Linus Torvalds: The King of Geeks (And Dad of 3) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/mr-linux/ <comment><USER2> RedHat's $1m stock is his only big payout, apparently. Rather sad, considering the number of mid-level facebook engineers who will become many times as rich in a few months.

<comment><USER3> Which of those will be remembered in 200 years. Wanna be the richest guy in the graveyard?

<comment><USER4> Being the famous guy in the graveyard isn't particularly appealing either.

<comment><USER5> Millions of tourists who pay tributes to graves and memorials would disagree

<comment><USER6> None of that would matter for the 'dead guy' in the graveyard.

What matters is your experiences when your alive.

What matters more? The rich guy gets a more comfortable coffin too!

<comment><USER7> >> _None of that would matter for the 'dead guy' in the graveyard._

That's up for the 'dead guy' and his beliefs to consider.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Had the pleasure of meeting Linus last weekend while up in Portland, at a Go Kart facility no less. Super nice guy, but I was a little too star struck to form coherent words. His race nickname was Penguin, :).

</comment><comment><USER5> I cringed with the S.Jobs comparisons. Journalists should really stop doing this. And this one was completely unwarranted

</comment><comment><USER9> How is that license plate holder legal? You can't even see the state name, and you have to guess based on the lower loop on the "g".

Don't drive that car into Texas ([http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist25/pr03...](http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist25/pr03/p092603a.htm)) or any other state with similar laws...

<comment><USER10> He could roll Steve Jobs style and have no plate.

<comment><USER11> Only if he rolls in California, since that's the state where Jobs was exploiting the law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Linus' blog entry on the pre-Oscar party mentioned in the article - [http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2011/02/pearls-before- sw...](http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2011/02/pearls-before-swine.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> What's the point of this article? Feels like (tech) celebrity gossip.

</comment><comment><USER14> "...he rubbed elbows with the likes of Robert Downey Jr., who didn't know who he was, and Mad Men star Jon Hamm, who did."

I'm mildly disappointed in RD Jr... he had so much geek cred after playing an awesome Iron Man, but I guess that's why it's called acting.

<comment><USER15> I'm far, far more impressed than Jon Hamm does. I've been a techie all my life, and I would walk straight past Linus if I saw him on the street. I only have a very vague idea of what he looks like.

And why should it otherwise? He's famous for what he's done, not who he is.

<comment><USER16> That reminds me of this tweet I saw. I was surprised to recognise 11 of 12 (I think. Not positive on the lower left; don't know the one in the wig).

Evidently commissioned by a lover of Clojure: [http://twitter.com/#!/ghoseb/status/167501457896120321/photo...](http://twitter.com/#!/ghoseb/status/167501457896120321/photo/1)

<comment><USER14> Hah I thought that was Paul McCartney. The one in the middle with the wig is Bach. I can only get half or so. Where is that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am really getting sick of everybody and his uncle being compared to Steve Jobs. I mean, a comparison to Woz might not be out of place (both men were technical architects of things that revolutionised the industry), but Steve Jobs was a businessperson with an uncanny eye for industrial design, not the architecture of software.

</comment><comment><USER18> I am really interested what Linus will do about the metallic taste in the espresso? I hope he will hack the Jura Espresso-Machine and we'll all end up with Linux-Coffee.

</comment><comment><USER19> Off topic a bit, and maybe this is just me, but is Wired one of the slowest loading sites on the internet for anyone else?

<comment><USER20> It took less than a second, running latest firefox on linux and noscript/adblock/flashblock/etc.

But on the same vein of off topic, I just want to know if the microwave and coffee maker on that picture run linux.

<comment><USER21> While I could _very_ easily be wrong Linus always struck me as the kind of guy who would want a microwave and coffee maker that just works and wouldn't really care if they run linux or not.

<comment><USER22> He strikes me as the kind of guy who just wants the best tool for the job. If it doesn't exist, he makes it.

<comment><USER23> As opposed to Richard Stallman, who probably does not drink coffee unless it comes from a coffee maker running free softare.

<comment><USER24> Just to be pedantic...

Stallman: I'm less concerned with what happens with embedded systems than I am with real computers. The real reason for this is the moral issues about software freedom are much more significant for computers that users see as a computer. And so I'm not really concerned with what's running inside my microwave oven.

Again, I'm happy if people find GNU/Linux useful for that. If some companies finds it useful in a microwave oven I'll say, "That's nice." But I don't think that's where the social and political issues arise. Those arise where the computers are visible to the user as computers. We can load software into them. We have thus the possibility of sharing and changing software. And then it becomes a significant question whether we are allowed to do so or whether we are blocked from doing so.

<comment><USER23> Interesting.

I don't agree with Stallman on making this distinction. (I don't agree with him in general, either, though.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Amusing anecdote:

A few months back I was at the local Petsmart; getting out of my car I noticed a guy walking toward the store. I thought he looked familiar, so I looked back over my shoulder at him again... I didn't really recognize him but I thought he might have been somebody famous for some reason.

Anyway, when I got back to my car I saw that yellow mercedes, and when read the plate holder saying "Mr. Linux. King of Geeks." I figured out who it was, kind of neat.

At the time I don't think I realized he lived in Portland.

<comment><USER26> I had no idea he moved to America. Anyone know the reason? Redhat?

<comment><USER27> He moved to America in 2004, and became a US citizen in 2010. Two of his kids are US citizens as well (by virtue of having been born there).

<comment><USER28> I think he moved to the US sometime in the late 90s.

<comment><USER27> I think you're right. 2004 was probably just his move to Portland.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Proves that if you do what you love, you're bound to be successful.

<comment><USER30> It proves no such thing. There are many people who do what they love and are failures.

<comment><USER31> Not _really_ disagreeing with your contention, but there are probably different applicable definitions of "failure" here. It could be argued doing what one loves is inherently successful, etc. (I'm sure you're familiar with the sentiment.)</comment></comment></comment>


The Humiliating Practice of Sex-Testing Female Athletes - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-sex-testing-female-athletes.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> Amazing that we still do not have true competition today. Why are male/female still separated? Not related to this article but it is interesting that we have this form of segregation today - NBA & WNBA, etc. Is this and testing in itself sexism?

<comment><USER3> I think that question can be answered empirically. If you start with the assumption that players of both gender's push themselves to the maximum they can (i.e. they don't stop just because they are "good enough") then it's a matter of measurement...

Take the max/mean/median/mode of a random sample of the stats you can find broken down by gender. If the female stats are close to the male stats then segmentation in that sport is probably artificial.

However, my hypothesis (and I may get down-voted for this) is that for many sports the increased weight, height, and arm/leg length will provide an unfair advantage. I think your WNBA/NBA example may be a good example.

But like all hypothesis it would need to be tested.

Then we have the sports where there are no female leagues at all... for those, woman should at least be allowed to try out for the teams.

<comment><USER4> I've played soccer in a co-ed league and I could see ways to bring it to professional team sports. Imagine mixed gender leagues of basketball or soccer where you need a certain quota of men/women per team. That would balance things out. I really think it could be fun to watch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's natural, in a time where sex changes are a fact of life, that sex-testing become a requirement for more and more occasions.

Wouldn't you want to sex-test for a true XX chromosomic set before you'd marry a wife to have children? Better safe than sorry, and be sure you don't marry a XY like you with whom you cannot have natural children!

And it's not new either: how ironic to name it sex-TESTing, when the term comes from popes' testicules being tested to ensure popes were male!</comment>


The AT&T Next Hustle - <AUTHOR> http://don.citarella.net/2015/06/23/att-next-hustle/

<comment><USER2> When someone gets out a piece of paper, draws lines or quadrants on it, and starts writing down numbers, refuse to continue the conversation.

This is new/used car dealer tactics.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'll never understand how Next disparagers get their numbers. The screenshot [1] clearly shows $21.67 per month for 30 months ($650.10).

Next is effectively 0% installment loan for buying a new device with the (admittedly terrible) option of terminating the contract and returning the device for a new Next contract.

[1] [http://i1.wp.com/don.citarella.net/wp- content/uploads/2015/0...](http://i1.wp.com/don.citarella.net/wp- content/uploads/2015/06/att01.png)

<comment><USER4> It's closer to a lease though, no? If you use the [upgrade] option prior to making the final payment, you have to return the phone.

If you make the final payment, and then choose to upgrade, do you get to keep the phone you've been paying for (i.e. an installment loan), or must you return it (aka, a lease)?

<comment><USER3> If you pay off the entire amount, you keep the device. If you upgrade before the contract ends, you have the option of paying off the remaining amount and keeping it (or returning it).

It's most likely a terrible idea to return the device instead of paying off and selling it, and AT&T probably makes free money from that, but the rest of the plan is pretty reasonable.

<comment><USER5> This is what I've always understood to be the case, just never return the device, pay it off and sell it on craigslist/ebay (which I've done 4+ times without any issues).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's actually worse than this article states. If you get the "AT&T Next 24" plan that just means you can upgrade to a new phone after 24 months. You are actually agreeing to make 30 payments so you end up with $56 tax plus $29 x 30 or $926.

Edit: Also note that you are only eligible for upgrading after 24 months if your phone is in good condition--no cracks, chips, etc. If your phone breaks not only do you have to buy a new one, but you have to keep paying for the old one for 30 months!

<comment><USER7> It's nowhere near being "worse" than the article states. The Next plans are literally just $0 down, 0% interest installment plans. It's exactly what T-Mobile is doing, except AT&T does a really shitty job of explaining how it works and, instead of having you pay $10 for Jump to trade-in whenever you want, you can opt to trade it in a few months before the payments finish.

My friend's T-Mobile phone broke halfway through her installment plan. She had to buy a new one and still pay for her old, broken one for the next year.

<comment><USER6> It actually is worse than the article states because he calculated it at 24 months but he should have calculated it at 30 months. And if you lose, break, or even crack your phone before the 30 months--which isn't at all uncommon-- you still have to pay for the old one and a new one.

<comment><USER7> How is that "worse"? They have two other installment duration options.

Again, though, that's the same thing that happens if you break your phone on T-Mobile before 24 months if you don't have Jump, which not everyone has.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just went through this "fun" several months ago. I was and still am livid. The rate increase for the 2 year contract is a horrible tactic used by them to increase the bottom line.

What I did was simply call and threaten to leave. They offered me over $400 in credits. During that call I found out I can get my normal line price by simply paying off my phones early. Note I had the 2 year contract when I upgraded. The plan was to pay them off once I went through my credit after 3 months and switch to cricket. When the time came I paid off my phones (2 phones at about $350 a piece + tax). When I called to pay them off the lady had to get a manager approval because she didn't know how to do it. Long story short I am not yet with cricket, because I can't find a cheap tablet only option (I travel a lot). This and other billing practices really put piss me off about att (combined billing)

</comment><comment><USER9> Unless my (read: everyone whom this affects) bill(s) actually drops by a corresponding amount of $ then this Next doesn't seem worth it. Many of us pay $200 for a phone and the rest is subsidized by signing the contract for 2 years. Why would I want to pay $650 + the same monthly payment for 2 years for the same phone? Upgrade early? If I stick with iPhones and can tolerate not having the newest one every 1 year vs. every 2 years then this has no benefit. This may only serve to benefit those who A. keep their phones in good condition and B. have Android or other non-iPhones where a newer model is introduced more than once a year.

</comment><comment><USER10> At first I thought this was an obvious scam. Then I realized, when I upgrade my phone, the old one just sits in a drawer. In general, I can't be bothered to actually sell my old devices. So, maybe it isn't so bad.

<comment><USER8> Several places have a buyback program. I used Amazon for my last phones. Didn't get as much as if I sold them myself, but it was painless. I had 2 iPhone 5s and got around $200 for each. They give you Amazon credit which is not as good as cash, but I still used it for things I needed for around the house.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If Apple feels the phone is worth $600, and you're getting the phone new, you're only going to be able to pay $200 for it if AT&T pays the rest for you.

</comment><comment><USER4> Isn't loading for me, here's text-only cached version: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:don.cit...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:don.citarella.net/2015/06/23/att- next-hustle/&es_sm=91&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

</comment><comment><USER12> The worst deal is for new users that are stuck paying the $40/month if they don't want Next. Thank goodness they weren't allowed to buy T-Mobile.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm on this plan with my family and recommend everyone (if possible) to coral family/friends to do the same.

It's six of us who share 20gigs a month. Each of us pays $50 a month for the data and unlimited text/talk. Further, we can upgrade annually by returning our phones in good condition (have an otter box so it's solid) and pay an upgrade fee.

I use about 6 gigs a month while the others about 2 gigs.

<comment><USER13> Ha this isn't spam just someone who use to have their own plan and was paying more then double for a lesser service(sprint).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I assume Apple store employees don't try to sway people into Next when buying in the Apple store?

</comment><comment><USER14> Why would you even start down this hideouslly complicated system instead of just getting a T-Mobile or Boost or similar plan, and buying a retail phone. (Preferably a $200 Anroid , or a uaed iPhone, instead of a $600 iPhone)

The "hustle" only shows up when you sign up for the incredibly expensive systems and then try to find a loophole.

<comment><USER15> >buying a retail phone

For the same reason people very rarely pay cash for a house. They can't afford it.

The AT&T Next Plan is a reasonable compromise for people who want a new smartphone and cannot afford to pay 200-500$ up front.

<comment><USER6> That doesn't make it any less of a hustle and probably why rent-to-own places still get customers. So yeah if you have to have the most expensive phones but can't afford them you will do this.

The thing is they are pretty much forcing everyone into these plans by almost doubling the old plan prices. Plus the old family plans are no longer cheaper if you don't have a smartphone and don't use data--you pay the same price for all phones.

<comment><USER15> >That doesn't make it any less of a hustle.

Still not quite understanding your use of this word. How can the deal be a fraud or swindle if the terms are given up front? Let's set aside the argument about whether you think it's a good deal or not, as that is not the meaning of the word "hustle".

They're not intentionally selling you a defective product masked as a new one.

They're not signing you up for something and then changing the terms.

As far as I can tell, the word hustle is being used here to mean "trying to convince people that a product is a better deal than it is." But again, this is a matter of opinion and situation. What is a good deal for you may not be available to others because of the up front cost

And here again, the math behind the swindle claim doesn't add up. You are still paying the retail price of the phone whether you sign up for two years contract or with Next. AT&T does not lose money on either contract.

<comment><USER9> _intentionally selling you a defective product masked as a new one.

signing you up for something and then changing the terms._ \- fraud

 _And here again, the math behind the swindle claim doesn 't add up. You are still paying the retail price of the phone whether you sign up for two years contract or with Next. AT&T does not lose money on either contract._ \- hustle

I've paid $175/month for 3 lines (2 are unlimited data and 1 is 2gb) for over 8 years now and I've always bought the $199 iPhone (with upgrade). A comparable plan with high-capped data (closest you can get to unlimited) runs only a little bit more ($185-190) for 3 lines. When I recently went to upgrade I was offered Next and the monthly cost wouldn't have been any cheaper for the lines yet I'd have had to pay an extra $2X.XX/month for the phone. Trying to persuade me that this is a better deal when it is not qualifies as a hustle. It isn't fraud since there's no bait and switch. They're just bullshitting.

<comment><USER9> intopieces - I can't reply to your comment so I'll post my reply here. _There are different terms and benefits. They 're not exactly alike. What you're saying is, essentially, "The salesman tried to sell me something I don't want and that's dishonest."_ This is patently false and not what I said or meant. What is the hustle about this is trying to persuade me that their deal is better when it is in fact, not.

 _Lots of people find value in the ability to upgrade their phone without having to pay the entire ETF, choosing instead to give back their phone. That you don 't find this valuable does not make it dishonest.You would have a case if the two deals (2 year contract or Next) were precisely the same. They are not. In fact, you summarily ignore the main feature of the offer to make your point!_ My point is that the deals are as close as they can and they were trying to A. persuade me to pay more money, B. persuade me to give up my unlimited data and C. persuade me to pay full price for my phone when I normally don't.

In addition, I've never paid an ETF as ETF means _Early Termination Fee_ and since I clearly stated I complete the full contract then there would not be any ETF.

Summary: AT&T Next is a hustle for most of their customers.

<comment><USER15> >A. persuade me to pay more money >C. persuade me to pay full price for my phone when I normally don't.

Now we've gotten to the real hustle -- you think that when you buy your phone from AT&T on contract, that you don't pay the full price of the phone. You do, actually. Remember the fee they waive if you do AT&T Next? That's the part that pays for the phone.

[http://m.att.com/shopmobile/wireless/next-calculate-the- valu...](http://m.att.com/shopmobile/wireless/next-calculate-the-value.html)

>B. persuade me to give up my unlimited data Here's where we get to your real complaint. This whole time, you've been hiding this beef behind the AT&T Next Plan. Your actual issue is that they don't offer unlimited Data anymore -- fair enough, but that's not what we're talking about here.

<comment><USER9> subsidy noun sub·si·dy \ˈsəb-sə-dē, -zə-\

: money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function

: a grant or gift of money: as a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation b : money granted by one state to another c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

 _Remember the fee they waive if you do AT &T Next? That's the part that pays for the phone._ What about before AT&T Next? I think what you're missing is the contract price doesn't magically drop after you "pay off" the phone if it is subsidized. Therefore if it doesn't drop then it was never really increased seeing as the plan prices are the same whether you buy a phone or not (at least they are/were every time I've upgraded). That is the subsidized part that I'm talking about.

In closing, the subsidized cost of my phone was not paid back by me to AT&T as evidenced by the fact that my bill is the same whether I signed a 2 year agreement and bought a phone or not.

 _This whole time, you 've been hiding this beef behind the AT&T Next Plan. Your actual issue is that they don't offer unlimited Data anymore -- fair enough, but that's not what we're talking about here._ I haven't been hiding any beef with AT&T about unlimited data since they still grandfather both of my unlimited data lines. My beef is with them trying to hustle me into a worse plan at a higher cost. Why would I care if they offer unlimited data any more if I already have it? Unlimited data or any amount of data for that matter, Next still, in the most literal sense, costs me more money.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


They Want It to Be Secret: How a Common Blood Test Can Cost $11 or Almost $1k - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/upshot/health-care-huge-price-discrepancies.html <comment><USER2> Is anyone aware of a service where we as consumers could key in the information from our insurance companies. What we pay, what the negotiated rates are, etc? Glassdoor has a place for employer benefits, but it's largely useless. Consumers should be able to compare prices among themselves,

I know I've seen huge differences in what I (and my employer) pay for similar insurance, even when organizations are similarly sized.

I've also seen huge discrepancies in price charged vs price payed by insurance company. Is anyone collecting this data? I sent an email proposing something like this to propublica, but I've been thinking of setting something up myself.</comment>


Real Time Map of Storm Chasers - <AUTHOR> http://www.tornadovideos.net/full-screen-chaser-video.php See also http://www.chasertv.com/ <comment><USER2> I love this, very clean and straight forward.

I wonder how often the data is updated..?

<comment><USER3> I assumed it was real-time since each car has a live video stream as well.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Has Google made you pay $15,000 to $75,000 for a security review? - <AUTHOR> Has anyone gone through Google's OAuth verification process for restricted scopes recently? They give you a choice of just two very expensive companies for security reviews. <comment><USER2> We are in the process of going through this but have not yet received the confirmation that our scope is approved.

This process was a huge surprise for us. We are a bootstrapped startup that spent a significant amount of time building the Gmail integration last year before this was announced. We are launching shortly and have had to remove the entire integration. We have no idea how much it is going to cost or if we will be approved.

We are launching a product in a mature market with lots of competitors (hence the long initial development time), one of those being Google. According to Wikipedia, Gmail has 1.4 billion customers. I don't understand how this got past their lawyers - 1) monopoly in e-mail space, 2) create other products tightly integrated, 3) charge a $15k - $75k fee to any new competitors in your space.

<comment><USER3> Google isn't charging you anything in this instance; they're requiring you to get an assessment from a third party, and while $75k is way out of line for a straightforward assessment of a simple CRUD-type app, $15k is actually on the low end for that kind of work.

<comment><USER2> Understood, however from our cash flow perspective, Google is "charging" us this amount in order to play. We have no alternatives, we cannot find another vendor, and at the end of the day have to pay a minimum of $15k to compete with them. It makes no difference who gets the money, obviously that amount of money means nothing to Google.

<comment><USER4> > and at the end of the day have to pay a minimum of $15k to compete with > them.

From your previous statement, it seems your product is tightly integrated with gmail. That suggest you're actually relying on Google to be your infrastructure provider. If that's the case then claiming the fee is "to compete with them" is not the most accurate or honest description.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> When we asked to use another security company for the assessment Google responded: "We understand your concern but you will have to request a security assessment from one of the following independent third-party assessors: Leviathan Security, Bishop Fox".

<comment><USER5> Interesting! I have some ideas for options here if you'd like to chat offline to see if I can help you here hit us up. [https://includesecurity.com/#contact](https://includesecurity.com/#contact)

Context: I work in this space and actively work on programs such as these.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is that Google wants to see reviews from one of those companies. We're communicating with them regarding this more ... Because this is just a major shake down which will put small dev. shops out of business.

<comment><USER5> Yes I understand the problem, we've seen it before. I still have ideas that could help you if you'd like to communicate off HN, I'm happy to share.

<comment><AUTHOR> Google completely ignores our complaints about forcing app developers to use just those two firms so any dev. shop using Gmail API (or IMAP over OAuth2) should be prepared to pay >$15k! That is going to drive many small businesses out of business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> For what it's worth, Leviathan and Bishop Fox are both strong firms.

<comment><USER5> Agree 100% tptacek. Though I would suggest that opening up vetting to add new firms and the resulting competition would only improve the situation for partners in terms of pricing, scheduling, process, etc.

Obviously we're a competing firm to those, so bias warning :), but I think it's a sound principal that would help the market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Related: I am going through Google's OAuth verification for a simple "sign up with google" function plus a non-restricted scope access. They say that the application is approved, the console has a green check mark and says "published" and I got an email saying that the application has been approved.

However, whenever a user actually tries to sign up, it says that the app is not verified. So I can't submit anything for review, because everything has been reviewed and approved, but it still doesn't work.

<comment><USER7> I'm going off very little info here, but this is almost always not Google's fault. Double-check everything and try a prebuilt application that's known to work with those scopes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The practice is pretty common when dealing with a large enterprise. Pen tests vary wildly, in quality and scope. Typically, you require 3rd party pen tests, a little more common is to review the report and methodology. However, it's not uncommon to specify that it has to be a Big4 type firm or from an approved vendor list.

It's pricey, especially for small firms. However, most companies don't know what their security posture is - this is all part of managing risk.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yes, and it's about time. The reality is that email is a huge attack vector for corporations and it's not practical for Google to bear the burden of review as part of their ecosystem. It was tested and failed.

They've only approved two vendors, blargh. More will come in time. Be patient, or raise money.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's very common for developers to mess up authentication. It requires a fundamental understanding of protocols. What makes it worse is that an incorrectly implemented protocol doesn't break the integration, it just breaks the security benefits.

A pen test mitigates that risk.

</comment><comment><USER10> This seems to be new as of January 15, 2019.

[https://developers.google.com/terms/api-services-user- data-p...](https://developers.google.com/terms/api-services-user-data- policy#additional-requirements-for-specific-api-scopes)

[https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/g-suite/elevating- use...](https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/g-suite/elevating-user-trust- in-our-api-ecosystems)

</comment><comment><USER11> It's an optional step[1] if you list your app as a G Suite marketplace app with domain only install. Of course, it makes sense if your app targets only G Suite customers and not general Gmail customers. It also limits the market reach.

[1] [https://developers.google.com/gsuite/marketplace/security- as...](https://developers.google.com/gsuite/marketplace/security-assessment)

</comment><comment><USER12> It appears to be a CYA move by google. A penetration test, clear detailed information about usage of user data, and it is done by separate contractors. I would hope they allow more contractors in the future.

<comment><USER5> Yep this is a common move a lot of companies are doing for their biz partners and customers are requiring these sorts of tests be done before getting final procurement sign-off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Its all just another another moat around those sweet sweet enterprise $$</comment>


The Time I "Interviewed" At Apple - <AUTHOR> http://hunterwalk.com/2013/10/04/the-time-i-interviewed-at-apple/ <comment><USER2> > _...how difficult consumer services were going to continue to be for them if > they insisted on perfection before release. I still think of this every time > I use Dropbox instead of iCloud..._

There's a big difference between startups iterating, and giants like Apple. I think we all remember how they were excoriated on the Maps release, which certainly wasn't perfect. Because of their scale, Apple doesn't have the kind of flexibility that unknown startups do -- not just because of their scale, but also because most of their software isn't solely web-based, but is tied into software that is sold with hardware which is released yearly.

I agree that they have a difficult time with a lot of consumer services. But I don't think it's nearly as simple as the author suggests.

<comment><USER3> Isn't the author comparing Google's approach to Apple's? Google has more market share than Apple in just about every software category, so if Google can iterate, than why can't Apple?

I think it has more to do with Apple's marketing. Every time they release even the most trivial improvement they tout it as being amazingly innovative. They also charge premium prices. This creates an expectation with their users that everything will be perfect from the beginning.

<comment><USER4> People pay for Apple products, so they expect something that works well and looks good.

The switching costs are also much higher with hardware than software. You don't want to pay for a phone and find out it's half-baked, while if a 'free' web service doesn't work, it's easy to switch.

It's also about branding and culture, people expect different things from each company. That has pros and cons.

<comment><USER5> Just staying with the Google example, I don't remember any major Google product having a major failure. The new Google Maps may be. I know many people complain about the new GMail but it's just about choices of design they made and not about some bugs in the product. So again, Google products are iterative and not buggy irrespective of whether people pay for them or not.

<comment><USER6> Start watching a YouTube video. Pause it. Come back hours later. Hit play. It'll play a few more seconds and then fail to continue. I'd call that a major Google product with a major failure, though our definitions for major may differ.

Google Chrome for iOS crashes on a regular basis. It also fails to start YouTube videos a lot. Again, I consider those major products with major failures.

Gchat-in-Gmail has issues on a regular basis.

Also, non-major Google products have plenty of bugs. Google Groups digest emails have been broken forever. Once in a while one randomly trickles into my inbox, and I think for a second it may be fixed. Nope, still borked. Despite quite a bit of effort, I've never managed to communicate with any actual human Googler about it.

I've often had to authenticate twice, for unknown reasons, while getting into Gmail from Chrome, when trying to get in via their Gmail app icon.

I like plenty of Google products and services, and use them daily, but they seem to have their fair share of bugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if this notion that Apple needs to "get" web services to survive will really matter in the long run? It's the conventional wisdom, just like that they "lost" the PC wars even though they've been the most profitable PC maker for a decade now. There haven't been many web services that have lasted for a decade or more in a dominant position.

Might Apple's best long term strategy to...

1\. Support/innovate the heck out of browser/web connectivity software

2\. Push the boundaries of input devices and make the best hardware

3\. Secure content deals with popular artists

4\. Continue to expand their retail/service footprint

5\. Let the various waves of social networks rise and fall, but make money on every device sold?

Even the Android hegemon, which supposedly poses an existential threat, could easily fracture if Samsung decides to go their own way.

Apple's position would be better with a firm control of key web services, but I'm not sure it's a requirement.

<comment><USER8> Look at people's IPhones. A lot of its users use apps not built by Apple.

Search, Mail, Social Network, Maps, Photo-sharing, etc.

Yeah, Apple will always make tons of money but IPhone/IPad will become just a device that hosts these apps. If most of the apps people need are available in another platform, the costs of switching is going to be low.

<comment><USER7> For sure, but can't the same be said of their Mac lines? I'm sure iOS will always be a minority in terms of market share, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are the dominant player in the part of the market where people actually PAY for their product compared to free Android phones.

The tablet market is a good example of this, aside from Kindle's no Android tablet has really taken off and I think it's because of some of those points I enumerated above.

<comment><USER8> "no Android tablet has really taken off"

FYI, Android tablet has larger market share than the IPad now.

If you're narrowing it to just one brand/model, you're right. But Android tablets in general are selling a ton.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really can't see Apple adopting a more iterative approach to product development. "Perfect the first time" is so deeply engrained in their corporate identity that the CEO feels the need to personally apologize when they don't achieve it (see: Apple Maps). Compare that to the new Google Maps, which was pretty shitty when it went to open beta but has been getting progressively less so.

Google's users cut Google the necessary slack to allow them to release imperfect products and improve on them. Apple's do not.

<comment><USER10> Apple does plenty of iteration, just in a different way. Think about copy and paste on iPhone, MMS messaging, multitasking, etc. They work depth-first rather than breadth, so instead of dozens of half-working features, you get one or two complete features. I think it opens Apple up to more criticism, especially combined with their secrecy, but the criticism and even trolls only help contribute to more buzz.

<comment><USER11> I'm looking at the Dock at the bottom of my MacBook Pro and I can't help but think that most of the apps are half baked and most of them I don't even use.

I've replaced Safari with Firefox. I haven't fired up iChat in a while because I just use GMail chat instead. iTunes is really wonky when you want to play music off of an NFS server. I've never fired up FaceTime or PhotoBooth. The X11 app is so buggy it's ridiculous. I use Terminal all the time, but it's got some serious memory leaks. Time Machine breaks half the time in unexpected ways. Calculator works pretty well, although I find myself using the R console more and more instead.

I feel like the Mac software side of things just doesn't get any love anymore. Apple is so focused on iPhone/iPad that the OSX applications are stretched completely thin and rarely get any love and attention. The machine has really just turned into a glorified terminal and browser where I run the occasional Linux virtual machine or the odd game in Steam. Any serious heavy lifting is left for Linux, and most applications have migrated to the web.

<comment><USER12> I don't believe those applications are half-baked as much as your needs are more advanced than the target of those applications. Those applications work extremely well for the typical mac user. Firefox would just confuse my sister, and she wouldn't even know what an NFS server is. Linux would just make her stop using a computer.

And how is iChat half baked because you use Gmail chat? I could say the same for Gchat when I use iChat. (Not saying that ichat can't be improved, but your line of logic doesn't follow.)

<comment><USER11> In re-reading my post, yeah, I guess it's a little "power user" centric. You're right in that most people wouldn't be comfortable with Linux, an NFS server, or even R.

I think the point I should have made was that I don't find a lot of the apps to be that useful because there are good web equivalents (mail, chat, docs, etc.) and I don't find the other apps that compelling. I would suspect, even being the "power user" that I am, that most other people are of the same opinion. That, or they're just using a tablet or their phone instead.

As for Firefox, I'm not sure how it would confuse your sister any more than Safari does, unless she finds it confusing for web sites to render correctly and not crash constantly.

<comment><USER12> My sister probably would have trouble finding and installing firefox, and then wouldn't get more out of it than she would Safari. I'm not sure what websites you have problems with, but I can't remember the last time I had Safari crash on me (anecdotal I know, plus I bounce back and forth between Safari and Chrome).

And I agree that there are better versions of Apple's free software, but it's free, and does exactly what it should, which is lubricate the novice user's experience. Once you pass novice, it's easy to go find software that fulfills your needs.

And I would disagree that most other people are of the same opinion. My guess is that you live in a bubble of mostly experienced computer users (as do most of us on HN). Go spend a day at an Apple store somewhere besides the Bay area and you'll see most of the people that make up the bulk of Apple's user base. They, like my sister, probably don't even know there are other options out there (some are using iPad and iPhones, sure, but plenty are still using iMacs and Macbooks).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > And how they'll need to change the questions they ask of potential senior > execs in order to bring in some of the mentality required to iterate towards > excellence in public as opposed to behind closed doors.

I feel like, with possibly the exception of the iPhone, Apple's magic sauce has been to let others launch first and learn from their mistakes, iterate in private until they have their product as close to perfection as they can, then release it.

They weren't the first computer. They weren't the first MP3 player. They weren't the first place to buy songs online. They weren't the first to make a smartphone. They weren't the first to make a tablet.

Granted these weren't software services for the most part, they were hardware. But in the same sense, Apple does a lot of development in the background almost by design, so they can storm the set and have a polished product ready to go (with some exceptions, notably Mobile Me).

This "iterating on the fly" web thing is a software mentality. I'd argue that Apple is first & foremost a hardware company. Once you release the hardware, you're stuck with it for better or worse. There's no such "ship it before it's ready and fix it later" mindset in hardware.

<comment><USER14> >I'd argue that Apple is first & foremost a hardware company

I would argue that Apple is primarily a software company. Sure, they do offer nice, polished hardware touches like Retina display, TouchID, unibody aluminum enclosures, but the actual components are the same as commodity PC hardware. Further, companies like Samsung are making phone with bigger screens and (ostensibly) faster processors. What people are paying a premium for is the Experience (well, and the Brand) - in OS X, things "just work," and the OS is generally more stable and user friendly than Windows. Similarly with iOS, at least before iOS7, the design choices that were made by Ive and Co allowed the mass market to intuitively use a smartphone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Going through the comments (and most of the HN comments on platforms that tend to divide people), I still find it deeply distressing that even geeks/nerds chase hard after the one-true-way approach. You don't see one true type of bread, you don't see one true type of car, you don't see one true type of anything. Yet, when it comes to things like mobile phones and platforms, we behave like absolute twerps.

People have different circumstances, levels of understanding and fifty to the power of three other factors that determine their choices in life. We want to ignore all of that and dismiss every person who does not see the same merits that we do. And that is sad beyond what can be expressed in words.

Can you imagine in a world in which it makes sense to have both the Apple and Google approach? If you cannot, you should step out and see a lot more of the real world. Choices, no matter how disagreeable or flawed, are welcome in a more open world. I hope we will all, eventually, understand that, even if we don't like what that understanding allows for.

</comment><comment><USER16> Someone is proud of the YouTube UI? I avoid it if I can. There is the intro advert I can't skip for 10 seconds, the banner, the ones down the side. How could anyone claim users drove that development?

</comment><comment><USER17> Only meeting with 2 people and only spending an hour on site. This is probably the best interview process I'll read about in the next few weeks on HN.

<comment><USER18> Don't get your hopes up. The rest of us grunts still get to spend an entire day in front of a whiteboard at Apple, at least as of about a year ago.

<comment><USER19> ha! well, it was only an hour w two people for both sides to mutually figure out I wasn't a good fit. Probably would have taken longer if it went forward :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm happy that at least one company tries to get it right BEFORE unleashing its products on the public. From my experience, the iterative approach often means that a bunch of casual users are given as much input into a design as the designer who devotes months or even years to trying to solve a problem holistically. Iterative design usually means Frankenstein design, that is, a product with way too many unnecessary features, a lack of cohesion and just plain ugliness. The iPhone could not have been created iteratively, and even if it had been, it certainly wouldn't have had the design impact it did. I don't think Google is even on the same planet as Apple, design-wise.

</comment><comment><USER21> God I hope Apple doesn't start releasing shoddy beta-quality software like we've all been forced to expect from the web.

</comment><comment><USER22> > _I was skeptical ... Namely, I was used to web speed: iterative, launch > before perfection, leverage your community._

If that's not a one-sentence summary of the iPhone's release history, I don't know what is.

<comment><USER23> I certainly don't think something that changes once a year is 'iterative' in the way he was referring to.

<comment><USER22> The original iPhone got better at a very rapid pace, through iOS updates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Reading this leaves me feeling like the author has some enormous cognitive dissonance going on:

"And finally I defended some of YouTube's UX elements by demonstrating how it needed to feel like the community's fingerprints were on the site, not just some experience they lean back and watch but don't touch."

Every Google service is an experience where Google just leans back and watches but doesn't touch. They have no tech support, not even an email to write to in most cases. What a baffling statement to make.

</comment><comment><USER25> > _Despite knowing going in that this wasn't likely going to lead to anything, > I'm still glad I took the time – you learn a lot by observing how companies > hire. Driving away from their HQ I left thinking how difficult consumer > services were going to continue to be for them if they insisted on > perfection before release. I still think of this every time I use Dropbox > instead of iCloud, Sunrise instead of Calendar, Mailbox instead of Mail and > so on. Even when I look at iMessage and wonder why the fastest growing apps > are chat-related (don't tell me it's just cross platform, I think Apple > could have been way more aggressive with evolving and opening iMessage up)._

Hmmm...when I use the aforementioned services, I have the _opposite_ assumption...that Apple is not at all insisting on perfection before release...and is sometimes OK with substandard releases. It's the _promotion_ of these services as being _perfect_ that Apple seems to be better at...or at least readying these services so that in many/most use cases, they _seem_ perfect to the casual end user.

But I think developers who have worked with iCloud, for instance, would argue strenuously that iCloud was not released in a robust state.

As another anecdotal point...buying an iPod 5 made me realize how perfection is not necessarily Apple's goal, even in hardware. The previous iPod touch, and the iPhones, all had ambient light sensors...this was dropped in iPod 5...this seems like a minor feature but only if you don't go in and out of buildings during the day. Unless I remember to jack up the brightness on my iPod before going out during the day, I literally will not be able to see _anything_ on the iPod screen, unless I go back inside or the day gets darker. Moreover, switching the brightness has been moved out of the quick-nav and buried in Settings.

This is such a massive inconvenience that I can't help but think that Apple was on deadline and for some reason, couldn't fit in the ambient light sensor, and then said, "fuck it, just ship it"

</comment><comment><USER26> Best post I've read on HN in a while!

I think there is a fundamental difference between building hardware+system software vs. building web services and apps. In the former case, you have to get it right and then release. In the latter case, you can afford to iterate for a while as you keep getting better.

Some of the hardware I've bought from Google has made me feel like I'm beta testing it. I don't get that feeling when I buy Apple hardware.

This makes me wonder if other players in the Android space are following Apple's playback. The specific player I am thinking about is Samsung. Why are they doing so well where other Android manufacturers are doing just okay?

<comment><USER19> yup - the Apple way works well on hardware and even on operating systems. My post is more about my own experiences on how they'll either embrace different styles (or not) for software application development.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> _I walked them through my opinion of how technology was changing media and creating open, global platforms._

</comment><comment><USER28> While I have three Apple products within arm's reach of me, including the one I'm using to type this post, none of them is "perfect!"

</comment><comment><USER29> Hunter Walk 99% Humble, 1% Brag

The Time I "Interviewed" At Apple Posted on October 4, 2013 by hunterwalk

 _I'm writing this from my latest gen macbook air. And I have a 5S coming (goldie baby)._

\-- No BS like HBS

</comment><comment><USER30> I believe Apple fanboys are those who always have the latest Apple products, as hunterwalk describes he has. Seems to me he is just a closet fanboy. Apparently he doesn't actually care if Apple opens up at all, he'll stick with them and support them regardless.</comment>


Ask HN: How to not forget your own code? - <AUTHOR> I'll jump right in. I'm a developer with 5+ years' experience with programming. One of the biggest challenges I face is I forget my code very quickly. This sometimes even applies to the logic used in the code. In the heat of moment while coding, I sort of enter a trance and come up with great logic/algorithms. However, I will forget about it after 2 weeks. After developing huge modules, I forget details about the libraries used. I try documenting/writing comments for other developers.
I also don't perform quite well in technical interviews when I'm asked about my prior work experience and side projects. It's quite embarrassing to forgetting implementation level details in which I have put heart and soul while developing.
The best way to state my problem is that I am more of a RAM than a Hard Drive. Any of you face this problem? Or any idea how to overcome this problem? <comment><USER3> Memory is a funny thing. It's not anything like replaying a video again, where you see exactly the same thing every time. It's a process of reconstruction based on a much smaller set of data than a video.

Improving your memory definitely will help you as a programmer. For example, improving your short-term memory will allow you to write better code on a day- to-day basis because you'll be able to hold those complex details in your head all day, while a better long-term memory allows you to recall your past successes and reuse code from them.

Your memory will work best when it is reconstructing the events of a story, which is why mnemonic devices are so often constructed as a story (even if it's a nonsense story). You should try to memorize the process by which you developed a program rather than the exact lines of code that you wrote. This will enable you to essentially rewrite those lines of code as you need them, by following the same process over again. At this level it's more like procedural graphics than a video recording.

I think there's a video of Feynman stating this for math and physics. He says that you never memorize every single formula or physical fact; instead you triangulate them from each other. If you need fact A but can't recall it, then you use facts B and C that you do recall to point you in the right direction (which might be a proof, or a sketch of a proof, or key words for a google search, or whatever).

</comment><comment><USER4> That's interesting because I often think I do some programming in a trance like state. I don't write out giant steps, I sit there with headphones (to block out my stupid open office noise) and just keep working on something. I think the answer to your problem is not that complicated.

First, add comments. Describe what you are trying to accomplish, and then the algorithm, and put a few notes throughout your code. You should be developing big projects in components and test the boundaries.

For interviewing, you have to go back and study what you did. For your case, I suggest spending half an hour writing up a bullet point list of what you did after you finish a big project. You shouldn't write about any proprietary or internal algorithms about your company, but you can write a short list of the problem you solved (merging a large number of sorted runs with limited memory and xyz...), problems you faced (memory leak, or speed wasn't fast enough so you ...). Study a few of these as you move around jobs.

</comment><comment><USER5> Forgetting what you did two weeks ago is a good thing, it gives you a fresh set of eyes and a more objective view of your own code. If you document the main points of the software while you are writing it then that will save you some agony later on.

Regarding technical interviews, the only thing you can do is pick a few examples that you want to retain and regurgitate as needed. If the interview is getting too focused on implementation details then it may be that they are trying to find a reason to not hire you and they will likely never be satisfied. If you find yourself in that situation again then I recommend slowing the pace of your answers way down so that you have time to think.

</comment><comment><USER6> It feels like there are two separate questions here, I'll try to address both:

1\. How to remember how code you wrote a long time ago works

As you mention, documentation is key. It honestly doesn't have to be super proper docs where you end up with 5x more documentation than code. Even just a couple comments here and there, especially on code that was tricky to figure out, will be super helpful in the future.

It also helps to have consistent naming and organization conventions - <USER2> just capitalization or underscores but the words you choose to name certain things and the pattern in which you modularize code. This is useful for avoiding accidental rewrites of code you wrote in the past and helps you navigate the codebase. It's always nice to think something like "hmm, I don't remember where the rest of this is but I probably would've called this ScreenManager" and then find out you really did have a ScreenManager file.

Realistically, you're always going to be forgetting old code. The key is to structure your code in such a way that it's easy to "explore" if you ever need to dig up an implementation detail or add some new functionality. If you have more logically complex code, keep at least single-liner comments that lay out what's going on. Get used to IDE commands you have like "Go to definition" \- even if you've forgotten, most of them time you'll be able to refresh yourself after seeing all the relevant code.

2\. How to explain a codebase you haven't worked with in a while to an interviewer

In my experience, you typically will not need to actually explain specific code to an interviewer. You don't need to say, "well I used a HashMap for this and then a LinkedList for that". What you do need to explain is concepts that you implemented, like "the clients established websocket connections to the servers to get real-time updates in the form of a byte stream".

I find that large projects can generally be broken down into a set of interesting features. You can keep track of these features in a separate file and just list one or two things about how they were implemented, and refresh yourself before an interview.

\---

tl;dr (I know I tend to get rambly)

\- leave single-line comments as often as possible

\- hop around your codebase with go-to definition when you forget how things work

\- keep a list of features you implement for each project for interview prep</comment>


Double your userbase with two lines of code and a box of Modafinil - <AUTHOR> http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2007/04/double_your_use.html <comment><USER3> We've seen this with our site. The difference between getting a personalized feedback message and not is even more pronounced than the 62% cited in the article. And similar to the findings reported, the more a person has contributed the more likely they are to contribute into the future. Though for us, there is a dip in the middle that we're trying to resolve.

We actually came up with what we call an "engagement" curve, which is the PERCENTAGE of people that will contribute at least X+1 times given they've contributed X times to the site.

<comment><USER4> Do you think...you could post that somewhere? It would be neat to see (also, your target demographic?)

Thanks!

<comment><USER3> Here's the rough outline: <http://s5.tinypic.com/2db9vyw.jpg> X-axis is number of contributions. Y-Axis is percentage of people that have contributed at least X+1 times for the given X.

So we can segment that out with various tests to see how it affects the engagement curve. For example, how does the curve shift when a user gets a personalized message? or a generic e-mail? Or does contribution type A, etc etc.

<comment><USER4> Interesting graph -- any idea why that second peak is followed by such a large drop?

(though i guess if you could answer that correctly, maybe you could make it go away)

<comment><USER3> The broad answer I'd surmise is boredom.

The solution: make it as fun as Call of Duty or Counter-Strike.

Problem: How do you make a website as fun as killing virtual terrorists? ... outside of having a website that let's you kill virtual terrorists.

<comment><USER5> ..."outside of having a website that let's you kill virtual terrorists"

Somwhere, someone gets a facebook developer account and and opens up vim.

You can make pretty much anything game-like: [http://startup2startup.com/2009/01/09/jan29-amyjokim- shuffle...](http://startup2startup.com/2009/01/09/jan29-amyjokim- shufflebrain/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very interesting post. I've actually been following that same exact idea - <USER2> check over the error logs to see if any users encountered an error, email them an apology and let them know I'm working on it right now, and then email them once it's worked again thanking them for their patience.

Also, for questions which have been posted, I email the author (if they've given us their email address) and ask them if they're satisfied with the answer. If not, we'll spend some more time researching it and contact some special authority.

We've done that for one week, but the results have been mixed. I still think it's critical, but it's only one factor - you need the initial userbase just to get the new users to post.

EDIT: It also occurred to me (thinking about to pg's "If you measure it you'll improve it" quote") that I'll need some substantial reporting as well. To that end, I'll be writing some rake tasks today so I can plot the data over time.

<comment><USER7> Post your 'mixed' results. Does your site offer the possibility to test on peers (see my post below on the main thread.) I'm interested in graphing the result of this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think it would be better if you just send an email to all signed up users saying "Christie has sent you a message...". Something along those lines.

<comment><USER8> Our web site sends registration information directly from my cofounder's email address. (We don't like private messaging systems.) The plan is to start really personal conversations with all the people who sign up, until that gets too overwhelming.

<comment><USER7> Just as a test, do this: Pick 10 random users who sign-up and start a co- founder conversation. Pick another 10 random users and send an email saying "A member has replied to your message" or "A message was sent to you from Michael". See which is more effective.

You are discounting a very important factor - authority. Your co-founder is an authority figure, he's selling a site. He belongs in another group as the signed-up user. Another user sending a message is a peer. He tells the user that there are other people there, and that they are interested in what he is doing.

There is a big social difference in the two. Don't do one and never test the other.

<comment><USER8> But we don't _have_ messages. So I'm not certain quite how that would work.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Verizon iPhone 5 is GSM Unlocked Out Of Box - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3369702/verizon-iphone-5-gsm-unlocked

<comment><USER2> Buy it, Sell it, Ship it. Unlocked iphones selling at a premium on ebay.

<comment><USER3> 2 year activation required with initial purchase.

<comment><USER2> You can buy them without 2 year activation if you pay the normal price. Then call ATT/Verizon/Sprint get it unlocked. It is now selling for 1,000 on ebay.</comment></comment></comment>


The Personality Behind Online Gaming Site Bodog - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/127/last-call.html <comment><USER2> Calvin Ayre was on Forbes in 2006: <http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0327/112.html>

He seems to be quite fond of regulatory arbitrage. An excerpt:

 _"We run a business that can't actually be described as gambling in each country we operate in. But when you add it all together, it's Internet gambling."_</comment>


How to Hire a Product Manager - <AUTHOR> https://www.blossom.io/blog/2013/05/20/how-to-hire-a-product-manager.html <comment><USER2> Never hire a product manager off of "spidey-sense product instincts and creativity", because you won't be able to tell a candidate who's got some skill from a candidate who's been having some luck.

A product manager shouldn't just be able to tell you good ideas - a product manager needs to be able to tell you how they come up with good ideas, and how they figure out if those ideas are right before they blow a bunch of resources on things.

If a product manager is trying to get hired on instincts, no matter how good their ideas sound, the appropriate thing to say is 'Okay, let's say my instincts 100% disagree with yours, and I happen to be your boss. Now what?' And if they can't articulate exactly how they're talking to customers, determining market needs, validating their assumptions, and doing whatever else they can to prove they're not just some charismatic lunatic advocating a fever dream, do not let them in the door - because they are a potential time- bomb.

Some people _do_ have good product instincts. But if you've accidentally hired a product manager of the lucky variety, their performance is likely to revert to the mean - after they've persuaded your organization to sink a huge bunch of time and money into their dog of an idea that sounded good at the time.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've hired 11 PMs (from Associate to Senior level) at my startup, and a lot of this rings true. The one thing I'll add is the most important step in my hiring process:

After phone screen, I have the recruiter send them a case study that asks them to use my product (a social game, this works better for consumer internet, obviously) and identify the most important features for monetization and to suggest improvements to the game.

1) Because the prompt is somewhat open ended and they generally have at least a week to work on it, how much effort they put into it is a great indicator of how much they want to work at my company, which to me is one of the most important things I'm interviewing for once basic intellectual horsepower is sufficient. Responses typically range from "typed some stuff into the Word doc" to "50 page PDF with screenshots, charts and graphs."

2) That also gives a concrete basis for discussing product ideas. In addition to the obvious questions of "why do you think we implemented this feature" etc, I also often take suggestions they have for the product, and ask why they think we HAVEN'T implemented it, particularly if it's a idea we've considered in the past.

<comment><USER4> Judging candidates based on their effort for an exercise that focuses on your existing product is a touchy subject. Many candidates (especially good ones) will view this as spec work - if you want their expertise for a limited time, you should pay their consultant fee. Otherwise, the effort they put in often shares more about process than free product ideas.

But that's speaking broadly. Anecdotally, I know a PM who put her heart into an exercise like this for a company she really wanted to work for, which chose not to hire her, and a few months later released a product update that matched her ideas. I don't know if they already had the product in the pipe or if it differed significantly in execution, but it did invite an easily-avoidable dispute. Even if not a legal issue, it could have been a PR one.

Of course you want to gauge candidates' understanding of and engagement with your real business, so don't throw all those conversations out the window. But when it comes to early vetting exercises, focusing on competitor products or similar products by companies in other categories can still tell you a lot about how the candidate approaches and understands real challenges/opportunities/constraints while skirting some gray areas.

<comment><USER3> We've probably brought in 20-30 candidates for interviews, none of them brought that up as a concern (though maybe it was for the people who half assed it). Realistically, the chance of them coming up with a brilliant product idea in a few days that the full time teams on the products hasn't considered is pretty small -- in fact I don't think I've ever heard a materially unique idea. Granted the game/product I use for the case is a pretty mature one that has been actively worked on since 2011, so a lot of the solution space has been covered.

We often discuss competitor products in the interviews as well -- I consider it a strong positive signal if they can already meaningfully benchmark against competitors. But the reason I don't make that the core case is because we have so much more insight into how our product works and why it is the way it is, so it's easier to validate their instincts/thought processes against reality.

<comment><USER4> Upvoted both your comments - agreed with all of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why is this blog reposting, verbatim, a 2005 post that's still online in the original location: <https://www.kennethnorton.com/essays/productmanager.html>

<comment><USER6> He says at the end:

> _Note: I wrote this in 2005 when I was at JotSpot. Google acquired JotSpot > in 2006. Since then, I've had the opportunity to work with some marvelous > PMs and have performed 200+ PM interviews. I'm sure that my opinions have > evolved, but the intervening years have only further reinforced the > characteristics of great PMs. I occasionally set out to update this essay > but I always decide to leave it as is. (—Ken, February 2013)_

<comment><USER7> That line is on his blog as well :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8>
        >Lots of people were hired at Yahoo! that probably wouldn't have been
        >appropriate at a startup. I recall a lot of post-interview conversations that
        >went something like this – "well, I'm not sure they're the perfect candidate,
        >but they do seem suited for this very specific role, so let's hire them." That
        >may work fine at a big company, but it's deadly thinking at a startup.

It's deadly thinking at a big company too. It's just that a big company is, well, bigger, so the effects of the poison take longer to show. But, with time and with enough bad hires like those above, the effects will begin to tell on even the largest of companies. The best companies don't think in terms of, "Is this person well suited for this role?" They think in terms of "Is this person well suited for the _company_?" At places like Amazon and Google, there is no such thing as "would hire, but not for my team". And the converse, "would hire, but for my team only" doesn't exist either. Why? In both cases, that caveat means that the person is so specialized, they're going to have a hard time adapting months or years down the road when business priorities have changed and the team they were hired for has been reorganized out of existence.

<comment><AUTHOR> This paragraph also struck me as very interesting. I wonder how the atmosphere and mindset regarding hiring at Yahoo! is today and whether Marissa brought Googles more healthy philosophy into the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I use to run a product team at a company that was acquired. Interestingly enough, all the candidates with Yahoo PM background that I interviewed I didn't like. I think hiring PM can be rather easy and I used these steps to find a great candidates:

0 - make the candidate feel comfortable and at ease. Start with topics you might have in common. Hobbies, teams, movies, etc. some of the best candidates might be the most nervous people at interviews.

1 - eliminate slick talkers. Don't fall for articulate BSers and constantly be on guard if you maybe falling for one. Judge their substance not their delivery.

2 - undrestand how they think. Ask questions or carry the conversation in a way that they have to solve a simple problem.

3 - the most important one. Do a simple product meeting with them. If you follow item 0, you should kow what they are into. Ask them to build a simple app or site for their specific hobbies or interests. This gives you a chance to see how good of a fit they are and how they think and solve problem as a PM.

Lastly, experience was never as important to me as passion, raw intellect, curiosity and instinct.

</comment><comment><USER7> Isn't this just a repost of this?

<https://www.kennethnorton.com/essays/productmanager.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> It is.

We are in the process to build one of the best ressources on Product Management on the web right now and Ken's essay was a perfect fit. It's really hard to find good advice on hiring Product Managers so I've reached out to him re re-publishing his essay :)

Also make sure to check out what they are doing over at the Google Ventures Design Staff blog: <http://www.designstaff.org/>

<comment><USER10> I was trying to find a good URL for bookmarking and adding to my RSS reader. Is <https://www.blossom.io/blog.html> the best one?

<comment><AUTHOR> Most feed readers should be able to find the blog's rss feed. But you can also use our feedburner url if you want to be more explicit: <http://feeds.feedburner.com/blossomio>

We also have an email newsletter on the right-hand side of the blog (I'm still looking for feedreaders that also support email newsletters btw if anyone knows something in that direction).

hth

<comment><USER10> Awesome. I added it to feedly right after I asked, and it seemed to work fine. Also subscribed to the email newsletter. Keep up the good work!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot, highly appreciated :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hiring the right people is really hard, especially when it comes to universal roles like Product Management.

If you've enjoyed Ken's post on hiring you might also like Chamath Palihapitiya's list of skills he is looking for when hiring Growth Hackers:

[https://www.blossom.io/blog/2012/11/01/growth-hackers- confer...](https://www.blossom.io/blog/2012/11/01/growth-hackers-conference- lessons-learned.html)</comment>


Your mind as the enemy of your dreams - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mtufekyapan/your-mind-as-the-enemy-of-your-dreams-846a827a0551

<comment><USER2> true that so many obstacles when you really want to follow your heart</comment>


Espresso Public Beta Released - Textmate finally gets some competition - <AUTHOR> http://macrabbit.com/espresso/

<comment><USER2> Looks like more of a competitor to Coda (<http://www.panic.com/coda/>).

<comment><USER3> Anything that pushes Textmate to actual finish version 2 is not a bad thing in my book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Textmate had competition long before it existed. Try ViM and Emacs.

<comment><USER5> That was m thought, too, when I saw the headline.

Yet many people still prefer TextMate.

Hey, TextMate fans: What's the appeal of TextMate over vi and emacs?

<comment><USER6> it's easier to pick up than vi or emacs I guess, while still as powerful

<comment><USER5> As powerful?

As emacs?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks good for web development, but I'm not always doing web development. I like one editor for everything…

</comment><comment><USER8> I will keep an eye on Espresso. At the moment, however, I don't think Textmate has anything to worry about. Will see if sugars will change that. Also, if Textmate becomes so stale as to push to find other solutions (Textmate developers: hint. hint.)

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm a fan of CSSEdit, their previous app; I never in a zillion years thought I'd think a special-purpose editor for CSS would be useful (I'm an Emacs person), but CSSEdit winds up on my screen every time I do anything webby.

<comment><USER10> I wrote a minor mode for Emacs a while ago that does something similar to what it looks like CSSEdit does. It uses MozRepl to update the current css of a page in Firefox so you can have a live preview as you work on a css file.

I don't really ever work with CSS these days so it doesn't get much use. It's a little flaky as I've only ever had to get it to work for me. But if anyone is interested I could put it up somewhere.

<comment><USER11> Please do!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'd like to see some actual implementation of Sugars. Right now they are incredibly basic.

</comment><comment><USER12> How does this (and TextMate) compare to vim and Emacs?

<comment><USER13> Textmate and Espresso and all other visual editors _don't_ compare to Vim/Emacs.

Sure Textmate may have some keybindings, but you can't use Textmate while ssh'd to a remote server.

<comment><USER14> Yes you can. There have been stable user-level filesystem drivers for years for Linux, Mac and Windows.

Also Textmate / eText / gedit with gedit plugins have:

* Richer interfaces (eg, code folding on out of the box)

* Better discoverability (eg, you can stumble upon how to change your tab width faster in these apps than you can using vimtutor)

* Easier customization (ever tried writing a vi syntax schema)?

<comment><USER15> _Better discoverability_

This is a big overlooked weakness of both Emacs and Vi(m). After about five years of using Vi I switched to a friendlier editor, NEdit; within a couple months, I was better at using NEdit than I was at Vi, mainly because of discoverability. I then used (X)Emacs for a couple of years (mainly for Python programming, though the original motivation was learning Lisp), and found it rather opaque. Now I use TextMate, and I've had the same basic experience as with NEdit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Linux & win need a decent editor. sign.

<comment><USER17> Emacs FTW!</comment></comment>


Graphene-based computer would be 1,000 times faster than silicon-based - <AUTHOR> http://www.kurzweilai.net/graphene-based-computer-would-be-1000-times-faster-than-silicon-based-use-100th-the-power <comment><USER2> Yeah, but by that time, Windows 10 will still have a Windows Experience Index of 5.9</comment>


New Model of Evolution Reveals How Cooperation Evolves - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608139/new-model-of-evolution-finally-reveals-how-cooperation-evolves/ <comment><USER2> Almost all of the responses here putting this down as "not that big a deal" are completely missing the point. It's extremely easy to say that evolution _should_ do a thing, but if you cannot provide a mechanism to explain how such a thing is __passively __selected for, then evolution doesn 't care. Evolution has no intelligence. There is no designer. This is probably the most important aspect of evolution to understand and the one hardest to grasp intuitively.

For example: say you had a savannah with grass and tall trees populated by 4-legged horse-like animals that survive by grazing on the grass. We can look at such a scenario and say that it would be advantageous for some sub- population of those horse-like animals to grow longer and longer necks until they were capable of _also_ grazing on the trees (doubling their available food supply, relative to their neighbors), but it will never happen! In each generation there will be a distribution of neck lengths, and as there is no advantage to those with slightly longer (but not long enough to reach the trees) necks, the distribution will remain unchanged. This is the basic Hardy- Weinberg principle.

The only way you get giraffes is if the trees start out much shorter, so that the horse-like animals _are_ capable of grazing on them. Then the trees that are slightly taller will have an advantage, and the distribution of tree heights in the population will shift. This will give an advantage to the horse-like animals with longer necks, causing their distribution to shift, and on, and on. This is the basic Red Queen hypothesis.

So saying that an organism that has an inherent capacity for adaptation, or one that knows to cooperate with neighbors, would be better able to survive than the alternatives doesn't mean _crap_. If you cannot provide a mechanism (backed by a mathematical model) of how such traits arise, then evolution _doesn 't care_.

That is what makes this work so particularly interesting. The authors are providing a model to explain how a mechanism for the selection of cooperation could occur.

</comment><comment><USER3> >But evolution is a random process based on the short-term advantages that emerge in each generation.

This idea is easily discredited, even "disadvantageous-but-viable" mutations are prized possessions among my offspring. Environments change, and whether or not my lineage goes unbroken is a result of its ability to survive those changes.

Those environmental changes are unpredictable. phenotypes that benefit me now do not necessarily benefit me in the future. If it is my goal to extend my lineage as long as possible, then my optimal strategy must give extra value to diversity.

Since _every_ organism possesses a lineage that goes back to the origin of life, it's fair to say that cooperation for the goal of increasing diversity is a pretty heavily selected for trait.

<comment><USER4> You're basically arguing for a species-level (or at least a deme-level) view of selection. That's something that we've tried to find for many decades, and there just isn't a lot of evidence for it. Selection happens at the level of the individual animal, not any higher grouping.

<comment><USER5> I've taught evolutionary biology to non-biology majors and the way I would explain natural selection is as follows.

First, to clarify the last sentence above, selection does not happen at the level of an individual. Selection is a statistical process that requires a population of individuals.

For evolution by selection to occur, there has to be 1) variation in traits (i.e. "Phenotypes"), 2) the variation in these traits has to be in part heritible (i.e. Have a genetic basis), and 3) there have to be average differences in success of leaving offspring that themseves go on to reproduce, etc, etc, based on the trait differences amongst individuas.

<comment><USER6> But diversity is not a phenotype in any meaningful way, is it?

<comment><USER7> Well you can either have a reproduction mechanism that encourages diversity or doesn't. That seems like a trait to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cool take on things, but not really fundamentally new as an explanation of evolution of cooperative traits. Models involving reputation and punishment have been around for awhile. Basically, once you introduce reputation and memory, together with punishment, cooperation becomes more viable as a strategy. It's even led to models of higher-order cooperation, of enforcing the enforcers, etc.

To me it seems like the paper isn't really offering a fundamentally new explanation of how these traits arise, it's just providing a sophisticated analysis of the dynamics.

<comment><USER2> That cooperation is _eventually_ selected for has been known for decades, but we didn't know how. Yes, there have been many speculative models describing how cooperation _might_ arise, kin selection being among the earliest of these. Each of these mechanisms has some applicability and some predictive power (for example, kin selection is pretty good at describing cooperation in everything up to and including eusocial insects), but we've been missing the general mechanism that has predictive power across all domains.

In other words, the field of evolutionary biology today has its Newton's laws and Maxwell equations, but we're missing anything like the Standard Model. The authors of this work have been at this for a number of years. A sophisticated analysis of the dynamics is a key and very important step in beginning to develop a "grand unified theory" of evolution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> >a crucial factor turns out to be the process of punishment. "Punishment acts like a magnetic field that leads to an 'alignment' between players, thus encouraging cooperation," say Adami and Hintze.

either you're a team player or else. Collective punishment comes to mind too as a very effective way to induce cooperation/alignment inside the collective which is going to be or threatened to be punished.

<comment><USER10> Yes, they start out with game theory, which is only about rewards, and then add in punishment.

Game theory is enormously insightful, but It leaves out a great many factors that are very important in the real world, such as communication between the parties,uncertain rules, and reputation.

<comment><USER2> All the factors you mention are accounted for by researchers that use game theory as the basis for evolutionary modeling (for a primer, check out "Evolutionary games on graphs" \- [https://arxiv.org/abs/cond- mat/0607344](https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0607344)).

<comment><USER10> Ok, I was confusing the prisoner's dilemma with game theory as such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Dear science journalists, please quit saying that papers "solve" problems ("By treating evolution as a thermodynamic process, theorists have solved one the great problems in biology."). Also, as much as I love Arxiv, I wish journalists would note that articles posted are not subject to peer review.

</comment><comment><USER12> That would be a neat derivative of poker. Same as regular poker where everyone antes but if everyone folds they get 1.1 X their ante. if one person doesn't fold, you play it like regular poker.

<comment><USER13> Who pays out the .1?

<comment><USER14> Perhaps a rotating big and small blind on top of ante?

<comment><USER12> Maybe the person with the least amount of chips or the one with the most depending on whether you want the game to go longer or shorter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Cooperation is related to a family (or a clan/pack) life. It is the "most natural" survival strategy. Expanding it to a non-keen is not a big deal. Nothing to see here.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if this has any relevance to the question of the evolution of altruism.

<comment><USER16> White blood cells are clearly altruistic. To the extent a species or even an ecosystem functions like an organism, there is an evolutionary advantage to evolving altruism. To quote Spock, "where the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or the one."

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Remember this article for the next time somebody complains about how perfect an Ayn Randian world would be. Remember that free cooperation helped humanity get this far, not Rugged, Individualism.

<comment><USER18> First you'll have to teach those strawmen to read.</comment></comment>


Health Plan Penalty Ends at Penn State - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/after-uproar-penn-state-suspends-penalty-fee-in-wellness-plan.html?hpw

<comment><USER2> My biometric screening is scheduled for tomorrow morning ... I'm not usually so lucky!

I really didn't mind the actual wellness initiatives (though I've heard stories of obese screeners telling slightly overweight participants that they should lose weight), but employees are still charged for gym and pool memberships ... If it was a wellness program, why not promote exercise?

In any case, most of the concerns revolved around the requirement that health data be shared with WebMD.</comment>


Man shoots down drone, gets hit with felony charges in Minnesota - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/minnesota-man-faces-felony-charges-for-shooting-down-drone/ <comment><USER2> > The incident began when an unnamed man flew a drone over Butterfield Foods, > a producer of meat products—including chicken—in the Southern Minnesota town > of Butterfield. The man later told a sheriff's deputy he was trying to prove > that chickens were being slaughtered because of the pandemic.

Ohkaaayyy...seems like there might be other ways to go about proving that than freaking people out with a drone...

> Two employees approached the man and asked him what he was doing.

Understandable and normal...

> Soon afterwards, someone else shot the drone out of the sky.

What was this person thinking. Geez.

> The authorities arrested 34-year-old Travis Duane Winters and charged him in > Watonwan County District Court, The Free Press says. Officials say Winters > admitted to shooting the drone. He faces charges of criminal damage to > property and reckless discharge of a weapon within city limits.

Man, that's really sad all around. The plant owner is probably either struggling with an image problem or a biological stock problem or possibly both, the employees who tried to take on the situation without firearms lost an opportunity to potentially help employer and drone guy both, drone guy lost his drone, and random drone shooter went to jail. Wow. Talk about needlessly complicating what is already a terrifically stressful pandemic.</comment>


Introducing the First Spot Market for Cloud Computing Capacity - <AUTHOR> http://www.spotcloud.com The newly launched SpotCloud market provides public cloud service providers an easy way to sell unused cloud capacity to cloud buyers around the globe. With SpotCloud, your capacity is pooled with thousands of regional cloud providers in one simple and structured marketplace, making it much easier for cloud consumers to both discover and buy from you. <comment><USER2> Aren't EC2 spot instances the first spot market for cloud computing?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> RE: AWS Spot Instances, A market with one seller isn't much of a marketplace. This is essentially for everyone else.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Would love to get some feedback on this.</comment>


Ask HN: What apps do you use to manage meeting and/or take minutes in a meeting? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Pen and paper. It's the most flexible, and least intrusive way to take notes while still participating in the meeting. Sure, I spend 5-10 minutes afterwards or that night copying the notes into my CRM or task manager, but the benefits far outweigh the extra time for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> I used to use Evernote, but then switched to OneNote while using a laptop if there are a massive amount of things I need to write down.

<comment><USER4> +1 for OneNote. It's surprisingly unknown for a great product. And also integrates easily to outlook if your using this.

One thing if people want to use this spend the time mapping out how you want to organise your digital notes. OneNote runs on three tab layers (plus in page) so its worth deciding a structure to co-ordinate how you will organise before you start using too much.</comment></comment>


Amazon Corretto 8 Now Generally Available (OpenJDK) - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/fr/blogs/opensource/amazon-corretto-8-generally-available/ <comment><AUTHOR> "Amazon will distribute security updates to Corretto 8 at no cost until at least June, 2023."

[https://github.com/corretto/corretto-8/issues](https://github.com/corretto/corretto-8/issues)</comment>


UX Designer portfolio – Done right - <AUTHOR> http://www.podorsky.cz <comment><USER2> Could load faster, plus you need to get rid of the JavaScript. Otherwise, good.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right. Thank you.</comment></comment>


Seeing a Facebook photo without permission is like 'stealing a TV': Police - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/facebook-breakins-police-say-receiving-photos-like-taking-stolen-tvs-20110518-1esad.html

<comment><USER2> You probably should read this for some more background:

[http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/security- experts-g...](http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/security-experts-go- to-war-wife-targeted-20110517-1eqsm.html)

"I have no ethical qualms about publishing the photos," he said. "They are in the public domain."

I think the quote hits the nail on the head. If you don't want something to be seen by the masses, _do not_ put it on the Internet.

<comment><USER3> This is a misconception. A copyrighted photo available in public does not become public domain suddenly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> An utterly useless analogy. Obviously that line of enquiry is going nowhere.

How about arresting a journalist in order to seize his iPad is like holding the owner hostage while his TV gets stolen?

<comment><USER5> To be fail, the headline was a horrible misquote. THe actual quote: "Someone breaks into your house and they steal a TV and they give that TV to you and you know that TV is stolen,"

While it is kind of silly to compare information to a physical object, the quote could be interpreted as referring to the importance of not accepting photos that you know were obtained illegally.

Which is perfectly reasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's like someone broke into someone's home and had a good look at a TV then went home and built another exactly like it and gave it to you.

<comment><USER7> Or like someone broke in to your home, took a photo of a painting, then copied that photo and gave it to a friend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> No, it's like picking up a $20 in the gutter.

</comment><comment><USER9> maybe he still believes that photos can steal souls?</comment>


W.G. Sebald and the Malthusian Tragic - <AUTHOR> https://themillions.com/2018/03/the-malthusian-tragic.html <comment><USER2> When I read the news that Sebald had died in an automobile accident at the age of 57 ([https://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/dec/17/guardianobituar...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/dec/17/guardianobituaries.books1)), I was so sad. A magnificent author who likely would have won the Nobel Prize.

<comment><USER3> Recently his name kept popping up so I decided to read Austerlitz. I don't read enough books in German, which is my mother tongue, so I thought I'd give it a try but, honestly, it's a slog. Lots of interesting bits but the language is too pretentious and strained for my taste.

I wonder if he's better in English, will give it a try.

<comment><USER2> Interesting observation. It has never occurred to me until I read your comment that something could be better after translation than in the original.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > One such contraption is a teas-maid, a kind of physical portmanteau of an > alarm clock and a tea-making machine that starts boiling the water right > before it wakes you.

The word is 'Teasmade' ("tea's made") not 'teas-maid'. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teasmade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teasmade) . They were probably never quite mainstream and fully accepted in the UK, but they certainly did sell pretty well for decades. They seem to have fallen by the wayside over the past roughly two decades, but they're still notable as, effectively, one of the earliest and most successful IoT gadgets.

<comment><USER3> I still have a Chef's Choice "TeaMate" stored in the basement. Interesting machine - it makes a samovar-style brew where it steeps a concentrate for 5 minutes and then dumps that into the pot and dilutes it with the remaining water in the tank.

Given that it takes about 5 minutes to make tea with an electric kettle it's not really worth the trouble, though.</comment></comment>


Why Racial Bias Still Haunts Speech-Recognition AI - <AUTHOR> https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/racial-bias-speech-recognition-systems <comment><USER2> Go donate your voice the Mozilla common voice project, and encourage as diverse a group of people as you can to also.

</comment><comment><USER3> Keep in mind a majority of the world population has to learn a second language to even make use of these systems. So how does it compare to bias vs. non- native speakers?</comment>