Ask HN - I just left my job today and I'm really confused. Need urgent advice - <AUTHOR> I submitted a thread yesterday asking for advice regarding my relationship with the project manager on my (ex)team [1].
Today after speaking with him again, he showed very little willingness to discuss anything, and simply cut me off and repeated the same accusations he made yesterday. I decided that there was no longer any reason for me to stay, so I gave notice by the end of the day.
He asked me when I wanted to leave, and I said today as I had already spoken to the only other dev on my team and committed and pushed all my code along with documentation I wanted to leave for the other dev. He threatened (implied) that "people" would be pissed if I didn't come in tomorrow, so I agreed to go tomorrow for knowledge transfer.
However, 3 hours ago, he removed all access from my Basecamp, Bitbucket, and Trello accounts. I know because I checked the company GMail to make sure he didn't suddenly send an email telling me I didn't need to go. Just now, I tried to check company email again, but it was disabled. My impression is that at the very least, my email should not be disabled until I am completely "gone". I'm not sure if this is standard practice, but now I am not sure if I should still be showing up tomorrow. I feel like I will arrive with my key disabled after 1 hour and 20 minutes of commute.
Any advice/suggestions would be much appreciated. It is 11:46PM here in Vancouver so I really don't know what I am supposed to do.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5942912 <comment><USER3> Yes, you need to show up tomorrow. Also: in the future, when you have a conversation about when you plan to leave the company and someone asks what date you'd like to go, pick a date 2 weeks into the future. You probably didn't intend to refuse 2 weeks notice, but your reply could have been misinterpreted. If your employer doesn't need/want you to stay for the 2 weeks, they'll tell you.

From this point on: stop spending cycles thinking about how your ex-employer is treating you, and stop feeling sorry for yourself about that treatment. It's over. Companies often have standard policies that kick in when people give notice which include cutting off all your accounts. Those practices will feel rude to you, but it's best not to take them personally.

Your goal at this point is to be as valuable to the team as you can be (regardless of how you're treated by the company). That's because leaving the best possible impression of yourself with the largest number of people at your ex-employer is the only valuable outcome left for you at the job.

Good luck with your next job. You're in a great market, and if you don't like your current employer, moving on is the right decision.

</comment><comment><USER4> If it were me, I'd show up as planned.

Remember, you're the professional here. They're the company with the crazy project manager that flipped out on you for working the hours you agreed to work when you were hired. The rest of the company is still fine in your opinion, and you're on similarly good terms with the rest of the dev team and management. If they give you any grief, it's _them_ behaving badly.

Incidentally, if they do want you to come back to help with knowledge transfer, you'll be quoting your day rate for consulting. This is not going to be less than $1,000 per day (or fraction thereof), and will be double that if you were anything other than a junior dev.

Good luck. Let us know four days from now when you've landed your next gig for more money!

</comment><comment><USER5> Go and try to make the best impression on everyone else there.

Be friendly open. Tell people you will miss working with them. Appreciate their good work. Try to leave with a good impression.

You are essentially leaving because the PM doesn't know what he want and can't judge actions of other people.

In best case he will play the role of the grumpy/stressed PM. In worst case he will try to control each step you take that day. Both is fine for you.

Try to understand it from his point of view. Most likely the team grew to fast and is now rushing into something they do not really understand, most likely are unsure about or have doubts on funding/survival/etc. His actions sound like he is simply scared. Sooner or later you will meet again and see everything from a different light.

If they ask you about future "quick calls" etc instantly agree on a hourly rate you are comfortable with.

With all that said and done. Leave with a smile on your face. From this point on you have nothing to loose and can only gain.

</comment><comment><USER6> The best way to kill douchebags is by overwhelming them with kindness.

Go there, be nice, enjoy the last moments with the collegues you like, and don't blame anyone. I feel like he is the idiot here, so be twice as gentle with him as you are with the others.

Make him look like the guy he is in front of the others, by being nice :).

Enjoy your final check, go home and think about your next steps :).

Good luck

<comment><USER7> Can't upvote this enough.

<comment><USER6> :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This seems more than petty childish behavior to me. This might sound very much out there, but for the sake of argument, just hear me out.

Are you sure your company isn't downsizing? All of his actions so far point to the possibility that he (the company?) wanted you to quit. And if he (they) did want you to quit, he (they) could have given you the pink slip?

The most obvious question that follows is, why you. Well, you did say you joined them recently, so there's less to worry about the knowledge transfer. Maybe they want to save on the severance package? Maybe they want to do it quietly without spreading panic?

The whole thing seems a bit suspicious to me. If you choose not to investigate, just make sure you deal with it professionally - <USER2> vishaldpatel's response [1].

A part of me tells me that you may just have dodged a bullet. Good luck for your future. :)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5951062](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5951062)

</comment><comment><USER9> He is probably trying to humiliate you by having you come in and at the same time take all your access. You should go in however if he crosses the line escalate the issue politely to his boss asking what you should do when you have resigned and he wants you to come in but have nothing for you to do.

Remember its a two way street. May be your are young or don't know what to do and he senses that and he is just taking advantage of your situation. I would also talk to a lawyer and see what your options are. At the end don't be afraid to act (polite but strong) otherwise the regret will stay with you.

Good luck

</comment><comment><USER10> I saw your post last night but was too tired to respond and apparently I am too late now.

As some of the others have stated, be the professional one here. As a PM - he/she/it sounds to be fairly awful but I haven't walked a mile in their shoes so it's hard to judge. It does sound like there's trouble in paradise there... As fun as it is to fantasize about the "F __k you, F __k you, I like you, F __k you... " scene it doesn't benefit you ever. I was at very similar situation at my first job. It was a very similar situation but I saw the handwriting on the wall and I found a new job. Shortly after I left they started offering early retirement and then eventually they started the layoffs.

</comment><comment><USER11> Just go. The PM asked you to come in, so it is on him. Disabling your email isn't out of line, as they want you to not receive any more official company email at this point

</comment><comment><USER12> It's best practice to immediately lock someone out from all accounts if they are leaving on bad terms. You don't want them to be sending nasty emails to customers or to delete company data. It almost never happens but sometimes someone snaps and creates a big mess.

You should come and maybe bring something nice for the people you enjoyed working with. Make sure you have a talk with the project managers boss and tell him why you are leaving. Furthermore you should act professional so don't involve your colleagues. It's nasty but it's between you, him and his boss. Your colleagues will figure it out anyway.

Best of luck finding a new job!

</comment><comment><USER13> You should go in to collect your final check. Also, if they'd like to hire you for knowledge transfer, then have a consulting rate and arrangement that you'd be comfortable with in mind. Keep it professional.

</comment><comment><USER14> You should go and wrap things up. The day will be short, but if you can get the formalities out of the way, it'll make things smoother. Get your final check, and if you've vested any shares, ensure you have documentation that outlines what you hold. Then leave the place with a smile on your face and a genuinely good attitude; there's nothing in it for either you or them to have bad blood after you've gone.

</comment><comment><USER15> Just don't touch anything. Go to the company and finish the leaving process. Anything you may try to do in the system can be seen as a problem.

</comment><comment><USER16> This does happen occasionally. Could be a paranoid exec or just an IT guy who has vacation planned tomorrow so he turned your accounts off tonight. Just go and be nice. Don't air your grievances, it will only make you look bad and everyone else is probably aware of the problems anyway. You made the right decision - things rarely get better. Trust your gut.

<comment><USER17> I would not say this was 'paranoid' behaviour, but rather standard operations procedure. Leaving access to email accounts after someone has been let go is just asking for a nasty email sent to all contacts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As I thought yesterday, the PM is a dick. And I say this as a PM, I'm not biassed against them :-)

In these situations, people don't remember what happened, but they will remember how you reacted. Be super nice and professional, so that everyone is left wondering "Geez, why did we let him go?"

</comment><comment><USER19> No way would I go if it's 80 minutes. That is like $25 to get down there and back. Why travel down there only to be not allowed in the building? I usually stick all the keys and crap in a letter size envelope and mail it.

</comment><comment><USER20> Go, they should have your final check waiting for you.

</comment><comment><USER21> Make no apologies and admit no wrong doing.</comment>


Steve Jobs Talks About His Rise and Fall (1985) - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/1985/09/30/jobs-talks-about-his-rise-and-fall.html <comment><USER2> I was in a small meeting at an investment bank with Jobs when he was at his lowest point (1994? 1995?). There were probably three of us in the room with him. He was _literally_ begging us to use the NeXT platform for even just a small test project -- offering to do _whatever would be needed_ to get the deal done. I swear, it nearly brought a tear to my eye -- seeing my industry idol so desperate. Fast forward 15 year and Apple's market cap is higher than that investment bank's market cap. And let's not forget about how Steve turned $5mm into billions with his Pixar investment and nurturing.

Great people bounce back. Steve Jobs is like flubber -- he gains more momentum with each bounce.

<comment><USER3> Would that have been First Boston? Didn't they wind up buying over a thousand of them at one time? Apparently it was great to create apps.

<comment><USER4> _Apparently it was great to create apps._

It was Objective-C, Interface Builder, similar tools to what Cocoa is today. All the cool app building tools for the Mac were born on NEXTSTEP.

<comment><USER5> Cocoa IS Nextstep - which is why the class names are prefixed NS

<comment><USER6> Trivia: actually "NS" stands for "NeXT & Sun". Old NeXT classes had an NX* prefix. (There are still a few of those lingering in Cocoa.)

The NS prefix was adopted as part of the NextStep -> OpenStep transition around 1993, when Sun was planning to use OpenStep as their main desktop environment. That never happened because soon Sun got Java religion and dumped OpenStep.

<comment><USER7> I didn't know that. In fact everywhere I have read, it is assumed that NS stands for NeXTStep. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great quotes here! My favorite so far:

"I helped shepherd Apple from a garage to a billion-and-a-half-dollar company. I'm probably not the best person in the world to shepherd it to a five- or ten-billion-dollar company, which I think is probably its destiny."

</comment><comment><USER9> "It is hard to think that a $2 billion company with 4,300-plus people couldn't compete with six people in blue jeans."

The best part is they couldn't. They ended up buying NeXT to use NeXTSTEP as the basis for OS X (and later, iOS).

</comment><comment><USER10> Once you're lucky, twice you're great.

<comment><USER11> Or else, just very very lucky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So many great quotes.

Q. Now that you're 30 and an estate owner, do you see a settled life for yourself, a family, big Silicon Valley parties, furniture?

A. Actually, I bought a few Eames chairs so I have a place to sit down and read a book, other than the floor.

</comment><comment><USER13> Wow, great reading that as a little historical piece. I was about 7 when that article was written, so I'm pretty sure I missed it when it was first published. The thing that strikes me is that I have always thought of Jobs as a guy who exudes confidence. But in this interview he is pretty broken. He seems happy with himself, but you can sense he is quite battered.

I think it's interesting that people from Steve's generation had Hewlett and Packard as role models. I'd venture to guess many people from my generation would have Steve and/or Bill Gates. Given what has happened to HP over the years and the current state of Microsoft, I wonder if Apple can really maintain the spirit of Steve after he is gone.

</comment><comment><USER14> Ironic quote: "And in 10 years will I be faced with the same dilemma again? Maybe, maybe I will." This turned out to be almost exactly right, as he rejoined Apple just 11 years later.</comment>


We Should All Use They/Them Pronouns - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/why-we-should-all-use-they-them-pronouns/ <comment><USER2> I've been using singular they for as long as I can remember. Sometimes you don't know a subject's gender, and most of the time its irrelevant. Using they is just easier, usually natural, and only rarely stilted. People use and respond to it in speech without even realizing it, and it only catches their attention, if at all, in writing.

Once upon a time, before the debate really hit the mainstream, the predominate rule in academia was still to use "he" as the neutral or indefinite. I tried but it always seemed... wrong. I got into an argument with a writing instructor once, not because I was invested in the gender debate, but because singular they just seemed so obviously like the correct approach I couldn't understand the pushback. Fine, deduct points because I didn't follow the specified grammar rule--to use he. That's fair. We're being graded on how well we follow the specified rules. But at least _admit_ the rules are wrong in so far as they purport to reflect reasonably correct professional usage. Don't deny the obvious and inevitable! It was so frustrating.</comment>


Joining Google to better explain search - <AUTHOR> https://dannysullivan.com/my-new-chapter-joining-google-5740 <comment><USER2> Please be a proponent for veracity metrics on news stories and "viral articles" ... it's about time we as users get to see the measure of reliability and trustworthiness of search results. Cheers, may your new role bring you great happiness, and may the quality of our lives increase positively as a result.

<comment><USER3> > Please be a proponent for veracity metrics on news stories and "viral > articles" ... it's about time we as users get to see the measure of > reliability and trustworthiness of search results.

Google does lots of things I like, but I see close to zero evidence that they have developed the competency to act as an arbiter on any of veracity, reliability, or trustworthiness of news articles (or even less-timely information on the web.)

Relevance and my likelihood to be _interested_ , yes. But those other things...no.

And that's even aside from the question of whether Google using its dominant search position to inject editorial commentary on search results is a good thing or, in the long term, a bigger threat than the one it would be addressing.

<comment><USER4> I agree.

But given the position they hold I think they _need_ to develop this skill.

It's very clear that 'throw an algorithm up without thinking of abuse/negative consequences and fix it later' works terribly.

<comment><USER3> I'd rather Google provide a framework to integrate third-party ratings; we don't need a monopoly arbiter of online truth that's also a monopoly search provider.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I echo the idea that he will try to fill the Matt Cutts role that mikkelewis mentioned in the comments. SEOs always knew to turn to Cutts when they had a question and it hasn't been properly filled since he left. I have a feeling we will be hearing from Mr. Sullivan quite a bit in the coming months. It has to be super exciting going from being an outsider (although well known and connected) to a Google insider. I wonder how others in the SEO community feel about it?

</comment><comment><USER6> Fair to say that it'll be similar to what the public was used to with Matt Cutts? imo his departure left a hole between Google Search <-> public.

<comment><USER7> Yes and no. Matt oversaw search spam efforts and was an engineer. I won't be doing that. And I'm definitely not an engineer. Matt was also a lead on webmaster relation issues. That's not going to be my focus. There are good people who have already been doing that. Matt did often address broader search issues, and the role will encompass that. It also will be taking in feedback from the public and sources and seeing what can be done to promote change. I'll have more to share after I get through a few weeks of settling in.

<comment><USER8> _Matt was also a lead on webmaster relation issues. ... There are good people who have already been doing that._

Can you suggest some?

I'm still trying to resolve a years-old issue that Matt Cutts gave me incorrect information about. You can read our back-and-forth (before he stops responding) here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5418864](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5418864)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ok, then. Here's what I want:

= Give me my + operator back.

= Don't "guess" at additional matches not specified in my search terms (beyond stemming). Or let me trivial, simply, and immediately specify such handling.

= Tell me the collection / last updated time of results returned, and let me actually, effectively filter based on these.

These alone should help me start to evade the massive pollution of search results that have me cringing a bit internally these days, in anticipation, every time I'm about to search for something that isn't a trivial response/result.

Thanks

<comment><USER7> I'd love to see + do what + was supposed to do and not do the guessing. Has been frustrating to me, too -- though I suspect (this is part of what I'll be learning) that for the vast majority of people, it might help. In the meantime, when you search, after doing a search, look for Tools under the search box then select "Verbatim" which is supposed to do exactly what you ask.

<comment><USER9> Thank you. That has been mentioned, previously, and I believe there is also a corresponding query string value that can be appended to a search URL to enable it.

At least that would amend itself to e.g. being incorporated into a bookmarklet for one-click access.

<comment><USER9>
        javascript:void((function(){var%20loc%20=%20location.href;%20loc.indexOf("?")%20==%20-1%20?%20(location.href%20=%20loc+"?li=1")%20:%20(location.href%20=%20loc+"&li=1");})());

or, taking a bit more care:

        javascript:void((function(){var%20loc%20=%20location.href;%20if%20(loc.indexOf('li=1')%20>=%200)%20return;%20loc.indexOf("?")%20<%200%20?%20(location.href%20=%20loc+"?li=1")%20:%20(location.href%20=%20loc+"&li=1");})());

or I guess it could be modified further to change the parm if it's already present with a different value.

Modified from (because I'm lazy):

[https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20677974/bookmarklet- to-...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20677974/bookmarklet-to-add-a- parameter-at-end-of-each-url#answer-20678352)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Relevant to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15301014](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15301014) , which had its title changed.

I don't think that anybody deciding to work for Google, FB, Amazon from this point on can use any excuse to disassociate themselves from the actions of their company.

</comment><comment><USER11> ..Wondering about the ethics of Sullivan being at Google while still associated with SEO best practice entity searchengineland...[http://searchengineland.com/about](http://searchengineland.com/about)

<comment><USER7> I actually stepped down as being an advisor. They just haven't updated that part of the page. In my post, I address this. Bottom line: I don't plan to treat the company any differently.

<comment><USER11> Fair enough - thanks for all the hard work on searchengineland, great site!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Enjoyed your previous published columns Danny, congrats!

Any chance you can push back on the recent change to how maximum daily budgets are handled that Matt Southern wrote about a couple days ago? Kind of ridiculous and experienced paid search managers are outraged at what appears to be yet another attempt to snatch control over accounts from managers.

[https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-doubles- adwords-b...](https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-doubles-adwords- budgets-advertisers-unhappy/217577/)

</comment><comment><USER13> I would think that after following Google's search endeavors so closely for so long, being invited to join Google and see it from the inside must be incredibly exciting.

If it is, congratulations! Have fun!

</comment><comment><USER14> _That something different has arrived: I'm joining Google as of Monday_

You get a paycheck from Google, which is at least honest and upfront.

Danny Sullivan has been shilling for Google for over a decade, always taking their side.

</comment><comment><USER15> > _The goal is to increase the connection between those at Google who work > hard on search each day and the public that depends on Google for answers. > I'll be educating the public about how search works. I'll be exploring and > explaining issues that may arise._

So this is a PR position? I don't care much about that part...

> _I'll be looking at ways to take in feedback and work for solutions to > improve search going forward._

That would be interesting if anything real comes out of it, but I fear it's the first thing he'll be spending most of his time on.

<comment><USER7> It's not a PR position. I don't work for corporate communications. I work for the search team. I'll be sharing more about the role after I have more time at Google and shape it more. But it's definitely not PR.

<comment><USER16> It sounds more like Matt Cutt's external role.

If I were still at Google, I'd send you a welcome email and point you to the few things that I thought you got wrong in the past (mainly due to lacking the same context as those on the inside... now you can be the one biting your tongue). Quite a few of us paid attention to your writings. They were always among the most insightful, comprehensive and accurate, even when negative.

In some way, your hire might be a bit of a net loss, because now that you're on the inside, you're no longer going to be considered a neutral third party and I'm not sure that anyone out there writes as well as you did until June.

<comment><USER7> Thank you. On the loss part, I'd left journalism. So Google's not causing it -- I just really needed a change after 21 years of doing it. I appreciate your kind words about it. I'm also absolutely fascinated by understanding from the inside. That was always the hardest part. If you can't see fully, it's hard to explain things -- things that some times help people know if there's actually a reasonable or good explanation. I'm hoping that being on the inside, I'm going to be able to perhaps help Google share more than it has in the past.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Spying in America How Edward Snowden Changed History - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21714318-damning-account-devastating-intelligence-breach-how-edward-snowden-changed <comment><AUTHOR> Some nuance, but still a biased hit piece. Particularly ugly is when the author dismisses Glenn Greenwald's journalist status, which is beyond doubt, and designates him a mere digital-privacy activist.

The Economist have a history of publishing polarising articles, for and against, regarding Snowden. This book review is likely the work of Edward Lucas (TE's Energy Editor) who has himself written a book alleging Snowden has ties to the FSB (Russian intelligence, formerly the KGB).</comment>


Google: Do No Evil? Sure. But First Do No Stupid. - <AUTHOR> http://www.blindreason.org/2010/03/dear-google-do-no-evil-sure-but-first.html

<comment><USER2> The question of whether it is better to engage or not engage China has been hotly argued within Google and elsewhere. There are good points on both sides. And indeed initially Google came down on the side of engaging despite things Google didn't like. See, for instance, <http://www.lot49.com/evil_scale.html> for some of the thinking that went into that.

However after several years of trying that, censorship has increased. Repression has increased. And Google came to the position that the policy simply was not working. The attempt to compromise gmail was simply the last straw.

The OP is firmly on the side of believing that engagement is the right approach. But believing that does not mean that they are right. Perhaps Google is wrong, but after consideration and experience Google moved from agreeing with the OP to disagreeing with the OP. And even if Google actually is wrong, it is not obviously so.</comment>


SoundCloud saved by emergency funding as CEO steps aside - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/11/soundcloud-saved <comment><USER2> I am surprised that the majority of commenters believe that this marks the end of SoundCloud. SC just secured $170M in new funding with $100M revenue run rate. They have a product that many users and creators love. The new CEO is a Harvard Business School grad with experience as CEO of Vimeo, a similar media business. He brought the COO of Vimeo with him. If SC can reduce cost (not knowing what the drivers are, it is unclear how easy that is), they might be able to reach profitability quickly. This might be the start of operating SC like a real company by a real operating team.

 _" The new management should provide some additional confidence. I'd interviewed both Ljung and Wahlforss in the past, and neither had answers to the big questions facing SoundCloud about its product direction, business model, and the spurious copyright takedowns that have eroded its trust with musicians."_

On the other hand, existing employees equity value is likely wiped out in the down round. They are underwater on strike price of options, face additional dilution from prior investors' anti-dilution provisions and now liquidation multiples/preference from investors.

<comment><USER3> > The new CEO is a Harvard Business School grad

Yeah, they're toast.

<comment><USER2> That is just a bias that I recommend you try to get over. It will help you better assess people and situations.

We can debate the long list of HBS graduates that have been amazing operators in tech companies. Every CS grad isn't a great CEO & every HBS grad isn't a terrible CEO. I wish the world was that simple.

<comment><USER4> I could counter that you need to get over your own bias, which is the implication that a CEO is going to be successful or is suitable for the role simply because he went to Harvard.

<comment><USER2> I didn't claim that. Please re-read my comments and point out where I claimed that. I said "every HBS grad isn't a terrible CEO". It does not imply "every Harvard grad is a great CEO".

On SC specifically, I do believe that a company that has had issues with financial management and business model will benefit from someone with business training and experience operating a media business with similar characteristics. Kerry seems like a solid hire for the role. He may still fail.

<comment><USER5> > The new CEO is a Harvard Business School grad with experience as CEO of > Vimeo, a similar media business.

If you didn't intend to express a bias then what is half of that sentence, other than unnecessary filler?

<comment><USER2> Everything is situational. Given the set of problems that SC has in terms of business model and financial discipline, the ideal job spec would ideally have academic and work experience in the relevant area.

HBS is probably as good choice as any if you are going to get a general business background. And CEO of Vimeo seems like a great work experience with substantial ability to pattern match.

That is very different than saying that "all Harvard grads make great CEOs" If the biggest challenges were legal, I would probably want a CEO with both theoretical and practical legal background. If the biggest challenges were related to security, I would look for someone with background in security, etc.

My bias is finding a CEO with relevant prior experience. Especially in a turnaround situation, I would not want a CEO who is learning on the job.

<comment><USER6> >My bias is finding a CEO with relevant prior experience.

Should've stuck to just 'CEO of Vimeo' then. In most tech companies an MBA exec is seen as a negative (at least by the engineers). What you did matters more than whether you have a degree or not.

<comment><USER2> First, you are arguing that I should hold an opinion, because most other people hold that opinion. I prefer to think independently.

Second, you are presenting this as an "Or" between education and experience. If I had to choose, I agree with you and I would also choose experience over education. However, it is a false trade-off since this CEO has both which I would choose over just having one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ooooh boy. This feels like the kiss of death for SC. So many startups hit this point and then get rescued at the 11th hour with more funding... on the condition of ushering in a new CEO and COO to try and pivot the company's direction. They completely change up the product and drive away the users, and the entire thing collapses like a house of cards.

<comment><USER8> Seems to me like completely changing up the product was the previous direction (trying to squeeze in some kind of spotify-like product), and the article mentions explicitly the new CEO want to get back to the core value of the service.

Of course, we'll see what they mean by that and how it will be executed, but it sounds like good news, actually.

<comment><USER9> That's the problem tho, isn't it? The core value of the service was great for fans, but not for any sort of business and certainly not for the labels (without whom SC cannot exist and hope to make any money whatsoever).

<comment><USER10> Why does SoundCloud need labels? They just need a way to make money with independent musicians.

<comment><USER11> I also believe it can make money on independent musicians. But can independent musicians money _scale_ to VC expectations?

<comment><USER12> Well at this point the expectations are a little lower. "Anything but going all the way to zero" seems like the current tone.

<comment><USER13> > "Anything but going all the way to zero" seems like the current tone.

You don't invest in a company without expectations of ROI

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Slightly OT: I understand how people feel about SoundCloud. But I am surprised that most of us exactly know what went wrong. They know what mistakes the management did and where the product should have gone. They know for sure how to lead employees, in good times and in bad times. They know when you should hire and when you should fire.

I wonder how many of us who are so fast in judging have really run a mid- or late-stage startup and know what they are talking about.

I know just one thing: Leading and managing people is a super tough job. We are not talking about leading a small team. No, it's leading a corporation and worse, managing investors who are chasing you night and day and playing power politics for years while being the nice daddy VC writing witty blog posts. And don't forget the three labels who blackmail you to death but are shareholders at the same time. Stuff nobody knows. We only know that Alex went to Burning Man and fired 173 people. So he must be a bad CEO having no clue of music, product and leadership. Of course.

It's easy to give good advice from outside. But it's so hard to understand what actually happens inside. All of us who managed just a small company know what I am talking about.

Managing machines, code or even a Kubernetes cluster is easy as pie compared to what the SC founders were going through the last years. Machines are predictable, humans are not. Just read Machiavelli's The Prince and get a notion of what people are willing and able to do to deal with other people. Backstabbing is their daily business and Game of Thrones is not that far away anymore from the life of a venture-backed CEO.

Not that I like Alex and Eric very much or what they did. Honestly, I don't care at all, I find SoundClound's products and the repetoire rather mediocre and I don't believe in online music as a healthy business model.

But I don't know any founders in Europe and in Germany who raised that big funds and could keep control for that long and the product still in an ok shape. Look what Travis is going through right now. For some who have never been in such a position, they just can't imagine how high the pressure and extreme the psychological stress is, how many ultra aggressive sharks are floating around you just waiting for one single mistake. Then, loosing control of everyhing happening in and around your organization happens quicker than you can think.

<comment><USER15> The problem is this bullshit game of business as you described. Soundcloud shouldn't need that kind of headcount or costs. We need new models of business that lock out the existing shareholder and management classes and their toxic thinking in favor of a structure that is far more equitable and hierarchically flat. Soundcloud is and was only ever for the users. A small power group (headcount-wise) trying to monetize SC will always be doomed to fail.

So many beautiful ideas are destroyed by the greed and avarice that underpins 'fiduciary duty to shareholders' and their expectations of unnatural and unhealthy growth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> _Sources from the company told us the layoffs had been planned for months, but SoundCloud still recklessly hired employees up until the last minute, with some being let go within weeks of starting. Employees told TechCrunch that the company was "a shitshow" with inconsistent_

It's sad that the execs get free pass on ethics violations like these. And there are no consequences for these execs. And I don't understand why after such violations people still stay with the company.

<comment><USER17> Well mostly free of consequences. The exec team has basically been replaced and SoundCloud may still die as the result of these actions. As for why people stay with the company, there are a couple reasons. For many people, especially non-engineers it can be difficult to find another job. Many people are probably helping to try and get ex-coworkers jobs. Some may believe in the new direction. Others may be for various personal reasons, semi-stuck in the job. My guess is that you'll see a decent number of people (20-30%) leaving over the next 6 months, but that the majority will stay and help reshape SoundCloud as long as it looks like the company can still succeed.

<comment><USER5> I'm really questioning if they can really do much reshaping with the small amount of engineers remaining. Soundcloud has probably one of the most complex architectures and just lost a significant part of the people that know the system.

<comment><USER17> That's the $170M question. I definitely would be concerned about the lack of engineering. That said, the people left will find that they're able to complete significantly more work since there is less communication overhead. They will also certainly will be working on very focused projects that will affect profitability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can't SoundCloud be the recording studio that signs on popular and promising indie artists (such as SoundCloud rappers like Lil Yachty or XXXTentacion who have to promote on their own) and provide marketing, music production connections and management for them and in turn earn a royalty/cut.

This way it doesnt alienate its users but in turn empowers and supports those that people like?

Just my two cents, I could be totally wrong or that they do this already, happy to hear any feedback on this.

<comment><USER19> They could, although there's a number of other players already in that space... [https://www.audiomack.com/](https://www.audiomack.com/) comes to mind (but I know the lead developer)

<comment><USER18> In a way that validates the idea, if it was successfully tried out by another company that could mean a lot of potential for SoundCloud simply due to SoundCloud's brandname and mass amount of content contributors.

I haven't heard of Audiomack before and I checked out their website right now but I was inspired for the music management idea after seeing a lot of Youtube music videos from indie music artists linking their SoundCloud in their descriptions so I see SoundCloud more filling in the gaps better because its what musicians are sort of trying to do with SoundCloud but hacking it together in a rough way.

Edit: As well, I had a friend who was producing music and singing with some rap and RnB who heavily relied on SoundCloud and I noticed he basically self- funded his music videos by holding parties and filming it as well as promoting his music by literally going around and playing it. I think young and upcoming musicians struggle with entering the mainstream and SoundCloud can help due to its heavy base of indie or not-yet mainstream musicians and listeners.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does SC help fledgling artists get "discovered" and get record deals (financing for their art)? Could an integration with something like Patreon help increase the value of using SC: first for creating content, then for allowing others to consume it.

Also, how has BandCamp done so well as an independent music service? Any lessons to learn there and to apply to SC?

<comment><USER21> On your first point, 100% yes. I used to run a relatively popular new music blog, and have several friends who still do. SoundCloud used to make up 98% of my blog post music embeds. And that is absolutely where they went wrong, even from the get go. It would have been insanely easy for them in the last decade to implement: one-click .mp3 purchases for individual songs, artist merchandise stores, ticket sales, etc. You name it.

Instead they made a conscious decision to push ahead with bizarre business strategies and without providing any meaningful functionality updates to their core service (I even think they regressed in this regard, the dumpster fire that was song reposting was the final nail in the coffin for me).

Honestly I think the service needs to make a graceful exit to let another service emerge who actually wants to push things forward for developing new artists.

<comment><USER22> Does amazon still hold the patent for one-click purchases?

<comment><USER23> I can't believe they were ever allowed to have that patent in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> _Probably worthwhile to link this HN post of SC 's own announcement_: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14991071](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14991071)

</comment><comment><USER24> Yet another example of a great service that was killed by all the wrong kinds of licensing issues. Artists always saw the discovery potential in SoundCloud but bean counters just saw an opportunity to put the squeeze on.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is what happens when a startup fails. The problem with SoundCloud is that Spotify ate their lunch. I'm not sure this is solvable -- it's like being second place to eBay. Trainor might not be able to do much unless he pivots the company Jobs-style, which isn't an easy feat.

I have to wonder why the VC sunk more money into SoundCloud. Do they see an opportunity we don't? Or is it politicking? Hard to tell.

<comment><USER26> Soundcloud and Spotify fill very different niches in the music streaming market. Spotify is slightly more difficult to break into, you have to either be signed to a label or start your own label and get set up with a distributor to put your music on it (just like Tidal or any of the download stores). With Soundcloud, you can upload anything you want, and the barrier to entry is very low. It's important to those of us who are discovering new artists for whatever reason (DJ, record label, promoter, management, etc.), because artists can put their music on Soundcloud for the world to hear without already being involved in the industry.

Soundcloud Go turned them into a competitor with Spotify, but that was never their forte in the first place. They just saw it as a way to possibly make money. I think they need to focus on the community aspect of things, and see themselves as more of a social networking tool centered around music rather than yet another music store/streaming service.

<comment><USER27> It absolutely isn't hard to get music on Spotify. DistroKid (distrokid.com) is $20 a year to upload unlimited tracks to all the music services.

But, you're point about being able to upload "anything" to SoundCloud stands. It was a place for remixes, demo tracks, podcasts, etc. You aren't able to upload just anything to the music streaming services. (need album artwork, etc)

And your last paragraph is spot on. I'm surprised we didn't see them release their own mobile OS and phone /s

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The article alludes to $169.5M raised at a pre-money valuation of $150M. I'm not sure I've ever seen a round like this take over 50%. Who knows what the future of the company will be, but one thing is for sure: it's completely investor-controlled now.

<comment><USER29> Wasn't the valuation at more than 700 million some time ago? What are all the consequences of dropping the valuation from 700m to 150m? Any ideas?

<comment><USER28> Dilution as usual. The last investors, whom I believe invested at a higher valuation, have had their liquidation reduced. The founder shares are probably highly diluted; I can't imagine the founders owning more than 10% combined.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Soundcloud offers an amazing service that benefits everyone that uses it. In a modern technologically competent socialist society, why can't something like this be run by the government?

The amount of art that would be lost if soundcloud actually shut down is tremendous. There's a public interest in keeping it around, in my opinion

<comment><USER31> Umm no. Listen, I love SoundCloud, but government tax dollars should not be in the business of providing electronic music. At least US tax dollars, Germany can do what it pleases.

<comment><USER30> Why not? The cost of running Soundcloud is comparable to the cost of one F-35 jet.

It would be funding a distribution platform for art. Most of the music on soundcloud is free for anyone to listen to. That's a public benefit, in my opinion.

<comment><USER32> >The cost of running Soundcloud is comparable to the cost of one F-35 jet.

This comparison is like saying "if all we do is capture 1% of a huge market, we'll be millionaires!"

There's quite a bit more to it than simply saying "Build one fewer JSF boondoggle, please. We need to prop up [pet project X]." Considering that comparison is used hundreds of times daily, I might add... it's not exactly scalable.

The F-35 is a boondoggle to say the least but I actually think the ROI on it is considerably better than propping up SoundCloud.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> How does SoundCloud need 173 employees to operate? I mean, they laid off 40% and nothing seems to have changed so they clearly didn't. I wonder why startups tend to run so inefficiently. Has recently happened to Twitter, Etsy, etc. I imagine the companies could still be a lot more lean staff-wise than they are.

<comment><USER34> \- Scaling down a company is generally hard and (lately) not done as often. It's pretty difficult to spend 6 years where hiring is your biggest priority (from executive level on down) and then all of a sudden it isn't.

\- It's quite common for investors to push hiring more people as a way to get more stuff done. The general refrain you will hear from many investors on how to (move faster|fix problem) is to hire for it.

\- The default thing to do with capital to invest is to acquire/hire.

I guess to summarize, staying lean just isn't a priority for these companies or their investors. The expectation is enormous growth or failure. The reality is often quite more nuanced.

<comment><USER35> It is really hard to be efficient in terms of headcount. Every single manager inside the organization has a personal incentive in pushing to hire more people cause that's how we measure career growth. So they all come up with all sort of BS to justify hiring more people.

The crazy thing is that it should be exactly the opposite. People should get more credit for achieving X with as few people as possible. Instead it works the other way round.

<comment><USER33> Interesting insights... thanks to you and parent. I have been thinking about this for a while. It feels very broken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Programming at work will not be same without SC. 8 hours per day of productivity boost.

<comment><USER37> DI (digitally imported) does a pretty good job of filling my work-electronic- music fix.

<comment><USER38> Mhh it appears to need Adobe Flash though!

<comment><USER39> They used to provide standard MP3 streams. Not sure if they still do.

<comment><USER40> They still do, but you need to be a subscriber.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> What role did Chance the Rapper play in this? When they were making chooses that they would shut down he reached out to the CEO personally, I know.

</comment><comment><USER42> _" This financing means SoundCloud remains strong, independent and here to stay._

Independent? I beg to differ...

</comment><comment><USER43> I've been saying this for years, SoundCloud needs some way for artists to monetize directly through the platform that doesn't involve advertising. Add a "support this creator" button to every page and take a cut like YouTube does with its Super Chat feature. I think they really missed out on this opportunity. Look at all of the podcasts that host on SoundCloud but monetize with Patreon, for example.

<comment><USER44> ...and all the indie musicians that monetize with Bandcamp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> It would be interesting if SoundCloud implemented a Patreon model, where you can pledge $1-$100/month to an artist you like, and SC takes a small cut.

<comment><USER44> This would have been the best expression of SoundCloud's DNA since the beginning, if they had not involved VCs and decided it was cool to try to become Spotify instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Can someone ELI5 how can a company raise a $169.5m at a valuation of $150m? How can they raise more than what the company is valued?

<comment><USER47> By giving away more than 50% of the equity.

pre-money valuation: $150M

investment : $169.5M

post-money valuation: $319.5M

So the investors got about 53% of the company for $169.5M.

<comment><USER48> So essentially the company doubled in value - the investers thought it was undervalued and were willing to pay the difference

<comment><USER49> No - the investors were willing to add $169.5M of value to the company by giving it $169.5M in cash.

The company is "worth" the same as it was before, plus $169.5M new cash in the bank.

In return, the investors received newly-issued shares at a price based in the pre-investment valuation of the company.

So there's no paying any "difference"; only increasing the valuation of the company by injecting new cash into it and creating new shares.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> How much funding did they get and how much runway does hat provide?

I don't see it listed in either the TC article or any of the top level links.

<comment><USER51> 170M. [http://www.brooklynvegan.com/soundcloud-saved- by-170-million...](http://www.brooklynvegan.com/soundcloud-saved- by-170-million-investment/)

As for runway, hard to guess b/c the new CEO will presumably make some changes.

<comment><USER52> > I guess hard to guess b/c the new CEO will presumably make some changes

That and there are going to be some seriously restrictive terms to that money. Also I think part of it is used to pay debt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Does it make sense to pour money to keep a sinking ship afloat?

Just like Twitter, if the service changes too much it might lose its only asset (the community) but if it doesn't change it will sink.

</comment><comment><USER54> So SC will focus more on driving towards profitability now instead of growth. I wonder if SC will stagnate, or this cash infusion + new leadership will provide much needed stability.

</comment><comment><USER55> To me it's weird, and very "bubbly" that someone would make an investment of this magnitude, at this stage, in a business that's proven as unsuccessful as SoundCloud. With this, and all the previously recieved/spent VC, do people investing like this actually expect to get their money back, and with profit? I can't wrap my head around that. strange times.

</comment><comment><USER56> If they do go down, I sure am going to miss that creamy react / redux front end... Amazing work by those devs!

<comment><USER57> If you're talking about SoundCloud.com, actually a Backbone app :)

<comment><USER56> What?! Thanks for the insight!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> As a future feature, it would be pretty awesome to have SC be some sort of free DAW, or tools to help the musician create tracks, rather than just hosting.

That would be a differentiator between them and uploading to youtube with a static image.

</comment><comment><USER59> I can't see how keeping the co-founders on as Head of Product and Chairman respectively will help if the bad product decisions made (Soundcloud Go) were what basically brought Soundcloud down.

</comment><comment><USER31> It's funny how German banks/VC's did not step up to make an investment in one of the most visible tech German companies. Instead a New York based firm and Singapore firm did.

<comment><USER5> Why would they? I think that would be a bit much money for most German VCs just to support a "trophy" startup.

I think they already lost most of the local support here with the layoffs. The VCs might even be happy that the talent that was tied up in SC is now on the free market and available to help build the next "big" startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I really don't like this. This looks like a death omen to me.

They will probably fire more employees, do 2 or 3 pivots to different business models and when that doesn't work out the company will die.

</comment><comment><USER61> Bye bye free sc egress traffic.

Download your favourite content now, before that value lever has been pulled, and it's too late.

</comment><comment><USER62> Here's one of their problems: Check out their advertising page ([https://advertising.soundcloud.com/](https://advertising.soundcloud.com/)). You have to contact them if you want to advertise on their platform. You ought to be able to upload your 15-second ad, provide your credit card info, and starting running advertisements... $$$

<comment><USER63> Curation is probably a good thing if you want to retain users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Is it possible to buy shares in soundcloud ?

</comment><comment><USER65> This article would suit Washington Post better

</comment><comment><USER66> Wow for an in-browser music player that almost always doesn't work I am totally not shocked it is dying.

</comment><comment><USER67> Does SC have ads? Would ads completely destroy the appeal? Could they not do the same free tier things as Spotify where you're largely paying to remove ads? Obviously not at $10/month, but maybe a few bucks. Could they license their content to Spotify/etc for ad-free play rolled into your existing subscription service?

<comment><USER68> Yeah they introduced ads in the past few months. Already looking for alternatives that have some resemblance of my existing SC library because of it.

I will mourn the loss of SC as it has been a superior product to Spotify, but it's all about two things:

1\. Does it have the music I listen to? 2\. Is it obnoxiously in my face trying to make money while I'm trying to concentrate with background music?

Right now, they're starting to ruin criteria 2 and there isn't much reason to be loyal to the brand. The only problem for me now is, that whatever alternative I find is. Inevitably it will befall the same fate.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Xmasify.js – Christmasify your team page - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/usersnap/xmasify

<comment><AUTHOR> A Santa's hat and some awesome christmas music - that are the perfect ingredients for a shining christmas time :)

We created some neat GitHub library to christmasify your web worker's life. Now it's up to you to upgrade you team page!</comment>


Ask HN: Best practice for public links that are private - <AUTHOR> I'm trying to build a web app where users can share sensitive information with their trusted friends via a public link.
I'm thinking of making it password protected, so you need the link plus a code.
I want this feature so an attacker cannot just brute force all link combinations to get the user profiles.
I was wondering if there is a better way to do this than passwords <comment><USER2> an attacker can always BF all combinations, you just have to make the space so large they are unlikely to find anything.

Probably a good question for a Stack Overflow?</comment>


Warren Buffett: If a bank needs a government bailout, the CEO and spouse should - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/04/warren-buffett-if-a-bank-needs-a-government-bailout-the-ceo-and-spouse-should-lose-net-worth.html <comment><USER2> Warren Buffett is about 30 years past any meaningful alpha. Basically saying his employee should have skin in the game but not him.</comment>


Show HN: Kickass Blog Posts - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickassblogposts.com/

<comment><USER2> Content Marketing: Writing consistent content and sharing it.

Yet another PDF containing free information. Here, try this instead: [http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Content_marketing](http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Content_marketing)</comment>


Pedal to the Mettle: The unbelievable, true story of Automoblox - <AUTHOR> http://www.core77.com/reactor/02.05_automoblox.asp

<comment><USER2> Last year I bought two Autoblox cars, two months apart. First was of a very high manufacturing quality, it snapped together very tightly, everything aligned and it was just a pleasure to hold and play with. It was the reason why I bought another one. Got it from the same place, exact same packaging, authenticity label and what not. And what a wobbly piece of shit it was. Major quality problems. And what is strange, it left me far more pissed with the company than it wiuld've if the first toy were of a subpar quality.

I guess the point is that if you are going to differentiate by delivering high quality products, you just absolutely cannot let the quality slip. Ever. Otherwise it's an instant trip to the pile of "regular products" and a long a painful climb back up to gain back customers trust.

<comment><USER3> Yep. I've always loved how LEGO has such high precision standards. I once bought a LEGO set where the pieces fit together very poorly -- oh wait, no I didn't -- and realized it was MEGABloks, not LEGO. This was many years ago, so I can't speak as to MEGABloks quality today, but I put together a new LEGO kit recently and the fit/precision was still awesome.

LEGO's gone probably 20-30 years without letting me down in terms of physical quality of the pieces. I can't say that about any other vendor I've bought from over the same time period (not even Apple, for example). Well, not counting consumables like toothpaste. I've never had a bad experience with say Colgate.

<comment><USER4> Megablox was still utter rubbish as of about six months ago. My 8yo Lego fanatic son was given a kit by his cousins - "It's just like Lego" - err, no - many of the parts would not stay attached.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What a depressing story.

The guy had an offer from Brio, a very reputable partner, to take over the manufacturing responsibility, and passed on it in favor of dealing with some shady, fly-by-night Chinese firms he stumbled upon, because he _"wasn't willing to let Automoblox out of my control at this point; I still wanted to achieve my dream of being a manufacturer."_

<comment><USER6> Yeah, and he learned a hell lot of important stuff. I think this experience shaped him to be a better entrepreneur.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know this view won't be popular but what I took from this article is it's hard for a well-off westerner to maintain slave labor and get high quality control products for pennies in labor in the east. I have no sympathy.

How was it surprising to realize you can't control patent/copyrights in non- democratic country ten thousand miles from you, where the factory owners have far fewer ethics than you and are willing to manipulate their slave labor even further to sell your product as theirs in other markets?

</comment><comment><USER3> Great story about starting a new business. Also a great story about China.

I found it interesting how in the photos, many of the "factories" look like little more than junkyards or disaster areas, and how many of the people working in them looked like teenagers or possibly even children. That plus all the shady dealings going on may explain at least in part how China is able to manufacture so many things so cheaply compared to the US. Shameful.

</comment><comment><USER8> I can't believe this story got so few votes. It's great story of the ups and downs an entrepreneur went through to bring his product to the market. Worth the read.

<comment><USER9> A lot of the people on HN are software guys, they have no connection to something like this. This is one of the best stories I've seen on HN in a while becuase I'm actually a product guy and manufacturing is a huge component of it. In fact manufacturing is usually far harder than design for an entrepreneur. The capital required means you _have_ to use a contracter, and for something cheap like a toy you probably have to go to Asia where the quality is lower but the prices are low enough to make it work. Hell, I was at a company that used US manufacturers and we got screwed over for hundreds of thousands of dollars from multiple vendors because they were unable to deliver on quality - not to mention the oppurtunity cost of time delays. How many web app startups can you boot strap for the value of one manufacturers mistake? The stakes are higher because there is a lot more capital in play.

<comment><USER10> Yep.

And don't think you can't find bad molders here in the US, or moldmakers that steer your work to a certain molder, who just happens to be an in-law. The best was a molder that found a way to "lose" several parts of a mold just as it was being picked up and moved to another mold shop. "Must have fell of your truck, buddy!". Hmm.

Oh yeah: if you let the moldmaker do the mold design, be sure and get copies of all the files, even if you don't have the CAD system to open or edit the files! Don't trust 'em to back up their hard drive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> When I saw the part about the low-bidder winning the deal I had an ominous foreboding of what would later happen. Oftentimes you really do get what you pay for. Price is a signal. Ignore it at your peril.

</comment><comment><USER11> Does the author actually mean "Pedal to the Metal" ? The original saying comes from pressing the gas pedal as far as it goes, until it presses against the metal underneath and can go no further.

I've never heard to "Pedal to the Mettle" ...

<comment><USER12> "Mettle" means willingness to succeed or endure; standfastness. I'm assuming the title is just a pun.

<comment><USER11> Ah. I was aware of the meaning of mettle, I was just unsure if it was deliberate. It's a nice theory that it's a deliberate pun, but I'm not sure it works. It feels the same as "The proof is in the pudding" and other, similarly meaningless distortions of old adages that made sense in the original.

But still, nice idea - thanks.

<comment><USER13> It's actually "The proof is in the putting", where "putting" refers to putting the pedal to the metal ;)

<comment><USER12> I thought the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anybody know what happened after 2005?

</comment><comment><USER3> By random chance I happened to be looking at a few Automoblox models in a store in Boulder a few night ago. Reminded me of a cross between the Pinewood Derby cars we used to make in scouts as a kid, and LEGO. My tastes are little more into robotics/RC now otherwise I would have bought one. Nice designs.

</comment><comment><USER12> > _[It] was a day that rivals only the day that my daughter was born._

I hope you mean "it was a day rivaled only by the day that my daughter was born." The former sounds like your daughter's birthday was your worst day ever, and the success of your toy was just slightly better than that.

<comment><USER15> I read an article recently that said many, many people actually can't tell the difference between active and passive voice. I had a hard time believing it, but seeing mistakes like this in an otherwise well-written article lends weight to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I own a few of these, and I've given more away as gifts. They are truly awesome, the toy equivalent of an iPhone in terms of beauty, perfection, fit and finish.

It's nice to see the story behind the toy.

</comment><comment><USER17> just for posterity, I'd like to link to design theatre for anyone who liked this: <http://designtheatre.net/>

I've been pretty fascinated by these articles, as there's many opportunities out there outside of pure software business.</comment>


Show HN: THE SUBMIT LIST – A Directory of Places to Submit Your Link - <AUTHOR> http://thesubmitlist.com <comment><USER2> Surprisingly this is featured on PH. [http://www.producthunt.com/tech/the- submit-list](http://www.producthunt.com/tech/the-submit-list)

</comment><comment><USER3> Most of those sites frown on paid submissions.</comment>


World justice project's amazing visualization - <AUTHOR> http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> I was just comparing different countries in middle east. Iran vs. Pakistan. Iran is scoring higher but seems Iran's score is mostly because it is more stable and it is more secure and less internal conflicts. On the other hand, Pakistan's government is more Open, and it has more powerful military still they have less security and higher internal conflict. How Turkey in the region is changing is also interesting.

I wish this data had Saudi Arabia and Israel for the comparison of the region.</comment>


Passenger 3.0.3 released - <AUTHOR> http://blog.phusion.nl/2011/02/24/phusion-passenger-3-0-3-released/

<comment><USER2> Damn it! :( Yet another release that still doesn't merge my mod_dir fix. :( :( I am so sick of having to maintain my own copy of this thing.

<https://github.com/FooBarWidget/passenger/pull/3>

<comment><USER3> Do tell -- this is Apache's mod_dir -- what's the bug?

<comment><USER2> That link was to the pull request that explains the bug. ;P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I ran into a bug trying to use with RVM -- be forewarned. The new Passenger module-installer for Apache presumes you're using gemsets, and doesn't know about default gemsets. Patch forthcoming.

<comment><USER4> How old is your RVM installation? As far as I know recent RVM installations _always_ have gemsets. When you didn't create any gemsets you're implicitly using the default gemset named 'default'.

<comment><USER3> I'm running from the head. And yeah, I was aware of the default gemset. The problem I ran into appears to be that if you don't have a named gemset (other than default, apparently) then the shell script can't figure out the name of the ruby it's running and gives up. I found an alternative way to figure out the ruby name from the environment, and I'll probably send it to Phusion. Because those guys rock.</comment></comment></comment>


Tesla Raises $1B from Stock and Bond Sale - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/05/17/tesla-has-a-fresh-1-billion-and-lots-of-ways-to-spend-it/ <comment><USER3> This is a quadruple whammy for Tesla.

1\. Tesla pays off the $452 million Dept of Energy Loan, and this improves their political image and in the long-run will help sales.

Tesla's had difficulty in some states selling direct to consumer, and paying of the DOE loan can help them convince conservative lawmakers to vote on Tesla's side in states like Texas and North Carolina (both have bills on the table).

Also, paying off the DOE loan removes ammunition from a lot of critics who have said that Tesla is just leaching off the U.S. gov't.

2\. Tesla puts more than $400 million additional cash into their bank account (they already had over $200m), so now it's well over $600m and close to $700m in cash they hold.

This allow them to speed up a lot of the intiatives they have to roll out infrastructure. First, they can open more stores (especially in Asia and Europe). Second, they can roll out more service centers (all around the world). Third, they can roll out more Superchargers stations (around the world).

Finally, Tesla has an upcoming 5th announcement in a 5-part trilogy and I think Tesla might announce battery swapping stations (for long distance travel). Tesla can now more aggressively roll these out as well.

3\. Tesla stock gets a boost of confidence from Elon Musk spending $100m to buy common stock.

Elon Musk is putting his money where his mouth is and is basically saying that at the offering price of $92.24 that TSLA stock is not overpriced but is a fair value to himself buying more stock and to investors.

4\. Involving Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley in brokering convertible notes and stock increases the credibility and perception of Tesla. Big funds are now starting to invest in Tesla after their blowout 1st quarter earnings report (WSJ reported in another article that European funds and large-cap funds are starting to invest). Recently Morgan Stanley sent a client note saying that after the 1st quarter earning report saying that viability was no a problem for Tesla. This opens up TSLA stock to a whole new crowd of investors because Tesla's risk has been dramatically reduced.

Overall, I think this is a great move by Tesla.

<comment><USER4> Great except for the part where current shareholders' stakes are diluted.

<comment><USER5> The article doesn't say anything about that. I could be wrong, but I'm surprised if you can legally dilute a public stock.

<comment><USER6> The article does not have to say it. When a company does a secondary offering, that is a dilution, by definition.

Dilution by secondary offering does not require shareholder approval, up to a threshold. On the NASDAQ, the threshold is 20%. A company could, if it felt like it, dilute by 20% every single year for twenty years, and leave the original shareholders with 4% of the company.

The theory is that because the secondary offering will take place at fair market value, the cash raised will adequately compensate the existing shareholders for the dilution.

<comment><USER7> After reading through all the comments in the dilution thread I think I finally understand:

The value of a stock is determined by what people are willing to pay for it on the market, and if a company simply issues more stock, its entirely possible that the price of the stock will go up, go down, or stay the same.

This is of course only true for public companies, and in the case of private companies dilution is a completely different issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wish Tesla made hipster apps with mediocre photo filters too, so they could have some additional money _easily_ to do their awesome stuff xD

<comment><USER9> That's actually a really really good point.

I've often wondered why Things Needing Money (cities with budget deficits, states with budget deficits, caltrain, etc) don't develop startup-like things they can sell.

From one point of view, the answer is obvious: nobody wants to make someone else rich when they can make themselves rich [1]. But, from the other point of view: people do that all day every day. The majority of people don't understand (and don't _want_ to understand) the complexities of corporate ownership, acquisitions, and payouts. They just want enough to pay for housing, food, support their family, and buy some toys a few times a year.

Could those Things Needing Money work it out by advancing internal EIR positions with enough funding to hire subordinates as necessary?

[1]: The valley does provide a way around "constantly working to make someone else rich." At large places (Cisco in the old days, Google now, probably Facebook too) you see people work the system. They can leave their company, start a startup of basically what they were working on at Big Corp, then have Big Corp aciqhire them back for a few million dollars. Or, they make a startup, get acquired by a Big Corp, vest their buyout, then immediately leave and re-create their original startup they sold, but better (maybe more sustainable or more IPO-like the second time around, but it's _the exact same thing_ as the first time around).

<comment><USER10> Government organizations tend to focus on treating all of their employees "fairly" or "equally". That typically manifests itself in some odd outcomes. Among them is very little individual accountability. Some amount of consideration is typically given to "years in service" when handing out promotions or salary increases. Very few people are ever fired and the few that are typically have to commit an egregious fraud like not showing up for work and claiming they did. Showing up and doing nothing or near nothing will keep you happily employed with regular salary increases. If there is a down economy and they need to cut jobs they do it on a strict seniority basis, most recently hired, out first. The net effect is that over time the only people that leave are the ones good enough to get a better job where their above average ability will get them a higher salary. What you end up with is a large organization of average to totally incompetent mid-career to older workers and a segment of newly hired workers, typically younger, with a wide range of abilities.

If it is even legal for a government organization to make something to turn a profit, in many cases it isn't, the chances that an organization run like that would produce even the stupidest of successful money making apps is unlikely. On the off chance that they did succeed the cry from private industry would be so incredulous it wouldn't last long.

<comment><USER11> I have done consulting for the fed and what you describe is exactly accurate. It also describes the situation in many huge corporations, since as corporation size approaches infinity its internal political reality approaches government.

It'd be a good place to get a job if you wanted to cool your heels for a bit, but long-term I think I'd get really cynical and depressed. The thing that really hurts is that people who do go above and beyond _don't_ get more than a token reward, and usually don't end up making more than the paycheck-suckers. Like you said it's all seniority. You'll see one or a handful of people busting their butts and doing really good work, and dozens or hundreds of people coasting, and the former are not given raises.

"Pure" meritocracy is a pipe dream. It's an idea that sounds good in rhetoric but is near-impossible to even define, let alone achieve, in reality. In the real world attempts at pure meritocracy often devolve into stress-inducing 80s Wall St. films. But absolutely flat anti-meritocracy sucks worse. The optimum is probably somewhere... hmm... maybe 2/3 of the way to an attempt at pure meritocracy? Enough incentive and accountability to motivate and reward, but enough flex and forgiveness to not burn people out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just as I predicted, Tesla's one quarter of profitability was just an enabler for them to raise more money for development of future models, which will most assuredly take them onto the red again, albeit probably temporarily. In this respect their profitability was not "real" in that they knew it was temporary prelude to more fund raising. It doesn't show sustainability, only that they can put the brakes on all spending for a quarter to look good to investors.

I think it's a bit dishonest of Elon to claim there were no plans to go back to the public markets in last quarter's earnings call, only to raise more money a few weeks later.

</comment><comment><USER13> It took SpaceX $100m to create a space rocket, engines, launch facilities, a cargo capsule fit for human travel, and a VTOL rocket prototype. I can't even fathom how it is possible that a different model of car costs $200m to develop, except that there must be _a lot_ of middlemen.

<comment><USER14> There is a lot of regulation. Almost every aspect of the design needs approval by the department of transport.

There is a need to ensure that the vehicles can be produced in mass production versus a one off. This includes quality control and specialised tooling for their production line. It might even include a new production line / facility.

I don't think it's middlemen increasing the cost.

<comment><USER11> Mass-production of anything cost-effectively at gigantic (100M+ units) scale is an engineering problem in and of itself, a whole other layer on top of the difficulty of designing the product in the first place. In some cases it's considerably harder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Useless, fun speculation: I predict that Tesla will eventually buy Pep Boys Auto, an under performing company with a lot of real estate in middle class American neighborhoods. Pep Boys also has many stores already with service centers. Tesla will then start turning the stores into Tesla show rooms and service centers. They've already shown they are willing to take over legacy auto facilities, specifically the old NUMI Toyota plant in Fremont, CA. What are the odds that we'll soon see Manny, Moe, Jack, and Elon? Pep Boys has a market cap of less than 700 million and is profitable, so it shouldn't be a money pit.

</comment><comment><USER16> Doesn't a sale of new stock generally imply that the company believes its shares are overvalued? Great timing in any case, this is the time to shore up on capital to make sure they can stick around a long time.

<comment><USER17> If a company with huge cash reserves like Google was selling new stock then yes, I would assume they thought they believed their shares were overvalued. But in general it's the same as taking VC investment. It might just mean the company believes they can use the cash in a productive way, or that they need cash to continue operating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Great time to do this, with their greatly increased stock price and still very low interest rates. They're repaying their debt when they have the greatest leverage (unlike the common industry practice of buying back stock when their stock is the most expensive), which is a very shrewd decision.

<comment><USER19> I agree that issuing the new stock was probably a good move, but I'm not sure about paying back the debt. Low interest rates now mean that debt is relatively cheap, and if you think you might need the extra cash at some point but aren't sure if interest rates might rise at some point it might make sense to just keep the cash and don't pay back the debt.

Lots of companies are actually taking loans they don't need just to lock in rates, and then pretty much just sit on the cash. That's part of the reason that the amount of dollars in circulation has gone up by a huge amount over the last few years while causing negligible inflation.

<comment><USER18> _> Lots of companies are actually taking loans they don't need just to lock in rates, and then pretty much just sit on the cash._

If you're MSFT or AAPL and can issue bonds at 1% and buy other comapnies' bonds at 3%, that's a pretty easy way to lock in a spread.

Interest rates are virtually guaranteed to rise in the next 3-5 years. Bernanke's previous quote is for interest rates to remain low until 2015, and Pimco has proclaimed that "the 30 year bull run in bonds is over".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article doesn't say what the coupon on the bonds are for various maturities, but they are most likely extremely low yielding. I quote Bill Gross of Pimco in labeling these as a poor investment choice.

 _Gross: Here -take my money Mr Lew, Buffett, Ballmer, Cook. I'm ur beast of burden - provider of ur free lunch - a non-thinking bond investor_

<https://twitter.com/PIMCO/status/332501401613770752>

<comment><USER6> 1.5% coupon for 5 years.

Note that these are convertible bonds, not regular bonds. The interest rate is reduced by the implied price of the warrant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If Tesla drives that money into development of the economy vehicle, they're going to scare a lot of car manufacturers.

<comment><USER8> Not necessarily. Almost all car manufacturers are anticipating this kind of transition and have back up plans already [1]. I bet Tesla will become what Apple is to smartphones and then the rest will gradually pace up and someday attain equilibrium (or even overshoot) with Tesla's roadmap.

For example, a lot of manufacturers are already developing electric vehicles for masses, just that they don't want to get their feet wet and they want someone else to do it first , so they can just jump in and join them if the market is actually ripe.

Mass adoption of electric vehicles is what most manufacturers fear and which is a valid concern, which is why Tesla's move is particularly so important.

Automotive industry is one industry where nobody is 'too late' for the party. As of now, I personally want to see Tesla succeed.

[1]Nissan, Toyota, Mistubishi, Chevrolet, Hyundai, BMW, Audi, etc. all have EV's in their roadmaps, some are budget EV's too.

<comment><USER21> Apple managed to maintain their strong lead for a relatively long time by creating the app ecosystem.

Tesla could do the same with their supercharger network, where they offer free charging. Although I think (and hope) that eventually they'll let other car manufacturers "license" access to Tesla's network, and this way they'll be able to not only pay for the maintenance and cost of the network, but also make a bit of money from it, too. They shouldn't charge too much, though. Maybe $100 per car.

By turning the network into an actual business and not just a "cost", they would have to incentive and capital to expand the network all over the world as fast as possible.

And that's how we all get free charging for all cars, forever. Goodbye oil industry.

<comment><USER8> Agreed. But 'Goodbye oil industry' will never happen in the near future. Not with the level of corruption with the top dogs right now. They'll do everything they can to suppress the viable alternatives. They'll buy out the media, pay the right guys to write stories about how unreliable and dangerous these EV's are and why oil based transport is still the best, and so on.

And co-incidentally, I am reminded of the Tesla-BBC fiasco...[1]

[1][http://green.autoblog.com/2013/03/10/uk-appeals-court- dismis...](http://green.autoblog.com/2013/03/10/uk-appeals-court-dismissed- teslas-bbc-top-gear-lawsuit/)

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know if you need to ascribe malice there, Clarkson has always hated EVs, even before they were serious contenders.

<comment><USER8> What you hate or like is your personal prerogative. But when you are addressing a public audience, who have faith in you and your brand and _trust you_ , you are morally obliged to be factually correct and not let personal opinions distort the facts. If you read that article, Tesla claims that they forged a scene as if the car just stopped randomly which is highly unlikely when there is enough charge (I am with Elon Musk on this one).

(You doesn't literally mean you, but BBC in this case)

<comment><USER22> Clarkson is not a news reporter. He's an entertainer. He is _expected_ to be controversial and opinionated, and - depending on your viewpoint - <USER2> delusional.

If he started being objective and serious, the show would be cancelled. As it in fact _was_ before he pitched the new, less serious, format and convinced the BBC to relaunch the show.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> When companies like Tesla sells bonds, where would you buy them from? And how would you know about them being made available? (Often seems to be that once it hits the news it's all over)

<comment><USER18> Your broker at a major bank is the only place where you'd be able to buy a new offering of bonds. There's usually some minimum quantity you have to buy, in the range of $30k-$100k minimum. You basically have to ask said broker to tell you when they're available. (give you the list of new issues periodically)

I think you can buy existing bonds on the market through more normal channels including discount brokerages.

edit: Public Service Announcement - don't trade in bonds, because you're virtually guaranteed to get taken advantage of hardcore by Wall Street bond traders, even the "flow traders" that do the transaction for you. One example is the broker giving you a price (via the trader) that reflects the bank's own book instead of the actual open bond market (you can check the discrepancy by demanding to see the Bloomberg data on the security). The bond market is still even to this day nothing like the stock market. Visibility & transparency (in the stock market) are your friend.

<comment><USER24> Something I think about sometimes: "In a poker game, look around the table and find the mark. If you can't, it's you."

This advice, of course, ignores the second order effect that someone skilled might pretend to be a mark....

The NYT accords the quote to Billy Waters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> More details on the raise reveal that it's actually not just from a stock sale - they're also issuing $450M in notes: [http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate- intelligence/2013/05/15/tesla...](http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate- intelligence/2013/05/15/tesla-is-selling-more-shares-to-pay-off-u-s- loan/?KEYWORDS=tsla)

<comment><USER25> They actually upped that to $525M later I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> It seems Tesla takes advantage of all kinds of government subsidies, loans, and windfalls. Is there a place that summarizes the government programs that Tesla takes advantage of, or how much of their revenue is from selling the carbon credits they get to other car makers?

I'm not implying anything political with this comment, just genuinely curious.

<comment><USER27> Tesla takes advantage of a lot of these things, but that sort of rent-seeking is so par for the course, that choosing to NOT take advantage of it would put any company of scale at a massive disadvantage relative to their peers. A short laundry list of the industries that do this very well: financial firms, energy firms (both production and delivery), car companies (who can forget GM and Chrysler in 08/09), sports teams/leagues (particularly when building stadiums/facilities, and others. The subsidies/tax breaks etc that they take advantage of are at the Federal, State, and Local level, sometimes international, and oftentimes playing different government entities against each other to get better deals.

The New York Times had a fantastic article on this: [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers- ban...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll- corporations.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

And a visualization here with some data: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government- incentives.html)

Re-reading it, makes you wonder how profitable all these industries would be without all these subsidies/tax breaks etc baked in.

<comment><USER28> Last I checked, and it's been a few years, the entire wind power industry exists only because of tax credits - their financial structure is designed pretty much entirely around them. Take them away, and there are no new wind farms, which is interesting, because part of the reason that costs are high for wind farms is the scarcity of turbines. The turbines are scarce because the GE's of the world do not want to invest long term capital in an industry propped up by government subsidies... and round and round it goes.

<comment><USER27> Point about the wind power industry is entirely correct - my goal was simply to put it in context. Many companies (including GE as you mention) are only so profitable by taking advantage of a multitude of tax credits/subsidies and the like.

Reference: [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Several of GE's businesses are propped up by government subsidies. All I'm saying is that GE is not really different - Tesla simply happens to be in a sector that's particularly high profile and politically charged, and its claiming of those things are out in the open.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What is the potential impact of this move when it comes to shareholders? I understand that a lot of the recent upside was caused by a short squeeze, which is a product of limited share availability.

Does this basically constitute a "cash out" for Tesla, and will this have a deflating effect on the stock?

<comment><USER28> No. Tesla needs lots of money and will continue to need lots of money. They can get that from debt or equity (or maybe the government, but leave that aside).

It is a signal that they believe that their stock is highly valued (or even over valued, but they would never say that) if they are raising equity - otherwise debt might be a more attractive offer. In the end, it's all a balancing act between taxes, cash flow, dilution, and market demand for securities.

Any time you raise money, you dilute ownership (or lower cash flow in the case of debt), which has the direct effect of devaluing the stock. But you wouldn't do that unless you thought you could increase the value of the stock by investing that cash and increasing _future_ cash flows. (Incidentally, this is why everyone is so pissed at Apple, who has way too much cash to invest properly - they should be giving it back to shareholders to invest themselves if they can't figure out what to do with it).

The cynic in me says, "beware - this stock is overvalued and they're just taking advantage of that with this offering." The optimist says, "great then- they can raise money at a low cost and increase their chances of making it big". On this one, I'm siding with the cynic. This is highly speculative. Besides, do you want to be the one who is permitting them to raise money so attractively? (That's an open question - akin to paying a stupid valuation for a hot startup because it will not matter one day when it sells for 100x.)

I'm reminded of the time when AOL bought Time Warner with it's insanely overvalued stock. Didn't turn out to well for Time Warner shareholders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Looking forward to a Tesla car I could actually afford ;)

<comment><USER18> I learned that Tesla is already taking preorders for the Model X, which is $45k (my mentor apparently put an order in).

Hopefully this means that we'll have a "Model Y" in the 25k-30k range in another 5 years!

<comment><USER31> The Model X signature edition _deposit_ is $40K, the regular deposit is $5K; the two together may be where you got $45K. There is no reason the model X would be cheaper than the Model S; most of its versions have two motors instead of one in the S, and it likely has a bigger battery. That's not to say it won't be the price of the current model S, but no way it will be of a contemporary one.

<comment><USER32> The base model will have just one motor though, and the batteries are actually the same as Model S (60kWh or 85kWh). Given that they've had time to refine their manufacturing techniques and such, it _could_ be cheaper than Model S.

However I agree that $45k is likely incorrect, and in practice it's hard to imagine they'd make it much cheaper than Model S, if at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I hope the $30k model comes out soon. Regular Americans will have a better chance at embracing that model. With gas at disgusting price levels, I am pretty sure the rest of America would agree.

</comment><comment><USER34> Good lor' das a lotta money</comment>


Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html <comment><USER2> The biggest issue we're going to have is that at some point someone else will be in charge, and the science will resume, but there will be a big hole in the data, because this current administration is no longer funding the collection of critical data for climate models. We won't even really feel the effects of this for probably a decade or more, when the models finally see the effects of the lack of data.

<comment><USER3> Who is not collecting data?

<comment><USER4> Godless untrustworthy liberals, duh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So bizarre. The US defense department even says that climate change is one of the largest threats to US security. So, basically the Trump administration is pure politics.

<comment><USER6> > So, basically the Trump administration is pure politics.

Every administration's positions and policies reflect their politics, and their donor base. This one isn't different in that way.

This particular administration's positions represent the interests of the fossil fuel extraction industry, whether via the appointment of fossil fuel industry executives to positions of authority over environmental policy, or in the leniency by the administration toward particular authoritarian petro states like Saudi Arabia and Russia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It would be a much more accurate article if instead of "climate science" it said "climate change prediction and mitigation."

</comment><comment><USER8> The Daily podcast covered this story aswell today - [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/podcasts/the- daily/trump-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/podcasts/the-daily/trump- climate-science.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> This is mostly unrelated to the point of the article, but I noticed that Trump in this article is repeatedly referred to as "Mr. Trump". Only once as "President Trump." This seems a little bit out of the ordinary to me. I can't recall Obama ever being called "Mr. Obama".

This isn't a criticism at all - but simply piqued my curiosity. Is there a reason for this? My only assumption is it's meant to be a minor indicator of the author's sentiment regarding Trump. Or is it just common NY Times style?

EDIT: It appears it's simply a well document common style decision. I should have looked it up before posting!

<comment><USER10> It seems to be a stylistic choice amongst some major publications. The first time they say "President Foo", the second time Mr. Foo.

From the Times directly: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/reader- center/why-does-ny...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/reader-center/why- does-nyt-call-president-mr-trump.html)

And NPR discussing the same style for Obama [https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2011/10/12/1412934...](https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2011/10/12/141293477/why- do-you-call-him-mr-obama)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is an opinion piece with a red hot flamebait title and a buried lede. Surely there's a better way to start this conversation on HN.

<comment><USER12> Anyone who is voting down this comment should checkout the article.

Any journalist that calls the President of the US "Mr." instead of "President" is trying to belittle them.

If they writer showed respect and stuck to facts instead of baiting, then it would be more impactful to thoughtful and intelligent people.

Since that is not how it is written, it comes across as an appeal to emotion.

<comment><USER13> This is just common NYT style. [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/reader- center/why-does-ny...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/reader-center/why- does-nyt-call-president-mr-trump.html)

It's common elsewhere too. Here is a cbs news article talking about the style (using Mr. Obama in this case). [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-disrespect- in-calling-the-pr...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-disrespect-in-calling- the-president-mister/)

Discrediting the article's tone is easier than attacking its conclusions, but that's not how we have a productive discussion, and I hope we can agree it's not useful.

<comment><USER12> If my point was to discredit it's conclusions, I would have.

I pointed out that the article was appealing to baser instincts by it's writing methods.

Everyone who think's I support Trump (I don't) or think climate change is hoax (I don't) assumed this. Nothing in my comment indicates this.

Maybe people downvote based on emotions as well?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To me, climate change is not such a big deal in terms of the human species.

My belief is that we will eventually feel the impact from the earth, made by ourselves.

So it's beyond climate change. We have fucked the earth up to a starte where we can't go back.

But. The earth has a tendency to regulate itself and take care of itself. It will wipe out humanity if it needs to and then time will continue.

We are not so smart as we believe, and out arrogance will be a deadly.

<comment><USER15> > But. The earth has a tendency to regulate itself and take care of itself. It > will wipe out humanity if it needs to and then time will continue.

There is no evidence that the Earth is sentient and assigning needs and wants to it is fallacious. Geological records show that the Earth has gone through several eras where life flourished followed by major extinction events. If we want to achieve long term stability for the human civilization, we need to achieve the power to control the climate and transform landscapes. Of course, we need to do it judiciously; but not developing such capabilities is shooting ourselves in the foot in the long run.</comment></comment>