Scientists Discovered 'Mini-Computers' in Human Neurons - <AUTHOR> https://singularityhub.com/2020/01/14/scientists-discovered-mini-computers-in-human-neurons-and-thats-great-news-for-ai/ <comment><USER2> All this mass-parallel processing for the energy intake of a 100 watt bulb.

Not too shabby.</comment>


Give HN: My latest book on entrepreneurship - <AUTHOR> http://personalopz.com/books/execution_and_other_lessons.html

<comment><USER2> I can imagine what the author feels - "I did all this work and people are complaining about the colors!" :)

The comments about the colors are valid.

I once worked on a fairly complicated hardware (video encoder) that took over a year to develop, and during an important demo, the most comments I got was something about color of one of the LEDs. It was annoying to hear those comments back then, but it has made me wiser about looks being an important aspect of a product. Aesthetics are important (at least for others :)).

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree the comments are valid. They are all constructive criticism rather than plain criticism and I appreciate people taking the time to make them.

I hope people do look past the cover (which I will work on improving) and read a few of the chapters. And ultimately even listen to the lectures which I have found to be a very inspirational resource. Thanks again to Stanford for providing it.

<comment><USER3> Merry Christmas and thank you for the book.

:) Great attitude towards feedback. Work on the colors!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Congratulations on finishing the book.

I would definitely redesign the cover if I were you. It's not just that it's illegible, it also looks like blood splattered on a wall.

Now, I know this is how you meant it to be, because of the word "execution", etc. but it is the design equivalent of a pun. Puns aren't necessarily bad by definition, they just usually are because they apply intelligence to the wrong problem.

The other point to make is that, funnily enough, the pun's idea is itself badly executed. It really does look like you did the cover yourself in MacPaint. If you're still keen on using this pun, there are other ways to execute the same idea. For example, you could just have the word Execution in blood on the wall, but the other lines on a non-patterned background, in a more legible typeface.

</comment><comment><USER5> You might want to think about redesigning the cover, the title isn't legible.

Looks interesting though, I'll be reading it later this week. Congrats on writing a book.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is only my second time trying to do a cover completely on my own. I agree with your comment on the smaller size. It is a bit better in the PDF version where it is larger.

<comment><USER5> It has less to do with the size, and more to do with the color of the background and foreground text.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ahh. Maybe I'll try to lighten up the background when I get some time later today.

Thanks for the tip.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The book looks like it has a lot of good content!

As others have said the cover is pretty bad. It is hard to read. It looks childish. Have a professional design your covers and you'll probably see more sales.

Regardless, if it's good and gets good reviews it probably won't matter :) But for those early adopters, it matters.

</comment><comment><USER7> I like to appreciate you on your work and giving this for free to community. I think people are right with their complaints about cover. The way paint is shown getting dropped from text on the front cover - it reminds me about beginning of a horror movie. A simple black color font on white cover could have also done the job.

</comment><comment><USER8> Thanks for the free book, looking forward to reading it! If you want to get the cover fixed cheap you can always check out Fiverr. I've had a few book covers done on there and they come out quite professional most of the time. Good luck with it!</comment>


Show HN: Brightwork (a BaaS) launching 8/1, looking for early adopters - <AUTHOR> http://signup.brightwork.io <comment><USER2> Wish you and the team at Brightwork well Josh. Good luck on the launch.

Don't want to be negative but I will say the landing page wasn't as polished as expected. So important in terms of confidence especially as I'd be paying you to own lots of my apps' back end. Case in point is the use of images with text in them rather than an image with text underneath.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'll become an early adopter if the "document store" that's mentioned is not Mongo.

Edit: Please tell me whether or not it's Mongo.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is Mongo.

<comment><USER3> Is there a way you can talk to someone who worked on infrastructure at Parse/Facebook? I read an HN comment years ago that one of their engineers thought the choice of Mongo would probably kill the company. It (probably?) didn't, but as a Parse user, I can confirm that uptime and performance were really bad for an established company advertising enterprise service.

Here is some discussion from a year ago. A major complaint is that Mongo works OK as a single instance, but the tape and glue start to show when you need to scale it. I would really worry for a PaaS/BaaS using Mongo.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3dvzsl/why_you...](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3dvzsl/why_you_should_never_ever_ever_use_mongodb/)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9912842](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9912842)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah definitely. Someone we talked to here at Techstars suggested the same thing. Appreciate the feedback.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Happy nations don't focus on growth - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-20/happy-nations-don-t-focus-on-growth <comment><USER2> The nations mentioned are some of the most advanced in the world, and their lower-than-world-average GDP growth is being used to show that "it's not all about wealth". I don't think this article makes a very good point.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. This is a classic case of a confounding variable. The happiest nations are also the richest ones. The richest ones have lower growth than developing nations precisely because they are the richest: developing nations can achieve growth by increasing their literacy rates, building infrastructure, and making other capital expenditures (e.g. farming equipment, high-tech machines for factories). The richest ones already have all of that, so their growth needs to come from elsewhere.

<comment><USER4> In economics terms:

Y = f(A, K, L).

That is, GDP is a function of Capital (K), Labor (L), and a catch-all of technology (A).

Developing countries can ramp up any of these 3 easily, especially technology "A" by transfering/adopting technologies that exist elsewhere. The richest countries can't do that since they should be at the forefront of technology.

<comment><USER5> The attribution of the Solow Residual to "technology" is grossly misplaced and very poorly founded.

Roughly 98% can be attributed by primary energy consumption. A fact mainstream economists seem to be at pains to deny.

R.U. Ayres, Charles A.S. Hall, and numerous others have repeatedly derived this relationship, and with a pretty consistent value.

<comment><USER4> That's because a lot of technology is coming up with new ways of using energy to do useful things. See: light bulb, internal combustion engine, etc. And a lot of technology is new methods that reduce the cost of building these energy-consuming devices allowing us to produce more of then for cheaper (and more of them then consumer more energy).

I feel like you are trying to say "no, it's just consuming more energy. It's not 'technology'". But I think you've missed the point. We can't just dump more coal and oil onto a field and burn it and expect that energy to increase production. We need "technology" to turn it into something useful.

<comment><USER5> Sure, but:

1\. Those new ways of using energy themselves are highly dependent on energy- intensive factors as inputs. Steel, aluminium, copper, electronics, reliable power inputs, control systems, etc., are all the products of high-energy outputs.

When you realise that the Watt steam engine revolutionised manufacturing based providing a net total of 500 prime movers of about 10 HP each net power output, you start to recognise just how energy-contrained economic activity was.

2\. The Solow Residual is, quite literally, _just that_. It's a statistical residual. Solow himself describes it as "the measure of our ignorance". Again: _there is no basis to attribute it to "technology"_. Other than it forms an economically convenient theory.

3\. The research I've mentioned is far more specific -- rather than just run a regression of capital vs. labour and handwave a declaration that All That Is Unexplained Shall Be Termed "Technology", it specifically considers the role of other factors, including energy. And, again: shows that that accounts for up to 98% of the residual -- an _insanely_ high fit.

So long as we're talking factors of production, I've just learned, reading of and from Alexander Hamilton Church, who more-or-less invented cost accounting, that through about 1900, _only labour_ was considered as a factor of production.

Somewhat amusingly, his discussion of factors _other than labour_ focuses, almost exclusively, on the ability to supply mechanical power through engines. Go figure. 1910.

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

[https://archive.org/stream/productionfacto00churgoog#page/n1...](https://archive.org/stream/productionfacto00churgoog#page/n14/mode/2up)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really don't think that this article makes a very good case for nations to focus on happiness over economic growth. It is apparent that the nations that the article states are the happiest are highly developed nations which have had decades of growth which has given them the means to keep their population happy. With regard to the point about China's growth, I believe that given how rapidly China is growing, there will be a significant lag between the rate at which GDP grows and the time when the Chinese people begin receiving the benefits of this growth.

Of course, general well-being is a better metric of whether the incumbent gets voted in than economic growth in developed countries because well-being is far more tangible to the common man than the abstract concept of economic growth. OTOH, in a developing country, I'd argue growth is a better indicator of the probability that the incumbent will win since developing countries have growth rates which are in general far higher than developed, and since these high growth rates result in visible, tangible changes: bridges get built, schools are opened, and people get jobs.

Perhaps, the new thesis of the article should be that developing nations should focus on economic growth, while developed ones should focus on the happiness of their people.

</comment><comment><USER7> I read a similar things a few weeks ago. They were saying that the U.S. (government through laws and legal system) centered on "fairness" up until recently. Sometime after WWII the focus changed to Economics and growth. I'm guessing it was saying this is the cause of crazy inequality and "the jobless recovery."

I'm not sure I buy all of it (the U.S. wasn't really a world power prior to the world wars, so they'd be dismissing that and other gains if it was their whole premise), but like this article, something to think about.

<comment><USER8> > They were saying that the U.S. (government through laws and legal system) > centered on "fairness" up until recently. Sometime after WWII the focus > changed to Economics and growth.

I absolutely agree with this. Considering the history and how we used to run public schools, it seems almost obvious.

American nationalism was at an all-time high during World War 2 and we rode that straight into the Cold War... 50 years of anti-soviet propaganda and public discourse, riding the post-WW2 American economic boom and global "anti- communist" imperialism. For an _entire generation_ community-oriented principles, egalitarianism, collectivist ideas, and far-left leaders were demonized as Soviet sympathizers, replaced with rah rah unregulated capitalism, Ayn Rand-ian individualist, and military might.

If you've ever wondered why many modern American Christians blatantly disregard the liberal social aspects of Jesus/the Bible, look no further. WW2's morale-boosting propaganda morphed into a cancer of civil discourse, deeply coupling nationalism with the perceived indisputable success of American capitalism.

Consider these two points: * The Cold War started 70 years ago, and formally ended 26 years ago * 2016 Trump / Sanders popularity, bucketed by age: [http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/age_of_voting_groups_...](http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/age_of_voting_groups_18-24_25-34_35-44_45-54_55-64_65_and_over_chartbuilder_2.png)

American society takes time to change because our 2-party system is dominated by unengaged voters, the uneducated electorate that votes without thinking about it... heavily influenced by the world they grew up in, and what they were taught from k-12. When many election results are +/\- 5%, moving the average 10% in one direction has long-term consequences.

It's worth thinking about how our 17 year-old "War on Terror" will continue to change society...

<comment><USER9> So, what was the first Red Scare, Sacco and Vanzetti, or the Scopes Trial in the 20s about then? Many of the things you attribute to the Cold War-era were present in the 1920s USA. The biggest difference was isolation.

<comment><USER8> What's the difference? The first Red Scare was 3 years of isolated domestic violent agitation, and public response was largely focused on those agitators. The second Red Scare was a 50-year ideological war that saturated the nation, a generation raised demonizing concepts as "un-American" before becoming the teachers and politicians of their children. It takes time heal from that dogma.

<comment><USER10> You seem to be overlooking the fact that, thanks to "that dogma", America is not a part of the Soviet Union today.

<comment><USER8> Are you familiar with the phrase "cutting off the nose to spite the face"? Dogmatism is a fear-induced lobotomy, intentionally unlearning and stigmatizing certain solutions to problems... if dogma fatally poisoned American democratic capitalism, then our victory was pyrrhic at best.

In fact, dogma is _antithetical_ to both capitalism and democracy, which assume an ideal rational populace. A rational society strives for improvements. They would have invested in more socratic education, deeper rational thinking, and an open fair evaluation of ideas. Ideas that pass rigorous evaluation hold merit and warrant experimentation. If aspects of communism could improve parts of our society, _we should use them._

Dogma is indefensible, and I feel like that point should be self-evident on HN. Successful startups don't copy history. We solve problems by forming rational strategies based on data and logic, chasing "impossible" ideas because they are _good_ and _work_. We understand that processes and technology are tools, a means to an end... why would socioeconomic theory be any different?

And anyway, America was never even close to becoming part of the Soviet Union. Nuclear annihilation was the big risk, but dogma does not work against ICBMs.

<comment><USER10> > And anyway, America was never even close to becoming part of the Soviet > Union. Nuclear annihilation was the big risk, but dogma does not work > against ICBMs.

Not necessarily. The communist ideology was so appealing to the people (and the USSR so good at spreading it world-wide, via various channels) that, if not for the radical anti-communist steps, it's not impossible that USA would have its own communist revolution (orchestrated from Moscow and led by the local "useful idiots"), like so many other countries.

More broadly, I don't think that being in an open conflict with a world super power is the best time for rational reflection. Notice how democratic countries suspend most of its values during the war (i.e. they can take your property if it'll help the war effort, they'll put you to jail if you refuse to fight etc.) - they're just impractical when under attack.

<comment><USER8> Why do you think communism was so appealing? Years of hostile discussions left both business owners and laborers at odds. Greedy companies refused to lower profits, and labor felt they deserved an equal share - especially after the world wars.

Ultimately, it's American business owners that were responsible for the rise of revolutionaries in the US. Early on, corporations restricted the political rights of labor unions while buying their own politicians. When laborers demanded fairer working hours, better working conditions, and fairer wages, businesses refused to compromise. When peace fails, people are left with the choice of abandoning hope or fighting towards revolution as a last resort. The USSR simply amplified existing legitimate anger.

I want to point out that the mainstream labor resistance was _not_ about communism; citizens were fighting for equality and fairness _within capitalism_. The press always misuses scary words like "communism", in truth social ownership was secondary to being treated humanely. The government could have easily kicked out the USSR by stepping in as a mediator between business owners and employees.

> More broadly, I don't think that being in an open conflict with a world > super power is the best time for rational reflection. Notice how democratic > countries suspend most of its values during the war (i.e. they can take your > property if it'll help the war effort, they'll put you to jail if you refuse > to fight etc.) - they're just impractical when under attack.

Hahah, what? We don't suspend our values during war. Drafts fall under the social contract, all citizens are expected to defend the nation if called upon. The IRS always seizes property due to tax evasion. Industries always remain in private hands, we set production quotas because _profit_ is not a right. We have interned people during war, but that's an artifact of ignorance rather than an intentional suspension of values.

Why do you think war isn't a good time for rational reflection? The _battlefront_ requires action, but there's no reason for civilians to worry during a superpower proxy war. The US is massive and our enemies are oceans away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Although I'd have to poke around for the specific sources, I've read papers that showed that, in fact, subjective well-being increases continuously with wealth (per capita GDP). However, the increase is not linear, but rather logistic--which makes intuitive sense, since a $5,000 pay raise for an employee making $25,000 a year isn't the same as for one making $100,000. On the other hand, I've also read that the increase in wealth past the much- referenced $75,000 level doesn't significantly increase emotional well-being (unconscious positive/negative feelings).

<comment><USER12> Sounds like this would depend a lot on what kind of social safety net is provided by the society. You need a lot more income to feel secure in the US than Sweden, where healthcare/education/pensions are more or less collectively provided.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The way of measuring happiness is nonsense

basically asking people, "are you happy?"

There is a gigantic cultural bias. In many cultures people say that they are happy because they are expected to say that they are happy. Itd just a facade. In some others people just dont like to talk about self happiness or they have negative connotations when they talk about it.

I have lived in 5 countries from that list and I find it really hard to say that people from those countries are happier than other countries I've lived in and are not listed.....

anyway lets keep living in hackernews bubble...

<comment><USER14> Which countries have you lived in, and how would you rate the happiness?

BTW, i'm from Israel, an we're number 2 on the happiness scale! hooray!

<comment><USER15> On average, how would you rate your happiness from 1-10 (10 being the most happy you could ever possibly be)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A lot of happy millionaires have close to no income, in fact they remain happy millionaires while incurring in negative net worth growth.

Maybe poor people wanting to make more money need to rethink their strategies?

</comment><comment><USER17> Denmark the most happy nation in the world cares about growth a lot. Maybe Danes don't but the nation as a whole does.

<comment><USER18> This is interesting. If Danes don't care about growth, then in what sense does Denmark care about growth?

<comment><USER19> I assume "nations caring about growth" means they have economic and social policies that end up encouraging such growth. The average Dane (or any person anywhere really) probably doesn't think much about policy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >There's plenty of wealth, that goal is already achieved. Good policy is a matter of directing it toward the determinants of happiness.

This reminds me of this quote:

"It is only in the backward countries of the world that increased production is still an important object: in those most advanced, what is economically needed is a better distribution"

-John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy (1848, book IV, chap. VI)

One day we'll look back at the levels of wealth people today possess the same way that today we look back at the level of material prosperity people enjoyed in 1848, as being at the level of extreme poverty.

To prioritize ephemeral happiness over substantive gains in the people's capabilities is shortsighted.

</comment><comment><USER21> They also have the highest suicide rates. Go figure.

<comment><USER22> No they don't. See the WHO ranking

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why are Finns so unhappy, while Swedes are as happy as the world average?

Edit: I found a BBC article saying just the opposite [1], may be Finns are happy, after all? :-)

[1] [http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20110622-travelwise-why- are-...](http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20110622-travelwise-why-are-finns-so- happy)

</comment><comment><USER24> Should be renamed to "Wealthy nations, which don't need growth to be more wealthy, tend to be happy"

Big surprise

</comment><comment><USER25> Growth also contributes to global warming. And the many people who think it could now or eventually decrease it compound the problem.

</comment><comment><USER26> but what if growth is required for certain scientific and medical investment, funding, and advancement even if it depresses the average happiness of a population?

If that is true, how much of suffering of individuals are we able to tolerate to keep the average of a whole up a few notches? (re: all the issues with utilitarianism)

</comment><comment><USER27> Growth makes nations happy

</comment><comment><USER28> Richest nations are the happiest nations as long as they don't run out of their money. That is the proper conclusion.

I am pretty sure 10 years ago Greece would have featured as a happiest nation and Venezuela not as much as a miserable nation that it is today.

Contrary to all this India WAS super miserable 10 years and go and much more happier today though comparatively might not be as happy as the Italian.

</comment><comment><USER29> Correlation does not imply causality...

</comment><comment><USER30> > Policymakers should care more about happiness inequality rather than mere > income inequality.

Policymakers are probably very concerned with happiness. Their own ;-)

<comment><USER31> They are probably very correlated

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This means China isn't happy at all. They need to fake that 7.0% growth every year for eternity, even though everyone knows it's all fake data, and most likely they're not even growing.

<comment><USER33> What makes you think China's growth is fake?

<comment><USER34> It is somewhat fake. Digging a hole and filling it shows up on GDP statistics even though it is pointless and adds no real wealth to the population. Chinese growth is a lot like this. A lot of production for the sake of production. They tend to have overproduction in many sectors. So they their GDP growth is made up of a lot of stuff nobody is demanding. Of course this kills profits, but since China had capital controls investors can't move their money elsewhere.

This is why Chinese growth is considered unbalanced. Also a great example of the stupidity of obsessing about GDP numbers.</comment></comment></comment>


Clojure is a product design tool - <AUTHOR> https://precursorapp.com/blog/clojure-is-a-product-design-tool#

<comment><USER2> I never considered Clojure for design, thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought the method of overlaying the icons like that was refreshing and interesting!</comment>


Plastic Free Kitchen - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/food/articles/plastic_free_kitchen <comment><USER2> Things not mentioned:

Contamination from reusable bags.

Factoring in cleaning said bags.

So called single-use-bags are often reused.

[https://reason.com/2019/04/11/california-plastic-bag-bans- sp...](https://reason.com/2019/04/11/california-plastic-bag-bans-spur-120-per)

[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/04/09/711181385/are-...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/04/09/711181385/are- plastic-bag-bans-garbage)</comment>


Ask HN: Can Bitcoin go to zero? - <AUTHOR> If possible, what happens then? <comment><USER2> Ever? Certainly. Within say 50 years? Possibly, perhaps even probably. It would seem unusual to me that a first attempt at a digital currency would survive as long as this.

Consider the fate of early search engines, eg Alta Vista. The number of searches on this once leading search engine is, today, exactly zero. It lasted less than 20 years.

What happens then: probably nothing significant, it will not be something that happens in a single day. Possibly the value will be transferred into some other medium. Or, the remaining hodlers will lose the last iota of value, which has been slowly declining for ages.

Oh... how much are tulip bulbs worth today?

<comment><USER3> Tulip bulbs are worth something like 25 or 50 cents per bulb.

If people decide they aren't interested in Bitcoin then the value can go to zero. The main detail is how exactly the Bitcoin network fails when that happens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> And here we return to the currency vs. store of value debate.

In terms of currency, it goes back to utility. At the moment, Bitcoin (or almost any other crypto) has no or limited utility. By that I mean it is pretty well isolated from the real world – while you can pay for some things with it, you cannot pay for even a significant portion of things you might spend money on in a given day.

Some merchants accept it, that's true, but ya, the idea that you can move your money into BTC and buy groceries, a coffee, pay your rent, buy lunch, pay for the taxi, etc are not possible now unless you really go out of your way. In my neighbourhood (capital city of a north central European country) you can buy coffee at one place with Bitcoin but there's nothing else around to use it on.

And if the merchant takes it, then what? So now they either use a service that accepts BTC and takes a cut of it to translate it to fiat or they let you transfer BTC to their wallet as a way to pay, so they still have to move it into fiat to pay their bills, employees, etc.

And as a store value, it's pretty volatile. It's been bleeding since January.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in digital money and the concept of Bitcoin, but I think there's still a long way to go. It's not inconceivable that it hits 0.</comment>


NPR: I Can't Keep My iPhone In My Pants - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2010/11/11/131240136/i-can-t-keep-it-in-my-pants

<comment><USER2> This might be worse in San Francisco, though, than other places, just due to the sheer iPhone density. I've been on BART trains where over half of the people were on an iPod touch or iPhone (yes, I counted).</comment>


Scala.js has a new website - <AUTHOR> http://www.scala-js.org/ <comment><USER2> Speaking of bringing nice languages to the browser. Kotlin is a simpler language than Scala and also compiles to JS. Unlike Scala.JS which seems to be a completely third party project, Kotlin's compilation to JS is considered one of the primary features of the language.

Kotlin is barely at 1.0 at the moment though.

<comment><USER3> AFAIK javascript support is put on hold until 1.0 is reached. Kotlin/JS doesn't provide much help to make Kotlin/Java code run without modifications. So, it isn't there yet. ScalaJS on the other hand is fully functional.

<comment><USER2> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the relationship of Java and JS in ScalaJS and Kotlin is about the same: If your Scala/Kotlin code depends on any Java classes, you won't be able to compile it to JS. You can only compile pure Scala/Kotlin code to JS (and that comes with a few caveats in both cases).

It's true that Kotlin's JS support is pretty raw today. There are virtually no docs for it for example. They do have a basic feature set working though. I think in a few months it should be in great shape.

<comment><USER3> Scala has a bigger runtime, which is supported by ScalaJS. ScalaJS also has implementations for some Java classes. There are also some Scala libraries with explicit support for ScalaJS around.

Kotlin relies more heavily on the underlying runtime. Unless they re-implement a large part of the Java standard library in JS, they'll never achieve that level of compatibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For those from Java world wanting to write client-side, there is obviously also GWT[1] and another interesting option is TeaVM[2]. Interesting part of TeaVM is that it translates bytecode, so I guess it could do Scala as well. But I've never used it, so cannot recommend really.

1\. [http://www.gwtproject.org/](http://www.gwtproject.org/)

2\. [https://github.com/konsoletyper/teavm](https://github.com/konsoletyper/teavm)

<comment><USER5> GWT doesn't do Scala. That puts it out of the equation as far as most Scala.js developers are concerned. Also, it's interoperability story is seriously lacking behind Scala.js.

TeaVM is a fun and impressive project. However, although they _can_ compile Scala-emitted bytecode (since a few weeks ago [1]), that's not their main focus. They are unlikely to ever optimize Scala code as well as Scala.js, because Scala.js focuses on optimizing idiomatic Scala. They do have an undeniable advantage over Scala.js, though, which is that they can also compile Java libraries used by a Scala program.

[1] [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/scala- js/3jbX9ajIbHM/MbLWIqp...](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/scala- js/3jbX9ajIbHM/MbLWIqpkBgAJ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> While I love scala, I have 2 concerns that have stopped me from using scala.js: 1) can I use typescript definitions to avoid writing everything myself? 2) how much bloat does this add to my app? (from overhead of standard libs and core)

<comment><USER7> There is a way to transform a typescript definition to Scala.js facade ([https://github.com/sjrd/scala-js-ts-importer](https://github.com/sjrd/scala- js-ts-importer)).

As for the bloat, it isn't much. Compiled Javascript for our full-fledged app is about 180KB (gzipped) + external libraries such as React.

<comment><USER8> Don't take this the wrong way, but I've been in the industry for a long time... and it amazes me that 180KB is considered not much...

If I told you I had a way to remove 180KB from every page load, you'd be all over it. :)

<comment><USER9> 180KB is comparable to a medium-size image.

<comment><USER10> Yes you are right.

Scripting time however can be massive, take for instance this hs.fi (Finnish daily), they have 354kB of JavaScript, but scripting time with Skylake 6700K is 1.13 seconds of the page load. With Q6600 it was 3.5 seconds.

With latest chrome it's easy to measure scripting time as pie chart. Go to "Timeline" tab of developer tools and hit F5. (just few releases back one had to do it manually by starting timeline and stopping it.)

<comment><USER11> So few people seem to run a profiler on their Javascript nowadays. It's a shame, really, as the tools are very powerful!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Also haxe can compile in javascript and have a type System much similar to Scala. And also macros, conditional compilation and inline functions and constructors. And can compile also in java, c#, c++, lua, php, python, flash

</comment><comment><USER13> Should I start learning scala or typescript? I'm developing nodejs + angularjs apps in my spare time and want to improve the code (native JavaScript 5 currently). Or should I start with babel and ES6?

<comment><USER14> If you're in for the long haul (say 2+ years) I'd go with scala - it's ultimately a better language with a much more complete and powerful type system than typescript. It's also good to learn at least one functional language to pick up the functional techniques (which are ultimately valuable in any language), so if you've never learnt a functional language before I'd recommend it.

But typescript will get you most of the "quick wins" of type safety and is very easy to migrate to, so it's probably a better choice in the short and medium term (at least in terms of immediate productivity).

<comment><USER13> Thanks for your response :)

I'm more into a long haul so scala sounds pretty cool.

But what just rushed into my mind is that angular 2 will be in typescript so learning scala would only be relevant for server side code. And using two languages when one can handle both doesnt sound quite convicing :/ Would you still recommend scala when I want to work with angular 2 in the near future?

<comment><USER14> Scala can be very good at interop - I still use Wicket (Java) for my Scala web UIs. And I'm confident that the Scala.js folk will have a good answer for doing UI, whether that ultimately means Angular 2, another existing framework, or a native Scala.js UI framework.

All that said, if you're thoroughly committed to Angular 2 (a mentality I don't really understand - I love Wicket but if an equally OO framework existed in native Scala then I'd use that instead) then using anything other than Typescript is probably an unnecessary risk factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This looks pretty neat. I personally hate working with JavaScript directly.</comment>


Why Twitter Must Be Saved - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2016/why-twitter-must-be-saved/ <comment> aaron-lebo People have a rose-tinted view of Twitter.

 _And yet it is Twitter that has reaffirmed itself as the most powerful antidote to Facebook's algorithm: misinformation certainly spreads via a tweet, but truth follows unusually quickly; thanks to the power of retweets and quoted tweets, both are far more inescapable than they are on Facebook._

What is the evidence of this? Even if "truth" follows misinformation on Twitter, there's so much noise, how do you find it?

 _that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty,_

Twitter isn't public discussion, unless you consider the following examples of discussion:

 _Every time I speak of the haters and losers I do so with great love and affection. They cannot help the fact that they were born fucked up!_ \- Trump

 _Delete your account._ \- Clinton

Riveting.

Don't tell me that Twitter is a vital part of discussion when public discussion has gotten worse over the past 9 years. This is a long blog post and only the last few paragraphs even begin to touch on "why Twitter must be saved", but there's not arguments beyond the sentimental.

Twitter has existed for less than a decade and society got along just fine without it. It's not as important as people think it is. The author is also absolutely wrong if they believe that Twitter isn't censored similarly to FB.

<comment><USER2> It's not just wide public discussion, when there's some large local event(weather, tornado, etc) I usually find the most up to date and accurate information on twitter 2-3 hours before any news site.

It's the CB radio of social media and I find huge value in that.

<comment><USER3> Does it function better for you than a google search or a news.google.com search?

<comment><USER2> Yes, much better. All it takes is someone and their phone.

Take for instance the recent tornado we had off the Oregon coast. I had video/pictures/reports showing up even ahead of the local NOAA site or google news.

<comment><USER4> Similar, there was a fire around my office a week ago and within minutes there were an image on twitter. Within 30 minutes multiple ones from various angles.

Granted, it was the first time I ever went to Twitter for something like this, but I knew that it was /the/ place for the most up to date information.

And I try to avoid Twitter as much as possible, too annoying to read in there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I knew a serial entrepreneur (three paydirt IPOs and still going) whose formula for building basic infrastructure was this:

1\. Find some capital to fund it

2\. Build it

3\. Attempt to sell services across it

4\. The prices will be set to recoup investment + return. These prices will be too high for the market.

5\. Go bust

6\. Get bought for a song

7\. New owner sells services at market-friendly rates.

It merely remains to find VCs to sucker into step (1). More than one internet backbone got built this way.

I leave unanswered the question of whether Twitter can be treated as infrastructure, and in particular do not mean to suggest their investors are this naive.

<comment><USER6> I think the intercontinental rail system in the US was built the same way too.

<comment><USER7> And the UK-France Channel Tunnel - which didn't go bankrupt but did have a significant financial "restructuring" along the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article is a criticism of Facebook, not a defense of Twitter. The idea that Twitter, by virtue of not being Facebook, is a public square fit for deliberation of ideas that are key to the health of democracy is fairly absurd. Tweets are just about as imperfect a medium for dialogue as any that has existed in the time of the internet. Both Twitter and Facebook in their current states are fatally flawed as public forums. Let's at least acknowledge that before exploring solutions.

</comment><comment><USER9> Twitter as a network and format is replaceable and replicatable, Just let it crash and burn. From the ashes can rise a new and better Twitter-like service. The current Twitter carries too much nostalgia, undecisivenes and other toxic dead weight to change course.

<comment><USER10> They're gonna have to have a solution for harassment out of the gate, otherwise they'll suffer the same fate.

<comment><USER11> They're gonna have to have safe spaces and unashamedly be an echo-chamber out of the gate, otherwise they'll suffer the same fate.

FYP

<comment><USER10> No, you didn't. You completely ignored one of the reasons why Twitter is tanking. Tell me, why would I want to use Twitter 2 if every time I make a post I have a dozen people calling for my family to be raped and murdered?

<comment><USER12> > ...if every time I make a post I have a dozen people calling for my family > to be raped and murdered

Try using it for a month and make the same argument.

I have posted ~5000 tweets in the last couple of years. I can guarantee you that neither me nor my family ever got threatened with rape and murder.

This _is_ an issue, but those affected are exceptions, not the rule.

<comment><USER10> No. You just handwaved away the experiences of thousands of users. You said that because YOU don't have a problem, that there isn't one. That is not an answer.

<comment><USER12> Again, thousands of users out of 313 million active users is an exception, not a rule. And I'm in the majority here, not a minority.

I have never said it is not a problem. In fact, I indicated that it is. But it is a problem that affects a minority of Twitter's users. Are they doing enough about it? No. Can they stop it completely? No. Are you able to claim that this is something that happens to everyone? No. Hence why you're getting downvoted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _> The payoff, though, is the capability of spreading information more widely and more quickly than has ever before been possible; the societal benefit is an externality that needs to be preserved._

So let it die and use GNU Social [0]. Non-techies don't need to know how to run their own instance and join the federation, but they gain all the benefits of Twitter, better control of their own data, and don't need to rely on a company known for censoring views it dislikes.

"Social" can move. See the migration from Digg to Reddit or MySpace to Facebook. Twitter to GNU Social would be grand. ;)

[0] [https://gnu.io/social/](https://gnu.io/social/)

<comment><USER14> Not that I like GNU social (get all my news from twitter) but why the down votes? It is a legitimate idea and project, and he gives examples of similar undertakings.

<comment><USER15> Have you ever tried it? It's not very good.

Like, yes, it's workable and usable. It's okay. But the user experience is absolutely awful, especially on mobile.

Maybe if HN started its own GNU Social server and started using it, we'd see some interesting stuff happen.

<comment><USER16> I'm working on something like that:

[http://hackertribe.io](http://hackertribe.io)

(have not launched yet)

It will be something like a mix of twitter and reddit, but open source, decentralized, and GNU Social compatible.

<comment><USER17> I currently use gnu social for social posts (only for private family instance for now as a personal beta). And also use matrix.org for IM/chat (also for private family beta). I'm very happy with both. But if you can get your platform to continue to speak "gnu social" _AND_ speak "matrix.org" for chat, I think you would hit a really sweet spot for numerous HN-centric demographics...at least for HN-type users...then make software dead easy to install, and civilian users will follow.

I signed up for your newsletter...no pressure, but I (and many others!) really hope you succeed! :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Twitter's not going to go under. It just won't grow to FB/GOOG/AMZN/MSFT size (at least not under their current strategy), and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

<comment><USER19> The problem with wild success but not insanely wild success is investors that were promised insanely wild feel cheated.

<comment><USER20> I wish we'd consider a multi-billion dollars company as "a wild success".

<comment><USER21> Is it really a multi-billion dollars company, though? Twitter has never made money, and it's not clear they ever _will_ make money. A company that can't make money isn't worth more than its assets minus debt.

<comment><USER20> They have multi billions in revenue. That definitely qualify it as a multi- billion dollars company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'd argue Twitter is being saved from itself right now. Hard to say what will emerge out of this but twitter has not been on the right path ever since it killed its developer program and closed its API. Twitter badly needed this shakeup.

<comment><USER23> I find the whole Twitter thing kinda strange. If Twitter had kept this sort of API the comments now probably would just be "of course they are losing money, how did they expect to monetize that API"

<comment><USER24> > "of course they are losing money, how did they expect to monetize that API"

By selling posting increased posting quotas to news organisations?

Extra integrations (webhooks etc) to companies?

<comment><USER23> I think that would definitely work some but I'm sceptical there are enough companies that will pay. My personal opinion is that they would run into the same problem they are having now, they are making money but just not nearly enough of it.

<comment><USER24> Thanks!

I'd say they make enough money _to keep twitter running_ , just not as much as shareholders hoped.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Twitter must not be saved. If its gone, other services more efficient (probably) replace it, how facebook replace myspace and other services.

</comment><comment><USER26> Regarding Facebook. Monstrous, centralized entity which knows everything about everyone? That's an anti-utopian example, not utopian one.

I'd prefer something like diaspora* to gain more traction. Open, decentralized social network without pointless limitations on post length.

<comment><USER27> Having played around with diaspora* (awful name), I don't think it can replace Facebook, unfortunately. Like Twitter it doesn't rely on people's real names nor are there good options for chat or making private or public groups or events. However, it could potentially be a good replacement for twitter. We need a good decentralized social network that has good design all around, code, gui, ux etc. which is hard to find atm. Ello is also quite nice, but not free, open and decentralized as diaspora which is a deal breaker for me when discussing new social media services.

Btw, could anyone enlighten me on why jabber (xmmp?) never took off in any major way? It seems nice?

<comment><USER26> diaspora* doesn't prevent you from using real names, as well as it doesn't force you to use them. That's exactly the point!

XMPP was sabotaged by major IM participants not using it. Especially Google. They first were pushing XMPP a lot, but later betrayed the whole effort.

<comment><USER27> Yes I like that you can choose whatever name you want, but ask your family members or old friends from school how they use Facebook. Being enable to find old friends and connect with far relatives is a huge reason for why Facebook is so popular. I am having a hard time time figuring out how to solve this problem if there aren't any constraints, culture or expectations for using real names. Maybe it's just a matter if time. Online aliases is more second nature to the coming generations. And still, the group and chat thing is very important imho. That's why I asked about XMPP. Would love if we could get a modern chat system as widely and universally used as email.

<comment><USER28> Thing is, people who want to be found will use their real or well-known names. Those who don't, won't - no matter what rules a given service wants to impose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Someone with nearly 30K followers _would_ feel this way.

Can't say I see that much that needs saving as an average user of the service. I'd actually rather it crumble and see what someone more competent can do in the space.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is contemptible garbage. The author implies engineers do not improve the world, but he is not about to go without cars or washing machines or credit. This current election was going to be difficult even for a moderate Republican to win, but this guy got emotional over the coverage therefore it was poignant to him and relevant to his argument. Twitter has so little to contribute that much of what he says is an apology for the unavoidable abuse that saturates the medium. This kind of article is why so little is lost in flushing traditional journalism down the toilet.

<comment><USER31> > This kind of article is why so little is lost in flushing traditional > journalism down the toilet.

This seems like a non-sequitur. What does this article have to do with traditional journalism?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> >What is the evidence of this? Even if "truth" follows misinformation on Twitter, there's so much noise, how do you find it?

Do you use twitter? I see a lot of misinformation and rumors started by "journalists" which gain a lot of popularity but seemingly disapear once the true source confirms or denies said claims. And it is easy to navigate this on twitter. I'm mainly talking about sports or entertainment news.

With other forms of media the turnaround time is no where near as fast to (1) notify the source and (2) have the original poster edit their article.

</comment><comment><USER33> Don't worry, even if Twitter die, there will be another better product to take over.

</comment><comment><USER34> People in general are prone to looking for messianic saviors. I think it is wired into the generic brain circuitry. Good things in general require consistent hard work and effort and just general humanity.

Neither twitter nor facebook embody any of those things. Both are machines for turning clicks peppered by "original content" into money. The author should look elsewhere for the messiah.

</comment><comment><USER35> Saudi Money assured it's destruction - Twitter will die and become the "AOL Keyword" of the twenty-tens.

</comment><comment> vladimir-y I still do use RSS and it works well for me.

<comment><USER27> Indeed. Feedly does a nice job of presenting rss items. I actually feel lucky that websites are still using rss.

<comment><USER12> I believe that this has more has to do with it being built into almost all CMS's than it being a conscious decision.

I remember creating a couple of years back a simple script where you input a subdomain or a top level domain and it would try loading the most common feed locations (like /rss, /feed etc.) and returns the location of the feed if it gets 200 as a response. All I had to do was to check for like 10 different locations (think: one or two for every major CMS) and it worked in like 98% of the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > The tech industry is now producing its own magnates, who are following the > Rockefeller playbook. See Mark Zuckerberg giving $100 million to the Newark > school district, or Chris Hughes buying the New Republic

It might be worth noting that both were notorious as abject failures.

</comment><comment><USER37> I tried reading the replies to a post on Twitter recently. It was a medium- long list. The UI was atrocious, unstable and plain inferior to putting plain text on an empty page. It's just frustrating. What are they on?

</comment><comment><USER38> One thing I find really great about twitter as a platform is the data they have available from devs/users who check in their oauth keys on public repos which one can use to get very accurate detailed information from accounts and tweets/retweets like getting the gps coords/conducting sentiment/graph analysis without being rate limited or having to sign onto any of their terms coupled with the "public" nature of twitter which just isn't there anymore with facebook.

</comment><comment><USER39> That's great, but if Twitter can't pay it's own way, then bin it.

The argument hasn't really been strongly focused on whether or not Twitter is useful (it's not useful for me, but YMMV). The major problem has been "How does Twitter make money to stay in business?"

You can't ask investors to keep tossing money down the Tweet-hole without getting something for their money.

</comment><comment><USER40> Tonight is not the night to apologize for this sewer.

</comment><comment><USER41> There's nothing new, or inherently tech about any of this. It started long before the Internet was widespread. I recommend the author reads "Flat Earth News" by Nick Davies.

</comment><comment><USER42> A-thing-like-Twitter must be saved, but Twitter probably isn't it, unless someone like Google buys it and gives it to the world for free.

</comment><comment><USER10> Even if Twitter itself is not saved, whatever springs up in it's place is likely going to have similar problems with harassment.

</comment><comment><USER43> Twitter is 100% opposed to free speech, and have stated policy that they censor views they do not like. There is nothing there to save for the sake of free speech. If you want some form of "social media" with free speech, you'll have to make it (and make it popular).

<comment><USER44> You are right, but I don't think free speech is considered a pro feature in making services popular right now.

<comment><USER43> I don't think it is either. But the post is under the misconception that twitter should be saved because it offers a free speech alternative to the other social media outlets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> radical idea: save it by focusing on what people use it for, ignoring the trolling that you want to go away anyway. Question is, is there a business model for that?

Fast news, breaking news events, what else?

</comment><comment><USER46> Or, you know, let it suck for awhile and we get some competition.

</comment><comment><USER47> Twitter has been pretty rubbish curation policies and also engages in censorship of worst kind. The activists I know and follow already are looking for alternatives.

</comment><comment><USER48> remember digg? the internet will move on.

</comment><comment><USER49> Twitter will be absorbed by a big one (possibly Google), so no need for this kind of posts.

And if it dies, let it be. Another one will come up.

</comment><comment><USER50> Oh please. Twitter is not fundamental to discourse, it's mostly an open sewer along with the vast majority of social media.

</comment><comment><USER51> Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, no thanks.

</comment><comment><USER52> Via Twitter I have asked clarificatory questions to some of the top authors (Taleb was one), journalists and programmers in the world.

Most of them responded.

<comment><USER53> Yes, that's something Twitter is pretty good at. E-mailing random people feels more intrusive to me, and blog comments or similar channels aren't always available or appropriate (although Twitter certainly is to blame for at least some of that)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Too big to fail.

</comment><comment><USER55> Twitter was doomed from the day it started, when it imposed the 140 character limit on what you got to say to the "world".

I mean how can anyone have a meaningful conversation or make a point in 140 characters __or less? The only person capable of doing the latter ( "making a point") is the Republican Candidate for President - Donald J Trump i.e. @RealDonaldTrump - and what does that tell you?

( * = Unpleasant side-effects of the 140 character limit include 1) "longer tweet" sites and services that would link a 140+ character statement to their site, so you go elsewhere to read it and 2) celebs and influencers sending a series of tweets 1 after another, and the media and others have to piece them together painfully in order to make any sense of the tweets.

<comment><USER56> Pleasant side-effects include forcing a clear cogent point by eschewing excess verbiage. I personally find the 140 limit a useful antidote to the waffling academia trained me to employ in my writing.

<comment><USER55> says the guy who made his point with 199 characters.

<comment><USER56> HN is neither twitter nor a blog.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf <comment><USER3> So Valve is definitely idealized by people outside (and inside) the game industry, but definitely much less so by people who have worked there. The flat structure is sort of a pipe dream that leaves nobody actually in charge of important decisions, while hiding a de facto power structure that certainly exists despite being non-explicit.

The company has transitioned to being the company that owns Steam as a platform (including and subsuming Vive), and not much else. People that have joined Valve expecting to develop games there end up fired in less than a year, which surely is destructive but also serves a real purpose of perpetuating the Valve culture. A major shakeup is unlikely to happen; Gabe seems to be unable to decide whether he wants to be a super-public figure that is the face and decision body behind the whole company, or if he wants to shrink into a hole and rub shoulders with tech legends hoping to determine the future of everything. The company will make money for a while, but they are open to platform disruption, even in their VR space where they have (more than Oculus) tried to be the open platform. Eventually the market will figure out that they don't need to pay Steam 30% of sales to host files on a server. If this view is right right, Steam is about to find out that the PC world wants to be even more open than they are offering. Of course, the board of investors will certainly find a way to use Valve's intellectual capital regardless of whether they stay on top.

<comment><USER4> Dota 2 isn't going anywhere. The current tournament has an $18+ million prize pool (and rising) - meaning Valve was paid about $72 million in compendium sales.

This is for a tournament that runs every year and is growing in popularity and size.

<comment><USER5> I think you're right but I also can't help but think how the very existence of Dota 2 underscores Valve's lack of innovation in the past half decade or so. They literally took a game built on the back of their biggest competitor and basically recoded it on their own gaming engine (Yes, I know there's plenty of quality of life upgrades they brought to the series, but it was nothing that wasn't too obvious or already in place by another MOBA).

In a business sense, this was an innovative move only in that it made Valve tons more money, but from an industry perspective, they couldn't have done less to move the needle.

It's one of the most uninteresting safe bet moves I've seen a company make in the gaming industry since Madden.

<comment><USER6> The actual innovation in Dota 2 was on the esports side. From setting up the $1 million International before the game was even released spawned an industry of professional players, sponsors, casters, personalities and production companies. The competitive Dota scene before Dota 2 came out was tiny in comparison.

Twitch was central to this as well, bigger tournaments meant increased viewers, increased viewers meant that Twitch could in turn sponsor even more tournaments.

<comment><USER5> Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't league of legends more responsible for building the robust esports scene for moba's? It was already there when DotA2 came around, wasn't it?

<comment><USER7> League's first championship was held in June 2011 with a prize pool of $100,000 [1], and the first Dota 2 International was held in August 2011 with a prize pool of $1,600,000 [2]. Not that big of a time difference, and the difference in prize pools has only increased since then in favor of Dota 2.

Twitch was in baby shoes back in 2011 as well. Game streaming overall was still really small, and sites like own3d.tv held a large market share back then.

In addition, Valve built in-engine spectating into the game since day 1. You can watch other games live, or download replays and jump to any moment in time. League doesn't have similar tech even in 2016 [3], they are definitely far more focused on their casual players. League does have an extremely large playerbase in total, so their esports achievements are still remarkable due to sheer scale, but it's much more of a side-part of League than Dota.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Legends_World_Champi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Legends_World_Championship#Season_1)

[2] [http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/The_International/2011](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/The_International/2011)

[3] From what I understand there is no replay system at all, and the League spectator mode is very basic and lacks most of the features that Dota 2 has.

<comment><USER8> Per point #3, it's even gotten as far as becoming a meme in the League community. It's one of the most talked about missing features other than a sandbox mode, which Dota also has.

Any time a new feature is released, especially smaller ones, there's usually a good number of 'We got this but no <replay|sandbox> mode' comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As a Microsoft employee I am so happy that we got rid of stack ranking a few years ago. It encourages a bad behavior and goes against helping your coworkers with whom you are essentially competing for compensation. I am surprised to see that a company like Valve, which seems to be held in high regard by many developers in the industry, still operates with this compensation system. It's system of the 80's if you ask me.

<comment><USER10> Wouldn't it make sense to just pay everyone (in the same type of role) essentially the same amount and then bonus people from time to time on particular outstanding achievements. Nothing is a more powerful inducement than financial incentives and a bonus gives an impact that the ongoing salary doesn't. People don't give a crap about annual reviews unless they think its low enough to get them fired.

My sense is performance evaluations should be banished from the corporate world, for the most part. Usually a waste of time, but that is where managers can be helpful as they are carrying an ongoing assessment of the value of each of their employees at all times.

<comment><USER11> 'Nothing is a more powerful inducement than financial incentives'

Actually there's a lot of research that contradicts this. Essentially as long as people have enough money that they don't worry about money ie a comfortable middle class lifestyle for country/area, and they don't think they earn significantly less that their peers, money is very inefficient and occasionally negative incentive for tasks that require a decent level cognitive ability.

<comment><USER12> IIRC Peopleware showed that financial bonuses were tremendously effective - <USER2> reducing peoples' investment in their work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I researched Valve quite a bit before applying there (I did not get in, but one of their senior team members wrote me a nice message). Some interesting bits I found:

\- The average engineer there makes at least $400k/year with bonuses, although it could be much more (or less, if they somehow wind up in a bad project). IIRC Valve makes around $2m of profit for every head in the company (they only have ~300 employees or so).

\- In spite of the seemingly ideal flat organization, many people find themselves unhappy there. One former employee hints at some reasons here: [http://richg42.blogspot.com/2015/01/open-office-spaces- and-c...](http://richg42.blogspot.com/2015/01/open-office-spaces-and-cabal- rooms-suck.html) From other employees, I have heard that the flat organization and bonus structure leads to unnecessary drama/rivalry, poor communication (or even fear of communication), lack of innovation (creating your own project is discouraged, and teams have financial incentive to stick with projects that pay the highest bonus), etc. This is not to say Valve is a "bad" place to work at, I am sure it beats the hell out of many other job environments, even ignoring the excellent pay.

\- If you do want to work there, you will probably have had to shipped multiple titles AND be recommended by an existing team member (alternately, writing a popular mod is equally lucrative). Typically, applying through their website will not get you a job - they usually hire by actively looking through a pool of candidates that they already know of. They also look for candidates who are good at producing high amounts of customer value - they care more about this than technical ability.

<comment><USER14> > In spite of the seemingly ideal flat organization,

Why does this seem ideal? A flatter hierarchy is almost always preferable, but taken to an extreme it seems like inevitable chaos.

<comment><USER15> Agreed. When I hear people talk about how great they think it would be to work in a flat org, they always seem to think that it means they will exist in a meritocracy free of politics where they can use their own judgement about what to do and how to do it. I don't see how it could be anything but the exact opposite of that in every respect, and anecdotally that seems to be the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I find the whole "You are a person who spend every waking hour optimizing yourself to become the best YOU you can be"-frame of mind very intimidating. Maybe it's because I'm not american, but even though I like to work with complex issues, I also like a 9-17 job with a decent income, and the ability to go home and relax when I'm not working. And by relax, I don't mean working on side projects, doing volunteer work or earning a second degree in something. But playing board games, working out/running or even just watching mindnumbing TV. I feel like the "100 % dedicated 100 % of the time"-thing has become the only way to really make it in tech-life.

<comment><USER17> You're right - it's very much an American thing. Maybe not exclusive to the US, and it may vary by state or background, but still very common there from my experience with family and friends.

In American culture, unless you're financially constrained, you grow up with someone hammering down the idea that you have to be doing something productive and getting better 100% of the time. If you're a kid, you have to be involved in clubs or teams for everything. You have to make friends. You have to be good, you have to be popular. You have to get awards. You have to play a couple of sports competitively. On holidays, you have to go to summer camp, shock full of controlled activities. You have to do a lot of "voluntary" work because it will look good in your resume, not because it's helping someone [1].

As a result, your schedule is controlled, you are being judged 100% of the time, and the loudest, more outwardly energetic people are the ones who strive. The idea is that if you're not having Mandatory Fun, you're doing something wrong.

It creates this idealistic culture where everyone is trying to be better all the time, or pretending they are. The reality is that most people live in a constant state of anxiety. For the most part, it's very hard for kids to find what they like, and get better at it by sheer initiative; they never have time to do it. Instead, they do what they do because they're told to.

Little surprise kids have no time for introspection, and that's the way people can actually get better.

Science is just starting to understand that Rest is not Idleness [2]. The idea is not new [3]. But our culture, specially the fast-moving tech culture, is not ready for it.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/college- admissions-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/college-admissions- volunt_n_1129917.html)

[2] [http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/4/352](http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/4/352)

[3] [https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozio_creativo](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozio_creativo)

<comment><USER18> I think you're overgeneralizing a bit when you say it's an American thing. Maybe you and your peer group were out in the hard-charging long tail of the distribution and you assume life looked the same everywhere else?

As someone who dropped down from honors courses sophomore year of high school to "college prep" and earned a thoroughly mediocre GPA in an easy major at a state school, I'll just say that there are allllll kinds of America out there in addition the one you describe. I don't have the numbers at my disposal but I'd be willing to bet that even that level of academic attainment puts me ahead of more than half of the population.

Just a different perspective on the matter.

<comment><USER19> yeah but mainstream culture is always defined by a small group. and it is recognizably American. like having a million of those ribbons and plastic trophies from science fairs or organized sports. or republicans calling poor people "freeloaders".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a wonderful read, thank you for sharing it. I'm genuinely curious about this, if any Valve insiders have insights:

> _That's why Valve is flat...You have the power to green-light projects. You > have the power to ship products._

Is this really the case? On paper this sounds great. I've worked at companies that have a similar motto. Power to the employees, power to the developers. But it usually just means the hierarchy is unspoken and assumed. No structure means no one to go to with disputes about your job, problems with co-workers, etc. It can be worse than a traditional hierarchy because everyone sells the "flat" motto to newcomers, but as soon as you join you learn the hidden politics. The cognitive dissonance can be soul crushing.

So is Valve truly flat? Are there any examples of relatively new employees spinning up teams and shipping unique ideas? If it works, how do you handle inter-personal employee issues?

<comment><USER21> You're absolutely spot on. You have to remember that this is an employee manual and, as such, is more like marketing and recruiting material than a precise description of reality. While Valves heirarchy is officially flat and very different from the norm, the usual office politics muddy the waters.

A few years ago there was a lot of news articles coming out about a shakeup at Valve where a lot of people were fired, allegedly due to internal power struggles. I'm having trouble with finding them on Google due to Valves name but the gist of it is that Valves culture resembles that of a high school with distinct social "elites" and their cliques [1][2]. There is also a wealth of HN comments that provide some insight [3][4][5].

[1] [http://www.wired.co.uk/article/valve-management-jeri- ellswor...](http://www.wired.co.uk/article/valve-management-jeri-ellsworth)

[2] [http://kotaku.com/weird-paranoia-at-valve-says-former- employ...](http://kotaku.com/weird-paranoia-at-valve-says-former- employee-700121951)

[3] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6036385](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6036385)

[4] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5215891](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5215891)

[5] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6015182](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6015182)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Previous discussions: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3871463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3871463) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8818893](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8818893) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9250527](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9250527)

<comment><USER23> Year over year over year somebody posts a link to this PDF since 2012 ... source: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Valve%20Handbook&sort=byPopula...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Valve%20Handbook&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> _We value "T-shaped" people. That is, people who are both generalists (highly skilled at a broad set of valuable things—the top of the T) and also experts (among the best in their field within a narrow discipline -- the vertical leg of the T)._

This is a nice metaphor. I try to be T-shaped, but I wonder how useful I am becoming... My expertise in high-precision mass spectrometry is not something companies are looking for....

<comment><USER25> Just wait for upcoming asteroid mining startup bubble.

<comment><USER26> Why wait? Start it yourself. With a little imagination you can get it started before we even have the capability to achieve asteroid mining.

After all, there's a star naming registry that will name a star of your choice to be recorded in their books for a nominal fee.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> From what I heard from ex employee working at Valve it's not what you think it is. i.e: it's very political.

<comment><USER28> Any group of more than 2 people is always "political" :)

There's a reason all Olympic sports where you can interact with your opponents only have 2 teams/opponents facing off at the same time.

<comment><USER29> On the face of it, this seems like a reasonable comment. But it has basically no relationship to reality:

        Many track cycling events
        Road cycling
        Every track event
        Marathon
        Marathon swimming
        Triathlon
        Sailing

This is a non-exhaustive list off the top of my head. They all involve tactical interaction with a group of opponents.

<comment><USER28> I'm totally in the dark here. How are you interacting (legally) with other competitors during a marathon?

<comment><USER30> Run an 800m by yourself and then with your friend who's really into running. You'll do better the second time since you'll push yourself to be as good as he/she.

<comment><USER28> I'm still kind of in the dark. Are you saying that during a marathon there will be some "sacrificial" runners (I think they're called "rabbits")? That's like playing in a team, they're not really opponents.

You can't interact with the real opponents, as far as I know.

<comment><USER29> So, there are a few things:

1\. Drafting has benefits

2\. Different runners have different strengths. Some have a stronger kick at the end of the race, some have a weaker kick but can maintain a higher pace.

One example of how this can play out in a marathon (and, to a greater extent, in something like the 5000) is that a runner who has a faster overall potential but a weaker finishing kick wants the pace to be run at a higher tempo. However, if the runner tries to do this unilaterally, weaker athletes may be able to draft and use the physical and mental benefits to hang on, before winning using their kick.

However, if there are multiple endurance oriented athletes, they're typically more able to enforce a higher tempo throughout the run that will drop those athletes that have a stronger kick.

You'll often notice this in the 5000, where the winning time might be well below the personal or seasonal bests of many of the participating runners. Tactics prevent them from running their optimal race, and then a stronger kicking runner wins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is there any change here, or is this just the fairly common repost of this?

<comment><USER32> Also, is it still accurate? I heard its way off now.

<comment><USER33> I doubt that there are many, if any, organisations capable of creating such a handbook and have it be accurate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Yes, it would be really interesting if someone could get a person from Valve to give us an idea of how this all looks as of today.

Can anyone make it happen?

<comment><USER35> It's from a few years ago but here is Michael Abrash's experience with working at valve [http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/valve-how-i-got- here-w...](http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/valve-how-i-got-here-what- its-like-and-what-im-doing-2/) \+ some interesting tibits about his past at Id and MS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> High-res edition [25MB]: [http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/Valve_NewEmployeeHa...](http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/Valve_NewEmployeeHandbook.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER37> I think anyone who likes what they see here needs to honestly ask themselves how they believe this applies to their world. Whenever this PDF is posted on HN I am disappointed to see comparisons between how people perceive Valve and their own companies. Does your company have a total equity > 2 billion us dollars? Probably not. Much of this flows from the ability to invest in an incentivize your employees at this level.

As another aside I do not think there is causal evidence that Valve became successful because of these ideals. On the contrary they seem like the result of success.

<comment><USER38> > As another aside I do not think there is causal evidence that Valve became > successful because of these ideals. On the contrary they seem like the > result of success.

In the following link, Gabe Newell explains some of ideas behind how Valve works. He argues that the way Valve works has been a conscious decision based on his experiences while working at Microsoft and interacting with other companies at that time.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QEOBgLBQU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QEOBgLBQU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is quite old, and paints an overly rosy picture. After this was published a lot of the SteamBox project people got canned and were less impressed with the reality of Valve:

[http://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri- ellsworth/](http://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri-ellsworth/)

<comment><USER40> "We were having a difficult time recruiting folks. We would interview very talented people but they would be rejected by the old timers at Valve as not fitting the culture."

This sounds like a terrible environment to develop in.

<comment><USER41> If done "right" it could also maintain an environment that is excellent to develop in iif you do fit in the culture.

<comment><USER40> This quote was talking about the Steam Box team, a hardware team that was an enclave inside of a software company. It sounds really hokey for this team developing new hardware to be unable to bring in necessary talent for whatever reason.

It might be different if the new hires did have day-to-day work with these old software or video game developing fogies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The problem is in almost every group of people lacking a formal hierarchy, an informal un-official hierarchy will start to emerge with a higher likelihood of manipulators, sociopaths or other political climbers on top. I'd rather not be part of one of those.

<comment><USER43> This is, tangentially, my objection to my friend's dream of anarchy. Maybe the world would be better off without government- but the power vacuum will always be filled, so it's almost certainly better to fill it deliberately.

<comment><USER44> Another way to look at anarchism is just favoring the smallest possible power structures. So maybe there is someone who runs the oven, and everyone knows they're in charge. But you don't have someone in an office 1000 miles away making decisions about 1000 ovens.

Another way of thinking about it is that any and all power structures are allowed, they just have to be opt-in. If you want to be a 4th tier worker in a 6 tier command-and-control structure, that's fine. You just have to be there by choice.

<comment><USER43> The power vacuum which is filled by government today is, I think, fundamentally not a power structure you can opt out of. Aside from moving, which is already how it works today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Let me start by saying that I love reading these kind of handbooks from various companies.

One thing that stuck out to me was multiple mentions about "raising the issue" for the tough topics (compensation issues, feeling uncertain) -- who is the issue "raised" to if there is zero hierarchy and I have no manager/adviser/councilor? Does the flat structure only apply to "individual contributors" and is there a more traditional HR/operations structure that is not shown?

</comment><comment><USER46> What worries me about this handbook is that it rarely gets updated. For a healthy culture to sustain, rules have to evolve based on all the new employees who join Valve.

<comment><USER47> Is Valve expanding all that quickly? I suspect it still has well under 1000 employees.

<comment><USER48> Somebody cited roughly 330 elsewhere on this page.

<comment><USER47> Cough, that was me. Between posting this, and posting that, I went to Wikipedia :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Even if it's not accurate to Valve of today, it's a helluva reach goal for most dev-oriented companies.

</comment><comment><USER50> Keen to know how they are different now.

</comment><comment><USER51> How is pay handled if there is no hierarchy? Who decides how to spend the company's money? This type of recruiting-marketing is almost as bad as Google's.

</comment><comment><USER52> Anyone knows what software is good for doing a beautiful styled book like this one?

</comment><comment><USER53> The "flat structure" at Valve reminds me of the"unlimited vacation" policy at Netflix. It sounds liberating, but also offers the potential for employees to be judged by rules that are no longer clearly spelled out.

<comment><USER54> "Unlimited PTO" Is a hallmark of most tech companies. And yeah, it's total bullshit. Give me my 4 weeks a year and let me take them without any judgement, thank you.

<comment><USER55> Heh. Unlimited PTO is unlimited in the same way ISPs provide unlimited data - it's unlimited for people who don't use it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'm going to assume they don't have any remote software dev positions?

</comment><comment><USER57> I wish my company was this organized

</comment><comment><USER58> Honestly I only skim read this wondering if there was a policy not to talk about Half Life 3! Interesting read, though.</comment>


Activist pulls off clever Wi-Fi honeypot to protest surveillance state - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/01/activist-pulls-off-clever-wi-fi-honeypot-to-protest-surveillance-state/ <comment><USER3> Seems like kind of a weak attempt at a ' _gotcha_ '. I don't think there's really any expectations that attendees at a conference are only doing work related things 100% of the time. The fact that politician X was reading the paper online while waiting for a talk to start is pretty weak tea.

If anything, I think this sort of reinforces what a lot of people think about these sort of surveillance concerns. That their web-traffic isn't particularity interesting, so they don't really care if the gov't, or whomever, knows about it.

<comment><USER4> So, this isn't any regular conference. This is a conference filled with mostly Swedish politicians, some in government/office and a lot of different Swedish agency officials. Then there's of course some foreign dignitaries, as well as press and a few select normal persons.

It wasn't translated, but in the Swedish press release - they note that "Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och beredskap", the Swedish equivalent of FEMA in the US - had at least one official agency staffer connecting to their agency e-mail server over this insecure/open network.

That said, most conference attendees are at the conference in their official capacity, ie. at work.

<comment><USER5> If that is a security risk, then they ought to make the mail unconnectable outside their own network and demand VPN usage. You cannot blame the person for a poor security setup within his organization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Still, he concluded his statement to Swedish media by observing the "good > news that through our reconnaissance we could not find any preparation for > terrorist activities."

Well played, sir.

<comment><USER7> Now we know their actions were justified!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It would be pretty funny if he had actually modified the web pages people view, especially considering the attendees. They would go to [http://www.example.com/economy](http://www.example.com/economy) and see that everything is crashing, when in reality, everything is fine. It would send a stronger message, IMO. :)

<comment><USER9> > in reality, everything is fine.

what world do you live in?

<comment><USER10> This one? Earth? What about you?

<comment><USER11> On the planet I'm from, the economy is crap.

<comment><USER12> >On the planet I'm from, the economy is crap.

By what metric? For some reason, it seems to be a pretty common media complaint that "the economy is bad", and people seem to take that at face value. In reality, by most metrics, the worldwide economy is doing pretty well, and the media is just manufacturing artificial problems per usual.

<comment><USER13> By the metric of more than 3 billion people living on less than $2.50 a day[0]. Artificial problem, right?

[0][http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and- sta...](http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats)

<comment><USER14> But by that metric economy was NEVER doing well. Ever. So what is your suggestion, do we just keep saying that economy is bad until .....what exactly? How do you define "bad" or "good" economy? I would say that an economy where we have achieved the lowest poverty levels across the human race in the history is "pretty damn good". As for the starving children in Africa(or America,or anywhere else) - we will fix that too.

<comment><USER15> Depends on how you define poverty. Living on a couple of dollars a day was probably quite good many years ago. So now we have millions living on $2.50. we are doing better, right?

I personally want to see a far greater redistribution of the wealth. What the point in a county having economic growth if it only affects 1% who are already comfortably well off?

As for staving children in Africa, what have you done to help exactly. You claim you are fixing it? How? Writing a mobile app?

<comment><USER14> I feel like you are missing the point entirely. Economy is doing better than at any point in human history, and so do we as a human species. There is less people dying today from hunger or diseases than in any point in known history, and these numbers are falling every single year.

And why are you so aggressive in asking me how I am helping? That's none of your business - and I meant that again, as a society, we are fixing those issues. We are sending humanitarian aid, we are sending food, we are establishing helping programmes at home. When I say "we will fix those issues" I mean we, as humans, will fix them.

So once again...why would you define the economy as bad, when it's in better shape than ever before? You can make another clever point about wealthy people becoming more wealthy,but it doesn't change the broader outlook.

<comment><USER15> [http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global- wealt...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam- inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland)

Economy is doing well for the one percent. Unemployment is high here in Eurpoe. Apparently its the same in the States if you compare it to 2006. Many of the jobs that have been created in recent years are low paid, unstable jobs, not the sort you would base a career on.

You define that the economy is doing well, ignoring that fact that many people are a lot less well off than they were a few years ago. Inequality is rising. Fewer people own a larger share of the wealth. Many people _are_ struggling.

Your claims of helping have absolutely no substance, which is why I am questioning them.

<comment><USER14> No substance? I imagine the trillions of dollars spent globally on charity are "absolutely no substance"? That every humanitarian aid we sent to countries struck with disease or famine is "absolutely no substance"? We as humans are doing more than ever before - no one was sending food aid to Africa 100 years ago,because we had our own problems at home - but now, because of the improved _economy_ we can!

Sure, middle and working class workers make less now than they did in 1990 dollars. So what? An average human being is much less likely to die from illness or starvation than as little as 100 years ago, and you keep iterating that the top 1% make more money than ever before?

But you know what, whatever - let's say that the economy is shit if you insist. I still keep asking(for the 3 time now!) what is your definition of the good economy then?

<comment><USER15> Your claim of " As for the starving children in Africa(or America,or anywhere else) - we will fix that too." had no substance.

I would prefer a more stable fairer economy that rewarded the people actually doing the work rather than the owners of capital. People that are working a full time job or more should not need to have to worry about being able to afford essentials like rent and food (the UK has seen a huge growth in the use of food banks despite your thriving economy).

Technology is making many things better, but not fairer. And why do you choose 100 years ago as your comparison? Why not 2006?

<comment><USER14> Because I am looking at the large scale of things, while you concentrate on the few last years. This is the problem between our arguments. You refuse to see that as society we are doing better than ever before, consistently pointing out how things have gotten bad in the last few years. Yeah, they have - that doesn't change the broad outlook.

As for the food banks - fantastic! That means that the system is working - <USER2> you are hungry, you _will not starve_ because the economy can afford to feed hungry people even if they don't have a job! Don't you think that this is a success?

<comment><USER15> Generally when speaking about economics, people are talking in those sort of timescales or shorter, not over a hundred years. So economically we are doing poorly.

As for your food banks comment - I think you are a fool or a troll.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>