Silicon Valley: Perks for Some Workers, Struggles for Parents - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/upshot/silicon-valley-perks-for-some-workers-struggles-for-parents.html <comment><USER3> Technology across the board is not family or parenting friendly -- in my experience. It seems like it would be, given the technology tools that make remote working and flexible work environments possible.

I recently was let go from my director of engineering position when I was 9 months pregnant. They said they were outsourcing their operations, but I was the only team-member let go. I also would be on maternity leave during a critical release... I can't say they let me go since I was going to have a baby, -- I think their decision to outsource made sense. I just think it was a catalyst as there was zero transition plan and probably would have been too hard to let me go during or right after maternity leave, which would have made more strategic sense.

I seriously consider leaving technology for good after dealing with the challenges of being a woman, mother and engineer for so many years.

I'm not alone, its pretty common for women to leave technology after having kids.

There is such a push to have more women become technologists, but if we leave once we become parents, what's the gain? The struggles of culture and technology are far deeper than getting more young women to be interested in engineering. Women aren't the only ones to suffer. It's hard for men too. The culture also seeps into the quality of products we create -- in both design and code.

Unfortunately, I have only seen the culture become more toxic as time goes on, not less.

Maybe I'm jaded. I'm certainly sick of it.

<comment><USER4> I mean well and this is not directed at you personally, but I don't get why employers should be forced to pay for someone's choice to have children. Unless that is their choice as well.

I would like to spend many hours of the day on my art. I don't want children. Should my employer be forced to continue to pay me if I want to go spend a year focusing on my art? Why is a couple's (or a mothers) choice to have children more important than what I choose to do in life?

<comment><USER5> The straight answer? Because their kids (maybe, just maybe) will have jobs and pay taxes that keep services running when you're retired. It's part of the social contract[1].

You might make the point that your art benefits society as well. It might, I have no idea. But more importantly, we as society haven't agreed on that benefit (which I think needs to be talked about as well), so you don't get recognized.

Like any "standard" contract, the social one does not address everybody's needs equally, but it's the one we arrive at by consensus. And so we are bound by it as long as that consensus stays. (Or we opt out of democracy, which certain SV nutcases are certainly considering)

You might make many other points about the social contract that are valid, like e.g. the scarcity of work, the unsustainability of current society, etc. I think we need to address them, and I think the social contract will change significantly in the next 30 years.

But as it is right now, that's why employers should support people who have children.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) (You're probably familiar with it, but on the off chance you aren't, here's the link. It's _not_ meant as snark)

<comment><USER4> Yes, I'm familiar with the social contract. There is no such thing in the real world. It's a post-facto justification for what is enforced by other means. It has zero legal applicability.

There are laws passed by legislators who are elected. The rule of law is established by force, not by any sort of contract or agreement. There is no social contract except in philosophy class and books that have no legal standing.

<comment><USER6> An aging population is never good for any government. Unless you are a really overpopulated country, having a positive birthrate is a good thing (translates to economic growth). The case for encouraging the population to have children is pretty straightforward...

<comment><USER7> Another way to increase younger population is also to encourage immigration in that population group. However, for other reasons, this will never be acknowledged as a reasonable measure :)

<comment><USER8> Eh, what? Not only is this acknowledged as reasonable in many countries, it's _policy_.

<comment><USER7> The anti-immigration sentiment often seen in the US (sometimes even on HN), and in a lot of European countries seems to say otherwise.

<comment><USER8> There isn't much anti-immigration sentiment in the US. What we have in the US is anti _illegal_ immigration sentiment.

In terms of European countries there was an article about a week ago regarding Americans going to Germany for free college. The Germans were hoping they'd stay.

I think people worry about the quality of immigrants. We want more young Sergei Brins and fewer middle aged guys with a sixth grade education.

<comment><USER9> While that may be technically true, AFAIK it's hard for someone to immigrate to the US. If I wanted to move to the US tomorrow, I believe it would involve me having to get a job before I got there.

One could argue that saying that you're against illegal immigration and making legal immigration very difficult is the same as saying that you don't really want immigration.

<comment><USER8> We have over a million legal immigrants a year, so even if you can't get in easily somehow a whole lot of other people are managing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is another very important article about the difficulties of a career, rather than a stint, in high tech.

I've noticed that many health-care related professionals, such as dental hygienists and registered nurses, have median pay that is close to or exceeds the median pay for software developers [1], and that well paid professionals such as dermatologists or radiologists often earn vastly more. These fields also offer what I'd describe as _career_ flexibility.

As a software developer, I can almost always go off and have a cup of coffee when I please. So in that sense, yes, it is "flexible." But one very attractive quality of being a dental hygienist is that you can step back from the field for a few years, work part time (or not at all), and re-enter a few years later. My cousin is a radiologist, and she worked half time while she had kids (collecting a much higher salary than the typical full time developer). I also know an emergency room physician who was able to scale back while she had small kids without badly compromising her career progress.

Add in open offices, back visibility, a dave n busters vibe, mass layoffs involving work visas and "knowledge transfer", frequent allegations of sexism and discrimination, an insistence that you locate to a place where the median 3br house is well over a million… and now, as it appears, a situation where you they don't want you if you have kids.

At this point, why do we keep acting like there's some mystery why people with _choice_ (i.e., whose professional options aren't limited by the visa process) are avoiding this field? Why does President Obama nod gravely as he stands next to tech CEOs talking about severe shortages of tech workers at press releases?

[1] check out US News Best Jobs, which provides a summary of BLS data on median salary _by region_. In San Francisco, dental hygienists earn $112,970, software developers $114,400, and registered$127,670. Physicians and lawyers, of course earn considerably more.

<comment><USER11> The similarity between pay for Software Engineers and RNs in the bay area is a bit of an anomaly nationally. My wife is a RN and before we moved here I was making twice what she did. Now our incomes are roughly equal - <USER2> factoring in any bonuses/stock I get.

It is kind of refreshing to see how the nursing industry hires and treats its professionals compared to software, though. No "10x ninja" BS just to get hired as a rank-and-file employee. Hourly pay, as well as unions, prevents anything comparable to the long hours and hero stunts that are rewarded at tech companies.

There are days where I do think it'd be nice to have the flexibility that they have, but then I remember that I could never do that job. Just like software engineering, nursing has attributes that make it only desirable to certain people. Patient is actively refusing care, shouting racial slurs at you, trying to assault you, etc? They still need to be cared for. It's still your job to take care of them.

<comment><USER12> It should also be noted that health care costs are astronomical and have been increasing much faster than inflation for many years. There may be a correlation there. Moreover, as "medical tourism" continues to grow due to unaffordable health care costs in the US, US-based RNs are going to start losing jobs, just like the auto workers who negotiated contracts so generous that they literally killed their employers.

<comment><USER13> Nurse salaries are a vanishingly small portion of health care costs. They're largely a function of the difficulty in finding qualified nurses. It's unlikely that will change anytime soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm a developer in SF, and I moved here 2 1/2 years ago on a relocation package from a startup.

Immediately I realized that I would be the only parent in the office (there was one other remote worker with kids) once my wife and I decided to have a child. And sure enough that's what happened. I actually lost my job there (for unrelated reasons) and it was an enormous relief to be out of that culture.

In addition to children, I am religious and have obligations to my church, which were frowned upon (tacitly) by my coworkers. Nobody said anything, but I was the only one leaving work at 3 on Good Friday and 5:30 every Wednesday so I could be at church.

In hindsight I can see what I couldn't see before - the article is right in suggesting that single, young people are unencumbered by obligations. But it misses the point that we choose what obligations to tie ourselves to around the age that most people are starting at these startups - I chose wife, children, church. They're choosing company, work, and technology. It's not that different in principle, but it's a huge behavioral difference.

<comment><USER15> In my experience, leaving sf and working in the valley proper meant having far more coworkers with families. They tend to be older -- 30s to 40s rather than mid 20s. In turn, they tend to be much better about not fucking around in the office: they come in, work, then leave. Which is a much better cultural fit for me, and it sounds like for you. There's lots of places where working 40-45 hours per week while being productive in the office is part of the culture. Just not in sf.

<comment><USER14> I actually work in SF now at a very family friendly company (Tapjoy). That is probably because 1/2 the engineering team is located in Boston.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't understand this article. It fails to mention that tech companies have the best paid parental leave policies[1]. There are other family-oriented perks: on top of normal life insurance at Google, "The surviving spouse or partner of a deceased employee will also acquire vested stock benefits, and children will receive $1,000 a month until the age of 19. The timeline can be extended if the child is in school full time."[2] I bet there are more perks at other companies which I'm not aware of.

The article is full of anecdote and false implications. So, "Yahoo told employees they could no longer work from home." If you are working from home because you're taking care of your children, I think it's fairly reasonable to expect that your attention is split and you won't be as productive. Much of it describes the work habits of top execs. I don't think that's representative of the industry as a whole, and probably aligns pretty well with work habits of top execs of other industries.

[1] [http://www.buzzfeed.com/susiearmitage/tech-companies- offer-w...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/susiearmitage/tech-companies-offer- workers-the-most-paid-parental-leave#.ooe73qaoN) [2] [http://mashable.com/2012/08/09/google-employee-death- benefit...](http://mashable.com/2012/08/09/google-employee-death-benefits/)

<comment><USER17> I think the point of the article was to point out that while tech companies supposedly have perks for people with families, those are rarely enjoyed to their full extent due to diverse factors. And also that those tech companies might say they offer a family friendly environment, but depending on your team, the culture will not reflect that.

I've experienced a bit of that. It's hard not to feel bad for going home at 5pm to be with your family when all the driven single 20-somethings around you will continue to work late into the night and produce a lot more than you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My 2 cents... I'm a reforming Jerk Manager. When I was late 20s and early 30s, single and travelled full time, I believed that everyone should commit 100% to the project. My rationale was, "Winning breeds positive mindsets" and not the other way around. I really abused some folks that were married with kids.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and I have to worry about working for a jerk like the younger version of myself.

The one thing I can say is that as a parent, it's good to work at a place where the management team is all from in-town, and most have kids. Almost all the managers at my current employer have young kids. This means that "office hours" are 10-5, with a ton of flexibility, and nobody bothers you until 9 at night. But the trade-off is that everyone is expected to be online until 1 or 2 in the morning if needed (after the kids go down) and be current on their email first thing in the morning before coming in to the office.

I feel very bad for the people who were laid off when pregnant.

</comment><comment><USER19> Last time I interviewed, I actually strategized to mention our infant multiple times when talking to people. If that will turn off some orgs, I really don't want to work for them. I ended up finding a job at a great company this way. Being able to filter out so many companies that don't care about you having a life outside of work definitely feels like a luxury made possible by the current high demand for skilled tech workers, which is a little worrying.

<comment><USER20> _actually strategized to mention our infant multiple times when talking to people_

I hope you understand that by doing so, you placed your interviewers in a very awkward position. It would be the same if you revealed to them your e.g. religion or sexual orientation, when they never asked. It smells like you were setting them up for a future lawsuit.

<comment><USER21> So it's ok for a company to say "he's not a culture fit", but not ok for an employee to say "that company is not a culture fit"?

The reason every startup asks "so what do you like to do for fun" in interviews is that kind of "cultural" fishing. The OP is just flipping the game around.

<comment><USER20> That's not what I said, I am talking specifically about an interview. A company is not allowed to ask you about your family plans, religion, sexual orientation, blah blah, and for good reason, these things are nothing to do with job performance, yet may be the basis of discrimination. It's therefore in poor taste to "force" your interviewer into knowing something they should not and would never have asked.

<comment><USER22> If someone at the company is LGBT, religion is _incredibly_ relevant.

<comment><USER23> Because all religious people are anti-gay? C'mon, the point of anti- discrimination laws is so you _don 't make snap judgments about a person based on the attributes of a group they belong to_. Your comment is just as bigoted as those who say that a person's sexuality means they can't have a family.

<comment><USER24> It is not bigotry to assume that someone who self-identifies in a religious group believes the things that the community of that religion identifies as its beliefs. While it is true that not all religious people discriminate against homosexuality, most Western (and particularly Abrahamic) religions disapprove of homosexuality as part of the standard interpretation of their doctrine. Other people cannot be expected to know what exceptions you personally make to the rules of the religion you follow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> _"Young people just have simpler lives," Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's co- founder and chief executive, said in a talk to would-be entrepreneurs in 2007, when he was 23. "We may not own a car. We may not have family. Simplicity in life allows you to focus on what's important."_

Don't have kids so you can focus on what's important to Mark.

<comment><USER26> "Important" was a bad choice of words on Mark's part, since its a value judgement that is necessarily going to differ from person to person.. However, he essential gist of what he's saying is true. If you don't have kids, you can spend more time focusing on things other than taking care of your kids. I'm a dad and it does take up a lot of time and limits what I can focus on. My only disagreement is based on a personal value judgement of whats important; raising a child is the most important thing to me, but that's not a universal truth for everyone.

<comment><USER27> Your job should never overwhelm your ability to do something important with the rest of your life.

<comment><USER28> I don't think its any more wrong to fully devote yourself to a job that _is_ the important thing you want to do with your life than it is to have a job that exists to enable other important things you do outside of the job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> America's lack of guaranteed Parental Leave is already a shameful situation for such rich and developed country; it doesn't even compare to anything out there where every OECD country has such protections. [0]

But I believe the tide is turning, and companies that embrace this human right will be rewarded with higher quality employees. As entrepreneurs and leaders ourselves, we have the opportunity to set the culture we want. So I must congratulate and highlight how one YC startup, AeroFS, is standing up and making a difference:

"..AeroFS employees of any gender are eligible for: _10 weeks leave, paid at 100% of salary,_ 8 weeks additional leave, paid at 50% of salary, and *10 weeks additional unpaid leave—or more, if approved .." [1]

[0] [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2013/12/12/among-38-nat...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2013/12/12/among-38-nations-u-s-is-the-holdout-when-it-comes-to-offering- paid-parental-leave/) [1] [https://www.aerofs.com/blog/parental-leave-at- aerofs/](https://www.aerofs.com/blog/parental-leave-at-aerofs/)

<comment><USER30> I'm sure it's not shameful. It might bug you, but I don't see it as something worthy of _shame_.

I do not have kids, do not plan to have kids, so I'm not sure why I should pay for someone else's decisions to create life. Whenever someone goes on family leave, other people who were not involved with that decision have to pick up the slack.

Now, maybe if I could take paid (or unpaid) leave-of-my-discretion as an alternative, I'd be okay with it. Otherwise, it feels like federal level discrimination against unmarried, child-less, individuals.

<comment><USER31> And while we're at it, I'm not currently ill, so why should I have to pay for disability benefits for others? I'm not old, so why should I have to pay for Social Security?

<comment><USER32> you are probably being sarcastic, but as someone in their late 20s, I do not believe I will every get a social security payout. either the age requirements will keep getting pushed back as people live longer or the whole program will be abolished by the time I qualify.

I don't think I should pay into a system that I will never receive benefit from.

<comment><USER33> > I don't think I should pay into a system that I will never receive benefit > from.

What do you propose the elderly living off of social security should do instead?

<comment><USER30> Keep voting as a bloc and hope the music doesn't stop during their lifetime?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Right now, good parental leave, flexible work hours, and allowing remote work allows companies to have a competitive advantage when hiring. For example, this article (link below) on Treehouse was popular last month which talked about how they have 4 day work weeks because it's not a drag on productivity and people want to spend time with kids.

I work at Trello, and the company has a similar philosophy in terms of treating people like humans who have responsibilities and interests that enrich them outside of work, which only benefits the work environment. A big draw to working at Trello, in addition to loving the product and team, is the fact that these policies exist.

I hope in the future- "perks" like paid parental leave will become something we laugh about as being painfully obvious. Who cares when work gets done as long as it gets done?

Treehouse link-[http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/at-some-start-ups- friday...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/at-some-start-ups-fridays-are- so-casual-everyone-can-stay- home/2015/02/06/31e8407e-9d1c-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html) We're hiring at Trello!- [http://trello.com/jobs](http://trello.com/jobs)

</comment><comment><USER35> If you're at a start-up and some unforeseen problem occurs that needs to get fixed right now, and you're the only person who can fix it: yes the start-up expects you to fix it before you can pick up little Suzie from soccer practice. Yes, they will hire the person most likely to make that choice. If they don't do that, their chance of failure is much higher.

We make sacrifices to work in some areas of tech, and we get paid well to put work before most other priorities because that's what's needed in some (not all) tech jobs. If you want to put kids as a priority before work, that's fine. There are plenty of jobs in tech you can take, but don't expect the same positions as the lady who puts work above all else and consistently delivers when stuff's on fire. She's devoting more of her life to the company and deserves a better title and more pay.

<comment><USER36> 90% of those "Must be fixed right now!" problems aren't, and no one will die because the problem didn't get fixed for another hour.

<comment><USER35> If you don't trust your coworkers' ideas about what needs to be fixed right now, that's a separate issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> One of the commenters on the NY Times site said it best:

"My experience is that a lot depends on your boss. I always got my work done quickly and thoroughly, but I've had bosses who made you sit in your chair even when there was nothing to do, I've had other bosses who were much more accommodating. It is about the culture of the department. My best job was in a very hard working engineering department, when we were on deadline we worked killer hours, but when things were slack, we went home. Everyone had kids, family outings were encouraged and our boss took us to lunch and treated us like humans. I worked my butt off for that boss. When I have had a boss who treats me like a child, I act like one. If you treat people with dignity and respect and give them time off when they need it, they will work harder."

<comment><USER38> Reciprocity is the most-basic of interactions. Wish more people understood it better. Unfortunately, it seems like kiss up, kick down prevails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> >> Bret Taylor, former chief technology officer at Facebook and a founder of Quip, with his son Sam and daughter Jasmine.

>> He leaves work at 5:30 p.m. so that his employees will not feel obligated to stay.

Bret is pictured in his expensive home, standing in front of a gas range that was at least $10,000. He can afford to take it easy. He's already sacrificed and put in the 16 hour days.

<comment><USER40> Yes, Bret has a nice home, expensive stove, and kids. It sounds to me like he's doing the right thing by not pressuring his employees to appear like they are "putting in the hours."

<comment><USER41> First thing they told us in training sessions after promoting us: you head home at 5:30, and remove pressure for your subordinates to stay in the office.

You _may_ login after hours to wind up your day's work (it is, in fact, expected), but you are to make damned sure nothing hits your subordinates' inboxes until 8:30AM the next day. If that means putting delays on your messages in Outlook, so be it.

Makes for a much more relaxed and productive team.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I've read a lot of articles with this general tone and theme over the last year or so, and they always bother me, for a number of reasons. They tend to paint the overall industry with a very broad brush, and are, in my experience, often caricatures (this one certainly isn't the worst). This article is based mostly on anonymous anecdotes and is peppered with weasel words, for example: "More broadly, some economists say..." "Workers with children say..." The one piece of data I saw, the number of women in the workforce, has a truncated Y scale.

I've lived and worked in Silicon Valley at tech companies for the last 17 years at many small and large high tech companies, including Apple. My wife also has been working in tech for longer than that, and she enjoys it. I have two young children. When I read these articles, I feel like I'm reading about another universe, as it is so vastly different than my experience. Of course, I can only offer my own anecdotes in response, but here are a few of mine:

\- My wife interviewed at a small startup when she was pregnant with our first son. During the interviews, she informed them she was pregnant and wasn't sure how much time she wanted to take off after the baby was born. They were totally cool about it and said they'd be happy to have her for as long as they could. She ended up working there and loved it.

\- I'm 40 years old. The people who work with me are a mix of ages. I've rarely been the oldest, and I certainly don't feel like I'm outnumbered by people much younger than me. I've interviewed at a number of companies with young founders, and never felt discriminated against. I still get pinged by plenty of recruiters, so I'm not seeing the ageism that is supposedly so rampant here. I have plenty of friends and acquaintances who are close to my age, and I'm not hearing these complaints from them either.

Honestly, I think this is sloppy journalism, designed to provoke an emotional reaction. I don't want to deny the very real problems in this industry that we should be working on, but I don't think articles like this are helping. If anything, they are scaring women and minorities away from the industry and making the diversity problem worse.

<comment><USER43> Your experience is hopeful, but in no way negates the reality of other people's experiences which are the opposite of yours.

<comment><USER42> Yes, I certainly agree. However, the thing that bothers me about the article is that it insinuates that the problems they talk about are the _norm_. That is a strong indictment and, I believe requires more evidence than they've given. I'd go farther and say it does a disservice to many decent people in this industry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The harder you make it to fire someone, the more reticent the employer will be to hire that person in the first place. This may apply to employees generally, or to a specific race, gender, or subclass.

For example, after the Americans With Disabilities Act was passed, it led to a decrease in the employment of people with disabilities. If the employer has a higher likelihood of lawsuit in the event that the employee must be let go, they have to make damn sure they can't find someone else (who isn't disabled) to fill the position in the first place.

The existence of this sort of legislation actually exacerbates the employment problem for minorities and women in tech!

[http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/re...](http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2000/4/deleire.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER45> I think a major reason that Americans expect employers to give them maternity leave (among other things) is that health benefits are covered through your job. Getting fired while pregnant, while difficult, would not be nearly the same disaster if you were still able to get necessary medical treatment in the duration.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm 23 and never, ever reveal that I have a wife and 2 sons until after an offer has been made. I suppose potential employers could find out fairly easily, but I know very well from personal experience that start ups do not like when I tell them about my family life, so I leave it off the table until I'm ready, despite it not inhibiting my ability to work just as hard and for as long as my single coworker counterparts.

I guess it really depends on the size of the company, and it's really something you have to kind of feel out for yourself. Naturally I haven't really had this problem with large companies, only small teams.

</comment><comment><USER47> FWIW, Sheryl Sandberg also leaves work at 5:30pm to spend time with her kids - strange that something she's been talking about for some time (before Bret left Facebook, even) isn't mentioned.

The Facebook hackathons used to start at like 6pm with the implicit expectation that one worked through the night (and weren't expected to work the next day), but these days they start during the day (the next one is 9:30am). There's still time to work all-night if that's your thing, though.

One thing I noticed at a previous hackathon was one of our engineering VPs showing their kids around. I've seen a few parents doing that - often their spouse will bring their kids to visit for dinner and to spend some time, sometimes they go back together, or the kids and spouse heading home for bedtime. Not sure if that's a "this is how I get through this horrible expectation people have of me" or "this is how I blend these two parts of my life that I value", but I'm hopeful it is the latter.

</comment><comment><USER48> How can one not being a "culture fit" be interpreted in any way that is not blatant discrimination?

<comment><USER49> It _is_ discrimination. The question is if that discrimination is a bad thing or not.

For instance: you are discriminating against people who don't know javascript if you are hiring for a job that requires javascript and don't hire people who don't know it.

Is that a bad thing? I dont' think so.

There are _some_ things that we as a society have determined that it is not okay to discriminate based on. Here is a list of them: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class)

<comment><USER50>
      You are discriminating ... if you are hiring for a job
      that requires javascript and don't hire people
      who don't know it.  Is that a bad thing? I dont' think so.

You might be overlooking good coworkers or employees, especially older ones who have experience in other languages. I knew zero Python or Javascript before I started this job, and now write in it 100% of the time. (My previous job was Lisp + GWT.)

Similarly, I recall an article from Matasano that said that some of their best candiates did not have prior experience with something that one might have expected to be a prerequisite: "Some of the best testers we've worked with didn't have a formal security background." [0].

If you only hire people who "know" $Language, what will you do if six months down the line you decide to rewrite in Clojure, or find that Haskell is the best way to move forward?

0: [http://matasano.com/careers/](http://matasano.com/careers/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> As a young woman developer this is a very saddening article to read, and especially upsetting the comments of women engineers being let go while/because they became pregnant. My hope is that the industry will become more balanced as the many millennials working in tech start families...

</comment><comment><USER52> The funny thing being: actively avoiding parents, while simultaneously complaining about the lack of tech workers. New workers with the aptitude you're looking for don't magically spring forth from php code you hacked on for 20 hours per day.

But, short term thinking.

</comment><comment><USER53> What bothers me most about this article is that it chooses to fixate on the "new" tech industry where 20-hour days, and complete dedication to your job are common. However, why does the author not mention the finance industry? Hundred hour weeks have always been the norm, and new mothers are encouraged to come back to work as soon as possible or risk missing their next promotion. Some would argue that finance is even more male-dominated than tech, and because of this it makes working at a big bank/fund even more difficult for parents.

Same is true of healthcare, and big law. There are plenty of industries that suffer from unfriendly family workplaces, not just the tech industry. I'd love to read an article that attempts to compare how family friendly different industries are for parents, but unfortunately only a large, costly survey can provide the non-subjective data readers can appreciate.

</comment><comment><USER12> I guess it is completely lost on the NY Times that one of the main reasons the tech industry is the main engine of economic growth in the US (and one of the few things we do better than other countries) is exactly BECAUSE many companies expect long hours and hard work. We can certainly switch to the European lifestyle the NY Times is fawning over, but it's going to have a huge negative impact on the success of our country's tech companies.

<comment><USER54> You may be right (I doubt it though) but that is a horrible reason not treat employee's as if they are human beings. Good culture isnt having free snacks and a ping pong table.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This article reminds me of the HN post about the newly planned Google office, where the renderings featured young twentysomethings, almost exclusively.

Considering the Zuckerberg comment, we have to realize that ageism in tech is not only wrong, it's not sustainable. We all age. As this article mentions, twentysomething grads will become thirtysomething parents. Building a tech culture that ignores this fact is ridiculous, but it's our current reality.

<comment><USER55> _Considering the Zuckerberg comment, we have to realize that ageism in tech is not only wrong, it 's not sustainable._

What we have to do is make sure that all of the older engineers who "age out of" the Valley move to the same place: could be Chicago, Boulder, Austin, maybe Portland or even Minneapolis. Probably not NYC (I'm fond of it, but it's too expensive to raise a family). Doesn't matter _where_ so much as that the place exists. If any one urban area can capture 15% of the programmers who age out of the Valley, for a decade or two, it'll have more talent than that shithole and be able to out-compete it.

<comment><USER56> +1 for Portland.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I sympathize with SF parents, but one must understand the nature of the job and try to work with it. As a software engineer, I know I must work towards a path that allows me to prosper as a father and have time for my family.

SF/Wall Street/ Hollywood/... all have their own problems, which is a side effect of their excellence. Yes, WS analysts work 100h/week, but that's how the industry works. The key is to work with, not against, it.

</comment><comment><USER17> On a somewhat related note, I find it interesting to note that a lot of technology per se is not very family friendly. Family Sharing was only recently introduced by Apple. Before that, it was very cumbersome for a couple to share their music libraries. The same applies to most subscription services. Take Amazon for example: my wife can share free Prime shipping with me, but not Prime Music.

I wonder if this is for legal reasons (licensing, etc.) or because of the people that create such services. My wife's hypothesis is that since a lot of technology is created by single, young and not very social people, it doesn't even cross their mind at design time the fact that a couple (or a whole family) might want to share some of their contents while still keeping their own individual accounts.

</comment><comment><USER58> Strangely, the discussion around this article seems to indicate to me that children seem to be looked as trophies for their parents.

Children are as necessary for the society as a body as is food and sleep for individual humans. I understand the individualism that drives peoples toward libertarian ideals but children are beyond market mechanisms. They are part of our humanity, the structure without any efforts towards economical or other goals are pointless.

A child is not like a new SUV or an expensive hobby. A healthy, happy child _is a net plus for the society to which he or she is born_ , that benefit all in the long term.

</comment><comment><USER59> I was shocked on how little time off my US friends got for having kids.

Most fathers kept on working and mothers were back to work within a week to month of having a baby.

This practice of encouraging mothers to return to work so quickly seemed like a relic of some era of one wage earner families.

How can Europe and US be so different in this regard, when the demographic problems should be similar?

</comment><comment><USER60> Here's my New Yorker perspective: Everyone I know who has a job that pays them $150k-300k a year doesn't have much work/life balance. Jobs in finance/law/tech are all consuming and the pay is commensurate with that. This seems little odd signaling out tech.

</comment><comment><USER61> _Bret Taylor, former chief technology officer at Facebook and a founder of Quip, with his son Sam and daughter Jasmine. He leaves work at 5:30 p.m. so that his employees will not feel obligated to stay._

Why not leave work at 5:30 p.m. _so that his kids will get to see him before bed_?

</comment><comment><USER62> I see a lot of problems with our society or our economy generally, discussed only within the context of technology. I mean, what, is finance a wonderland for parents? Not that it excuses tech of course, but sheesh.

</comment><comment><USER63> I would point out that a lot of these perks are meant to keep the employees working longer hours. Parenthood and longer work hours go only so well together.

</comment><comment><USER64> Should employees at larger, established firms be able to demand parental benefits? For sure, it's healthy for the organization to help their employees (often the more senior and experienced) achieve their life goals of starting a family.

But should startups be required to do the same? Is it discrimination if they don't? This is where it gets blurry.

Let's say me and a friend start working on something. Someone is being considered as a potential co-founder. During the vetting period, I learn that they are about to become a parent, and will need certain logistical allowances for the next 6-18 months. I decide to pass on this person - at this stage in the company (very early), everyone needs to be able to hustle long hours. I can't risk having a cofounder not put in the sweat. Dead weight kills startups. So to me passing seems fair.

Keep in mind I didn't even mention if the company was incorporated; if it wasn't, surely you can't call this "discrimination" in a legal sense. Two guys just decided not to partner with a third person. If it was just incorporated yesterday and I make this decision, do things realistically change? The company is at pretty much the same point - 2 people who need more that can work long, hard hours.

But what if we're now 5 people and one key employee stops pulling their weight because of family obligations? I don't have the resources to support them in this manner, so I either have to let them go or keep on the dead weight. The first option reads like "discrimination", while the second seriously messes up my startup (imagine I could replace him with a similar skillset person).

And you could think of the same scenario at 10 people, 15, 30, 50, 100, etc.

As final food for thought,

> The American workplace has always prized people who prioritize work over > family, and European countries have long had more generous policies for > working parents. But in the last two decades, that gap has widened > significantly. Other developed countries have expanded benefits like paid > parental leave and child care, while the United States has not.

Yes, but who's leading the world in technological growth? Certainly I can't claim causation either way, but simple logic implies that more work means more growth and tech.

Scanning through the comments, it seems like the readership here would rather re-balance this in favor of more benefits and less work (thus meaning less growth and tech). Remember you don't get to have all of both.

So that's great and all, but are you justified in trying to impose this upon Silicon Valley? SV started like this because a bunch of people with the opposite opinions got together so they could work hard and drive progress as much as possible - sacrificing in the process. Should they leave, or should you? I suppose the answer is to vote for the political representatives that support your world view.

However, I'd argue that it'd be a bad thing, on a moral level, to enact policy against the SV hard work culture. I worry that too much lobbying will result in restricted options for employers and entrepreneurs which would ultimately drive progress down. I believe technological progress is a moral issue; we need our high-performers and hard-workers to cure diseases, combat food scarcity, create better hardware, etc. And we need a place where they can congregate.

<comment><USER65> > Yes, but who's leading the world in technological growth?

Actually, China, Mongolia and India are leading the world in GDP per capita growth. If by "technological growth" you mean labor productivity growth, other countries with parental benefits, such as Denmark and Sweden, are doing fine. [http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDYGTH](http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDYGTH)

It's not impossible to grow while supporting enjoyable lives for your citizens. In fact, as median wealth and median income increases, automation and broader technological advancement become more worthwhile.

<comment><USER64> By "technological growth", I mean creation of a novel and innovative nature. Stuff that goes "0 to 1" as Peter Thiel says ([http://www.meaningfulhq.com/zero-to-one-by-peter- thiel.html](http://www.meaningfulhq.com/zero-to-one-by-peter-thiel.html)).

The first group of countries are using existing technology to "catch up", so clearly their growth rate ought to be higher. This is "globalization" rather than "innovation". And as I mentioned, there are certainly other countries with great work-life balances that still enjoy high productivity. By the common sentiments I see in this thread, it seems that a lot of people would much prefer these places than Silicon Valley, and I encourage them to research further as in the link you posted.

That being said, here are some questions: where are the leading computer science researchers? Machine learning experts? Software entrepreneurs? Largest and most successful technology ventures whose market caps are greater than the GDP of a lot of countries?

While I can't prove it, I strongly suspect that you don't get world-changing technological innovation without living an unbalanced life.

<comment><USER65> According to QS World University Rankings, countries such as UK, Hong Kong, Switzerland and Singapore, which do offer parental benefits and are a fraction of the population of the United States, all place well in the rankings.

Also, the USA is a very large market which is why a lot of pure software companies are headquartered there. Specialization is inherent in larger markets. A lot of other large vertically-aligned technology companies are headquartered around the world, such as Volkswagen, Samsung and Alibaba.

The lionization of specific billionaire entrepreneurs is more due to abnormally low tax rates (by Western standards) on extremely high incomes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> We could go all the way down the list, parent-unfriendly, sexist, agists etcetera, but it's way simpler to describe SV culture as what it is: an immature frat boy culture. Amplified by the lack of government regulation in the US in general.

When it comes right down to what really matters, when you see through all the fancy "perks", what remains is a business culture that is not just immature, but downright conservative to the point of being reactionary.

I mean, what kind of 21st century Western company that employs highly educated middle class people doesn't facilitate parenthood?

<comment><USER12> It's also hugely successful economically compared to most other US industries. Maybe correlated?

<comment><USER67> >It's also hugely successful economically compared to most other US industries.

Just keep telling yourself that and everything will be okay.

For what it's worth, everybody working in the US health care, defense, energy, finance, and aerospace industries are doing just fine, thank you.

<comment><USER12> You're kidding, right? Health care and defense industry in the US are incredibly economically unprodictive (in the technical economic sense). Finance has similar work ethic/hours as tech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> _office culture — which can, for example, reward people based on how many lines of code they can write per week_

I'm not convinced... even the least hip of startups isn't this stupid.</comment>


Kilogram prototypes have all changed to different weights and no-one knows why - <AUTHOR> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-kilo-weight.html

<comment><USER2> Calling the Planck constant 'esoteric' seems odd even if expressing it in total layman's terms could be difficult.

I don't see why explaining that it's a constant relating to photons, light and energy would be too difficult, or too far away from the level the article is pitched at.

</comment><comment><USER3> Huh. I always thought that metric units of mass were defined by the mass of a mole of whatever atom you were interested in: a mole of carbon masses exactly 12 grams, a mole of oxygen masses 16 grams, a mole of hydrogen masses 1 gram.

EDIT: corrected atomic mass of carbon. Not sure what I was thinking there ...

<comment><USER4> Unless they have changed the definition, back when I studied it the mole was defined as the number of particles found in 12 grams of C (C-12), 6.022*10^23.

So the mole depended on the gram.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> And here I thought that the gram was defined by one cubic centimeter of pure water at 4°C.

<comment><USER6> That was the idea, but they immediately made a prototype kilogram mass in 1799 when they came up with that definition, and it turns out that it was off by about 25 ppm, and we've been working from that prototype ever since — so water only has that density to four significant figures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting article, but they kept trying to build a strawman about how Americans don't care about the metric weights since it doesn't affect their price of butter.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's an article on physorg.com that was copied from USA Today that doesn't specify the source of that information.

My guess is that it will turn out to be a bullshit story or a measurement error.

<comment><USER6> No, this has been an issue for years. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram#Stability_of_the_inter...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram#Stability_of_the_international_prototype_kilogram)</comment></comment>


Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email - <AUTHOR> http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/congress-at-last-minute-drops-requirement-to-obtain-warrant-to-monitor-email-121225 <comment><USER2> I wish we would treat cyberspace analogues of established property with the same respect given to the original. For example, your e-mail inbox is the online equivalent of your mailbox. Yet, one being "on your lawn" and the other "at Google's data-center," all bets are off. While I believe the Supreme Court should do better job at explicitly addressing this (for instance, "responsible expectation of privacy" established Katz[1] would be a fair test for e-mail, while Jones[2] and Kyllo[3] show the importance of taking modern technology into account), the government needs to firmly establish which techniques are important for security while protecting us from those which recklessly violate privacy.

[1] [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZC1.html)

[2] <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1259>

[3] <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html>

<comment> shawn-butler The Sixth Disctrict court of appeals did address this directly in US v Warshak [0]. What this scare article does a good job of is confusing the reader.

Unopened email left on a 3rd party server for longer than 180 days was considered discarded or abandoned property. Discarded physical property has never retained a reasonable expectation of privacy (for instance, the police are free to dumpster dive once your property is considered discarded). Similarly when you vacate an apartment and leave all your belongings behind, they become the property of the landlord. These are firmly established principles of common law. The waters become more grey when you are not using the 3rd party for communication but for storage, say for emails you have read and leave on the server for 180+ days. [1]

So in this case Congress wanted to establish a new right to privacy that required a warrant on rather vague and nebulous grounds. It was dropped and so the status quo remains.

All the people here complaining apparently have no idea what the law of the land currently is? Email communications residing on a third-party server for less than 180 days that offers services to the public can not be obtained without a warrant. Notification of the issuance of a warrant could be delayed by 90 days. This does not apply to 3rd party services that do not offer services to the public. They can voluntarily disclose content at their whim.

If you believe my understanding to be flawed I welcome the opportunity to be corrected.

[0]: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/breaking-news-eff- vict...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/breaking-news-eff-victory- appeals-court-holds)

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#Overv...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#Overview)

<comment><USER3> Anything we can do to proactively claim or declare our emails older than 180 days to be not discarded and not abandoned? Or move them to a new server periodically so that they aren't stored in a server for more than 180 days?

From Wikipedia [1]: "Property is generally deemed to have been abandoned if it is found in a place where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but is in such a condition that it is apparent that he or she has no intention of returning to claim it."

I'm winging it here, but Gmail could have an optional feature to prompt every three months "do you claim your mail from January 2005 to December 2012?", and just answer yes every time. Then Google could respond to be subpoena that the user has no mail that has not been claimed in 180 days.

Any lawyers here who can come up with something more solid?

[1] [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_property)

(Be nice if you had some contact info on your profile)

<comment><USER4> Google already does not fulfill subpoenas for email seizures in many cases due to the decision in Warshak - their contention is that they cannot be sure if the user resides or uses their email under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit.

It's puzzling to think about why Warshak wasn't appealed to the Supreme Court (SC), where a decision would have federal instead of regional consequences. The Justice Department most likely felt such a move could easily end in the SC siding with the Sixth, ending the free lunch on electronic communications seizures that law enforcement currently enjoys.

<comment> shawn-butler Google's particular problem, in my humble opinion, is that the protections do not apply to non-content portions of the communication. For example, the government does not need a warrant to require production of the smtp logs, just as they don't need a warrant to see what phone numbers you called whereas listening to those same conversations does require court authority.

Google unlike most other email providers is going through the content of every email (I assume prior to its being read by the user) and indexing its contents for the purposes of determining relevant advertising (and whatever else they do with that info about which I admittedly know very little).

I would wager that those indexes might fall under the "log" rather than "content" aspect and therefore their production would not be subject to warrant if they are keeping it stored somewhere; but, that's for someone receiving a higher pay grade to determine.

Cert for Warshak was not sought by either party most likely because the outcome of the appeal was largely in the govt's favor. Most of the convictions stood while only some were remanded. So I imagine it wasn't in either parties' best interest to roll the dice again. Finally, the precedent established in Warshak is applicable in the other horizontal jurisdictions. I would find it hard to believe any of the other appellate courts would go against its sound reasoning. But I guess the point stands that if you want to be safe you should ensure your servers reside in the jurisdiction of the Sixth!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This seems a good place for a dose of "what is good for the goose is good for the gander"... Since Congress is employed solely to represent its constituents, maybe all of their communications(public or private, if they are in any relation to their employment) be disseminated far and wide to all of those constituents to monitor those representative's abilities to fulfill their obligations to their constituents.

A period of time observing the sausage-making process of crafting and passing law may be quite a wakeup call for Jane Q. Public....

</comment><comment><USER6> They always do that in holidays when no one is looking like they did with the NDAA. no suprise

<comment><USER7> The NDAA did exactly what this bill purports to do: leave intact an unfortunate status quo. Almost nothing people say about it on message boards is true; it has become a shibboleth for "I pass along public policy gossip without verifying it".

<comment><AUTHOR> But did it leave it intact or did it enforce it? Why did they need to write in NDAA too that they can do that if there already was written in another law?

<comment><USER7> I don't understand the first question. The answer to the second question is that the powers granted to the executive under the 2012 NDAA (there's an NDAA every year) are _more limited_ than the blanket authorization to use force granted in 2001.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Has anyone out there created a utility that will download and delete any gmail messages older than 6 months, storing them only in an encrypted local store?

<comment><USER9> I would be surprised if deleting a mail from your gmail account would actually delete them from Google's servers?! I was always under the assumption that Google will store them until eternity. But as assumptions go, I can't really back that up -- but perhaps someone on HN has better knowledge?

<comment><USER10> I'd be interested to hear about this as well.

<comment><USER11> Good question. I deleted my Amazon account about a year ago which wasn't easy --required back and forth correspondence with tech support: "Yes, I'm absolutely 100% sure I really, really understand the implications of deleting my account." In any case, I keep getting Amazon gift cards from people so I go to sign up to Amazon for a new account. Turns out my account was never actually deleted, I was able to click "forgot my password" and they still had a record of everything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I didn't see anyone post it but the link above didn't go directly to the article (at least for me). It was available in the recent stories though. The url on that page is: [http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/congress-at-last- minu...](http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/congress-at-last-minute-drops- requirement-to-obtain-warrant-to-monitor-email-121225?news=846578)

</comment><comment><USER13> War on terror is a hoax used for pushing forward an agenda. Save us from the terrorists and drugs! God forbid you travel out of the US and see some of the world, you might be "taken".

The way the media sensationalizes some of these shootings, it's like we have to live in a constant state of fear.

<comment><USER14> _God forbid you travel out of the US and see some of the world, you might be "taken"._

Ironically, I feel the same way about the US since 9/11: I'd rather freely run my yap about (politics of) the country on the internet and not ever set foot there, than visit it and risk my freedom. Which makes me sad, because I know it has many great people in it... but a lot of things would have to change rather drastically for me to revise this.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I feel broadly the same way. In so many ways the US is a fantastic country, but the government and its politics are insane, and frankly scary from the outside. I thought things would vastly improve under Obama, but from what I can see, he's little more than a "Bush Lite". Pity, IMHO.

Worth separating the people from their government, although I would argue that in a democracy the government is the voter's fault. But it seems to me that the US government / establishment fears and hates its own population as much as it does foreigners.

I kinda wish Americans would wake up and see the monster, then do something about it. If the US establishment starts treating its own people better, that might fan out internationally for everyone's good. Not least, Americans.

But then, as I say, the US is supposed to be a democracy, so presumably they have what they want already. So, er, fair enough. Who am I to suggest otherwise?

<comment><USER16> Too many generations of poorly-educated and/or dependent voters are making your wish something that is less and less likely to be realized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Another reason we need better encryption solutions for email.

Are there any useful options that encrypt email?

<comment><USER18> My company is working on this: <http://parley.co>

EDIT: As mentioned a few times elsewhere on this thread, the biggest barrier to encrypted email adoption is the network effect, ie. both ends need to be using it. _That_ is the core problem we're trying to solve--making an email system that would be better than the rest even if it _weren't_ encrypted, but that's the icing on the cake.

<comment><USER7> If "works anywhere on any device" means it crypto code is loaded over Javascript without browser extensions, that's a goal that cannot share a project with "make it impossible for admins to read email even with a subpoena".

The reason it's 2012 and there's still no universal solution for encrypting email is that it's a hard problem. If you care about the security of your mail, you should use GPG.

<comment><USER18> We are in full agreement. Parley.co does not use Javascript crypto or browser plugins, ie. it is not webmail. (There _is_ a webmail component that can be used to _send_ messages which are encrypted at the server, and can allow synchronous two-way communications for logged in Parley users that is _not_ end-to-end, but it is only provided as a stop-gap and the trade-offs are clearly presented. Discussing it usually ends up as a distraction, since our core offering is based on installing standalone clients.)

We'll be posting more information about the whole thing soon, but if anyone has any questions I'm always happy to discuss what we're doing either by email (in my profile) or (at risk of derailing the thread) here.

EDIT: Also, Parley uses OpenPGP. People who are happy with their PGP/GPG setup should continue using it, but the goal is to create a compatible service which those people would feel comfortable recommending to less tech-savvy friends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Didn't they do the same dirty trick for the federal reserve act ? Basically all of congress is home with their families, and only a few people (who most likely want to see the change (for whatever reason _AHEM_ )) show up to to vote.

<comment><USER20> I believe each congressional body requires a majority of members present to have quorum and conduct business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So how does this work if, say, I have an mbox file with messages from 7 months ago and also yesterday? Do they get to snag the entire mbox file or do they have to painstakingly filter out messages from the files?

</comment><comment><USER22> This looks like a promising idea: <http://bitmessage.org/>

Edit: Send me a message if you get it running and I'll reply, BM-2nftGCPpQ9HtjwJgbZfSFhPHqiJbJK7pwvi

</comment><comment><USER23> They demonstrated that they value police state ideals over the civil liberties. Wasn't it expected?

<comment><USER24> Obama State. FTFY.

<comment><USER14> Right. Because Obama totally didn't continue a long legacy, he basically kickstarted this all by himself..

My suggestion would be to more or less ignore the sock puppet of the day and instead pay attention to interest groups and whatnot. Those don't change nearly as much as the faces or slogans that are put on stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Why is email that is 180 days old considered abandoned?

Does this also apply to email, that is stored on a server that I rented or bought?

Am I supposed to delete all email after I read it?

</comment><comment><USER26> Every year the average Westerner citizen is less free than a year ago, and the median citizen is also poorer than the year before.

Is this just my impression? Is the pendulum ever going to swing back?

</comment><comment><USER27> Ultimately isn't the way around something like this is VPN services and encrypting your email? Or is it more than that at this point?

</comment><comment><USER28> 'Burn' Emails

Use <https://receiveee.com> for all of your illicit emailing.

<comment><USER29> It's got misconfigured SSL cipher settings.

See [https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=https%3A%2F%2...](https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=https%3A%2F%2Freceiveee.com%2F)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Could monitoring be the same searching? If so, that legislation is unconstitional!

</comment><comment><USER31> It's funny to see that headline jumps out at you, but not the one above it?

</comment><comment><USER32> whelp, that passing will end my use of free text email.

<comment><USER33> This is an article about an amendment proposed to a law that's already on the books. The 180 days thing is already the law of the land, this amendment sought to change that. There's now nothing in this bill relating to mail privacy (i.e. the existing law isn't being changed at all).

So, if that's the way you feel about it, the time to stop using free text email was 1986, when ECPA was first passed.

<comment><USER32> interesting, I'll have to read more - I was expecting that a warrant was required under current law to use intercepted emails

<comment><USER34> I think most people do expect that.

<comment><USER7> Warrants are required for mail less than 180 days old.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> So congress can fuck around for free?

</comment><comment><USER36> Where's Obama? Where's the great "centerist"? The great leader?

He's invisible again.

<comment><USER24> Why are you surprised?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> If you don't host your own mail server, you are a clown-person. Joe 6 pack has an excuse, but nobody here does.

<comment><USER38> How can I, as a somewhat proficient non-techie, accomplish that without having to dedicate a 24/7 *nix box from home?

Please, if anyone knows a simple, yet elegant solution, I'm all ears.

<comment><USER2> An alternative to postfix:

To receive mail, you could setup Haraka (a very simple NodeJS smtp server)[1] on any unix instance (such as AWS micro). You'll need to set proper MX records for your domain and a few simple configurations. If Heroku would let you specify a port (specifically, 25), you would be able to host on Heroku's free plan. This may put you back at odds by hosting your data on AWS (third-party). Also, you would likely need to setup a POP server to download your messages from the server.

[1] <https://github.com/baudehlo/Haraka>

<comment><USER39> Wouldn't they be able to access cloud systems such as AWS, Linode or Heroku as long as it hosts e-mail systems?

<comment><USER40> That's going to be an interesting question. If you host on linode or google apps or pair.com, is that a server under your control, or a third party.

I would call it a server under your control, the same as a store in a strip mall is under your control, not the mall owner.

But which way does anyone think that's going to go? Not the right way is my assumption.

However, if all your data is encrypted once it rests on the box, you'll at least know you're being probed when they subpoena your keys.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tinychain: a pocket-sized implementation of Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jamesob/tinychain <comment><USER2> There should be one of those awesome-* Github repos with a list of lightweight, readable implementations of various protocols/technologies.

<comment><USER3> I just created it: [https://github.com/jchampemont/awesome- implementations](https://github.com/jchampemont/awesome-implementations)

If it gets important enough, I'll send it to the awesome list repository.

Feel free to contribute guys!

<comment><USER4> Ahhhhh - missed you by 1 minute... :) [https://github.com/mathiasrw/LRIP](https://github.com/mathiasrw/LRIP)

<comment><USER3> Haha it was a close call!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have a similar project in 1000 lines or so c++, called bingot

[https://github.com/shi-yan/bingot](https://github.com/shi-yan/bingot)

It was inspired by another simple crypto currency called basiccoin

[https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/basiccoin](https://github.com/zack- bitcoin/basiccoin)

at the time, basic coin was only 600 lines of python.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm working on my own blockchain (not specifically bitcoin) implementation just to wrap my head around everything. One thing I'm not getting that also wasn't answered by the source code is how you check timestamps.

I understand the whole network time = median offset + local time thing, however I'm a bit fuzzy on how you check timestamps on previous blocks when you're initially downloading the chain. How do you know that you need to check the timestamp if you can't know if you're on the latest block?

<comment><USER7> In my toy blockchain implementation, I just went with two constraints: 1) every timestamp must be strictly larger than the one of the previous block (this makes difficulty calculation easier) 2) timestamps may not be in the future (except for a little wiggle room for unsynchronized clocks)

My reasoning was roughly as follows:

Miners are incentivized to pick very large timestamps, because the longer it takes to mine X blocks, the easier becomes the proof of work they need to solve, giving them more block rewards and transaction fees in the long run. But if they want the network to accept their blocks, they can't pick timestamps in the future, so the best they can do is pick the current time as their timestamp.

<comment><USER8> Your method is easily exploited by a malicious miner. Clocks across the network are going to have some inherent amount of skew. By forcing blocks to have incrementing timestamps and also by refusing to accept blocks in the future, you have made it easy for me as a miner to commit abuse. Instead of picking the exact current time, I will pick a time that is as far in the future as the network allows (taking full advantage of the wiggle room).

Because other miners are required to use a higher timestamp for their block to be valid, they have no ability to correct my outlier time. You have essentially allowed me to put the blocktime permanently forward by the allotted wiggle room, and also you have allowed me to consume all that space you allocated for miners who have clock skew.

It's overall a small attack, but highlights that even tiny decisions can have consequences that impact security. Bitcoin accounts for this by requiring that timestamps be greater than the median of the past 11 blocks, and that's enough to prevent one evil miner from forcing the block times forward for all blocks.

<comment><USER7> Yes, if the next block by an honest miner is very quick it will pick a timestamp of (wrong_timestamp + 1) instead of the actual time, but after a few blocks they will certainly able to use the correct time again.

But even if all miners decide to do as you say and always pick a date slightly in the future but inside the wiggle room, all that they achieve is a one-time very slight difficulty decrease, but by the next difficulty adjustment that's already lost because by then both the start date and end date of the period are offset by the same amount into the future.

<comment><USER8> It significantly increases the risk of network forks for people who don't have completely correct clocks. If a merchant has a clock that is off by 1 hour (they didn't adjust properly for daylight savings perhaps, or maybe they just have a really crappy clock), then it's possible they will not even be seeing the most recent 6 blocks, as all of them are 2 hours in the future (3 hours as seen by the merchant).

There are consequences to having blocks that are permanently set forwards beyond a one-time difficulty decrease of 0.6%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm also working on my own cryptocurrency implementation forked from known basiccoin of Zack Hess. Simply I'm trying to make the code more readable, fix bugs and provide better API. Currently I do not have a fine README that explains my intentions but going through the whole code and rewriting most parts made me realize how simple actually blockchain is. Thinking about fine details like how synchronization of blockchain should work is really inspiring. If you want to take a look at the code it is on [https://github.com/halilozercan/halocoin](https://github.com/halilozercan/halocoin)

<comment><USER10> I will take a look and would you be willing to answer noob kind of questions?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Reminds me of this post: [https://dev.to/aunyks/lets-build-the-tiniest- blockchain](https://dev.to/aunyks/lets-build-the-tiniest-blockchain)

</comment><comment><USER12> Props for the killer README!

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> nice work, this is really cool. Source is very readable, great resource for those looking to understand bitcoin. Can't wait to play around with it and deploy it on my little raspberry pi swarm!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! It's definitely meant for forking, hacking on, and experimentation. A few ideas:

\- use dns for peer discovery

\- implement Script language subset

\- implement SegWit

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I would love to see this for Ethereum. I was able to understand the Bitcoin protocol fairly quickly with a little reading, but I haven't come across much good writing on the mechanics of the Ethereum protocol. All of the intro texts I've seen are about like "Step 1: install the client" kind of stuff.

I'm not interested so much in how to write smart contracts, so much as how the miners work, how conflicts are resolved, and how the incentive schemes play out.

Would love to get some reading suggestions!

<comment><USER5> Not sure if this will help you: [https://medium.com/@shiyan/ethereum- summary-a53c4a8e66d?sour...](https://medium.com/@shiyan/ethereum- summary-a53c4a8e66d?source=linkShare-2f9df7d2fecb-1502142992)

<comment><USER15> This is great. I already understood most of BTC and ETH protocols, but learned some new bits, thanks for sharing!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I can see this useful for all cryptocurrencies as well as alleviating some of the need for hedge funds investing in cryptocurrencies for their clients as brought out here ...Hedge Funds Investing in Cryptocurrencies 'Exploding' – 62 in Pipeline [https://news.bitcoin.com/hedge-funds-investing-in- cryptocurr...](https://news.bitcoin.com/hedge-funds-investing-in- cryptocurrencies-exploding-62-in-pipeline/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Currently reading through a book on bitcoin, so this is extremely timely!

Got me thinking, what are some solid bitcoin/cryptocurrency resources that the HN community would recommend?

<comment><AUTHOR> I link to some of my favorite resources at the end of this section: [https://github.com/jamesob/tinychain#what-is- bitcoin](https://github.com/jamesob/tinychain#what-is-bitcoin)

I also recommend subscribing to the bitcoin-core-dev mailing list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Cool project! Reminds me of Naivechain, a blockchain in 200 lines of code

[https://github.com/lhartikk/naivechain](https://github.com/lhartikk/naivechain)</comment>


I call this blackmail - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5814035/i-call-this-blackmail

<comment><USER2> I can just imagine some Gawker guy checking their properties to see which gets the highest CPM and then telling the gadget blog to write about something completely unappealing to their users in the hope that TC will make a rebuttal post and send them a buttload of traffic.

</comment><comment><USER3> With Arrington's history of douchiness in mind, how is this surprising?</comment>


Hot Apple Rumor: AT&T to Lose Its iPhone Exclusive This Week - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/hot-apple-rumor-atandt-to-lose-its-iphone-exclusive-this-week/19329822/

<comment><USER2> See also: [http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/01/24/att-rumored-to- los...](http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/01/24/att-rumored-to-lose-iphone- exclusivity-this-wednesday/) and [http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/01/25/verizon- wireless-t...](http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/01/25/verizon-wireless-to- store-managers-wednesday-is-a-big-day/)</comment>


Twitter and the Architectural Changes of Life Streaming - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/making_twitter_scale.php <comment><USER2> So "cloud" actually means "sharded"? Wow, I've never heard that one before.</comment>


Ask HN: Third party payment processors? - <AUTHOR> I am developer that is going to be building a SaaS that will handle payment processing for a variety of clients, in addition to providing other services bundled in. Can anyone recommend to me an API or service that I can use to handle the payment processing side of things? I was looking at Stripe, but it seems expensive for my needs (2.9% for each transaction would really stack up, unless I'm not looking at the right thing...)
Here's some of my needs:
- My per-seat plans will be 10/100/101+
- Each seat will be doing monthly payments to my client
- Each payment will be anywhere from $1000 to $4000+
Any thoughts? Thanks for the input <comment><USER2> They take that charge because bank itself charges them some 1.9% or so.

Unless you resort to direct bank transfer, its difficult i suppose.

</comment><comment><USER3> since this is B2B type stuff looks like can you use ACH?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah - thats what I am hearing. I am currently looking into Dwolla - they look like they have a pretty slick API and reasonable rates.</comment></comment>


Hello Dave. I control your thermostat. Google's Nest gets hacked - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/10/hello-dave-i-control-your-thermostat-googles-nest-gets-hacked/

<comment><USER2> If you use your new found power over a thermostat to actually change something about the occupants environment your hack will be immediately detected and corrected. So you only get to use your power once.

For embedded systems that control a real life processes, security weaknesses are just another form of unreliability. In the end it doesn't really matter that someone, somewhere caused your pipes to burst. The real issue was that software was allowed to do that in the first place. No one cares that you made a funny display...

</comment><comment><USER3> I love Nest's response where they suggested buying a Dropcam to fix the problem. That's hilarious.</comment>