My first startup is worth $15Bn now. My latest one failed though - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@nishul1/my-first-startup-is-worth-15bn-now-my-latest-one-failed-though-here-is-why-f8a2fd5e866a#.xtjzqggwx <comment><USER2> Unfortunately this resonates all too well for me.

Currently working in the college space, trying to monetize at the discovery phase. Extremely disappointing to see millions of users interacting with your site and struggling to break even. All this while your competitors spend a tenth of the time making 10x the revenue at the decision phase.

</comment><comment><USER3> _> My first startup is worth $15Bn now._

If this is true then why are you here on ycombinator?

With that healthy valuation do you really need the click bait?

<comment><USER4> The person submitting the URL is not the person who wrote about the startup.</comment></comment>


Will automation put an end to the American trucker? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/10/american-trucker-automation-jobs <comment><USER2> The approach that Starsky ([http://starsky.io/](http://starsky.io/)) is taking seems to be a promising one. They employ truck drivers as remote pilots for the "first and last mile", i.e. the local roads and loading dock work that autonomous vehicles struggle with most. Other advantages include lower fuel costs (driving slower because AVs aren't subject to operator-hour limits) and probably also lower labor costs (you don't need to pay truckers as much if the job is safe and nearby to home).

If the Starsky model ends up dominating, this _could_ all add up to a case where the price of truck transportation drops so much that demand for truck drivers actually increases, possibly even counterbalancing the pressure of individual truckers being able to manage multiple vehicles at once. This would be an example of the "Jevons Effect" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

<comment><USER3> The long haul stuff should go on rails anyway. It's very wasteful to run it on the interstates. The majority of the fatigue damage to the highways comes from trucks, then there's all the rubber dust, fuel inefficiency, etc.

The trailers should just be picked up and dropped on flatcars, and trucks used for intracity last mile stuff.

<comment><USER4> This is Stefan, from Starsky Robotics.

I hear this all the time, and honestly in many cases a truck is the transportation of last resort. If you need 5 shipping containers of goods going from A->B all arriving at Time X; it's probably going by train.

An issue with rail (as pointed out by others) is how to haul the freight from the rail head (rail yard) to the end warehouses, and the extra time it takes to have goods go on two trucks and one train instead of just one truck. The other issue is that in the US it's really hard to hire and retain long haul truck drivers (it turns out most people want to go home each night after a hard day's work).

Competition to hire drivers is fierce, and driver turnover can be 100%/yr...which means sometimes your drivers don't show up to pull your freight. Rail is also generally cheaper so if you can put your goods on the train you do.

As far as wear and tear on the highway: that's what weigh stations are for. They not only assign usage taxes, they also make sure weight is evenly distributed across the axles to limit damage to the road.

/SSA

<comment><USER5> >As far as wear and tear on the highway: that's what weigh stations are for.

That doesn't create a system where trucks pay taxes roughly proportional to the damage they do.

<comment> daniel-cussen I remember reading the damage a vehicle does is roughly proportional to the fourth power of its weight.

<comment><USER5> There's a pretty good chart here, near the bottom: [http://pedalfortcollins.com/greatest-demand-on-tax- dollars/](http://pedalfortcollins.com/greatest-demand-on-tax-dollars/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The most likely thing (imo) that will happen will be highway trains...there will be a real human driver in the front of the caravan, maybe just in a van or car, and then 1-10 self driving heavy duty trucks behind them. They'll draft off of each other and do 99% of the long haul route in an automated way.

Once each truck is near it's destination, it will peel off of the pack and park itself near the highway, at which point a real driver will hop in and finish the route.

I work in the telematics space, and work with extremely large fleets that you'd all recognize on the highway every day. None of them are afraid of self driving trucks disrupting them any time soon. However, these automated caravans could be their first opportunity to restructure the flow of their capacity across the country.

<comment><USER7> Too bad that all the "speculative VC dollars" seem to be in trying to jump directly to full-automation of multiple small passenger vehicles.

Now, I've never heard _any_ public figure say this out loud -- so maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree -- but I think the bandwagon is being pulled by a very particular idea about a market they can try to corner.

Specifically, they're thinking of a future demographic bump in people who are too age-impaired to safely and legally drive themselves. Folks who can't (or won't) pay another human to drive, or move to a location with better public- transit, but who still have enough affluence for a self-driving car.

IMO it explains the bubbly frenzied focus from multiple companies, despite the significant degree of basic research still required.

<comment><USER8> Part of the allure of self-driving cars is drastic reduction of traffic deaths. Long-haul drivers are not the one who kill themselves on the road the most; regular people are.

I'm not saying this is the driving force behind focus of companies, but it's an important consideration for many individuals in this space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Then what you have is a truckers' lounge with 20 or 30 guys standing around getting paid."

THAT's the error: those guys aren't getting paid anything to stand there. They get paid by the mile. Making them wait is benefiting the warehouse, and costing THEM.

<comment><USER10> Yeah. My wife has a friend who's a long-haul trucker. He gets profoundly disrespected by the current system, including showing up at 8AM to an appointment and being made wait all day, and sometimes into the next day, for his truck to be unloaded/loaded and ready for him to take.

And he's paid nothing for that. There's no penalty at all for wasting the trucker's time. I cite this as evidence that the truckers have _no_ effective lobbying body, and therefore will in fact lose most of long-haul jobs over the next 15 years.

<comment><USER11> [http://www.getloaded.com/load-board-blog/post/Whats-the- Best...](http://www.getloaded.com/load-board-blog/post/Whats-the-Best-Way-to- Collect-Detention-Fees)

It looks like your wife's friend needs a better broker because all the companies we deal with charge us.

Our shipper won't schedule a truck unless we know that the load is ready due to how steep the fees can be.

When we shipped some equipment to a major trade show, they try to schedule it so that the truckers have a minimum wait but the show will also pay the detention fees back if they were the source of the delay.

<comment><USER12> Just because you're getting charged, doesn't mean the trucker is getting paid.

<comment><USER10> Honestly, I would guess you've nailed it: The delivery company is collecting a fee because they are only paid for per delivery, so making a driver (and truck) wait doesn't otherwise make them money.

But there's no guarantee that the fees are passed on to the driver. Just in case, I'll pass a question back through my wife to see if some truckers are actually paid for waiting. They talk to each other; I bet they all know if anyone is paid to wait.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Depends, do truckers have a strong political lobby? If no, they'll be in trouble. If yes, then they'll be guaranteed to exist for as long as they are funding lobbyists and politicians.

<comment><USER14> In the United States at least, it's going to be devastating. I don't see a bunch of individual owner-operators banding together to protect their livelihoods. As soon as it's cheaper to run automated trucks, they'll get picked off one by one. Probably the best than can be hoped for is laws mandating a person as co-operator in case of emergency. There's also some version of the last mile problem, where people need to be present.

For fully automated trucking, I imagine no one has explored the security implications yet. These vehicles seem far too easy to hijack, redirect, or delay and steal the cargo. Take out the human factor and long-haul trucks are autonomous warehouses roaming the countryside.

<comment><USER15> > I imagine no one has explored the security implications yet.

I bet they have. Especially insurers.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Insurers, in stark contrast to VC funded startups, are very conservative. I'm confident they'll rather not spend time and money now exploring something that's not going to be reality for at least half a decade, maybe ever.

<comment><USER15> I agree, they are among the most conservative. But I think that's why they are studying it. Insurance companies hate being surprised.

Self-driving vehicles will going to prevent a lot of collisions which will in turn drive premiums way, way down. The need to insure unattended shipments is one mitigating factor that I bet they are thinking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Everyone talks about truck drivers becoming obsolete once self driving cars take over the road.

What I would worry about are endless number of doctors and surgeons that spent a life time mastering a skill and will just as easily be rendered obsolete by the same technology.

Lawyers too.

<comment><USER17> Don't worry about doctors. Political power wins out in the end, and they have tons of it.

For example: for decades they've managed to resist entry of decision-support systems(which were not perfect, but still, an improvement), even though their own error rate is ~1/8.

<comment><USER18> Pretty much the reason I don't go to the doctor unless I need stitches or am experiencing intolerable pain.

<comment><USER19> A couple of years back, after being tossed around by a dozen doctors for simple infection. A few hours of internet research helped me solve my problem, better than any doctor did.

Health care industry is a cartel that optimizes for profit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "Will automation put end to the European hand writer?" Unfortuantly since Gutenberg's book pressing automation Europe lives in misery.

</comment><comment><USER21> The modern airplane is fairly heavily automated, and probably could be piloted from afar. But we choose to mandate a pilot on board.

I suspect a similar situation will play out for trucks.

I suspect that truckers, like pilots, may see wages stagnate and longer hours, but the profession won't disappear anytime soon.

<comment><USER22> Mu impression is most commercial flights are largely run on autopilot. AFAIK, pilots typically only get involved for takeoff, landing, flight path changes and abnormal events. If last-mile piloting was a thing, I'm sure the airlines would try to cut costs by getting rid of the crew for the auto-pilot segments. It seems trivial for an automated truck to pull off the highway and wait for a trucker to deliver a vehicle, yet impossible for an aircraft to hold at 30k feet and wait for a pilot.

<comment><USER23> A huge difference is that when something goes wrong with a truck then the autopilot can just apply the brakes and let the truck come to a halt and wait for help.

That doesn't work with airplanes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Trucking is a $700bn industry, in which a third of costs go to compensating drivers"

That's enough information to answer the question.

</comment><comment><USER25> It would be sort of cool if highways could then promote a "goods carrier trucks can only run nightly" rule with this. Of course allowing essential goods trucks to run in daylight

</comment><comment><USER26> _> while truckers are prohibited from driving more than 11 hours per day without taking an eight-hour break, a driverless truck can drive for the entire day. This effectively doubles the output of the trucking network at a quarter of the cost._

Interestingly, doubling the throughput of the trucking network would also halve the average lifetime of road surfaces. _" The federal government has estimated that a 40-ton, 18-wheel truck causes the same damage as 9,600 midsize cars."_ [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la- le-0215-sunda...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la- le-0215-sunday-cars-weight-20150215-story.html)

<comment><USER27> sounds like a great opportunity for the automated road repair industry

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The automation of vehicles is taken to strongly imply robotic devices elsewhere in society.

Apart from more sophisticated robot hoovers, lawn mowers I don't think that is necessarily so.

Hoovers and mowers are safe because they are small, light, low to the ground and constrained to floors and lawns.

Vehicles, fast, heavy, high, are in a controlled environment.

Other controlled enviroments like factories have already ventured into robotics.

It seems to me that main advantages of automated movement would exist in unstructured environments like streets, shops. The robots I've seen so far have low center of gravity, are heavy so as to inhibit any danger.

What exactly does automated driving do for other unstructured environments?

It is far from clear to me that this is going to be a trifle soon after the roads swarm with autos.

<comment><USER29> We don't even have autonomous street sweepers (well defined environment, not allowed to run over stuff) mining dump trucks (not as well defined environment, few things it's not allowed to run over and most of them have reflectors on them) or forklifts to unload trucks (well defined environment, nothing to run into).

I'm not holding my breath for automated trucking.

<comment><USER30> Automated mining trucks are already being used: [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603170/mining-24-hours-a-...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603170/mining-24-hours- a-day-with-robots/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I haven't thought of this until now, but it's going to be interesting to see the impact of self driving trucks on human migration. Today many people feel trapped where they live because it's prohibitively expensive to move. Once self-driving trucks are common, the cost of moving across the country should plummet. Imagine being able to move everything in your apartment or home across the country for a few hundred dollars.

<comment><USER32> I've moved across the country a few times now - I'm not sure the expense of physically moving stuff was ever the largest.

<comment><USER33> They were for me, by far. What other expenses are there?

<comment><USER34> The fact that you'd first have to secure employment at your destination city?

<comment><USER31> The only move I've coordinated cost quite a lot. It involved moving a 4 bedroom house from the South to New England and cost about $4-5k with labor and boxing and only unloading at the destination. The majority of the cost was the labor after everything was boxed and loaded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The freeway is where AI will be first. It is the most controlled driving environment we have. It can be made even more controlled in a fairly efficiently and cheaply. The local city and country roads have a plethora of other issues. Pedestrians, driveways, trees, multitudes of entrances and exits...its a nightmare really.

Give me AI on the freeway, and I'd probably be happy enough.

</comment><comment><USER36> Automation is one thing in fully mapped Mountain View with perfect weather. It's a whole other job when supply lines go through rough terrain, like Canadian western highways in winter... those chains won't get around those tires by themselves, not to mention the risk of mechanical failures.

<comment><USER37> Yes, but those surely make up a small proportion of all truck freight traffic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Just the threat of automated long haul trucking should cause rail freight rates to decrease, ultimately rates will drop dramatically. Last mile is the final holdout for truckers.

</comment><comment><USER39> Some will be employed driving the wreckers to go get the trucks that flake out and drive off the road.

</comment><comment><USER40> Obviously. Question is how soon.

</comment><comment><USER41> Suggest change title from tracker to trucker.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for noticing. Unfortunately, I cannot change the title anymore … or don't know how.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Having almost been seriously injured or killed by truckers more times than I'd like, I fucking hope so.</comment>


What Alibaba's investments say about its future plans - <AUTHOR> https://www.techinasia.com/alibaba-investments-2018-future <comment><USER2> Interesting perspective; where, in US companies, do public companies list their investments such as these? Are they in the annual reports, quarterly, not at all?</comment>


108 Ways to Learn to Code - <AUTHOR> http://www.sitebuilderreport.com/blog/108-ways-to-learn-to-code/

<comment><USER2> The sites that the author includes in the free online courses are unimpressive garbage. The author should have included the highly useful learn*thehardway series by zed shaw.</comment>


SE: Why is this defense against "It's a Unix system " not widely implemented? - <AUTHOR> https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/222839/why-is-this-defense-against-its-a-unix-system-not-widely-implemented <comment><USER2> One line in the top reply in particular stuck out to me, because the person doesn't seem to know what they're talking about, and it highlights how low- quality Stack Exchange has become over time.

 _(ever built the linux kernel from source? I have; it 's a chore.)_

This demonstrates a complete lack of experience, and seems to be a lie.

Even low-powered, ancient, _phone_ ARM CPUs can compile the kernel in under two hours:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/7381w3/linux_compili...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/7381w3/linux_compiling_times_on_arm_cpus/)

Some recent (though as far as I'm aware, not the most recent, which can probably do it faster) AMD CPUs can do it in 16 seconds:

[https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-16...](https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-16-Seconds- AMD-EPYC-2P)

And if you look in the replies of that comment, you'll see the author comparing installing node.js on _CentOS_ to compiling the kernel.

I'd like to see some genuine conversation on this, but Stack Exchange fails to deliver.

<comment><USER3> Well, yes, but you also need to include vendor x's driver and patches for that thing you have on your embedded system, and you have to consider whether you want each of the eleventy thousand configuration options.

I'm not complaining. IMO it's much easier to build the kernel than to fix whatever bug I'll fix next, and I say that without knowing what that next bug is. Just explaining why it's harder to build the kernel than to add some third-party blah via one or a few lines of Gradle, which may be his basis for comparison.</comment></comment>


Asking Questions More Effectively - <AUTHOR> http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/06/06/asking-questions-more-effectively/ <comment><USER2> My favorite listening approach is silence. Instead of responding to speech by the other person with my own talking, as is the usual style, I intentionally remain silent, and it's amazing what people say to fill the "void".

</comment><comment><USER3> On the flip side of Mark's point, it seems that free-form questions are a great opportunity for the answerer to steer the course of the rest of the conversation.

Next time I'm going into an important meeting like the ones Mark describes in his post I'll make sure to give some thought to how I want to answer these wide questions. I'll make sure my long winded free-form answers plant the right "nuggets" so that when the they start to drill down they are asking the questions I want to answer.

<comment><USER4> Mostly if you're doing the asking and you don't hear what you want you need a plan anyways for what you'll drill down on. If you don't go into the meeting with a pre-planned agenda you're unlikely to achieve objectives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I highly recommend this workshop/class if you're interested in not only learning to ask questions more effectively but to also answer them more effectively. It's called Precision Q & A. I have no connection to the company, I just took the course and found it incredibly useful. I use these techniques practically every day.

Here's a fact sheet/highlights - <http://www.vervago.com/PQFactSheet.pdf> <http://www.vervago.com/program_services.html>

</comment><comment><USER6> I love this approach. Lately, when I go in to meet with people about what products they want or what they need to make their job easier, I just ask them exactly that. "What do you need to make your job easier?" "What pisses you off?" etc.

Just sit there and let the info flow :)

I work with a guy who is the exact opposite and i'm constantly glaring at him to get him to stop talking!

</comment><comment><USER7> <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375></comment>


Startups & Rockbands (video) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.orchestra.io/post/6458531838/startups-rockbands

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a talk I gave to 1,000 people in Dublin, on Friday 10th June. I draw comparisons between starting up a tech company and starting a rock band.

Interested to hear what the good folk of HN think :)

Best line I heard after the talk was "In a startup you do lines of code, in a band you do lines of coke"... which cracked me up (via @emigal)</comment>


Vogt Awards looking for hardware startups. $20k seed money, $100k prize - <AUTHOR> http://www.vogtawards.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm the current president of the LVL1 hackerspace (<http://www.lvl1.org>) here in town. Our presence and our members have played a part in retooling this award. This is neat for a few reasons:

* The Vogt Award has existed since 1999, and is funded from an endowment. Unlike many accelerators, they take no equity.

* You get access to the University of Louisville's Rapid Prototyping Center for your product development needs. This means you can do things like 3D print 20 micron layer objects in stainless steel, cobalt chromium and titanium. The website design isn't impressive, but there's a list of equipment and facilities here: <http://louisville.edu/speed/rpc/equipment-and-facilities>

* Louisville is home to UPS Worldport (the reason companies like Amazon, Zappos, and Cafe Press have moved to town). You can ship and receive items globally faster and cheaper here than from anywhere else in the US.</comment>


Google designing own self-driving vehicle - <AUTHOR> https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/just-press-go-designing-self-driving.html

<comment><USER2> Somehow a dupe of

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7807991](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7807991)

<comment><USER3> Looks like this one is to [https://](https://) while that one is to [http://](http://) \- I'm guessing that's how.</comment></comment>


Google's ninth attempt at a messaging service will be based on RCS - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/google-ninth-attempt-at-a-messaging-service-will-be-based-on-rcs/ <comment><USER2> wait until 10th attempt at google I/O 2022?!</comment>


Tyler Durden was wrong, you are your job - <AUTHOR> http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/career-advice/ <comment><USER2> I think the quote is used incorrectly. Tyler was talking about using commercialism to replace our identity. His argument wasn't that a job wouldn't change you, but that a job is seen as status symbol or a replacement for an identity, which is clearly indicated in the rest of the quote:

 _You are not your job.

You are not how much money you have in the bank.

You are not the car you drive.

You are not the contents of your wallet.

You are not your fucking khakis._

To paraphrase the quote: Measure of a person is not your possessions.

I think Tyler would agree that a job will change a person; any meaningful experience does that.

</comment><comment><USER3> Change "job" to "role." Roles define us, whether official or volunteer. They might be unpaid caretaker roles, relationships, mother, father, sibling, husband.

The mind adapts readily to roles, perhaps explaining why we so easily incorporate ourselves into dreams, adopting even alien identities without conflict.

Another great quote in this vein from Vonnegut: "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."</comment>


Show HN: Realtime Web UI for Headless Chrome - <AUTHOR> https://deepstream.live/?incorrect_flag <comment><AUTHOR> Invite you to criticise, give feedback and share bugs for this prototype realtime web interface for Chrome headless.

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm getting a 503 :(</comment>


Housing Crunch Exacts a Heavy Price on Californians - <AUTHOR> https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017/02/01/housing-crunch-exacts-a-heavy-price-on-californians/ <comment><USER2> It's a huge part of why my wife, I, and our family left California. When a small box built in the 1980s goes for $600K you know something's wrong. We miss the San Diego weather, but now we have money to spend and save. And we'll be able to buy a nice house in the next 2-3 years.</comment>


Mechanism design - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_design

<comment><USER2> If you're not familiar with game theory and mechanism design, MD is actually hugely applied in technology. Trivial examples include ad network auctions (which so many startups get wrong); there is a LOT of literature about how to design and structure auctions so that we have desirable properties, such as strategy-proofness, simple bidding rules, transparency, low risk, etc..

Other examples include the FCC spectrum auction. It's really hard to sell such complex (essentially) networked spectrum, such that the government maximizes revenue and bidders can't manipulate each other/prices. Lots of people try to "hack" the auction whenever it runs with mixed results.

There's a lot of joy to be found in the math/abstraction/intuition/creativity of mechanism design and game theory!</comment>


The Old Reader RSS app closes registration after months of 'hell' - <AUTHOR> http://theverge.com/2013/7/29/4569836/the-old-reader-closes-registration-after-months-of-hell <comment><USER2> What I don't understand is this: If you want to get rid of users you already have, why don't you charge them an exorbitant amount? You'll get cash for your effort, and those who really like your product will stay. The rest will naturally leave.

Doing manually what the free market would have done automatically and much more efficiently seems like a waste of their effort.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't even need to be an exorbitant amount: charge each user $2 a month for the continuation of service and they'll shed the freeloaders without alienating their real fans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When Google Reader announced it will be shut down, I - like many others - started to look around for a replacement. I was looking for a reader that has a nice mobile web UI with aggregated list of all articles (unread or not).

Turned out that there aren't many readers that support mobile browsers, most want you to install some app. The Old Reader and FeedBin were the only ones that came even close to what I was looking for. So I created account for both of those.

After some time I just got frustrated for both and set up feed2imap and now I don't have to worry if and when my RSS reader is going to shut its doors.

<comment><USER5> Hey, we actually have a similar workflow/setup with [http://www.feedsapi.org](http://www.feedsapi.org) , and forward all full content rss articles in realtime to email inboxes, evernote, instapaper.... we found out , this gives more control to our users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://blog.theoldreader.com/post/56798895350/desperate- time...](http://blog.theoldreader.com/post/56798895350/desperate-times-call- for-desperate-measures) the actual source</comment>


Ask HN: examples of 'bare bones' designs/interfaces - <AUTHOR>

http://news.ycombinator.com/
http://www.quora.com/
http://www.facebook.com/
http://www.delicious.com/
http://www.yelp.com/
http://*.google.com/
All these sites have interfaces that are largely composed of text, borders and shaded backgrounds on a white canvas. There's a distinct lack of gradients, rounded corners, drop shadows, background images, fancy buttons and oversized text fields.  They don't necassarily look pretty but they're not ugly either (I'd put reddit, ebay, craiglist under the later category).  They also work rather well from a usability perspective.
Having virtually no design ability, interfaces like these appeal to me. What other sites have a plain front end and good UX? <comment><USER2> I posted something along similar lines sometime ago and this pattern. Pretty successful sites with 'bare bones' interface/design but rather well planned from a usability perspective as you point out.

I was even thinking of accomplished or even legendary CS people that have minimalistic personal websites.

Knuth : <http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/>

Norvig: <http://norvig.com/>

Stallman: <http://stallman.org/>

Of course pg from the familiar people:

Graham: <http://www.paulgraham.com/>

I am really curious about this and I would be happy if more HNers could share their thoughts on that. Hopefully I did not deviate much from the spirit of your post

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm quite interested in this too. I have been trying to resist going too heavy on design on my new startup/app. Mainly been thinking about minimal designs as a positive thing after I switched from delicious to <http://pinboard.in>. Pinboard's interface is a joy to use and is super quick because it's so light.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to resist using TypeKit, larger text fields and rounded corners on my new project. Perhaps I should reconsider, but it'll certainly be more barebones than your average app. I guess barebone designs do make you focus on UX more and they'd also make transition from my Mockingbird mockups more straightforward.

Lighter and simpler designs would be a really positive trend if they were adopted more widely. I vote that barebones should be strongly encouraged.

</comment><comment><USER4> I really admire the design of reddit. Many new users/visitors are immediately turned off by the design but that is until they "get" what reddit is. Reddit has achieved to be so many things to so many different people (through the subreddits, the comments, and the posts) because of its neutral design.

I am too following a similar approach in my side project. It's goal is to view videos and sort them into lists. The design only has a sidebar and a thumbs list. You don't even have to register to start using it, your session data is stored and you can register later if you like to keep it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Even though they are bare bones, they still require some design knowledge to be very successful. The usage of typographic hierarchy and grids can be seen in all of them - some more successful than others.

Being simple is just as hard as creating more 'fancy' objects, I would suggest having a look into swiss design/ new international style where your sure to be inspired and help see just how people use layouts and typography to create simple designs which work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just to be clear, I wasn't equating simple with easy.

Thanks for the tip re: swiss design. More info: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Typographic_Style>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Beepl <http://alpha.beepl.com>

<comment><USER6> Originally, I was making it graphics rich but then decided against it and went "barebone" [http://picasaweb.google.com/sopybeepl/DevScreenshots#5427711...](http://picasaweb.google.com/sopybeepl/DevScreenshots#5427711992266800306)</comment></comment>


Nuit du Hack 2013 (Paris): Swiss e-voting system hacked - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2VkE3Iz1vQ

<comment><AUTHOR> Presentation in French, slides in English.

Summary in a newspaper (in French): [http://www.tdg.ch/suisse/vote-ligne-peut- facilement-change/s...](http://www.tdg.ch/suisse/vote-ligne-peut-facilement- change/story/22734675)</comment>


Show HN: Debate.bingo – interactive debate bingo built in 1 day - <AUTHOR> https://2020madness.com/bingo <comment><AUTHOR> We're also at [http://debate.bingo](http://debate.bingo), but with a 1 day lead time, DNS propagation delay is a bitch :)

You grab a candidate specific bingo card at eg. [https://2020madness.com/bingo/yang](https://2020madness.com/bingo/yang)

</comment><comment><USER2> In one day!!! It's amazing</comment>


On Nexuses (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.devever.net/~hl/nexuses <comment><USER2> This is not about Google's Nexus devices, but something that might be called a "platform", e.g. a filesystem.</comment>


Nvidia CEO Says Moore's Law Is Dead - <AUTHOR> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331836 <comment><USER2> He got a point, I'm following this topic closely as I believe it will shape future trends.

He is also talking his book. Nvidia is providing specialized silicon. Everyone is now looking to exploit chip architectures that until now either were more expensive than simple scaling and thus ignored so far and/or require large number of transistors.</comment>


When water balloons hit a bed of nails and don't pop - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/science/pancake-bounce-water-balloons-bed-nails.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> Fakirs have known this for a long time, e.g. [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bed_of_nails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bed_of_nails)

<comment><USER3> Yes, they've known about preventing puncture due to weight distribution, but this article is mostly about a different kind of bounce where the balloon (or water droplet) preserves its flattened shape even as it achieves clearance from the nails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a good reminder that there's research to be done in classical physics and engineering, not just fundamental particle stuff.

Even though we know (or think we know) how things like force, pressure, tension, etc work at this scale, there's still explanation to do.

</comment><comment><USER5> When visitors hit a paywall and don't pay</comment>


JUnit vs. Spock – What's Wrong with JUnit - <AUTHOR> http://jakubdziworski.github.io/java/groovy/spock/2016/05/14/spock-cheatsheet.html <comment><USER2> > Spock is that it's basically a DSL (domain specifing language) for writing > tests. It's based on Groovy

I don't like the way Spock hacks Groovy's syntax for its DSL. The "expect" and "where" are actually labels that can be jumped to, repurposed as some sort of macro word. The | and || are operators for something else. Other languages don't even allow boolean op || to be overloadable.

It's like Spock has gone to a lot of trouble to work around the restrictions in Groovy's antiquated Antlr 2.7 based grammar.

      class Math extends Specification {
          def "maximum of two numbers"(int a, int b, int c) {
              expect:
              Math.max(a, b) == c

              where:
              a | b || c
              3 | 5 || 5
              7 | 0 || 7
              0 | 0 || 0
          }
      }

<comment><USER3> > Other languages don't even allow boolean op || to be overloadable.

Some languages don't allow overloading any operator, but of the ones that do, several allow || to be overloaded. Ruby doesn't, but C++ does for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if you can combine spock with cucumber</comment>


Google+ Is Going To Mess Up The Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_is_going_to_mess_up_the_internet.php#.TwRySkFEmmQ.hackernews <comment><USER2> I hate to do a tl;dr, but here it is: Google has bought and/or acquired so many web properties that they all can't appear in their own little special spot in search results. If you type in the name of an article you wrote and it's the 3rd or 4th listing, below somebody just mentioning it on G+? It's broken. Like Facebook, but to a greater degree, Google is making the internet crap by putting it's own little frame around everything.

To me Google isn't evil by any means, but it has way too many smart people all trying to jump on whatever the latest popular bandwagon might be. It's definitely getting a "McGoogle" feel to it. Whatever is getting popular on the web, some little Googlite is busy working to assimilate it. I like Google a lot. The author has a point. At some point enough is enough. I think he exaggerates to a much greater degree than is necessary. So far.

<comment><USER3> Google.com has a high page rank. Thus plus.google.com has a high pagerank, it's not gaming the system. It's just inheriting the pagerank.

<comment><USER4> The specific mechanics are irrelevant, it's still broken.

<comment><USER3> That's not broken. If you had website foo.com and then added bar.foo.com you would expect that your pagerank transfer to your subdomain as well. Of course when the owner of pagerank has this apply to them it's suddenly "broken" though huh?

<comment><USER5> I think you ignored mseebach's point.

The mechanics of how the search results are ranked (pagerank) is irrelevant. The system is "broken" when original source content is ranking below people merely linking to it from another site.

<comment><USER3> I think he didn't make it clear enough. The system isn't broken, the original source just has a lower pagerank.I fail to see where the issue is. I've seen links rank lower than their relevant HN or Reddit posts on Google before.

<comment><USER6> Actually a sub domain is considered a different domain with it's own page rank, I believe this is do to many hosted blogs at wordpress, blogger etc...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Well, that didn't make me feel much better, because now I know Google is showing different Internets to different people."

OP is a web-tech blogger and he _just now_ learned this? I don't use G+ much so I can't easily evaluate the rest of OPs assertions, but I am questioning them by default because when someone makes one statement I know to be false (or in this case inexcusably ignorant), it calls the rest of their statements into question. This is unfortunate because I think much what OP says is useful, but, c'mon: if you blog about web tech and didn't know google tailors results, it makes you seem like you "don't know how any of this stuff works" and I can't take you seriously in that regard.

I am very confused by the section about plagiarism/mis-attribution/non- attribution. OP says his work was "almost-unattributed" but I couldn't find any link back to him on the G+ posting. Did someone click the share button, or paste in a link to his article? Or did someone copy and paste his article? If it's the latter, this phenomenon is much older than the Internet and has nothing to do with G+, specifically, besides the fact that Google may rate your plagiarized "work" higher than the original on its results (which is a distinct issue that applies to both plagiarized and properly-attributed posts).

EDIT: I see the name now, it was next to the title in the post. Thank you OP.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's "almost-attributed" because he included my name, but there was no link or mention of my site. I don't care about the name. I care about the site. That's what the whole rant is about.

Of course I knew that Google tailored results. How would I have been able to include any context in this post otherwise? You took a human-written sentence out of context and made it make less sense than it does in the body of the post.

<comment><USER8> "because my informal language gave trolls too much ammunition to make a distracting non-point."

Don't call people trolls just because they highlight a confusing statement of yours. Judging by the comments here (and on RWW), it was easy to interpret it "wrong" even with the context of the article.

<comment><USER9> Even if he didn't know, would his not knowing that Google tailors results per- user somehow make his other points worthless? That seems like a form of _poisoning the well_.

<comment><USER7> I looked up "poisoning the well" because I didn't know the precise meaning, thanks for the new phrase! In fact I'm not "poisoning the well" because a) My opinion was the one in question; Poisoning the well requires an audience and poisoner and more importantly b) I didn't introduce this information, the author wrote it himself.

Anyway regarding poisoning the well, check out the second example here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well#Examples> " _The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence "obscurantisme") and then when one criticizes it, the author says, "Vous m'avez mal compris; vous êtes idiot" [roughly, "You misunderstood me; you are an idiot"] (hence "terroriste")."_ " Ironically, this does precisely describe the behavior of a commenter here, but it's not me. :p

<comment><USER9> Thanks for your response. What I meant was that him not knowing Google tailors results has no bearing on his gripes about

1\. not being able to link to the original article,

2\. Google favoring Google+ posts in search results overall,

3\. and the Google+ interface looking and working terribly.

I used _poisoning the well_ because it was a related ad hominem: you're saying him being wrong in this one instance means he is wrong in these other unrelated instances.

<comment><USER7> Hmm... I certainly didn't mean to say he "is wrong." Given many claims I can't verify, I give the person the benefit of the doubt: I can't say if it's right or wrong so I'll assume the author is right. BUT, once I see one assertion that I know to be way off or highly uninformed, I revoke that "benefit of the doubt" on all the other claims. As I said it's unfortunate, but I can't assume the other assertions are any more valid than the one I know to be wrong/uninformed.

Horse flogging, stop now: If you were to tell my that northern Spain is rainy in the winter and Sweden has long dry summers, I'd take your word for it (I know little about the climates in those countries). BUT if you then told me snow is rare in winter in the US Northeast, which I know to be false, I ask myself "hmm... could his statements about the other places be equally inaccurate? He has demonstrated he does not know what he's talking about vis- a-vis local climate trends." Do you see what I mean? I'm not saying anything he wrote is true or false, it's just _called into question_ by a demonstration of ignorance on the topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Google search results are beginning to bore the life out of me, and part of it has to do with inane google-plus entries in the search results.

WTF goog search? It seems like ever since Bing showed up and did that little left-hand column of filters, you started running around doing all sorts of "innovation" and it seems messy and quality control is just starting to suck wind. It's obvious you're tinkering with search results to promote your own services -- did you not think anyone would notice?

Goog search, I don't even know you anymore.

<comment><USER7> Jump ship! <https://duckduckgo.com/> esp. see: <https://duckduckgo.com/goodies.html>

strips referers (so sites don't see whence you came), bang syntax (search other sites directly), doesn't track, doesn't log, "vim keybindings"... it's pretty sweet. :)

<comment><USER11> I set that as my default search for my browser.

The main winning feature - they respect the + operator. I can string together a bunch of technical terms, and know that all of them will appear in my results. No doubts.

When google started going all fuzzy on me and returning things that sorta matched what I was looking for, I tried ddg and was happy to get exact matches.

I guess google is trying to satisfy the 80%, but I am in the 20% way too often.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _But never forget that you're Google's product, not its customer._

And never forget that you're a ReadWriteWeb product, not its customer. You don't pay for the articles, your eyeballs are sold to RWW sponsors and partners.

Sigh. Hypocrisy much? This is how most of the web works. The constant attacks on Google or Facebook over it are ridiculous and tiring.

<comment><USER13> Your comment makes two distinct points. The main point, an assertion of hypocrisy, is not a valid disagreement, it's simply ad hominem tu quoque (which reminds, me, what's the latin for "things said in Latin aren't nearly as important as they seem?").

The second point, that "users are the product" is not a novel insight, makes perfect sense.

<comment><USER14> _quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur_

       "anything said in Latin sounds profound". A recent
       ironic Latin phrase to poke fun at people who seem to
       use Latin phrases and quotations only to make themselves
       sound more important or "educated".

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28full%2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28full%29)]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm torn on this issue. Before Google+ things were all over the place. Google had lots of great services, but they were poorly integrated, appeared and disappeared frequently, didn't work with apps users or vice versa. Now Google clearly is moving in a direction that promises better unification and clean-up of annoying edge cases.

The problem is that Google is losing track of its mission statement. It's seeing everything through the lens of social, which is not really in its DNA to begin with. I understand they don't want to dismiss a threat and get their lunch eaten, but they are throwing away a lot of what made them great. There's gotta be a happy medium between completely ignoring up-and-coming threats and throwing yourself so fiercely behind every trend that you end up sabotaging your own strengths that are the very weak points of your feared competitors.

</comment><comment><USER12> _And he goes on to say that he'd rather see a Google+ post about the article than the article itself, because, and I quote, "I can comment here without having to jump through hoops." Hoops like reading the article?_

Sigh. No, jumps to _comment_. He likes the G+ links for the same reason I prefer HN over a simple RSS feed: because we can read the article and _then_ comment easily in a good community.

The thing is: he can get to your article through the G+ link, but he can't get to the G+ comments page from your article. Therefore, the G+ link is richer.

(Not that I'm condoning that Google put his products above everything else. But to the G+ user, it's obviously better)

<comment><USER16> I like this point, but i wonder: how would people feel if, for instance, this HN conversation page ranked higher in Google search results than the actual RWW article?

<comment><USER17> In many cases, I find the HN comments just as insightful as the articles and at least the HN comments link to the article (doesn't usually work the other way around).

Perhaps the best situation would be if sites such as HN and + didn't take up their own slot but were listed subordinate to the original article (underneath it as an icon or a single-lined link).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Maybe this is obvious to everyone, but this is clearly Google's reactionary response to the assertion that social is the future of search. At some time in the past, there were a slew of articles espousing the belief that users would change from searching Google for their quandaries to a more personal exchange of information: asking someone you know.

I don't know what the underlying causes are, but I know three kinds of internet users:

A) Those who are capable of finding information using a search engine

B) Those who aren't capable of finding information using a search engine

C) Those who never even try; they just ask someone

It's easy to jump to the conclusion that the type A individuals are simply more "savvy", but my father, who hardly uses a computer, astounded me the other day by deftly searching out a fantastic manual for the carburetor on his Suzuki Samurai. My father is the type that would much rather be out de-gunking his carb than sitting at a computer. How is he so effective at search? I would have expected him to fall under the type C user category.

Google knows this scenario all too well. They're watching it play out in real time on the web. They have to get in front of it and provide solutions for all three types of users. For better or worse, giving Google+ pages "website" status in their results is their way of getting ahead of sites like Facebook and Quora.

</comment><comment><USER19> Because Google favors G+ results in search, G+ is going to become a very powerful SEO tool and this is going to push publishers to become more and more invested in G+. Search is Google's advantage over Facebook and they are going to press this advantage to the max in order to take on Facebook.

I can't say I blame them but I do wonder if there are no real anti-trust issues here. How is this different than when MSFT used its OS dominance to promote its (late-to-the-party) browser? Google is basically using their own dominance in search to promote their (late-to-the-party) social network

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure that this is true. Typically, Google's results are tailored for you based on your circles and browsing history. This tweaking does not help people that aren't already your friends.

As an example, when I search for the article this article is about with the terms "wired world jury duty", I get the readwriteweb article (with a picture of Jon Mitchell beside it) as the first result. Only the 7th result is a Google+ page, and it's not explicitly advertised in any special way.

Google+ is about _your_ social network, not "the" social network.

(I personally love seeing the "8 of your friends have +1'd this" on the search result page. Instant authenticity!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > _One commenter said, "It's an algorithm. Get over yourself." Typical, > orthodox devotion to the Almighty Google Algorithm and its Infallible > Wisdom._

That's a pretty disingenuous take on his comment. He's actually suggesting that algorithms are _not_ perfect and that it's silly to infer intention from an arbitrary search result.

<comment><USER22> On the other hand..

An algorithm exists to reduce arbitrarity, and until recently there wasn't much question about Google's success in that department. Now though, they are a competitor against other search results and - since the algorithm is in Google's possession - it is not too big a leap to suspect that the algorithm might be tweaked just enough in Google's favour.

<comment><USER21> _it is not too big a leap to suspect that the algorithm might be tweaked just enough in Google's favour_

No, it is not a "big leap", but that doesn't mean it's true. It is conceivable that the search results are organic, especially given the content. It is also conceivable that an impartial query could determine that a G+ page (or any other page) is more relevant than the source article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I enjoy G+ and it's a huge usability improvement over fb, but there's another 'feature' I simply can't stand - that comments are visible in the stream under the post. I don't mind it under my friends' posts, but public popular profiles are another story. I'd like to progressively replace my twitter newsfeed with g+ profiles, but twitter gives me the comfort of not seeing opinions of some random people who like to comment on mainstream, the names who shared (I don't know some John Doe, why would I care he and +320 other people shared it?) and other noise. G+ is nice with the preview and lack of artificial 140char limit, but on twitter I can quickly scan the news without TMI I don't care about. example: <http://i.imgur.com/8i8Az.png>

<comment><USER24> I agree. I'd really like for there to be a "condensed" viewing option, where characters after 140 or so are truncated, and comments are hidden by default. Between that and their new controls for filtering how much of each circle ends up in your main stream, skimming G+ would become a lot easier.

<comment><AUTHOR> Me, too. This is the crux of the problem. Allowing such huge posts and so many media types makes the stream impossible to scan. All the reactions the post is getting from G+ worshippers skip over this point, so I guess some people like being assaulted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> From the article:

"The quickest way to do that was to type 'jon mitchell jury duty' into the Google search bar.

To my astonishment, the post I wanted was not the first result. It was the third. Ranking above the result I wanted were two Google+ posts, one by me, and one by our webmaster Jared, that were nothing more than links to the article with brief comments."

So Google continues to use it's search muscle to promote it's own web services first, and yet some people still find this surprising.

<comment><USER26> They should have a section for G+ results which are equivalent of 'paid links' i.e. if their rank has been boosted then mark them as such. Otherwise they risk losing credibility on search results as the first page is not best match but unmarked advertising. While not evil per se, a little naughty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > The stream is so noisy...

See "Pump up (or down) the volume!" here: [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/google-few-big- improv...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/google-few-big-improvements- before-new.html)

> Culturally, it feels like walking into a religious school.

Your Google+ is made up of who you Circle. Just like the parties you go to are made up of the people who are at the parties you go to. If yours feels a certain way, it is because of who you Circle, and who you share posts with.

> It was familiar because I had written it. I didn't see any attribution, > though, let alone a link to the story.

Rohit Shrivastava was a bad actor, in this case. Plagiarism is a terrible problem, and it's childish of you to blame Google+ for it. It is very easy to correctly link to an article, or share it. I agree that you have legitimate usability problems in many of the versions of Google+ that you used, but Rohit intentionally plagiarized you. You don't want attribution, you want links - that's understandable. Encourage people to use the tool the way it was intended to be used, don't blame the tool for existing.

> Google thought I would prefer to click through Google+ to find my article > than to go straight to it.

Google thought that you and your friends are more interesting to you than the unwashed internet. In general, I think that's the correct choice. If I search "Steve Smith," I probably care a lot more about my friend, than any of the other Steve Smiths on the internet.

> One comment (to which Google+ allows no way to link)

I can't link to comments on your site either, Jon.

> Hoops like reading the article?

Hoops like Disqus, which you use allow people to comment.

> All this personalization and real-time stuff surely helps Google organize > its content, but it's breaking search.

No, it's not. It's combining multiple searches into one interface. Searching your Google+ friends is one aspect of what a person could possibly want to search for. It sounds like you don't want to search the people you've Circled, and what they say. Other people do. If you want to search the internet with as little personalization as possible, your best bet is to open an incognito window.

> Remember when it was "minimal?" This is what it looks like now:

Look at your own site, Jon. No, seriously - go back and look at it for a moment. Sites got rich, with lots of content.

> But Google is different. Google used to be about organizing the world's > information. It was a service to the entire Web. But this social tangent is > changing that.

No, it's not. It's an outreach of that. It's a recognition that your view of the people that you know, and what they think, and how they're talking, is information - information that they're trying to help you organize, if you wish to use their tools. If you wish to use Google News. If you wish to use Android. If you wish to use Google+.

> Thanks to the Scoble effect, I have 8,000 encirclements on Google+. It > creeps me out, because I don't know why I'm encircled by all these people, > and I don't really get what they're talking about most of the time.

There are people who want to know if you say anything publicly. If you don't want to say anything publicly, don't.

> I changed it, because my informal language gave trolls too much ammunition > to make a distracting non-point.

Trolls?

Do you want people to care what you say, or don't you? Whose job is it to make sure that people think you're saying what you mean to say?

> Google+ Hates The Internet

Who is the troll? No, seriously - please define the word troll such that it includes the people who pointed out how ridiculous it was for you to say "because now I know Google is showing different Internets to different people", but excludes you, when you say "Google+ Hates The Internet."

> I hate Google+.

That's unfortunate. I wish it was a valuable tool for you, to help you organize how you're sharing content with people you know. If it's not, then oh well. My mom hates email. If she wrote an article like yours about how email is ruining cursive, she'd have a valid point. But the world is moving forward - and social interactions on the internet are going to spread everywhere. The only question is, what tools are we going to want to use?

Again, you have legitimate complaints about sharing links on some platforms. I hope they get fixed, over time. But your other complaints strike me as either being your own fault for how you used the tool, other people's fault for doing the same bad things that people have been doing forever, or minor differences of opinion about usability... or just lamenting the decline of cursive.

<comment><USER28> Your point-by-point answer focuses on the details of his post rather than his general point, and makes your answer both pedantic and accusatory. The way I read it, he only has a few main points:

1) Google+ makes it easy to unintentionally plagarize. Case in point, he wasn't able to easily get from a re-share to the original.

2) Google (the search engine) should NOT rank a Google+ post which is itself a clone of an actual article above the article itself. (Quote: 'But my query for "jon mitchell jury duty" didn't mean "Show me what my Friends+ are saying about 'jon mitchell jury duty.'" It meant "Show me Jon Mitchell's article about jury duty!"'.)

3) The Google+ web app is ugly.

4) Google (the company) is forcing you use your Google+ profile to identify yourself.

Summary) Google+ is a bad service.

You can disagree or agree with the above points, but simply quoting individual sentences doesn't lead to positive discussion.

<comment><USER27> Point taken.

I think Jon's post was a troll post, with some personal opinions (which are totally valid), a few technical criticisms (totally valid), but mostly "user error" and "nothing new."

The internet makes it easy to unintentionally plagiarize, the internet makes it easy to intentionally plagiarize. Jon makes the valid point that linking is better on the internet than quoting with attribution. He makes the invalid point that plagiarism of any form is Google+'s fault.

Specific ranking is a matter of opinion. Really what Google (the search engine) has to go off of is people's behaviors. If people legitimately like Google+ posts more than anything else on the internet, how would you have them behave?

Google (the company) is forcing you to use your Google+ profile to identify yourself to people who use Google Search, and Google News. Facebook is forcing you to use your Facebook profile to identify yourself when you post on Facebook. Yahoo! is forcing you to use your Yahoo! ID to use Yahoo mail.

Summary) Google+ is as valuable to you as you choose to make it.

Jon's post was designed to attract attention, not to lead to positive discussion. I responded in kind.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally fair. Bloggers are professional trolls, but, as I think you've conceded (correct me if I'm wrong), I only trolled to get people in the door, and there are substantive arguments waiting when you get there.

I just want to point out that you absolutely can permalink to Disqus comments. The timestamp is the link, just like on Twitter.

<comment><USER27> I missed the fact that the timestamp is the link.

"Dad is ruining this family." That's a way to get people in the door, and there are substantive arguments waiting when you get there.

Isn't it a bit too negative, though? Dismissive? Whiny? Dishonest? Trollish?

There are people who want what's best for me, and there are people who attack me without reason. What are your feelings for Google+, Jon? As far as I can tell, you hate it, and you think it's ruining the internet.

<comment><USER29> "If people legitimately like Google+ posts more than anything else on the internet, how would you have them behave?"

So are you suggesting that might makes right or that if a site is popular it should be able to outrank the original content source just because it is popular?

Using this theory shouldn't Google check to see if Facebook has a similar post & rank that above the Google+ post whenever possible?

<comment>

More seriously though, Google allows Google to create "relevancy" signals that are unique to certain pieces of content hosted on Google.com (or, at a minimum, over-represented among nepotistic sources), thus Google should aggressively discount that self-serving bias to error on the side of safety rather than setting up platforms that make it really easy to "accidentally" plagiarize content.

Obviously Google biz dev people realize the above self-serving bias & will do nothing to correct it, but it isn't a fact that should be ignored in public debate. At least not if we want to have an honest debate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm on several Internet forums where people copy and paste entire articles with no attribution. Slideshows are unrolled, images are hyperlinked, etc.

They're breaking the Internet!

No, wait, they have _been_ the Internet since the very beginning.

</comment><comment><USER31> "It creeps me out, because I don't know why I'm encircled by all these people, and I don't really get what they're talking about most of the time"

The above line really shows the author doesn't get Google+. While I do have my own grievances about Google+, the author doesn't make valid claims and shouldn't be making any because the author has not understood it.

<comment><USER32> I have to agree. Google+ is more of a "rich Twitter" than a "not-Facebook Facebook". People often mistake it for the latter, which I think may be a large part of the reason that so many people are ho-hum about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> His first point is just wrong. You _can_ link to the original post ([https://plus.google.com/102025628931490661645/posts/6D2CtDQx...](https://plus.google.com/102025628931490661645/posts/6D2CtDQxgWn)), but only if it's visible to you. You obviously can't link to a post you can't see.

<comment><USER7> The plagiarizers response (in the link above) to why he copypasted rather thank linking:

        You have a good point, I have only kept major content and not the whole article, at times I feel sharing a link just dissuades users from reading the post. Or plain & simple kills interest. I have though started making the change you have suggested few articles too long are again too daunting to read. But overall your feedback taken. Thanks for pointing this out.

"I feel sharing a link just dissuades users from reading the post." Wow.

<comment><USER34> The author's problem with G+ is not Google. His problem with G+ is bad curators who don't respect the creators of the content. As curation is my forte (I run a popular Tumblr news blog), Rohit Shrivastava's response really annoys me.

Tumblr, which shares a lot of cues with Google+ in terms of how content is shared publicly, has similar users to Rohit. I think it's bad form to post the entire contents of an article. Post small bits, the gist, but encourage people to keep reading if they like the basic idea. IMHO, Tumblr does a better job of encouraging users to respect content creators.

But the thing is, the problem is not unique to either of these platforms. How many random WordPress splogs steal RWW's content wholesale and just scrape the RSS feed? A lot. All the big tech sites have this problem. The difference with G+ is, Google seems to enable these copy-wholesale types better by giving them strong positions in search results. Tumblr is not as good at SEO (it makes up for it with design), so it's not as big an issue.

To users like Rohit, respect the content creators. It sucks when they get screwed because you couldn't stop after a single paragraph or rewrite the piece.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > And it hit me: True Believers of the Holy + might see this re-shared Google+ > post of an almost-unattributed rip of my story instead of the original. > Google+ hates the Internet!

Stopped reading here. This is a waste-of-time troll article.

</comment><comment><USER36> Google isn't the internet and if it fails , it's google's problem not ours( or internet's ?). There is other alternatives to google's services, if one finds the others better than google, he is free to use them. Seriously, just don't use it if you hate it, that's the best response that you can give.

I don't use G+ because of the "Real Name Policy". It's my choice to give my real name or not and Google don't respect my choices. I have FB, e-mail (yay!), blog, skype etc... I have everything to communicate with my friends or with the world ! I don't need some Nazi to give me an advice like "If You Have Something You Don't Want Anyone To Know, Maybe You Shouldn't Be Doing It"....

<comment><USER25> I'm sorry, but for a large amount of people who only use Google for search, Google _is_ the Internet. That's why I switched to DuckDuckGo a long time ago, but people like me are a tiny minority.

Now speaking as a web publishing, if people started to copy-and-paste my articles into Google+ and these entries got higher rankings on Google search than my original content, I'd be pretty upset too. It isn't a question of what search engine I use in this instance, but what the majority of everyone else is using.

<comment><USER36> Google can be a giant now but it isn't mean that it's invincible. Google isn't innovative since "Gmail", keeps making mistakes (buzz etc) and make people angry. Nowadays people aren't royal to the products and even "normal" users can change their habits (remember icq -> msn transformation)

<comment><USER37> Can you elaborate on...well, everything, in your post? What do you mean "keeps making mistakes." That Google, like everyone else, makes mistakes, and will continue to do so until the end of the world? Or that it is making a higher- than-expected number of mistakes?

<comment><USER36> Some mistakes that i remember :

* Buzz

* Code Search

* University resarch program for google search.

* Jaiku

* Dodgeball

That services either acquired or created by Google. They were valuable but now closed . For example : Buzz has fascinating technology behing it, but still failed. Google didn't understand users ( there was not so much people because of the invitation thing and mass was important ), user wasn't able to understand "What the heck is the Google Buzz" ( communication error by google ? ).

As for G+, Eric Schmidt's response wasn't the nicest response to give the users who complains about real name policy. And again "elite g+ club" enthusiasm was a mistake, like buzz, because a social network means nothing without your friends ( this time they realised their mistake and act before it's too late ).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Out of desperation, Google's gone evil. For all of the shady things that Google had done in the past that people said were evil, nothing approaches the infection of their search service with Google+ rankings. Google had always largely maintained the integrity of their search product which, despite minor adulterations added over the years, was still essentially based on little more than a strict, normative interpretation of the HTTP and HTML standards. By doing so, they maintained the integrity of the company itself. The standards now take a back seat to Google+.

The author is spot on about this. It's evil. In my estimation, it's disrespectful to users. And it therefore creates a huge opportunity for Bing, et al. What remains to be seen is whether, on balance, this degradation of the search service is significant enough to drive away a substantial number of users.

</comment><comment><USER39> "And he goes on to say that he'd rather see a Google+ post about the article than the article itself, because, and I quote, "I can comment here without having to jump through hoops." Hoops like reading the article?"

The hoops I think he is talking about here is having to typically set up an account on a third-party site to comment. I've not commented on a blog post or article because I don't feel like figuring out a username/password (and then remembering it), doing the typical confirmation steps, etc., just to give some feedback. Some have Facebook integration to save you a step but I, like others, don't particularly like having every comment I ever make aggregated by Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is not actually a Google+ problem. It's a social networking problem. Facebook.com, linkedin.com, and google.com are all preferred over anyone's personal site.

My name is a good case study because it is, as far as I know, unique. Google is currently doing the "right thing" but previously it had been returning my Facebook page above my personal website. That's broken, but it has nothing to do with G+, and everything to do with the way all search engines rank people. (Bing does the "wrong thing" with respect to my name, and shows LinkedIn first. DDG also throws in two random things from years ago in before getting to my modern website.)

Search is a hard problem, and the result is subjective.

</comment><comment> mike-cardwell As well as the user experience being crap, there are the issues of Google silently removing swearing from your profile, and kicking you off if they don't think your name is real.

</comment><comment><USER41> Lol, I just Googled "jon mitchell jury duty" myself and the first 4 links were 1) this post about google+, 2) google+ page 3) google+ page 4) the original article. So writing about this problem has only made things worse!

<comment><USER42> For me its the 5th one now. It shows another blog based on this post( <http://meta.ath0.com/2012/01/05/googleplusungood/> ) as 2nd in the search for "jon mitchell jury duty".

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> While I agree Google is deprecating the URL, as indicated by the removal of the Shared in Reader features, isn't this just a case of somebody cutting and pasting without attribution? G+ can't do anything about that.

</comment><comment><USER44> Yargh. OP searched on _his name_ plus "jury duty" and is complaining because Google returns two G+ hits with _his name in the title_ before getting to the article he wrote about jury duty?

</comment><comment><USER45> Ah, SEO, how much I loathe everything you spawn and touch.

</comment><comment><USER46> I believe that Google itself will end up being the 'Google killer'.

I used to enjoy google products _because_ they had very little branding footprint (or maybe I just thought they did), but now I'm constantly trying to avoid branded/sponsored content in order to get the real thing I wanted.

I'll be slowly migrating away from google products from now on because of that. Like the post puts it, I'm tired of being the product. If search and social web won't change it's ways, then I'll be changing away from it.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi everybody. Sorry I can't respond to everyone, but this conversation has been very productive, I think. Thanks so much.

</comment><comment><USER47> It seems like most people here are jumping on this guy's throat about minor problems in what he wrote. Let me instead back-up one of his points with more evidence:

First off: I am a huge Google fanboy, I'm a full-time Android developer and Google scholarships even helped pay for my college. It seems that every time I say anything bad about Google anywhere on the Internet people call me an Apple fanboy so I just wanted to state that.

> Google's Weird Attempt At Social

Let's take a look at how many different ways I can do a simple chat with my friends using Google products on my Android Ice Cream Sandwich device.

Google Voice - My main way of text messaging.

Google Talk - My main way IM client

Google+ Messaging (Formerly known as Huddle) - A mobile only way to communicate with my G+ friends.

Here's where it gets weird:

Google Voice - Anything I can is instantly synched with the Google Voice app on my iPad, Google Voice on my browser, the third party Google Voice app I use on my computer and my phone.

Google Talk - Anything I do is synched up to Google Talk on my computer or any place I'm logged in, which also means all my Google Talk conversation logs can be found using the GMail app on my phone.

Google+ Messaging - Boom. Say something to any of my friends on here, unable to look back at the messages unless I get on my phone again. "Oh, where did Kyle say we're meeting up tonight? I should print directions" Oh, my phone's out of battery and charging. Well, there goes that plan.

The craziest thing is that if I want to do Google+ Hangout (worst name I've ever heard for any product) I have to either use the website or the Google+ Messaging app. That's right, if I want to do a Hangout on my phone (a feature they're really pushing with their ICS video ads) I have to do it in a self- contained application that will not reflect any changes on the website. How does this make any sense?

It's even worse when you think about it. If I want to do a video chat with my friends using ONLY Google products I actually have two different choices! I can either Google+ Hangout with them using the Messenger application on my phone (try to comprehend that sentence, seriously.) or I can use Google Talk's video chatting (the feature they were pushing very hard with Honeycomb). Why couldn't they just integrate group messaging and video chatting right into Google Talk? I already have a fully functioning video chatting application on my phone that doesn't require people to be on a website or their phones to use it! I can use Google Talk's video chat to talk to anyone using Google Talk anywhere!

I know that Google's Weird Attempt At Social is due to buying so many different companies and not consolidating them, but it's not anything close to an ideal user experience.

Sidenote: As soon as my Sprint contract is done I'm switching over to an iPhone, iOS 5's text + iMessage all in one application is a wonderful implementation of what Google should be doing with all of their conversational products.

<comment><USER48> Warning, OT: none of the apps you mention actually synchronise anything. Apart from Google+ Messaging, all of the apps you mention access a single (central) source of content.

Google+ Messaging, on the other hand, creates content locally, rather than centrally. Syncing content implies sharing it between each device that needs it. That may or may not include a central server.

<comment><USER47> Isn't the whole point of using apps powered by Google that everything I do is synced to "the cloud"? At least, shouldn't that be the point?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I also enjoy using G+. and as the writer said that he wanted it to get off his chest, that's what he did. so no problem...keep writing.. People will do what they want to do...

</comment><comment><USER50> Mess up "The Internet"? I don't think so. If you don't like Google, switch to Altavista.

<comment><USER51> For a lot of purposes I have switched to Wikipedia. Automated web search simply isn't the right tool these days for many of the niches in which Google got its foothold in the '90s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> irony that his post is +1'ed 50 times (more than facebook shares)

</comment><comment><USER53> This sort of post is further evidence that whenever G+ adds some new feature or publishes new numbers a PR attack is imminent. Usually you can tell straight away by the hyperbolic headlines.

</comment><comment><USER54> What a bunch of link bait... The title is blowing the whole thing out of proportion. It should have been "My free Google service is messing up my free Google service"

The beauty of the internet is and always has been that if you don't like something its really way to switch to something else.

<comment><USER29> The core issue isn't just how one free Google service interacts with another free Google service, but how when combined they undermine the copyright & revenue potential for a content creator by displacing that person's work with Google's copy of that person's work.

If you are not in business (and don't care if your favorite non-Google sites eventually disappear) then it is no big deal.

For everyone else it has the potential to be a big deal.

If publishers do not complain about it now then it will get worse. How bad does it have to get before the complaints are valid to you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Hmm, I enjoy using G+. Maybe I don't have the needs of the e-media i-blog web- news e-lite.</comment>


How to Spot Toxic Software Jobs from Their Descriptions - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-spot-toxic-software-jobs-from-their-descriptions-c53cf224417f <comment><USER2> Overall - I feel the author's pain here - and yet - it does feel a bit like he got burned and this is a bit cathartic.

The first thing is - this is the industry we live in; especially for small companies, it should be expected to have to handle or at least support tangential roles; it should be expected to have more responsibility and lower bus factor; it should be expected that processes, code standards, etc are not matured since this kind of thing often takes time.

The second thing I'd say, is that there are different personality types. Sure, no one wants to be stressed out; but there are a good amount of people that prefer these smaller-company challenges over sitting in large architecture review meetings for months working in a waterfall format (the other extreme).

Some people like to work in a comfortable role, with a predictable schedule, and just color within their lines with the technologies they know, and go home. Others actually appreciate the challenge and difficulty, and see an "on fire" situation and attempting to level up and see if they can get everyone rowing in the same direction, put processes in place that will last, train discipline and standards, and make it a better place to work.

The third piece, is that what I've described thus far I would not use the word "Toxic" for. I would not consider "overworked" to be the same as "Toxic" personally, since it is each person's responsibility to make sure they are lookin out for their own health, and working to an acceptable and sustainable standard. Sure, employers are always going to want you to work more. That said, the line is crossed when the employer demands or forces workers to work beyond healthy or sustainable limits, especially when the worker has clearly communicated these (often, this second part is what is the failure of many devs) - if that limit is crossed, this is what i would describe as "Toxic", including any sort of employer speak which could be described as "abusive."

</comment><comment><USER3> The author posts several job descriptions, then interprets them to mean that the company expects the applicant to fill half a dozen roles or have a certain personality. That doesn't appear to be the case.

For example, he reads that a company expects a developer to "facilitate discussions with business partners to determine needs and appropriate solutions." He takes this to mean that he's expected to "be a product owner, a partner manager, and do business development on top of being a software developer". Somehow he misses the part that says "facilitate discussions with business partners" and gets a warped reading.

Then there are parts where the author has some nitpicks (and frankly an unusual perspective for someone who is trying to be a software developer for an established company): "'Possess the ability and desire to dive into an existing codebase and grasp the functionality, design, and refactoring opportunities in the code.' Who desires to refactor someone else's bad code?" It's just one of many unnecessary and pessimistic quips.

Applicants should keep in mind is that HR departments typically write and edit all of a company's job postings. Many of them try to write in a way that's enticing, but also shows a range of responsibilities that may be expected or skills that are desired. If you're reading a job posting and it interests you, but it has some ambiguities or odd phrasing, it would be worthwhile to reach out to the company for more information, or even just apply anyways. The specifics of the job will be fleshed out much more clearly during the job interviews that follow. Dismissing an opening because the posting expects candidates to have things like "a great sense of humor" is only going to hinder success.

<comment><USER4> One of the ways it is said to increase diversity in tech jobs is to reduce the requirements in job ads, because those ambitious and not really "requirement" ads scare away competent unconfident people but not overconfident less competent people (and there are correlations between those personalities and demographics).

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure how diversity really fits in with ambitiousness in the workforce or how that relates to confidence levels. However, I think there needs to be more guidance on the side of the jobseekers to overcome this. Many people, especially ones who are new to a given sector (or even working in general), don't realize that a job posting's requirements are often the company's wishlist for a candidate rather than a hard set of skills and experiences. If those things were strict requirements, the candidate pool would be dry and the company wouldn't ever fill the position. So for a jobseeker, the best thing they can do is apply, even if they are lacking in some areas. That way, the company will decide if they have someone who is a close-enough fit and will be able to fill the position.</comment></comment></comment>


Why I've decided to stop going to Hackathons - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/5fd15aa36769

<comment><USER2> Currently giving a "410 The author deleted this medium post"</comment>


Fuzzing PCI express: security in plaintext - <AUTHOR> https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2017/02/fuzzing-PCI-Express-security-in-plaintext.html <comment><USER2> This raises an interesting question: On clouds where you can provision baremetal instances, is it possible for the tenant to modify/corrupt firmware/hardware in such a way that the machine is subsequently "owned" and untrustworthy after it is returned to the pool of available hardware?

<comment><USER3> Definitely, if you can update the bios from your operating system then you could load something malicious. Also, I wonder if you could read the current IPMI password for a machine from the operating system, and if baremetal providers set those passwords to some default...

<comment><USER4> If you're able to get access to the management network then you've basically already won - IPMI implementations just aren't good enough in general to resist any kind of determined attack. But to answer your question, conforming implementations _shouldn 't_ let you read the password back over the local interface. Whether that's true in reality, well…

<comment><USER3> Hmm so with ipmitool you can test passwords for every registered IPMI user - so that's scriptable. (How fast can you test? who knows) Then, you can get the IPMI network VLAN from ipmitool as well, if your hosting provider was lazy and didn't use the dedicated port. After that, configure your box to be on that VLAN and then you're in???

<comment><USER5> Is it possible to access ipmi interface via the normal nic?

If so, I would hope they ensure access to that vlan is removed from the switch port as part of the handover process to the tenant.

<comment><USER3> Testing this theory yes, you can, and yes, my provider at least does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are weird undocumented self-writes to config space on both major vendors GPU products, I wonder if those have been thoroughly tested.

<comment><USER7> Most approaches to GPU security seem to say "The architecture is complex and proprietary enough we won't bother securing it. We'll just make sure we have a robust reset procedure and make sure a compromised GPU can't compromise the rest of the system".

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Burying the lede: " After some aggressive testing we determined that the IOMMU worked as advertised and could not be bypassed by a malicious device."

</comment><comment><USER9> Google Cloud's GPUs are not launched if they are not in general availability.

<comment><USER10> Normally I'd agree with you (despite my vested interest), but from a _security_ standpoint these are launched. We simply don't let users run side by side or one after the other unless we believe in the setup. On a related point, being GA then certainly shouldn't the bar for security, it would at best be for Beta.

Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud (and even pitched in on GPUs).

<comment><USER9> overall I thought fuzzing PCI-E was really interesting, I hope having the GPU's on a switch doesn't degrade performance too bad.

When they hit general availability I'll be probably running games on GCE and streaming the output to my laptop, so long as egress costs aren't too bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > The most interesting challenge here is protecting against PCIe's Address > Translation Services (ATS). Using this feature, any device can claim it's > using an address that's already been translated, and thus bypass IOMMU > translation. For trusted devices, this is a useful performance improvement. > For untrusted devices, this is a big security threat.

I wonder whether operating systems disable this by default. As far as I know modern linux versions try to use the IOMMU to isolate devices by default, but that would bypass it.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is interesting, as it seems to be playing in the same sandbox :> attributed to nation-state actors. Though on the defensive side of the equation.

</comment><comment><USER13> PCI-Express bus encryption in 3, 2, 1...

<comment><USER11> Probably a good reason why you shouldn't use hard drives' built-in encryption features for anything but at-rest protection. The bus between the drive and the CPU is not protected</comment></comment>


Just me or frequency of hacks going up? - <AUTHOR>

Can anybody share data on the frequency of cyber attacks? Wonder if it's just getting more press these days or if we're significantly more at risk. <comment><USER2> Both.

The lack of security at lets say mac forums/ adobe/ inputs.io is unrealistically common.

Do you remember the Playstation network hack a while back? That was well reported

Things get hacked every day but the ones where hundreds of thousands of users information is involved that makes for a juicy tweet/ story = more clicks to whatever is reporting it

</comment><comment><USER3> More disclosure as far as anyone can really tell.

I guess its a metric on its own just not a very good one.

</comment><comment><USER4> Are you basing this on a review of your servers' logs or because of things you read on the web?

<comment><AUTHOR> Read on the web. Completely perception based. Was hoping someone might have some data to share.</comment></comment>


Star Trek TNG Intro Recreated in ShaderToy - <AUTHOR> https://www.shadertoy.com/view/ldSfRG <comment><AUTHOR> For those not familiar with ShaderToy: The audio is pre-recorded, but the visuals are entirely procedurally generated by the code in the two tabs given only a running timestamp. There are no model, texture or animation files involved.</comment>


Twitter Sucks. Tumblr is Better. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.tippingpointlabs.com/2009/04/twitter-is-done-tumblr-is-next/ In the past couple of weeks I've started to see evidence that Twitter might be entering its Trough of Disillusionment. The evidence you ask? <comment><USER2> This is fascinating. Do you think that twitter could possibly have a second adoption phase? Possibly once they get their scalability in check?

</comment><comment><USER3> They're different. You've changed the submission title to be more link-baity.</comment>


Ashley Madison's Founder Wanted to Hack a Competing Site to Steal Emails - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/ashley-madisons-ceo-wanted-to-hack-a-competing-site-to-steal-emails/

<comment><USER2> as someone who worked in the adult sector for a while... this really isnt that odd of a request, and happens all the time in that space.</comment>


Show HN: Turnabout - an iOS puzzler I'm still trying to wrap my head around - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/turnabout/id574654800?mt=8

<comment><AUTHOR> OP Here - A programmer friend and I made and released this recently, thought some of you might find it interesting. I did all of the artwork and design for it, he handled the initial concept and programming.

Question is - I helped make the damned game and I can't seem to figure out the underlying strategy. Can any of you? There has got to be a way to solve it to get high scores, but no luck on my end and my buddy isn't giving away any secrets.

Thoughts?</comment>


Atos CEO Bans Email - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel/2011/11/30/ceo-bans-email/

<comment><USER2> Love this. Hopefully this gains more discussion.

My opinion is email is a terrible group communication platform, think of the endless reply-all emails you get every day. This is one of the reasons I'm excited about my startup GroupTweet which leverages Twitter as a group communication platform. Think Yammer for non-enterprise users.

The beauty and brevity of 140 characters along with building a searchable knowledge base is priceless. Whereas email is generally 99% push, Twitter and other social media solutions can be configured in a number of ways, both push and pull.</comment>


BuzzFeed News Is Unionizing - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednewsunion.com/ <comment><USER2> > We demand that BuzzFeed News recognizes our union immediately so that we can > swiftly reach a mutually satisfying contract that lets us focus on the > important work of reporting on Cardi B memes and breaking the biggest > stories in the country.

So it's a joke right? I... can't even tell.</comment>


Prepare 3 Envelopes - <AUTHOR> http://www.design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Prepare_3_Envelopes.html <comment><USER2> I'd package them like Matryoshka dolls, to explicitly force ordering, since it seems it is relevant in messages.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.com.es/2007/09/putins-n...](http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.com.es/2007/09/putins- next-step-prepare-three.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> If I remember right, this joke is also told in the Hollywood drug-flick "Traffic", from 2000 or so. In the movie, the burnt-out drug czar of the old US administration mentions this joke to his ambitious successor, played by Michael Douglas.

</comment><comment><USER5> First heard this as a Kruschev/Brezhnev joke.</comment>


Rethinking our onboarding checklist - <AUTHOR> http://www.noeltock.com/startup-snippets/rethinking-our-user-onboarding-checklist/

<comment><USER2> Glad the post ends with "time and metrics will tell". It doesn't really matter what readers of the blog post think. All that really matters is what do customers think (as demonstrated by their actions - signups? retention? support requests?).</comment>


Facebook has a movie piracy problem, but it can't(or won't) do anything about it - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/13/17568302/facebook-movie-piracy-groups-copyright-security-streaming-links <comment><USER2> Speaking from just a purely technical point of view, doesn't facebook track so much of your data that its smart enough to find out who the owner of a facebook profile with fake name and does piracy and who he is in actual life,where does he live, what places he is at?

<comment><USER3> Probably. Buy I think Holywood backed down a little bit on the whole "pirates are killing us". As research flows in less and less people believe them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I suspect the behavior will continue for a little while unhindered until one of the big studios sues. See: Viacom v. YouTube.

The studios can at the very least harass Facebook until it does something.</comment>


Before Instagram filters, there was the Claude glass - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/claude-glass <comment><USER2> Also, smearing vaseline on the lens. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/vaseline-camera- tri...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/vaseline-camera-trick- effect_n_7062900.html)

<comment><USER3> It kind of follows since before lensbabies and photoshop effects, you could buy physical filters for developing photos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Before Instagram filters, there was Hipstamatic." Another true statement.</comment>


The problem with p-values - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/it-s-time-for-science-to-abandon-the-term-statistically-significant?t <comment><USER2> The article fingers journals and grant makers, but it ignores the historical issues with collecting data in the social sciences: generating lots of data points is time-consuming and expensive.

In linguistics, getting a simple word count used to require hiring an extremely skilled worker to read a book and tally words. In psychology experiments, you have to recruit each participant and run them through an often elaborate deception.

However, technology (especially Amazon Turk) makes these excuses irrelevant. Even with in-person experiments, you can generally automate a large part of the administration and scoring of the task. There is no excuse for small sample sizes anymore.

</comment><comment><USER3> Clickbait title; the whole thing only discusses psychology and no other field of study. Certainly not 'science' as a whole.

<comment><USER4> No the title is accurate, the article is about use of statistics in scientific papers in general, with a focus on biomedicine - a huge field.

<comment><USER5> It talks about it, but it's based on a series of links to issues that were specific to psychology/psychiatry/brain-imaging. I'm not saying that the broader point isn't valid, but it's certainly not supported.</comment></comment></comment>


I've never really liked Steve Jobs and I see no reason to start now - <AUTHOR> http://robert.ocallahan.org/2011/10/jobs.html

<comment><USER2> Harsh but true. Everyone seems to want to grant him instant sainthood. For instance, CNET's reporter asked Woz if he'd compare Jobs to Einstein or Edison. Steve suppressed rolling his eyes and very diplomatically offered, "No, he was more like Disney. He wasn't a lab guy."

Ultimately, he'll be remembered as the tenacious, aesthetic, a __hole who fought, not for form over function exactly, but tightly controlled function wrapped in even more carefully crafted, instantly intuitive form.

I hope history paints a more balanced picture than the eulogies will, this week. Apple is Egypt. Its products are daring monuments, like the pyramids or the sphynx. However much they were inspired, in part, by its Pharaoh prince, Steve Jobs, history shouldn't forget the hordes of sweating engineers and artists that erected those monuments for us all to enjoy.</comment>


Ask HN: Paid code review as a service? - <AUTHOR> Howdy!
I'm looking for a Vue.js developer to review some of my work and help me with a few environment questions.
During a search I found [1] and [2], but except for one, the sites mentioned in these threads are dead.
Any other recommendations?
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15842816 [2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4581810 <comment><USER2> I would look for a Vue.js dedicated slack/discourd group. Most similar communities have a jobs room. That would probably get you the best bang for a buck / signal to noise ratio

Edit: here you go: [https://vue.land/](https://vue.land/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Go on reddit/stackoverflow and complain that Vue can't do what you want to do, but React can. Someone will give you the answer. :)

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://www.pullrequest.com/](https://www.pullrequest.com/)

I've heard about them after they acquire the freelance platform [https://moonlightwork.com](https://moonlightwork.com).

</comment><comment><USER5> Must be a vue subreddit? Otherwise hire someone on Codementor.io

</comment><comment><USER6> Hi, I mainly work with React and Node with a little experience in vue.js as well. I can review.

</comment><comment><USER7> I can help review if you need.</comment>