Bill Watterson talks - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/03/09/bill-watterson-talks-this-is-why-you-must-read-the-new-exploring-calvin-and-hobbes-book/ <comment><USER2> This is tangential, but for those of you looking to fill the Calvin and Hobbes hole in your life, I highly recommend the illustrated weblog of French cartoonist Boulet. It's really amazing. (And it's pretty clear that C&H was a huge inspiration for him.)

[http://english.bouletcorp.com/2012/12/05/the-warrior- never-r...](http://english.bouletcorp.com/2012/12/05/the-warrior-never-rests/)

[http://english.bouletcorp.com/2013/10/08/our-toyota-was- fant...](http://english.bouletcorp.com/2013/10/08/our-toyota-was-fantastic/)

[http://english.bouletcorp.com/2012/02/01/darkness/](http://english.bouletcorp.com/2012/02/01/darkness/)

[http://english.bouletcorp.com/2013/02/04/paola-4/](http://english.bouletcorp.com/2013/02/04/paola-4/)

<comment><USER3> And to add to this tangent: my friend Dana Simpson does a strip for Universal called "Phoebe and her Unicorn", about a girl whose best friend is... well, the title kind of gives it away. When the strip launched, they sent her the gigantic collection of All The C&H; she's never quite decided if it was in celebration, or a threat that she had to live up to that standard.

[http://www.gocomics.com/phoebe-and-her- unicorn](http://www.gocomics.com/phoebe-and-her-unicorn)

<comment><USER4> Is that the same Dana Simpson that was once the author of Ozy & Millie? That was my longtime C&H holdover.

<comment><USER3> Yep! If you're around Seattle, she'll be sharing a booth with me at ECCC later this month.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I admire very few people as much as I do Bill Watterson.

He had a major part in my childhood as I tore through each and every one of his books, read the 10th anniversary and all its commentary _at least_ a dozen times and still find myself opening my entire collection on occasion when I stumble across them in my "box of stuff I hope to one day pass my kid." I remember checking "Homicidal Psycho Jungle Cat" from our school library in 5th grade only to have my dog chew the cover. I was secretly so happy because it meant I got to keep the book (while my parents were stuck paying for it).

The guy has stuck so clearly to his principles when he was surely presented multiple opportunities to make far more money licensing his product. I cringe every time I see a poor unlicensed Calvin relieving himself on various truck logos, I can't imagine Watterson is a fan of that.

I have zero qualms with artists making money off something they create (duh), but it is refreshing when a Watterson comes along and makes a clear choice to keep his creation untouched by anyone other than himself.

All that to say, can't wait to read this.

<comment><USER6> >I have zero qualms with artists making money off something they create (duh),

It's also perfectly alright for artists to give away their creations for free.

<comment><USER5> I'll never judge an artist's 1) desire to make money 2) desire to give their work away for free. That's such a personal decision, and entirely up to each individual. We all value different things, there isn't a "right" thing to do here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> TLDR: Bill Watterson did an interview and you can buy it. It was great. It was great. It was great.

What an empty article. I kept reading hoping to get some information. I guess they were worried the would get in trouble for quoting any of the interview?

<comment><USER8> No kidding; so far as I can tell, the first ~15 paragraphs are all essentially paraphrases of each other. I like C&H as much as the next guy, but is this much... breathlessness really called for?

<comment><USER9> FWIW, it's the age we're in. The previous generation's culture is just grist for today's commerical engines. Consider the implications when a publication informs us:

"For any true fan of cartooning, it is a must-read, a must-buy, a must-pick- up."

This is the manufacture of a social standard for fandom, placing the power of identity outside of the individual and replacing it with consumer choices. It's that old mentality Adbusters fought so hard against: "Buy this product to get this identity."

Back to my Atari 2600 now, stay off my lawn.

<comment><USER10> Ironically, there are a few Calvin and Hobbes comics about this: [http://i.imgur.com/nv6mLAE.gif](http://i.imgur.com/nv6mLAE.gif)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have severely mixed emotions about Bill Watterson, mostly in a philosophical frame.

On the positive side, I am a great fan of his Calvin and Hobbes work over many years, and would quickly state that it had a significant influence on my developing worldview. As I grew both as a person and artist, I took great interest in his pushback against commercialism, and later, his efforts with the Sunday comics. There was a fighting spirit, a man of principle, who leveraged his success in ways that may seem trivial or needlessly difficult to regular business people, but are fundamental in the creative sphere where exploiting an artist's work for maximum profit is typically the norm. For these aspects of his career, I'm eternally grateful.

Here's the part where people look at me like I'm just being a jerk: After reading as much of his interviews, panel contributions and commencement speeches as possible, I discovered a profoundly selfish and hypocritical man. Time and again, he spoke highly of the importance of art, of doing art as much as possible, and how important his particular art, that of comics, was to the overall conversation about life. What bothers me the most is that once he obtained financial stability and security that, roughly speaking, only 1% of artists in any genre can hope to obtain, he straight up quit. He had, for lack of a better term, the world as his audience to continue putting out material on his own terms, and he did nothing. Nothing.

To me, I find that immensely conflicting. I love Calvin and Hobbes and always will. I embrace many of the lessons that Bill Watterson's career gave me about success, commercialism, and integrity. All that noted, I will never hesitate to claim that a real artist doesn't just up and quit and walk away because they can afford to. A real artist can never afford to quit because it's what they do, and art without an audience is simply selfish folly.

Will I try to get my hands on this interview? Of course. Will it be painful to read, simply because of my personal perspective? Absolutely...

<comment><USER12> Honest question: Why do you feel entitled to more of his work?

I believe it's more useful to be thankful for something that _was_ given than to be angry that you didn't get _more_.

Watterson:

> This isn't as hard to understand as people try to make it. By the end of ten > years, I'd said pretty much everything I had come there to say. It's always > better to leave the party early. If I had rolled along with the strip's > popularity and repeated myself for another five, ten, or twenty years, the > people now "grieving" for Calvin and Hobbes would be wishing me dead and > cursing newspapers for running tedious, ancient strips like mine instead of > acquiring fresher, livelier talent. And I'd be agreeing with them. I think > some of the reason Calvin and Hobbes still finds an audience today is > because I chose not to run the wheels off it. I've never regretted stopping > when I did.

Source: [http://www.cleveland.com/living/index.ssf/2010/02/bill_watte...](http://www.cleveland.com/living/index.ssf/2010/02/bill_watterson_creator_of_belo.html)

<comment><USER11> Why do you insist this is about me? I'm simply discussing what he said about his own philosophy and then comparing that with his actions. They don't reconcile.

Considering how many great artists "die before their time" and combining that with his own words, I see that as difficult to reconcile. It's one thing to admit to doing something for a paycheck, and there's pride to be had in honest work. To me it's dishonest to claim art is the primary driver and then, well, give up on doing art. What part of that do you disagree with?

Edit:

I never said I expected more Calvin and Hobbes, and if you think you're putting something forward with that quote I don't already know, you're wrong.

He had a platform to produce all kinds of other creative, influential, or interesting art, and he chose not to do anything. Well, maybe he did and it's all up in his attic. What good does an attic full of art do for the world?

<comment><USER13> Maybe he ran out of things to say. Some artist die before their time, others sadly won't shut up and end up ruining their own art.

Anyway, as far as I am to understand he couldn't see himself escaping the shadow of C&H, so he secluded himself and put his art in the attic, feeling that its release wouldn't better the world as long as people would just respond to it as "this isn't C&H"

<comment><USER14> Case in point The Simpsons. What season are we on, the 25th?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I expect many of the comments will be adulation for Bill Watterson. I know he always gets unending praise, and while he did do many great things, I found his latter C&H strips to be him putting his rants in the mouth of a 6-year-old boy, where they no longer belonged.

Really, look at some of the later strips. Calvin is frequently frowning or complaining about something. The earlier strips were more care-free and he acts more like a 6-year-old albeit with a ridiculously rich vocabulary.

Good for him to quit when he was obviously no longer enjoying the process. Got to give him that.

<comment><USER16> I always thought the rants were quite insightful. He did start out as a political cartoonist.

<comment><USER15> Well, they weren't what I signed up for when I was a kid. I wanted to see a kid having fun being a kid, travelling through space and riding dinosaurs. Not a surly grownup talking through a kid.

<comment><USER16> In a way Calvin was growing up and becoming a more introspective and thereby pessimistic person growing into young adulthood, leaving his carefree days behind. At least that is what I took from it. Then the last panel, if I remember correctly, was an ode to the carefree days of childhood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone have a link to the actual interview? I can't find it in that article or any of the linked articles.

<comment><USER12> It's in the form of a book, which is a companion to an exhibition of his work at the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library & Museum. [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1449460364/ref=as_li_tl?ie=...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1449460364/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1449460364&linkCode=as2&tag=thanland0e-20&linkId=IHUYQYPG2MBLCIUQ)</comment></comment>


Startup innovation: A bra for stashing your phone - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekwire.com/2012/pockets-bra-startup-innovation/

<comment><USER2> It seems like the times women would want this - like wearing a dress and not having pockets - would be the times when having a rectangular bump under your arm would look weird.</comment>


How Nest Is Trying to Keep the Connected Home Secure - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/3058260/how-nest-is-trying-to-keep-the-connected-home-secure <comment><AUTHOR> Nest also now uses the Google Internet Authority for its certificates.</comment>


Dar - disk archive backup utility - <AUTHOR> http://dar.linux.free.fr/

<comment><USER2> What's the point of it compared to tar and dd?

<comment><USER3> The same as the point of using a wordprocessor instead of simply piping escape sequences to lpr.

<comment><USER4> For this to be an accurate comparison, the word processor would have to support only one formatting option -- dar only has one form of compression built in, does not seem to support writing to stdout, and was last updated in 2006, so the advantages of a pipeline setup and having the ability to choose alternative tools as they become available outweigh the limited feature set over more traditional tools.

However, there is this (from the man page):

       "Because, even when using dar to write a slice on a tape,
       you will loose all the interest of another feature of dar
       which is its ability to directly access any of the
       archived files, even when compression is used."

which can be tremendously useful, but isn't compelling enough to warrant using it.

<comment><USER5> Dar 2.3.9 was updated on March 22th this year; there were 4 commits to CVS in the last 21 days, too.

Never heard of Dar, but I thought it deserved to be on record that it is still alive and kicking (unlike your statement of when it was last updated).

<comment><USER4> Ah, I missed that. Now that I look closer at the "Current Status", you're right. That is a not-very-straight-forward way to present releases and schedules.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Smoking apparently voids your Mac warranty - <AUTHOR> http://consumerist.com/5408885/smoking-near-apple-computers-creates-biohazard-voids-warranty

<comment><USER2> I don't know about the rest of the article, but _chlorine (used in swimming pools), hydrogen peroxide (also used to clean wounds), sucrose (a sugar), talc (as in powder), etc... as hazardous substances._ Chlorine is highly toxic in concentrated form. and both sucrose and talc are dangerous in powdered form <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_explosion>. See: <http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/foia/hot_6.html>.

PS: If you want to be frighted ask a fire department what they would do if a pool supply store caught on fire.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed, but the risk varies considerably depending on the quantity. Otherwise visiting the supermarket or drug store would be a life-or-death decision. I'm having a little trouble believing that OSHA compliance in this case would require anything more stringent than wearing a pair of latex gloves (which have the side benefit of rendering those annoying anti-static wristbands unnecessary).

<comment><USER3> Latex gloves will make the static problem worse, not better. Static builds up on insulating surfaces because the electrons don't have anywhere to go.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right. What was I thinking? Sorry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Am I supposed to be outraged? I think this is an excellent policy by Apple. If you want to smoke and screw up your computer, don't expect Apple pay to fix it. Keeps the rest of our costs down.

<comment><USER5> _Keeps the rest of our costs down_

I was wondering why they were so affordable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The bottom line is that Apple will do anything in its power to avoid expenses that might impact their bottom line. This policy seems in accordance with others like having the humidity sensors and other "abuse" detectors incorporated into their products.

It's interesting to see this trend in Apple's policies, but I doubt they will have an overall effect in consumer spending. Most people will only find out about these holes in coverage until after they've purchased the machine and I don't think this will impact future purchases (e.g., "Go back to Windows? Never!").

Yet it's hardly what I would call a premium experience and much better coverage can be had elsewhere if you look for it.

</comment><comment><USER7> Are these people telling me i can't smoke in front of my computer? I do my own maintenance anyway(had to replace some fans a couple times, voided my warranty in the process). Sucks for ordinary people though. Hackers are sensitive to stupid rules, and in this case non-hackers got upset because of them, that means that the rules are extra stupid.

<comment><USER8> Go right ahead and smoke at your computer - just don't expect other people to fix it

<comment><USER7> There are many questions to be asked here. What is the impact of smoke to the machine? Is working on a contaminated machine actually dangerous? How many of the machines are taged as contaminated? Is that number high enough to be really dangerous if this rule didn't exist? Should there be a disclaimer explicitly stating that smoking voids the warranty?

With so many unknowns, i can't take this seriously, so i wrote my half-joking comment.

p.s. I am genuinely interested to know the effects of smoking on computers. I know it will kill me eventually, but what about my computer?

<comment><AUTHOR> You hard drive isn't airtight, so it's likely to accelerate failure. On PCBs, it creates a sticky residue and increases dust buildup, increasing the likelihood of a short circuit (somewhat) and a fire (very marginally).

'Smoke-free' equipment is definitely a selling in the market for music studio electronics, since (some) musicians smoke a lot and old dirty gear tends to be noisy and crackly because all the pots, faders, connections and so on may have years' worth of residue built up. ProTip: most people (an cleaning solutions) use isopropyl alcohol, but like all solvents this damages finishes and can affect electrical conductivity. There's stuff called Deoxit which is not too expensive and preferred by a lot of people for high-end electronics maintenance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As a smoker I can see their point but it makes me wonder why protective gear is not standard procedure? There are lots of nasty things besides smoke that can accumulate on a computer.</comment>


Ask HN: Looking for a developer? - <AUTHOR>

I hear here and there people saying: "There are no good developers to hire anymore." Well, I am currently looking for a job, and what I have concluded from my little research is that the way companies hire people makes me feel like nobody actually wants me.
I have to fill gazillions of fields, I have to go through various kinds of pre-interview processes, like this last one - its an automatic video interviewing system, that records my answers using some pre-recorded videos as questions. Cool system, technically, but I will have to spend hours on this thing. Ideally I would have to send a link to my resume or a pdf (where my name, email, and all the others are), and company would figure out on their own whether they want me or not. If they are interested, we can arrange video meetings or meet in person to see if I am not some weirdo. Like I sent my cv to twitter and they sent me that I am no fit for the position, fair enough. :) I still had to fill forms and write a cover letter. Obviously if I apply for the job, I am interested in the subject and interested in the company and willing to learn if anything beyond my knowledge appears. No need for cover letters. These days a lot of companies offers good salary, health coverage, gym and other benefits, so basically the company should "sell" it self to me - show why I should choose them, not the other way around.<p>Do you feel the same? <comment><USER2> Welcome to the bucket. I see you're new here. :)

Some tips for next time:

\- if they want timed coding challenges or quizzes, skip them

\- if they want you to work for a couple of days on a task to see your abilities, skip them

\- if they don't accept a Skype interview and insist on going to their headquarters in another city, skip them

\- if you're creative and like innovation, you're pretty much fucked because you don't fit the standard way of thinking

There is no shortage and there is no actual demand. Companies just want better people for less money. They say that are no more good developers. But what they mean is: _" There are no skilled suckers that will accept our ridiculously low pay"_.

You need to jump through hoops only so they can get an easier recruiting process. You're no longer a valuable resource. You're just a mindless robot that needs to meet specific keywords. Doesn't matter if you learn, adapt or solve problems. All that matters is how you fit on a very specific recipe. Interviews are the same. Vomit the fizzbuzz solution, some "core programming" buzzwords and maybe two or three generic tasks with stupid loaded questions. And you're hired.

Software developers are now just employed freelancers. Doesn't matter how you think or what you can do. All you need is keywords and experience with highly specific things.

<comment><USER3> Wow, I'm just a recent college grad, but you're experience seems vastly different than mine. That's a much more negative view than the one my friends and I developed going through job searches. I wonder what the most important contributing factors to the differences are.

<comment><USER2> You're fresh meat and cheaper. There are no downsides for hiring college grads. You take a low pay and learn the exact technology stack the company is using. But when you decide to change jobs, that's when the real fun starts.

<comment><USER3> Fair enough. Although the low pay thing is all relative. I went to a top school with heavy recruiting, so pretty much all of my friends going into tech took salaries in the 80k-200k range (or knowingly took a paycut to work somewhere particular such as taking a paycut for equity at a startup). To some people those salaries are massive and to others they're tiny. I guess I'll have to check back in on this comment thread in a few years.

<comment><USER4> Say that again? 200k for a new grad? Where may I ask?

<comment><USER3> I had a friend with a few offers from top places (of the google, facebook, microsoft sort of variety) who ended up taking one for about 100k a year base plus about 500k stock vesting over five years. That was definitely atypical, though, particularly on the stock front.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I agree, with some reservations.

>> I have to fill gazillions of fields, I have to go through various kinds of pre-interview processes, like this last one - its an automatic video interviewing system, that records my answers using some pre-recorded videos as questions. Cool system, technically, but I will have to spend hours on this thing.

If a potential employer doesn't respect your time during the interview phase, I'd be hard pressed to believe that they would respect your time and boundaries as an employee.

>> Obviously if I apply for the job, I am interested in the subject and interested in the company and willing to learn if anything beyond my knowledge appears. No need for cover letters.

This really isn't obvious, a lot of the time.

As someone who hired another developer recently, I estimate that 1/4 of resumes that came in had zero relevant experience, and I'd wager that MUCH less than 1/4 of the total candidates bothered to do any research on the company at all.

A lot of the "song and dance" of the hiring process really is necessary. Employers just need to remember to respect the time of the candidates.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have also gone through resumes looking for developer and I have to agree, that lot of people don't know where they are applying. But I feel like this is what companies should figure out them selves. I should just send my CV to them, to let them know I am interested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I believe you are proceeding about the job hunt in the wrong way. Don't go through the online process.

Find an employee who is already at the company you are interested in. This is one place where linkedin shines, but if you are interested in SV startups, try angellist. Contact them. Ask your questions. If there is further interest, ask for an intro to the hiring manager.

Don't play the game.

For more: [http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/basics1.htm](http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/basics1.htm)

</comment><comment><USER7> Go to tech meetups and small business meetups. Find good people in tech, the job offers will come second.

</comment><comment><USER8> I feel the same. I went through so many interviews in the last three months and now I feel sick of it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Have you tried [https://hired.com/](https://hired.com/) ?

<comment><USER10> Have you? I'm interested and curious about it.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should I leave working at a startup in favor of university? - <AUTHOR>

Hey HN,
I've been working as a software engineer in startups for the last 12 months since I graduated high school. I chose working in the industry over accepting the university place in Computer Science that I was offered. For added context: I'm a non-US citizen working in the US. The college offer was in my home country in Europe.
Fast forward 12 months and now I wonder how this decision will affect my long term employment prospects. While I would have work experience relevant to the positions for which I would like to potentially apply unless I change my course I will lack any quantification above a high school level on paper. I could see this being a possible disadvantage even in preliminary screening of applicants were I to apply for a job.
What I have seen of the tech industry would make me think that ability trumps your paperwork but I don't know how long that will last or whether I would be barred from working any higher up than simply being a developer. Would management positions be completely out of reach were I to continue? Can work experience really count more than a degree?
Any thoughts on this would really be appreciated as it's an issue that I have been pondering for quite some time. I figured HN would have a varied enough audience to be able to give good advice from all sides.
Thanks HN! <comment><USER2> If I were you, I'd take part time college classes and keep my current foot in the industry. Yes you will take longer to finish your degree but you don't have to worry about that if you are already employed. Besides, employers will respond better to somebody who is in the process of finishing their degree as opposed to somebody who never started in the first place. Finally worst that could happen is that you get fired and you don't find other employment. In that case you can enroll for full time study.

<comment> why-el This is a good point. You can even take in interesting problems from your job back to school for further analysis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Forget the job for a second, what about your life goals... Will you be satisfied with your lack of a degree?

How long do you think you will live for?

With current and future medical technologies you can expect a long life… let's say 100+ years. So, in how much of a hurry are you to get a job and make cash?

Even if education and other life experiences don't impact your employability, they are probably still worthwhile. And if you don't have that change the world idea lined up, then you're not missing any boat to go learn and explore.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would like to continue working in the space even if I break from work to go to university. I would intend on working in the same area coming out.

I would be satisfied if it didn't hold me back. What I don't want to happen is to come to a point where the lack of paper stops me from achieving what I want, whether that be a promotion to management or a different job.

At the moment I don't have any "change the world" ideas that would stop me going into university. I can see the benefit of both sides though, getting actual industry experience or taking the time to spend it on learning the fundamentals, personal development etc. The social aspect of university and the fact that I'm missing out on it at 20 has also crossed my mind.

<comment><USER3> Talking about 'promotions' and 'management' at your age seems a little blinkered. Even if you end up being a cog in a wheel, I don't think you should optimize for this. Having a comprehensive and broad world view, bringing things to the table besides your core discipline, these are just as important.

It also seems the days of higher education just being about a window of time around the age of 20, might be numbered. The education model of the future may be more about life long learning. That suggests you can go get new skills as you need them. But if you ever need some personal development and new experiences, that time will be now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You know what, my standard answer would be: "Go take a degree if you want to cross the screening barrier at companies for a job. This is what companies usually do to avoid spending time looking for individuals who don't have a degree but are awesome". But over a round of beers at a nice pub I would say is that the education system is highly overrated. If everybody started looking for talent of an individual, leaving aside the educational certificates they hold, we would have society working at its full potential. In my opinion, the aim should be learning, not getting a degree. Also to get higher up, you don't need a degree. Just because one has a degree doesn't mean one is capable of executing the task assigned to. Suppose, you get a degree and grab a job, but you fail to deliver. Are you still gonna get higher up? Now say, you get in without a degree, but really churn out a stellar performance at work. Is anybody going to stop you from climbing up? What is the difference between the two scenarios? One is of course the degree and the other one is the quality of work you are putting in. I really didn't give you an answer as you might have subconsciously made a decision but I hope I have propelled you to think more and take a right direction.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you choose not to go to uni, employers will want to know that you didn't go because you were too busy building, learning and achieving. So if you choose that route, be hungry to learn and experience more. Stand out by learning best-practice, being a confident communicator, networking, and by building your portfolio with paid employment and with exciting personal side projects :)

</comment><comment><USER6> I've long advocated eschewing an education in favor of real world experience. But at the same time, I know I draw my self-worth from my education. I wouldn't be as confident a person as I am today if I wasn't educated. There's nothing stopping you from pursuing a business or even intellectual pursuits without an education, but ask yourself if you will feel truly fulfilled without an education?

Moreover, you may miss out on the 'college phase' part of life (and what a glorious phase it is) and regret that later. Trust me, every single guy I know who started working early is jealous of college going kids who get to spend the best years of their life doing the best possible things on earth.

<comment><USER7> > But at the same time, I know I draw my self-worth from my education.

How so? Should your self-worth not be linked to what you achieve and how you treat others?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just my personal opinion:

* If you work in the field of software development, you may acquire a deeper appreciation for the value of a more complete education. This may increase your level of devotion and commitment if you return to school.

* By working in the field, you may acquire a better sense of which educational areas have value, and which don't need your attention.

* By working in the field, you will meet people with different degrees (and no degrees), and this may allow you some insight into which degrees have which prospects.

So my opinion is that working in the field has nothing but advantages. By the way, many colleges agree -- many of them recommend a "work-sabbatical" to give students some perspective on their educational choices.

> _Can work experience really count more than a degree?_

Sometimes, yes. It depends on the individual. Count the people in the field who don't have a college degree:

Bill Gates, Paul Allen, cofounders of Microsoft.

Larry Page, one of the cofounders of Google.

Mark Zuckerberg, you know -- Facebook?

Larry Ellison, Oracle founder.

The list goes on. The fact that none of these captains of industry has a college degree might mean something.

<comment><USER2> It means that if you have connections, a staggering initial capital, technical skills and education, a brilliant idea and a group of very talented friends you don't need to finish your degree.

Most people don't fall under that category.

<comment><USER8> > It means that if you have connections, a staggering initial capital ...

You're thinking of Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs (with whom I worked), yes? In fact, none of them meet your description, and all of them started with virtually nothing except a desire to succeed. All of them started in a literal or figurative garage.

This is not to disparage the worth of a college education, only to put it in perspective, at a time when tuition rates are rising much faster than inflation.

It's too easy to assign successful people to a category after the fact, even if the fact contradicts the myth.</comment></comment></comment>


This Foot Does Not Exist - GAN trained to generate foot pics - <AUTHOR> https://thisfootdoesnotexist.com/ <comment><USER2> Truely amazing read.</comment>


Ask HN: Why Doesn't Microsoft Fix Skype? - <AUTHOR> I think it's hard to argue that the current version of skype is an improvement over classic skype. It's much worse when switching between concurrent calls, and almost unusable with multiple people. Options to keep notifications on a single device only are missing. Skype contacts and calls end up into the phone's contact list. Why is it taking years for microsoft to put out a decent version of skype , or at least one that was as functional as skype classic? <comment><USER2> Former microsoftie, here.

From years of observation, it seems Microsoft tends to ignore products in industries that are in 1 of 2 states:

1\. Stagnant growth 2\. Low competition

Skype is in the former.

It's embedded deep in the culture to follow rather than lead. (Edit: I should add that it's not that Microsoft doesn't try to lead, its just that generally they aren't very good at it. They are much better as a second mover. Far more so it seems than other companies.)

Most of their great products were a response to a rapid rise of a competitor.

Windows after Apple's GUI. Word after Wordperfect. Excel after Lotus 1 2 3. IE after Netscape. Azure after AWS. C# & .NET after Java. SQL Server after Oracle.

Once the industry stops growing or there is no competition, the product is neglected or drifts listlessly unless another company causes the space to boom financially again or gain mindshare, in which case Microsoft _might_ start moving again.

(The only place where Microsoft truly leads is in developer platforms, because they are a company of developers, so they get it better than the other products they offer.)

Don't get me wrong, I use Microsoft products almost exclusively.

I've just learned to be very depressed when Microsoft doesn't face an existential threat with the piece of software I use. The product will inevitably drift and likely even get worse over time, until another company can create an existential threat (like Chrome has done to an extent) and literally drag Microsoft kicking and screaming into putting serious thought into the product again.

It's just in their DNA, I guess...

But when they do finally get around to it, they usually do something cool. See VS Code, WSL, etc.

So we just need someone to make Skype-like products cool again, and ideally start making millions upon millions in the process, and then Skype will improve. :)

<comment><USER3> Wow, this is a new angle I never thought about on the company's culture. It could also explain Microsoft's more aggressive approach against Linux/Open Source in the early 00s. Also agree about developer tools, currently they are on point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The app is designed towards satisfying the need of most users. They see Skype as a single app, whether it's used on mobile or desktop, so it makes sense that calls and contacts are synchronized. If you start a chat on the desktop client, you want to be able to continue it on your phone. Same thing with notifications. This separation you want feels unnatural (and I remember it was actually a complain most people had when it was not like that).

Could you elaborate on the difficulty with concurrent calls? I'm never in two or more calls at the same time so I'm curious.

I really don't like the current design because they took a lot of options away (e.g. you can't customize the themes that much and they look ugly to me). However, at least on Linux, it seems to be improving.

I think they are trying to be everything to everybody, power users and non- tech mobile users and are failing at both. The network effect part of this makes it hard to separate those two audiences though.

Is there a call/chat app that you like better?

<comment><AUTHOR> > you want to be able to continue it on your phone.

OK i understand that, but at least have the option to somehow have "less than 3 phones and computers ringing at the same time for a call". Also , i know it s a windows thing , but i dont want to receive msg notifications on a computer if skype is not running on it (but i do want notifications if i have it running).

[I should note i m talking about the desktop version]

> Could you elaborate on the difficulty with concurrent calls?

Allow popping out each chat window separately. Switching from a call to a text message of another user causes redrawing the entire page and loses the layout every time. It's very annoying. Also don't reset the setting of (view full video) whenever i resize the window.

> Is there a call/chat app that you like better?

Good question. Zoom's video chat management seems more reasonable, and as for the chat, just use the skype classic layout, it's simple. In fact yes i think i like skype classic better ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you think Skype is bad, you should try Skype for Business.

Microsoft really don't care about its customers if you judge it on _that_ application.

<comment><USER6> Skype for Business is being shut down and moved to Teams over the next few weeks. Which is good news, I suppose.

<comment><USER7> You'll miss Skype for B.

Teams is a mess. An electron app that is a voice/video/chat/forum/Sharepoint front end can't be anything else.

All IM and Voice apps only get worse over time. AIM was probably the best overall client to this day. The video stuff was lacking (understanding given it was 20 years ago), but the UI wasn't hostile, audio was great, and end to end encryption was there for those who wanted it.

<comment><USER6> At work we've had both Skype for Business and Teams running in parallel with the freedom to use what we like. I prefer Teams to the point where I don't even turn on Skype anymore.

<comment><USER7> It depends on what you use. The big issue is that it's a memory pig and folks with constrained resources or working with other piggy apps have a lousy experience. It works a lot better in your normal Chrome browser!

The other thing is that people can't communicate between teams and Skype in many scenarios. There are also potential compliance gotchas for some scenarios that are difficult to identify.

I'm wary of anything new with Microsoft as when you stray from the happy path, (which changes over time) they don't test or fix regressions anymore and create downstream problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My corp uses a Microsoft Office stack and we've been told Skype is being deactivated and everyone needs to move to Teams.

So the answer as I see it is "because of Teams".

<comment><USER9> I think Skype for business is moving to teams, regular Skype is staying.

<comment><USER10> This is right. They're _finally_ killing Lync.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Teams is meant to be the modern replacement.

<comment><USER12> Teams is not a replacement of SFB but a performance-hungry, battery-killing, unusably slow and overloaded poor mash-up of Skype, SharePoint and Mail in an attempt to beat Slack.

<comment><USER6> Not too hard to beat Slack's user experience though.

<comment><USER13> Beside Discord, everything else is pretty bad compared to Slack. Microsft and Google failed to deliver anything usable for the last 10 years.

<comment><USER14> Discord and VSCode really seem to prove that there can be good Electron apps. These apps are great, and take advantage of the perks of web technologies.

Now when I look at Slack or Atom...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Verdict is In: Amazon drops 5.3%, wiping out $2.9B of market cap - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/search?q=amzn

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course, this probably doesn't reflect market value directly destroyed, so much as the market reacting to the new information about Amazon's sanity.

S&P 500 up 1.43% for the day, and AMZN was down another 4% on top of that earlier in the day.

Just thought it was worth mentioning the market's verdict: yes, it _was_ stupid.</comment>


A correction in startup valuations would be good news for the technology sector - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21679194-correction-startup-valuations-would-be-good-news-technology-sector-gored <comment><USER3> Damn, a billion dollars is alot of money. Amazing that something can be put together in less than 5 years that is worth multiple billions of dollars. Even more surprising that you can amass a list of 100+ companies that are less than 10 years old and worth tens of billions.

I foresee alot of NFL and MLB team owners in the next 10 years.

<comment><USER4> _I foresee alot of NFL and MLB team owners in the next 10 years._

Especially when _that_ bubble bursts and the price of a major sports team comes crashing down.

<comment><USER5> Hmm - that's such a tightly controlled market, with such limited ability to disrupt the core business model (tickets + merchandising + licensing rights = cash), that I wouldn't really think of it as a bubble. What are your thoughts?

<comment><USER4> Most of the revenue comes from TV contracts which have exploded in recent years as sports have become the primary reason to continue to have a cable subscription.

Netflix has almost 70 million subscribers[1], and cable-based companies, especially for sports networks like ESPN[2], are hemorrhaging subscribers.

TV contracts for sports are overvalued as a dying delivery mechanism throws all of its capital at the last stronghold it has. When cable companies shrink to the point where they can no longer afford to offer these contracts, you're going to see revenue in all the major sports sharply contract.

It's going to be fun to watch. Protracted labor disputes as revenue based CBAs are re-negotiated, mass sell-offs of franchises as sub-billionaire owners are forced out, and (perhaps most exciting) the rise of professional gaming - <USER2> industry ahead of the curve in streaming media.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix) [2][http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattconnolly/2015/11/27/espn- dow...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattconnolly/2015/11/27/espn- down-7-million-subscribers-in-2-years-biggest-loser-among-disney-cable- channels/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The author never makes the connection (for me) in how this is good news for the technology "sector". Three over-generalized and shaky premises applies to the entire industry? Ridiculous.

There are probably multiple I-told-you-so's waiting in the wings from those who have raised large amounts of investment dollars with potentially hard-to- fathom implied valuations. The causes will be many, and lessons-learned will be summarily written. The label associated with the mythological creature is noise, not signal.

In the end, failure is a good thing in the tech sector. To quote Bill Gates, "Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose."

<comment><USER7> "A correction may teach startups to focus less on headline numbers, more on fundamentals."

To me, this is the most important sentence in the article. The amount of hand- waving in this industry is staggering. The point of a business is to create value. Most of us would interpret this as, "create value for a customer." The idea being you then capture the value you've created later on.

There are hundreds... thousands of people working in and running startups that totally miss this mark. "Create value," to them, means, "get an amazing valuation." You know those stories about hyper-competitive MBA-types? There are people around us who base their own self-worth on how much money they raise compared to their peers. I have an inkling that it's becoming a bit of an epidemic.

The article hits the nail on the head in that top-performing firms can't create enough of a signal to be heard over all of this "valuation aggression." How can they compete? Get more narcissistic and play the game everybody else is playing... now we have all the makings of a positive feedback loop. It's easy to forget fundamentals.

I welcome a correction, and I don't think it's pessimistic to do so. It's just economic homeostasis at work. Need to negate that feedback loop at some point. The competent and well-intentioned will be the most likely to survive. It's why we argue for a free market, right? :)

<comment><USER6> This is all true, but a broad-based correction (whatever that looks like) will do little to change the behavior you're mentioning.

Hand-waving? Been around forever, and it will continue to be. Hyper- competitive MBA types? Existed well before the tech industry.

These are personality traits, and while annoying, do not drive this industry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think a billion dollars is reasonable when you consider that these new businesses pretty much sell either products or services to the entire world, the market is not limited to the united states.

<comment><USER9> Selling products and services all over the world doesn't add value unless you have a business model that allows you to _profit_ from those transactions.

<comment><USER8> And what makes you assume that they will fail to profit off of their user base?

<comment><USER10> I'd say that's a far more reasonable default assumption than that a business _does_ make a profit.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Did Techcrunch really kill Blognation? Time – and the courts – will tell - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/03/not-safe-for-work-techcrunch

<comment><AUTHOR> to be honest I resisted posting this because its heavily laden with drama.

But I quite enjoyed the UK vs US subtext.</comment>


Boeing 737 Max Aircraft: Preliminary Investigative Findings [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/TI%20Preliminary%20Investigative%20Findings%20Boeing%20737%20MAX%20March%202020.pdf <comment><USER2> Having worked with Boeing on other aerospace programs (not commercial though) and having been on the Gov side, the basic findings ring true. Boeing's culture really is as flawed as the report reads. The idea that Dennis Muilenburg, however, originated or did more than prior company management to foster this culture, is nonsense. They remain, even today, operating with this culture. The real problem that stands in the way of "fundamental structural reform" is that regardless of specific aerospace market, few alternatives to Boeing exist. And don't think the corporate cultures at other traditional US aerospace primes is consistently better.

The points about Government acquiescence to Boeing pressure in performing regulation also resonate. Beware the tendency to make this a single-axis "more vs. less" regulation issue. The solution isn't "more regulation". The central concern should about regulatory culture. Ultimately, responsibility lines must be drawn, standards established, adjudication performed, and unique or specific situations accommodated. Inevitably, the "less regulation" crowd corrodes the kind of regulatory culture that serves the best interests of the populace in these processes. Good regulation depends on having highly- competent, wise, empowered, and apolitical persons on the Government side. While providing regulatory organizations lots of funding doesn't ensure that they hire, empower, and maintain such a cadre, starving them of resources and implying the Government can never be competent, so it should reflect the role back to Industry, is pathological and will produce outcomes like the 737 Max.

We need to not just empower and provide adequate resources to regulators, but also demand and foster a culture of competence and good judgment^. Making that happen is a lot harder than arguing about "more or less", but necessary for proper outcomes.

^"good judgment" here explicitly excludes decision-making with regard to political implications

<comment><USER3> > and foster a culture of competence and good judgment

I agree.. but I don't think you can do that organically. I think part of the issue is the size of the corporations, the concentration of that corporate power, and the inability of the market or regulatory agencies to function correctly when this is the case.

You get cultures of competence and good judgement when there is a real competitive market with multiple strong players each vying to have the best products.

<comment><USER2> I should have been more clear and said "foster a culture of regulatory competence and good judgment".

This is certainly achievable with the right leadership, wide-basis political protection (cannot be achieved when an agency's leadership is subject to unprincipled undercutting by the President), and sufficient resources.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is huge.

It confirms basically everything I've read over the past year on the topic (mainly on hn). Culture of concealment, production pressure, self-oversight, conflicts of interest, faulty assumptions.

Like many other lessons borrowed from commercial aviation, these are supremely relevant to tech companies.

Edit: BA stock down 1.27% in after-hours trade. I guess the market has decided that this behaviour is fine.

<comment><USER5> Boeing is too nationalist to fail; there is no way the US government will allow itself to be without a civilian airliner builder and have to buy planes from Airbus or Embraer. Plus they'd take with them the absorbed remains of McDonnell Douglas.

<comment><USER6> Boeing are poised to acquire Embraer: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us- embraer-m-a-boeing/boeing...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-embraer-m-a- boeing/boeing-to-take-over-4-75-billion-embraer-unit-targeting-airbus- bombardier-idUSKBN1JV1D2)

<comment><USER7> It should be disallowed. It's more anti-competitive conglomeration, and risks the contagion of corruption.

<comment><USER8> Don't expect it to blocked under our current president. Bolsonaro is basically a Bazilian Trump.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Most troubling to me is this:

> AA technical and safety experts determined that certain Boeing design > approaches on its transport category aircraft were potentially unsafe and > failed to comply with FAA regulation, only to have FAA management overrule > them and side with Boeing instead

from the linked citation [0]:

> In 2015, the FAA drafted an issue paper, finalized in 2016, that offered > Boeing a chance to establish compliance without implementing a design > change.4 At least six FAA specialists refused to concur

>It is our understanding that non-concurrence by FAA technical specialists is fairly infrequent and not to be taken lightly. In addition, my staff has been told that it was virtually unprecedented for six or more FAA specialists to jointly non-concur on a single issue, highlighting the gravity of their concerns regarding the rudder cable issue. Despite all of this, in June 2017, the F AA's Transport Airplane Directorate upheld the controversial issue paper

Someone needs to name names, and those people should be investigated for corruption.

[0] [https://transportation.house.gov/news/press-releases/amid- co...](https://transportation.house.gov/news/press-releases/amid-committees- ongoing-investigation-into-the-certification-of-the-737-max-chairs-defazio- and-larsen-raise-new-and-serious-concerns-to-faa-about-other-safety-related- issues-)

<comment><USER10> Sounds like the FAA needs to do some house cleaning in there upper management because they're in bed with Boeing.

<comment><USER9> It's the White House that is responsible for doing that "house cleaning" of the FAA's upper management, since those folks are political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the President.

I don't know about you, but I don't see the current admin prioritizing the flushing out of regulators in bed with industry.

That's why I say name some names.

<comment> drevil-v2 I'd like to point out that vast majority of this lax enforcement of FAA oversight of the Boeing 737 Max certification happened during the Obama Administration by political appointees of Barrack Obama and the Democratic Party.

I am centre-left political (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) and It really really bothers me to see the double standards. Once you start to notice the pattern of one-sided appropriation of blame in pretty much every f __king scenario, you end up discounting any criticism of republicans as bias.

<comment><USER11> It's really disappointing to see this comment downvoted. Apparently we're all fine with blaming the current administration for not firing them but we're not ok with blaming a previous administration for hiring them?

We've also had countless posts talking negatively on the very merger that lead this iteration of Boeing (McDonnel-Douglas) with no regard for the administration that basically encouraged the merger.

It's okay to admit it guys: both parties suck and are corporate shills.

<comment><USER9> > Apparently we're all fine with blaming the current administration for not > firing them but we're not ok with blaming a previous administration for > hiring them

One of these two parties has the ability to affect change. It's not the latter.

<comment><USER12> The official report just came out. On what grounds would the existing administration just fire upper level management at an early stage?

The appropriate response would be to force FAA to ground the planes (if and which FAA did not do themselves), and wait for the official report and then open an investigation in to Boeing and FAA. Time is a factor to take into account.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > These five recurring themes paint a disturbing picture of Boeing's > development and production of the 737 MAX and the FAA's ability to provide > appropriate oversight of Boeing's 737 MAX program.

No, these five recurring themes paint a disturbing picture of Boeing's development and production of ALL its aircraft.

<comment><USER14> I don't think the statement even needs to be limited to aircraft. We can see the same themes in the development of the CST-100 starliner capsule (spacecraft).

<comment><USER15> I think this explains a bit of the fanboy love for SpaceX. It's the energetic little guy versus the corrupt lethargic vampires.

<comment><USER16> They want to deliver man-rated rockets but can't even construct a fuel tank that won't blow up. SpaceX has got its own set of problems.

<comment><USER17> You're leaving out their 83 completely successful launches of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy[0] in favor of their R&D efforts.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There was an interview with the new Boing CEO quite recently: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/business/boeing-david- cal...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/business/boeing-david-calhoun.html)

He pretty much blamed it all on the previous CEO.

Asked whether he believed American pilots would have been able to handle a malfunction of the software, Mr. Calhoun asked to speak off the record. The New York Times declined to do so.

"Forget it," Mr. Calhoun then said. "You can guess the answer."

Does it mean that Boeing maintains its position that the MCAS was not "that bad" and it's on the pilots for not handling the Boeing's mistake? Is he suggesting that we should avoid Boeing Aircraft unless the pilots are American?

<comment><USER19> This seems like a rationalization in the CEO's part.

Boeing's system safety analysis categorized MCAS as 'hazardous'. Even with the wrong categorization (there's a strong argument it should've been labeled 'catastrophic') if they followed their own design procedures hazardous systems should have redundant sensors. Besides the fact his reply defies a good understanding of human factors in engineering, when management deflects responsibility to their customers it is extremely troubling.

Cognitive dissonance is dangerous in leadership.

<comment><USER20> It's even worse than that. If it is believed that the plane is only suitable for American pilots, it should not even be sold outside of the USA...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Other reporting has called MCAS the product of a systemic failure, and asserts underfunding of the FAA to be among the ultimate causes. Underfunding being "worked-around" by delegating the work to Boeing:

>(ARs)—Boeing employees who are granted special permission to represent the interests of the FAA and to act on the agency's behalf in validating aircraft systems and designs' compliance with FAA requirements

Others have pointed out that the conflict of interest inherent in this must pervade AR's daily work environment, and indeed the report pays brief lip service to the contradiction:

>4) Conflicted Representation. The Committee has found that the FAA's current oversight structure with respect to Boeing creates inherent conflicts of interest ...

So why do it that way, and why do my searches of the investigation's PDF for "funding", "budget", and "staffing" come up empty?

Consider, then, that responsibility for setting the operating budget of the FAA belongs to the House -- the very same running this investigation.

[https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/miss...](https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/budget/304496/faa- fy2019cj-budgetfinal508compliant.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER22> An excellent write up of the crashed by a pilot: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max- crashes.html) I highly recommend you read it. It's not to exonerate Boeing, but it does bring up issues that none else talked about.

</comment><comment><USER23> Wow, this is incredibly damning and all but blames the Boeing and ineffective FAA oversight for the tragic crashes.

I hope this leads to significant fines for Boeing and jailtime for the more egregious actors involved; according to the report, their negligence directly led to the loss of lives. Knowing how important Boeing is to national security/the economy, I'm skeptical that enough will be done...

</comment><comment><USER24> (edits: formatting).

Cue the obligatory comment of Boeing is a company with an insanely great engineering culture and their engineers lived in an idyllic culture of building great and _safe_ products. This great culture was all lost as a result of the merger with McDonnell Douglas [1], [2], [3].

Somehow the Boeing apologists want you to think that the unholy trinity of the ghost of McDonnell Douglas through the CEO at the time of the merger Harry C. Stonecipher (the father) and Dennis Muilenburg (the Son) who greenlighted the 737 MAX are responsible for this abomination. So much so that of the thousands of engineers who worked on the 737 Max not a single one raised issues with the engineering of the aircraft or wrote a blistering memo calling out its failing or quit in protest. They were all held in thrall by the power of this unholy trinity!

In the theory of causation, we distinguish between proximate vs. ultimate causality. Every proximate event can plausibly be claimed to be the cause for a subsequent event. As they say for want of a nail the war was lost. What is plausibly the cause for the engineering fiasco of the 737 Max? Why go back to the merger and why not blame the 9/11 or the election of G.W Bush or even Barack Obama's for this disaster? Why go back to the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas? Because it allows Boeing engineers to deflect blame for the terrible product they built and foisted on the flying public by coasting on their past reputations.

Eventually, all stellar organizations, public or private, become complacent (e.g. Israeli Intelligence Failure, 1973). Boeing made an unstable plane with a dangerous MCAS to get it to market fast. They then topped it off by making it rely on a single sensor and made the dual-sensor an _upgrade_. A sophomore engineering student with a 101 course on probability can see that this is tailor-made for diaster. They made an essential safety feature an upgrade!! They then proceeded to hide this monstrosity from every regulator and airline on the planet and insist that the plane was no different in every aspect of its flight behavior than its predecessor which was over 30 years old.

Boeing had become so criminally blatant that the head of airline training at Lion Air inquired about extra training for the 737 Max and they rebuffed him. After the Lion Air crash, Boeing proceeded to cast aspersion on the safety practices of Lion Air. Lion Air _does_ have a spotty safety record but in this case, Boeing rebuffed their requests for additional training because it would set a precedent for other airlines in SE Asia. When that lack of training was a factor in the crash, Boeing proceeded to blame Lion Air. The mind boggles at the sheer chutzpah!

The recently released messages show how Boeing employees worked in unison to ensure no extra simulator training was required. Great engineering culture obsessed with safety, this aint!

Go ahead and blame the McDonnel Douglas merger for this. Or accept that whatever stellar engineering culture existed at Boeing is dead. We as a society need to stop scapegoating imaginary forces in the past and giving Boeing's engineers a pass. We need to start agreeing that strong regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of the products Boeing puts out.

[1] [https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing- merg...](https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merger-led- to-the-737-max-crisis/)

[2] [https://fortune.com/longform/boeing-737-max-crisis- sharehold...](https://fortune.com/longform/boeing-737-max-crisis-shareholder- first-culture/)

[3] [https://www.perell.com/blog/boeing-737-max](https://www.perell.com/blog/boeing-737-max)

<comment><USER25> > This great culture was all lost as a result of the merger with McDonnell > Douglas

Not because of the merger, but because management deliberately set out to change the entire company culture from being engineering-driven to being business-driven. Business-driven as in: cut corners to save money.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how- boeing...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost- its-bearings/602188/)

<comment><USER24> That is exactly the point I am refuting. That is non-falsifiable. The claim you are making that the merger changed culture which changed their safety outcomes is as non-falsifiable as the dot-com crash killed their morale which changed safety culture.

Of course the merger argument sounds more plausible i.e. it is a better rationalization but again non-falsifiable.

Whatever killed Boeing's engineering culture is irrelevant. Arguing over that is a distraction from the fact that Boeing's _current_ engineering culture pushed this product to market.

<comment><USER26> > Whatever killed Boeing's engineering culture is irrelevant.

Oh I'd disagree. To fix the problem and prevent it from happening again at Boeing or elsewhere, it would be good to figure out how the culture at Boeing became so broken in the first place.

I worked for Boeing back when the corporate HQ was moved from Seattle to Chicago. At the time I remember thinking how bizarre that seemed. Why would someone in a leadership position want to separate themselves from the rank and file and lose that valuable insight and visibility into operations?

Eh. My problem was likely in assuming that most corporate leadership positions are filled with actual leaders.

<comment><USER27> Condit needed an excuse to hide from his wife: Move girlfriend to Chicago and construct a reason to spend time there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The key technical reason is this one: "While multiple factors led to these accidents, both crashes shared a key contributing factor: a new software system called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which Boeing developed to address stability issues in certain flight conditions induced by the plane's new, larger engines, and their relative placement on the 737 MAX aircraft compared to the engines' placement on the 737 NG."

<comment><USER28> Cf. "How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer / Design shortcuts meant to make a new plane seem like an old, familiar one are to blame" [https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the- boeing-...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the- boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > In March 2016,Boeing sought,and the FAA approved,removal of references to > MCAS from Boeing's Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM),ensuring 737 MAX > pilots were unaware of this new software and its potential effect on the > aircraft's handling without pilot command.

Are the execs in jail?

<comment><USER30> No, but the Chief Technical Pilot who requested it has lawyered up with an independent lawyer from Boeing's general counsel.

Odds are his conscience is weighing heavily on him, and he doesn't trust that Boeing's council won't attempt to pin it on him acting alone. Corporate culture is rife with leaving subordinates to act on implied mandates in order to insulate executives from the potential for criminal liability. The idea is if the criminal thing works and no one finds out, the exec gets their bonus; if it blows up, the exec never _told_ them to do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Knowing this, how fixable is the 737 MAX technically and politically?

<comment><USER32> Technically - easier. They have to remove MCAS and retrain the pilots as a new type.

But rebuilding the trust will be harder.

<comment><USER33> The aircraft could probably be safe and pass certification with MCAS in place, but the following issues made it dangerous:

* It was undocumented.

* It had too much control authority. It was able to adjust the trim such that the elevator could not overcome the trim's pitch-down force, and such that the average pilot did not have enough strength to use the manual trim wheel to neutralize the trim in a dive.

* They removed the switch to turn it off. On older 737s, there's one switch to turn off automated control of stabilizer trim, and another to disconnect power to the motor, completely disabling electric trim. On the Max, both switches perform the latter function.

* They made it rely on only one sensor. I can't imagine the logic for that since two sensors are physically present, and damage to AOA sensors is not rare.

* The AOA disagree warning light, which would have clued pilots in to the presence of a faulty sensor was not present in most aircraft, despite documentation to the contrary.

<comment><USER34> > They made it rely on only one sensor. I can't imagine the logic for that > since two sensors are physically present, and damage to AOA sensors is not > rare.

The logic for that is really simple: each sensor is wired to one of the two computers. Each computer uses its own sensor. This was an already existing design, MCAS is just a new function added to these computers.

(AFAIK, other aircraft like Airbus have multiple sensors wired to each computer, so for them it would be natural to use more than one sensor.)

<comment><USER35> Both computers have access to both sensor's data. The computers are networked together.

This is how they implement the AoA disagree function (the one which was broken in 90% of MAXes for unrelated reasons). It's also how they managed to implement a software update which makes MCAS take data from both sensors.

The logic for not implementing both sensors is much more insidious.

If you implement both sensors, then you have to deal with the case that infomation from sensors might disagree. The computer has no idea sensor is providing correct data, so the only thing it can really do is disable itself when the sensors disagree.

If MCAS has the ability to disable itself, then it must provide feedback to pilots it has done so, and have pilots follow some procedures. If there were procedures, then Boeing would have to add pilot training about what MCAS was and how things would be different when it disabled itself.

Boeing made it rely on only a single sensor to bypass training requirements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I am concerned that the Dreamliner is also a potentially unsafe aircraft, as has been suggested often. Please see the last bullet point on page 5. Is anyone aware of this exact issue?

</comment><comment><USER37> > Boeing also withheld knowledge that a pilot would need to diagnose and > respond to a "stabilizer runaway" condition caused by an erroneous MCAS > activation in 10 seconds or less, or risk catastrophic consequences.1

Both the LA and EA crews did respond withing 10 seconds and restore normal trim using the electric trim switches. LA worked on the issue for 5 minutes, EA for a couple minutes.

The findings did not mention that Boeing issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive to all MAX crews after the LA crash that contained correct instructions on how to recover from it - restore normal trim with the electric trim switches, then cut off the stab trim with the console switch.

Both crews were able to restore normal trim repeatedly with the electric trim switches. But LA never cut off the trim, and EA cut off the trim when it was in a dive, not after restoring the normal trim.

<comment><USER38> I was not the pilot error, neither the first nor the second time. The planes behaved exactly how no plane should be allowed to behave, effectively turning on the "I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave" reaction many times. And there are no reasonable excuses to that.

<comment><USER37> I'm not arguing that Boeing didn't make mistakes with the design, they did. I'm pointing out that the "10 seconds" thing is not the cause of the crashes, and that both crews (especially the EA one) did have the information they needed to recover.

Runaway stab trim should never happen, but the reason the cutoff switches are there are so it can be recovered from. It's the same with fire extinguishers on airplanes. Fire should never happen on an airplane, but we expect the pilots to know how to use the fire extinguishing systems when it does.

<comment><USER38> Some important points from the PDF that show that it was not the problem with the pilots:

\- In 2015, a Boeing AR raised the question of whether MCAS was "vulnerable to single AOA sensor failures…." Despite this, the aircraft was delivered with MCAS dependent on a single AOA sensor.

\- After Boeing redesigned MCAS in 2016 to increase its power to move the aircraft's stabilizer at low speed, Boeing never reevaluated a single- and multiple-failure analysis of MCAS.

\- In March 2016, Boeing sought, and the FAA approved, removal of references to MCAS from Boeing's Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM), ensuring 737 MAX pilots were unaware of this new software and its potential effect on the aircraft's handling without pilot command.

\- Boeing's design of MCAS violated its own internal requirements which demanded that the system "not have any objectionable interaction with the piloting of the airplane" and "not interfere with dive recovery," which occurred in both 737 MAX crashes.

\- In August 2017, five months after the 737 MAX was certified by the FAA and three months after it entered revenue service, Boeing issued a problem report to its supplier complaining that the 737 MAX's AOA Disagree alert was tied to an optional AOA Indicator display and therefore was not functioning on the vast majority of the 737 MAX fleet worldwide.

\- Rather than immediately informing the FAA and Boeing customers about this issue, and advising Boeing to fix the problem via a software update as soon as possible, a Boeing AR consented to Boeing's plan to postpone the software update until 2020 (...)

\- Although Boeing prepared a "Fleet Team Digest" to inform its customers about the inoperable AOA Disagree alert, the company never sent it, keeping its customers in the dark about the inoperable alert.

\- Boeing provided Lion Air a Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM) on August 16, 2018, one year after learning that the AOA Disagree alert was not functioning on most 737 MAX aircraft, highlighting the operation of the AOA Disagree alert. Boeing failed to indicate that it knew the AOA Disagree alert on the Lion Air 737 MAX aircraft was not operational.

\- Boeing did not acknowledge that the AOA Disagree alerts on an estimated 80 percent of the 737 MAX fleet were inoperative until after the Lion Air crash in October 2018.

\- Boeing's own analysis showed that _if pilots took more than 10 seconds to identify and respond to a "stabilizer runaway" condition caused by uncommanded MCAS activation the result could be catastrophic._ The Committee has found no evidence that Boeing shared this information with the FAA, customers, or 737 MAX pilots.

\- Boeing had tremendous financial incentive to ensure that no regulatory determination requiring pilot simulator training for the 737 MAX was made. This incentive included a Boeing contract with Southwest Airlines, its U.S. launch customer, that would have cost Boeing more than $1 million per aircraft it delivered to Southwest if pilot simulator training was required for Southwest pilots transitioning to the 737 MAX from the 737 NG. At the time of the Lion Air crash, Southwest had ordered or pre-ordered an estimated 280 737 MAX aircraft from Boeing.

\- In March 2017, the month the 737 MAX was certified by the FAA, Boeing's 737 Chief Technical Pilot responded to colleagues about the prospects of 737 MAX simulator training, saying: "Boeing will not allow that to happen. We'll go face to face with any regulator who tries to make that a requirement."

<comment><USER37> There's no excuse for not reading, comprehending, and remembering the Emergency Airworthiness Directive. Put another way, would you be comfortable flying with a pilot who did not pay attention to EADs? I wouldn't.

Furthermore, the LA crew on the flight immediately preceding the LA crash experienced the same problem, and simply restored trim and turned off the stab trim system, and landed safely. They had no knowledge of MCAS. No extraordinary feat of airmanship was required. No lightning reactions were necessary. They simply remembered what the cutoff switches were for, as they were supposed to.

<comment><USER38> > experienced the same problem, and simply restored trim and turned off the > stab trim system, and landed safely

As far as I remember it was far from "simply." Apparently they had luck of having a third pilot in the cabin present, who didn't have to maintain anything else in the cabin and had the luxury and time to observe and think about what is going on. The pilots in charge were overwhelmed by the killer plane then too, which is completely expected -- note the "10 seconds" admitted in my quotations.

So, no, as far as I remember, the previous LA flight actually doesn't support your claims.

<comment><USER37> > they had luck of having a third pilot in the cabin present

They did indeed, one who remembered that the solution to runaway trim is to turn off the trim system. This is something that is supposed to be a "memory item".

Note that all three sets of flight crews successfully countered the runaway trim using the electric trim switches. They were not overwhelmed to the point of not understanding that the trim system was the problem, as they were countering it.

This was so underwhelming to the first LA crew that they didn't even bother to inform the next crew about it, or even have the plane taken out of service and fixed.

<comment><USER38> > This was so underwhelming to the first LA crew that they didn't even bother > to inform the next crew about it, or even have the plane taken out of > service and fixed.

The pilots were from the cultures where deference to authority, specifically, failure to even talk about the problem to those "above in the hierarchy" provably previously caused other airplane accidents. The crews since learned to function in the cockpit. But this required such an attitude outside of the cockpit for those who managed respond, "sticking their necks out" from their point of view, so they avoided it. Again, nothing to use as the proof that the plane was not utterly dangerous.

<comment><USER37> > Again, nothing to use as the proof that the plane was not utterly dangerous.

I don't believe that a crew that thought they had narrowly escaped death from a "killer plane" with some horrific defect would fail to notify the next flight crew, and not have the plane grounded until it was fixed.

It's their _job_ to do that, and not doing it should bring them up on charges of dereliction.

It's much more credible that they didn't think it was a big deal.

I don't have any more facts about that flight - nothing is ever reported about it. I sure hope the NTSB includes it in their investigation, as finding out what went on in that flight and what the crew did afterwards is crucial.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What companies should I join if I want to bootstrap a SaaS on the side? - <AUTHOR> And eventually make enough off of it to leave the job? <comment><USER2> Home Depot is hiring and they don't care what you bootstrap in your own time.

Are you asking for a list of companies? That's a big ask since you don't mention your skills, goals, or what domain the SAAS product might serve,

Don't join a company that's even remotely in the same business as your side project — you don't want to get accused of IP theft or competing with your employer. Don't use any of your employer's resources for your own work. Have your own laptop, online accounts, phone, internet connection, and don't do any side work at your employer's office. Talk to a lawyer to make sure your employer can't claim ownership of your side work.</comment>


Mozilla tells DHS: we won't help you censor the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/05/mozilla-tells-dhs-we.html <comment><USER2> This is exactly why i stopped reading boingboing; there's a tendency to ascribe meaning to actions that just isn't there. Mozilla said no such thing. What they said was more like "we won't just do whatever a government agency tells us to unless legally compelled to do so." I'm pleased Mozilla did this, but their stance is not the one it's being portrayed as here.

<comment><USER3> I was fairly sure this link introduced no new information on the subject. Thanks for confirming the suspicion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> i'd like to see a movement which clearly places the internet above the sovereignty of any nation

<comment><USER5> it's called humanity. The sovereignty of your nation is really only important to your sovereign. No one else really cares, except insofar as much as your sovereign can steal money from you and give it to them.

Stop confusing your 'country' with your 'nation state' the two are not synonymous. Your country is important because it contains people with whom you share culture, your nation state is a bunch of pieces of paper and lines drawn on a map, if no one believed in these pieces of paper and lines on maps it would cease to exist.

The nation state is next on the list of business models that the internet is going to kill. They aren't going to take it lightly.

<comment><USER6> I care. It's little things like not having all my stuff taken from me by armed thugs and not getting murdered that are important to me.

I guess you value information freedom over basic living conditions huh.

I also like this thing called democracy and freedom of speech, which a bunch of people, normal everyday people like me, round the world really don't like. There's a hell of a lot of them.

And even if they do like democracy, they also rather like this totally bizarre idea to me called religion. In my sovereign state is pretty insignificant. I can poke fun at it. They makes a lot, billions of people, not very happy. Just not in my little sovereign state.

It's great being in my country. There's a social state, which a bunch of American's think is a really bad idea but which I, and a lot of my sovereign state, happen to think is pretty nifty.

So before you start saying that the sovereignty of your nation is really only important to your sovereign, take a look at all the people in England who love being English, France, who love being French, Iranians, who love being Iranian, Indians, who love being Indian, Chinese, who love being Chinese, Russians, who love being Russians. You get the idea.

I personally think you and reality are very far divorced in your views of sovereignty. A lot of people like it.

<comment><USER5> I'm pretty sure thats the same reasoning Kings and Queens used for thousands of years to describe all the horrible things that would happen should the people be put in charge.

Go ask your average cop how many people they arrested for armed robbery and murder, then ask them how many seat belt tickets they handed out.

<comment><USER7> Many horrible things have happened when "the people" WERE put in charge. The difference with democracy is not that you pick better leaders, it's that the majority is free to pick the leaders they want. It is arguably as easy to pick a scoundrel as bloodline was.

<comment><USER8> If you are referring to events like the Russian Revolution I think it's more accurate to say that a bunch of thugs who _said_ they were acting for "the people" got in control (somewhat to their own surprise) and did anything they deemed necessary to maintain their grip on power - mostly by killing anyone who could conceivably be an opponent.

<comment><USER9> > If you are referring to events like the Russian Revolution I think it's more > accurate to say that a bunch of thugs who said they were acting for "the > people" got in control

And this time things are going to be different because ....?

A huge fraction, if not most, revolutions end badly.

<comment><USER10> Badly for whom?

<comment><USER9> "The people". They get lower living standards, more political oppression, and bad art.

It's almost like revolutions are intended to demonstrate that "it can't get worse" is horribly wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hats off to Mozilla for discovering that dealing with DHS is exactly like dealing with Righthaven and the RIAA.

</comment><comment><USER12> Supposing they comply with the subsequent court order, what's to prevent the 10 variations that will pop up to replace it? This would surely only proliferate add-ons with the exact same functionality.

</comment><comment><USER13> Previous discussion on the original blog post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2518075>

</comment><comment><USER14> Mozilla just went up in my book.

<comment><USER15> What have they ever done that's been harmful to you?

<comment><USER16> I don't think Itamake meant they had done something wrong necessarily. There is always room for a company to gain esteem...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wait a minute- DHS? As in, department of homeland security? Why are they involved in this even?

<comment><USER18> DHS absorbed the Customs department, which has power to deal with issues surrounding counterfeit goods. The domains DHS has been taking down have redistributed digital content without license/permission, which DHS considers to be a form of counterfeiting.

(Not saying they're right, just explaining why they're involved.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> A major reason to support Mozilla over Google (Chrome) who've gotten way too cozy with the gov over the past few years.

</comment><comment><USER20> Close that car hood citizen, there are secrets in there, don't make me taze you.

<comment><USER5> Ihre papier bitte.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Laws that should exist but don't - <AUTHOR> I'm curious if there are any obvious laws that enforce common sense (which sadly is not that common) which you think should exist in the US but currently don't. It would be even better to find out if they are already in the works.
Here's two off the top of my head:
1) Make it illegal for TV commercials to display 10 lines of size 1 font at the bottom of a TV ad for 2 seconds. Nobody can see it. Nobody can read it even if they could see it.  The law should be something like this:
"Any textual information displayed on a tv commercial should be of big enough size to be easily read in its entirety in the time displayed!"
2) Make it illegal for companies' customer service to play an automated message about recording your conversation (eg. "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance purposes") without giving you the option to opt out. Not only can you not opt out, but if you let them know that you are recording the conversation (as required by law in most states) most of them will either hang up on you or refuse to continue the conversation. The law should be something like this:
"No company should be allowed to record a conversation without your consent. No company should be allowed to deny you customer service if you refuse to be recorded. " <comment><USER2> There are already far too many laws in the US. We should probably focus on making less things illegal rather then more.

When making things illegal, there is a lot of overhead involved. Take your examples for instance.

1) Make it illegal for TV commercials to display 10 lines of size 1 font at the bottom of a TV ad for 2 seconds. Nobody can see it. Nobody can read it even if they could see it. The law should be something like this:

"Any textual information displayed on a tv commercial should be of big enough size to be easily read in its entirety in the time displayed!"

Say this law is passed. Now who determines what size is big enough and how long is long enough. Suppose I'm a nearly blind, slow reader. Maybe 30 seconds at a size of 2 inches high is not a long enough time or large enough size for me? You could say that you mean an "average" person, but then it must be established what an "average" person is. Who does that? Then aren't you discriminating against people who don't fit the average? Should it be set to the lowest common denominator? In that case, you are boring to death people who can read exceptionally fast. I'm not going to stay tuned to text that stays around for 30 seconds when it only takes me 1 second to read it!

Now suppose we come up with an acceptable definition of "big enough" and "long enough", which will be a compromise definition. How do we enforce this definition? Punishment. What is an appropriate punishment for people that do not make the text big enough? For those that miss the size by a fraction of an inch, what is the punishment? Oh, and what about for people that the size is big enough for a 55" tv but not for a 25" tv? Yikes.

So, suppose we come up with a suitable punishment for these law breakers. Who will enforce this punishment? What if they do not pay the fine? Do we throw them in our already crowded prisons or build new prisons? Where does this money come from to enforce this law? Do we have monitors who scan the tv specifically for this rule, or add it to someone's position who already monitors things? Or make it reporting based, so only when it is reported it is punished.

There are lots more questions as well, this is just the tip of the iceburg.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Now suppose we come up with an acceptable definition of "big enough" and "long enough", which will be a compromise definition. How do we enforce this definition? Punishment. "

You enforce it with fees against cable TV service providers, or whoever is responsible for publishing the advertisement.

"So, suppose we come up with a suitable punishment for these law breakers. Who will enforce this punishment? What if they do not pay the fine? Do we throw them in our already crowded prisons or build new prisons? "

The idea is not to punish people, but to bring more fairness to the consumer in terms of the information they are given and not to be mislead. If a cable company can get a way with displaying a novel worth of information for one second (in order to comply with disclosure requirements) and in the process duping a customer into signing up, I think there should be some rules against that.

As for enforcement, the FCC can easily enforce something like this.

<comment><USER2> "As for enforcement, the FCC can easily enforce something like this."

They're too busy looking for nipples and swear words.

<comment><USER3> As a curious european, I always wondered: who decided female nipples are shocking, but male nipples are acceptable? It's rather like saying, "you can show milk bottles, but only if they're empty".

<comment><USER2> To quote Robin Williams:

"Then the Puritans broke away from the Calvinists, our ancestors, people so uptight, the English kicked them out."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ugh, more laws. NO Thank You!

Ever see that youtube video of a law professor discussing why you NEVER EVER talk to police? His point is basically, "we have so many laws that you never know which ones you're breaking, so you could be confessing without realizing it."

We have plenty of laws. Our legal codes are so complex and absurd that no one person can know a fraction of them. Even in their specific niches.

What we need (from the comments below) is a way to get rid of laws. Maybe some sort of a battle royale between laws that are already on the books, where the winner stays in the code.

Or maybe we should make a law that you cannot add a law to US codes without first deleting an equal portion of text. Want to make a new law? Fine, you've got to edit down the existing laws to make room.

</comment><comment><USER5> Referendum to remove any federal law from the books by popular vote. 51% removes the law. It should be hard to make laws and easy to get rid of them, not the other way around.

<comment><USER6> Hell with 51%, try something like 40%.

<comment><USER7> Or even 20%. Think about it, if 1 out of every 5 people really dislikes a law, do you actually think it is likely to be a _good_ law?

<comment><USER8> So what happens when 20% of the population want, for example, anti- discrimination laws repealed? You will always be able to find enough idiots to reach 20% - hell, polls that say "Are you alive?" always manage a few percent in the "don't know" box. Look at dirt poor people voting against inheritance taxes. Some shiny media personality will always be able to garner 20%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think we should have a law that everyone who votes on legislation should actually be required to read the final version of the legislation and take a reading comprehension test about it before voting on it.

</comment><comment><USER10> One could argue that the phrase "this conversation may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" is both a warning (WE may record the conversation) and granting permission (YOU may record the conversation).

Whenever I hear that phrase, I always think "Thank you, don't mind if I do!" :)

</comment><comment><USER11> I always choose to interpret "This conversation may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" as meaning that _I_ may record this conversation for quality assurance purposes. Of course, this strategy would survive exactly one lawsuit before everyone changes the wording.

</comment><comment><USER12> Congress shall make no law abridging the laws of physics.

</comment><comment><USER13> How about a law that prevents unrelated laws and pork hidden within another law.

</comment><comment><USER14> 1) There should be a law banning the passing of any new laws. We have quite enough laws as it is, and our efforts should be spent towards hacking off some of the parts of this behemoth we have created, not adding to it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Less laws is great, but how do you prevent companies from taking advantage of consumers without laws?

<comment><USER15> By not giving them the false sense of security that "consumer protection" laws provide.

There is no substitute for individual judgement, and there never will be. The reason for this is that what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another.

<comment><USER4> This this this this.

Caveat emptor.

Now, there are some cases (health standards, for example) where the laws prevent a lot of bad things _that we wouldn't otherwise be aware of until something damaging happened_.

But, really? Limiting the size of fine print text on a TV advert? If you can't figure out that the latest wunderpill from Merck has side effects that include death, perhaps you should start taking responsibility for yourself. (BTW, this wasn't aimed at you, maxharris... just the general "you" that I should when I rant)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Heading in the wrong direction: we need fewer laws, not more.

</comment><comment><USER17> How about a law that make it illegal to make unnecessary niche laws that only serve parasitic lawyers.

Here's a relevant Phillip Howard TED talk: <http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/771>

<comment><USER6> I find his proposed changes somewhat naive.

Of _course_ laws can be simplified, however removing the idea of due process is a horrible idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> For every new law, get rid two old laws.

<comment><USER19> Final result is either complete anarchy/lawlessness or one single very long law.

Depending on the exact implementation rules you might get stuck on zero or 1 and not be able to make any more laws (except the one that states "+1 -2").

<comment><USER20> Before you'd reach that problem, you have tens of thousands of laws to remove, so you can scrap the +1-2 rule in due time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> not a new law, but I don't think you should be allowed to kick field goals in overtime in NFL football. Such an easy way out the majority of the time, getting within the 30 is basically death.</comment>