-like-an-electric-guitar/386441/?single_page=true <comment><USER3> Since the author is presumably a young person (current PhD student), I'm surprised he didn't continue the story into the era of software modeling.

Kids and pro recording artists are plugging guitars into USB adapters and the software on the laptop has digital models of Marshall, Fender, Roland, etc.

Some digital models are embedded into FPGA chips in dedicated rack boxes such as Fractal Axe-Fx.[1]

I saw a gadget that let you plug your electric into your iPhone and play with amp simulators written in iOS.[2] Distortion, chorus, fx, etc all in the palm of your hand.

It's amazing the encyclopedia of guitar sounds that's easily available to this generation. It's all made possible by computers, software, and DSP mathematics research.

[1][http://www.fractalaudio.com/p-axe-fx-ii-preamp-fx- processor....](http://www.fractalaudio.com/p-axe-fx-ii-preamp-fx- processor.php)

[2][https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ampkit-guitar-amps- effects/i...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ampkit-guitar-amps- effects/id364011231?mt=8)

<comment><USER4> That stuff has come a long way - but it's still no replacement for valves driven to within an inch of their lives.

Is it great for live use? Sure. Better than 'real' amps for some cases since it can lead to more manageable stage volume.

But in a studio the difference is pretty obvious still.

Where the modeling stuff still has a long way to go is in the transition region. They have no problem doing buzzsaw distortion or crystal clean - <USER2> those magic tones that occur just as you're getting into overdrive.

Here's one of the masters, Gov't Mules Warren Haynes showing off the kind of sounds I'm talking about.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDDmJaJqdOQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDDmJaJqdOQ)

<comment> bjelkeman-again Modern thinking also gives us valves at low volumes, like a Hughes & Kettner Tubemeister, which I ended up getting the 18W model of. Possible to run at 1W and still sound great. (or direct to DI, I.e quiet).

<comment><USER5> There seems to be a bit of a low power tube renaissance happening lately. When I started playing no non-boutique manufacturers made anything analogue with less than 50w.

The Marshall DSL5C can toggle between 5 or 1w - you can use headphones in low power mode, although I ended up getting an inline volume control because the cans were getting hit too hard.

I've heard good things about the VHT 6w stuff too...is it payday yet?

<comment><USER6> Wanna buy a VHT 12/20 head? I'm selling one! The power scaling works really well in those VHTs. They're quite good.

<comment><USER5> Don't tempt me! Can't imagine the look on my SO's face if I set up a half- stack in our little apartment...

Got my eye on the special 6 ultra combo. Too bad there's no headphone socket though

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I counted seventy one (!) factual errors by the time I got to the section on the Leslie Speaker, where "rotating motors" become "horns" that are "picked up" by speakers. That makes two PhD students today on the front page of Hacker News who are talking straight out their asses.

This entire article bums me out. If you see a scathing editorial printed in The Atlantic (you won't -- editors NEVER correct the really bad articles like this one) that's me.

        "... motors (essentially two electromechanical horns) that had been rotated
        to create a Doppler-effect-based vibrato. These horns were, in turn,
        picked up by the dual speaker units."

</comment><comment><USER8> Electric guitars were first sold in the 1930s. At first all they wanted was a louder guitar to compete with the big bands of the time (after having repeatedly made them physically larger. Larger guitars _were_ louder, but harder to play for smaller folks). They really wanted to make them sound just like (what we now call) acoustic guitars but it was pretty obvious that between the early pickups and early amplifiers, electric guitars had their own distinctive sound. By the time this article picks up the story electric guitars were on their own evolutionary path. Cranking amps and adding effects were inevitable as guitarists sought to create new and interesting sounds.

</comment><comment><USER6> Having played electric guitar for 30 years and recorded about ten albums, I've learned a thing or two on the subject...

First, when you're playing, you can hear incredibly tiny details that no one else can hear. The other day, I spent a half hour choosing which of four different variants of Dunlop Jazz III picks I liked best. (I'm a pick nerd and I'm always fussing over them. My drummer can hear when I change picks, but no one else can.)

Second, those differences are lost in the big picture. I have recordings of my own playing I love, where I couldn't tell you what guitar or amp I was using without looking at my notes.

Third, playing in a full band is a fundamentally different tonal experience than playing by yourself. Again with the subtleties. A lot of the subtleties that make gear nerding fun actually make for poor tone in a band context. More importantly, gear that sounds bad by itself can be magical in a band context.

Fourth, guitar playing is an incredibly physical and sensual experience. You _feel_ it in your bones. Part of the fun of big tube amps is "getting your hair blown back", feeling the vibration literally shaking your body. It's a blast (motorcycles have the same physical presence). For me at least, it means I don't like guitars that are too easy to play - I want it to fight back and make me work for my tone.

On the subject of tube amps versus solid state modeling (Sansamp, etc) versus digital modeling... remember, not only is the guitar a physical thing, it's a very sensitive and responsive thing. The real problem with digital modeling imho is getting the response right, that precious moment when the pick leaves the string. This gets worse when the subtleties of harmonic distortion come into play - clean and mildly overdriven sounds (there's no such thing as really "clean" electric guitar).

What's worked for me in recording situations is to rely on analog pedals for the attack, and track into really neutral digital models. It's less hassle than miking amps, for sure, and the results can be very good.

Tubes are great for power more than drive. Transistors and op-amps have been part of the overdriven sound for almost as long as electric guitars have been around - starting with 1960s fuzz. Solid state amps tend to fall down delivering live power in a band context, although modern Class H switching amp technology (basically digital amps heterodyning the signal several octaves outside the range of hearing, so digital distortion artifacts are inaudible) is getting brilliant.

Me, I've more or less quit using tube amps, due to reliability issues. My beautiful Mesa Mark I and my monstrous VHT Pittbull 45 are both sitting with blown power transformers. I use a vintage Yamaha solid-state jazz amp and pedals, and I'm happy.

Oh, and studio recording? Anyone who demands "realism" from their hi-fi gear has no idea how recording is done!

<comment><USER9> > "Me, I've more or less quit using tube amps, due to reliability issues."

You may be interested in this then, the latest development in vacuum tube technology...

[http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2015/01/29/korg- noritake-i...](http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2015/01/29/korg-noritake- introduce-futuristic-nutube-vacuum-tubes/)

A mini-revolution in guitar amp technology could be on the horizon.

<comment><USER10> I dont see these running power amp sections. I was initially excited by this development as well, but I am hoping KORG doesnt just throw these "tubes" in every DSP synth, drum machine and prosumer piece of gear they make and say "NOW WITH MOAR TUBES!!!!"

I would be interested to see analog gear built front to back with this stuff however...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> [https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/Electric_Guitars.html](https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/Electric_Guitars.html)

Some of you may find this fun to read. (from the textbook for Music 420 at Stanford... I guess they've now split it into two classes since I took it...)

</comment><comment><USER12> tl;dr it's the pick-up, and effects are added once you leave the guitar. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickup_%28music_technology%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickup_%28music_technology%29)

<comment><USER13> I don't like to nitpick, but I have some different guitars with the same pickups, and they do sound quite different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> dfasda</comment>


The Parkland school shooting is bringing new surveillance tech to schools - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/02/13/parkland-school-turns-experimental-surveillance-software-that-can-flag-students-threats/ <comment><USER2> New laws are what are needed, not tech.

<comment><USER3> really? Because everyone follow the already established laws.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is it time to start writing passwords down again? - <AUTHOR>

Over the last few years I have lost a lot of trust in the electronic systems I use, to the point where the basic physical security on my home feels more secure than any part of any my computers.
I feel I am far more likely to be compromised by anonymous remote hackbots using 0days on my password manager than by burglars.
Is it time to keep my passwords on paper? <comment><USER2> I'm considering crocheting my SSH private key into a blanket, so that I can safely and clandestinely transport it across borders. Holes representing 0s and stitches representing 1s, with strong parity to mitigate transcription errors.

I will call it my "security blanket".

<comment><USER3> > _... with strong parity to mitigate transcription errors._

How would you deal with coffee stain errors?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I try to use a different password for every site and I remember all the passwords I use. This is obviously not helpful to anybody and would be thoroughly impractical even for me to rely on, because not everybody is good at remembering 18-30 character strings of letters, numbers and symbols, and equally I figure one day I will not have the same ability to remember them either.

So I keep the de facto "ciphers" on paper. These ciphers usually take the form of differential equations that give fairly lengthy, rational numerical solutions. Equations have the advantage of not looking like a cipher, especially if you're known to be a mathematician. Even if I lost the paper or it was destroyed, the equations are memorable to me for having played a role in some of my studies a long time ago. I could root around in my notes and find them again.

The equations are all I need to have on paper because I can just do the math and remember how I form the solution into a password to include letters and symbols. Even if I forgot how exactly I formed the solution, with the numerical string resolved I could quite simply brute force the few characters remaining. I keep this bit of paper safe but separate to my credit cards and cash because that's the most likely thing to be stolen from me.

But you know what? I don't even consider this a particularly secure solution. It's just more fun. And it has to be better than storing passwords with a password manager, using a pen drive or keeping passwords themselves on paper.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's time to use complex, un-rememberable passwords that are unique for each system you use.

"unlock" them using a master password that's secure and you can remember ( _not_ 'correct horse battery staple') and that you use FOR NO OTHER SYSTEM.

If a site is compromised, you will lose your account on that site regardless of how strong your security for your account is.

However, the main problem at the moment is the chain of compromise -- people who use the same credentials and the same username on multiple sites and on 'core' systems like their e-mail account. One site gets compromised, which leaks the same credentials you use for your e-mail address, and all of a sudden they have access to your entire online identity.

I use LastPass ([http://lastpass.com](http://lastpass.com), stores your encrypted passwords remotely so you have to trust lastpass.com) and pay for a premium subscription ($1/month?) with a master password not used elsewhere.

But there are other alternatives like [http://keepass.info/](http://keepass.info/) (stores your passwords locally, can sync with dropbox. No trusting an external service required.)

Also [https://agilebits.com/onepassword](https://agilebits.com/onepassword) (1password), similar to keepass, but not open source (I don't think). Better UI.

</comment><comment><USER6> I agree with most of what Kalleth says. However there is just no way that you can trust a North American company to keep your passwords safe, especially when the code is closed source.

I've built [https://elipsis.io](https://elipsis.io) and if you are tech savvy I recommend that you host your own service. Don't do it on a VM but on a dedicated box.

An alternative is to use use [https://www.clipperz.com/](https://www.clipperz.com/) since they are also open source but I really hate their user interface.

Like @kalleth said, you can also use keepassx with dropbox.

<comment><USER7> Your site looks interesting, but note that [https://elipsis.io/status](https://elipsis.io/status) is a 404.

<comment><USER6> yes I know. Thanks for letting me know. I've stopped working on it. Only a friend and me are using it. I'll leave it as is and free as long as there are only a few users.

I might add 2 factor auth sometime in the close futur.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> yes</comment>


Show HN: A calculator for coronavirus exposure risk in groups - <AUTHOR> http://peticol.as/coronavirus-calculator/ <comment><AUTHOR> I wrote this to help my girlfriend and I assess risk of exposure to someone with COVID now that our state (NY) has largely overcome the virus. Also to help us compare what we do here to what our friends are doing in other states.

Next I would like to expand it to cover our countries with it's presets and allow you to select your individual US county which is often much more interesting than the state-level numbers.

</comment><comment><USER2> Welp never going to a grocery store again.</comment>