Google's Marissa Mayer Tapped as Yahoo's Chief - <AUTHOR> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/googles-marissa-mayer-tapped-as-yahoos-chief/ <comment><USER3> Wow. I am speechless. There is probably no better person on earth to light a user- and product-focused fire under Yahoo. But the risk, the risk for her is just stunning. Huge props to her for making the leap from what must be a very comfortable Google and for the board for finding a stunning candidate to lead the revival of Yahoo.

(Edit: my definition of risk is lost time and missed opportunity. She's not going to suffer in compensation or reputation.)

<comment><USER4> I'm sorry but I find it so hilarious. I worked at Yahoo and Google both. I know both their cultures (and especially the culture at Yahoo after all the good engineers left). IMHO, she is status quo - no different than the horrible string of CEOs being hired by Yahoo. In fact, I will put a stake in the ground that she will not move the needle further than what Scott/Bartz did.

I just can't get over how hilarious this situation is.

<comment><USER5> Curious; care to elaborate from an insider's perspective?

What about their cultures make this situation hilarious, and how come you're convinced that Mayer won't make a difference?

<comment><USER6> Not knowing much about Mayer and reading some comments here i have the opposite question, why Mayer should be able to make a difference?

<comment><USER7> The biggest factor is not Mayer herself, but again the "wrestling with a pig" factor mentioned in an excellent observation above. Yahoo! is not a sexy company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow, years later, even after her _de facto_ demotion at Google, people still think she's some kind of product genius?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1028615>

This is a hilarious situation.

<comment><USER9> From the description, her behavior reminds me a lot of how Steve Jobs behaved. If you read the biography, Jobs would often contradict himself, he was extremely rude, he would cry at meetings, he would hear an idea and say it was shit, and then the next week propose the exact same idea as his own, etc.

I'm not saying she is at all comparable to Steve Jobs, but it sounds like they both know what they want, and don't spend a lot of time with what they think is wrong.

I've said this often, but Jobs was about 50% right and 50% wrong. When Jobs was wrong, it was usually a small strikeout, but when he was right, they were monster home runs, which is why people tolerated Jobs' behavior. Mayer needs to be right a lot more than she is wrong, so I guess we'll have to see how that pans out.

<comment><USER10> Not a good comparison. Meyer famously tested 41 shades of blue on Gmail. Optimising local maxima is hardly innovation. Jobs was more of the Henry Ford mindset that if he asked people what they wanted they'd ask for a faster horse.

<comment><USER9> I guess you didn't read very carefully because I didn't compare Meyer and Jobs except in the similarities of how their temperament were described. One was from an official biography, and one from from an anonymous forum comment, so I take the forum comment with a grain of salt. To be clear, I don't think they are at all comparable in terms of success or as a visionary.

But since you brought up the testing of 41 shades of blue, I guess you didn't hear this story about Steve Jobs obsessing over the yellow gradient on Google's icon on the iPhone.

[https://plus.google.com/107117483540235115863/posts/gcSStkKx...](https://plus.google.com/107117483540235115863/posts/gcSStkKxXTw)

<comment><USER10> I didn't say Jobs didn't obsess over details. Clearly he did. The difference is that he knew what he wanted up front rather than testing market reaction to make decisions. The latter is commonly perceived as the "Google Way" and it's more about meeting expectations than setting higher ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Marissa Mayer (2012-Present)

Ross Levinsohn (Interim) (2012)

Scott Thompson (2012)

Tim Morse (Interim) (2011-2012)

Carol Bartz (2009-2011)

Jerry Yang (2007-2009)

Terry Semel (2001-2007)

Timothy Koogle (1995-2001)

I seriously hope that the Board of Directors has some idea of what they're doing, because their track record certainly doesn't look like it.

EDIT: To be clear, this wasn't meant as a slam on Marissa. What I meant was "It looks like the Board has created a toxic environment that no one could survive."

<comment><USER12> I am very curious what goes in those Board of Directors meetings.

Does everyone just sit around asking eachother "What the fuck does this company do, and how are we still in business?"

Seriously, what does Yahoo do? I don't know, because I haven't been their website since the 1990's. They obviously don't make software or hardware products, because I don't own any and have never paid for any of their products. I have no use for whatever services they might offer because I've never heard of anyone praising or recommending their services. I honestly would like to know how Yahoo still exists.

I think Marissa Mayer has a much harder task in front of her than she might think. Yahoo really doesn't do anything, or have products. How is she going to improve that which does not exist?

<comment><USER13> Yahoo has some good niche products that are doing relatively well compared to the rest of the company (fantasy sports is one, Flickr is another). To survive they probably need to do more of those and figure out how to specialize and monetize the products that aren't stagnating.

<comment><USER14> Yep. I only go there for Flickr and March Madness. Flickr could use some innovation, but it does its core mission well enough. March Madness is a simple task done well.

Used to be on a couple of private mailing lists through their groups, but those have both moved to private google groups over the years.

You know what I'd honestly like to see them do? Compete with Google, head on. I think search and ads are both stagnant markets compared to what they should be. I would absolutely love to see her knock Google out of its complacency and get those worlds moving forward again.

She could pull the talent together to do it, I think, if she was bold enough.

The problem is I'm not sure she's bold enough. But Yahoo absolutely requires gigantic boldness. It's the main quality they need at the top, honestly.

<comment><USER15> I can't stand Flickr, the moment I see the two loading animation of a Flickr page I reach for the back button.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Historical precedent: Stephen Elop was head of Business Division at MS before he became Nokia CEO and then Nokia fully fell in MS's lap.

Prediction: Sometime in near future some sort of very close partnership will happen between Google and Yahoo, subject to regulatory approval of course.

Edit: Fixed "MS CEO" to "Nokia CEO" typo. Thanks kreilly

<comment><USER17> Came here to say just that.

Another prediction: such partnership won't help Google very much, but will hurt Microsoft a bit -- due to Yahoo shying away from Bing and possibly MS e-mail technology.

It may also well help developers -- Yahoo's YUI is a very handy and very relevant toolkit; with Marissa as the CEO, I sure hope Yahoo will embrace developers more and YUI will get some more love.

<comment><USER18> I was discussing the same topic with my coworkers when we heard the news. Yahoo's YUI could be the company's starting point at developing strong products and boosting Yahoo's relevance as a brand. It's a great library.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This might be a stupid question, but are there any amazing turnaround stories in the world of large tech companies? If not, is that due to the relative youth of the sector, or something fundamental? I can think of a ton of companies that have faltered, but really none that have made a dramatic turnaround.

<comment><USER20> Apple kind of leaps to mind.

This is where they were the year Jobs returned, remember: <http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/wired+cover.jpg>

<comment><USER19> Wow, I feel stupid now. Maybe I didn't think of Apple because it was an original founder returning and fixing things?

<comment><USER20> Don't feel stupid! It doesn't happen very often, really. Certainly the examples are few and far between. Turnarounds _can_ happen, they just usually don't.

<comment><USER21> Interesting observation. Most startups fail, and most turnaround efforts fail. Makes success something you _really_ want to hang on to when you find it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Can someone explain how she is able to do this? Set aside the boldness of the move, but if _anyone_ ever should be put on some kind of "garden leave" or some kind of non-compete it would be a person moving from a prominent position in Google to become CEO of Yahoo?

Anyway, that aside. One thing that I hope that comes from this, is bringing some of the same Google-quality-developer-friendly-ethos to Yahoo. Dispite consuming several Yahoo services, I'm always disappointed at how slow they release changes... and if there is one thing that Yahoo needs it's changes..

\</comment><comment>---

[] June 16th, "Marrissa Meyer Makes Move to Yahoo",

[] June 20th, Yahoo switches from Bing to Google Search.

[] July 21th, Bing sees enormous drop in QPM.

Coup of the century? Who would of thought, should this actually happen, it would be the best possible outcome. Sacrificing the queen to totally dominate the search market even further.

<comment><USER23> Sure, there isn't really an enforceable non-compete in California, its one of the things that makes Silicon Valley, well Silicon Valley. Second there is a sort of hubris around 'the best revenge is beating them at their own game.' I know of at least two founder/co-founder pairs that split over different ideas about how the vision should go and rather than try to sue the other out of existence, the sense of invulnerability or desire for competition gives rise to a sort of 'bring it on if you got it' mentality.

<comment><USER24> Even if non-competes are enforceable, sometimes it will make more sense for a company to let an employee go straightaway anyway, rather than having them hang around twiddling their thumbs with no motivation.

<comment><USER23> True, Where California's statutes affect innovation is in the case where you're trying to raise money. In a state that enforces non-compete agreements you have a harder time if your new venture competes with the place you just left. That is because there is a risk that if you're successful you will be sued by your original employer and shut down. This is not true in California so it is nominally easier to raise funds.

<comment><USER24> How enforceable are they in other states? I know in the UK there have been a few test cases which seem to have resulted in the interpretation that you can only enforce one if it would otherwise be detrimental to the ex-employer (e.g. starting a new business or taking your contacts with you), otherwise people would find it difficult to move jobs within an industry because you'd almost always be going to a company who could be classed as a competitor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Doug Crockford gave a great keynote address at the HTML5 conf this year titled "What would Crockford do?" It was basically not about HTML5 and all about what he'd do if he were Yahoo CEO.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cukFl7gpjE> (Crockford takes the stage ~5:09 )

<comment><USER26> he would fork a Node.js and made Ynode :) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HzclYKz4yQ&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HzclYKz4yQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=1360s) ~22:40

<comment><USER27> Why?

<comment><USER28> see the video for the answer

<comment><USER27> I saw the video. It seems a very silly thing to do -- ever since I first saw that video I've been trying to understand Crockford's angle, and I just cannot. However, feronull seems in favour of it, so I'd like to know why.

Forking a project isn't a healthy thing to do, unless there's something seriously wrong with the existing community (e.g. XFree86). As far as I can tell:

* The nodejs community is healthy and vibrant.

* There are no systemic problems with contribution.

* Isaac Schultner has his head on straight, has reasonable priorities, and is a pleasant character.

* Much, if not most, of node's development is happening outside Joyent anyway.

* Nothing is stopping Yahoo from contributing to the existing project.

Even if all of the above were false, why does Crockford think the remnants of Yahoo's engineering can do better? Joyent is filled with Sun's top talent, and the engineering division is run by an enlightened alpha engineer.

I cannot help but think this is a case of sour grapes by Crockford, because there just doesn't seem to be a good reason for his stance.

Edit: as an aside, his idea of rewriting everything in node is a bit ridiculous too. I've been a part of several projects to rewrite code, for smaller things than all of Yahoo's online assets, and it sure took longer than one year to do a good job even with excellent engineers. This is a long-term project, not something you do to fix the immediate bleeding. This, and forking node, are very strange things to focus on right now given Yahoo's difficulties.

<comment><USER29> > Forking a project isn't a healthy thing to do, unless there's something > seriously wrong with the existing community

Or you have goals which are substantially different from the goals of the original project.

Lets not forget that parts of Android are 'forked' from Linux (and were later merged back).

<comment><USER30> Not quite, Android's non-hardware specific parts are more of a patchset. The kernel is still Linux.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, what an incredible coup.

I've always admired her, she seems to be very smart and has her finger on the pulse on what the Internet is all about, so if anyone can turn Yahoo around it's her.

I sincerely hope she has the intestinal fortitude to do WHATEVER it takes to revitalize Yahoo. The first thing I would do is get rid of the entire board of directors, they need a complete reboot as well.

<comment><USER31> > _"so if anyone can turn Yahoo around it's her."_

Do you _really_ believe that? I mean, of _all_ the potential candidates out there, she has the best pedigree?

I think the negative commentary stems from there. You think this is a coup. To me, it's sort of a ho-hum, predictable hiring. Yahoo! needs an overhaul as a business, and to do so they hired someone with SV name power.

<comment><USER9> I 100% believe that she has the best pedigree of any person out there.

Think about it, who would you have as CEO of Yahoo? John Chambers? Larry Ellison? The CEO of Hulu? Mark Hurd? Jerry Yang? Tim Cook?

I think Mayer is better qualified than anyone else that is available because she is an expert on the space. When she joined Google, the mainstream Internet was less than 5 years old. Her entire career has been built on the Internet. If she went to any large company like IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, Cisco, EMC, you name it, I would think it wouldn't be a good fit, because she wouldn't be an expert on the space.

Mayer has been with Google since practically the beginning, and as an executive, she has participated in the decisions and actions required to create and maintain a world-class engineering organization. As well, being an early employee and not just surviving but _thriving_ , I'd be willing to bet that Mayer has done more as an engineer than most engineers at Yahoo, except maybe Filo, so that gives her incredible technical legitimacy. So, yes, I believe she is extremely qualified to run a company like Yahoo.

You can't just stick a "turnaround expert" in the shoes of Yahoo CEO and expect a great result. You need someone that understands the space, and can make the tough and right decisions that can put Yahoo back on track. Everyone that they've chosen as CEO since Yang just felt like they were trying to salvage as much of Yahoo as possible, and sell it to some other company or PE fund, and give up. By choosing Mayer, it means they are serious about trying to put Yahoo back on the right path again, and not just selling it off. I'm pretty sure this will motivate the current troops at Yahoo.

The only other interesting choice for CEO might be Reed Hastings, but he's taken already. The Yahoo board could have elected to try to acquire Netflix and put Hastings as CEO of the combined company, which would have been interesting. I still prefer the choice of Mayer though, because it shows a lot of guts, both on the part of Yahoo and Mayer.

<comment><USER31> > _"I think Mayer is better qualified than anyone else that is available > because she is an expert on the space. When she joined Google, the > mainstream Internet was less than 5 years old. "_

You do know there's a world of business outside the Valley, right? I'm not implying that she wouldn't be a good fit and very capable at many jobs or positions. But Yahoo!'s days are becoming numbered. When I think about what she could have possibly experienced at Google versus what Yahoo! needs as a company (which is a corporate and strategic overhaul), I can't understand where she'd have obtained anything remotely like "turn-around" expertise. Yahoo! is going to require some outside-the-box thinking, and this hiring is about as inside-the-box as it could be (along with every other name you mentioned would have been).

But this is just one man's opinion. I hope she can pull it off; it'd be a great story.

> _"You can't just stick a "turnaround expert" in the shoes of Yahoo CEO and > expect a great result. You need someone that understands the space"_

Why can't you? What exactly _is_ Yahoo!'s "space"? Of all the poor decisions made by Yahoo! of late, why do you trust that this was suddenly a stroke of genius?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This will be interesting. She has three big challenges - with little prior experience in each:

1\. Running a public company is vastly different and considerably more complex than managing large teams. She has to build an executive team capable of executing on all fronts. This is beyond hiring the best engineers and product managers, it is about hiring a CFO, COO, GMs, VPs, etc. that can execute on the plan set out by the CEO.

2\. Managing a stagnating business requires different skills than a rapidly growing business. Google benefitted from exponential growth in usage, users, revenue. Yahoo is already over the hill. Most incoming CEOs do a top-down review of the business to understand assets and liabilities. They visit customers and large investors. In the end, they have to present a credible plan to the BOD for refocusing the business. Where should you invest or divest? Should you be aligned along product lines, geographically, or along customer segments?

3\. Yahoo needs deep tech investments - to do so, it must attract and retain brilliant engineers. It is my understanding that Ms. Mayer's focus at google has been product and not technology. Without proper engineering, the best product ideas will fizzle. How will Ms. Mayer attract the best engineers to Yahoo? Without growth, it is hard to convince the best engineers to join your shop.

</comment><comment><USER33> "Ms. Mayer resigned from Google on Monday afternoon by telephone. She starts at Yahoo on Tuesday." - That's quick.

<comment><USER34> For the rank and file 2 weeks is standard.

For upper level executives as soon as you resign you're escorted out the door by security and you're not allowed to touch anything. The level of access you had was so high that they don't want you learning anything more about the company's plans and want you out asap.

I doubt anyone cared that she resigned by phone.

<comment><USER35> She should have done it by G+ hangout

(my opinion)

<comment><USER36> Or Yahoo 360. What? It never launched? Well, she could do it on Yahoo Mash. Huh? Got shut down? Or she could post a link on Yahoo Buzz. What's that? Also dead? Crud, maybe she could post it to facebook.

<comment><USER30> First acquisition (or partnership) should be meetings.io

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Is it possible that Yahoo is just too far gone to be helped? Her head must be filled with dozens of ideas for changing the corporate culture there, but would any of us honestly believe anything could save Yahoo at this point?

<comment><USER38> There's another way to look at it. With $1bn of net income in 2011, Yahoo! can clearly turn a profit.

Could any of _us_ here on HN forge a great, long term business from a profit stream of hundreds of millions of dollars? I'm sure quite a few could, and Meyer surely stands a good chance.

Even if she has to turn the organization upside down, make major branding changes, or fire key staff, Yahoo! has the _resources_ , at least, to change for the better. It has just lacked the willpower, till now hopefully.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> That's might be really good news for Google users: I think products that she used to run, like local business reviews on Android maps have a new chance now.

<comment><USER40> Care to elaborate?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Clearly she's done good things at Google, but I think the chances of her being able to right what's wrong at Yahoo! are very low. Best of luck to her.

</comment><comment><USER42> Its a great coup for Yahoo.

I think Yahoo's problem is the fact that its search side of things has collapsed. Primarily it was this that made the company so big. Now that search has effectively collapsed they don't appear to have a core product.

This means the question "What does Yahoo! do?" can't really be answered.

If you ask that question of Google. You answer. Google is a search engine which also does...

If you ask that question of Amazon. Amazon is an online store which also does...

With Yahoo? Yahoo.. owns a bunch on interesting products? It has no core and without a big central product to build around it has been hard for successive CEO's to actually drive the company forward.

I have no idea what Mayer can do to resolve this.

</comment><comment><USER43> When does Yahoo's contract with Microsoft for the search engine expire? 2014? I think she will quickly switch to Google search engine after that. And there goes half of Bing's market share.

<comment><USER44> It's a 10-year contract that expires in 2019: [http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2052024/Its-Official- Mi...](http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2052024/Its-Official-Microsoft- and-Yahoo-Finally-Strike-Search-Deal)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> She did the right thing. I think she had peaked at Google.

She risks "failure" at Yahoo, but that's why this is the right move. What was she to do at Google -- just drift along as the cofounders continue to (rightly) control the company?

I've never been a huge fan nor a detractor of Mayer, but I'll be rooting for Yahoo now. It's about time for another epic comeback story in SV. Long odds, but that's why this is fun.

</comment><comment><USER46> One thing I'm wondering as I read this is whether there has ever been a successful turnaround at a dot com company before. I can't think of any. If anybody can think of one, I'd be interested to hear it. I think Yahoo is still going to shrink a great deal, but that has little to do with their CEO. You can't expect one person to reinvent a company that does not have typical operations. By that I mean you can't improve processes or introduce vastly better products. Yahoo's only chance at growing is to expand into new product lines. That's why I don't necessarily think Mayer is a great match. I would be far more interested if a Tim Cook type had been chosen. Not because of the ties to Apple, but because of his expertise in operations and real business experience.

</comment><comment><USER47> _Ms. Mayer resigned from Google on Monday afternoon by telephone._

That must have been an interesting call (to Larry?) to make...

<comment><USER48> Especially given that Larry has lost his voice.

<comment><USER49> that only makes it more awkward...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> If I'm not mistaken she has been in charge of Google Local for a while. This is an awful, awful product. Buggy as hell, ugly, and absolutely no inspiration or cleverness anywhere to be found. If that product was truly her responsibility, God help Yahoo.

<comment><USER51> She was in charge of Geo, which is a broad product area that includes Maps, Earth, Local, Street View, Maps for Mobile, Zagat, etc. Local may suck, but most people think Maps is pretty good.

<comment><USER50> Maps was great when she took over. Local was very important because the push was to get all businesses using Google Local (this is why they promoted it to the top of all search results, etc, and why they tried to buy Yelp).

Despite the obvious value to them, the product was and remains very poor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned the Glass Cliff <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cliff>

"women are more likely to occupy positions that are precarious and thus have a higher risk of failure - either because they are appointed to lead organizational units that are in crisis or because they are not given the resources and support needed for success"

</comment><comment><USER53> It was quite clear that the only way she could move up and grow would be to either start a new company, and what would that be that after Google, or leading another huge company. Great choice, I am rooting for her, and for Yahoo.

</comment><comment><USER54> This is just brilliant news for Yahoo. Much as they have become a figure of ridicule in Silicon Valley, I have hoped year after year to see a Yahoo resurgence. This is finally a real chance at a turnaround.

Of course now we have to see if potential acquirers (particularly those going up against Google) suddenly see Yahoo as a much better target if they can get Mayer in the deal. (MS, FB, I'm looking at you!)

</comment><comment><USER55> I hope she'll sell all that search and mail junk to Microsoft and turn Yahoo into the Flickr company.

Flickr is profitable and awesome!

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm just gonna leave this right here: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcSujceZDmg>

<comment><USER56> Downvotes? Aww, you guys need to lighten up!

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Marissa Mayer: "it was a reasonably easy decision" ...

This is probably what went through her mind... If Larry can lead Google, and I being the smarter one of the two ...

Despite all her flaws, she may actually succeed at Yahoo! just to prove her critics wrong. So congrats, and best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER58> This may be a silly question...but is Mayer now legally obligated to liquidate her Google stock position?

I would assume that owning a large amount of stock of one of your major competitors, as the CEO, could create some conflicts of interest for shareholders...no?

I am not insinuating that this is some sinister plot by Mayer to boost her Google stock holdings - I don't think there is anything she could do at Yahoo to do that, other than possibly shift their entire ad budget to Adwords...but even that.

Either way, I would love to know those sorts of 'quirky' implications on such a decision.

Especially given that the vast majority of her compensation is now in Yahoo stock.

I also wonder if it would be a 'legal' issue, or a moral issue.

</comment><comment><USER59> Congrats goes out to Marissa Mayer. I don't know her reputation inside Google but from the interviews I've watched of her, she seems very articulate and focused. Hopefully she can help Yahoo with clearer focus and better execution.

</comment><comment><USER60> Marissa is one of the few people that can give Yahoo! any sort of chance at success.

I wish her luck.

</comment><comment><USER61> I think she is very capable of turning Yahoo back into an engineering-focused company. Best of luck.

<comment><USER62> Was Yahoo ever an engineering-focused company?

[http://blog.phanfare.com/2009/07/its-official-yahoo-is-a- med...](http://blog.phanfare.com/2009/07/its-official-yahoo-is-a-media- company-microsoft-is-a-technology-company/)

<comment><USER20> Yahoo's roots were actually in a _rejection_ of engineering.

For years their primary product was their human-curated directory of Web sites. It was popular because the quality of results returned by the algorithmic search engines of the time (HotBot, Lycos, AltaVista, etc. -- you young 'uns in the crowd may need to look them up) were so poor that you had better odds of finding what you were looking for in Yahoo's directory. The directory left out vast numbers of sites, of course -- that was the cost of trying to manually maintain an index of the Web as it exploded in size. Human curators couldn't keep up with that growth; only software could. But Yahoo bet that software would never be as good as humans at finding the site you were looking for.

Then Google came along and built software that could index the whole web _and_ return relevant results from it, and that knocked the bottom right out of Yahoo's manual-curation approach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Wonderful news, I actually have optimism about Yahoo's future for the first time in years.

Now the whole board needs to go - there is no question about that.

</comment><comment><USER64> I'm optimistic as long as she is given enough freedom to do what she wants to do.

Wonder if there will be a "Why I Left Google" blog post :)

</comment><comment><USER65> It will be interesting to see what happens at Yahoo now that someone who actually knows what they're doing is at the helm.

</comment><comment><USER66> I guess Yahoo just became a tech company again not a media one. This is actually a brilliant move. YHOO's biggest challenge is retaining quality developers. Developers will feel way more inclined to either a) Stay or b) Think about joining than they were under the previous several leaders.

</comment><comment><USER67> This is so exciting. I can't wait to see what she comes up with. Everyone is gonna benefit from this.

</comment><comment><USER68> I am so happy for Yahoo! Hope she gets Yahoo! back to the place where it deserves to be.

</comment><comment><USER69> Here is what she will do:

1\. Cut. Cut as much as possible. 2\. Refocus on mobile. May be partner with nokia or microsft or other falling company to provide default content to other platform 3\. When yahoo is stable enough. Sell or merge the company.

<comment><USER70> Why would you bring in someone like Mayer to do that? Any MBA type could do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I believe this change of guard might open a possibility of future Yahoo buy out by Google. I feel that it will be very hard for Yahoo to survive and future sale will be an option. In that case, Google might have an upper hand.

</comment><comment><USER72> This is amazing news. I think Marissa Meyer is the first potential savior of Yahoo! I am excited about this, I think we'll start seeing a set of good things come out of this decision. Big loss for Google though.

</comment><comment><USER73> I swear I read that headline as 'trapped' not 'tapped'.

</comment><comment> rush-tea This move would be similar to Sanjay Jha moving from Qualcomm COO to Motorola Mobility CEO. Look at what happened now. Sanjay Jha not only got a nice compensation package from Motorola Mobility but also a great deal from leaving the CEO at MM after Google acquisition and another reputation to boot as being the one who revive Motorola from zero to hero (being acquired)

</comment><comment><USER74> I wonder if this means Bing is out and we'll see a new partnership with Google in the coming months. If so, it's a total ninja takeover :)

</comment><comment><USER75> Trying to think of explanations for this. First thing that comes to mind is a Dilbert cartoon where the new CEO takes over to run the company into the ground. While Yahoo's news, shopping, maps and search traffic is probably only a fraction of Google's it's still worth something. Why not install an insider at Yahoo and slowly help the traffic move over?

</comment><comment><USER76> Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.

</comment><comment><USER77> I've not dealt or indeed met her so I can't realy comment much beyond from what I have read that she certainly will not be any worse than what they have had before.

One tip I will give, whoever is CEO of Yahoo, vote the board out as they seem to make alot of bad mistakes and will only end up blaming you for them.

</comment><comment><USER78> I read that as Trapped

</comment><comment><USER79> Turning around yahoo - a big corporation like that is like changing an old mans behaviour who has been set in his own ways. Mayer though showed success at google has less chances to succeed . Nevertheless considering her experience on search she wouldn't have made a better choice .

</comment><comment><USER80> Brilliant move! So they finally managed pull out a rabbit out from their ass. Jokes apart, Marissa is an excellent product manager and a strategist, and with her kind of experience at Google from it's good old days till now - she's just the flu shot that Yahoo needs.

</comment><comment><USER81> Her first priority should be to restore Flickr as a leader in photo and video sharing. With her "coolness" factor at the helm (even though personally I don't think she's that cool) this is possible, and the world would be a better place for it.

Flickr is Yahoo's best long term asset.

</comment><comment><USER82> $100 says Yahoo is acquired by Google in the next three years. Any takers? I am imagining/hoping for a more successful version of the Stephen Elop leaves Microsoft, runs Nokia, forms a strong partnership with Microsoft. But this time, Yahoo is even more in the pits.

<comment><USER83> I'll take the other side of that bet. Yahoo has nothing Google needs, and won't within 3 years, even with Mayer reforming it.

There's also a cost to acquisition beyond just the monetary - <USER2> and cultural namely. Not worth it for Google.

<comment><USER84> _Yahoo has nothing Google needs_

Flickr+Picasa=I might actually use Google products in a social way.

<comment><USER85> merging two good products does not make a great one.

<comment><USER84> Flickr _is_ a great product, it's more like having google plus riding on Flickr's coattails.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Majority of people surveyed who are familiar with Mayer think she will turn Yahoo around: [https://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/view?survey=...](https://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/view?survey=hwzvifanwr5xu)

</comment><comment><USER87> If she tries to make Yahoo be exactly like Google circa ~2007 it will be a massive success.

<comment><USER88> How so? They have to compete with the current Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> She should start with a new logo.

</comment><comment><USER90> While I don't care much for Yahoo or any brand, I love seeing someone who seems to have been over looked for a long time get a chance, albeit with a less than ideal situation but that's half the fun -- doing what others say can't be done.

</comment><comment><USER91> [http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/16/marissa-mayer-the-first- eve...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/16/marissa-mayer-the-first-ever- pregnant-ceo-of-a-fortune-500-tech-company/) \- Respect.

<comment><USER92> It will be very interesting to see her juggle a pregnancy and being a new CEO. I wonder if she goes "MIA" for a bit after she has the baby.

<comment><USER93> Pregnancy doesn't really affect your ability to work (except for complications that require bedrest, and even then you work from home). A newborn does require care from the mother, but many women are able to return to work full time after 6 weeks (and some as early as 3 weeks). She'll probably be on leave for a few weeks after baby arrives, but I'm sure she'll be able to keep an eye on things even while she's gone (this is why the night nurse was invented).

A baby and a career are not mutually exclusive, I just wish people would stop assuming that they are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> Yahoo! needs to decide if they are a content company or a technology company. I'm not sure which is the right one, but I think Mayer has shown she can focus and can get other people to focus as well.

</comment><comment><USER95> So she was head of Search at Google at one point right?

I wonder what it would be like to become CEO of a company who has outsourced their whole search and advertising stack to Bing.

Will Yahoo! start caring about search or ads again?

<comment><USER96> I wouldn't bother. They are so far behind both Bing and Google that trying to play catch up in the search game is simply a lost cause.

They have significant traffic and brand loyalty for certain services (finance, sports, etc). They need to focus on that, not chase a game they lost ages ago (search).

<comment><USER97> Just because they've "lost" search doesn't mean they can't make money off of it. Opera "lost" the browser market a long time ago and is still making money.

<comment><USER66> I'm not sure that's the analogy she would have used to wow the Board. Yahoo has a totally different audience that spends a lot of time on their site consuming content in a very different way than say Google or Bing. The opportunities for them to monetize them are very different but no less exciting. Yahoo has just struggled with a) determining which ones are strategic, b) enhancing those ones and c) creating a smoother experience between those. Sounds like a role for a very solid product manager to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> This is definitely stunning news. Marissa of all the people. All I can say is - wow! Time will tell where this leads to, but hey if anyone has the charisma to pull off miracles Marissa is the one.

</comment><comment><USER99> Wow, this is so crazy it just might work.

I'm not sure _what_ Yahoo would look like in succeeding under Mayer as CEO, but I have to imagine it would be substantively different than what it looks like now.

</comment><comment><USER100> I allways think that Yahoo should split in two, a media/content company and a tech one.

Why? Because now it's a two head horse, and each head wants to go it's way but the other head goes opposite.

What do you guys think?

</comment><comment><USER101> I'm genuinely surprised that no-one's discussing the possible acquisition of yahoo by google as a result of this. Or is that naive? Or cynical? Or perhaps just dumb...

<comment><USER102> Seems unlikely to me. The Motorola acquisition took forever to get through the EU, and that's a different industry. The legal burden of acquiring a major direct competitor like yahoo would be more than the company was worth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> Wonder if they also asked Sheryl Sandberg? Seems that she would be another one to move given that Zuck is probably going to be CEO for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER104> Her twitter profile now says "@Yahoo". And her and her partner are expecting their first child, due October 7th. Exciting times for them.

</comment><comment><USER105> Guessing she's saying... "First thing we're doing is adding threading to email"

Or... "Internally, we're going to use Gmail for corporate work, Yahoo!"

</comment><comment><USER106> Wow that really is an audacious move from Yahoo!

</comment><comment><USER107> My thoughts goes like this....

Down the line, Yahoo will sell itself to Google. Just like EDS was sold to HP. Consolidation is on the horizon.

</comment><comment><USER108> I thought Yahoo! was a dying brand, why would anyone want to leave Google of all places for them at this point?

<comment><USER75> Yahoo is dying but it's not dead. All that remaining traffic has to go somewhere. Google has a clear incentive to take that traffic for themselves instead of letting fb or someone else have it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> I wonder if this was apart of the Kevin Rose acquisition, who seems to have somewhat of a holistic understanding of local. Google better find someone equally amazing to replace her though, and fast.

</comment><comment><USER110> Wow this is very huge. Look out Google!

</comment><comment><USER111> Might just be a new beginning for Yahoo

</comment><comment><USER112> I don't even know what Yahoo does. I never use that site, except for a couple crappy-looking Yahoo groups sites.

</comment><comment><USER113> Google has to sue Yahoo!, right? She has to be walking away with trade secrets for local and search.

<comment><USER114> Good luck in California - worker's rights here are pretty hard to attack.

There's a possibility this is a coup by Google - if Yahoo defects to Google search engine it's nearly checkmate for Bing.

Remember, Melissa and Page were once a thang: <http://gawker.com/152210/editorial-googles-power-couple>

Regardless, I wish the best for Yahoo and Marissa. It would be good to have a strong Yahoo back in the scene - lots of incredible talent there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> Calm down, everybody.

</comment><comment><USER116> This will play out much like Armstrong at AOL. Lots of flailing around, another attempt at altering Yahoo's trajectory, and ultimately a further devalued company (not specifically because of anything Mayer will do, but because there's nothing that can stop Yahoo's erosion).

At some point the conclusion needs to be reached that the core of Yahoo is the problem. The products that generate the bulk of their sales are at best stagnant with no growth left, and at worst are slowly collapsing. Once that's properly digested, the company then needs to be blown apart and liquidated to the highest bidders.

Maybe there's a smaller core that could be focused on as a source of innovation and growth, but it's definitely not what makes up the bulk of Yahoo's $20 billion market value. If the goal is to generate shareholder value, Mayer should focus on getting her hands around an engine of growth that she can really add value to; a smaller Yahoo where she can drive a few growth products (assuming those can be found first). So much of what Yahoo does is maintaining a flat-lined late 1990s group of products.

<comment><USER117> Good advice. So according to you nothing can be changed at Yahoo! no matter who comes in. Apple was in a similar situation not long ago and I am sure there were people like you commenting similarly. I am not saying Marissa is similar to Steve Jobs but at least she has the credibility and qualification to make things work. Why comment when you have nothing to add?

<comment><USER116> Apple is a once in a century example, good luck with that.

And besides, I didn't suggest nothing can be changed at Yahoo. I didn't say that at all.

I said it should be blown apart, and the stagnant 1990s products should go. Mayer should put her talents to work on a smaller core where growth can be achieved with new products.

Yahoo Finance? Yahoo Sports? Search? Yahoo Mail? 1998 era portals? There's no growth there. She might be able to revitalize energy into Flickr and adjust it to a smart phone world, that'd be one existing major product worth giving some attention to (for example).

Unless Mayer has something equivalent to the game changing PageRank approach to search, there's absolutely nothing she can do to improve Yahoo's search product. So what can she do with the existing product core exactly? Not much, stagnation is inherent to most of the product segments in question.

The real simple angle is: ok, what's the gorilla / whirlwind product that's going to revitalize Yahoo? Search? Not a chance. The content niche products like sports or finance? Nope. Web mail? Comeon. Classifieds & jobs? Nope, small potatoes. So what is it? To really grow a $20 billion company, you need to find billions in new profit. Mayer will only find that with new products. Unless you think she can take 1/4 of the search market back from Google or take a huge chunk of the rest of the web email market.

Yahoo needs a blue ocean change.

All the stagnant parts should be sold off for a huge amount of cash. And she should more or less start over and attack something new where Yahoo can own its segment and build a gorilla product with huge growth potential (instead of being 2nd or 3rd (etc) place in everything).

<comment><USER118> They've only stayed somewhat relevant the past decade due to partnerships and these legacy sorts of services. I agree 100% with this. But what are they to do? They aren't Amazon. Try and buy Netflix and battle it out with all the other digital entertainment services?

<comment><USER116> They're going to have to literally reinvent themselves. Not in the B.S. wishy- washy way they've proclaimed numerous times. But in the balls out risky reinvention where if you fail, the company potentially gets sold for peanuts. They're not going to get anywhere playing it safe at this point.

The smart phone market is still relatively wide open for new, not-yet-thought- of services. Yahoo could throw their focus strongly that direction and try to matter there, betting on the future.

Buying Netflix wouldn't be a terrible idea, they're cheap these days relatively speaking. They could bring a lot of cash to bear behind Netflix, which could be put to use beefing up their streaming selection.

There are a few potential acquisitions they could do to get pointed in the right direction in terms of products relevant to the future. Yelp and Foursquare for example. They need to be able to properly handle services they acquire however, and perhaps Mayer can do a better job of that than their previous leadership. They'd need to do something more like what Google did with YouTube.

Short of making a dramatic change, it's merely a game of milking old assets for cash and slowly fading away.

<comment><USER119> In a day when Instagram can be acquired for $1B, how much would Yahoo have to pay for Netflix? NFLX market cap is about $4.6B with $3B in assets.

<comment><USER118> Well that would certainly cover the 'risk everything to turn it around' idea posited above. I don't think anyone thinks FB didn't overpay for Instagram, it seemed like a desperate move, but then again they were flush with cash and it might be a great value compared to building their own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER120> I guess no compete not enforceable in California!</comment>


Show HN: Restabase – REST interface for SQL database - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/marin-liovic/restabase <comment><USER2> It might be interesting to take a look at PostgREST: a similar idea, though only for PostgreSQL. [http://postgrest.com/](http://postgrest.com/)

<comment><USER3> did a PR to update the readme, didn't notice that this was mysql/maria limited... had to read the package.json.

Thanks for the link to a similar option for PostgreSQL

<comment><AUTHOR> This is using sequelize as ORM so it should work with PostgreSQL too. I just haven't configured it yet.

<comment><USER3> Does sequelize present PostgreSQL metadata the same way as MySQL?

<comment><AUTHOR> According to their docs it should: [http://docs.sequelizejs.com/en/latest/](http://docs.sequelizejs.com/en/latest/) I think it is only a matter of configuration and driver used. I did not have a chance to try it out with PostgreSQL though.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Brocante Pont-Sainte-Maxence - <AUTHOR> https://brocante-pontsaintemaxence.fr/ <comment><USER2> Which programing language did you use to write it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ruby, the source code is at [https://github.com/dorian/brocante](https://github.com/dorian/brocante)</comment></comment>


Thinking of Travelling to Europe This Summer? - <AUTHOR> https://www.lawfareblog.com/thinking-travelling-europe-summer <comment><USER2> We have a common jovial saying in Europe, "Thank God only 4% of Americans have passports".

In all seriousness, we should actually be thankful that the vast majority of that 4% are genuinely awesome travelers, spending lots of money in our European economies. It is only a small minority, as with every nationality, that have a tendency to taint the barrel.</comment>


Dr. Dre Appears to Confirm Apple-Beats Deal in Facebook Video - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apple/2014/05/09/dr-dre-just-confirm-apple-buying-beats-3-2-billion/ <comment><USER2> While this makes little sense on the surface, I suspect the folks at Apple are far from stupid. There's likely a solid reason behind this move, and instead of doing the easy thing by saying "b-b-but their headphones are crap!", it'd be more productive to explore the underlying motives.

I actually think this is a smart move. Beats first and foremost is a _fashion_ company. The majority don't buy Beats for sound quality, but for the style and image. I see people wearing Beats in all sorts of colors every day on the train. NBA players are seen sporting them at practice or in the locker room. It has become _the_ fashion icon for audio-wear. In the context of Apple's recent fashion-binge with hires from Burberry and YSL, this move may provide further evidence of Apple creating/entering the wearable-tech fashion market.

This could also be a response to Apple losing ground in music streaming. Rdio, Spotify have become the default source of music for so many, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has seen a hit to their music sales. They also botched social music up with Ping, which is an area the aforementioned services are doing pretty well in. Beats may have the connections, the brand and marketing capital, to help make Apple a formidable competitor in this area. But I read here yesterday that the Beats streaming service only has 200,000 low-quality subscribers (ie they joined because their phones came preloaded with the service), so I'm less inclined to believe Apple dropped 3.2 billion on them for this alone.

Maybe it's a combination of both, or for a different reason altogether. It's intriguing, nonetheless.

<comment><USER3> > Beats first and foremost is a fashion company.

This is the key. I would add it isn't just a fashion company, it is a _premium_ fashion company. I did a quick look at Amazon [1], and the price points are fairly solid: $99 to $299 for over-the-ear headphones, and around $45 for the in-ear models.

I doubt Apple could get away with this level of mark-up if they entered the headphone space. They have a solid markup on their accessaries, but I doubt the margins are similar.

Taking a step back, I wonder what Angela Ahrendts [2] is going to do with this brand. Is the beats brand part of their iWatch strategy?

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_5?url=search- alias%...](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_5?url=search- alias%3Daps&field- keywords=beats%20by%20dre&sprefix=beats%2Caps%2C214&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Abeats%20by%20dre)

[2] [http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/angela- ahrendts.html](http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/angela-ahrendts.html)

<comment><USER4> Ahrendts will be selling its products, considering that she's managing retail operations.

Paul Deneve[1] (ex-YSL CEO) might do something with it.

[1] [http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-03/apple- hires-...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-03/apple-hires-a- fashion-ceo-but-he-wont-design-iwatches)

<comment><USER3> > Ahrendts will be selling its products.

Maybe, but that is sort of like saying Phil Schiller is _just_ going to market them. I always remember this post from Daring Fireball about how integrated Apple is:

[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/10/29/whither- phil](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/10/29/whither-phil)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Really weird to see the intersection of hip hop and tech on HN so much this week. I love it.

I understand why Beats are popular. They sound great with bass driven music. Its like when people put Bazooka sub woofers in their cars in the 90s. Yeah audiophiles and older people hated them but they sounded great with bass driven hip hop.

I still haven't figured out Apples play here. I'm starting to think its a best of both worlds with the earphone tech and the subscription services. I think they wanted them both equally hence the huge number.

</comment><comment><USER6> After two years and spending 300 million for a 51 percent stake, HTC sold their (now) 25% stake for just 265 miljoen. And a year later Apple buys it all for 3.2 billion. Wow... (edit: spelling)

</comment><comment><USER7> Beats headphones are crap, sure. And their streaming service isn't as mature as Spotify. But _three billion dollars_ isn't about headphones or online music streaming or Dr Dre's drunken celebration. It's about growth.

Apple has a chokehold on the iPod market. They've rocked the market with the iPod, iPhone, iPad and those products will be cash cows for a long time. But where is their next growth going to come from? A watch? I doubt it.

All the granola 16-year-old white girls already have their iPhone. There's _no_ room for crazy growth among middle class white people. Apple needs to use it's expertise to pursue new markets, which is exactly what they're doing.

Tim Cook isn't afraid, he's strategic. Beats by Dre is a high-end consumer lifestyle brand that GREATLY appeals to black, hispanic, urban-context, young men and women. They sell expensive products. They care about design. They represent a way of living. They're Apple in another market.

Beats is about to be Apple's international foray into a completely new growth segment. And it's genius.

</comment><comment><USER8> Maybe when Dre is an Apple employee they can force him to finally release Detox ;p

<comment><USER9> Yeah, but Jony Ive is gonna design the cover.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> All FB and Instagram content seems to now be deleted. Probably learned from 50cent's Twitter stock-ramping faux-pas a few years ago [1]

Probably makes it more likely to be happening.

If true, this makes sense framed as an acquihire.

$3.2bn to bring in Dre, a music industry genius and Jimmy Iovine, a highly influential label boss. iTunes is at risk of aging - kids' parents use it. It may be that Apple recognises the need for a brand for a younger, cooler audience who don't want to buy an MP3 file. Apple has the money but pulling labels (and artists) over to a viable subscription business model is going to take clout, influence and reputation.

I expect Dre will shortly be rapping about his unforgettable journey.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/jan/11/50-cent- ramp...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/jan/11/50-cent-ramps-stock- on-twitter)

<comment><USER11> > iTunes is at risk of aging - kids' parents use it

An angle I didn't originally think about, but I think this is a big one. Apple has seen how Facebook has aged, and may be trying to avoid the same thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is big. Although to be honest I'm still trying to understand how a company that sells quality stuff is buying the headphones that most audiophiles think is meh.

Is all this really just for the name?

<comment><USER13> This confused me too, but the quality of the headphones that come with Apple's products is not reputed to be great either. (I can't say whether this is true. Hearsay at best.)

<comment><USER14> The old Apple headphones were average (for their price), but overall the newer EarPods are much, much better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is boggling my mind, it surely can't be about quality. I bet Apple could have bought AKG, Audio Technica or Beyerdynamic for less than 3.2 Billions.

<comment><USER16> Which one of those companies commands 59% of the headphone market over $99, did $1 Billion in revenue last year, and has sky-high margins and gets mass market consumers to pay top dollar for headphones?

Exactly.

<comment><USER17> it's about the brand and the beats brand is strong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I can't believe no one has yet mentioned that Samsung just last week announced that they were entering the "Premium Mobile Audio Products" market. This likely has nothing to do with Beats' crappy streaming music software, and more to do with holding market share in Apple's main niche: fashionable hardware.

</comment><comment><USER19> When I see someone wearing Beats I think "there's someone who overpaid" \- those are the people Apple want to continue attracting, I guess that's behind this? But the price, seems steep.

<comment><USER20> You don't need to be overpaid to buy expensive image-"enhancing" crap, you just need to be very stupid about managing your money. I see plenty of people on the subway wearing Beats who don't look like they could buy their next meal. I'm sure there is at least one person in the world who has spent money from their third mortgage on those things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The video in question skipped ahead to the important piece [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guMFKBXp544#t=46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guMFKBXp544#t=46)

</comment><comment><USER22> Not only is Dre the first billionaire in hip-hop, but also the first rapper to (unofficially) announce a multi-billion dollar acquisition with such swag.

</comment><comment><USER23> Videos like this should become standard for any major SV acquisition!

<comment><USER18> For a long time, people carrying Macbooks were seen in the same light as those that are seen wearing Beats headphones: suckers who bought over-priced (ostensibly premium) commoditized hardware with superior marketing. Perhaps these companies aren't so different.</comment></comment>


New 750+ open source icons (files on github) - <AUTHOR> http://modernuiicons.com/

<comment><USER2> Awesome to see it here. Feel free to suggest more icon ideas on the GitHub issue tab.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice work and nice tutorial as well!

<comment><AUTHOR> it's not mine, but from a good friend, twitter.com/templarian

He's accepting requests as well for new icons, so if you need anything just contact him!</comment></comment>


Data Models and Word Size - <AUTHOR> https://nickdesaulniers.github.io/blog/2016/05/30/data-models-and-word-size/ <comment><USER2> And that is why size_t exists. And stdint.h with uint32_t and uijt64_t: always guaranteed to be that given size.</comment>


Pull requests are not conversations - <AUTHOR> http://antirez.com/post/pull-requests-are-not-conversations.html

<comment><USER2> Prescient - I read this right after patching [1] jekyll (static site generator) and sending mojombo a pull request on github without any mailing list or other discussion.

For quick/simple patches, I find the pull-request approach to be way less hassle. As much as I value the open source process, I simply can't be bothered to join the mailing list, post, wait for a reply etc etc for every project I write a trivial patch for, especially if it's a project I'm not planning to hack on a lot. Life's too short.

At least this way, if the project authors want my patch, they can get it easily. Otherwise I'm happy for it to just sit in my fork.

Common sense is required - sending a pull-request out of the blue for a large or structural change is asking for trouble. For trivial patches it's very convenient.

[1] [https://github.com/RJ/jekyll/commit/2f9d4f5be623f37ca79adf84...](https://github.com/RJ/jekyll/commit/2f9d4f5be623f37ca79adf84de83fcc3a1c757d6)

<comment><AUTHOR> Completely agree, for small projects, or small patches of big projects, pull requests are not that bad, but neither very good IMHO as there is always a lot of background missing.

But the kind of pull requests I receive are often fairly large. New commands implemented or other large changes.

<comment><USER3> And there's the thing: not all patches are the same.

It's not even so much the size of the patch, but rather how much it gets into the design, I think. If someone sends a largish bugfix patch that doesn't touch design then that seems ok to me. Even if you don't like the actual patch, you'll probably do your own similar (but correct) patch.

But sending even a smallish patch that messes with design would have been better with discussion first. Even small tweaks to architecture, API/ABI, UX, etc. need careful consideration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What I find most annoying is that in GitHub's world, a pull request _is_ an issue (e.g. see here: <https://github.com/rtomayko/tilt/issues>). That's totally backwards to me. A pull request is a _solution_ to an issue.

This workflow is natural to me:

        1. Someone reports an issue
        2. A patch is provided

If you follow this workflow today, you'll end up with two issues in the issue tracker. Confusing! It should be one issue and one fix for that issue.

And if someone sends a pull request (without opening a ticket first), what should I do if I agree with the feature/bugfix, but not with the way it was solved? The issue isn't fixed yet, so it's wrong to close it, but it feels weird to keep the pull request open (since I've actually rejected it). I want to close the _pull request_ only!

<comment><USER5> my thoughts exactly!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As an open source author, I prefer to discuss features with people _after_ they send their first patch. GitHub allows me to sort potential contributors into 3 categories:

1) Programmers who talk a lot without sending patches will be gently discouraged by the lack of a forum.

2) Programmers who send dirty patches, or who don't write unit tests, can be given some quick mentoring and asked to please resubmit.

3) Programmers who send clean patches with unit tests and well-written commit messages can be welcomed with open arms and fulsome praise.

If you're a UI/UX expert, or a designer, then please substitute "blog post with pictures" for "patch". All types of skills are valuable.

<comment><AUTHOR> > As an open source author, I prefer to discuss features with people after > they send their first patch.

Sure for the developer that is easy, but I don't feel well when I think at all the wasted work. Imagine running a company this way... Or compare the two models in this very real world scenario: "that's my patch, looks good?", "no sorry it was already a work in progress and is almost finished". With instead "what about adding this feature?", "it's already in the workings, thanks, but we could like to have that if you like to contribute".

But perhaps your open source project has a different nature compared to Redis. Being Redis composed of commands and data types, it is very similar to a programming language. And if you think about evolving a language in this way, via pull requests, it is easy to realize how this can't work. It's a lot more about design.

<comment><USER7> I guess it wouldn't harm to state the patching policy inside the README file.

<comment><AUTHOR> In Redis we have a "CONTRIBUTING" file in 2.2 and unstable where this is stated very clearly.

<comment><USER7> +1 Adding a license and contribution policies to an open source project are great preconditions to get bugfixes and feature contributions.

But I wonder why then sending you pull requests is an issue?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm on the jQuery team and a pull request should definitely not be the first step for us, especially for a first-time contributor. An over-the-transom solution could use an inappropriate approach, may be too much code to justify adding the feature to the project, may not meet project coding standards, or could be a duplicate because there is already a different patch landed by someone else in a branch somewhere.

Pull requests are also not bug tickets. We'd prefer that you ask on the forum if you'd like to discuss feature changes, or file a ticket (<http://docs.jquery.com/How_to_Report_Bugs>) in the bug tracker.

GitHub's pull queue doesn't provide a lot of control, which makes it less than ideal as a first-contact mechanism for a busy project. Requests can only be opened, closed, and sorted by three relatively weak criteria. That's one reason why we prefer to use the bug tracker for managing things, we have a lot more options for reporting and prioritizing there.

</comment><comment><USER9> I was reading this 10 minutes ago :)

The best bug reports are pull requests:

[http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2011/01/27/the-best-bug- repor...](http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2011/01/27/the-best-bug-reports-are- pull-requests.aspx)

<comment><USER10> Well, antirez was talking about new features and their discussion, one could assert bugs are not new features and have no requirement for discussion beyond "does this fix the bug?" and "does this code not suck?"

<comment><USER9> Although I have seen bugs which resulted in feature changes, I'm not arguing for or against anything.

It was just another post around the same subject from an equally hardcore NoSQL hacker.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is what happens when you host new and exciting open source projects on GitHub, a social coding website. Contributing to open source projects is so much more accessible than it used to be, and the exposure that GitHub gives these projects will inevitably attract all kinds of people who all have various ideas about the direction the project should be taken.

Before GitHub, these sorts of projects were announced on IRC, and were then discussed on IRC, so that everyone participating had a better idea about what direction the core developers wanted the project to be taken in. This made it more likely that pull requests were for features/bugs that the project team actively wanted people to work on.

GitHub is missing this kind of environment, so it's almost inevitable that first contact between maintainers and potential contributors usually comes in the form of a pull request.

</comment><comment><USER12> On the other hand, lots of small projects don't have mailing lists, and might not want them. The enhanced pull request feature allows a smaller community to have a good discussion about a new feature, without having to maintain a mailing list.

I think the real solution here is for Github to add a feature where pull request notifications can be sent to arbitrary email adresses (though you can probably hack around this today). This way, if the project does have a mailing list, and prefers to discuss pull requests there, then the mailing list is not out of the loop.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good point. For small projects probably pull requests are providing a way to provide a patch that is much better than using private emails and so forth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think it's very valuable to have a discussion thread interleaved with patches that get better with more and more feedback (that's what github's pull requests look like to me).

I understand what you mean about the majority of mailing list discussions not _starting_ with a patch though. On github, it would be nice if you could attach a pull request to an existing issue (last time I tried this it didn't work).

Perhaps "pull request" is a bit of a misnomer? Technically speaking it's correct, but if the idea was more that you can interleave patches with a discussion, maybe it wouldn't seem so unpalatable to your way of working. If the discussion doesn't end up merged into "master", just close the issue in question as "wontfix" or similar.

<comment><AUTHOR> what is the gain in splitting the conversation about a project between mailing list and github pull requests? Indeed pull requests are often cathedral in the desert, often without a single comment. To centralize the discussion in the mailing list makes a lot more sense IMHO, and exposes it to a much wider audience.

<comment><USER13> Good point, I don't think conversations should ever be split if possible as this is confusing. I contribute to quite a few projects that _only_ have a github project and associated issue tracker though, and "pull requests as conversations" seem to work fine in those cases.

These projects are generally smaller than redis though :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > the project mailing list is a market for the project design

It's also where design decisions are _recorded_ so that people can come along and read about them in the future.

Excellent article: it points out one of the things I don't like so much about people's use of github, in a constructive way.

</comment><comment><USER15> I use git-backed wikis for the 'conversation' part. Project mailing lists are wrong for the same reason that Subversion/CVS were wrong: Centralization turns a project political, at least that's my experience. Git's distributed storage encourages forking at a whim. If your 'conversation' is via a wiki you can fork that conversation any second.

Git-backed wiki how-to: My "wikis" currently simply are HTML pages served by gitweb right out of the repo, however I am experimenting with gollum and smeagol. That is: if your repos are on some server of your own, not github. I have no exprience with github and won't be caught dead using it.

<comment><USER16> > _I have no exprience with github and won't be caught dead using it._

...because?

<comment><USER15> \- Should it be out of service for a short time, it'd be disrupting my workflow.

\- Should it be out of service for a long time, I'd have to move to a different server and risk losing contacts that only know me by my github name/URL.

\- Most importantly: On my server I have repos that are more open that 'private' but less open than 'public'. E.g. I hand out invites to a repo to attendees of a meeting. Or I limit by location using geo-IP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Really good points, though I see benefit in the existing pull request mechanism also. It'd be interesting to consider merging the concepts of opening tickets and making pull requests.. For instance, if I could 'pull request' a conceptual feature, before there's code written and then we could discuss, add patches, and eventually merge a solution. It'd allow each project and issue the opportunity to do what's appropriate for the particular change.

</comment><comment><USER18> The Go project has a pretty good way of doing this. <http://golang.org/doc/contribute.html>

Posting a changelist for review also posts to the dev mailing list for discussion and approval.

</comment><comment><USER19> > Bla bla bla, arguing about usefulness, alternatives, what can be improved > and so forth.

What do you do when the only response is "use the alternatives" and they just plain don't work the same way?

<comment><AUTHOR> code code code -> maintain your branch.

Or if this happens too often and you are truly convinced that this should not be the case:

code code code -> open a mailing list -> fork the project.

if you are right the original developers will eventually merge everything and there will be again a sigle project handled in a bit less dictatorial way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> At least, pull-requests should be also advertised on the project's mailing- list so that conversation can be kept central.

<comment><USER21> When you submit a pull request, github sends an email to the addresses you have on record. All that would be required for your suggestion would be to add the project's mailing-list to the list of emails on the account. Though emails would be sent for every other project on your account also.

<comment><USER20> But replies from the mailing-list are not integrated into the pull-request comments, so it's not a 1<=>1 integration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Oh hey, they finally let you comment on a line in the overall diff. Thanks guys!

<comment><AUTHOR> that's why in the new model I propose you don't attach patches, but links to github topic branches.

Github is a great tool used this way.

For instance instead of polluting the thread about the design with a stupid thing about: "you could also check this other syscall" that's better served by an inline github comment.</comment></comment>


So You Want to Write a Package Manager - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@sdboyer/so-you-want-to-write-a-package-manager-4ae9c17d9527 <comment><USER2> Recent: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11088125](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11088125)</comment>


Facebook users flock to find delete instructions - <AUTHOR> http://www.news.com.au/technology/facebook-users-search-for-how-to-delete-accounts/story-e6frfro0-1225866756133

<comment><USER2> As seen on Reddit, post something obscene as a profile pic, and they'll do it for you. Which I can't help finding brilliant.

Actually, I'd absolutely love to see it become viral; I wonder how FB would cope with having more dicks displayed by its users than chatroulette!

</comment><comment><USER3> The data on related search terms "get facebook" and "sign up facebook" seems to suggest that the percentage of users seeking the way out doesn't change (supposing one can draw conclusions from these data anyway).

[http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=get%20facebook%2Cde...](http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=get%20facebook%2Cdelete%20facebook%2Csign%20up%20facebook&cmpt=q)

</comment><comment><USER4> Use [https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_a...](https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account) to _permanently_ delete your facebook account

</comment><comment><USER5> The interest has gone from 0 people in 2007 to 100 people in 2010?

(Yes, I know it is probably not 100, but how is one supposed to read those Google trends charts??)

<comment><USER6> No clue, but here's the explanation for Insights: [http://www.google.com/support/insights//bin/answer.py?hl=en-...](http://www.google.com/support/insights//bin/answer.py?hl=en- US&answer=87285)

<comment><USER7> Via that link, for tl;drs:

The numbers on the graph reflect how many searches have been done for a particular term, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time. They don't represent absolute search volume numbers, because the data is normalized and presented on a scale from 0-100.

They scale by the top value, and they normalize. Which really means it just shows growth / shrinkage, no real volume can be extracted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Starting to wonder if the media frenzy is partly a case of the media feeding the fire. I don't know many "normal" people who are "flocking to find delete instructions" yet.

Conspiracy theory time: News.com.au <= News Corporation => MySpace

</comment><comment><USER9> I would love to see this Google chart's rising trend compared to Facebook's rising user base over the same period of time. This "flock" might turn out to be an insignificant and miniscule percentage of Facebook's 400 million plus pool of active users.</comment>


Rockefeller Brothers Fund Divesting from Fossil Fuels - <AUTHOR> http://www.rbf.org/post/fund-announces-plans-divest-fossil-fuels

<comment><AUTHOR> I feel like this could be the seed for a large market shift towards sustainable energy, which could mean that renewable energy would have a flood of unprecedented new competition.

Do you think this divestment and re-investment in renewables is sufficient to catalyze a sweeping change in the market?

<comment><USER2> I think it will be very helpful. I don't see many other oil tycoons doing it for now, though. I think the Rockefeller family did it because they are much more environmentally conscious than the oil industry is.</comment></comment>


Real programmers can do these problems easily–author posts wrong solution to #4 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.svpino.com/2015/05/08/solution-to-problem-4/ref=hn

<comment><USER2> Looks like it links to a 404?

<comment><USER3> Take out the ref=hn from the URL. Somebody forgot the '?', it seems ;)</comment></comment>


The Squeal of Data - <AUTHOR> https://tedium.co/2019/03/14/teletype-computer-evolution-history/ <comment><USER2> Damn. So when I first carried a laptop, my kit included an acoustic-coupler, and a telephone cable with alligator clips.

</comment><comment><USER3> FTA: "I would pay money to see someone convert HDMI to USB-C to USB-A to PS/2 to RS-232 to current loop and then plug it into a teletype, just to see what happens."

Probably a lot of garbage characters, if anything.</comment>


Of course technology perpetuates racism. It was designed that way - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002589/technology-perpetuates-racism-by-design-simulmatics-charlton-mcilwain/ <comment><USER2> I normally wouldn't even comment on such a poorly reasoned out article, but given the climate, I don't think it does anyone good to hold back when trying to explain things. If you're intimately a part of tech implementation, I encourage you to speak up often, and politely to defuse these sort of inflammatory pieces.

To be clear, practically no one sits down and goes "How can we discriminate today?" outside possibly a few rumored actors I've heard of. This is critically important to understand if you actually want to get to the core of how we unintentionally end up with seemingly laughably biased systems. It is almost always through second or third order effects through which thus type of thing slips in.

Case and point:

Facial recognition would go something like this:

"Hey, we can use this neural network thing to recognize faces. What can we do with that?"

"Well, let's see if it can find surprising trends by feeding in our datasets, plus some control images to revolutionize the way we market to our customers! We have their Facebook or email, let's just grab a picture associated with that and see what happens."

<...something marginally useful happens...>

<...rumors spread of something marginally useful happening when applying this technique in this case...>

<...multiple companies try to eke out some competitive edge by experimenting with their own variations...>

<...a data scientist gets interested in all this hubub, and does a meta- analysis, finding some flaw, or how the entire technique basically degenerated to some form of wealth concentration or population based heatmap in a really difficult for regular people to understand way...>

<...media reports that technologists are evil racist masterminds due to the coincidental segmentation of disadvantaged populations...>

All of it coming out of a "Huh, I wonder if that would work here?"

Or you get another one, where you end up marketing to a particular demographic, but without realizing it, the thing you market is in and of itself part of the reason the demographic is what is, and doesn't foster much customer migration out of. An example being businesses operating on the basis of "poor people fees" as I call them.

Businesses set out to make tools that help people not be poor, but the income stream is structured around collecting these types of fees from their target market segment. They are looking a it business performance metrics and doing things good for business. That something good for business done for the best of reasons could in the end be bad is not a realization that a lot of people end up putting in the work to arrive at.

Technology very rarely _solves_ problems they aren't directly designed to solve. What it is really good at though is amplifying what problems already exist within the axiomatic space in which they exist. In the words of Einstein "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them."

Most tech of the last few decades has actually been designed to:

-Enable transactions that were previously untenable to facilitate given the reliance on physical means of exchange -surveillance/remote monitoring -accountability laundering -penny-pinching and fiscal optimization

Once you understand that finance has firmly decoupled from even the most remote semblance of correlation to actual utility created in anything else other than wealth movement; you'll see why it seems like nothing ever gets solved.

The problem isn't racism. It's your money is in your pocket, and we want it in our coffers with the largest ratio of value gained vs our value list that the market will allow. That simple.</comment>


Ask HN: New Vista Desktop--what would you install? - <AUTHOR>

The thread on what to install on a fresh Ubuntu install inspired me to create one for Vista.  I just got a new desktop and have it dualbooted with Vista SP1 and Ubuntu 8.10.  Up until now I've only used Ubuntu/XP. <comment><USER2> I'd get the Windows 7 beta. It's really stable, the dock (ahem 'new taskbar') is nice, and UAC is less annoying.

Anyway:

* Poderosa, or Putty Connection Manager. Tabs beat 8000 terminal windows.

* TortoiseSVN or the beta GIT app.

* PowerShell.

* eTextEditor.

* xMing if you need an X display server.

</comment><comment><USER3> 7-Zip

Audacity

Dropbox

Filezilla

Firefox

Foxit PDF Reader

Google Chrome

Hamachi

Notepad++

Putty

Taskbar Shuffle

UltraMon

uTorrent

<comment><USER4> Same, but:

\+ Spotify \+ Outpost Firewall \+ Autoruns and Process Explorer \+ WinSCP \- Ultramon and Audacity

Notepad2 instead of Notepad++</comment></comment>


Weird, Rare Clouds and the Physics Behind Them - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/clouds/

<comment><USER2> Must be cloud day - my local paragliding club has just been discussing this HG flight soaring the Burketown "Morning Glory":

[http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glance/869276/surfing-with-a- tsun...](http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glance/869276/surfing-with-a-tsunami-in- the-sky)

For those more generally interested in clouds, "The Could Spotters Guide" <http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/cloudspotters-guide/> will turn you into a certifiable cloud nut. Highly recommended it.</comment>


Show HN: Apt Careers, Survey Matching Career Recommendations to Natural Instinct - <AUTHOR> http://exclusive.aptcareers.com/s/4N3WV4 <comment><AUTHOR> "Inspired by the fact that 70% of Americans hate their jobs…"

In over a decade, no new product has been able to reverse the trend of career dissatisfaction. Enter Apt™ Careers.

Apt Careers is the only career discovery program based on brain science. It is the new standard in career discovery.

Authored by the renowned pioneer in human instincts, Kathy Kolbe, it incorporates her proven valid and reliable discoveries of natural, or conative abilities. She has brought to modern times the term conation, used by the ancient philosophers to describe what people actually do – which overrides what they want to do or have been taught to do.

Apt Careers is the only career assessment that can predict how well people of all ages are likely to perform in a wide variety of careers. That's because of Kolbe's unique algorithms. She has personally assessed all 1200+ careers featured in Apt Careers and used the data from her brain research protocols to provide the profound impact that comes from learning the truth.

The retail value of Apt Careers is $125. It is free to you for a limited time!

</comment><comment><USER2> This is phenomenal! I've struggled finding a career assessment that is in- depth without taking too much time and Apt nailed it. I would highly recommend this to any students or young adults.</comment>


Using the internet to market a new TV program - <AUTHOR>

I have an idea for a new lifestyle program that can be marketed thru FaceBook and offer people a free view of the 30 minute pilot. They can sign up on a fixed term membership site to watch the series of programs. Does anyone have any experience of doing this? <comment><USER2> people today have 100s of channels, nobody will pay you to watch your show

give it away and make money on ads

imo</comment>


Recommended wireframing tools? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
I would like to know which wireframe tool you guys would recommend that is fast and easy to learn and preferably free.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Pen and paper. In my experience these make it much easier to quickly show your mockups to people.

</comment><comment><USER3> Balsamiq - Not free but, IMHO, it's the best out there.

<http://balsamiq.com/>

<comment><USER4> I have used Balsamiq, I like it but it lacks some features that I think are very important. You can't create a component for reuse or any "Master Pages", so if you have common parts used in many screens and you have to change some of these parts you have to repeat the changes in every screen. Also there are no projects. If Balsamiq implemented those 2 things I would be delighted. Meanwhile I'm trying ForeUI.

<comment><USER5> For symbols, see <http://balsamiq.com/support/documentation/symbols>

For projects, we're working on them (they work on <http://balsamiq.com/products/mockups/mybalsamiq> for now). In the meantime, see <http://balsamiq.com/support/tutorials/projects>

HTH! :)

<comment><USER4> Mmmmm thanks! That makes Balsamiq a lot more useful!!!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> pencil <http://pencil.evolus.vn/en-US/Home.aspx></comment>


Unicode Character 'White Diamond' (U+25C7) - <AUTHOR> https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/25c7/index.htm <comment> core-questions Well, it is what you say it is, but why?</comment>


Billion dollar climate-denial network exposed - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/billion-dollar-climate-denial-network-exposed/ <comment><USER2> Even though the underlying research is paywalled, the methodology is openly available and very interesting. It lists all the organisations in the study and their funding sources, plus the structure used for categorising their involvement. Look under Supplementary Material here: [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7)

<comment><USER3> I find the methodology questionable. First, build a list of denier organizations based on anyone who has ever been remotely associated with known climate-deniers. This includes being labeled a conservative organization. Second, classify the organizations on a scale that categorizes anyone who neither remains totally silent nor actively encourages immediate government action as some form of denier. Third, pull all the publicly available funding data you can find on those organizations since 2003 and attribute it all to climate change denial.

Lots of these organizations are almost totally focused on non-climate change issues. There is no attempt made to figure out what fraction of their revenue might actually support climate change work, if any. (It would be difficult, given how little data 990s provide, but there are proxy measurements: number of staff working on climate change relative to total staff, number of climate change studies relative to total studies, etc.) Instead, if an organization so much as expresses some small doubt that immediate government action is the best solution to climate change problems, all of their revenues for years are considered to deny climate change.

This study is like the Glenn Beck chalkboard of climate change denial conspiracies.

<comment><USER2> Without seeing the actual paper I don't think it's fair to assume that no adjustment is made to an organisations funding to account for their level of involvement with climate change debate. The methodology paper appears to categorise them into 4 levels of involvement which could be used in the paper to weight the funding amounts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Calling this a 'billion-dollar' network is misleading. Heritage and AEI are conservative policy think tanks with a variety of topics they write on, and counting their whole budgets is rather odd math.

<comment><USER5> Do they count their entire budgets? I wanted to get more details, and followed the link back to the original story on Wired UK ([http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-12/21/denial](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-12/21/denial)), which linked to the journal article in question at: [http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7](http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7), which is sadly behind a paywall.

At any rate, I didn't read anything in the article that detailed their methodology well enough to see how you can conclude they are counting the entire AEI and Heritage budgets. They note the organizations get $7B USD in total donations, so if only 15% or so of their activity was climate denial related it would be an accurate title. Which seems completely plausible.

EDIT: why the downvote? Also, I thought it should go without saying, but they note that this isn't limited to AEI and Heritage, but that there are 91 groups they looked at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's a link to the paper on the author's university's site: [http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionaliz...](http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx)

<comment><USER7> Q: Does he test a null hypothesis.

How much money goes toward <promoting> climate change? That would actually be a far more intersting paper. Count all of the receipts and distribution of cash-flows down to the nickel on expensed taxis and expensive hotel-rooms, promotions, papers, professorships and other "self-interested" uses of what is almost always tax-payer money. There is nothing wrong at having a two-sided debate, I think the FISA courts are excellent examples on that front. People asking questions and taking opposing views is not, in the general sense any form of "conspiracy". Especially when what they are arguing over is just a proxy-war over other political topics that polite company doesn't always discuss in public--because it basically comes down to peoples sources of salary and their pay grade.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Seems kind of skewed. The groups called out by name in the article are think tanks that have large budgets and lobby for multiple and various causes, one of which might be climate change. Point understood but don't use funny data points to back up an "investigation."

<comment><USER2> The methodology accounts for varying degrees of involvement in climate change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Climate change tends to be a small (if even existent) policy area addressed by most of these think tanks. It's highly misleading claim that all revenue over several years was used exclusively by these think tanks to deny climate change.

</comment><comment><USER9> Last I checked those two organizations were also in favor of stronger Patriot Act-like laws, and other such things, probably because such laws favor their friends in the Military Industrial Complex.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a 300 word article, making a pretty big claim, that links to a $40 springer paper as it's source.

Not only can I not see what they're claiming is exposed, but the short article even mentions that most of the funding for these think tanks is routed through private trusts.

        However, Brulle admitted that tracing the funding back
        to its original sources was difficult, as around three
        quarters of the money has been routed through trusts that
        assure anonymity to their donors.

Ok...

</comment><comment><USER11> 'denying' climate change or just questioning the research?

<comment><USER12> If I were presented a very large pile of money, a large consensus and the task of changing that consensus (in order to stop changes that might cost me a very very large pile of money), I would fund both. The goal doesn't have to be changing everyone's minds.

The "moderate" voices actually hold a great swaying power in this situation. If you fund the extreme opposite to give them volume, you now have a base to provide "reasonable" voices (that you also fund) the power to say things like:

"lets not make rash decisions - lets study it more"

"Reactionary policy is awful - lets instead migrate to it slowly"

"Let's question the shady underworld of the consensus"

"Let's compromise"

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> The sad state of climate change debate is that we now have the vested interests of the fossil fuel economy pitted against the vested interests of the subsidised clean fuel economy, with their guaranteed feed-in tariffs. Not to mention the dozens of research facilities that are grant supported and would be closed down if the science and solutions were deemed to be entirely settled. All these players are fighting an existential war.

</comment><comment><USER13> So, using the same methodology as this study, how many billions of dollars are involved in the climate-change network?

<comment><USER14> Well here's the numbers for the US only :

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ost...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate- fs.pdf)

I think it's pretty safe to say that money involved in the climate change network is at least 10 times the money being invested in denier networks.

And frankly the results are equally stupid. The IPCC has released 5 reports. Their predictions were wrong every single time. AR0, AR1, AR2, AR3, the world did not warm anywhere near their 95% predictions. So let's calculate. About one report every 5 years ... 95% "certainty" interval ... that means that if you believe the IPCC "certainty" they have made the mistakes they claim to make in 800000 (20^4 * 5) years, in 20 years.

Question for empiricists : why do you believe in climate change ? The predictions of climate change theory, as compiled by the IPCC, are falsified. It SHOULD be that simple.

Needless to say, color me in the "chaotic climate change" camp. I don't say it's not gotten warmer but I do say :

1) You cannot predict the effect of energy additions to a chaotic system. It may get colder as a result (and it has). Climate change theory only works on a planet in thermodynamic equilibrium, in other words, it would work on the moon. It doesn't work on the earth. A famous paper was published in 1962 with a proof that climate was chaotic, and that should really have been the end of any prediction.

2) The fact that it's chaotic means that there is no reasonable (finite, non- omniscient) way to predict climate evolution.

3) As a matter of principle, and organisation that publishes wrong predictions 4 times in a row should be laughed out of office, and out of funding. I think that this didn't happen indicates we just really, really, really want to believe climate change is happening and is human-caused.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> and cue the shills...

</comment><comment><USER16> Internet surveillance was widely known, but not a matter of public interest until Snowden.

The climate denial network is also widely known, but not a matter of public interest. There has to be some sort of catalyst to bring climate denial info focus.</comment>