Ask HN: Why are there so few part-time jobs? - <AUTHOR> A developer/sysadmin friend of mine has been job hunting for a while now. He told me that he doesn't want to work his entire life away and as such he's only looking for part-time work, but that it has been impossible to find something.
Why are all companies only using full-time employment?
Why are there so little flexibility? It's like everyone is "brain washed" into this robot way of working eight hours a day.
I must admit, I'm only really productive the first 4 hours, after that I just want to go home! <comment><USER3> I'm a full-timer and I have to admit that I find it frustrating to work with part-time colleagues. Sometimes you need them, and they're not around until the next day. Not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it, but there's definitely a cost.

I don't think there's anything special about eight hours a day. It's more about just having everyone keep the same hours, so that you can get a quick turnaround on questions/requests. So I think it'd work if companies built entire teams that were part-time, working on the same subset of the week.

<comment><USER4> I feel like there's a difference between being available 5 days a week 9-5 and actually working those hours, and it seems like you would value the former.

It feels like there could be some sort of compromise between the two, where employees are contactable during full-time hours, but only to organise actual work hours, which are limited and flexible.

Of course, this would be less convenient for managers than simply having full- time hours, but it would save money spent on wages/salaries and result in more productive happy workers. I also feel there should be some way to reduce the administration burden, perhaps a combination of allowing employees to arrange working hours directly with each other and technology to facilitate this.

<comment><USER5> This is called being on call. Sysadmims and doctors do it.

<comment><USER4> Yeah sort of - although I kind of meant less about being available to drop everything and work on something immediately vs. just being around to answer questions perhaps that may or may not be urgent.

<comment><USER6> That's still on call, though. If I'm expected to answer the phone and answer work questions, I can't be hiking in an area with bad cell coverage. I can't be drunk. I can't be in a theater. Perhaps I can't be on a bike ride if I need to have a laptop nearby. On and on - if it's a restriction on my life during non work hours, it's on call.

<comment> em-bee i think it's still different. being on call means i must be able to work during that time.

being reachable means that you can pass on your problem, and i'll acknowledge it so that we can together decide what the best next step. sometimes we can solve the problem, sometimes we can find someone else who can also help, and sometimes we need to delay working on the problem and reschedule it for another time. but at least then it's scheduled. on a few occasions i am not reachable at all. but that doesn't happen often.

in other words being on call means always to solve the problem immideately, whereas being reachable means i have the option to say no.

<comment> david-gpu That is still work, and an intrusion on what should be free time but no longer is.

<comment> em-bee but it's different from being on-call. i understand that in many places, on- call requires the same payment as regular work hours for the whole period, not just for the hours worked.

and i don't feel it's an intrusion if being available is optional and not required.

it's essentially how every freelancer works. they are available during business hours. but they don't get paid if they don't get called for work by a client.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As an employer, I can give you some color.

1) Hiring is a pain, and there's ton of friction. 2) Ideally you want to get max efficiency out of roles that serve "business critical" functions. 3) More people on payroll (parttime or not) = more time wasted for me on management

These two factors incentivize me to avoid having too many part-timers, if I could

<comment><USER8> Also an employer.

Add health insurance and office space as costs which don't scale down.

Lack of availability / presence creating difficulties for the rest of the org for meetings / getting questions answered / answering questions / etc.

<comment><USER9> The employer requirement for health insurance is only for full-time employees. That scales down great. Two half-time employees should be much cheaper than one full-time.

<comment><USER8> And then I have an employee without health insurance.

That's a hard no both ethically and because I don't want a sick employee.

<comment><USER10> Or you have an employee who buys their health insurance on your state's ACA exchange.

There's even a decent chance that they can get an ACA subsidy. To get a subsidy they need to get their MAGI below about $49k (I'm assuming they are single...someone else can do the numbers for families). MAGI is for most people income - HSA contribution - retirement plan contribution.

With an HSA and an IRA they can knock up to almost $10k off their MAGI, which means they can take a part time job paying up to $59k/year and still get a sweet ACA subsidy.

If your company has a 401k, and they work enough hours to qualify to contribute to that (1000 hours/year, I believe), using that instead of an IRA would let them knock around $24k off MAGI, meaning they can take a part time job paying up to $72k/year and still get a subsidy.

The way ACA subsidies work is that even if you barely come in under the MAGI limit, it is usually pretty substantial. You might expect that as you get closer to the limit, the subsidy decreases--and you would be right--but it isn't the kind of gradual decrease to 0 that you would probably expect. No, it is a slow decrease right up to the cutoff then it drops to $0.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't have any hard evidence for this, but my intuition is that it's about the trade off between the cost of hiring and training workers versus the work output you get from each one versus the workers desire to earn income.

For the employer, it would be better (in theory) to have fewer people working for more hours, because then training costs less and the workers become more and more expert.

For the worker, the desire to earn more is most easily accomplished by working more.

Both of those are offset by the decrease in productivity and increase in fatigue and burnout as you work too many hours.

Right now, most workers and employers have landed on about 40 hours a week as a good balance between these concerns.

However this has changed over time and will change in the future. For example there's recently been an increase in so-called "30 hour jobs." For example: [https://30hourjobs.com/](https://30hourjobs.com/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Are you saying that you would only have one 50% job? Why not just take it as a 100% and find other ways to make best use of your non-productive side.

I would rather hire one person working 100% than two people working 50%, because there is less communication overhead.

<comment><USER13> Not the original poster -- I'm presently trying to arrange my life to accommodate 50% work and 50% family. I know a number of people who would love to do 50% work and 50% life.

Life is too short to give 100% to a job unless it is a job you love or it underwrites either love or necessity.

<comment><USER11> Serious question, what hours do you consider to be 100% of your time?

I ask because the current 40-hour schedule was fought for in the early 20th century specifically because it worked out to 50/50: 8 hours for work and 8 hours for "what we may," each day (allowing the final 8 hours for sleep).

Considering Saturdays and Sundays off, that means a 40-hour schedule is only 5/14 of the waking hours per week.

<comment><USER14> > I ask because the current 40-hour schedule was fought for in the early 20th > century specifically because it worked out to 50/50: 8 hours for work and 8 > hours for "what we may," each day (allowing the final 8 hours for sleep).

The employer is getting a hell of a deal with that arrangement.

They'll get their 8 hours a day. Sure, some might be chatter with fellow employees, a little screwing around on a phone, or using the restroom, but by and large it's 8 hours of being at work.

We all need 8 hours of sleep, most of us don't get it. If we wanted to actually get 8 hours of good sleep, we need to start getting to bed about an hour before we plan on falling asleep. So let's conservatively call that 9 hours needed for 8 hours of sleep.

Going to and from work isn't really "what we may" unless you're telling me I could or should consciously decide to live across the street from my workplace to maximize my me-time. So there's another hour stolen every day.

So what are we at - 9 hours requisite for sleep, an hour of commute - <USER2> us 14 hours split between work and "play," knowing that for most of us who can't afford to hire laborers to take care of our domiciles, much of that "play" becomes "chores."

In this scenario, even splitting the difference and affording capital 7 hours of your time each day is theft. We'd all be better off around 4.

<comment><USER5> You overlooked that employers pay employees a wage for their working time.

<comment><USER14> No, I haven't overlooked that, it's just not really relevant. You'd still be paid if the norm for a salaried position were a 16-hour workday, it wouldn't make it any less exploitative.

In that scenario, you couldn't "choose" to go work for 8 hours instead and take a loss in pay - no firm is hiring "full-time" at 8 hours - which actually rounds right back to the issue brought up by this thread: you'd be looking for part-time work that doesn't exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have worked both part-time and full-time and honestly I prefer working full time as it feels less stressful. When I am working part-time I have to coordinate heaps more with other staff if they are taking over my role during the times I am not at work (eating into my work hours leaving me with less for actual work). It takes longer to coordinate meetings especially if they involve other part-timers (sometimes to the point when we have meetings about when to have meetings—which wouldn't be needed if we all worked full time). When I have heaps of work on I feel guilty leaving part-way—whereas if I am full time I can confidently say I've done all I can during the time I have available. The times I have been able to work full time on the same role has really improved my mental well-being, reduced my overall workload (as I'm not having to coordinate solutions for issues caused by not being available—I am working 100% on my actual work) and getting a full pay check is just icing on the cake. I am currently working part time (due to studying part-time) and I absolutely hate it but it has to be done to gain qualifications for my current role. Looking forward to going back to full-time work! YMMV of course.

<comment><USER16> There's the difference: You're studying the other part of the time. As someone who has done every combination except for "study part-time", I can tell that there is a big, big difference between "only working part-time" and "studying and working part-time".

You are right that if you study and work, there's a lot of context switching, competing requirements, and lack of real downtime. If you just work part-time, you have control over the other time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find that part time seekers want the part time to be their schedule,not the schedule I need them

Me: 20 hours a week is perfect

Candidate: Cool, I'll do Monday 8 to 3, tuesday noon to 5, and thursday and friday 1 to 5.

Me: well, really I need help 11-3 five days a week.

Candidate: that's not the schedule I'm after.

<comment> em-bee someone's part time schedule is often defined by outside constraints. eg i am able to work only while my kids are in school. i have no choice in the matter. if the school lets out early, or is closed, like right now because of the virus, then i have to change my schedule accordingly, and none of your business needs can override that. being able to accomodate that is the difference that makes for a family friendly workplace.

<comment><USER17> Totally agree - my business needs don't override that. But it does mean we may not end up working together.

<comment> em-bee (for the sake of argument, let's assume that except for work hours, i am the perfect candidate and you are my favourite choice as employer)

choosing not to work together is ok if the constraints are a lifestyle choice. you may like to have your work done at that time, and i may prefer to work certain hours. if that's more important to either of us than other factors, then fine.

what bothers me is when there is no choice. i can't choose my work hours, they are dictated to me and outside of my control.

yet you insist on workhours that are incompatible. now your hours may not be by choice either, but something or someone has to give here, because it's not good for society if we exclude a whole category of people from working just because of constraints they have.

you have to realize that most business will act like you and are not flexible on their hours. but at the same time, i can't change school hours either. so i can't find a job.

there are discussions about how early school hours are bad for children but starting late will cost many parents their jobs.

if your work hours are a preference, then i'd ask you to reconsider that. if they are not by choice either then i'd like to explore what the problem is and see if we can work around those constraints.

we won't be able to solve every problem. maybe you actually are accomodating other parents already, and now you need someone to fill in for the remaining time. that would be unfortunate for this particular situation, but if more companies work like that then there would be enough other opportunities.

the problem i see is that right now most companies seem to have the attitude that they get to decide and employees need to adjust and fit in. and that i think, needs to change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's very common here in Switzerland. I could reduce my work hours to 80% without even needing approval from my manager. Many parents do some combination of 80% + 60% or even less.

<comment><USER19> I would love to read a little about the culture and laws that afford this! Do you know of anything I could read that might be available in English?

<comment><USER20> It isn't uncommon for union jobs with good benefits. No laws are required, although most companies would only do it for some executives.

When I worked for the public sector, it was possible go 80% without a lot of red tape, and as low as 20% with approvals. The people going 20% had more expenses, and were usually sick with cancer or something, and that allowed them to stay on payroll to maximize their leave and insurance. You could work 5 days a week and "bank" a certain amount of leave for up to a year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> They are excellent questions.

Trading, economies were meant to serve peoples' wants and needs, but people serve "the economy", with no thought given to what the actual quality of working peoples' lives are like. As if the economy is the important thing, not human lives. There is extreme attention on "economic efficiency", no attention at all on the quality of the lives involved. We don't know where we're going, don't care whether the journey is pleasant or not, but focus on getting there as quickly/cheaply as possible. I guess that's easier to measure.

Also, modern economies rely on there being a pool of unemployed. If everyone could do 1, 2 or 3 part-time jobs, balanced how they like it, that would mess up the system. Anyway, the whole thing is designed to make the rich richer, whether underlings enjoy that process is not really relevant.

</comment><comment><USER22> I frequently use part-time people through Upwork. My highest-paid dev makss $125/hr, has no other contracts right now, and works 10 hrs/wk. He spends the rest of his time on his own projects.

<comment><USER23> I didn't know you could make that much on up work. Do you monitor his screen though? I heard up work makes you install something like that?

<comment><USER22> > _I didn't know you could make that much on up work._

Our contractors range from $20/hr for something like content migration to $150/hr for someone who has built multiple products from scratch, been the CTO of startups, and has years of experience in coding, team management, architecture/system design, and infrastructure.

I've observed other people under-paying someone hourly and ending up spending a lot more in the long run. The most cost-effective strategy is to find the right person and pay them what they're worth. If you don't have the money to do that, you don't have the money to be in business.

> _Do you monitor his screen though?_

No. That's an insane practice, and it's shameful that Upwork promotes it. Anyone who needs to do that is incompetent at assessing talent and/or managing it.

> _I heard up work makes you install something like that?_

It does not force you, as far as I know. Our contractors log their time manually, and we trust them.

I prefer fixed-fee, but the way we run hourly work is similar in practice. We guarantee a minimum number of hours, and we expect a certain amount to get done.

As long as it gets done, what do I care if they finished it 2 hours faster? Whatever money I recovered by micromanaging, I'd end up losing again because micromanaging takes up my time (and drives talent away).

<comment> em-bee the challenge with upwork is how much effort and work is required to reach a point where i can find great clients like you.

do you have any advice for someone who can't afford to start at the bottom and work their way up? how do i screen clients and avoid the bad ones?

<comment><USER22> Unfortunately I have no idea how to help you. There really should be an Upwork competitor with only high-quality employers (agree to certain policies, like no screen monitoring) and contractors. Perhaps there is one and I just don't know about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> yc-kraln There are many people in Germany who work 4/5 or 3/5 jobs. I was previously 3/5 and moved to 4/5, but it's nice to have the extra time.

For the employers here, the only downside is if they are being measured by head-count (but even then, I count as 4/5 of a headcount...)

<comment><USER24> In my experience it's not generally so easy, depending on your employer though. Some allow blanket 80%/75%/50% jobs for others it's hard work to persuade them to let you scale down your hours.

Can't say how _common_ it is, I obv. have a limited set of past employers to look at. Some friends have said their company doesn't do it, and when I talked to Swiss people it seems a lot more common there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I have a theory about why this is. There's this economic concept called signaling - it's the ways the economic choices we make also communicate information to other agents in the economy.

If you apply for a part time position, what do you communicate to your potential employer? Namely, that work is not your #1 priority. I think that employers want employees who are as obsessed with work as possible. It's not that they don't want part time employee, it's that they don't want the sort of person who would apply for a part time job.

</comment><comment><USER26> As a manager, here are my reasons:

1\. Biggest one: transfer of knowledge between people is lower bandwidth than going to one person. If I have Jill and Jane doing work function A, I can assign primary responsibility to some sub-parts A1 and A2 to Jill and A3 and A4 to Jane. If I need A2 on Tuesday when Jill is off, sure Jane can do it (and as a manager I should make sure of that) but it would take her more time while her othe things slip.

2\. Overhead per employee: I have to do one on ones, regular reviews, and various other per-employee bureaucracy.

3\. All team update meetings and other get togethers requiring non-trivial subset of the team get exponentially harder to organize.

</comment><comment> blaser-waffle \- Synchronous vs asynchronous communication -- if we're all full-timers and you're not then you're hard to communicate with

\- Security and access -- I know and trust my full-timers, be they contractors or direct hires. They get to see my codebase, have access to my servers, and get insights as to what my roadmaps are because they own them. If we already knew you, like you were a full-timer who scaled back hours for a while, that might be a different story, but I'm not going to give some rando 20-hour-a- week person access to things.

\- IT contracting firms / headhunters already do much of this.

\- Hiring is a pain. Why interview for 2 positions when I can just hire one person?

Note: I'm in Canada so some of the healthcare and overhead-related questions are different from the US.

</comment><comment><USER27> I have been pushing to go 1/2 time or 3/4s time for a while* with a large state agency and the primary reason I was given that I could not is because part-time jobs are more difficult to fill in the future. Which makes sense to me: in my field, and a lot of professional fields, most people have large student debt (I don't) a family (I don't) and barely manageable mortgages to boot (I don't) and, therefore, they need a full-time paycheck. I am on my phone so I could not search all the comments to see if this had been said.

* I am hoping the unavoidable budget shortfalls following this pandemic make this possible.

</comment><comment><USER28> I am being incredibly reductive in terms of how much effort is needed to position yourself for this successfully and sustainably, but: your friend can get that schedule by going freelance and moving towards a consultancy model. Consulting clients don't have to worry about the same overhead per employee as a proper employment arrangement entails (onboarding, legal, benefits, etc.) and tend to be more focused on what will be done and by when.

DevOps has some nice potential niches for this sort of arrangement, like one- time projects to move between platforms.

</comment><comment><USER29> I think most of the people who are full-time are more dedicated to the projects. They are more focused to think on how to solve a problem better, sometimes even when they are off shift.

</comment><comment><USER30> I do flexible part time hours. As in, I'm flexible. I'm on Slack if people need me. I work when there are hours for me. I get to pay rent, take a trip whenever I want, work on side projects, and work on interesting work.

I agree completely that it's crazy that it is not not common. We make an insane rate compared to the average salary, might as well take advantage of that and enjoy some extra time.

</comment><comment><USER31> Interesting that no one has mentioned the real reason. It's because you need butts in seats. In an office. A real office. Preferably within a half hour drive of Sand Hill Road or Silicon Alley. Then you have visual and social proof for future investment. Moreover, FTEs are assets. Salable assets. Not one by one, but as a collective. Assets for an exit.

</comment><comment><USER32> What about pay. Do you expect to get paid as much as someone doing the full eight hours?

If not then how much 80%, 50%, even less? Answering that already just makes me want to avoid opening up part time positions.

Unless you just change the whole work day to 4 hours (gl with that), having some employees work double what others are just sounds like a headache to me.

<comment><USER33> It's not necessarily an impossible idea to live okay with 80% of a salary, especially a tech one. (Unless you live someplace really expensive, perhaps, but Silicon Valley isn't the only place with tech jobs.)

I don't really know what would be so uncomfortable about that that you'd want to avoid it altogether.

As to whether it should be the same as someone else doing either hours... that shouldn't depend on the number of hours but on how much and how valuable work they get done. You probably don't pay exactly the same to everyone even at 100%.

Seriously, I used to do ~30-hour weeks for a while. Got paid accordingly. Of course I'd like the total salary to reflect the fact that I was still fairly productive, but I still don't see what the problem there would be as long as I was happy and the employer was happy. Both apparently were.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Nobody wants to deal with the drama. It's 2 o'clock and I need something from you, but whoops, I'm stuck waiting until tomorrow, or I call you in and lose you for a day at the end of the pay period.

It's the same thing with contractors. I used to get stuck on call over Christmas all of the time because contract staff are out of hours.

</comment><comment><USER34> Maybe have them start with an MSP, as they demonstrate ability, rigor, decision making, etc., they may be able to pull back on hours and get to service a few choice clients, as they get known they may be able to go on a 1099, if that's what they're after.

</comment><comment><USER35> Beware that some companies demand full-time effort for an advertised part-time job. It'a better to join a company full-time that offers flexible work routine that can fit your friend's routine/lifestyle.

<comment><USER5> It s relative. You can work 40 hrs for a 24hr job, or 60 hrs for a 40hr job. The former is still part time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> From the employee side, I'm not really sure there's any benefit to being part time vs. going full free lance. You might think you have additional job security, but the part timer is the first one to go.

</comment><comment><USER37> I find that someone looking for "part time" work is kind of suggesting that the role isn't important to them, or they don't plan to stick around. I say that as both an employer and a former freelancer. As an employer, hiring is a pain in terms of time and resources, so you want to get it right.

By contrast, I find that someone representing themselves as a "fractional" expert suggests that they are serious and plan to stick around. Many times they are very experienced and have hourly rates that would make it difficult to afford employing them full time, but 2-3 days a week is tolerable.

It's really how you position it. I currently employ a fractional professional.

</comment><comment><USER38> Let's say I have a part time guy, and a full time guy. I can give the a task that takes 5 days. The full time guy gets it done in a week, the part time guy takes 3 weeks.

</comment><comment><USER39> Run a company.

Rather hire 3 full time devs than 6 half time devs.

Lots of work to train and keep people updated.

Life's too short to increase my complexity for people to have a more relaxed life.

</comment><comment><USER40> Theres a lot to be said in favour of a shorter working day. Not many people can deliver value after 9 hours of concentration!

</comment><comment><USER41> Most SW jobs are salaried so you stay at work until the critical work is complete. A PT position doesn't allow for that so PT can't get critical work. PT only works for hourly type positions as you do the work and go home. There's also a reason that SW positions generally say you work only for them and them only so you're not preoccupied with other work.</comment>


Implementing a web server in a single printf call (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://tinyhack.com/2014/03/12/implementing-a-web-server-in-a-single-printf-call/ <comment><USER2> Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7389623](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7389623)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I forgot to check the URL with Https to find previous discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> TL;DR: the program subjects itself to a format string "attack", allowing it to execute the shellcode for the web server.</comment>


Bram's Law: The easier a piece of software is to write, the worse it's implemented in practice. - <AUTHOR> http://www.advogato.org/person/Bram/diary/68.html <comment><USER2> I'm not sure he realizes that there are plenty of rock-solid http implementations that power things like web servers and web clients that everyone on the internet uses every day without too many problems. Comparing one http implementation to the handful of transactional engines he's had experience which is anecdotal at best.

It's an apples to oranges comparison anyways, because http is a communications protocol designed to live in an extremely heterogeneous world where you can't control all the variables, as well as be very easy to implement in whatever language/platform you're using.

<comment><USER3> The problem is that if a protocol allows bad implementations, then even the good implementations have to invest effort to interoperate with the losers. Bram doesn't have the patience to deal with losers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is something to this.

It also explains why software written in Java sucks so much compared to software written in Lisp or C. Any idiot can get a Java program "working", but an idiot writing C code will never get anything more than "Segmentation Fault".

<comment><USER2> I guess my problem is that he's implying that simple systems are bad because they can be easily implemented by anyone.

It is very easy to write a Scheme interpreter, and a lot of people write very bad interpreters, but that doesn't imply Scheme is a bad language. Java is a lot harder to implement, so the few implementations out there tend to be very good.

As for language, I agree that the C programmers left are on average better than the average Python programmer (I'm not using Java for this example because I don't actually know much about Java), but that doesn't imply that it's better to use C than Python because the average C programmer is better than the average Python programmer. Personally, I'll use Python wherever I can even though I'm a better C programmer than Python programmer, simply because getting things done in Python is on the whole easier.</comment></comment>


"I've been working at Mozilla for many years, from peak to decline" - <AUTHOR> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8836539&cid=51642315 <comment><USER2> Just because Mozilla started Firefox, does not mean we can't question it. I have felt for a while that Mozilla isn't totally aligned with its user's interests.

For example: finding and deleting tracking cookies is still laborious in Firefox. You have to select domains one by one, hitting "Remove selected" each time. Why can't you select multiple domains at once and nuke them? Why can't it tell you which tab is using up CPU resources, so you can close it? And in "private browsing" mode: why are cookies still carried over? That's not so "private", is it??

The whole FirefoxOS thing sounded just like a solution looking for a problem. I have been in situations (Govt grants) where the grantees have too much money and will just throw it at random proposals which have no hope of working. This sounded just like that.

Since they have so much money to burn, why don't they support worthwhile OSS efforts (like SSL, for example)? There are tons of little tools and libraries that we use in *nix land, that could benefit from some $$. Mozilla should offer "Mozilla fellowships" or "Mozilla sabbaticals", where they support a developer for a year or two fulltime to work on their projects.

Most of Mozilla's work is done by volunteers anyways. Why should the execs get paid so much?

<comment><USER3>
       Since they have so much money to burn, why don't they support worthwhile OSS efforts (like SSL, for example)?

The NSS library is supported by Mozilla and Red Hat, mostly.

       There are tons of little tools and libraries that we use in *nix land, that could benefit from some $$.

Mozilla is much more than just Firefox, Firefox OS and Thunderbird. Take a look at the hundreds of projects on [https://github.com/mozilla/](https://github.com/mozilla/), for example.

        Mozilla should offer "Mozilla fellowships" or "Mozilla sabbaticals", where they support a developer for a year or two fulltime to work on their projects.

There are many internships, community supports and developer support programs at Mozilla. The foundation also donated one million dollars to various prominent projects very recently: [https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2015/10/mozilla-launches- open...](https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2015/10/mozilla-launches-open-source- support-program/)

        Most of Mozilla's work is done by volunteers anyways

I don't know if this statement is accurate. There are over 1,000 people employed by Mozilla directly working full time on the various projects.

disclaimer: I work for Mozilla.

<comment><USER4> _Take a look at the hundreds of projects on[https://github.com/mozilla/](https://github.com/mozilla/), for example_

AFAIK, 99% projects out there are Mozilla specific and I don't know anyone is using them seriously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When Mozilla announced Firefox OS, some management factions pushed to cut Firefox to a skeleton crew and go "all in" on Firefox OS. Even though Firefox still had 30% market share and Chrome only 20%, they were ready to give up the desktop. Thankfully that didn't happen because others knew Firefox "kept the lights on." Imagine a Mozilla without Firefox OS, where the hundreds of engineer-years and hundreds of millions of dollars poured into Firefox OS had instead been invested in Servo and e10s/multiprocess Firefox..

And Brave makes me sad. No disrespect to Brendan and his team! Kudos to them for building an opinionated product that excites people. But many of Brave's praised features are things Mozilla considered but dropped due to fear of publisher retaliation or lack of focus. Things like:

      * Tracking protection in non-private browsing mode
      * Blocking third-party cookies from unvisited domains
      * HTTPS Everywhere integration
      * Partitioned user sessions
      * Promoting alternatives to toxic web advertising
      * Some sort of micropayment system
      * One-click Tor or secure VPN browsing

[Disclaimer: I am a Mozilla employee, but these are my own opinions.]

<comment><USER6> It is easy to blame Fireofx OS now for the waste, but 4 years ago it was not that easy to see that it would be a total disaster. It was just things that Mozilla was betting on did not come through.

The real problem for me is why Firefox OS was not stopped 2 years ago when trends became clear. That is inexcusable given the amount of efforts Mozilla continued to spend on it.

<comment><USER7> Actually, 4 years ago and then again 3 years ago I said it was a total disaster. I have mountains of email reports from an audit of the project.

<comment><USER6> 4 years ago boot-to-gecko was still at the rather early stage and it was not possible to see how it would end. Given the need to diversify for Mozilla it was reasonable to proceed to get at least one shipping device. Even 3 years ago with the first phone release one could argue that continuing with the project was not totally unreasonable. But 2 years ago the market message was crystal clear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Mozilla has quickly been identified by a few as a way to make a quick buck

This is always, _always_ so fascinating to me, to see how many people will never ever consider this, at least in public.

There's this most basic of basic incentives, money, a huge pile of money sitting around, and everybody piously pretends it doesn't matter to everybody who's in control of it.

So fascinating.

<comment><USER9> Exactly! Why are Mitchell Baker and other execs at Mozilla being rewarded for lack-luster performance with nearly $1 million a year in compensation, meanwhile the actual programmers that toil on Mozilla's products go underpaid or even unpaid?

<comment><USER10> I won't comment on whether I felt I was underpaid in my years at Mozilla (though I'll say I do make more now, at a for-profit company), but it is at least worth pointing out that Mozilla's bonus system extended to everyone. And until early 2015 it was based on company-wide performance, so even if you had a project that was languishing you could still get a good bonus if the company as a whole was doing well (in 2015 it switched to a significant chunk being based on individual performance and metrics, and I wasn't there long enough afterward to have a worthwhile opinion on how that change turned out).

<comment><USER9> > though I'll say I do make more now, at a for-profit company

That's what I meant by underpaid. It's well known that Mozilla pays below- market rate salaries. Instead it deceptively uses its supposed non-profit status (actually a for-profit owned by a non-profit shell) to motivate people to take a pay-cut by working there, meanwhile Baker and a handful of others at the top are getting rich (even by Bay Area standards) off their under- compensated, altruistically-minded labor.

Disgusting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> After reading this I wondered what accountability measures are in place for board members of the Mozilla Foundation.

Many non-profits have elections for board positions where members of the organization or its community can help determine board membership and vote out bad directors. Mozilla Foundation's by-laws ([http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf- bylaws.pdf](http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-bylaws.pdf)) states "This Foundation shall have no members" (Article II).

Existing directors are the only ones who can vote in board elections. They are only accountable to themselves.

Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Foundation, meaning all voting shares are controlled by the Foundation's board.

I find this to generally be a dangerous structure for a non-profit to have. Think twice about donating to any charity where the directors are well compensated and accountable to no one.

If the board is stubborn there is nothing anyone can do to force them out. Hopefully with pressure the community can achieve some reforms. One I would push for immediately is adopting new by-laws that allow community involvement in board elections.

<comment><USER12> The funny thing is that for at least some for-profits it is not a horrible idea, with no shareholders to worry about. I already mentioned the telecoms as an example in another comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> An aside: Mozilla's approach to Firefox extensions is both 1) responsible (they require extensions to be reviewed and signed by Mozilla), 2) untenable for developers (mine took forever to be reviewed).

I published three Chrome extensions last year, and decided to port my more ambitious one to Firefox. (all at [http://www.metafruit.com](http://www.metafruit.com)) Now I feel somewhat bad for complaining since I'm not an extension reviewer myself, and I feel they've taken on a tall order for the betterment of their community. But my Firefox port took four months to get to the front of the review process. Needless to say, my next extension is targeted only for Chrome.

Chrome's approach is easy for developers but almost reckless for end users.

<comment><USER14> It's completely absurd that an open source project has taken it upon themselves to mandate extension signing. It's as if Debian declared that you couldn't install packages which weren't signed by them, but don't worry, you can always recompile Debian yourself with that feature turned off.

<comment><USER15> How does one protect the majority of users in the wide open case? For example see [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1251911](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1251911) where the extension downloaded another extension and disabled the signing pref.

<comment><USER14> You don't. It's not the browsers job. Users need to educate themselves, and they won't unless there are consequences for ignorance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >Mr Eich is now making the Brave web browser (based on Webkit by the way) which is arguably one of the most promising new browsers right now. Go figure.

Right about here my confidence in the veracity of this guy's claims plummeted. Brave offers nothing existing browsers can't already provide, except of course a diversion of ad revenue directly into Eich's pocket.

<comment><USER17> Brave is also stolen stuff: [https://www.i2.si/](https://www.i2.si/)

Brave uses almost same sentences as i2 project used in it's press-releases and was released in few weeks after i2 one.

<comment><USER18> Never saw that site before today. Careful with "stolen", you will cut yourself with Hanlon's razor.

I also do not see any sentences in common. Brave aims to pay publishers better than the ads we replace would have paid them. No sign of that from what I read just now at i2.si. Did I miss it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm much more on board with the comment this one is replying to:

""" ...

On top of that, do you guys honestly think that Firefox would not have slid down the same slope, given that it suddenly had Google, Apple, and Microsoft to compete with, some of whom effectively prevent Firefox from even running on their mobile platforms? It's like I'm living in a bizarro world sometimes when I consider that Slashdot fancies itself as informed tech geeks/nerds, and they don't seem to have any idea what they're ranting about anymore. """

<comment><USER20> The OP doesn't claim there aren't external problems. It claims there's no incentive to _address_ external problems.

<comment><USER19> which is addressed by the bit I clipped:

""" Sigh. Does anyone on Slashdot even know what Mozilla is doing anymore, or do they just actively seek anything minor they can to twist into pathetic negative rants? They've clearly already shifted their focus back onto Firefox lately, but apparently you haven't noticed. Apparently all you've seen is "hype", while selectively ignoring everything else. """

for there being "no incentive", Mozilla dev seems extremely focused on fixing these problems

<comment><USER20> I'm disinclined to just take someone's word on the internet that it's "clear" that Mozilla is "extremely focused". OP has more inner structure, a coherent theory of _why_ lack of focus may arise. So it feels more compelling. Then again, I have personal complaints that I've aired elsewhere on this thread, so I might be biased.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I recommend forner Firefox users to take a look at Vivaldi. Its only downside is that it further boosts Chrome's dominance by being based on Chromium. On the other hand, Chromium is a damn fine, standards-compliant renderer.

Anyway, I have really enjoyed Vivaldi's user-first view, like Opera before it also got too much of a Chrome envy. There are browser settings galore and a generally customization-positive view by the developers and you can feel how it oozes "classic Opera" mentality.

Also, they do none of those Firefox shenanigans as of late with bundld third party software or ads. They are simply focusing on becoming the best choice for a power user.

<comment><USER22> Problem is no other browsers has anything close to the ecosystem of Firefox.

Chrome extensions seems (with a few exceptions) to be just locally stored web sites.

A better alternative to Firefox might be Palemoon which is just an older version of Firefox with security patches. I am not in a position to judge if it is safe enough for anyone to use but I like it.

<comment><USER12> Does it have "Slaughterhouse" (see [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=929539](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=929539) and [http://bholley.net/blog/2016/the-right- fix.html](http://bholley.net/blog/2016/the-right-fix.html)) ? This is not the only incident where Mozilla people have suggested hiding bugs until an old ESR goes end of life BTW.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Relevant discussion on the issue of Mozilla's outlandish executive compensation: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10101637](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10101637)

tl;dr: Mozilla is clearly failing as an organization, its programmers are underpaid, and its flagship product continues to shake down its users for donations, meanwhile its executives still get paid upwards of $800k a year for their mismanagement.

</comment><comment><USER23> I am happy with firefox performance, using vimperator. When you remove all the UI it is one good browser. Big problem with potential decline is that I don't know of any substitute for ff+vimperator (or pentadactyl) that works half good as they do. I tried just about any browser + vimsomething combo.

</comment><comment><USER24> Non-profits are mission driven. Most people who work for non-profits are doing it at least in part because of belief in the mission (especially since non- profits typically pay less than market rate).

The problem with technology non-profits is that the world around them changes pretty rapidly, and with substantial discontinuities.

So if you're an employee and you've signed on to an org with an understanding of why your job and your project matters for The Mission, of course change can appear scary and confusing.

On the other hand, especially when there is rapid turn over, or the ground keeps shifting under the org, there's a strong incentive by execs to try and find new territory one can set up upon.

The tensions seem pretty obvious. This is the same issue that's come up with Wikipedia's search project too.

<comment><USER25> > Non-profits are mission driven.

Nobody works for Mozilla Foundation. The employees work for Mozilla Corporation, a taxable / for profit entity entirely owned by Mozilla Foundation. They have precisely one revenue stream worth mentioning: search bar contracts. Those contracts are bid on by for profit companies, who will be bidding based on perceived value per search, searches per user, and total users.

The introduction of Chrome should concern Mozilla Corp employees, and the ceding of market share to it should be terrifying. Your capacity for The Mission is diminished if user base declines, because bids will decline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> How should a non-profit like Mozilla gauge it's success? Should it be going after browser market share (Firefox)? Developer brain market share (Rust, MDN)? Leadership positions (W3C)? Advocacy?

<comment><USER27> Good question, but I think market share is what buys you access to 'leadership positions' and enables 'advocacy'. If Firefox has 1% market-share, nobody cares what Mozilla says or does.

<comment><USER28> Also, its hard to see that same Foundation that is used to 300M checks being successful for very long after the revenue dries up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Firefox has lost a lot of market share to Chrome (something like 30% vs. 14%). Internet Explorer has too. Considering Google only launched a browser in '08, it's pretty impressive they're at something like 50%.

Mozilla is still doing a lot of awesome stuff (web assembly, rust, servo, etc...), and I personally still choose Firefox over Chromium. As a user, I do have complaints about the direction on a number of things though.

One of the simpler things I'm surprised I haven't seen yet is a decent native text editor, considering how much relies on editing text in a browser.

<comment><USER30> It's not impressive at all when they have one of the biggest marketing surfaces and budget in the world.

<comment><USER29> It's not easy to get people to use something new. It's even harder to get a majority of people to use something new. If you consider that Microsoft has nearly the same magnitude resources, and their own widely deployed platform their browser is pre-installed on, it doesn't seem like a trivial accomplishment.

Firefox also had a bigger market share than Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> We need a reboot of the web from the start.

Something simple (like markdown) that can be implemented in a wide range of languages (not only system languages).

The complex web we have today is a dead end. It monopolizes too much ressources in few complex projects.

We need a lot of different projects trying to achieve different goals. Some can be specialized (like only for a site or a task). Some can be whole- purpose.

3 or 4 layout engine is not enough.

</comment><comment><USER32> Not sure if this is true, but if this post is not fake, i would say Mozilla have lost the benefit of trust.

Seeing what they have done in the last few years, makes this post look less like a fake.

</comment><comment><USER33> Reminds me of that quote about "A players hiring A players, but B players hiring C players" or Jobs' rants on the subject re Scully.

For the record, I hate the latest UI changes to Firefox, I have chromium installed also and use it when needed. I don't need two of them. The big round tabs, the Fischer-price menus, the prefs with hardcoded white backgrounds, etc. If they hadn't fixed the memory leaks recently I'd go back to FF 20 or so.

<comment><USER34> Try Seamonkey. I consider it FF for grownups. (or for ancient Netscape users, if you prefer :-))

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Mozilla has pissed away its market share, its community, its goodwill and its influence in the world because of a series of bad decisions over the last 5 years:

* breaking add-ons due to rapid updates [Everybody Hates Firefox Updates (evilbrainjono.net) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4209384](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4209384)]

* switching to Australis [Australis is landing in Firefox Nightly (mozilla.org) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6755650](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6755650)]

* removing options to customize the browser ["Disable Javascript" option removed in Firefox 23 (mozilla.org) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968237](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968237)]

* getting rid of the Status bar and breaking add-ons that depend on it [Removing Firefox's Status Bar and Rehousing Add-on Icons [http://www.donotlick.com/2010/04/29/removing-firefoxs-status...](http://www.donotlick.com/2010/04/29/removing-firefoxs-status-bar-and-rehousing-add-on-icons-part-1-of-2/) [http://www.donotlick.com/2010/06/07/removing-firefoxs-status...](http://www.donotlick.com/2010/06/07/removing-firefoxs-status-bar-and-rehousing-add-on-icons-part-2-of-2/) [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-status-ba...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-status-bar#w_where-are-my-add-ons)]

* long review queues for add-on approval [Writing Extensions for Firefox Is Barely Worth the Trouble (omniref.com) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285744)]

* displaying ads in the browser [Firefox will show ads on the new tab page based on browsing history (geeksnack.com) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587362](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587362)]

* banning unsigned add-ons and annoucing a new add-on development API that breaks existing add-ons [Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions (mozilla.org) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10038999](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10038999)]

* forcing Pocket and Hello icons to appear on the toolbar with every update [Firefox Bugzilla: Remove Pocket Integration (mozilla.org) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809)]

* denying vehemently for months that there is no financial arrangement with Pocket [Mozilla to stop Sponsored Tiles in Firefox (mozilla.org) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10679519](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10679519)] and then casually admitting it in a Wired interview on other topics [[http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-we...](http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-web-needs-it-the-most/)]

* spinning off Thunderbird as a "community project" [Mozilla Wants To Split Off Its Thunderbird Email/Chat Client (techcrunch.com) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654861](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654861)]

* neglecting browser performance, multi-process architecture and browser security. This year, the Pwn2Own contest refused to consider Firefox security hacks because the organizers "wanted to focus on the browsers that have made serious security improvements in the last year." [http://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/12/034206/pwn2own-2016-wo...](http://it.slashdot.org/story/16/02/12/034206/pwn2own-2016-wont-attack-firefox-because-its-too-easy)

All these changes were dropped on the community without any prior warning, discussion or input. Firefox add-on developers responded to many of these changes by developing workarounds like Pale Moon, Classic Theme Restorer, The Addon Bar (Restored), etc. but by now many of them have burnt out. The burden of fixing Mozilla's mistakes is just too heavy. [The likely end of DownThemAll (downthemall.net) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10099240](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10099240)]

Many of these decisions came out of "Google envy":

* the drive to mimic Chrome instead of doubling down on what makes Firefox unique

* the transformation in compny culture from a scrappy open source project to a bloated corporate hierarchy that enforces a fear-based workplace

* empire building via a massive hiring spree (or, as Steve Jobs so memorably put it, a "bozo explosion")

* the adoption of whiteboard-style interviews to hire employees off the street instead of considering long-time community members

* the leasing of expensive offices in hipster locations like San Francisco instead of encouraging remote work which is ingrained in the company culture

* chasing the latest buzzwords like mobile operating systems and IoT projects and spinning off core products like Thunderbird and Firefox OS as "community projects". (What's next? Autonomous cars?)

Firefox markets share is already 8% and falling. Once Yahoo vaporizes, it will take Mozilla down with it. I'm looking forward to once again seeing a lean organization with a laser focus on making the best browser, period.

<comment><AUTHOR> Source or link to browser market share? 8% seems too low for FireFox.

<comment><USER35> StatCounter Global Stats - Browser Market Share - Top 9 Desktop, Mobile, Tablet & Console Browsers

[http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-browser-ww- monthly-200807-201...](http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-browser-ww- monthly-200807-201603)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I don't want to get involved in the Firefox vs X flamewar but don't talk shit about rust dude

</comment><comment><USER12> I wonder if this or something similar is happening inside Mozilla: [https://www.quora.com/CEOs-1/Are-there-any-CEOs-who-have- exp...](https://www.quora.com/CEOs-1/Are-there-any-CEOs-who-have-expressed- open-self-doubt-about-their-own-company?share=1)

</comment><comment><USER32> [http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23seamonkey&s=2+Mar+2016&e=2...](http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23seamonkey&s=2+Mar+2016&e=2+Mar+2016) \- Also very nice read, Mozilla guys bashing people from Pale Moon project.

What for idiots.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wonder if a for-profit corporation with zero shareholders similar to Mozilla can be made possible. I wonder what would happen if AT&T and Verizon can be run in a similar way (with better executives of course).

<comment><USER37> > I wonder if a for profit corporation with zero shareholders can be made > possible. I wonder what would happen if AT&T and Verizon can be run in a > similar way (with better executives of course).

A mutual company is probably the closest thing you'll find to that (basically a company where you become a shareholder when you become a customer). I'm not sure how well that structure would work for a company like Mozilla, which has a weak relationship to its "customers," but I think it's work a short for large utility-like organizations like telcom companies.

[http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutualcompany.asp](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutualcompany.asp)

<comment><USER12> That is not what I mean. Obviously such a corporation would have a board of directors but no shareholders at all (including no dividends and control rights), just like Mozilla as described in the comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I've been with Firefox since 3.0, my first browser, I recommended it to a lot of people for years... I'm sadly switching to Opera now.

<comment><USER39> Even after [http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/opera-ceo-sale-to- chinese-c...](http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/opera-ceo-sale-to-chinese- consortium-wasnt-our-decision/)?

<comment><USER38> What are other choices for sensible people? Opensource chromium that downloads binary blobs that control my microphone?

<comment><USER40> GNU Icecat. [https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/](https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/)

<comment><USER38> That's Firefox with GNU branding:

>GNUzilla is the GNU version of the Mozilla suite, and GNU IceCat is the GNU version of the Firefox browser

<comment><USER40> You should read the rest of the description.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> There was a time when Google use to pay site owners for firefox downloads. The day they launched Chrome, the sam day promotion stopped. Since then the usage for FF is going downhill.

</comment><comment><USER42> Was interesting to hear the entire perspective but the "marriage thing?" That wasn't exactly small. Imagine if gave money instead to the KKK... would that have been just "a racial heritage thing?"

Backing something that separates families is divisive and not appropriate for an organization that is about openness and diversity, especially given the current tech climate of monoculture.

Engineers can really be the worst offenders when it comes to hate-like views, I think in part because they're likely smarter than the average person so they've completely convinced themselves that they're the rational ones.

I remember back when I was at Google in 2008. A survey on lgbt issues went around company wide. What came back was so completely shocking and insane, especially out of Russia and India. Burn them, kill them, they don't desire to live, etc. And this was a survey you gave back to your employer!!!

Edit: as many people have missed my point let me clarify. The comparison against the KKK was simply to illustrate that who you donate to and support affects your organization, especially when that cause negatively impacts the personal lives of your employees (and goes against your org core values, and reinforces an existing problem of monoculture). I'm not saying prop 8 == KKK, I'm showing that personal beliefs matter when you're a leader.

<comment><USER43> There's a world of difference between opposing gay marriage and supporting a white supremacist terrorist organization. They're not even remotely comparable.

Specifically, it's entirely possible to oppose gay marriage on a number of grounds without being homophobic or bigoted; in my experience even as a young gay man in San Francisco, most of the people in my life who don't support gay marriage are perfectly reasonable, kind individuals who don't hate their gay friends. It's rather shallow to consider one's stance on LGBT issues through a single, limited lens, given that there are dozens of other issues (HIV, youth homelessness, alcoholism, depression) that affect the LGBT community.

<comment><USER44> > it's entirely possible to oppose gay marriage on a number of grounds without > being homophobic or bigoted

How so?

I mean, I really haven't heard any arguments against same sex marriage that were not homophobic, so I'm actually curious since the definition of homophobia in Merriam-Webster [1] is:

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

I would thought that opposing to gay marriage would amount to discrimination against homosexuals, no?

Edit: Can't reply to mrbabbage due to anti-flame filter or something, but I guess, if I understand correctly, the contention point is about _how_ people define marriage. So if marriage is, in some people's view, something entirely religious-related, then for them it would not be considered opposing gay marriage as something related to discrimination, but related to not "breaking" said definition.

For others, marriage would be just a religious-independent term, that signifies a certain set of life decisions (living with your partner, etc) as well as certain legal responsibilities and rights.

Ok, I get your point now. And I was honestly not wanting to start a flame war, and was genuinely asking since I wasn't clear on this. I guess the debate then turns into whether as a community (for different values of community) we should consider marriage as a legal term devoid of any religious implication, or not.

Edit2: I'm not even sure if people would even be able to agree on this, at least not for several generations.

Edit3: Wow, not sure why I would get downvoted for asking an honest question. I am seeing the vote counter jump up and down. Very interesting.

[1] [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobic](http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/homophobic)

<comment><USER45> I'm in favor of gay marriage, but this position seems widely held and it's a little baffling. Marriage is itself nothing more than a cultural tradition. If you don't agree, go work out a logical derivation of why the practice of pairing up is optimal and report back. From that perspective, is it really surprising that some people want traditional traditions? On the balance, I think gay marriage is a good idea, but I also think there's something to be said for going slow when abandoning traditions.

<comment><USER44> > is it really surprising that some people want traditional traditions?

Well, no. I guess not. And in that context, there will definitely always be a broad spectrum of those that want to keep traditions as such, and those that want change.

But it seems that at least for this particular tradition, it gets trickier to just consider it "a tradition" since it is so intertwined with the legal definition, for some countries at least.

So even though it's "just" a cultural tradition, it makes a big effect on the outcome of legal matters.

I mean, I've seen groups that oppose same-sex marriage suggest calling that "legal relationship between two people" something other than marriage, giving it the same rights and that would be enough.

The thing I try to imagine is, what would happen if some country would completely decouple the marriage term from the legal definition, if that would make things better or not.

As long as every legal matter related to the definition of this new term is updated, and so referring to marriage would only be at the religious level (no other consequences than that), what would happen? would that be a good solution for most? or would it be maybe _just enough_ ?

I'm pretty sure there would be people disliking the idea of having a different term, however legally equivalent it may be, and probably they could give good reasons, but would it be the majority or a minority?

I have honestly no idea.

<comment><USER45> There's a legal aspect, but that's still just a law codifying cultural norms. Why do people have to wear clothes in public? The libertarian abstraction of people as living in isolation from one another until they choose to interact is a good example of a leaky abstraction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I can't comment on the other points, but the author is right about Firefox. The last time I tried it (several months ago), it really came across as a browser that looks like Chrome but is worse in almost every way. It's lack of performance is what struck out to me the most, despite the fact that I have several extensions running.

This is just anecdotal of course, so take it with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER47> To counter your anecdote with some more anecdote, I just switched from Chrome to Firefox and have felt that the latter has some serious performance advantages over the former.

<comment><USER48> It's probably just me, but I always struggle with the "latter" and "former" construction, especially when they are reversed like that. I had to read it several times before I understood. In case it helps someone else, it translates as:

      To counter your anecdote with some more anecdote, I
      switched from Chrome to Firefox, and have felt that that
      Firefox has some serious performance advantages over Chrome.

I wonder sometimes if my inability to parse sentences like this relates to my preference for C over C++. The "former" and "latter" abstraction reminds me of Eli's examples here [http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/returning-multiple- values-...](http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/returning-multiple-values-from- functions-in-c/) of first->first and first->second.

<comment><USER47> Sorry to have been unclear -- thank you for making the effort to read my measly comment, however!

It does appear similar to the idea of abusing tuples, insofar as having to keep the meanings of each element in mind without any help from the syntax. _shrugs_ I guess my nervousness around Internet commenting surfaces as excessively formal language. Apologies again for any future confusion :|

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> A while ago a hiring manager allegedly from Mozilla Vancouver posted a long rant that he went through 60 interviews yet couldn't find a junior dev which was downvoted to oblivion with angry comments. He shortly deleted all of his comments since then but reading this employees comments on slashdot makes me fit together the puzzle pieces....Mozilla has become a trust fund for incompetent people to earn a cheque every month.

Google Chrome has really done a number on the browser market and surpassed the 25% mark for quite some time while Firefox has been dwindling to irrelevance. Failed to even eat into IE marketshare.

[https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market- share.aspx?qpr...](https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market- share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0)

<comment><USER50> Sigh. That thread was my thread.

* It was for a senior security engineer, not a junior dev

* I looked at 63 candidates (as in applicants / resumes)

* IIRC I screen interviewed around 10

* IIRC we advanced around 4 to the full interview process

I deleted my comments for 3 reasons:

* Someone else took the initiative to link my comments to the Mozilla Vancouver office, and implied that we tried to fill that position locally

* Despite identifying in my initial comment that it was an exceptional circumstance people were acting like it was the norm

* In my initial comment I said interviewing 63 candidates, not reviewing 63 candidates; after the thread blew up I revised it to reviewed, but it's the internet :/

Mea culpa, but hiring qualified security people is _really_ hard these days, and has been for years.

One other very important note - when we were filling that role the guidance was the the position should be filled in one of our offices, not remotely. Once that restriction was removed, the position was filled almost immediately.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can I put something in space? - <AUTHOR> Hello,
Is it possible for a technically-minded person to put their own cubesat/related technology into space? Are there major legal hurdles, or is it mainly financial?
Cheers. <comment><USER2> Yes, you can do so. The cheapest option at the moment is to use a TubeSat kit from InterOrbital Systems ( [http://www.interorbital.com/Tubesat%20Kits](http://www.interorbital.com/Tubesat%20Kits)). The kit is $8,000 and includes a launch into low Earth orbit.

You will need approval if you want to take images of the Earth. Take a look at DIY Satellite Platforms by Sandy Antunes for a detailed overview and guide.

<comment><USER3> Hrm, approval from who? Seems like public "space"

<comment><USER2> The 1967 Outer Space Treaty makes individual nations responsible for the extra-terrestrial activities of persons and entities under their jurisdiction. US persons and entities need authorization from NOAA. (cf [https://space.stackexchange.com/a/26373](https://space.stackexchange.com/a/26373) )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not sure where you live but in Canada there are laws regarding doing this, not saying you can't but you might get in trouble, that being said it's almost always easier asking for forgiveness than permission. Here is a link to the Canadian law that covers this

[https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://w...](https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.canadianrocketry.org/files/tc_hpr_reqs_jan00.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiVh4nLyZHdAhUDFXwKHcooAdoQFjAMegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1gAWpOC- rMM8y-Bvqhg3GD)

If your interested in satellite tech I suggest looking into amsat, and if you want a cheap way to communicate with satellites, I suggest getting your HAM license and go that route.

Good luck

</comment><comment><USER5> More to this question, are there any limits on what you can put in orbit?

e.g. could I put a satellite in orbit that broadcasts an SSTV signal that's goatse, or a handgun? For the sake of the question, assume I can launch/reside in any country.

</comment><comment><USER6> Three or four man college teams do cubesats all the time, so I'm guessing it's entirely doable by an individual. In the US I know you have to get FCC approval, and do so you'll probably need to plan on an orbit with a short lifetime.</comment>


What is a webhook and how to create one - <AUTHOR> https://webhookrelay.com/blog/2018/07/13/how-to-create-webhook/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi there!

Since there are plenty of articles on how to consume webhooks, I thought it would make sense to write one on how to start producing webhooks as it seems like the best way to illustrate the difference :)</comment>


Ants are as Effective as Pesticides - <AUTHOR> http://scitech.au.dk/en/roemer/5-2015/ants-are-as-effective-as-pesticides/ <comment><USER2> I think that in general we need to see ourselves as part of an ecosystem rather absence of one -- eg rather than try to kill all the "bugs" in our homes, figure out which ones might be beneficial.

It's taken a long time for us to take this approach to intestinal flora and skin bacteria -- we need to think this way about everything.

<comment><USER3> I once had an infestation of spiders. I called the exterminator, who said I didn't have a spider problem. I had an ant problem - the spiders were there eating the ants. Dealing with the ants took care of the spider problem.

There's a great book on this kind of thing: "Common Sense Pest Control".

<comment><USER4> One of my current side projects is to connect a pair of galvos, a 3 watt IR laser diode, and openCV to run when I'm not there calling it "High Tech Pest Control with Photons" :-)

We tend to get Argentine ants in the Bay Area and they do attract spiders, but they also keep down the cockroach population. So there are arguments for and against keeping them.

<comment><USER5> Don't listen to the naysayers. Bill Gates is actually funding technology that kills mosquitos with lasers.

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

<comment><USER6> Isn't this technology owned by Intellectual Ventures - the patent troll run by Nathan Myhrvold?

Doesn't it seem more likely they developed and patented this and are waiting for someone else to infringe on their patent, rather than them ever actually creating a product?

This is a perfect example of how broken our patent system is. We have a technology that absolutely has demand, but it will never be produced because it's more profitable to abuse our patent system in the courts than it is to actually manufacture and sell a product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Biological pest control is not a silver bullet. We have a history littered with biological pest control disasters. These studies need to take into account effect on native biodiversity. For example Hawaii introduce mongoose to control rats as it turn out they will kill native birds more than the rats.

<comment><USER8> Just a wee bit off-topic, but:

The situation with the native species of Hawaii is actually much worse than most people are aware -- even people who live in Hawaii. I read somewhere[1] that, if you walk around a typical coastal town in Hawaii, and look at the lawns & gardens & parks, and watch the birds & whatnot, that you will generally not see _any native species at all_. The ones big enough to see are all confined to the interior.

EDIT. And, by the way, the rats weren't native, either. Hawaii has exactly two native mammals: the Hawaiian Hoary Bat and the Hawaiian Monk Seal.

[1] I think it was in _Remains of a Rainbow_ , by D. Liittschwager & S. Middleton. [https://amazon.com/dp/0792264126/](https://amazon.com/dp/0792264126/)

<comment><USER9> It seems defining what "native" means on Hawaii is a bit sketchy. Clearly _no_ animals were on the islands when they first were created, so everything is more or less "invasive".

Speaking of ants that live in trees, the Big Island is being overrun by the Little Fire Ant, which has already spread across much of the rainy side. I'm sure it protects the trees from pests, too, but in this case that unfortunately also includes humans. They have a nasty bite, and are very hard to control, which is making farming in infested areas hell. [http://littlefireants.com/](http://littlefireants.com/)

<comment><USER10> They are native, because they existed in no other place than Hawaii. The species literally did not exist until Hawaii made it so. The first species to come to Hawaii were invasive.

<comment><USER11> So if I introduce some animal to Hawaii, then wait until they speciate, then they're native? I suppose that works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As someone who grew up raising fruit trees: ants _are_ the pests, since (at least the Argentine ones that I normally deal with) they not only farm aphids and such, but also frequently are the ones actually eating produce. Granted, in my particular case I didn't _really_ care, since a couple ant-holes don't really hurt anything if you're gonna cut up the fruit for a pie or something anyway (just wash 'em real good first), but it's kind of hard to sell fruit to the general public when said fruit has obviously been eaten at by six-legged hive-minded vermin.

Ants are cool and all, but they're also jerks, and I find much satisfaction in the latest trend of pouring molten metal into anthills to make artwork.

</comment><comment><USER13> I ceased killing invasive ants with borax, a substance taken back to the hive to destroy it, when during one such defense I saw them divert from the track I was poisoning to attack newly hatched termites that were emerging from under an appliance. They were incredibly effective. They also raid termite colonies and carry away the eggs. I switched to a lemon oil based repellent applied locally as needed.

<comment><USER9> At least here in Hawaii, predation by ants apparently is not effective at preventing termite infestations. They eat them, yeah, but they don't actually significantly affect the nests, according to what I've heard at least.

<comment><USER13> I'd bet it depends on the kind of ant and the kind of termite. I'm in Northern Ca and haven't seen trace of a termite since I stopped killing the ant colonies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > One three-year study in Australia recorded cashew yields 49% higher in plots > patrolled by ants compared with those protected by chemicals. Nut quality > was higher too, so net income was 71% higher with ants than with chemicals.

With results like these, there must be some reason why this was not discovered and put to widespread use already. What are is down side? Containment? How to keep them from spreading to unwanted areas, like the farm house?

<comment><USER15> At least in Australia, the existing equivalent case study is Cane Toads, which didn't turn out so well. I can understand why people may be hesitant to try with ants.

<comment><USER16> Not to speak of rabbits…

<comment><USER17> And camels

<comment><USER18> And foxes

<comment><USER19> And bumblebees

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> i always thought that domesticating insects would be a great boon for humanity. and/or, why did we stop at honeybees and silk-worms? termites for bio-reclamation, locusts for invasive plant control, dragonflies for extermination of mosquitoes, cockroaches for subterranean telemetry.. (probably avoiding preying-mantises out of a sense of 'what could possibly go wrong?')

<comment><USER21> Not to mention using insects as food sources-- grasshoppers, crickets, worms, etc. Excellent sources for protein and super efficient to raise pound-for- pound.

I guess the biggest obstacles are the cultural ones.

<comment><USER22> Edward O Wilson also suggested farming reptiles for meat in his famous book "Biodiversity"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Maybe a bit off topic but reading this brought me back to the early nineties when I first got a copy of SimAnt. The instruction manual was filled with information about ants. I remember staying up all night reading about these amazing creatures!

</comment><comment><USER24> Unless you have an aphid infestation. Here in Northern California ants farm aphids and are damn good at it. Your plants will have aphids all over them.

<comment><USER25> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpJibC5iA0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpJibC5iA0) \- A video showing the relationship between ants and aphids. The ants protect the aphids on the plant from a number of predators and in return the aphids provide the ants with food in the form of honeydew.

<comment><USER26> Interestingly, there are some studies that suggest the aphids secrete the honeydew as a response to high lady-bug populations. In nature, it's hard to tell who is taking advantage of who.

I <3 ants: [https://twitter.com/ultimape/status/586512292403093505](https://twitter.com/ultimape/status/586512292403093505)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> In my backyard garden the argentine ants farm aphids and red scale (at least) on my plants. So...don't use argentine ants. They are jerks!

<comment><USER28> That was my experience. If you don't use pesticides spiders and ladybird beetles will come along and eat the aphids... unless the ants are protecting them. I ended up having to put tanglefoot around the base of all my trees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Such stories of ecologically friendly pest control are hard to resist, but unfortunately the history of introducing species A to control species B is littered with cautionary tales.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is certainly worth a look in places like Florida and California. I assume there are hurdles to importing these into the foreign countries like the US, not to mention the lobbying Monsanto will surely be doing to prevent lost revenue. It turns out the Chinese have used these effectively for over a thousand years, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaver_ant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaver_ant)

<comment><USER31> The specific hurdle mentioned in the article is that they only live in the tropics. However they do mention research looking at using wood ants to protect Maize or to control winter moths in temperate regions.

<comment><USER30> Yeah, I said Florida and California....

Anyways the weaver Ant is endemic to places that are not just the tropics, they've been used on citrus plants in China since 400 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaver_ant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaver_ant)

<comment><USER32> Florida, maybe. California isn't all that 'tropical' in terms of its climate - it's mostly way too dry for that, and the wet portions along the north coast are too cold to be tropical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Yes, please! What really concerns me the most about conventional farming is the tendency to control, tame, and in result fight nature (with chemicals), rather than cooperate. This is of course a consequence of large monotonous fields with a single crop, which provides habitat for diseases and pests in very specific niches but leaves out the natural predators (such as ants in this example).

</comment><comment><USER34> The opposite is true in the case of aphids, which are pretty serious destroyers of crop-yielding plants.

Some ants farm aphids for their honeydew. Rather than destroying them, they encourage their population on the growing-tips of plants. If you introduce aphid-eating insects, such as ladybirds or lacewings, the ants will fight off the attackers.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is not true in all cases. On citrus trees I've seen ants "farm" aphids and scales by protecting them from their natural enemies and eating their excreted nectar. Left alone this combo can easily kill a small citrus tree.

<comment><USER36> First real plum season this year after I killed off a ant colony farming aphids under my plum tree. :-)

Edit: Used boiling water to take out the nest, then sprinkled a mix of potato starch with fine ground sugar around. I don't want to much poison on and around my fruit trees.

And yes: up to 6 ladybugs had a party in that tree for three consecutive days. I read somewhere that each of them can munch up to 100 aphids a day so I guess there was quite a few to start with.

<comment><USER37> What was the potato starch and ground sugar for?

<comment><USER36> Supposedly it kills ants but I only have one sample so it might just be an old wives tale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Very interesting approach! Ants are fascinating creatures, I used to spend hours as a kid watching them build their nests or raid a termite colony...

And although I agree with many of the other posters here that one has to be extremely careful with biological pest control when using imported species, I still think that on the whole this approach is definitely better than poisoning the ecosystem with chemicals. Of course one has to do one's homework first, thoroughly, to avoid "Hawaiian mongoose disasters". But after that has been done, let's go for it!

</comment><comment><USER39> Not only can ants be used as pesticide - in some cases they also act as a herbicide and kill weeds and other plants that compete with their host tree: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7058/full/437495a...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7058/full/437495a.html) . Probably not useful for farming, but still cool.

</comment><comment><USER40> Ants are also annoying. Come to Oakland and experience the 'pesticides' for yourself!

</comment><comment><USER41> I'd like the same thing for homes. I'd happily buy a bag of sugar occasionally to be guaranteed to never have termites.

<comment><USER13> I think they are just as attracted to the termites themselves. They love the eggs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> You want ants? Because this is how you get ants.</comment>


Clojure/core — (second conj) - <AUTHOR> http://clojure.com/blog/2011/11/17/second-conj.html <comment><USER2> I'm looking forward to fogus's BOF summary. Dan Friedman (author of The Little Schemer, The Seasoned Schemer, The Reasoned Schemer, and many other excellent books and papers) and William Byrd were in attendance. They gave a pretty stunning presentation on miniKanren.

<comment><USER3> Is there a copy of their interpreter available? I'd like to see how the relations are setup to be able to "run backwards".

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe the official Kanren/miniKanren source is at <http://kanren.sourceforge.net> and the cKanren source is at <https://github.com/calvis/cKanren>

<comment><USER2> I think he was asking about the interpreter they demoed during their talk. A more up-to-date version of miniKanren as well as many interesting variants can be found here: <http://code.google.com/p/iucs-relational-research/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't miss the link near the top to the repo of speaker slides. I really hope videos are made available.

<comment><AUTHOR> The plan is to release the videos as they are produced by ConFreaks.net. I suspect they will be on blip.tv. I'm unaware of a definite release schedule.

<comment><USER5> Were the BOFs recorded too? I'd love to see the miniKaren presentation by Dan Friedman & William Byrd.</comment></comment></comment>


Snopes.com in Danger of Shuttering - <AUTHOR> https://www.gofundme.com/savesnopes <comment><USER2> Checked snopes to see if this is true: [http://www.snopes.com/save- snopes/](http://www.snopes.com/save-snopes/)</comment>