An entrepreneur says 32-hour weeks 'killed work ethic' at his startup - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/productivity-tips-four-day-workweek-2018-8 <comment><USER2> I always find it funny when there are so many articles about how CEOs etc. work like 80+ hours a week.

It's very different sitting in meetings and organising the activities of other for 80+ hours a week than it is writing bug-free (or at least relatively free) production grade code.

Doing the latter for 80 hours is more likely to result in errors and mistakes that will just cost more money and time to fix than has been saved.

I suspect the engineers at his startup still only do 32 hours of actual focused work.

<comment><USER3> The CEOs I know spend much of their time socializing /networking either through social media or on the phone. To them, having a fancy dinner with a prospective partner is classified as working. No wonder some people claim they "work" >80hours/week.

<comment><USER4> The CEO of WeWork claims to work almost 20 hours a day in this video ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5tSINazw78](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5tSINazw78)). Its impossible to do unless you are spending your time doing light work. Any intensive work that requires brain power will burn you out after 10+ hours. And to do it consistently day in and day out is impossible. I work 7 days a week averaging 10+ hours a day. I can barely hit 18 hours doing straight intensive work, and my day after suffers.

<comment><USER5> If a potential candidate tried to tell me that they had no problem and even enjoyed working 20 hours a day, I wouldn't hire them because they are demonstrating that they are clearly incapable of basic organizational skills.

<comment><USER6> Maybe the candidate just trying to show their passion and they just not completely trusted you, so they're not sure about the answer.

Or the candidate may have just failed another interview hours ago because he said he enjoyed working 8 or 12 hours a day, and lose the faith of humanity all together.

You'll never know why they've generated that answer if you don't ask a follow up question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The title sounds like it killed the work ethic of his employees, but a quote from the interview makes it rather sound like it killed his work ethic:

> It created this lack of work ethic in me that was fundamentally detrimental > to the business and to our mission […]

I'd really like to know what he means by "lack of work ethic" and why he thinks a 32 hour week contributed to that.

<comment><USER8> Exactly, I'm also not sure what's the problem. CEO had problem with 'work ethic' (and I'd like to see explanation what that means) and brought back five-days-a-week working scheme for all his employees? Or am I getting it wrong?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> As a species, we have been moving towards "less hours, more work done" for centuries. Just a few hundred years ago, most of humanity worked every waking hour creating food for themselves in order to not die of starvation.

The logical end point of this progress is 0 hours work per year and we still get everything we want. We're not quite there yet, but we're already much closer to that point than "work all the time to survive".

We should do something about resource distribution, though. I'm not saying that we would be there already if the 1% didn't steal everything, but we'd certainly be closer. Not communism or anything close to that, though, we already know that crap has no chance of working. But just something not quite so unbalanced.

<comment><USER10> How about: we have achieved the right work-life balance now with ~40 hours a week as a species, a balance that allows us to be most creative. We don't work to survive anymore (with the universal basic income on the horizon), we work to show off our creativity. Take artists as an example, they don't reduce their work load just because they can. I'm not even sure who spends more time at work: a startup engineer or a [successful] musician.

So no, we'll always need room for creativity and show-off, whatever it takes, be it 40, 80, or 30 hours per week on average throughout a year. And no, it's not going to converge to 0 because it would mean pretty much the end of the evolutionary path for our species.

<comment><USER11> You're making it sound as though people are only allowed to be creative during work hours.

I'm working 70% (28 hours a week) by choice because it leaves me ample room to be creative _outside_ of work hours, on my own projects, outside of the logic of profit maximization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "It created this lack of work ethic in me that was fundamentally detrimental to the business and to our mission".

He as CEO took the 32 hour week and decided that it was bad for the run and mill.

</comment><comment><USER13> Just because that particular CEO couldn't manage the 4day approach does not reflect badly on the approach - it reflects badly on him. Other can make it work, he can't. It doesn't mean that the approach is flawed.

</comment><comment><USER14> Maybe we should just stop focusing on how many hours we work, and concentrate on what we want to do and on whether we've achieved it. I feel that not focusing on the hours just works better.

One day I feel tired, and I'm not advancing? I go home. The next day I feel energized, and I want to keep working? I can work 12 hours straight.

No limits, nobody tells me what I can or I cannot do, and when I should do it.

Of course, we may need a bit of tracking hours in order to understand what we're doing and how we're spending our time, but we can use a more coarse granularity (like "half days").

<comment><USER15> Engineers agree with your sentiment. People managers, I'm not so sure they've come to the same conclusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've realized that different people work differently. I'm a "rhythm" worker. I work best when I have minimum breaks. The longer break I have between work days, the longer it takes me to become productive.

A three day weekend would mean I would spend Monday just ramping up into productive mode. I wouldn't reach proper productivity until Tuesday.

So really, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Perhaps giving workers the freedom to design their own work habits would work best

<comment><USER17> This. I am more of a "work really intensly for X days until I'm exhausted and never want to see a computer again, then rest for a couple of days while I regain my productivness" person. Also, I've found that if I get up in the morning and do something else other than work before lunch, only to start working in the afternoon, is where I'm at my best in terms of being productive. It's strange that we still operate by these industrialistic workhours, when people clearly are performing at their best at different hours.

<comment><USER16> I gotta try that. I wake up in the morning at 6 to get a few productive hours in. But when I get to work, I usually just end up wasting time on social media and HN. I don't regain productivity until after lunch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Well one more reason not to work for a startup. At least big corps offer a better pay.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think solving hard problems requires working hard. There are processes that happen while you sleep and dream that I don't know the explanation for, which really help you progress on an extremely difficult problem. In my experience those processes happen only when you're very focused on your problem, it occupies your thought 80% of your waking hours and it's the last thing on your mind before going to sleep.

I remember I saw a video on it from a more credible source than I, but I can't find it.

</comment><comment><USER20> I can see how advertising a 32-hour work weeks attracts a class of people who view work as something that supports their other interests, whereas a 40-hour work week attracts more traditional workers who derive a large part of identity from their work. It might be in your personal best interest to be in the former group. But if the mentality that work comes second defines the company's culture, that company is not going to win.

<comment><USER21> Right, and this is why all big corporations fail? /s

Work is less than relevant, what matters is that your actual customer is happy and you're finding new leads. That you can be flexible is typically a part of it. That you never sacrifice your customer's satisfaction for your convenience.

Being focused may or may not be a component.

(BigCo have a problem that their actual customers are often the shareholders.)

<comment><USER20> What you're describing sounds exactly like a motivated worker. The OP and my comment is about incurring a selection mechanism for unmotivated workers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This sounds like he'd spent time low-balling on salaries until he'd collected a cadre of people only barely interested in their work. It doesn't take much to make those people completely disinterested in doing more than marking time.

If you're hiring people who are engaged and genuinely interested in what they're doing and giving them a reasonable workload(!), they're likely to just treat that day as a day they can work from home with the option to not do work if life suddenly has plans for them.

XKCD-style admins, for instance, are likely to just spend that day spitballing ways to reduce downtime (which make the other 32 hours less annoying) and hardening infrastructure without having to worry about producing results. Planning is everything for that sort of work. My occasional work-from-home days were frequently days when I'd get a positively lurid number of things done just because of fewer interruptions.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I found it very interesting, we only hear about the successes of working less, and self steering teams. Ryan explains why this both didn't work for his company, and made company results drop.

This is the full interview: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJcTdA55aWA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJcTdA55aWA)

</comment><comment><USER23> You have to check what you can do.

I can't write or program longer than 2h a day.

But you have to allow you to see other things as work too.

Learning about work related topics (business, tech, design, news, etc)

Answering mails and talking to other people in general.

I think the problem is not that people want to work less, it's that they want flexibility and not wasing away in offices, when they aren't abel to work anymore.

<comment><USER15> "not wasting away in offices" \- Yep.

Every day I come into an office feels like a waste compared to a day I work from home.

A waste of my life to be more specific.

Requiring tech workers to be physically located next to each other during the hours of 9 AM to 5 PM, five days a week for years is archaic and a slap in the face of what we've done as an industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I looked up the company on Crunchbase and they're in the 100-250 range. I think having a lax work policy is something that doesn't scale. Having gone through growth at company where it grew from ~100 to ~300, work starts getting less personal at around 150+ (personal opinion backed by zero facts). When work becomes less personal, I think it's easier to become complacent. You do the 9-5 -- do your job and go home. If the company policy says you can take Fridays off, hell why not take it off? I don't think there's a way to keep up work output with an overly lax work policy.

</comment><comment><USER25> This article brought to you by the upvotes of 25 nervous founders afraid of their workers demanding 4 day work weeks.

</comment><comment><USER26> Per the article: the CEO of a small company made an organizational change, gave up a year later, and then says the change is unviable generally. Meanwhile, in paragraph 10, one other company tried the same change and it worked great.

TLDR; nothing. This article has essentially zero information.

<comment><USER27> >This article has essentially zero information.

Welcome to Business Insider

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> IMO, get 6 hours of work and you should be fine. I mean work, not staying there for 80 hours a week

</comment><comment><USER29> Wow, it's almost as if workers will have to fight for better work-life balance themselves rather than relying on the mercy of their benevolent broscience- inspired bosses

</comment><comment><USER30> Was curious how that experiment was going to turn out, been following it for a few years. Not unexpected result, although I was going to give it more of a 60/40 in my mind.

</comment><comment><USER31> 32 isn't even that low, a five day 9-5 with an hour lunch break is 35.

</comment><comment><USER32> One person's "lack of work ethic" is another's "having a life". Just let it go, everything will be fine. Consider this your secret weapon for talent retention. Nobody actually does even 32 hours of real, actual software engineering work in a week on a routine basis.</comment>


Ask YC: How Much Time Do you Spend planning? - <AUTHOR>

I'm in the early stages of of planning a startup; "Campus Computer".  It's a two part deal; online tech support with offline/office based hardware/software support for the students at a local university (primarily because of my existing connections there and the proximity of which I live to the campus).  In this day and age of web based business operations and project management, how much time do you spend planning a startup versus prototyping concepts for your startup?
I make the dichotomy understanding this:
Planning - deciding on factors, how you want to interact with your products and services, and how you want them to appear to your users
Prototyping - developing certain aspects during the planning phase to understand how they'll work and whether or not they should be included in the final product.
It's a good argument to say prototyping is part of planning, and they both have their importance, but I guess one is more concrete the other abstract. <comment><USER2> Killed by Planning is something you should definitely avoid. Don't turn your startup into an organization where everything needs to be outlined in pages long documents.

What you describe as planning is something I would call the (functional) design phase of your products and services.

My main reasons (as an architectect) to ask (business/product) people for a planning like that is that a) they will think more thorough about what they actually want to do (which is never what they told you yesterday), b) they write down things so that the development team has a plan to turn into a concrete project and c) do some form of short to medium term commitment to these plans. The latter also means responsibility.

S.

</comment><comment><USER3> A written plan will help you communicate goals and tasks but until you get to the point where you have to manage other people, I'd say don't make planning a seperate thing.

Instead keep a document with the details you think need more planning and maintain it as you go about the actual work. Refer back to this document whenever you need to as you interact with people and revise accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER4> 1\. Grab a pencil and paper and lay things out until it's time to stop laying things out and see what they'll look like.

2\. Code until you realize you need to slow down and think about things a little more.

3\. Go to Step 1.

<comment><AUTHOR> I like this approach. Very open ended but crucial if you're discerning enough.</comment></comment>


Was Tom Hayes Running the Biggest Financial Conspiracy in History? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-14/was-tom-hayes-running-the-biggest-financial-conspiracy-in-history- <comment><USER2> I think there is a huge double standard with white collar crime where we worry if we are prosecuting the "right" people. Was this person the ring leader or just a foot soldier? Clearly what he did was wrong. If he were a poor drug dealer there would be little sympathy for the arguement that he was being overcharged. But with an upper class person who we can relate to, we worry the system is unfair.

How about having a system that is tough on white collar criminals, but imprefect? No one seems to mind a system like that for other crimes.

<comment><USER3> Just because we overcharge some doesn't mean we should expand that and overcharge even more. Overcharging, mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines, etc. are the reason the US prison population dwarfs that of other nations. We need to focus on rehabilitation and prevention for crimes like the drug dealer you mentioned not expand our prison population further by excessively charging in more and more crimes.

<comment><USER4> Penalties for crimes that affect such large groups or even populations should be very harsh. Penalties for public services (police/politician corruption or actions) should be super harsh.

Police, institutional execs (bankers/doctors) and politicians should have a penalty structure that incentivizes appropriate behavior.

Just as they impose such rules downstream they should be subject to very harsh penalties when they exploit their positions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I most likely traded with this guy in my days on an interest rate desk. I am now not in the least in doubt that price-fixing behaviour occurred in the market at the time, and possibly still does (investigations must have spooked people).

Back in those days, I was working at a fund that held positions in rates, equity index options, and currency derivatives. These are all instruments that depend on some sort of fix to determine a payout. I spent a LOT of time staring at Bloomberg charts when the fix was due. And over that time, I never shook the suspicion that people were systematically rigging these fixings. It was a time of very low volatility before the financial crisis, and yet you would see all these strange spikes on the third Friday of each month (equity index expiry) and often at 1600 (WM/Reuters Currency fix). It coincided with brokers saying such-and-such had a big position. Without being privy to the actual manipulation, there was always the plausible idea that the big player was hedging his risk, but it happened so often you tended to think it was a setup. With LIBOR, it was a bit different because we didn't have a line into the fixing desks.

I wonder how this will play out. Hayes is right that he is an unlikely fall guy. There can be no doubt his bosses understood how this was done. His boss would have been either a trader or a broker. He would have understood precisely why you would want to move the rate. They can also see the PnL statements and positions, so they know the dv01 (value of a basis point) of the fix. For the record, a million bucks per bp is not a huge amount. I know it sounds like a lot, but there are guys out there swinging 20M a day on average, and quite a lot more.

I'm also not shocked that Hayes says it's normal. Anyone who's ever sat on a trading desk has realised that if you could move the market at fixing time, you could make money. The article talks a lot about his Asperger's, and I guess you're meant to speculate that he didn't quite get that he was doing explicitly what other people would do with a wink and a nudge. It's not the first time I've heard rumours involving brokers and brown envelopes.

In any case, I hope the recent fixing scandals have lessened the temptation for people. It ruins the market when everyone suspects foul play.

<comment><USER6> It reminds me of Fabrice Tourre. They blamed the whole originate and distribute scandal on a 28yo VP. Blame the Frenchman!

It doesn't excuse the behaviour but I find hard to believe the desk heads knew nothing about it.

[Update]: that being said he probably paid for adding stupidity to his criminal behaviour by documenting his crimes on recorded chatrooms.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Interesting discussion on Tom Hayes, the man who was convicted of manipulating LIBOR( One of the more important borrowing rates).

The article seems to play up Hayes' Asperger's as almost an excuse as to why he could do what he did with little emotion.

Just like breaking into a computer system, he used human engineering rather than hacking to rig LIBOR in his favor. He litterally became friends with the people who helped set LIBOR and asked them to help set LIBOR in the direction he wanted.

> For Hayes, it was a light-bulb moment. He knew that banks had always > tailored their Libor submissions to benefit their own positions, but the > system resisted tampering: no single institution could have much impact on > the overall rate when 15 other banks were doing the same thing. But Hayes > had worked at enough banks and befriended so many brokers that he realized > he could sway several submitters at once. He could pull their strings > without them even knowing it. And Hayes was on better terms with his brokers > than most. They had in Hayes a kindred spirit—a state school Londoner with a > cockney accent.

<comment><USER7> I think the harsh reality is he was a foot soldier, and the people who encouraged him got away (so far)

<comment><USER8> You guessed it. Hayes actually submitted as evidence a UBS instruction manual on rigging the rate. [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-18/ubs- gave-o...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-18/ubs-gave-out- instruction-manual-on-fixing-libor-hayes-said)

<comment><USER9> That's conflating two issues - UBS was setting their own number in their own interest. Hayes was bribing people at other banks to manipulate the rate. Both are bad, but Hayes was in another class of bad.

<comment><USER8> I disagree. Was Hayes acting solely on his own behalf, or on theirs as well? Were these or other attempts to manipulate Libor sanctioned by UBS? From another article:

"The document [that Hayes points to] instructs Libor submitters to clear their judgements on the rate with certain named traders. Defence lawyer Neil Hawes last week suggested the traders held derivatives positions dependent on Libor."

[http://www.risk.net/operational-risk-and- regulation/news/241...](http://www.risk.net/operational-risk-and- regulation/news/2417331/hayes-ubs-libor-guide-proves-bank-threw-him-under-the- bus)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article if anything makes him seem like more of a patsy than a ringleader. He made everyone above and below him who was in contact with him exactly aware of what he was doing. Those above him new exactly what was going on and all they had to say to stop it was 'no'.

<comment><USER11> I wouldn't call him either a patsy or a ringleader. He seems like something in between -- a linchpin. LIBOR manipulation was already happening, those above him wanted it to happen, which means he wasn't the ringleader. But he was the guy who made the connections to make it happen more effectively, not a mere footsoldier, but a critical piece of the apparatus.

<comment><USER12> If manipulation was already happening how could he suddenly be the linchpin? Wouldn't it make more sense that he was one of many who paid to manipulate the rate and profit? I think he just found an opportunity others had already been exploiting. I'd call him the scapegoat who ended taking up most of the blame.

<comment><USER13> In the same way anyone who comes into a situation where they are more competent than the people they replace become a linchpin. If you come in and make a thing a lot better than anyone else in your organization is capable of making it, you become the go-to person for that thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> You want know what my biggest gripe about the LIBOR scandal is? The fact that the fed chose the LIBOR as the market rate in the first place, effectively ceding a huge amount of monetary control to a set of private bankers, but not only that, ceding that control to the private bankers _of another country_ , and not only that, but they knew the rate was being manipulated no later than 2007, and stuck with it and said nothing anyway!

I think the fed needs to be audited and the Federal Reserve Act should be gotten rid of and the power they have should rest with congress _as the constitution states it should!_.

Also, I think this is the most important part of this article: "who in turn were acting on instructions from the Bank of England." So the two top guys in the bank are secretly being prosecuted, and we don't know their names, but what about the Bank of England? Any prosecution against anyone there?

</comment><comment><USER15> So I read the whole thing. Are the only people being prosecuted the ones that influenced the bankers to lie about the borrowing rates? Why would you prosecute the ones who made the request, but not the ones who fabricated the rates?

<comment><USER16> "The SFO says privately it plans to charge further co-conspirators in the months ahead."

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Bringing his Asberger's into the story? Really? Spending pages talking about Hayes' superhero bed sheet is offensive to him and demeaning to the real story here: LIBOR is decided by a bunch of banks calling up brokers at random?!

Journalism, especially long-form journalism, is just a spectacularly bad medium for talking about systems problems.

<comment><USER18> >the real story here: LIBOR is decided by a bunch of banks calling up brokers at random

This. Am I missing something, or is it bizarre that LIBOR came to play such a significant role in the financial markets, given it's so hackable?

A facetious comparison would be how every year people bet on what colour hat the Queen will wear on Ladies Day at Royal Ascot. If suddenly trillions were being staked on this market, could you prosecute a courtier for handing her a strawberry bonnet?

<comment><USER19> It makes sense that the banks started setting LIBOR. It's the rate they lend to each other. Sometime they borrow, sometimes they lend. In theory, everybody voting on a fair rate results in a fair rate.

BUT... Other people saw this rate which looked like a really convenient benchmark, and started using it as a benchmark. Now you have all the makings of a conflict of interest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If it was the biggest in history he likely wouldn't have been caught.

While the amounts he was trading seem pretty massive, the truth is there are some traders that handle much more money. Never mind the banks themselves, trading firms, governments, etc...

There's no doubt that, if larger actors wanted, they could run much larger scams and not get caught.

Tom Hayes only got caught because he wasn't big enough.

<comment><USER21> I don't follow your logic. Isn't a larger scheme always more likely to be noticed than a smaller one?

<comment><USER22> Well the largest scheme is probably how banks create money out of nothingness through lending, but it's legal.

"By creating money in this way, banks have increased the amount of money in the economy by an average of 11.5% a year over the last 40 years. "

<comment><USER23> I don't think fractional reserve banking really counts as a scheme or a conspiracy. It's not secret at all, completely legal and has been widely studied by economists. I think "banks create money out of nothingness" is also a mischaracterization. It's more like currency minted by the private sector.

That being said, I think there is something about it that fundamentally offends human sensibilities.

<comment><USER24> The only thing not quintessentially conspiratorial about it is that everybody knows about it and believes that it is actually happening.

It is _not_ like currency minted by the private sector. That would be more akin to futures contracts settled by physical delivery or prepaid service contracts. The private sector has to back up its currency with actual goods or services. If you issue hemp futures, you had damned well better be a hemp farmer _and_ insure your crop, and if you issue hemp scrip, you'd better have some actual reserves of hemp in your warehouse.

All that is backed by _something_ , even if it is little more than a believable promise.

The promise that backs fractional reserve is that you can have your cake and eat it, too. If you make a deposit, you can withdraw 100% of it at any time, even though they will immediately lend 90% of it to someone else. That someone else will then bid against you for the same goods and services, using exactly the same money you are bidding with.

Lets say you deposit $100. You want a doodad from Jack Handy. Joe Blow also wants that doodad, and he has $0. But the bank manager is his brother-in-law, so he can qualify for a loan of any size. Ordinarily, you could get the doodad for $50. But Mr. Blow starts a bidding war with you, using your own money, and the final price is $60. If you win, you write a check for $60, and Jack Handy deposits $60. The bank has the same amount in reserves, and can issue the same amount in loans. If Joe wins, the bank lends him $60 of _your_ money, writes a check for $60, and Jack Handy deposits it. The bank _still_ has the same money in reserves, but has promised to pay the _same_ $60 to _both_ you and Jack. Thanks to the trick, you effectively lost $37.50 (100x60/160) for the doodad you didn't get, Jack effectively lost $12.50 ($50-37.50)--surprise! $60 of lender-inflated bank credit is worth less than the $50 in cash--and Joe is now paying the bank rent on the doodad.

          | before deposit       || after deposit        || after Joe buys       |
          | Cash | Credit | Debt || Cash | Credit | Debt || Cash | Credit | Debt |
      ----+</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment>+</comment><comment>--+</comment><comment>||</comment><comment>+</comment><comment>--+</comment><comment>||</comment><comment>+</comment><comment>--+</comment><comment>|
      You | $100 |     $0 |   $0 ||   $0 |   $100 |   $0 ||   $0 |   $100 |   $0 |
      Jack|   $0 |     $0 |   $0 ||   $0 |     $0 |   $0 ||   $0 |    $60 |   $0 |
      Joe |   $0 |     $0 |   $0 ||   $0 |     $0 |   $0 ||   $0 |     $0 |  $60 |
      Bank|   $0 |     $0 |   $0 || $100 |    $90 | $100 || $100 |    $30 | $160 |

The are not creating money out of nothing. They are creating credit out of their own debts, and screwing everyone else over hard in the process. They are literally the _only_ winner in the above scenario.

<comment><USER25> > It is not like currency minted by the private sector. That would be more > akin to futures contracts settled by physical delivery or prepaid service > contracts. The private sector has to back up its currency with actual goods > or services.

Well, except in the real world where, before banking regulators stepped in and stopped it, one of the common forms of privately-issued currency was by private banks issuing loans (including in the form of privately-printed banknotes) _without_ regulated reserve requirements.

<comment><USER24> The parent post was comparing fractional reserve banking to privately issued money, and I interpreted that to be excluding bank-issued currency.

That would still include stuff like payroll scrip redeemable only at the company store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is just like the movie Goodfellas, except Tom Hayes (a.k.a. "Henry Hill") was not smart enough to, in a timely manner, seek out the prosecution and rattle everybody out in exchange for entering the Witness Protection Program or some form of clemency.

From what I have read in different cases involving a criminal group or simply a group of teenagers vandalizing a place, it does help to be the first one to talk to the police. Once the police / prosecution has enough information to make a case, they don't need anybody else.

(For those who have not seen the movie, it's a good movie to watch.)

<comment><USER27> He _did_ "enter a "supergrass" (informer) deal in the U.K." and ratted out everybody.

After ratting out everybody (and avoiding extradition to the US), he withdrew from the plea deal and gambled that the UK jury would be sympathetic.

 _On Oct. 9, as the SFO was finalizing its case against Hayes and his co- conspirators, a white envelope arrived. It was from Hayes's lawyers. "As a matter of courtesy we are now in a position to advise that Mr. Hayes will plead Not Guilty to all Counts," the letter said. "Accordingly he now formally withdraws from the process." Having avoided extradition, the natural born trader was taking the biggest risk of his life, reneging on the deal and entrusting his fate to random jurors in a London courtroom._

<comment><USER28> Seems as though that was the worst gamble he ever made. His other gambles were with others' money (essentially just gambling his job) - this one was for 14 years of his life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Nope. Oops. Hit enter too fast.

Notice the targeting of key employees that aren't paid that much but wield a lot of influence? I'd guess this guy actually doesn't play the shadows game that well if he is Aspergers.

Imagine what goes on with people with better understanding, more money to bankroll them, better payoffs? Oh yeah, politics as usual.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm supposed to feel sorry for him? He defrauded people out of real money, just the same as if he'd picked their pockets on the street. He got 14 years for it — good.

<comment><USER31> Nope, he defrauded banks. Banks are not people.

<comment><USER32> He defrauded real people whose borrowing costs and investment proceeds are a function of the daily LIBOR fix.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Given the long process to bring this to justice, imagine all the ones that never get that far. It's much easier to convict someone of stealing bread from a 7-11.</comment>


Retrospective: Looking Glass - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/retrospective-looking-glass/ <comment><USER3> I'm willing to forgive Mozilla this one time - I've been a Firefox loyalist since v1.5 and have no desire to change, but this cut pretty close. To me, it felt like someone at Mozilla trying to one-up their competition by providing the Mr Robot tie-in exclusively. I can almost understand Mozilla's desperation to slow the seemingly unstoppable exodus of Firefox people to Chrome (which I refuse to use for many reasons, chiefly that it's becoming the new IE with web-breaking rendering and extensions that only work on it), or a way to bring in more revenue to a foundation that's probably losing funding, but this was a very short-sighted move that undermines what Firefox has always stood for - respecting the user's choice in their browser. It was bad enough when they bundled Pocket pre-installed, but at least that was clearly announced beforehand, and I only tolerated because I was already a Pocket user. Sneaking stuff into the browser silently, no matter how good the intentions are, is a backdoor in all but name, and that makes me, as a sysadmin, very nervous. Mozilla have a ways to go before my trust in them is restored, but I don't want to switch away. Others may not be so forgiving.

<comment><USER4> For me, this whole fiasco was the last straw: Quantum had already broken the plugins I use for vertical tabs, and then I found that the only reason Quantum was introduced was to allow this Looking Glass plugin to collect telemetry from the whole of the browser window, not just the pages being rendered. Like yourself, I've been a Firefox user since the Phoenix days, but this was a step too far.

I switched to Vivaldi, which is a Chromium with high levels of customization, including a vertical tab bar.

<comment><USER5> >Quantum was introduced was to allow this Looking Glass plugin to collect telemetry from the whole of the browser window, not just the pages being rendered.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Quantum is a name for a variety of technologies in Firefox, all of which have a shared goal of speeding the browser up. None of them have anything to do with telemetry.

Also, Looking Glass collected no data. It says it right there in the article.

<comment><USER6> Please omit personal swipes from your comments here, regardless of how wrong anyone else is. It's particularly important to do so when you're right, so you can communicate correct information without discrediting it.

<comment><USER5> Sorry, I didn't mean it as a personal attack. I meant it as a statement of fact.

<comment><USER6> If you use negatively charged language about the person you're talking to, you're taking a big step away from factual exchange. On an internet forum, where we have precious little context to convey intent, that's almost always a destructive thing to do—and since it's both unnecessary and easy to avoid, we ask people to just not do it.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I often wonder these days about the value of telemetry and A/B testing. I think many heavily used pieces of software can benefit from a BDFL-like decision maker instead, especially if the alternative is software specifically designed to use me as a guinea pig surreptitiously. I feel like, in the race for adoption, we suffer a form of the tyranny of the majority with software. Decision making based on principles instead of popularity is the only way to prevent harming some of us whose software preferences are in the minority.

It seems A/B testing provides clear numbers on what's most popular, but you can't quantify what's right.

<comment><USER8> Indeed. When A is shit and B is shit then the result of your A/B testing is going to be the least shit of the two. At the end of the day it's going to be shit either way.

I'm a firm believer that you should never ask your user to make a decision or look over their shoulder. Not once ever. You should listen to their complaints and ideas when they come to you, then build your strategy on that. Be reactive, not prescriptive. That empowers the user, shows respect and results in a satisfactory product that benefits the user which after all is the end game.

Telemetry invades the user's privacy. Feedback does not empower the user because the user expects a reaction from it which is unlikely. A/B testing results in churn for the user which does not show respect, merely that they are a test subject.

Microsoft as a fine example could learn a lot from listening to their users rather than steamroll ahead based on collected telemetry and feedback data.

A fine example: People didn't want UWP/metro and still don't today. I have yet to meet one person who uses that side of windows 10. They wanted shit that worked, was faster and kept out of their way and didn't wreck the workflow that they had invested years in learning or had someone experienced close at hand to help them with it. 90% of the userbase just installs chrome and does everything in there as well so that stuff just gets in the way.

<comment><USER9> > _I have yet to meet one person who uses that side of windows 10._

I was going to say, "I do!", but then I realized that no, actually, I don't. I mean, I have a Win10 tablet PC which I often use in tablet mode, and I appreciate the Windows 10 UX. But what I _most_ appreciate about that UX is... how well it works with regular Windows applications!

Because it turns out UWP/metro is just _too dumb_ an interface. It's Android/iOS-level dumb (just with less apps). I'm split about Microsoft right now. On the one hand, I just don't understand why they're on the "dumb down everything" bandwagon. On the other hand, as long as they still support normal Windows interface and applications, I want to support them and wish them best, because Windows 10 is literally, honest-to-God, the best system for tablets that currently exists. Period. I don't want to have to move back to Android.

<comment><USER10> I find Windows trend to be quite odd, too. And that's really telling of an issue, because I'm still using my Windows Phone and desperately want more quality apps. However, when I move back to my desktop, I rarely use UWP apps-- with the exception of a handful that sync with my phone, like podcasts or my budgeting app.

Even when I use my Surface, I rarely end up using the UWP apps because, as said, they're dumb. Even the Microsoft ones feel half-baked and lacking. I think Microsoft should have dumped more money into Research and tried to find a novel method for automatically handling different UI sizes without dumbing down the UI.

I like the idea of the Store, too, but I think instead of forcing all apps to this new interface, they could have created a new package format, like Mac's _.app_ directories, to allow one-click install distributions of classic Windows applications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They kinda missed the point that people dont like when companies install things on their devices without permission. If its part of the shield program how about we provide more transparency on that? Like how to opt-in/opt-out, what exactly it does? etc? I've been a firefox user since it came along to displace IE6 and i've never heard of the shield program. Better communication with your userbase is essential to maintain a sustainable product for the long term.

<comment><AUTHOR> > They kinda missed the point that people dont like when companies install > things on their devices without permission.

But it's a pretty blurry line, isn't it? You give permission to install Firefox, and it's somewhat arbitrary is a specific code is "part of Firefox" or "part of an extension" when that extension is shipped with Firefox by default.

(In this case, the specific code wasn't even executed unless the user flipped a switch in about:config. The problematic part was something being listed among your extensions that you couldn't make sense of as a user.)

<comment><USER12> It's their obligation to make sure the line is not blurry. As a user I always want to know the following:

\- What does it do?

\- Is it needed for core functionality or optional?

\- How do you switch it off/on?

\- Does it transmit any data, and if so, which one and how do I control the data flow?

\- Who are the developers and is the code open source or is it proprietary?

\- What are the default settings and why?

If it's optional, then it's an extension. If it's on by default, I better get a very good reason for it (e.g. that it ostensibly enhances security). All of the above questions need to be answered before I install it, i.e., the information needs to be freely available and easy to find on web pages, release notes, Readme, etc. If something is added in an update or upgrade, I need to be informed and given a choice about it.

<comment><AUTHOR> So as a silly example, that means about:mozilla or Chrome's dinosaur game shouldn't have been shipped at all?

<comment><USER9> Easter eggs are somewhat of a software tradition.

This particular one didn't get complains because of a combination of reasons like:

\- It is completely off-line (hell, it's only available on the "you're off- line" screen, where there isn't much else you can do with a browser).

\- It's off by default (you need to be on a proper screen).

\- It's a small and self-contained game. Doesn't impact anything else beyond a small area on the tab, which makes it just a step up from an animated GIF.

\- It's just a joke, it isn't tied to any commercial franchise or brand, nor does it promote any ideology or organization.

\- People expect less user-fairness from Google than from Mozilla.

Ultimately, the line is fuzzy, but Chrome's dinosaur is clearly more like an Easter egg, and Mozilla's Looking Glass is clearly more like a very specific extension/feature.

<comment><AUTHOR> > It's just a joke, it isn't tied to any commercial franchise or brand, nor > does it promote any ideology or organization.

This is an interesting point - I guess the blowback would also have been far less intense had it been a reference to e.g. Big Buck Bunny rather than Mr. Robot.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I suspect this is the main underlying reason behind the drama - <USER2> Glass is, ultimately, an advertisement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Respecting _privacy_ is about not pulling user data without consent. The problem here is about _control_ , i.e. not pushing content to users without consent.

@MoCo, you might think the (marketing) key for the (economic viability in the) future is privacy. I tend to agree. Currently, privacy has to be enforced because people are not in control. For everyone to be able to choose a satisfying level of privacy, _we need tools we can control and education_ (poke @MoFo).

IMHO, what we (power?) users (influencers?) need is control. Hence the problem with the recent lack of support of legacy addons. While we can understand it from a security/privacy/technical point of view, it nevertheless goes in the wrong direction WRT control (shaping your tool for a specific usage).

That's a shame that you, we, can't imagine something better and make it available.

<comment><USER9> > _Currently, privacy has to be enforced because people are not in control. > For everyone to be able to choose a satisfying level of privacy, we need > tools we can control and education_

I agree. It's all about control. Which is why I rant so often about modern UI/UX/software design trends - they're all about disenfranchising users! The amount of control the users have over their software is being actively reduced everywhere.

<comment><USER13> IMHO, the synergy between MoFo and MoCo should be stated as "the former educates people, the latter provides them with tools they can control". The success of the MoFo would then fuel the need for software implemented by the MoCo, and the other way around.

No one, especially Mozilla, should never ever decide for us what we need.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Mozilla, you are 100% completely and absolutely out of touch. The problem is not that a study was conducted incorrectly! The problem is that software was secretly bundled with Firefox, software that is at the very least bloat and might be considered adware -are you paid for this? Was it a favor? Part of a non financial partnership/promotion?

You don't see the problem here, no, you plan on doing this again. With the only change being that you will try to answer a specific question.

You could not have mitigated the uproar by "trying to answer a specific question" and "appropriately naming the 'study'". The biggest issue is that you are unable to realize that.

<comment><USER15> This post wasn't about answering those questions, that they have done already elsewhere (some of it linked in the article, even). This was about how they will make sure not to use SHIELD to do the same in the future.

<comment><USER16> 3 times in, what, a year they've now tried deceptively foisting bundled changes (with commercial links) ... whoever is in charge _clearly_ didn't get it and just thinks it's about implementation details.

<comment><USER15> What 3 times are we talking about?

<comment><USER17> Pocket integration was in 2015 (acquisition was in Feb 2017 [1] as linked in this article as well) so not last year, but the Cliqz debacle was last year. Assuming Looking Glass is the most recent one I'm not sure about #3. Describing Pocket as being #3 within a year is dishonest IMO.

[1] [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/27/mozilla-acquires- po...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/27/mozilla-acquires-pocket/)

<comment><USER16> Ok, so if it's in 2 years that makes it fine?

Pocket, Hello/Telefonica, Pocket again (or was it Hello, my recollection is hazy, they forced the icons back for users who's removed them), Mr Robot, ...

I apologise if it causes some harm that I have imperfect recollection.

<comment><USER17> > Ok, so if it's in 2 years that makes it fine?

Not what I was arguing. The purpose of my post was helping out recollecting the mistakes Mozilla made. I don't remember the Hello issue. You're also forgetting the Cliqz debacle. Sure, it was German-specific, but still.

I don't think it is fine, and it is good Mozilla is being criticised. However, the alternatives are arguably _much_ worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Since there's likely to be people that do not consider this sufficient, a question out of personal interest: what could Mozilla do/have done to sufficiently prevent something like this from happening in the future?

<comment><USER18> There's a certain point at which it's important to forgive the offender. Mozilla does not usually make mistakes that compromise user privacy/security. To their credit, this mistake didn't do that either. While it may have led users to suspect many things, this particular Shield Study was not sent maliciously, nor did it lead to any malicious activity. Mozilla acknowledge this, have repented for their actions, and issued a set of rules for these studies which are clear and transparent.

I'm not sure they could have done anything more short of going back in time and reversing their stupid decision.

<comment><USER19> If someone fucks up, and then stands up and says "I fucked up, I'm sorry, it won't happen again" then the best thing to do is to give them a chance. If we were to crucify everyone regardless of whether they apologised or what they promise for the future, the incentive for improving behaviour is low.

<comment><USER20> I am not trying to crucify anyone but Mr CMO is definitely not a good match for the vision I want at Mozilla. As such, I want him to step down from all responsibility at Mozilla. I'm sure he is a good person and means well. I'm sure he is very good at what he does and I appreciate his contributing to Mozilla but I think he'd be more valuable outside a leadership role at Mozilla.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The root of the problem is clear by the fact that simple statement "we were wrong" is nowhere to be found in Mozilla's responses. Instead, we get nothing but glossy corporate bullshit about potentially mismatching values.

People who don't get why it is important are leading Mozilla into the grave, no matter what expertise and experience in other areas they have. Unfortunately, the world has never seen a bureaucrat who resigns on his own will.

<comment><AUTHOR> They gave that statement earlier and linked it in this post: [https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/update-looking-glass- add/](https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/update-looking-glass-add/)

<comment><USER21> That's the very corporate bullshit I mentioned. They talk about vague "concern in the community", while the problem is direct, one-on-one breach of trust between Firefox and each of its users. People were fine with sending crash reports that can cause someone at Mozilla wonder if spending 10 hours at a single porn site page is a common use case, and the ability to install new code on users' systems could be a necessary evil in case of some network worm exploiting some zero-day, but that all was grounded in the firm belief that Mozilla did what it was supposed to do, i.e. making a good web browser, and was not abusing its tools.

The people responsible don't even understand the multi-layeredness of the fuck-up (because they don't understand the core problem). a) There is a silently installed unwanted code. b) There is a little known backdoor in Firefox that installed the code. (And that makes manual confirmation of regular updates a security circus that simply cheats the user.) Sure, they can say it is only used to satisfy a specific set of developers' needs, but c) It has already been abused! d) To everyone's amusement, Mozilla happens to bother itself with that baloney ("…instead of working", many will add). e) No one at Mozilla prevented that from happening (or was able to, or was aware of it). f) That all makes the crack between Mozilla's declarations and Mozilla's reality shine bright. Now if someone at Mozilla decides to come up with the times and sell user browsing history ("non-personalized", as they say), will I be able to find solace in another couple of PR bullshit blog posts?

If some engineers were Mr Robot fans and decided to implement the same functionality, it would have been forgotten in a couple of days. Easter egg, mildly amusing, go on. But a company that shows its absolute incompetence that way is not a pleasurable sight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A good post-mortem summary does a few things: (1) describes the actual event timeline clearly and precisely; (2) describes the negative consequences of the event (if they are not implicitly clear) from the end-user's point of view; (3) lays out exactly what mistakes were made that led to and continued the event--whether in assumptions made, process failures, inadequate process, unanticipated consequences, side effects to remediation attempts, etc; (4) describes planned and potential changes that will avoid the problem in the future along with a communication plan for keeping stakeholders informed of any future changes. A good post-mortem does all of this while taking a broad, organization-level view of the event and a user-focused view of its consequences.

Maybe the internal document covers all of this, but this blog-post summary does not. And what is included here does not bring me great confidence.

Firstly, this summary indicates they were far too narrowly focused in their assessment, talking only about the Mr Robot promotion's compatibility with the purpose and restrictions of the SHIELD tool. And I suspect that maybe internally the story now is that some marketing staff misused the SHIELD approval process to get this plugin around other more robust processes.

But the intricacies of which particular avenue within Firefox or Mozilla this occurred through is a backwards view of the problem. Users aren't upset that the SHIELD tool was misused to push an ad on unsuspecting and confused users. They're upset that _Firefox_ was misused to push an ad on unsuspecting and confused users. The problem here is the entire idea of a "TV show tie-in" to Firefox.

And lastly, the action items here are pretty pathetic, and fail to address users' concerns (not a surprise since users' concerns are never explicitly recognized in the post, either). Yes, SHIELD studies should be actual studies; and yes, SHIELD studies should be clearly named; and yes, it's bad that the SHIELD program was used to ship a commercial. But never once does this post promise that Mozilla will take a broader view of the actual needs and desires of their users, or that they will correct their internal mindset that led to anyone thinking this tie-in was ever remotely a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER23> Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Mozilla doing this in the first place, this is why open source is great. Can you imagine getting this kind of transparency and humility from Google or Apple?

<comment><USER24> I'm not sure it's an open source issue, rather than a 'why non-profits are great'.

But regarding 'Can you imagine getting this kind of transparency and humility from Google or Apple?' I think Apple's response to the the battery debacle (the software update was installed with good intentions, but with insufficient explanation) is similar and in response to similar reputational damage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> > [...] responsibility for anyone [...]

Might become a problem too. Who is responsible? We all are!

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder if they have any defenses against people spamming their telemetry.

</comment><comment><USER27> My immediate impression of this article was poor, because in the very first paragraph it used "tv" instead of "TV" and "add on" instead of "add-on". _Spelling is important._ Most people won't notice it, but there are a lot of us who do, and put quite a bit of stock by it as well—when you get it wrong, it doesn't reassure us that things are being run well, and it distracts us and detracts from the article.

In this case, I continued to read, and it did improve; but those couple of errors at the start damaged it.

(Since I'm mentioning such errors, two more jumped out as I skimmed the article: the text which is linked in `[set of principles t]hat `, and the space in `wiki ,`.)

People may not like to hear these things, but I assert their veracity and importance nonetheless.

<comment><USER28> From the HN guidelines:

 _Please don 't comment about the voting on comments._

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> TL;DR: next time when we inject adware, we will name it correctly and we will spy on you to meet SHIELD's criteria.

</comment><comment><USER30> The way this is written, it seems like this "experiment" would have been okay -- by their standards -- if it had just captured some data... and they will make sure that any other experiments like this _DO_ capture data... and that will somehow make them okay.

The marketing people writing this stuff (I assume) really don't get it, do they?

<comment><USER31> I read this more as "this wasn't an experiment and we've updated our procedures so we can't push things that aren't experiments through that channel", and hopefully there are no channels that they would use to push that game in future. They should have explicitly said that there aren't though, because I don't know if I trust them not to find some other channel they think is appropriate next time.</comment></comment>


Drawing Machine Using Arduino, Processing, a Sharpie, and String - <AUTHOR> http://www.triangulationblog.com/2011/06/polargraph-by-sandy-noble.html <comment><USER2> The repeat accuracy of such a simple mechanism is absolutely amazing. Never in my life would I have guessed that you could make some many reversals without some accumulating error somewhere.

<comment><USER3> Check out the middle of the last picture on the page. It looks like it didn't go up as far as it needed two about twice in the same line, causing a noticeable gap. Not at all trying to knock it here, amazing work for sure, just wanted to point that out. It could be intentional as well.

<comment><USER4> Most of the motion is in the up and down, which I'd guess is why you get some gaps forming between the "layers", but it still seems to be lined up OK in the angular dimension.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This bites pretty hard on hektor, a graffiti robot: <http://hektor.ch>

I met the kid who built this, year ago. He is a seriously rad ex-demo scene hacker, now art school prof. Lots of other good projects there worth checking out.

<comment><USER6> and this guy made a painting machine in the 70s: <http://www.antonperich.com/> so the idea has been around the block.

<comment><USER7> ..And many years later, his son Tristan has made a few drawing machines of his own: <http://www.tristanperich.com/Art/Machine_Drawings/>

<comment><USER6> yup i know tristan and that's how i met his father.

<comment><USER5> Amazing. Thanks for the links!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd love to see a four-pass of this using CMYK colored sharpies. I'm sure it wouldn't line up perfectly, but it might end up better that way.

<comment><USER9> The Penguin logo on [http://thisiscolossal.com/2011/09/custom-polargraph- drawings...](http://thisiscolossal.com/2011/09/custom-polargraph-drawings/) is a nice step in this direction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Build or buy your own: <http://www.polargraph.co.uk/build-or-buy-a-machine/>

Code: <http://code.google.com/p/polargraph/>

</comment><comment><USER11> I love it! This is art + algorithm + engineering + craftmanship.

</comment><comment><USER12> If you're into this kind of stuff check out HackerThings (I made it, not for profit):

<http://hackerthings.com/>

It's for hardware and electronics hackers (and programmers, of course). A good book on things like this is Programming Interactivity at <http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9415> (that's the kind of thing you'll find on HT).

</comment><comment><USER13> There's a brief summary of something vaguely similar I made during my degree here: [http://joefreeman.co.uk/blog/2009/09/lineographic- interpreta...](http://joefreeman.co.uk/blog/2009/09/lineographic- interpretations-of-images-with-an-etch-a-sketch/) (Lineographic Interpretations of Images, with an Etch-a-sketch)

</comment><comment><USER14> The use of polar coordinates is interesting, and it makes the images look a lot more interesting than a simple X/Y. (Probably less mechanical strain too.)</comment>


Computing as a Liberal Art - <AUTHOR> http://www.bogost.com/blog/computing_as_a_liberal_art.shtml

<comment><USER2> I think the issue that until a budding mathematician reaches upper-level undergraduate classes, foundation must be built, and built quickly, in order to catch him up with the current rigor of mathematics.

It's the same with computer science – eventually you can learn the nitty gritty, but you don't start out learning the x86 ISA. You start out with some sort of high-level language, be it C or Python. Eventually, you can learn the details.

<comment><USER3> I see where you are coming from, but I think there is an analogy here that can be raised to what happens at St John's (where I graduated). When I was there, we often had to pretend not to know things, especially in math, so that we wouldn't take advantage of things we knew, which happened especially in lab classes. I think it is a bit like we pretend to physics students that we live in a Newtonian world, and then introduce relativity afterward. For computer science, I think that the article was advocating more of a historical approach than a logical one; it is not hard to draw up a curriculum that starts with logic gates and assembly and progresses to the language de jour, but that starting with something like Babbage's computers and progressing to more modern computers naturally brings up more diverse issues, such as some discussion of analogue computers or how a computer doesn't need to be rebuilt any more for reprogramming. This would not teach any student how to program, but would help the students gain a computing education.</comment></comment>


Mailchimp sent me this today. (email attached - <AUTHOR> As per Mailchimp alternatives. What would you recommend? I found these so far and leaning towards moving to Mailjet.
https://www.mailjet.com/
https://www.sendinblue.com/
https://constantcontact.com/
...what am I missing?
<comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---
The email from mailchimp:
Hello,
Mailchimp does much more than email—we're now an all-in-one Marketing Platform that's designed to give small businesses the tools they need to grow.
With these additional features, we have a new way of calculating the number of contacts in your audience. This will require you to make a change in your account before August 7, 2019, to avoid a disruption in service. Please continue reading to learn more about what you need to do.
What's changed When we were an email-only company, your audience was made up of contacts who were subscribed. However, we now offer features that go beyond email. So, while you can't send emails to your non-subscribed or unsubscribed contacts, you may still be able to engage them through other touchpoints, like ads or postcards.
Since non-subscribed and unsubscribed contacts have value, they're now included as contacts in your audience. As a customer on a free plan, you're allowed up to 2,000 total contacts in your audience. As of July 22, your account has 1,890 subscribed contacts, 0 non-subscribed contacts, and 1,165 unsubscribed contacts for a total of 3,055 contacts in your audience.
Since your account is above the 2,000 contact maximum for our free plan, you'll either need to upgrade to a paid plan or archive some of your contacts to remain on the free plan. </comment><comment><USER2> Counting non-subs and unsubs is a dick move by Mailchimp. They have been losing ground to the competition and this will just accelerates that trend.

As for competitors, add Active Campaign, IContact, Mailer Lite and Twilio SendGrid to your list. AWS SES is a much simpler type of service but it also costs a fraction to use. You can use something like Sendy.co [0] as a service on top of SES if you don't want to mess around with the horror show that is AWS.

[0] Sendy alternatives: [https://geekflare.com/aws-ses-powered-email- marketing/](https://geekflare.com/aws-ses-powered-email-marketing/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Campaign Monitor is pretty good. It also let's you pay per campaign if you're sending one off emails versus a subscriber-oriented mailing list.

</comment><comment><USER4> Competitor that is a Mac native app: [https://directmailmac.com](https://directmailmac.com)

Disclosure: I work for the company</comment>


US politicians think companies should be allowed to 'hack back' after WannaCry - <AUTHOR> https://www.grahamcluley.com/us-politicians-think-companies-allowed-hack-back-wannacry/ <comment><USER2> Hack who back? These people have probably been lobbied by intelligence agencies for sometime (not the first time I hear about this idea) to "push for 'hack back' legislation" and now they're taking it out of context and saying it whenever a data breach happens, even if it makes no sense, such as in this case.

This is similar to how they pushed the CISPA _surveillance bill_ as a "cybersecurity solution" (thank Dianne Feinstein).

<comment><USER3> > Hack who back?

The bad guys, bro. Hack'em all and let Jobs sort them out /s</comment></comment>


The history of Geel, and the future of mental healthcare - <AUTHOR> http://mikejay.net/the-colony-of-the-mad/ <comment><USER2> from the link:

> In recent decades the 'two-layered system' – family care supported by a > medical safety net – has been constantly adjusted to reflect developments in > psychiatry. The most abrupt shift came in the 1970s, as the asylums emptied > and mental healthcare was reconceived to become more flexible and extend > further into the community. _Antipsychotic and antidepressant medications,_ > central to the new treatment model, were initially resisted by many families > who felt they would turn boarders into medical outpatients, _but they soon > proved their worth_ in helping to manage the worst of the depressions, > crises and public incidents. (emphasis added)

Robert Whitaker is an investigative journalist who has looked into the claims of proponents of psychotropic drugs. He has found the evidence supporting their use to be lacking, and makes the case that these medications create and maintain the conditions they supposedly treat:

[http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/07/the-case-against- antipsy...](http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/07/the-case-against- antipsychotics/)

My friend needed sobriety, but all she got were tranquillizers. She briefly escaped from her tormentors, and her new treatment providers allowed her sedation with anti-psychotics to lapse. She was given the SSRI she asked for, which she thought had helped her before. But Serotonin is NOT the 'happy chemical' \- the drug caused rapid heartbeat, resulting in tremendous anxiety. She took her last benzodiazepine (class of addictive anxiety medications), which caused her to 'fall apart'...

 _sigh_ ...

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I for one am glad my brother's main problem now is apathy and anhedonia. Better to deal with that while he is on zyprexa, haldol, leponex, risperidone or whatever, even for life, than having him live out bizarre fantasies, running naked through the streets for 2 days straight, burning down all family photo albums, accusing all family members of rape, having false memories, draining my parents emotionally, psychologically and financially. God bless modern psychiatry.

<comment><USER2> The tragedy of the mental health status-quo is that Science now knows enough to help these people... They knew enough 40 years ago. A recent study found that psychotic patients don't produce cortisol upon awakening [1]. This indicates problems with the mitochondria, and the flow of energy in the body.

[1] [https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2016/june/stress- hormon...](https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2016/june/stress-hormone-link- with-psychosis)

"These distinctive _alterations of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function_ may have important implications for CAR as a marker for transition risk." (emphasis added) [2]

[2] [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763416...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763416300549)

But Medicine is much more a haphazard form of "applied science" than a rigorous application of what's been discovered by physiologists. Our medical corps are disproportionately influenced by the industry they serve. So they sedate their psychotic patients, rather than help them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The "Invisibilia" podcast devoted an episode to discussing Geel:

[http://www.wnyc.org/story/invisibilia-problem- solution/](http://www.wnyc.org/story/invisibilia-problem-solution/)

Some great interviews in there, IIRC.

</comment><comment><USER5> Mental Hospitals in the USA, a lot of them closed down.

I used to have a good one near me that had a STEPS program that worked quite well. It was shut down as part of the ACA act. I had to go to another hospital farther away that treated all patients like criminals and had everything locked down. STEPS would have a level 1 to 4 that patients could earn privileges like wearing a belt or shaving themselves. This new system in the hospital I went into they can lock down everything and you have to ask a nurse or technician to get it for you or help you with it. There are so many patients that they can't all get showers or shaving or new scrubs etc. In Steps we were allowed to wear our own clothes and underwear and stuff. In the new system you wear disposable scrubs, footie socks, and disposable underpants. You can't wear a watch or have any clocks or anything in your room. The only clock is on the wall near the staff desk and it is hard to see by your room.

I am certain Geel has a STEPS program and other stuff that doesn't lock things down like a prison. If a person is depressed, you don't throw them into a prison like environment and hope they get better, you have to have a better environment than that.

We need more mental hospitals that aren't run like prisons.

</comment><comment><USER6> The CBC radio program "The Sunday Edition" also aired a documentary about Geel in 2014

[http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/psychiatric-community-care- belg...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/psychiatric-community-care-belgian-town- sets-gold-standard-1.2557698)

</comment><comment><USER7> I've seen news talking about similar ideas (one in France) where a woman just host a bunch of people with mental afflictions. They seem to live way better than in hospitals. At first they almost look like any normal family. Just thinking about it makes me happy. Social bond seems to be more important than "medical therapy" in common hospitals.</comment>


Dentists to replace drills with plasma jets - <AUTHOR> http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/02/07/dentists-to-replace-drills-with-plasma-jets/

<comment><USER2> I'm currently in the middle of dental school, and unfortunately this technology can't completely replace 500,000 rpm air turbine drills (a technology that is, to correct the article, NOT from the 1880s).

Here's the problem: bacteria (specifically, the acid they produce from metabolism of sugars) demineralize the hydroxylapatite of enamel (the stuff covering your teeth). Enamel is not biologically viable and therefore does not have the ability to _regenerate_. But it can, under certain circumstances, _remineralize_. SO, eliminating harmful bacteria using plasma technology WOULD give portions of enamel the opportunity to remineralize.

Unfortunately, if a caries lesion ("cavity") penetrates to the point that it reaches underlying, vital tooth structure (dentin, pulp), then surgical removal of the infected tooth tissue is the only way to effectively treat the growing lesion. Bacterial control by plasma at this point would be insufficient to keep the structure of the tooth crown sound. Thus, you need a drill to cut away tooth structure.

Furthermore, I object to the article's use of "sterilize". It's important to understand that epithelial or mucosal surfaces covering the human body can never be sterilized ("all living organisms eliminated except prions"). The bacterial load can only be reduced, never eliminated.

Then again... this article is a TechCrunch production, so what do we expect?

<comment><USER3> _Then again... this article is a TechCrunch production, so what do we expect?_

Expecting the author of a bit piece on a tech site to have knowledge of dentistry is a bit of a stretch (don't get me wrong - I loved your insight). Even the BBC's writeup - <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8470827.stm> \- doesn't go into such detail.. but this feels like yet another trendy, but baseless, snipe at TechCrunch.

<comment><USER4> Nobody expects a journalist/blogger to have a knowledge of dentistry. But at what level of professionalism do we expect them to track down a dentist for a quote?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I took the liberty of following the link to slashdot and from there to livescience.com where I found a much more interesting article:

[http://www.livescience.com/technology/plasma-jets-dental- dri...](http://www.livescience.com/technology/plasma-jets-dental- drills-100204.html)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1108455>

</comment><comment><USER6> Am I the only one here who's never been to a dentist? From my perspective, it seems like they do more harm than good with the drilling, scraping, filling, etc. People I know who go seem to end up "repeat customers", with all kinds of "problems".

<comment><USER7> I tried not going to the dentist during grad school, yes. (More out of absent- mindedness than with any definite plan.) I spent perhaps four or five years dentist-free.

My reward was a series of extremely painful toothaches followed almost immediately by a bunch of _very_ expensive root canals and crowns.

Let me assure you: Once your toothache starts, your time as a dentist-denier _is going to come to a fast end_ , one way or another. They hurt a _lot_. Not to mention the fact that if you get an abscessed tooth it can literally threaten your life.

Of course, you don't necessarily have to have the dental insurance and the well-paying job that I had when my dental emergency arrived. Instead you can elect the more traditional option: Have all the offending teeth pulled out. Then you may eventually need dentures. [1] I'm told that dentures are no fun whatsoever. I have had no reason to regret spending money on dentistry instead.

Of course, if you literally never touch soda or sugar, brush your teeth carefully, and are blessed with better genetics than mine you might get lucky...

\---

[1] Pulling one tooth can have a negative effect on neighboring teeth, as the bone loss under the empty space causes the neighbors to loosen and slip. That's why people who lose permanent teeth tend to get crowns or bridges.

<comment><USER8> I think genetics is the main factor. I've known a few people who never floss, brush once a day in the morning, eat pretty much whatever they want, go to dentists once every five years, and never have cavities. On the other hand, I'm very careful to floss before sleep and brush twice a day, but I still end up with a cavity or two every year.

<comment><USER2> In my continuing review of the dental primary literature and frequent consultation with dentists (my professors), I have found that genetics actually play a minor role in the frequency that an individual develops dental caries lesions.

More important factors include: (1) frequency and dose of fluoride (2) bacterial ecology of the mouth (possibly related to genetics, but also inextricably linked to the environment to which the individual has been exposed since birth) (3) FREQUENCY of meals -- look up "Stephan Curve" or the unethical "Vipeholm Study" if you are interested in this...

<comment><USER9> I tend to get cavities every now and then, but always have very little plaque build-up. In fact, when I went on one 4-year hiatus from the dentist, the assistant cleaning my teeth said it looked like I had just recently had them cleaned. She said it probably had to do with the chemical makeup of my saliva being more plaque-resistant that average. Funny thing is my mom always gets similar comments when she goes to the dentist. We live very far away from each other and have very different diets. Based on that, I would conclude that the bacterial ecology of the mouth and related chemical composition of saliva, are probably quite genetic.

Also, based on the fact that my dad has horrible luck with his teeth (cavities, root canals, etc), and dminor's comment (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1108895>) in this thread saying that they have very different luck with their teeth from their brother, I would venture to guess that it may have a lot to do with the mother's side of the genetics (being linked to the X chromosome that gets passed down). In dminor's case, they could have received one X from their mother and their brother have received genetic makeup from the other X, which could explain their differences in dental hygiene at least partially. If it were Y-linked, then I'd obviously have much closer luck to my dad's, and those two brothers would be much closer in results to each other, since there is only one Y to be given from one parent.

Of course, this is all nothing more than educated conjecture. I'm probably totally off base and it's likely much more complicated than that. For all I know, these results could be all coincidence, and the genetic characteristics could be totally unrelated to the sex-giving genes. (In other words, I have no dental training and nothing more than a curious, inquisitive disposition.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Crunchgear is just re-writing the article here: [http://www.livescience.com/technology/plasma-jets-dental- dri...](http://www.livescience.com/technology/plasma-jets-dental- drills-100204.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> Having undergone some fairly extensive oral surgery just last week in order to combat a major infection that got out of hand before I was even aware of its existence, and also having a fear of dentists in general, I'm not sure if I find the thought of plasma jets being fired into my mouth comforting or terrifying. Either way, I think I prefer to remain unconscious during the procedure.

Really though, even if it's not a good solution for serious dental problems, if it can provide a pain-free, fear-free (that drill just terrifies a lot of people, honestly), quick means of dealing with minor tooth decay, then perhaps more people will seek treatment earlier, before things get out of hand.

I still think the number one factor in individuals not seeking proper dental care, however, is cost and the fact that it's just so hard to get good, affordable dental insurance (or any dental insurance at all). We could go on for hours about the flaws in our healthcare system in the US and about how hard it is for many people to get insurance, but getting dental insurance is even more difficult in a lot of cases.

Sadly, I don't think adding plasma and lasers is going to drive the cost down any, at least not for several years. Not that this, in any way, means I think we should stop innovating, because innovation is going to lead to better care and, hopefully, eventually, more affordable care.

</comment><comment><USER12> A good friend of mine was part of the pioneering team that initially researched this stuff over at the Technical University of Eindhoven in the Netherlands. See this article from 2006: [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125586.200-plasma- ne...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125586.200-plasma-needle-could- replace-the-dentists-drill.html)

I can remember getting pretty freaked out when he was explaining it to me.

</comment><comment><USER13> There have been alternatives to the drill for quite some time. My dentist uses "air abrasion" to clean out the cavities before filling them. This is a pain- free and numbing-free method of dentistry.

Per WebMD: <http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/guide/air-abrasion></comment>


Are you a Linux sysadmin interested in trading time for bandwith? - <AUTHOR>

I've got a good chunk of bandwidth on a commercial FIOS line, and not enough time to roll out the virtual mail system I want to have. I'm not that interested in paying someone per hour to set things up.  I'd much rather find some Linux hacker out there who can grok Postfix, Courier, SquirrelMail, etc. and who would be interested in helping me with my Linux sysadmining and mail configuration in exchange for having a nice fat pipe to host some project that they've been tinkering with.<p>Does this sound like you or someone you know?  Or maybe do you just have a suggestion other than getting rid of the family and day job?  Let me know in the comments. <comment><USER2> firstname.lastname@example.com if you still need someone

</comment><comment><USER3> zhesto @ gmail.com - interested.</comment>


StickNFind - Bluetooth tracker to stick anywhere - <AUTHOR> http://www.sticknfind.com/ <comment><USER2> "Of course, because we don't really know direction, the radar Screen can only be used to approximate the distance of the Stick-N-Find to your phone, but not direction."

That seems really pointless then. "Your suitcase is: 5.3 miles away".</comment>


Social Coding Experiment - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/danub/codefreely

<comment><USER2> I know a few of these have been posted to HN before, have any of them ever taken off? We've tried to do this at our school in one of my clubs but they usually die rather quickly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not to my knowledge.

Its a shame, as it would be fascinating to see what could be produced.</comment></comment>