Making software engineering interviews predictive of job performance - <AUTHOR> https://www.qualified.io/blog/posts/truly-predictive-software-engineering-interviews <comment><USER2> In the end, it's a crap shoot... Even their highest marker of validity is only about 50%.

In the end, if you make it too hard in an employee market, you will have good to great candidates drop off... if you make it too easy, you will wind up at the bottom of the barrel. Market pay will also vary wildly and dramatically, and perception is equally varied.

Where I work now, we have a small pre-interview code challenge... it's not particularly difficult and in general should be resolvable in under an hour. I've seen questions on the other side, that I've literally spent 3+ hours on something that said an hour. I suggest those coming up with these things actually implement their challenge on a clean computer (only tools, no reference code) and time themselves. I now cut myself off at an hour and submit what I have stating as much.

As to structured interviews, it will depend. It bugs me both ways when I see more generic, low level pattern questions in interviews only because the practical implications are usually very limited. On the interviewer side, it does help to ask some of the more quiz-like questions as it tends to give you a decent baseline of what the person being interviewed understands.

In the end, personal questions along the lines of what a person works on (developers) outside of educational or work settings gives a ton of information on how they work as well as what they know.

Culture, for as much of a B.S. thing that it is, is actually very important as well. A functional team or set of teams needs a few different types of personalities and worker types in order to do things well as a team. Being able to get along together is also imperitive.

In the end.. it's a crap-shoot and understanding the needs, fill and fit are all varied a bit... trying to normalize doesn't help much. Also, business needs and talent pools will vary greatly.

<comment><USER3> > In the end, if you make it too hard in an employee market, you will have > good to great candidates drop off... if you make it too easy, you will wind > up at the bottom of the barrel. Market pay will also vary wildly and > dramatically, and perception is equally varied.

I mean, you're talking about a different thing than "job performance" here.

Job performance is a _satisficing_ measure: you only need to get someone who's _good enough_ to perform the duties you need of them. (Yes, even in software engineering.)

You're talking about _ranking_ measures. Does it matter if someone is "the best" if they're still not good enough to do your job? Does it matter if someone is "the bottom of the barrel" if they _are_ good enough to do your job? I would say no, in both cases.

IMHO, the hiring bar is _way_ too high in most bigcorps; they care about vanity metrics about having "the best", when 100% of the work assigned to these hires could be easily done by people who are not, in fact, "the best."

The point of a job interview, in the abstract, is to filter out the candidates who _aren 't qualified to perform the job duties even after a few weeks of on- the-job training_. This leaves you with a pool of people who are all _qualified_. At that point, you should either just hire one of them at random, or try to optimize for a second criterion, such as "is willing to take the lowest compensation to do the job" (which usually translates to "has the fewest _formal_ qualifications to do the job, while still actually being qualified in practice.")

<comment><USER4> > Job performance is a satisficing measure: you only need to get someone who's > good enough to perform the duties you need of them. (Yes, even in software > engineering.)

Is that really the case for software? I mean, I'm very skeptical of the "only the best and brightest" nonsense, as I think it selects for the wrong people. But I'm also skeptical of the "eh, good enough" heuristic.

Right now I'm helping a friend deal with a code base that was built by an outside dev shop. It undeniably works; the business has been running on it for a number of years. And honestly, like most software, it's not a complicated app; mostly CRUD stuff. But overall it's a spaghetti snarl. Any given concept might be in the code, or in a config file, or driven by SQL data, or even driven by JSON blobs stuffed into the database, mutated by the main code base, and passed along to the JS front end.

Now that I can see the code, I understand why the dev shop needed so many people working on it, and why all features were hard to do. It's because when you use a lot of mediocre programmers, they all create work for themselves and one another. Not intentionally, but just because they aren't able to see how the differing approaches and sloppy work slowly diminish productivity.

So although I agree with you that a lot of companies hire on vanity metrics, I'm really skeptical that "whoever, as long as they barely qualify" is a better approach.

<comment><USER5> > Now that I can see the code, I understand why the dev shop needed so many > people working on it, and why all features were hard to do. It's because > when you use a lot of mediocre programmers, they all create work for > themselves and one another. Not intentionally, but just because they aren't > able to see how the differing approaches and sloppy work slowly diminish > productivity.

To me, that sounds like a leadership problem at the outside dev shop. Properly supervised, properly supported, and with reasonable deadlines, mediocre developers can provide extraordinary results per dollar spent on probably 80-90% of dev tasks.

<comment><USER4> I'm familiar with the theory, but I've never seen that actually happen. And really, that just shifts the problem. If you need really amazing managers and really amazing senior engineers to make it work, you now just have a different hiring problem. As well a robustness problem, in that choosing a senior person badly means the whole team can go off the cliff.

Personally, I'd rather start with the amazing senior people, hire bright juniors, and mentor them into being amazing developers as well. As well as investing in tooling for non-developers. If a chunk of work is boring enough that a mediocre programmer can do it without risk (e.g., creating reports), it's perhaps boring enough that you can just enable the users (with, e.g., report builders).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "General Mental Ability (GMA) tests (like the IQ test) are very predictive of future job performance, largely because people with high intelligence can learn the skills needed to be successful on the job more rapidly. However, due to legal concerns they're not recommended for companies hiring in the US."

This is what a classic FAANG interview is: an IQ test which is disguised as a relevant skills test for legal reasons. And they work quite well.

<comment><USER7> Do they?

<comment><USER6> They're the worst form of interview, except for all the other ones.

<comment><USER8> Why not just give an actual IQ test?

<comment><USER9> That opens you up to liability for race-based discrimination. The accepted wisdom is that IQ tests are inherently racist and favor white evaluees over black and brown ones.

<comment><USER10> That's formulated the wrong way. An IQ test per se cannot be racist because it is not a human being with intentional behaviour. This means blame must fall on the test designer or test conductor to introduce a racist biasing. In places where accurate results matter, the best available methods of psychometrics are used: [http://enwp.org/Progressive_Matrices](http://enwp.org/Progressive_Matrices) These are free of bias: culture, language, reading/writing ability does not matter. If these are used and assuming the test conductor did not screw up, and if white evaluees score better than black and brown ones, then it is an objective measurement of reality, not racism. Thus I think the "accepted wisdom" is wrong. If you know of any examples of racism through IQ tests, indicating intention, I'd be glad to hear of them.

<comment><USER11> I agree, but it's not obvious that _courts_ would agree, and lawsuits are expensive even if you win. The legal liability worries are still there, alas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> kube-system Some of the points here are good, but I think some of them are too simplistic.

This article makes a huge assumption: that performance is the _only_ factor you're hiring for, and therefore unstructured interviews are worthless. That would make sense if you're interviewing for a factory of emotionless robots. But humans are social beings, and human performance as a team is more complicated than a sum of individual productivity. You need to take into account the affect that the hire would have on the _entire_ team. Just about everyone has an anecdote about a coworker sometime during their career that was super productive, but completely demoralizing to the team. This is a very valid reason to give unstructured interviews, and if you ask smart people who give them, this is what they're looking for.

I totally agree with the utility of work-sample tests. There is nothing better to see someone's performance than simply giving them a small but relevant chunk of work to do. It is very important to keep them short and flexible though.

If you make them too lengthy, you'll skew the results against people who have better things to do with their time. What kind of person works for free anyway? Certainly not the caliber of people I want to work with.

And if you make the test too specific to certain technologies, you skew the test against smart engineers who are less familiar with that tech. If you want a problem solver, give them a problem in plain words, and let their solution be open-ended.

I don't agree with making tests particularly hard, though. Make it nuanced, yes, but of _normal_ difficulty for a given assignment. You need the _appropriate_ people to do the job. If you only hire top-tier algorithmic experts for your basic CRUD app, then you're going to have a very expensive CRUD app with a bored and demoralized team. If someone does sloppy work, you can spot this on a normal exercise as much as you can on an unreasonably difficult one.

<comment><USER12> >> What kind of person works for free anyway?

I would expect everyone at some point has done something (worked) for free, either on speculation, as a favor, or for bragging rights. Open source wouldn't be a thing otherwise.

<comment> kube-system Most work being done on significant open source projects is by people who are being paid for that work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't think you can. Job performance is something that gets figured out on the fly.

Unless you're working in a crazy standardized operation thats a moving target.

e.g. We've got a ton of manager & they all sorta do their own thing...they gravitate towards their strong suit essentially. You can't really test for that in advance.

Some people excel at leading 30 man teams on stable jobs. Others excel at being parachuted into technical shitshows and sorting it out. Very different personal attributes.

It's a crap shoot as tracker1 says and will continue to be one

<comment><USER14> This whole article is predicated on the idea that you can quantitatively measure the performance of a software engineer. That seems completely unfounded.

<comment><USER15> Why isn't it? Any job where enough information can be known to know that someone should be fired or promoted is a job that can be quantitatively measured to some degree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The cited data is from a paper The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232564809_The_Valid...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232564809_The_Validity_and_Utility_of_Selection_Methods_in_Personnel_Psychology) in 1998 as a meta-analysis of other findings, but they are not specific to software development (one account is sourced from 32000 employees in 515 diverse civilian jobs in the 1980s). Maybe software is like any other job (sales, clerical, accounting) but maybe not.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why would it not be?

<comment><USER16> I have some guesses, but even if you take that it is, the authors were not very transparent that they made this assumption, in fact they did not point out that the research was done on all jobs while they spoke only of software. That is a bit misleading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Data Science interviews almost always have a take home interview as the technical challenge. The in person interviews tend to be cultural fit interviews.

This is because DS work is larger than a bug fix, implementing a new feature, and even larger than writing a program from scratch. Even a small DS problem is a multi day problem. Most interviews allow one to take weeks to do a "quick" 2-3 day problem.

This process may be out of necessity, but I feel it reduces noise. You really do have a better idea of knowing what you're getting.

Software Engineers may groan at the idea of a take home project, but just throwing this out here: What if a company let the interviewer choose between a take home problem or an in person 30 min style white board interview? What kind of results would come from that? Would the people who take the take home interview work out better at the company, or would the whiteboard interviewers end up working out better?

<comment><USER18> There are a few ways to do a 2-3 day data science problem: 1\. Random plug and chug / datarobot 2\. Copy someone else 3\. Expert feature engineering 4\. Overly-documented EDA

I don't think any of this is relevant, but maybe it gives some indication that they can do anything at all. However, most good DS will pass because they've been burned too many times by companies just looking for free help on a problem.

If you're a DS, don't ever work on a company-relevant problem for free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> 2 comments on this:

1\. The authors of this paper are selling something. This is an advertisement. Not saying it's wrong or untruthful because of that, but it is an advertisement.

2\. As another commenter said, the cited data is from a paper that doesn't look at software engineers specifically. Given that software engineering has one of the highest amounts of variability in productivity of any profession, that should be taken into close consideration.

<comment><AUTHOR> The purpose of this paper is to present research that's completely independent of any product, and show how the concepts apply to software engineering specifically. What's your source in saying "software engineering has one of the highest amounts of variability in productivity of any profession?" That seems hugely unfounded.

<comment><USER19> > The purpose of this paper is to present research that's completely > independent of any product, and show how the concepts apply to software > engineering specifically.

Lol, the article actually ends with a link to the product you're selling:

> Ready to build a more predictive hiring process for software engineers? > Schedule a 1-on-1 review of your hiring process or request a free trial of > Qualified here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The best interview process is not going to account for bad corporate policy, terrible bosses, or other confounding factors.

<comment><USER17> So true!

It's sad it's so hard to tell if someone is going to be a terrible boss or if there are systemic issues.

Some of the best interviews I've had, have had the worst bosses, and vice versa. Though, totally anecdotal, especially given I can only go off of the jobs I've accepted which is a sample set of the best interviews I've had.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Just to share my experience.

1\. We sucks at hiring, so we need to train juniors on how to hire early. 2\. Programs live in the head of their creators. The code is just a draft left for computer to execute. Build a human culture where the aspiration is discussed. 3\. We don't replace people, we hand over the responsibility. Be ready to work differently. 4\. I conduct interview by asking the candidates to explain me I piece of work she is is proud of. If I understand the what, how and why, she usually pass. 5\. Remember: most issues are not technical but organizational. We can train people, but we can't change them. 6\. Set high quality standards for your team. Make them proud of their work. On boarding will be easier.

So, it is less about how to hire the shinning star and more about how to welcome and how to create a culture around your values.

My two cents.

</comment><comment><USER22> The best interview I've ever had was I was asked how I might design a real user feature for their company and review a sloppy PR with errors. For the first I came up with two options and weighed the best reason for each and which I might go with depending on the circumstances of the project. For the second I wrote PR comments I would leave any developer with suggestions for improvements, concerns, and praise for good work. That was representative of my actual job as a software engineer.

The normal is taking some sort of tricky pop quiz styled questionnaire, which in my opinion was not representative of anything about me beyond I know how to use a for loop efficiently. Yet this is what I find these companies offer. They tout them as a quick fix cause its easy to standardize, analyze, and hard to do therefore good, and last but not least waste the candidates time but not the companies. Their the metrics are moot. Not only have they been proven to be ineffective by the big companies that spawned them, but I also find them demoralizing and a turn off.

It seems like the industry is heading towards a self imposed SAT style quiz where the lucky winner of this startup war holds all the power and provides little benefit to either side of this process.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think the important thing is to realize that you need to rely on realistic factors and many different signals to get useful data.

I've been to plenty of interviews for "senior software engineers," where they used the standard gauntlet of algorithms/problem solving/data structures questions in rapid succession for eight hours.

I tend to deliver most of my projects on time and of a high quality. I value things such as correctness and maintainability, and am conscious of other factors to consider such as viability and availability of time and capital. I spend a good amount of my time writing and seeking feedback from colleagues and think it's important to share our ideas and talk about our work.

And when I practice my work I don't think I've ever been in a time-constrained scenario where I had to come up with an implementation of an algorithm while being judged and evaluated for how I think. I know enough about my work to understand when I need to use BFS or DFS and when to use a tree, a map, or a heap; but I also know that if I can't think of it off the top of my head I can walk over to my library and pull out a book or look it up online.

I'm also a proponent of formal methods. I've written specifications to help solve race conditions and validate implementations of locking algorithms. I can write basic proofs.

And I'm a great writer as a result. I spend a good amount of my time writing and communicating my ideas, seeking feedback from colleagues, and in general improving my understanding of problems.

How does finding a cycle in a sorted array or reversing a linked list signal to you whether I would be a good fit for your company as a senior engineer? Does your company also value clear writing and good communication skills? Do you value engineers that can manage themselves and get work done autonomously?

Modern interview practices at most places I've been through don't know how to get those signals. It's useful knowing that the people I work with are also familiar with when to use a heap versus an array but I also value other things at the senior level that most companies aren't really testing for.

I always prefer data over gut instinct but I feel like the process of hiring people is not amenable to clean signals... it's a very messy process and I'm not hopeful that there will ever be a silver bullet.

<comment><USER24> What does your interview process look like?

<comment><USER23> It's not perfect either but we're pretty open about it: [https://weeverapps.github.io/interviews/](https://weeverapps.github.io/interviews/)

Internally we use a rubric for the various job roles we hire for and we aim to remove or counter biases at every step of the process. Our teams value diversity and are pro-active about equality and inclusion.

A big part of the process is code review, something our engineers actually do spend a lot of time doing, so the process is mostly focused around that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> To boil this interview thing, you are trying to make a very far prediction of someone based on very little data. The industry standard way to gather that data will probably get you to see if that person has done it before but not how well. Unless that person is sorta famous and even then he could be an asshol to the team and a disease

<comment><USER12> Furthermore, the unstated unknown that many interviewers have on their mind is whether the candidate will be successful _in this specific company._

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> _"In economic terms, the gains from increasing the validity of hiring methods can amount over time to literally millions of dollars," writes Schmidt regarding the importance of valid assessment methods. "However, this can be viewed from the opposite point of view: By using selection methods with low validity, an organization can lose millions of dollars in reduced production. In a competitive world, these organizations are unnecessarily creating a competitive disadvantage for themselves. By adopting more valid hiring procedures, they could turn this competitive disadvantage into a competitive advantage."_

The problem is that this misunderstands the purpose of the hiring process. The purpose of the hiring process is to get people who are qualified, while signalling that your company hires good people, and staying out of legal trouble along the way.

I'm not sure I agree that an organization can gain "millions of dollars" by fine-tuning its hiring processes to the nth degree. While I absolutely agree that there are skill differences between programmers, I contend that the economic differences attributable to skill between programmers are dwarfed by the economic differences between any automation and no automation. Simply put, having a terrible programmer automate your business processes today is far better than sifting candidates to find the _perfect_ programmer to automate your business process two years from now. Hiring is about satisficing, not optimizing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand your point—it's not about optimizing your process above all else (at the expense of speed, for example). But you can and should optimize your hiring process just like you would your sales process, onboarding process, etc and the outcome you're looking for is hires that are successful once hired. It costs companies far more if they sacrifice in the name of speed and make poor hires.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Hard Interviews, Happy Workers". This note near the end assumes correlation shows causation, which it does not. You could also argue that more workers want to work in certain jobs, creating more competition and leading the company to make interviews harder. The workers in those jobs may be happier, but not because the interviews were harder.

</comment><comment><USER28> The elephant in the room is that we can't accurately measure job performance by any objective metric either.

Many things would be simpler if we could: performance reviews, promotions, incentives, salary equality, recruitment etc.

</comment><comment><USER29> Interviews aren't just about talent and ability. Some fairly abstract concepts are important too.

How the individual fits within the team is vital. You might have one of the smartest people on the planet but if they can't effectively communicate or understand and work within the cultural norms of the team you're going to have a problem.

These norms and practices vary and shift between teams, countries, and even within the same team over time.

For example hiring a Linus Torvalds for an intermediate, client facing, political position, is probably going to have poor results.

These are difficult things to test for and are as much a decider of job performance as raw knowledge and technical experience.

</comment><comment><USER30> so you're gonna pay us to do these "work samples" at market rate, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, yes! Erik Bernhardsson, the CTO at Better.com who is cited in the article a few times, does exactly that for finalist candidates that they ask to provide a significant work sample. I think that's 100% appropriate. But that said, a work sample doesn't necessarily have to be something that takes hours on end either.

<comment><USER30> ayy, that's awesome if they pay candidates for significant work samples. i think there's some discussion to be had about what's significant. anything more than 1.5-2hours in my opinion. an hour or two is how long an interview might take in any profession. asking me to work unpaid for 4 or 8 hours (one project: 3 days!) is excessive. maybe call it the "half-day" test. is it a half-day of work? if so pay. if not, then you can do that once during an entire interview process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> tl;dr: offer your applicants test exercises

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but not generic tests—in order to design a hiring process that's actually predictive of future job performance, the "tests" have to be designed to be directly relevant to the real world work that the engineer will be tasked with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I wondered, have any others been expected, to reverse the interview direction? As in ask the company manangment, sales and tech ceos, to answer your test scenarios?

"You have developed a new product with broad market appeal, and sales already found you a huge first customer, which would secure you for years to come. In return they expect you to tailor the product to there needs. How do you react?"

It sounds mad, but it seems somehow to be expected by some. Like they expect you to test your company for warning flags as thoroughly as they test you..</comment>


Cellular providers want Nokia to drop Skype from cell phones - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/02/cellular-providers-want-nokia-to-drop-skype-from-cell-phones.ars <comment><USER2> When I got the N95 it had all voip options disabled by the Orange firmware. I had to <<can't remember the term after having a few beers>> my phone to get teh latest actual Nokia firmware.

As soon as I heard the Nokia N97 woul dhave Skype I presumed Orange would try to block it. I had to <<thingy>> my phone just to get AGPS.

That said, the N97 looks cool, so I am waiting for it.

<comment><USER3> I wonder how many others post drunk to HN...</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Free Resources for Learning Python and Django? - <AUTHOR> I am hoping to make a simple product. Also, I am shamelesssly cheap. thank you. <comment><USER2> Resources to Learn Python:

1\. [Book] Learn Python The Hard Way

2\. [Video Course] Google Python Class: [https://developers.google.com/edu/python](https://developers.google.com/edu/python)

Resources to learn Django:

1\. Writing your first Django app: [https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/intro/tutorial01/](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/intro/tutorial01/)

2\. First Rest API: [https://www.django-rest- framework.org/tutorial/quickstart/](https://www.django-rest- framework.org/tutorial/quickstart/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Everything from [https://simpleisbetterthancomplex.com](https://simpleisbetterthancomplex.com)

I love his simple and elegant tutorials on very tactical topics.

</comment><comment><USER4> You should start with the official docs: [https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/intro/](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/intro/)

Takes you through most of the basics.</comment>


Older fathers have 'geekier sons' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40340540 <comment><USER2> Sure seems like correlation to me.

Older fathers are more likely to have established careers, establishing higher socioeconomic status, affording a lifestyle that engenders "geekiness".

<comment><USER3> It would also seem that they're less likely to play sports with their children. I wonder if there's a way to isolate athleticism from geekiness.

<comment><USER4> Plenty of men with single mothers* learn to play sports just fine (see many NBA and NFL players).

*This is not to say that women don't play sports with their sons, but to say that it's silly to assume that all young fathers play sports with their sons.

<comment><USER5> Having a single mother would means kids are by themselves and playing with neighborhood kids. Having an older father means being at home more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm seriously confused on this.

First, the article throws out some very reasonable sounding things, like older dads are more established and stable parents. This seems totally legit.

Then they start talking of a 'geek gene' that gets passed down by dads as they get older? That seems ridiculous to me. We don't even know how general intelligence works on a genetic level.

Overall, I feel like we put way too much stock in genetics over how children are raised. The world children live in today (screens, different types of processed food, flashy movies and cartoons) is so different than hundreds or thousands of years ago. Early childhood years are also hugely important for brain development and social skills yet we give little kids screens to keep them quiet, hooking them early.

Just seems like any excuse to not involve parenting is in vogue now.

<comment><USER7> Almost every study on early childhood development and later outcomes shows that how a child is raised has very little to do with outcomes compared to heredity.

[https://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127769/parenting-advice- worth...](https://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127769/parenting-advice-worthless)

[https://www.vox.com/2015/3/31/8320233/time-spent-with- kids](https://www.vox.com/2015/3/31/8320233/time-spent-with-kids)

[http://quillette.com/2016/01/19/heritability-and-why- parents...](http://quillette.com/2016/01/19/heritability-and-why-parents-but- not-parenting-matter/)

<comment><USER6> I looked at your links, but I'm still not sure I buy it. All of these seem to quote the same study, and it doesn't involve any child under 3, which is actually where a lot of early childhood development happens. That's the time when a child who's left alone in a room will basically turn into a vegetable.

I do agree that there's no magic formula for being a great parent. The baby Beethoven phenom, best color to paint your baby's room, etc are indeed useless. But that's good parents who actually care trying to read studies and be better. These parents are involved, and care. Not all parents are like that.

From your second article:

"In fact, the study found one key instance when parent time can be particularly harmful to children. That's when parents, mothers in particular, are stressed, sleep-deprived, guilty and anxious."

This sounds like exactly the kind of thing that would happen less with older, more established parents.

On the other hand, if the parents can't hold a job, or are addicted to drugs, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that doesn't have an effect on childhood outcomes. If anything, parents who are criminals are more likely to have children that are criminals.

If you want to say criminality is genetic, that's a fair argument. But I believe it's more likely to be about class/race/means, and is a set of learned behaviors.

I think there's a limit to how good parenting can affect outcomes to the positive (genetics). But I also think bad parenting can't be ruled out. And none of these studies talk about sub-par parenting.

<comment><USER8> > This sounds like exactly the kind of thing that would happen less with > older, more established parents

Conversely, younger people are better at handling things like sleep deprivation and so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I read an article a couple of months ago about autism being linked to delayed fatherhood: [http://www.nature.com/news/fathers-bequeath-more- mutations-a...](http://www.nature.com/news/fathers-bequeath-more-mutations-as- they-age-1.11247). Being different was something that touched near and dear to my heart like many self-conscious geeks and my old man didn't have me until he was 41.

I know N=1... but when you're debating with your friends whether or not this ([http://imgur.com/m52Wo4a](http://imgur.com/m52Wo4a)) can be classified as a sandwich or if it warrants a new nomenclature entirely and realizing that these are the people you are associating with it's difficult to not look for answers.

<comment><USER10> How would that _not_ be a sandwich?

<comment><USER9> There are several points of contention but here are some of the most common points I've encountered:

\- When the term 'sandwich' is used in reference to a bagel being used for the 'bread' there is a presumption that the bagel is sliced along a transverse equatorial plane with the hole of the bagel being orthogonal to the ground. This photo clearly defies that convention.

\- A sandwich by most conventions is kept between two or more slices of bread in layers. If there are more than two layers between bread in a sandwich they are stacked vertically and separated by individual slices of bread. The subject under discussion has two layers, which is conventionally acceptable for a sandwich to have, but they are not stacked vertically. Some scholars have argued that this means that it is incorrect to call this a 'sandwich' in the singular sense but it is acceptable to call the entity a composition of 'sandwiches'.

This is just a taste of the great bagel debate currently raging across very small niches of geeks but hopefully it gives you a flavour of why no definitive answer has been accepted by the community. And this has not even touched on the bagel-complete problems such as the topological properties of the mobius bagel [http://images.tastespotting.com/uploads/thumbnail/125155.jpg](http://images.tastespotting.com/uploads/thumbnail/125155.jpg).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Older fathers correlate with an increased risk of autism.

[https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study- ties...](https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-ties- dad's-age-risk-autism-other-mental-disorders-kids)

<comment><USER12> And mothers too.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2015/06/10/41320592...](http://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2015/06/10/413205921/more-evidence-that-parents-ages-could-influence- autism-risk)

Worse, double the risk of schizophrenia for children who have dads at 40. Triple at 50.

[http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/older.htm](http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/older.htm)

Other mood and psychological disorders are linked to father's age as well. Turns out sperm and eggs are delicate and after 40 years of aging, simply can't do their jobs well. Evolution's mechanisms aren't kind to older parents.

<comment><USER13> Just to clarify, the sperm cells of a forty year old man (unlike the egg cells of a forty year old woman) are not themselves forty years old.

<comment><USER12> Right but the body that creates them has damaged 40-year old DNA and the DNA that ends up in the sperm comes from that damaged source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't see a link to this actual study, only the TEDS study (was it actually parts of the TEDS study, or just using the same data?) But my first question is if they've considered if really the correlation is coming from closely related variables other than just age:

\- Father's who start a family later vs father's who start a family early but have additional children later.

\- Children who are more likely to have multiple older siblings.

<comment><USER7> The first one is directly addressed in this article. Others that hint at correlation are also discussed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've also read that older fathers see increased odds of a child with mental illness.

Example: [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/health/mental-illness- ris...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/health/mental-illness-risk-higher- for-children-of-older-parents-study-finds.html)

I guess the article here also says it:

> Repeated studies have shown that older sperm is more prone to genetic errors > and children are more likely to develop autism and schizophrenia.

</comment><comment><USER16> Seems obvious that geekier men start families and have children later.

Example: Bill Gates.

<comment><USER17> Why is it obvious? Doesn't seem obvious to me. Is it because of the stereotype that geekier men don't hook up as young as non-geek men? What is the difference between a geekier man and a less-geeky man? Can it be objectively defined?

<comment><USER18> I'd suggest that geeky dads are going to attempt to be very logical with their all their decisions. So they might take their time with their spouse, want to get a house, get finances in a great place, etc, before making the jump to have kids.

At some point the geekier types either alleviate all their concerns and/or realize that a lot of great things can't be framed into a logical decision, and they make the jump. :)

<comment><USER19> >Repeated studies have shown that older sperm is more prone to genetic errors and children are more likely to develop autism and schizophrenia //

How is it logical then to wait until you're older (define older!)?

Part of my decision - first child c. 30 - was not to wait any longer lest I be unable to keep up with them physically.

<comment><USER18> It's logical from a financial perspective for many people. When I think of older first time parents I think 30+. In the past upper 20s might be considered older because people would get married in young 20s and have children shortly after.

You want to be able to afford the increasingly higher costs of having children. You want your marriage to not be stressed from added financial responsibility. People tend to make more as they get older so many wait. That played a role in my decision to wait for sure.

The physical component you suggested is certainly a logical argument for having them younger. That pressure is higher for women too because they consider the risks of pregnancy (as you noted) and the possibility they may not be able to conceive if they wait too long.

I understand your decision but to me - having a kid at 30 over the physical concern is not logical. Sure I'd be 48 when they're 18 but even at that point, I don't have physical concerns. In fact, that would provide additional motivation to remain healthy. If I was considering physical capability for grandkids then that might enter my decision. My wife just talks about how we'd be the older parents in our kid's class which doesn't concern me.

Everyone's situation is different though. I just think finances is a big driver for those that wait and honestly I think it's a good one. If you're married and don't have your finances in order, there's a good chance your marriage won't last and you'll rack up more stress which isn't good for you or your kids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is kind of alluded to in the article, but isn't their definition of 'geekiness' just a definition of the difference between older fathers and younger fathers? As you age your ability to focus on a single task increase, your become more aloof, etc.

</comment><comment><USER21> What about epigenetic factors in low stress environments? We already know this is proven to be a huge factor in gene expression. That is probably the "stable" part they mentioned.

</comment><comment><USER22> Maybe its not so much the Dad; its having older siblings by the time you're Dad is old? My youngest grew up very mature, trying to keep up with his older brothers.

My first son is a soldier. The 2nd and 3rd are software developers and musicians. Works for me.

</comment><comment><USER23> The findings seem a little off to me. My father was 26 when I was born and he was a leather cutter, so our family wasn't advantaged in any way. He was also a hopeless parent and played very little part in my personal development, despite being physically present throughout my childhood.

The really key environmental factors that led me to being a geek can firmly be put down to: My Mother taking me to the library every week; having plenty of books at home and school; and good quality teaching at school. I can't imagine that having an older/wealthier father would have that much additional impact on top of these factors.

<comment><USER24> "I don't fit the pattern" is not a strong reason for rejecting research findings that claim an increased probability of an outcome based on an input, not an _sine qua non_ relationship.

anecdote < data.

<comment><USER25> Precisely. I even _fit_ the pattern, being an aspergers STEM major whose father was in his 50s when I was born. But that's no more evidence than the other person's refutation, because personal experience is worthless here. Statistics matter, and our own biases serve only to cloud our analysis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Or is it that geekier fathers have children later in life?

</comment><comment><USER27> I think it would've been more convincing, if the study was able to show the splits down non-/geekie parents (or by parent's occupation). My dad's an engineer and he's very geekie for his generation, growing up I always wanted to be like my dad. When I was 12, I'm sure I would've scored high on the geekiness index.

</comment><comment><USER28> My sons are both geeky (love science, minecraft and math) and like to skateboard, BMX, BayBlade, shoot each other with nerf guns, fight all the time and just play whenever they can get to it.

I was 36 when I got my oldest and 39 when i got my second son.

Just anecdotal but so does this seems to be.

</comment><comment><USER29> Without mentioning the size of the effect, this is meaningless. Are they 1% geekier? 10% geekier? 0.1% geekier?

They provide a link to the data the study was based on, but not the actual study, so it's not obvious how to check this.

</comment><comment><USER30> Interesting, but this article doesn't say actual numbers for how old an "older father" is defined in the study, and I'm too lazy to dive deeper. Anyone else find out?

</comment><comment><USER31> Perhaps. My dad was 36 when he had me and was deep into ham radio, and computers. I was influenced by all of that.

</comment><comment><USER32> Perhaps older fathers are themselves geekier!

On the other hand, is there correlation between myopia and intelligence?

<comment><USER25> Yes, because myopia is something of a self-inflicted condition for geeky indoors types. See:

[http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia- boom-1.17120](http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120)

Basically if you spend all day with your nose in a book, your eyes start going to pot. And the people most likely to read all the time tend to also be quite smart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> How old do I need to become before my children become geekier?

</comment><comment><USER34> Makes sense, older fathers would be more aware of how technology changes the word and how necessary having at least an understanding of tech is to their offspring's future success.

<comment><USER19> Assuming we're all talking solely tech-geek then I'd posit that older fathers are going to be more out of touch with modern tech; which doesn't show anything in itself.

The might however have more disposable cash, did they control for wealth?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> "Geeky fathers have children older".

</comment><comment><USER36> I am geeky, my dad was pretty young (23) when he had me.

</comment><comment><USER37> In other news, if you want to be tall, play basketball.

<comment><USER38> Yes of course, if you want to have an older dad just be geeky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy"

</comment><comment><USER36> My dad had me at 23. I am relatively geeky. I don't think it makes much of a difference.</comment>


Flip a Coin – A Google Trick That You Must Try - <AUTHOR> https://androidcure.com/flip-a-coin-google-trick/ <comment><USER2> It is interesting that you can't get the same results with "roll dice" because with "roll a die" you can roll multiple dice, and even its title says "roll dice" instead of die.

Either way, these are neat tricks to know about.

</comment><comment><USER3> The last part of the blog is wrong, "I'm feeling lucky" just means "take me to the top web result for this query" which is all that is happening there.</comment>


James Mickens' Tenure Announcement - <AUTHOR> https://mickens.seas.harvard.edu/tenure-announcement <comment> one-more-minute Anyone not familiar with James Mickens should read "The Night Watch" immediately.

[https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1311_05-08_mickens.pdf](https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1311_05-08_mickens.pdf)

<comment><USER2> This is such a great article

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've always been a fan of his talks. His keynote at USENIX Security 2018 is by far the best summation of the dangers of ML that I've ever seen. It's hilarious too.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k)

</comment><comment><USER4> Always love a Mickens tome. May his reign be long and his wrath upon his enemies wicked. Also congratulations on tenure, now more writing like the login papers please.

</comment><comment><USER5> I want James Mickens to be my PhD advisor, I don't really care what the subject is.

<comment><USER6> I'd give up my job and bring him his coffee every day if I could spend that much time with him

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I will absolutely take this opportunity as others have to praise James Mickens. I'd encourage anyone to simply go type his name into YouTube and watch some talks if you haven't.

</comment><comment><USER8> Wow, that's true genius

</comment><comment><USER9> I applaud Harvard's decision. However, I think HN might add (April 2019) to the title here.

</comment><comment><USER10> That is a great note, I really enjoy his humor.</comment>


Just Eat Takeaway to acquire Grubhub for $7.3B - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/technology/uber-grubhub-just-eat.html <comment><USER2> I read an article with some details from the Uber side on why that deal fell through. I never thought I'd read an article where Uber seemed to be on the ethical right side of things...

"Uber also believed it would would need to stop several undesirable business practices from Grubhub, including phone charges and cybersquatting, or buying domain names with the intent to profit from them. Grubhub has denied cybersquatting in the past. "

[https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/uber-exasperated-with- grubhu...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/uber-exasperated-with-grubhub-sale- process-as-deal-slips-away.html)

<comment><USER3> Aah thuisbezorgd/takeaway does squad domains so grubhub will fit right in.

<comment><USER4> They do? I didn't know that.

I only know them from their Dutch branch Thuisbezorgd, which seems fairly decent, and has contracts with connected restaurants. Quite recently they've been under attack for abusing their near-monopoly (they do have Deliveroo and Uber Eats as competitors, as well many independent restaurants; many connected restaurants also have their own site) by raising their margins, putting pressure on restaurants.

GrubHub sounds like the worst of the worst, so I was quite surprised to learn they were bought by Thuisbezorgd's parent.

<comment><USER5> I think this is an example: [https://www.afhaalrestaurantpikantochicken- rotterdam.nl/](https://www.afhaalrestaurantpikantochicken-rotterdam.nl/)

Its a place that's on thuisbezorgd but has no own website. Just this shady ridiculously long URL that is an exact copy of the thuisbezorgd page, with a thuisbezorgd banner on it.

If we do a whois on the URL, the registrar is TAKEAWAY.COM (so thuisbezorgd) who happens to have 90,237 more domains: [https://whois.domaintools.com/afhaalrestaurantpikantochicken...](https://whois.domaintools.com/afhaalrestaurantpikantochicken- rotterdam.nl).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Genuine question: why?

I completely understand acquisitions that create value by providing economies of scale, monopoly power or network benefits, or diversify or complement a company's activities.

But for a European market leader to buy an American market leader in what is ultimately an extremely local business... I see no real added benefit here.

Few further economies of scale when you're already at continent-size for an ultimately "local" business, no monopoly or network benefits, and zero diversification.

If this were manufacturing or retail then benefits are pretty obvious.

But in this case, what am I missing? How on earth does this justify a 27 percent premium on GrubHub? It is purely a strategic defensive move to prevent Uber from buying it, and nothing more?

<comment><USER7> Mergers and acquisitions rarely work out for the entities as such. To understand why they nonetheless continue to happen so often it's necessary to peer beyond the corporate veil and look at the incentives of the individual players.

<comment><USER8> > Mergers and acquisitions rarely work out

Instagram

DoubleClick

NeXT

Here are some businesses off the top of my head that are thriving because of their acquisitions.

<comment><USER9> From [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-mergers- fail/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-mergers-fail/)

One KPMG study found that 83 percent of these deals hadn't boosted shareholder returns, while a separate study by A.T. Kearney concluded that total returns on M&A were negative.

<comment><USER10> There's a presumption that companies engaged in M&A would have been executing as well as historically.

Basically - it's an unscientific opinion

<comment><USER9> Well that could go either way couldn't it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it just me or are all these delivery apps pretty much the same thing, just with different restaurants?

In SF at least Grubhub tends to have some of the more "typical delivery" choices (pizza, chinese food, thai) and decent customer service, Doordash seems to have the most variety but the dashers take their merry time on their way to you (and customer service is nonexistent), Uber Eats is somewhere in between grubhub and doordash in selection and has nonexistent customer service (but at least give you a refund if something goes wrong), caviar has a smaller selection but a lot of unique/higher end things (along with a terrible app but OK customer service), and Tock is targeting the "high end at home" market. There's also postmates which seems more expensive than the others for the same exact restaurants (but seems to have more traction in LA).

At the end of the day, the search is really bad (clicking the healthy category includes deep dish pizza and fried chicken on almost all the apps), the drivers aren't adequately compensated so the customer experience is bad (your driver might make 4 stops on the way to you and your food will be cold), and the apps are slow and buggy.

I'm convinced that significant improvements in search, recommendations, adding proper review support, and finding a way to not piss of restaurants in the process will determine the winner in this battle. The differences in selection are too small (in SF caviar which is owned by doordash and tock being the exceptions) to really crown a winner on that front.

<comment><USER12> I prefer Grubhub/Seamless in NYC. They're typically on bicycles or scooters and will bring the order up to your apartment door. Uber Eats people usually want you to come down outside so they don't have to double-park.

I'm not giving you a $10 delivery tip to drive my Five Guys order eight blocks.. You gotta get out and come up the stairs to my door.

<comment><USER13> or you could, ya know, walk 8 blocks and keep the restaurant in business, but hey, we all have our limits.

<comment><USER14> wait... this comment is confusing. how is he not contributing towards "keeping the restaurant in business" by ordering delivery vs picking it up in person?

<comment><USER15> When you order through a delivery service, the restaurant is generally paid less than their normal menu price, and none of the tips go to the kitchen staff.

In addition to charging the restaurant, the delivery service charges the customer a higher price than the restaurant would. They add delivery fees and service fees. On top of that, the online menus in the delivery service apps often have higher prices than the restaurant's "real" menu.

Restaurants often negotiate special deals with the delivery services, so all these details can vary. However, delivery app margins are much lower than carry out or dine in margins.

<comment><USER16> When I go pickup food on my own, there's still no tip money flowing to the kitchen (or anyone else).

<comment><USER17> Restaurants handle this issue in many different ways. I have been to several who explicitly state that all tips are divided & shared among all employees, and I think this is a good model. I've also seen one with a separate tip jar for kitchen staff, which may be a better option in some places. Really, why should the server make more than the cook or the dishwasher? Are they actually working harder? [I know, their wages are often structured differently, but I question whether they should be.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow. I thought Uber were going for it? The food delivery market share war is really interesting.

For folks in the UK. The Competition Markets and Authority (CMA) delayed a decision on whether Amazon could invest $500m in Deliveroo as of yesterday[1]. Deliveroo are more established in Europe but I can now see the CMA approving Amazon investment into Deliveroo[2]. Why? Just Eat provided evidence to the CMA recently on why the Amazon investment into Deliveroo could be problematic [3]. Just Eat then go off to spend a $7b to secure the U.S market ahaha. In my opinion Takeaway.com/Just Eat are now scrambling for marketshare.

Amazon tried to enter the food delivery market back in 2014-16 and they had every right to![4]. But, competition pushed them out in my opinion. So now Amazon are wanting to re-enter via investment into Deliveroo. It's very smart move because Deliveroo service is pretty amazing already.

[1] Amazon/Deliveroo delayed decision: [https://uk.reuters.com/article/deliveroo-ma-amazon/uk- regula...](https://uk.reuters.com/article/deliveroo-ma-amazon/uk-regulator- gets-more-time-for-final-ruling-on-amazons-deliveroo-deal-idUKL8N2DH4CB)

[2] Amazon/Deliveroo CMA inquiry: [https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/amazon- deliveroo-merger-inquiry](https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/amazon-deliveroo- merger-inquiry)

[3] Just Eat CMA inquiry response: [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ec27cc1e90e0...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ec27cc1e90e071e31153684/Just_Eat_Takeaway.com_N.V_180520.pdf)

[4] Amazon close food delivery business: [https://www.engadget.com/2018-11-26-amazon-closes- restaurant...](https://www.engadget.com/2018-11-26-amazon-closes-restaurant- delivery-uk.html)

<comment><USER19> Just Eat are getting too big. They destroyed Hungry House by buying it a few years ago. This was before Deliveroo and Uber Eats were known to most people. Seems like Just Eat are afraid of competition.

<comment><USER18> I was not aware of Hungry House. but you're right! They purchased them too [1]. Yeah it feels like a "screw it" lets do this type of move from Takeaway.com/Just Eat. From my research it looks like Just Eat are threatened by competition and re-entry into the market from Amazon. $500m investment could really push Deliveroo on. I see similaries between Deliveroo and Amazon in wanting to provide very quick delivery service.

[https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/just-eat-hungryhouse-merger- inq...](https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/just-eat-hungryhouse-merger-inquiry)

<comment><USER20> Well, the big difference between GrubHub/Just Eat and Deliveroo/Uber is that the former were actually profitable software businesses, while the latter are VC funded blitzscaling nonsense.

But now the profitable companies are forced to run unprofitable delivery networks because of the VC funded (well public market funded for Uber now) hype-train of on-demand.

Is there a Gresham's law for business models or something?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It looks like Just Eat currently has a market cap of 5.233B pounds, 6.645B USD.

How does an all stock acquisition of 7.3B USD work in this case?

Is this done via issuing more than an extra 100% of stock on the expectation the new asset will counteract the dilution to keep the stock price similar?

<comment><USER22> 1 example: they could take on debt from a Bank to make the purchase for example.

"Just Eat Takeaway was created this year through the $7.8 billion combination of two of the earliest participants in Europe's food-delivery market, Just Eat and Takeaway.com. It has been fighting competition in Europe from Uber Eats and Deliveroo, a London-based company whose investors include Amazon.

Mr. Groen, a Dutch entrepreneur, founded Takeaway.com in 2000 when he was a student frustrated with the challenge of ordering pizza online. He took Takeaway.com public in 2016, and now has a net worth of more than $1.5 billion, according to Forbes.

In addition to the deals for Grubhub and Just Eat, Mr. Groen bought the German portion of Delivery Hero's business for about $1 billion in 2018."

They've been aggressively acquiring competitors for years, so this seems par for the course.

<comment><USER23> I don't get it. Why would a bank loan billions to a company losing money, so they can acquire another company losing money? The bank takes all the risk for little return. At what point should the bank just become an investor.

<comment><USER24> Well probably the only "bank" involved was an investment bank. Typically they would issue bonds rather than taking out a mortgage. Some investors like the risk available with such corporate bonds.

Although this may not be a LBO situation, selling junk bonds is often the way that PE firms steal everything from firms they "buy". I have no idea how the "all-stock" claims jive with selling bonds. I suppose the buyer could just issue more of its own stock, if the numbers don't add up. [EDIT:] This last maneuver seems more plausible if the buyer itself was previously a LBO target and the PE dudes haven't totally drained it yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So it's an all stock deal and it seems Grubhub purchase will be greater than the market cap of Just Eat Takeway. How does that work? What about control of the board?

Also seems strange that a $500mm revenue company is acquiring a $1.6bb company. All the financials for just eats are terrible. I am so confused on this acquisition and why shareholders approved.

</comment><comment><USER26> Aren't all these delivery businesses living in a false vacuum? It seems like a lot of these companies are basically a giant multivariate ponzi scheme.

</comment><comment><USER27> I am a bit confused by the legal structure of this business: Article states that just eat is dutch, but it is not based in the Netherlands. It is a UK company that used to be based in Denmark. According to Wikipedia it recently merged with Takeaway but is still operating as a subsidary with its own brand.

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

<comment><USER28> Just Eat was a UK based company which was public on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). It was then bought out by Takeaway.com (Thuisbezorgd.nl) based in the Netherlands and the company is now on the LSE (in the FTSE 100) and Euronext Amsterdam.

Just Eat was originally founded in Denmark but moved to the UK

Just Eat was founded in 2000 in Denmark, then moved to the UK in 2005. It floated on the London Stock Exchange in 2014 and acquired by Takeaway.com (Thuisbezorgd.nl). It's now Just Eat Takeaway.com and trades on the LSE and Euronext. The head office is in Amsterdam now as well, but the whole UK engineering team is still in London and Bristol in the UK.

So the parent company is Just Eat Takeaway.com but then it's Just Eat in the UK (and much of Europe), Takeaway.com in the NL (well, Thuisbezorgd.nl), and a few other names around the globe like Menulog (AU/NZ), and Skip the Dishes (CA).

<comment><USER27> Ahh, the name of the company flew over my head completely.

I read it as "Just Eat, takeaway" not as a concatenated company name which apparently is "JET" on the LSE

[https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/JET/just-eat- takea...](https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/JET/just-eat-takeaway-com- n-v/company-page)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I hate Just Eat in my country. For the life I couldn't get them to put VAT on my receipt. Stopped ordering food almost completely because I was tired of something simple like that failing over and over. Now they're slowly turning into a monopoly, can't imagine how bad their service will get at that point.

</comment><comment><USER30> My question: how is this allowed? Won't this create a massive monopoly?

I and many others had the same concerns when Just eat bought Hungry House. Now we've got Deliveroo and Uber Eats too, but how can a smaller player survive with these behemoths?

<comment><USER18> > Won't this create a massive monopoly?

They wish. Just Eat are just using Grubhub as a way to enter US market. But, theres already too many players in US. Doordash, Postmate, Grubhub, Uber Eats

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Market consolidation would limit competition and hurt consumers so I'm glad they were purchased by an external player. But local restaurants are still hurting from exorbitant fees and something needs to be done to help.

Shameless plug: I'm working on a chrome extension that compares the price of your order across delivery services to get you the best price. We'll soon be linking to restaurants' websites to let people order direct and save on fees. For those interested, link is here: [https://platerapp.app.link/1VRKKwGAe7](https://platerapp.app.link/1VRKKwGAe7)

<comment><USER32> I totally agree. By the way, I checked out the extension you are working on and it's amazing. This is a no brainer solution and I expect it to go viral. Kudos on thinking about it and sharing it! Exciting...!

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> ...in stock.

If you can give away $7 billion in stock, clearly your company must be worth at least that much money, right?

This is a bullshit deal to drive up bullshit valuations for bullshit business models looking for dumb money.

</comment><comment><USER34> Lol...

These companies do realize that these numbers are incredibly not locked in right? Like Grubhub's business could be taken in a week by any other app because they don't own the endpoint, just the middleman. Sure they have some exclusive deals but this is an incredibly inflated value for what is effectively a API connection and little actual market ownership.

</comment><comment><USER35> I bet GrubHub realizes it can get an even bigger payday later on when either Uber or DoodDash will _need_ to acquire it. That's probably why they didn't want to consolidate with Uber immediately.

<comment><USER36> "DoodDash" sounds like the name of the company after a merger with Grindr.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I can do the first part but I don't think I can come up with the $7.3B

</comment><comment><USER38> The value is in the transaction data they now capture with their own ordering and delivery service.

Transaction data is the gold standard in building personalized marketing/ads.

</comment><comment><USER39> Just Eat is danish not Dutch. Close. It's somewhere in Europe.

<comment><USER40> Actually, Just Eat was originally Danish and moved to UK in 2005, so it is British.

In any case, the company they are talking about is "Just Eat Takeaway", which is the result of the purchase by Dutch company Takeaway.com of British company Just Eat in February 2020, so it is in fact Dutch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This story is not yet over. There's a decent chance that Doordash or Uber will make a bid.

<comment><USER42> Uber did make a bid, and these two signed an agreement. This is in the first paragraph of the article ;)

<comment><USER41> Yup, I meant that they will put in a higher bid, or they might buy this new combination. This area is strategically important for them, and if you've read previous merger/M&A stories or books about them, this seems just like the first salvo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Just eat was originally Danish not Dutch

<comment><USER27> Just Eat was originally Danish.

Takeaway was originally Dutch.

Just Eat Takeaway is a Dutch company listed on London Stock Exchange since February 2020.

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

<comment><USER43> You are right my bad. I didn't see the Takeaway part.

<comment><USER27> I made exactly the same mistake initially :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Food Inflation, Riots Spark Worries for World Leaders - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120813134819111573.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

<comment><USER2> High food prices, while detrimental to the urban poor, may be the best opportunity to pull subsistence farmers out of poverty and integrate them into the global economy.

That said, biofuel subsidies are really just an excuse for corn belt politicians to score votes at the expense of everybody else. Its corporate welfare that's good for nobody.

<comment><AUTHOR> How do you mean? Not that I don't believe you, but I don't follow your logic. (About the subsistence farmers, I mean)

<comment><USER2> Subsistence farmers grow crops using traditional methods mostly. They're insulated from the fuel costs etc. that generally drive up the cost of production for the big producers.

Subsistence farmers also tend to bring to market a small portion of their crop. The hope is that as food prices rise, the amount each farmer receives for the crop sold will go up to the point where he can start to invest in his equipment to improve the efficiency of his methods, grow more and sell it, and integrate himself into the global economy.

Eventually, this turns poor subsistence farmers into wealthier cash crop farmers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, ok. I missed the assumption that they'd still be farming. I thought you meant they'd go work in factories or something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Personally I think biofuels are a red herring. Only a fraction of the US agriculture production goes to biofuels, and part of the cost of importing food is transportation anyway.

In any case, this could dwarf credit problems if it keeps getting worse.

<comment><USER3> "America is easily the world's largest maize exporter—and it now uses more of its maize crop for ethanol than it sells abroad."

<http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250420>

<comment><USER4> While the article may contradict his point, your cite doesn't.

<comment><USER2> "Because this change in diet has been slow and incremental, it cannot explain the dramatic price movements of the past year. The second change can: the rampant demand for ethanol as fuel for American cars. In 2000 around 15m tonnes of America's maize crop was turned into ethanol; this year the quantity is likely to be around 85m tonnes. Ethanol is the dominant reason for this year's increase in grain prices. It accounts for the rise in the price of maize because the federal government has in practice waded into the market to mop up about one-third of America's corn harvest. A big expansion of the ethanol programme in 2005 explains why maize prices started rising in the first place."

<comment><USER4> But maize is only one grain, and I didn't see it mentioned in the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Has anyone done the analysis to see the cumulative result of the current global crises?</comment>


Polyglot extension for Chrome - Learn a new language - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/plpjkjplknknmhfhkjgcfgofclmlnine <comment><USER2> I just tried it with French (a language I already know).. and I don't think that it's a good tool. In my opinion, you should always avoid seeing incorrect usage of language when learning. This extension does not properly translate the words in context, it does not provide the proper forms of words that correspond with the subjects/objects (such as masculine/feminine/plural), and sometimes it's completely wrong. If you learned using this tool, you'd have to unlearn almost as much material as you learned.

I think it's much, much more effective to just read a newspaper in the language you want to learn and use a dictionary. It's not as easy, but you're not going to expose yourself to bad grammar that you'll automatically pick up and have to unlearn later.

<comment><USER3> OT: Do you know of any good French publications/blogs for hackers or entrepreneurs?

<comment><USER4> French is my first language and I don't even know of any interesting sources. It saddens me, because I love reading stuff in French.

<comment><USER5> I guess you can always read about Ocaml in French.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've long wanted an extension that rather than translating a full page, translates just the word under the mouse -- ideally without causing any reflow -- so that I could try struggling through reading a foreign-language page, incrementally learning the words as I progress.

Anyone seen such a thing?

It seems it could also mix well with this 'Polyglot' approach, by throwing in some percentage of pre-translated words, or remembering words known/unknown and differentially displaying those.

<comment><USER7> It's specific to Japanese, but rikai(chan|kun) has been an _extremely_ useful tool.

<comment><USER8> Rikaichan[1] is indeed useful, but if someone want to learn Japanese using it, they have to be a little careful since Rikaichan use EDICT, it could led to pretty misleading translation[2] sometimes when taken out of context. (Compared to Progressive[3].)

(Mac OS X users already has Progressive dictionary built-in, just enable it in Dictionary.app and press Cmd+Ctrl+D over the word you want to lookup.)

[1]: <http://www.polarcloud.com/rikaichan/>

[2]: [http://jisho.org/words?jap=ねこ&eng=&dict=edict](http://jisho.org/words?jap=ねこ&eng=&dict=edict)

[3]: [http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=ねこ&dtype=...](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=ねこ&dtype=3&dname=2na&stype=0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Very, very bad idea. Speaking another language is unfortunately not about translating words but transforming language into another form while conveying the same ideas and respecting the author's initial wording as much as possible. Sometimes you cannot even translate without providing a piece of cultural explanation. Translating one word out of context is almost always bound to fail. This extension is useless at best, dangerous otherwise.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Found this while surfing for new extensions, it substitutes random words on a page with words in the language of your choice, which is a great way to increase your vocabulary in a somewhat passive manner.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a great idea. Seems like it could a pretty effective way to learn a new language. I've installed it and it provides a pretty good options panel where you can customize the frequency of translated works and the color of the text. It would be nice to have a tooltip for the translated words which displays them prior to translation. This would eliminate all guesswork and be slicker than turning the extension off and on again.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you rollover the translated words it seems to give you the original meaning, although it would be better with the surrounding context I guess. I've already filled a bug report as it seems to be translating proper nouns and numbers as well :)

<comment><USER10> Ah yes I see it takes the original values and sets it as an alt attribute. The fact that I didn't realize it initially may speak to a UX issue. Might be worthwhile to have the original word show up a little bit sooner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Really cool idea, but I must admit using this is going to take some time to get used to, especially if you are a user that prefers to skim read particular sites.

My only other complaint would be the ability to blacklist certain sites. EDIT: Didn't realize you can quickly just disable the plugin by clicking the extension icon. I suppose that is good enough for me then :)

<comment><USER12> Have started using it & it seems like a great way to brush up on a language. Agree that a list of blacklisted sites would be useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I liked this extension but don't use chrome, so I made: <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/86091/>.

If you find a bug, repo is here: <http://github.com/jdeseno/PolyGlop>, patches welcome!

</comment><comment><USER14> I downloaded polyglot earlier today and found it mostly amusing in the context of Facebook (e.g. seeing my friends speaking in broken english.) Later, I came back and forgot about polyglot and started a little unit testing. Long story short, in spanish commas are really decimal points and vice versa.

</comment><comment><USER15> I actually have been thinking about this, that possibly learning a new language iteratively may be the best way to internalize all of the new rules. I like this idea.

</comment><comment><USER16> "This extension needs access to: Your data on all websites Your browsing history"

That's not very reassuring. Does anyone know what exactly it can access?

<comment><USER17> Chrome needs to work on its permissions messages or its permissions model. I developed a stupid simple extension[1] that just kills all the images on a given page, and the permissions required for it to do its work (mostly the `background.html` page communicating with a separate JS file) result in the exact same terrifying message when installing.

Specifically, I think it's the "tabs" permission in my case that causes that message, which I think I needed to ask for in order to have the permission show up as a page action, or something. The memory is hazy now.

(Note: There's a very good chance my extension could be rewritten to not need those permissions, but it was not immediately obvious how to do that when I wrote it, and I haven't poked at it since then.)

[1] [https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/jjjmnickdhkfpaoc...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/jjjmnickdhkfpaocnkcfabdlfojmpakn) and <http://github.com/mccutchen/ImageKill>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Pretentious, watashi?

<comment><USER18> 厳しい群衆</comment></comment>


The art of sharpening pencils (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://matthewjamestaylor.com/blog/the-art-of-sharpening-pencils <comment><USER2> see also [http://www.artisanalpencilsharpening.com/](http://www.artisanalpencilsharpening.com/)

<comment><USER3> That's what I thought this was. Haha. I think this is the gold standard for crazy side hustle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This video shows the technique that's closest to how I was taught to sharpen pencils for drawing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz9x49vG9Rk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz9x49vG9Rk)

It's important to note that the goal is to set it up for drawing with the side of the lead, not the point. (he demonstrates the grip and drawing technique it's designed for toward the end).

I mostly prefer 2mm lead holders though because I'm too lazy to spend time sharpening and figuring out what to do with the shavings.

</comment><comment><USER5> >Most people throw away their pencils when they get too short but I actually find them easier to use.

You can also use a pencil holder or lengthener.

</comment><comment><USER6> Back when I was in middle school, the usual way of sharpening a pencil would be with a razor blade. Kind of dangerous now that I think about.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have a nice sharpener that either sharpens just the wood (leaving the graphite) or sharpens both. It's nice to have some options.

</comment><comment><USER8> in some drafting, you can buy mechanical pencils which are basically graphite holders. They will hold a nice thick chunk of material. we used a small pallet of sandpaper to keep the tip sharp and learned to rotate the pencil while writing.

<comment><USER9> I'd call this a clutch pencil or leadholder, if anyone is guessing at the term.</comment></comment>


Cloudron 1.0 released - <AUTHOR> https://cloudron.io/blog/2017-06-20-cloudron-1.0.0.html <comment><AUTHOR> Co-founder here. Super excited to release 1.0 today. Happy to answer any questions.</comment>


Sketchy - <AUTHOR> http://www.jarkman.co.uk/catalog/robots/sketchy.htm

<comment><USER2> This is ultra-cool!

I wonder why they didn't take advantage of the fact that it could draw a huge amount of lines in a small amount of time and tweak their edge-detection algorithm to draw more lines.

Anyway, I'm sure there was very good reason why they haven't... likely the lines they can draw can't be very fine with the sort of marker they have to use.

<comment><USER3> The fact that he's just using canny suggests to me that it's just a simple hack he threw together. There are LOTS of other edge detection algorithms, but canny is pretty good and so easy to implement that it's the most generally used. It's not great at faces at a low resolution, but even just a little pre- processing can make the image better (as he demonstrates towards the bottom of the page).

<comment><USER4> Yes, 'simple hack' is definitely one reason. But there are a couple of others:

\- The drawing is sent to the Arduino as a block, then drawn, so it has to fit in the Arduino's RAM. More complex drawings would require streaming the data during the drawing. That's totally possible, but it is more work.

\- We quite liked the way these severely-simplified sketches came out. Because the edge-finding and vector-simplifying code is quite stupid, the best pictures tend to be the simplest ones, and doing more lines might well just make the picture more noisy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Obligatory link:

[http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer- automaton](http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton)

</comment><comment><USER6> It's a doodling Autopen [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen)

</comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of the scene in iRobot where Sonny (the robot) draws the scene from his dream.

</comment><comment><USER8> in any way related to piccolo (which had its v1 'release' today):

[http://www.piccolo.cc/](http://www.piccolo.cc/)

?

<comment><USER9> Whoa, piccolo seems pretty cool. It would be nice if there were preassembled kits, not too familiar with laser-cutting and the like.</comment></comment>