The Lawlessness of Medicine - <AUTHOR> https://lareviewofbooks.org/review/the-lawlessness-of-medicine <comment><USER2> Very interesting article, his previous book 'The emperor of all maladies' is also highly recommended. A lot of medicine is not level III evidence or better backed.

As both a doctor (surgical attending) and programmer medicine feels not just like debugging a very complex non linear machine. Patient psychology is one of the hardest parts of the job. Is the stomach pain caused by a psychical problem or can it be functional? The use of protocols (part of the science) can help in catching non typical presentations of illnesses, especially if the patient is not adequate in presentation (drunk, very young, old, trauma etc).

But sometimes medicine comes down to an art, when you have the feeling something does not add up, you have to dig. The same with (older) attendings with very attuned diagnostic skills due to lots of experience that can help solve non-obvious cases.

<comment><USER3> > medicine feels not just like debugging a very complex non linear machine

One way in which medicine is _not_ like debugging is the hours spent by a physician vs a programmer. I (as a programmer) have sometimes spent 100 hours tracking down a bug whereas I've never seen a physician spend more than a few minutes trying to diagnose an illness.

Even with a gravely ill person, my experience has been that an attending physician has never spent more than about 15 minutes on the diagnosis (or to be a bit more generous, let's say several 15-minute re-evaluations as new information came to light, such as blood test results).

It's a strange contrast. I considered my bugs to be serious bugs, and it was worth 100 hours to diagnose it correctly. But my bugs are _nothing_ compared to a human life. Why is our medical system OK with quick diagnosis? Does it all come down to money or would more time available to the physician make no difference because [medicine is art not science / some other reason]?

<comment><USER4> The analogy is not apt. A closer analogy is not a programmer - the doctor is in IT support ... and is dealing with a unique combination of bespoke hardware and software for each case ... and has no makers documentation available.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't say bespoke (which implies written from the ground up from scratch), but with possibly different environment and other configuration variables and, occasionally, slightly different shared library files.

And while there is no official documentation available, there is plenty of good guesses from hordes of brilliant reverse engineers.

Still, there are only a handful of error codes that are thrown, and you have to make your first guesses from those and the logging is pretty terrible when you do decide to dig a bit deeper.

And inserting your own code into the spaghetti mess is a bit of a crapshoot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To quote the article: "Mukherjee's laws of medicine are laws of uncertainty, imprecision, and incompleteness. ...".

I don't know if these ideas constitute science "laws", but of course the practice of medicine _is_ bounded by such factors. Then again what discipline of any importance is not also similarly constrained? A common theme on HN is the inevitability of software flaws, the uncertainties and corner cases inherent in programming tools, like compilers, render satisfactory outcomes a matter of probability, not at all unlike medical diagnosis and treatment.

Nothing new, medicine has been regarded in the last century or so as an art, with a basis in science to the extent it exists. Truth is that a great many phenomena have received little or no study, yet unstudied problems still show up in the office every day and must somehow be addressed.

Good practitioners welcome scientific contribution and eager to employ "evidence-based" procedures. Trouble is there's not much guidance forthcoming, leaving those in the front lines doing what they can with the inadequate tools in the toolbox.

It's worth adding that a substantial part of the probabilistic nature of the work is attributable to the limitless variability of human illness. I've long expressed the idea in a terse form: _The reality is no two people ever have exactly the same disease_. The subtle differences are what make diagnosis and treatment a constant challenge.

Put another way, abstraction is at once a powerful benefit and potential source of error. Declaring a patient's condition falls into a particular diagnosis lends a valuable clue. However such categorization may easily blind us to the small, crucially important distinctions among sufferers with the same diagnosis. We can easily be fooled by our own cleverness. Point is that the intuition, the talent, of a fine practitioner will always defy "explanations", and that makes it an art.

Edit: punctuation

</comment><comment><USER7> What's worse is that modern day society expects physicians to be able to act with some certainty. And when outcomes don't turn out the way everybody wishes it would have, the target of scapegoating is the physician.

If you saw a person falling in front of a car, and you stopped to help him but in the process stepped on the man's glasses, would you believe it to be fair for the person who fell to blame you for the broken glasses?

<comment><USER8> Yes, if you also got the credit for saving him from the car!

<comment><USER9> And in a world where stepping on someone's glasses can bankrupt a well to do family, that pettiness of yours and all that think as you do causes people to die under the tires of a car... because would be helpers do not think they can afford to do what is right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I will note that Siddhartha Mukherjee is also the author the _The Emperor of All Maladies_, perhaps the greatest popular science book on cancer that is scientifically and historically accurate and very engaging. I highly recommend it (and will be picking up this book on the basis of Dr. Mukherjee's previous work).

</comment><comment><USER11> Interesting. For a while I've felt that Medicine isn't the science it's cracked up to be - or at least our knowledge of the state of the art is never as certain as presented by science. It seems to have many false paths of thought similar to economics.

In the spirit of confirmation bias, I recently listened to a great podcast relevant to the topic [0] which discusses why this is. It's more than just lazy statistics.

[0] [http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/02/adam_cifu_on_en.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/02/adam_cifu_on_en.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> I can't scroll down linked article on android 5.1 chrome. Although what I've read on the first page corresponds to my observations regarding medicine.

<comment><USER13> You just have to clever up!

I managed to scroll down by invoking the Android text selector and be dragging the selector block downwards.

Android-CURRENT on Huawei Nexus 6P here :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very interest article (yeah, it scrolls for me). And it mirrors some of my concerns with only basing yourself on EBM

Most studies are flat. They are concerned with "condition X and drug Y". They go to a finer granularity usually when it's obvious (like treatment A works ok but it is obviously a worse choice if patient has condition B). Getting too deep in conditions is a slow process

Added to that the elements of diagnostics, which more often than not is a "Plato's Cave" view of the patient's condition

"The first law is that a strong intuition is more powerful than a weak test. By this, he means that common things occur commonly and uncommon things, uncommonly... "If you hear thundering hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras — unless you happen to be in Africa.""

Bayesian thinking!

</comment><comment><USER15> AFAIK, the most important law of medicine is "First, do no harm." The rest is basically the details.

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

<comment><USER16> Yet doctors routinely do harm - chemotherapy, amputations etc. Its part of many therapies to make a patient hurt. So that's a noble goal, but modern medicine left it behind a century ago.

<comment><USER17> These things are not taken lightly and are done to reduce more harm or to avoid death. What's the alternative?

<comment><USER16> The point is, "Do no harm" is sophomoric. Harm is, sometimes, the way to do a greater good. Save a life. Restore function. Remove cancer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> technically i think it's called stochastic systems biology</comment>


I will build your prototype - <AUTHOR> http://iwbyp.chris-granger.com

<comment><USER2> Constructive criticism from someone who has experience as both a buyer and seller of software development services:

1\. Many clients prefer fixed price engagements, but _savvy_ clients know that "prototype in 2 weeks for $5,000" isn't as good a proposition as it seems. What happens when I send you dozens of wireframes for a complex web app that would realistically take an experienced programmer a month to prototype well? Answer: I'm going to get what I paid for in real terms, but not what your offer really "promised" in spirit. Experienced clients tend to avoid one-size- fits-all offerings for this very reason, so you're left with the inexperienced clients who may wind up disappointed. These clients are easy prey, but can also cause real headaches as well.

2\. Your Q&A section isn't very client-oriented. Yes, you're targeting the HN/"startup entrepreneur" set, which is comprised of people who might not think anything of answers like "That's not a question and this is also a prototype", but great service providers exhibit respect and humility. If you're interested in building prototypes and probably aren't going to want to go beyond that, "My primary focus is on building fantastic prototypes. Please inquire about non-prototype projects" would reflect a lot better on your attitude than "That depends on how interested I am in the project." Your clients pay _you_ ; you're _not_ doing them any favors.

3\. The idea "it shouldn't matter what language this is written in" sounds good on paper, but it is actually quite flimsy. Prototype code may be scrapped relatively quickly, but the idea that a client will build a prototype in two weeks and not want/need to iterate on it before building a production app is absolutely naive. You're basically saying that every assumption and use case that went into producing designs/wireframes will be dead on, and validation won't require any tweaks. If the client isn't willing to invest in Clojure and you're (likely) gone after $5,000 and 2 weeks, where does that leave the client? The better approach: if you're sticking exclusively with Clojure, sell the benefits of Clojure and leave it at that; don't try to fool the client into believing that "it shouldn't matter" because your code is supposed to be written once and then disposed of.

Bottom line: I don't know Chris and he may have great skill and experience, but this offering seems like little more than an angle for the developer to drum up $10,000+ monthly while making sure that he really doesn't have to align his interests with those of his clients. Wham bam thank you ma'am...

<comment><AUTHOR> You make some fair, though invalid, assumptions.

1) It's true, I cannot magically produce an entire photo-editing app in two weeks, but this makes the assumption that I won't be very frank with what I will deliver. It also makes the assumption that I can't work with people multiple times. The point here is to define a unit of work. My unit of work in this endeavor is two weeks at a fixed cost. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I'm not here to prey on clients and if what I offer isn't a good fit for them, they'll know in our first conversation.

2) This makes two assumptions: that I am doing this to build a client-based business and that I'm in this primarily for the money. I'm not really trying to build a client-based business that works for everyone. I've been a part of such businesses and I really disliked my time there. As such, I don't mind my frankness being a filter for who I do or do not hear from. Which brings me to the second assumption; I'm doing this for the fun of working with other people to bring ideas to life, not to make money. So while my clients pay me, they're getting a good deal and it really is up to me whether or not I wish to continue working on their project. That's not me expressing attitude, that's me being honest right up front. :) Moreover, I believe service is exemplified in action and while you seem to think otherwise, if I take someone on, I'm there to help them the best I can.

3) This hits the same point I made before, if the idea changes, there's no reason I can't work something out with my clients. There's also no reason that we can't set up another two week iteration.

While I understand your points, they seem tinted by negative experiences and though it may sound trite, part of why I'm doing this is because of my own poor experiences in client work.

<comment><USER2> 1\. "My unit of work in this endeavor is two weeks at a fixed cost." Most clients aren't interested in a "unit of work", particularly for these kinds of projects; they're interested in _work product_. In other words, to the client, your value is not in your time but rather what you say you can actually _produce_ in a particular amount of time. You are _not_ saying "Hire me for my expertise. I will help you turn your idea into a reality for $10,000/month". You are saying "I will build a prototype for you in 2 weeks for $5,000." There's a huge difference.

2\. "Which brings me to the second assumption; I'm doing this for the fun of working with other people to bring ideas to life, not to make money." I hate to break it to you, but when you charging money for your services, you _are_ working for money and building a client-based business. You may not _need_ the money, but your clients don't really care; they expect that when they cut you a $5,000 check, you're going to be 100% committed to delivering what you promised them.

3\. "There's no reason I can't work something out with my clients. There's also no reason that we can't set up another two week iteration." How exactly do your clients "work something out" with you? Is it based on _you_ loving their idea? What happens when the complexity of what the client is seeking increases? Are you going to make yourself available, or are you going to cut out and take on a $5,000 engagement that you can knock out without breaking a sweat? Again, your _official_ pitch is wham bam thank you ma'ma.

I'm sure you're a nice guy Chris, and based on your background, I wouldn't be at all surprised that you're capable of building great things.

But...anybody who has been in this business for any length of time knows all too well about talented individuals who try to play the role of service provider but delude themselves into thinking that they don't have to operate like one. It's sort of like taking a job as a police officer, but trying to limit what type of calls you'll respond to in such a way that you're no longer doing the work of a real police officer.

Bottom line: when all is said and done full time contractors who align their interests with their clients are almost always more productive than "I'm doing this for fun" freelancers who think their impressive resumes entitle them to $xx,xxx/month in short-term client engagements.

<comment><USER3> "Most clients aren't interested in a "unit of work" I disagree. A prototype, especially for these kinds of projects, is absolutely crucial. To have a concrete version of their idea before shelling out $10,000/month seems to be something quite a lot of people would be interested in.

"You may not need the money, but your clients don't really care; they expect that when they cut you a $5,000 check, you're going to be 100% committed to delivering what you promised them." This makes the assumption that Chris will not be 100% committed to delivering what he promised.

"Again, your official pitch is wham bam thank you ma'ma." His official pitch is that he will build a prototype for someone in 2 weeks time for $5,000. Nothing about that indicates to me that just because he has set a time limit on it, he will not have his clients best interests at heart or that he wouldn't be willing to work with his clients to figure out a next course of action should the work increase beyond 2 weeks time.

"when all is said and done full time contractors who align their interests with their clients are almost always more productive than "I'm doing this for fun" freelancers who think their impressive resumes entitle them to $xx,xxx/month in short-term client engagements." Entitled is certainly a strong word to use. If he is as capable as he says he is, I'm not sure why he shouldn't get paid for a service he is providing for people who need it. I'm also not sure there's as big a difference between contractors and a "I'm doing this for fun" freelancers as you make it out to be. Contractors are allowed to pick what they work on, same as freelancers. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Would you be willing to share any numbers from this experiment sometime in the future? I'm curious as to how the response rate will be now that it's on the front page of HN and how the projects ended up working out (was it too much work? did clients ask you to make final product? etc).

<comment><AUTHOR> I would be happy to!

<comment><USER5> do you have a blog? you should post projects and also comments there

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I worked with Chris on the prototype of Typewire (just 48 hours that time!). Our mutual friend had told me he was great, but I was still blown away. $5k for two weeks of his time is a steal.

<comment><USER7> By 48 hours you mean six workdays?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope! He means 48 contiguous hours :D It was originally built for the node knockout competition.

<comment><USER7> Oh, I see... Did you guys work for 48 hours straight? I find I get a bit paranoid at the 36 hour mark, but it gets better after that.

<comment><USER6> No, we slept somewhere on the order of 4-5 hours both nights and had short breaks while awake for food/sanity.

<comment><USER7> Ah, I love development sprints. I remember writing and launching the first (crude) version of historious over the weekend, it was amazing fun...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd be curious to hear your take on web apps with Clojure vs Ruby vs ASP.NET MVC, since it sounds like you may actually have good experience with all three.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, I guess I am unusually qualified to talk about those different domains. It's actually kind of funny - when I was interviewing with MSFT I begged and pleaded to get on the ASP.NET MVC team. I was previously a lead web developer and wrote a few different PHP frameworks back when rails was just starting to gain some popularity (and before anything good existed for PHP). So I thought I was _made_ for that job, but apparently they thought the VS editor was a better fit ;)

So here's a list of my thoughts on the different communities:

Clojure: up and coming; very piecemeal (working on this here: <https://github.com/ibdknox/noir>); community very helpful and very responsive on issues; Clojure itself is beautiful; it's hard to beat DSLs built into the language, you can actually do everything (HTML, JS, CSS) in one language.

Ruby (Rails): now "grown up"; lots of different modules for virtually everything you can think of; convention over configuration taken a bit too far; takes a while to just get started; but somehow maintains a low barrier to entry.

ASP.NET MVC: hosting remains an issue, though appharbor is working on it; they've come a long way; roughly equivalent to rails now, except when it somes to gems; lack of large gem-like community hurts; solid tools;

I think ASP.NET MVC suffers not because of the framework itself, but because of the mentality of the MSFT community; they wait for MSFT to deliver the things they want. Compare that to most other language communities (Ruby, Python, Node.js, Clojure, etc) and you see the polar opposite: everyone is writing tons of modules/gems/packages to solve all sorts of problems. Going too extreme on that front can be a problem too. The Node.js community, for example, suffers a bit from the decision paralysis created by everyone building modules for the same things.

Ultimately I settled on Clojure because I think it is one of the most intelligently designed languages I've ever used. While The web-side of things is still very much in the formative stage, it's actually further along than most people think. My startup (<http://www.typewire.io>, built by me and NathanHammond) is now entirely clojure, but we originally started with node.js. Over time, I became frustrated with the fact that JS code doesn't scale up to large apps well (it becomes messy no matter how hard you try, especially with something as callback heavy as node) and it didn't perform nearly as well as we'd hoped. The result of our transition, however, was a much smaller, more efficient codebase built on top of DSL's that make generating content so much easier. Writing your html directly in manipulable clojure data structures opens up a world of possibilities that I simply didn't have using standard templating solutions that most other frameworks rely on. My hope is that I can show some of this to others and am working to solidify what Clojure webdev can look like with my micro-framework Noir: <https://github.com/ibdknox/noir>

In the end, there's a lot more for me to say here... it may be better for a blogpost or a real-life conversation. I'd be up for the latter if you'd like :)

<comment><USER9> What's your Python experience? I've recently been introduced to Web2py which is extremely well-suited for rapid development and prototypes.

<comment><USER10> Web2py is unfortunate joke on Python development. It's not a Python anymore and it should be avoided at all costs IMO. You can start reading here: [http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/ex54j/seeking_clarif...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/ex54j/seeking_clarification_on_pylonsturbogearspyramid/c1bo1v5)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> $5000 for two weeks of work on contract is pretty damned cheap.

<comment><USER12> I recently spent three nights porting a C++ game from Linux to Windows, and made $181.90 after RentACoder and Paypal fees, and it was the only freelance work I've managed to find.

I'm just trying to keep my cell phone on, but unfortunately it's very hard to find anyone who needs the services of a professional C/C++/C#/Python/Ruby programmer with 4 years of gamedev experience.

I hate to do the "shameless plug", but I'm sort of desperate for work. If anyone needs anything done (at all!), or knows anyone who does, contact me at shawnpresser at gmail.

More info: <http://tinyurl.com/shawn-p-skills>

My resume: <http://tinyurl.com/shawn-p-resume> (.doc)

<comment><USER13> Speaking from experience, the trick is to own the sales channel. If you've managed to end up in a room with lots of other developers, particularly lots of other unqualified developers (RentACoder), you've already lost before you've even bid on a single project.

What you've got to do is

A) Think very hard about where your clients are at this very moment, physically, in the world, and then

B) Go to that place.

Those two steps are more sales than 99% of the developers in the world will ever do in their entire lives. Nothing wrong with that, as a lot of them have work. But if you don't, that's how to get it.

<comment><USER12> Hey, thanks for the advice. I appreciate it.

I read through several of your blog posts --- very informative!

How'd you get your start? (If I understand correctly, you're a freelance iPhone developer living in Austin. Awesome! That's the next city on my to-live list, if I can just scrape together a way to get out of St Louis.)

How much work did it take before you could turn a profit as a freelancer? (Whatever 'profit' happens to be to you.)

I'm so bored, a couple nights ago I wrote my own Minecraft server in C from the ground-up. I'm chomping at the bits to work on anyone else's project, but it's hard to find clients (without doing what you suggested).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One thing I'd like to see is an example set of wire-frame's/specifications etc. so I know how much detail I need to give you?

This is pretty appealing to me for two reasons:

1\. Everyone I have spoken to (albeit 'professional' firms) have gone for the big dollar, final product. As meetings with these kinds of places have progressed, I realise I probably won't get what I am looking for the first time, hence a prototype appeals to me.

2\. Every now and then I have gotten a little caught up in what it should be built in but as time has gone on, i've realised that as a business-side guy, it's really not my call. If you (as a technical-side person) want to use X AND are genuinely interested in working on this concept, then we're good to go. That is what my concern is now- finding someone who will commit for a decent period of time to the concept we're trying to create.

Maybe in time you'd be able to post some more info on what it is you need to get going. I am sure you can give guidance etc. via email however it might save you some time.

</comment><comment><USER15> I feel this directly correlates to the many discussions of the idea being worthless and leads to neglect of the real aspect of ideas being continuous. Given the timeframe, how can the the added ideas, which are equally important to the original concept minus the original implementation, add the necessary value/execution?

Additionally, this is a specific tech choice where I would love the chime of others contributing into this sort of thing, perhaps as a service, where one can choose equally proficient specialists of any stack(coming from a design.ui.idea guy learning ror). I know this is just the efforts of one based on taste/preference which you would choose, so I love the idea.

<comment><USER16> His point about the meaning of prototype is very relevant and on the mark. If the technology stack you choose to prototype matters in any way then it is highly likely that its not a prototype being built.

I think it is important to have this mindset when prototyping. Too often I see prototype code make it into production when it should have been thrown away.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, my goal with using Clojure is 3 fold:

1) Selfish - I really like Clojure

2) I hope more people will see Clojure as a viable language to develop websites in

3) It's obscure enough that most people won't try and turn this into production code. I've seen so many big projects that started that way... I cried when I had to work on any one of them.

<comment><USER15> I really like your p#3. My additional note applies just to me learning ruby and rails and would hope to take your code further as I progress. I guess what my concern: 5K is fair of course for your level of expertise, but I would love to have it for me to build on and learn on. A bit nieve to hope it would make it into production of course, but additional building and small changes in ui(I know better), model/db changes, logic, from the stack I've been learning will aid in me making a better "prototype", and learning! Perhaps after the initial 2 week job, additional tweeks on hourly or second iteration could be in order?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I had thought about doing a similar experiment, but being a bit more specific of only using rails, mongoDB, and backbone.js. I ended up getting too busy with my regular client work, but Id love to hear about your experience with this in a month or two.

</comment><comment><USER18> "[I] have worked on some software you've probably heard of: Puma.com, NewBalance.com, Microsoft's Visual Studio, and so on."

Do you mean that you use Visual Studio and that you worked on the Puma and NewBalance sites?

<comment> X-Istence I read it as him having worked on Visual Studio ...

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I was the Program Manager in charge of the C# and VB IDE before I left. Basically if it's visible and you're using .NET, that was my territory in some for or fashion. : )

<comment><USER12> Then thank you so much for your work on Visual Studio's Designer. That tool is hands-down the best UI layout tool for desktop apps. The Designer is a joy to work with, and is head-and-shoulders above what wxWidgets or Qt has to offer.

<comment><USER19> I hope we aren't talking about VS 2010. That ide, and in particular the designer is HORRIBLE to work with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm eager to hear about the results of your experiment.

Is anyone else going to do something similar with a different framework or language?

</comment><comment><USER21> Wow this sounds like a great idea. I'm curious about Clojure, what exactly makes it most efficient? Is it due to the Lispy-ness of it? ;)

<comment><USER22> I'm not the OP, but I also use Clojure and feel qualified to comment.

The Lispyness is a big part of it, but Common Lisp and Scheme have that too, and I still think CL does it better in a couple places. I don't usually go crazy with macros in my own code (a few here and there, where they're really needed), but having them in library code is amazingly helpful; the DSLs for various things are amazingly rich. Have a look at ClojureQL and tell me there's a nicer way (conceptually - it isn't as feature-complete as it could be) to integrate your app with a database.

Beyond that, it's that Clojure feels like a very well designed tool for people to use. Dozens of times, programming in various languages I've thought "this task would be so much easier if only the language had X", and Clojure more often than not has the X I'm thinking of.

The community is a big help too. It's full of smart, friendly people. It's small enough that you can get an answer from someone important (Rich Hickey once optimized some code for me), but big enough that you _can_ get an answer reasonably fast. It's thriving and innovative as well, with people trying new and interesting things all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What happens when you get more demand than you have time for?

<comment><USER24> Charge more until just enough demand exists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's an interesting concept, especially considering his pedigree. I wonder if it's a developer niche that could take off.

</comment><comment><USER26> A great place to send idea guys who are "just looking for a coder".

</comment><comment><USER27> Since Questions getting answerd. Whats your Clojure Stack?

</comment><comment><USER28> Seems like a reasonable deal for a very savvy person, but most people who would use the service probably need more help with understanding product and creating wireframes than with development. I can see lots of wannabe entrepreneurs coming in with poorly thought through wireframes of a few pages, lacking understanding of the interactions implicit in the wireframes - pop- ups, hidden pages, data model, authentication, user acquisition, etc. .

In my 5+ years of developing for these types of people, they need far more than someone who will "build your prototype." Generally they need guidance in knowing what sorts of decisions need to made, and then in making those decisions.

I'm all for string to provide a turnkey prototype development service, however I would fear most ideas and wireframes will be doomed from the start without push back for a well thought through MVP, which is likely not part of this service. That could lead to disappointment, over-reaching, and the unreasonable expectation of multiple iterations.

<comment><USER29> Seems like an opportunity for someone else to step in and sell "I will help you make your prototype for ($5000+$Fee)" where the $Fee covers the initial fleshing out of the design.

Of course, this in itself is quite a black art, so I'm not quite willing to step forward for that part myself...

<comment><USER13> The problem is, speaking from my experience as a freelancer, that if these sorts of people (individuals) haven't made a full spec by the time they've found you, it means they don't understand the need for one.

<comment><USER29> But that's what I mean with the fleshing out of the concept...

It would mean closely working with the client to define their idea and develop detailed specs, then passing these on once the client is pretty happy with the specs/wireframes or whatever has been used. I can see rapid sketchboards / wireframe mock-ups working quite well for developing the specs wit the client, and then to get a more functional prototype you'd pass this on to Chris. Your $Fee should cover this time + some profit, as this is a service you'd provide for both Chris and the client.

<comment><USER13> Of course I agree with you that what you're saying is what you _should_ do. But will you be able to convince the potential client to pay for that? Not on your life. Either they already know they need a spec, in which case they're not searching for a prototyper, or they "know" they don't need one.

I mean, I suppose you could raise your fee to $7k or whatever to cover the cost to spec it out, and say "prototypes for $7k". But speccing out an arbitrary project is just so vague and has so many dependencies on the client. Will they answer your design questions in an hour? In a day? In a month? How are you going to juggle all the client's delays and that? And by the time you've thought through all that, you're no longer a turnkey prototype delivery service, but more of a traditional design/development firm. Nothing wrong with that of course, just not what the OP had in mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I have very no experience with clojure, but this posts reads like an infomercial about it. Do you know if it is possible to develop for android using it (since it compiles on the JVM)? I ask from the perspective of someone programming in C# for the last 5 years.

<comment><USER31> You can, although it's not particularly optimal right now (library sizes, load times, etc. are not ideal). I believe it is a priority for some in the Clojure community to improve this though. But if you're not too worried about the commercial aspects straight away, it's certainly possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Ok, not sure if you'll see this - but here is my feedback as one who desperately needs your services:

I fully agree with all the comments TheSkeptic has made here.

First, your commitment to a prototype in 2 weeks for 5K == $125 per hour, and I think that this is a high rate.

You want to make $250K per year doing this on a contract basis where each contract is 2 weeks.

I take your wording to be more of you trying to sound confident and 'rock-star developer-ish' - but I cant judge your skills in producing my prototype based on this language.

How is this better than me getting another developer off-shore for less?

So, here is what i would rather employ you to do: Help criticize my wireframes and spec document such that I can go to a lower cost developer with a much more clear product spec and requirements and ensure that Ill get what I seek.

I'd be willing to pay you, say $200 to give me an hours review of my wireframes and spec and tell me what you think a realistic timeframe and work- effort is for that prototype.

If you say "Yeah this is really clear, and I can do this for $5,000" -- then I can choose to go with you, or not.

Again - $125/hour for quick pump out prototype is still an uncomfortable amount coming out of pocket.

<comment><USER33> I'm not seeing how you got to $125/hr... does he write somewhere that he'll only work 4 hours a day on the project?

I'm getting two weeks, 5 days a week, at an 8 hour workday = 80 hours. $5000/80hr = $62.50/hr, which from what I've heard is on the low side for contract programming (I haven't actually done any contract work, but this doesn't come out to much more than sr devs get with full benefits in a salaried job out here in the bay area).

I'm not saying it's a bad deal for him. This sounds like it could be fun if he can make it work - he's very upfront about it - two weeks, fixed rate, clojure only. I'd probably take a lower rate if I could consistently get fun, no- hassle work in my favorite language.

<comment><USER34> He has a full time job at Microsoft. You would be lucky to get 4 hours a day out of him.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't, actually. I left 6 months ago. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I think part of the knee-jerk reaction here is that 2 weeks is a short amount of time relying on external forces specifically from the client - that they can work as efficiently as you.

I do recommend that you outline hours... for example: $5000 is equal to 100 hours or less claimed with in one calendar month.

Clearly defines your scope of billing and prevents both parties from *dragging this thing on&on

</comment><comment><USER36> Most people have the mentality the ENTIRE product should be built with $5000, let alone a prototype. Of course, this probably doesn't matter to you since you'll get 2-3 ppl who understand the economics and time involved, and you won't get overworked.

</comment><comment><USER37> No LOLCODE?

no deal!

<comment><AUTHOR> srsly.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: A client project is getting momentum, I need infrastructure advices - <AUTHOR> Hello,
First off, I am by no means an infrastructure or devops guys, I'm a senior nodejs freelance, so some of this is new to me
This is the current infrastructur:e
- A nginx reverse proxy in front of the nodejs API VPS
- A 24 vCPU, 128 GB VPS
- A 64GB, 8vCPU database
- The landing page is on a Cloudflare worker
I am using PM2 to start a nodejs instance on each vCPU, so we have 24 instances of the API running behind the pm2 load balancer, itself behind the nginx reverse proxy
We're expecting around 50M-70M requests for next sunday, with most requests received around 9pm, we are expecting around 90k concurrent users
We are not using sockets, only HTTP requests (GET, POST, PUT)
I am looking for infrastructure tips to make sure that the API hold the traffic
Do you have any advice or tips on how I can scale the infrastructure and make sure that the API holds this kind of traffic ?
Thank you <comment><USER2> Caching?

<comment><AUTHOR> I forgot to add: All requests are behind Cloudflare DNS and CDN

No redis or anything like this for caching, HTTP requests are really simple</comment></comment>


When IT Is Like Children's Soccer - <AUTHOR> http://packetpushers.net/when-it-is-like-childrens-soccer/ <comment><USER2> I have always thought that "scrum" is a horrible name for a development method, accurate though it may be :)</comment>


RJMetrics Raises $1.2 Million from Investors On Both Coasts - <AUTHOR> http://info.rjmetrics.com/blog/bid/51367/RJMetrics-Raises-1-2-Million-From-Leading-Early-Stage-Investors

<comment><USER2> I'm thrilled to be joining this team as an investor and board member. Incredible product. Fantastic team.</comment>


The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and possible impact on elections - <AUTHOR> http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512.full <comment><AUTHOR> from Wikipedia:

The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) is the change in consumer preferences from manipulations of search results by search engine providers. SEME is one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. This includes voting preferences. A 2015 study indicated that such manipulations could shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more and up to 80 percent in some demographics.

The study estimated that this could change the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of national elections worldwide.

On the other hand, Google denies secretly re-ranking search results to manipulate user sentiment, or tweaking ranking specially for elections or political candidates.</comment>


Google Urbanism - <AUTHOR> http://googleurbanism.com/ <comment><USER2> Is this political protest art or some Professor Jeff Jarvis fever dream about innovention? I can't make any sense of it.

<comment><USER3> No matter how I changed the attention slider I just couldn't seem to focus on anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That "set your attention" slider is a cool idea I've never seen before.

It's also painfully hard to use (the maximum attention setting involved 4 overlapping animations at one point), and scary in a factual relativity sort of sense I've never even tried to pin down. It vaguely reminds me of the sort of manipulation NewsDiffs was created to counter - stories changing tone and even facts in real time with no acknowledgement of that fact.

I don't see any sign of that _happening_ on this page, but imagine one of those sliders with conflicting content at different attention levels. I find it creepy on a level I have trouble explaining.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is exactly what caught my attention, barring the pseudo-dystopian theme. I'd say that a different arrangement (e.g. a short TL;DR followed by a Learn More, and finally by the full whitepaper) would seem more "natural". That slider you can modify at will depending on your current attention span seems strangely creepy for reasons beyond my current human psychology understanding.

<comment><USER4> That's a good observation. I've seen a couple of things offer successive "takes" of increasing complexity, and always thought it was an interesting idea.

At a first guess, my bad reaction to the slider was based on an intuitive fear that the differences would be something more substantive than best-effort restatements of one idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This seems to be... someone's attempt to get hired as an idea man by Google to implement this proposal? With perhaps the scariest proposal ever. Essentially encouraging Google to control cities and be a monopoly, language the site actually uses.

"Google takes on more of the responsibilities of the state, becomes a central gateway to the basic services of city"

"Become the go-to partner for "Smart-City", displacing all other competitors from this market because of focus on human behavior."

"This could give you a monopoly over both physical and digital realms, leading the next generation of global tech conglomerates..."

<comment><USER4> And I almost worry that it might get someone hired. _The New Digital Age_ is all about this kind of pervasive physical/digital monopoly/monopsony, essentially pitching 'deep company' structures as a successor to 'deep state' ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is value in conveying your message clearly.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is something best handled through an agnostic B-corp or NPO, funded by Google and other tech companies (the way _Let 's Encrypt_ has been handled [1]).

However fragmented this message is, I get that they're trying to propose a program to bridge the gap with the physical world, but that results in regional monopolies. Sure, cities and states can help regulate it, but it's best if the organization was aligned entirely with the people living in that region.

[1] [https://letsencrypt.org/sponsors/](https://letsencrypt.org/sponsors/)

</comment><comment><USER8> This website is tiresome and confusing. I have no concrete idea what they're trying to say. This is after reading the first two attention settings. I failed to read the last due to technical malfunctions.

Is this an appeal to Google to monopolize Orwell's Nightmare?

</comment><comment><USER9> What a horribly designed website.

</comment><comment><USER10> Physical space data mining and attention bidding is exactly what's happening to us if we don't stop it. I wondered how long it would be before someone said it out in the open. The only odd thing about the presentation is the assumption it's not already happening. I'm pretty sure these levers are already well in motion.

Get ready for hordes of robots mining fake attention for money, though. We'll continue to ship bits around the internet by robots for robots to validate marketing budgets.

This future phenomenon is probably the best argument for a private web, if not a decentralized one.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm very unclear as to what this is. It looks like some third party trying to get Google to hire them to help them start tracking us offline the same way they do online, which is frankly terrifying.

</comment><comment><USER12> So broken on Safari mobile. Too bad.

</comment><comment><USER13> Good god the scrolling behavior on that site is _obnoxious_. I scroll down, and it _scrolls me back up because I didnt scroll enough_.

#1 way to make me discount your ideas before I've even read them.

<comment><USER6> Don't worry, they got plenty of other ideas like this.</comment></comment>


WeWork Founder Adam Neumann 'Helped Kushner Craft Mideast Peace Plan' - <AUTHOR> https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/wework-founder-adam-neumann-helped-kushner-craft-mideast-peace-plan-says-report-1.8168721 <comment><USER2> I love the idea of billionaires sitting together thinking they are geniuses, ensuring the demise of the entire world with their buffoonery.

<comment><AUTHOR> You know I think the thing is with some billionaires, they don't have to be useful for society to become a billionaire, they don't have to be moral, that don't even have to be smart.

Often they just have to be "charismatic", better at lying, better at cheating, less moral, etc.

WeWork was never a good business, seems like he was just a massive narcissist who managed to trick the SoftBank guy (notorious for investing from the gut) into giving him billions.

So if we have a system that rewards ruthlessness, dishonesty, cheating, stealing etc, that's what we get at the top.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is getting worse than any silicon valley episode

</comment><comment><USER4> On the one hand it sounds insane. On the other, he mesmerized so many other people with pure charisma that maybe just maybe he could have been useful.

Fits with the Trumps' thinking that Mideast peace is just a real estate deal. And real estate is indeed central to it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah Kushner hasn't exactly fixed that situation like he thought he would.</comment></comment>


Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers. Why don't all newspapers? - <AUTHOR> http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/ <comment><USER2> I think the "debate" is obscuring the real issue, which is the development of terraforming technologies. Stabilizing Earth's climate at the point most beneficial for its biosphere is good practice for more challenging future homes of the Earth biocomplex, such as Mars, the Jovian Big 4, Titan, Ceres, and even the hardcore nightmare mode terraforming: Venus.

If humans can change planetary climate accidentally, we can certainly do it intentionally with a smaller and more directed effort. And if we can "fix" Earth to be optimally friendly to Earth life, those efforts will translate to environments that are more hostile from the beginning.

I just wish that politics hadn't hijacked the science to turn it into a machine for moving money and influence around.

<comment><USER3> In response to your last sentence: people who can hijack systems to gain power, money and influence tend to end up running things. It's pretty much inevitable.

<comment><USER2> Yes, but the hand that I wish into requires less frequent washing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's... interesting. I hope that they didn't ban people who deny that the current climate change is man-made? Denying facts is just silly, forbidding a discussion about causes for these facts seems non-scientific.

<comment><USER5> Reddit is not something that should be held up to scientific rigor.

Also, the assumption that the climate change denial comments have any chance of being well supported (not just because they're wrong, but because they're not authored by people with scientific training) is probably misplaced.

<comment><USER4> Certain reddit communities are vigorously trying to uphold scientific standards. AskScience, AskHistoriance etc come to mind. Yes, if deniers of man-made climate change can't cite scientific sources they shouldn't write in scientific reddits.

The problem I see with "people with scientific training" though is that it's very hard to make a career unless you support the view that the current climate change is man-made, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.p...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png). But there should (still) be enough percentage points left to find valid opposing arguments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why didn't he give an example? He said they just talk without backing up their claims with substantial data, yet that is exactly what he did and we are supposed to take his word for it. (Even if I do believe him)

<comment><USER7> Giving a specific example turns the discussion from "a group of people do this thing, and we've banned them" and whether that's a good or bad idea into "here's an example" followed by bitter discussion of how that example should or shouldn't be allowed in the sub.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think this shows scientific institutions and advocates in a bad light.

Rupert Sheldrake had a great TED talk on the dogma's of modern science, and was even further legitimized when a private council of TED banned the talk.

Link: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg)

<comment><USER9> TED talk is the epitome of scientific discourse (edit: /tongue-in-cheek).

Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychyologist.. really? .... -really-?

Maybe it should have been Venkmann.

<comment><USER8> You mean PHD Biologist that lectured at Cambridge University? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake)

So if you were a scientist interested in a field that others called, "stupid", you would just change for fear of peer pressure? I admire following your interest with scientific method... Which is what this man advocates, and not just blind faith to stats... Did you even watch the video before forming your opinion?

<comment><USER9> From what I can tell, he used to do pretty awesome work ... and then went a little crazy.

Much of this, for example, looks like depak chopra level pseudoscience drivel: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rupert+Sheldrake+&hl=en&...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rupert+Sheldrake+&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_ylo=1978&as_yhi=2013)

<comment><USER8> I wouldn't go that far. So how would one approach doing scientific work on additional sense in addition to the known 5?

Or what about the idea of constants not being so exactly concrete? Just do yourself a favour and watch the video.

And besides, his theory on morphological evolution isn't based on anything but experimentation and theory. If you dismiss it simply because it seems "too crazy"... then I could argue it could be comparable to the scientists of Galileo, dismissing such ridiculous ideas. Not even worth entertaining...

<comment><USER9> > his theory on morphological evolution isn't based on anything but > experimentation and theory

Alright, I'll bite. Can you point me to his papers that describe falsifiable experiments, and to the peers that have repeated his results? Or just some books on Amazon?

<comment><USER8> Sure!

[http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Morphic+Resonance&btnG=&h...](http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Morphic+Resonance&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1)

More specific: [http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/sheldrake-1992.pdf](http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/sheldrake-1992.pdf)

Again, not saying he's right. I'm saying that to dismiss an actual scientist when they say that in general, the field of science has "believers", and not enough people entertaining the questioning of "facts", is a dogmatic, and bad trend.

This is a good unbiased look on the whole event: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo)

<comment><USER9> So, over time, chicks unrelated to each other began to not peck at a given object as much, given a negative stimulus. Results aren't really in question, it's the "oh, they're all psychically linked" that's pretty much in question. There are multitude of other explanations possible, including involuntary corruption of the test by the experimenter (see also: the 'counting' horse that was actually responding to visual cues from its trainer, and not actually counting).

See also: Venkman and the pretty girl at the beginning of Ghostbusters

I tried to find instances of other scientists

Morphic resonance (and the 'morphogenic field') is an old idea from before we even knew about chromosomes, let alone DNA: it's a lot like how homeopathy was a big thing until we kind of figured out that bacteria caused disease.. A low statistical correlation with no corresponding replication with a high probability of accidental corruption by the original experimenter does not a compelling argument make.

Your 'unbiased look' at the event is by the guy himself. I don't think that really counts..

<comment><USER8> > Your 'unbiased look' at the event is by the guy himself.

Agreed lol.

I guess we just don't agree on the merits of materialism. While I definitely think it helps explain the world, and is our best friend when it comes to our perceptions or reality, it is a poor agent in even CONSIDERING non- materialistic characteristics in anything.

I find the whole thing highly ironic. It's almost like the highly educated / scientifically literate persons in our day and age worship materialism instead of the scientific method. Thats all science is. The methods and the steps we take to create reproducible research. Not the institutions and boards that write to editors claiming that the constant of the the speed of light did NOT change during the 20 years between X and Y.

I for one, can hold onto the ideas of constants, without engaging in a flight or fight response in my neocortex that forces me to reject new or creative ideas without even entertaining them.

For instance, could you investigate the possibility that global warming isn't because of human action? I could even thought I dont BELIEVE it. The dogmatic idelogue of modern science would have you act like a religious person regarding it. /rant.

<comment><USER9> Except no one wants to even peer review or try to replicate this guy's experiments, because a) they're flawed and b) they're batshit insane.

The conclusions he draws are -way- out there. It's like newton comparing the dropping of two objects and their rate of fall, and saying the penny drops at the same rate as the bowling ball because the penny thinks faster. Complete disconnect between results and hypothesis.

He's saying "look, their behavior changes over time (even this is disputable)! Without the chicks talking to each other! IT MUST BE PSYCHIC." God of the gaps, and all that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Reading the article, and then seeing responses posted here, I am starting to think hacker news isn't the place for these kind of discussions. Any time any kind of contentions topic is posted a small number of people, similar to those described in the article, come out of the wood work and feel the need to share their uninformed opinions.

On an unmoderated forum like this one, perhaps it is better to keep the discussions restricted to subject like programming languages and operations systems, and avoid inadvertently providing a microphone for those with an axe to grind.

</comment><comment><USER11> I have no problem from banning people that refuse to accept reality from any educational or political forum. If they banned people for talking about Intelligent Design or alchemy (outside a historical context) I would say that's a feather in their cap as well.

</comment><comment><USER12> An irrational move made by a small-minded person.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you're confident in your views and your opponent is incapable of articulating his (and, in fact, may actually be hurting his cause) ... you make sure he has a big audience.

<comment><USER13> Let me see now: You start your comment with an ad hominem attack on the author and then move to making an unsubstantiated claim that contradicts the experience of Every. Single. Online. Community.

I don't think you're contributing to this discussion, and in fact, your comment is an example of what drags discourse into the gutter: Emotional, personal attacks coupled with information-free claims contradicting the established body of knowledge in a field.

If I had the power, I'd mod your comment and all like it into oblivion without hesitation, along with being very clear to you and anyone asking why I would make that choice.

<comment><USER12> _If I had the power, I 'd mod your comment and all like it into oblivion without hesitation, along with being very clear to you and anyone asking why I would make that choice._

I hope that's sarcasm, otherwise you're simply reinforcing my point.

<comment><USER13> No, it isn't sarcasm. Online communities need moderation to thrive. If you allow people to insult each other at will, eventually you drive all the thoughtful folks away: We have better things to do than constantly point out Discussion 101 things like fallacies and abusive behaviour.

Unmoderated forums end up full of people who have a great deal of time on their hands and a large emotional attachment to arguing online. If that's your bag, you should hang out in such places. If it isn't you should try to avoid comments that come out swinging with insults.

I favour moderated forums, and I favour moderating away comments that are blatant examples of abuse. Your tastes may vary.

p.s. Normally I just downvote and move on, but since this discussion is actually about moderation, I thought that explaining myself was appropriate. But normally, I don;t engage in much of this kind of discussion, because it "feeds the trolls:" People with an emotional axe to grind thrive on arguing angrily about why they should be allowed to argue, angrily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Codifying circle jerks is a dangerous precedent for a sub-reddit. Of course that assumes that the goal of the forum is fostering discussion and not just engaging in choir-preaching...

</comment><comment><USER15> Prediction: /r/Science goes the way of /r/politics and /r/atheism and stops being a default sub-reddit.

</comment><comment><USER16> When the global warming scientists can actually use their theories to predict something, then I'll pay attention.

For now, the only thing they seem to predict is the number of government grants, conference invites, and headlines they'll get from their unproven, dire predictions.

<comment><USER17> This one got ten pages in science 30 years ago. [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957)

Predicted around 1/3 of a degree, reality is about 1/2 of a degree. So, there's that.

<comment><USER18> In fairness, there were probably other papers that were not nearly as accurate.

<comment><USER17> In fairness, the default stance would be no change at all. I can't find any that said earth would get colder or stay the same. However, that query is hard to google for. Are you saying Hansen just got lucky? The paper is pretty accessible, i found a copy at nasa [http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html)

The reality is, there are a small vocal minority of people that will reject every climate change claim out of hand. There is no known standard that will satisfy those folks. They don't assign the probability as .0000000001, they assign it as zero. now and forever zero. That seems irrational to me, but maybe they know something i don't.

I dunno. Me personally, I'd put a high probability on climate changing, and a _slightly_ lower probability on it being caused by humans. I'd put a low probability on us doing anything about it. I'll be dead before the big consequences kick in, so it really doesn't matter much to me. It's kind of ridiculous i'm wasting time commenting about it given my beliefs about any sort of change, but whatever. I'm inconsistent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Next, please: ban creationists.

<comment><USER20> Only if they're jerks. Perhaps you didn't read the article?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nietzsche describes "der letzte Mensch" as the lowest form of human life. His scientific materialism is the most degrading, smallest illusion, worse than any religious dogma. The last man has regressed to the thoughts of what we used to call "beasts," that is, life which is concerned with, can only understand, biological sustenance. Even that may be overly generous, as beasts can be at least curious. His religion, such as it is, is survival, or, at the most, health.

He is not so much scientific as scientistic. Science, understood as a type of mathematical empiricism, is not metaphysical. Empirical rigor prevents the authentic scientist from making claims about the existence of God or the proper ends of human life -- or about science itself. When one's gaze turns from the empirically quantifiable to examine the scientific method itself, one has started doing philosophy. One cannot look through the microscope and look at the microscope at the same time.

The idea that science is a metaphysical system rather than a method for modeling the world mathematically is scientism. Scientism makes claims that are not susceptible to mathematical analysis or reproducible experiments; that is what distinguishes it from science. These claims include: the world as perceived by human senses is the primary or ultimate reality; science is the best way of understanding the world; God (the Hebraic, infinite God) does not exist; health (understood as reproductive fitness) is the primary object and standard of value of human life. These are all metaphysical or moral claims and as such do not describe objects in the world or physical matter that can be examined by the scientific method.

Scientism leads naturally to pseudo-science. If you believe in scientism, then you believe that "science" can provide answers to metaphysical and moral questions. If you believe that, then you believe things like this) are scientific, rather than pseudo-science. It is pseudo-science because it is based on beliefs concerning what is better as the end of life. Such beliefs are not susceptible to mathematical modeling and are therefore not part of science.

Pseudo-science leads to progressivist political ideologies. Karl Marx is merely the most infamous proponent of "scientific materialism," his term for a baroque and metaphysical religion. It is a religion, based on scientistic historical analysis, atheism, and economics as the valuation of human flourishing. Following the disastrous horrors of the Soviet and Maoist experiments, few today openly fly the Communist banner, but similar ideals persist in more subtle forms.

Progressivism, because it is inherently a metaphysical system based on mythological pseudo-science, views Christianity as infidels. As in Islam, the infidel is sometimes tolerated, sometimes more aggressively attacked. Militant atheism distinguishes itself from science by, again, making metaphysical claims about the nature of reality instead of mathematically modeling certain phenomena, and further by enacting legislation (or more thug-like vigilantism) enshrining its particular mythology (scientism). The infidel, as again in Islam, is not argued with but attacked in a jihad, whether through official legislation or "activism."

</comment><comment><USER22> Why ban them? It's important to hear multiple opinions on the topic. If they are trolling or not adding anything to the discussion, then yes, ban them.

<comment><USER7> > It's important to hear multiple opinions on the topic.

Like evolution? It's important to hear that a God created everything, and directs the Universe?

Or like Earth sciences? It's important to hear that God created the world 6,000 years ago and all those scientists have got it wrong?

It's pretty clear why they were banned. It's not for presenting opposing views, but for aggressively dismissing real science without scientific evidence to support them.

> After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear > that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic > users were not the common "internet trolls" looking to have a little fun > upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These > people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were > hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial > thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their > preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, > plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and > rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.

[...]

> Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while > blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. > Worst of all, they didn't even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs > that called university scientists biased.

<comment><USER23> What if reddit was run by people who were the skeptics? Then the science community would be banned.

In silence it's all about who decides who is silent. In this case its reddit but what if it isn't?

<comment><USER7> Reddit has not banned anti-science denialists. A scientist run sub-reddit about science has banned anti-science denialists, after attempting to talk to them.

People interested in hearing the various view points of climate change scientists and campaigners and denialists could set up a sub-reddit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Radiation from fukushima is about to destroy the world's oceans and the fake environmentalists are still whining about carbon. Science is truly in the service of the State. Anybody who uses the word "denier" to denigrate their political opponents is employing dishonest tactics that only a fool would find convincing.

<comment><USER11> I like the juxtaposition of

> Anybody who uses the word "denier" to denigrate their political opponents is > employing dishonest tactics that only a fool would find convincing.

and

> fake environmentalists</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Hiring Managers, what are you struggling with in hiring people? - <AUTHOR> Hiring managers, what are your biggest struggles on finding, interviewing, & hiring people?  Is it the HR process?, the skills gap in the market?, Bozo recruiters? Your own lack of hiring experience? <comment><USER2> Hiring is tough. Extremely tough. Here are some of the reasons:

\- Extremely time consuming and it still could be a long shot to find the right person. I have worked in teams where we gave up trying to hire due to time issues (recruiters were useless)

\- Hiring without a real purpose. Sometimes, hiring managers themselves don't know why they want to hire. This is dangerous as hiring someone without a specific purpose could be bad for both parties. Yes, it happens and happens a lot in enterprisy companies. I know one of my hiring managers once wanted to hire just to build his team in a specific location. Ended up not working out very well.

\- Finding the right person again is really really hard. Sometimes you are looking for a very specific skill because you have project deadlines. Sometimes, you are ok with someone more broad but again, this depends on the need. Lot of hiring managers fail this test as well.

\- Difficult to hire and retain good talent in a volatile market specially in tech. If you don't offer details of the job including salary etc specifically, it it harder to attract good talent.

Overall, my take on hiring is that there has to be a direct interest from the hiring managers in actually interviewing, testing and hiring candidates which is time consuming and never a slam dunk. Lot of pain happens when frankly, there is not much interest from the hiring managers and things are "outsourced" to a recruiter/agency. Not to say all recruiters/agencies are bad but 95% are. I know some really good ones though.

</comment><comment><USER3> Source: Have been a hiring manager. Currently I help hiring managers with this problem.

The biggest issue I see again and again is time. Hiring good people is hard. Hiring good people fast is really hard. Hiring lots of good people fast is really fucking hard.

Ultimately it takes a huge amount of time to source, filter, screen, interview and hire good people. A lot of early stage founders complain that hiring ends up being their biggest time sink. As a result, right now in London (UK) there's an enormous demand for internal talent people to come on board and take over that responsibility as external agencies are an inefficient and expensive solution.

Putting time to one side, my biggest issue is not so much the finding, screening or interviewing part, it's the engagement part. Give me a job brief, a short chat with the engineering lead and a couple of hours in front of my laptop and I'll create a significant list of potentially appropriate candidates. even if the engineering lead reduces that list by half, convincing those people to have a conversation is an incredibly difficult thing as the majority of 'good' engineers are already in work and know that there is a world of opportunities out there if they could be bothered to look so why should they care about you and your random opportunity?

<comment><USER4> It's not hard.

* Advertise your above market rates

* Advertise your generous referral bonus system

* Be very clear about the role (responsibilities, domain, org structure, etc)

* Poach from the pool of employees from respected, established companies. Ideally with 2+ years (they've basically done the vetting for you, and you know they've survived at least 2 review cycles)

* Avoid long drawn out interviews, any in person interviews should be treated like a final sanity check before an offer, like management interviews are.

<comment><USER5> Publishing rates? Above market rates? Our salaries are competitive. We can't tell you what they are, but they're competitive. Please interview with us. /s

<comment><USER2> Did I forget to mention that we have "excellent benefits and perks" /s

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In my particular case, hiring for security engineers is ridiculously hard.

If we put them through a hands on assessment, they only find cross-site scripting errors with the most basic payloads (for example) and fail to assess with more abstract thinking (like design flaws that are not part of the OWASP Top Ten).

Out of ten candidates I interviewed, only one knew what same origin policy is (this is foundational). I'm not asking about elliptic curve cryptography here, and I'm pretty generous with assuming people are just really anxious.

I've considered that I'm too harsh, looking for the wrong signals, interpreting noise as signal and trying to match for folks like myself instead of an objective bar. Every time I revise to try and reach the platonic ideal of an interview where:

1\. There is a short hands on assessment,

2\. There is a phone interview with basic theory and no trick questions,

3\. We eliminate as much "culture fit" hunting as possible,

4\. We basically go totally rèsumè blind,

...we still fail to interview folks who can reliably find find SQL injection in a deliberately vulnerable MySQL database.

I think it's pipeline issue, personally, but I'm open to suggestions that my interview methodology sucks. I'm a big fan of 'tptacek's hiring style.

Every time I get hopeful, something goes wrong and we have wasted 10 or so hours that week (or more) collectively evaluating this individual. The closer we get to the final interview or hiring decision, the more disappointing and inefficient it gets.

</comment><comment><USER7> Only aspiring middle managers, new grads, and boot campers are available for hire these days. The rock stars have already left the game for greener pastures.

<comment><USER8> What is an aspiring middle manager? Is that a programmer age reference? What is a rock star? Does not being a rock star mean you're a rock?</comment></comment>


Show HN: A tool to make giving to charity more transparent - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/posts/give-with-ella <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN!

I've spent a short working on a tool to help change public perception of charity, and encourage charity's to be better at being open about their finances and activities.

Right now it just covers the UK market, but I plan to include U.S, EU and Australian charities soon also.</comment>


Asteroids Are Stronger, Harder to Destroy Than Previously Thought - <AUTHOR> https://releases.jhu.edu/2019/03/04/breaking-up-is-hard-to-do-asteroids-are-stronger-harder-to-destroy-than-previously-thought/ <comment><USER2> I now feel a vague compulsion to reimplement the 1979 Atari arcade game Asteroids, with game mechanics that have much much harder to smash asteroids...

Pew pew! Pew pew pew pew pew pew _ damn_ pewpewpewpew _die_</comment>


Best Buy Should Buy Consumer Electronic Startups - <AUTHOR> http://iamvictorio.us/post/29837814377/best-buy-should-buy-consumer-electronic-startups <comment><USER2> Not exactly my field, but my understanding is that large retailers sometimes do do outsourced product development roughly similar to this post's suggestion. Typically, that is a result of someone in direct sales building a _monstrously_ successful product (relative to other direct sales items), then using that as leverage to get the chain to stock it on terms which are more favorable than their usual ones. (Consumer electronics manufacturing is a _tough market_ , kiddos, and the folks who control the distribution channels very aggressively remind you that if you don't give them very favorable terms and also _pay them for pushing your product_ then they will find someone who will.)

If you've got something which is profitable in direct sales but is not yet a monstrous brand name, it doesn't make sense for you to sell to Best Buy (why serve in heaven when you can reign in... wait, this doesn't work if heaven is Best Buy) and it doesn't make sense for Best Buy to buy you, because you're probably selling something that a Chinese factory can produce in a functionally equivalent fashion for 1/3rd the price.

The asset is the brand/proven distribution channel. (That's why e.g. Magic Bullet survives when you can get functionally equivalent food processors for less _literally adjacent to it_ in the store. The functional equivalents have higher margins and would have displaced the Bullet but for the Bullet being the customer favorite due to, well, really good infomercials.) Best Buy doesn't _really_ want to buy that from you, because you'll peg the price to the existing distribution channel that you own which they have no desire in.

<comment><USER3> This.

Too many people confuse distribution and product development.

While I laud the OPs suggestion that retailers like Best Buy might be more competitive if they could source products that Amazon cannot, there is an existence proof for this called "Pier 1 Imports" whose "special sauce" consisted almost entirely with seeking out niche suppliers, locking up a retail relationship with them, and putting their stuff into stores. Great for craft kinds of things but not so much consumer electronics.

Now if you want to go so far as to say there is an emergent market for 'craft' electronics (and there is some evidence on Kickstart to suggest this looking that the Blink project for example) then perhaps what should really be the point is to create the 'Pier 1' of those electronics. The seeds of that would seem to be in Makershed.

<comment><USER4> But Amazon has Marketplace and 3rd-party sellers, so how could Best But get any product that Amazon cannot?

<comment><USER5> The way I understood the article is that BB (would) buy these small companies out (and thus lock up the distribution and lock out the Amazons of the world).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a high-risk strategy, and I think it would be very cool. Unfortunately, Best Buy culture basically eschews risk. Being successful in that company mostly involves not doing anything that will get you noticed in a negative way, and eventually you'll get promoted. The entire company has become all about squeezing out profits on commodities at ever-shrinking margins - and we've seen how well that is going. Everyone there felt pretty smug when they were wiping the floor with Circuit City, but now they are being pwned by Amazon. I just see too much inertia to turn that ship around. If Schulze can take the company private again, then _maybe_ they can recover, but mostly I think they are doomed.

</comment><comment><USER7> Best Buy has its own house brands like Dynex and Rocketfish so they have some experience working with outsourced product development but I think there's a bigger opportunity to transform the Best Buy experience. The biggest strengths of BB is that they're a well known brand with supplier connections with every major CE company in the business along with a large network of stores which in many cases are positioned in very good areas with high visibility and good accessibility. On the downside, they have a reputation for having poor customer service and the appearance of having incompetent workers turns a lot of high value customers off. Here's what I would do if I were Best Buy:

1) Trim the workforce and focus on service - Your biggest asset is that when anything goes wrong, just come back into Best Buy and you'll take care of it. This is not easy for online channels to replicate especially when shipping costs continue to rise and it's a hassle to box and ship a 60" LCD TV back.

2) Move away from a SKU focused experience - Given most of Best Buy's customers are probably in the middle-America, slightly older, demographic, I'm surprised that they just put things on shelves and expect people to know how to pick/find the right item. This forces people to rely on the Blue Shirts which in many cases results in a negative experience (see Louis CK show about Blue Shirts). Instead, I would transform the store into an Ikea showroom like experience where people SEE, EXPERIENCE, PLAY with all of the technology and see how it's applied in real life. This would also reduce the number of salespeople you need milling around.

3) Reduce SKUs - BB is never going to have as many SKUs as Amazon so I would focus on carrying a more curated set of products at a few logical price points. This could lead to easier support and help the Blue Shirts develop more expertise since they don't have to know hundreds of products.

<comment><USER8> That's right along the lines of a possibility I've considered for BBY myself.

It would be amusing to see BBY become a champion of customer service with a curated selection as I feel like they were a major force in promoting price and selection over service in the first place.

>Your biggest asset is that when anything goes wrong, just come back into Best Buy and you'll take care of it.

One of the things that permanently soured me on BBY several years ago was seeing an elderly woman about to break into tears arguing with a manager over the "service plan" for her TV. The manager was explaining that she wasn't entitled to a replacement unless BBY spent longer than 45 days trying to fix the one she purchased. Apparently, it had only been 42 days at the time of the argument.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This hypothetical business model exists already: It's called Brookstone.

They go out and find unique gadgets to sell at high markups in malls. It would be interesting to see that format adapted to Best Buy's "big box" real estate and store format. (In other words it is hard for me to imagine how it would work.)

<comment><USER10> Yep! You beat me to it. I wonder if it would be possible for some big brands like Dyson, Samsung, etc. to band together and maintain the retail show rooms. Perhaps a new holding company could be formed to manage the real estate on a more "Walmart" like 2-3% margin with the HW companies bearing most of the cost of retail, but also gaining a much larger chunk of margin.

I think retail is going to become a very interesting space over the next 10 years as the Big Box model gives way to an Amazon same day solution on one side and a high touch, high service model on the other.

<comment><USER11> I read somewhere that JCPenney is shifting to a strategy like this for clothing brands. The stores will start to shift to a cluster of mini-showrooms that each showcase a different brand. My first thought when I heard this is that the brands that are strong enough to be successful in this format would have already have their own store in malls.

I think such a strategy would only work for marquee brands. Apple can get away with a store with nothing but Apple products, but I wouldn't want to buy a TV from a store that only sold LGs. I would want to compare across brands since there is little to differentiate an LG from a Sharp or Samsung.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This post seems to assume that Best Buy is in the business of selling consumer electronics but they're not. They're in the business of selling services that are attached to consumer electronics.

I'd wager that Best Buy makes at least an order of magnitude more profit removing spyware for $180 then they do selling a $500 laptop. Not everybody buys those services, though, so they need high volume items to sell to support that revenue.

The $359 appliance to "cook meats and vegetables in airtight plastic bags in a water bath" is a perfect example of something that gives internet retailers a huge advantage - being able to find the people before distributing the item. But trying to plug that into Best Buy's business model would kill the thing that actually earns them a profit.

</comment><comment><USER13> I thought this post was absolutely brilliant. It's completely outside of Best Buy's current corporate culture, but perhaps they understand that experimentation is greatly needed.

I envision a specific, labeled section within Best Buy stores that is titled something along the lines of, "Best Buy Labs". It would contain non-UPC products of quality and would attract attention almost purely out of consumer curiousity. ("I wonder what they have in there this week?") The contents of the section would vary slightly from region to region, perhaps to play up local goodwill. Returns and exchanges would pose a challenge, but I see significant upside.

Edit: I forgot to add that it would be critical to keep this section clear of infomercial style gimmick products. If the perception turned from this being a laboratory to a Real TV store the idea would be sunk.

<comment><USER14> An interesting idea. If it's viable at all, though, shouldn't it be viable independently of whether a big-box chain does it?

It almost sounds like you're describing what Radio Shack should have been.

<comment><USER13> Key in my mind is a large number of casual walk-bys of people with no hobbyist interest in electronics. That would be Best Buy's competitive advantage in this space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It would more often make sense for a consumer electronics manufacturer, not a retailer, to buy a startup. The manufacturer can sell in a variety of channels, whereas the retailer can sell only in their channel (most of the time). The manufacturer has lower margins (because the retailer will take their cut), but I'm willing to bet that they more than make up for it on volume.

So it seems like a CE manufacturer will always outbid a Best Buy for a startup.

I think this is why you don't see Best Buy or other retailers buying CE startups. The only ones available to them would be the ones that CE manufacturers aren't buying and you'd have to ask yourself why they wouldn't buy them.

</comment><comment><USER16> Interesting information point to add: Chumby designed a product for Best Buy (the Insignia Infocast). Not sure how successful it was, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of details that we are not privy to.

<comment><USER17> The Infocast was a nice little product. I have one sitting next to me right now. It was not, however, a big sales success. I bought mine on closeout in late 2010.

Part of the problem was that Best Buy didn't know where to put the thing, nor how to market it. The 3.5" model was sitting next to the alarm clocks. The larger 8" model was sitting next to the Sony Dash in the picture frame area. You can figure out the rest from there.

<comment><USER18> The Sony Dash was also "chumby powered". It sold a lot better than the Infocast did, though. The Dash was in many ways the best chumby you could get in that it had a capacitive touchscreen, it had the least ugly industrial design of all the chumbys (IMO), it supported netflix, etc. OTOH it had gaping problems like Sony's insistence on using BIVL (which among other things makes the Dash the worst chumby for using Pandora and a few other services), it was locked down (unlike all other chumbies you can't just ssh into it and start hacking away), etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Off topic,

The example given of an appliance that cooks food in a sealed bag in a water bath called sous-vide [1] is interesting. I heard about this technique from a coworker for camping and cooking omelets, where there is no cleanup and everyone can make the omlet how they want. I had no idea this was a legitimate cooking technique - cool, now I know what it is called.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sous-vide>

</comment><comment><USER20> <Sarcasm>

Yeah, just what start ups need to succeed; Best Buy. I've always wanted to see start ups offering "Performance Service Plans" on their product.

</Sarcasm>

</comment><comment><USER8> Seems me that Best Buy would be better served by reinventing itself as an incubator of/investor in these products and selling them on Amazon.

Nothing is going to save the dead model of service contract bullying and cavernous stores where everything costs 50% more than it does (or would) on Amazon.

In any case, I'd be very surprised if Best Buy has the guts to do anything radical.

</comment><comment><USER21> They are trying: <https://www.facebook.com/bestbuy/app_212967045493154?071612>

And failing miserably, just look at the ideas that qualified for top 10 and the the other 61 that were not picked... seriously? a iPod Shuffle attached to a shoe?

</comment><comment><USER22> Or maybe there's a market for independent electronics stores to sell independent gadgets.

<comment><USER20> I believe its called Kickstarter :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Makes total sense.

</comment><comment><USER24> What self-respecting Consumer Electronic Startup would sell themselves to Best Buy?

<comment><USER25> The startup that wants a 1,000+ store distribution?</comment></comment>


Show HN: API for creating PDF and HTML output from unified source - <AUTHOR> http://actualreports.com/docs

<comment><AUTHOR> Disclaimer: I am founder of Actual Reports, we're a startup developing a tool to eases the creation of any kind of PDF and HTML documents regardless of the programming language. We provide an embeddable browser based editor for creating document templates and a RESTful API for merging the templates with data from your own software. Furthermore you can allow your users to create, customize and manage their own templates and generate personalized outputs without any help from developers.

</comment><comment><USER2> I have documented the API in Mashape (Disclaimer: I work for Mashape) - [https://www.mashape.com/community/actual- reports#!documentat...](https://www.mashape.com/community/actual- reports#!documentation)

</comment><comment><USER3> Actual Reports gives us a chance to focus on the product not the reports. Most of the reports are designed by not-IT people and with the help of Actual Reports we have saved lot's of hours. Really valuable product. Taavi (@ERPLY accounting)</comment>


18,000mAh battery has a phone in it - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/2/26/18241117/energizer-power-max-p18k-pop-huge-battery-phone-mwc-2019 <comment><USER2> That is probably near the limit set by the FAA on the kind of Li-Ion battery that can be carried on planes (maximum 100 watt hours per battery). See [1].

[1] [https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/as...](https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/passenger_info/media/Airline_passengers_and_batteries.pdf)

<comment><USER3> The limit is usually around ~27,000mAh

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Stop measuring battery size in amp hours. I have no idea how big this battery is without knowing the voltage. Use watt hours in the title.

<comment><USER5> Or we could use the proper unit of energy, joules. (1 watt second = 1 joule)

<comment><USER6> No, that would make things too easy to understand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I had a Oukitel 10k the first version: it was good, but the glass really broke so fast and easy which they promised to fix in the second version. So after 2 glass shatters I got the second version: the glass was indeed better but basically everything else was worse. The idea of not making everything smaller but leaving more space for the battery is good imho, but the quality of the phone has to be good and these brands usually are not.

<comment><USER8> Isn't a heavy phone like this going to be prone to glass breakage?

<comment><USER7> Version 1 would break even after a very light drop; the second version I dropped many times and on much worse surfaces and it held together. It still is fine years later. Not sure about this monster ofcourse; I'm talking about 'only' a 10.000 mah phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Any recommendations for something with a big battery about halfway between this and the average size phone? Ideally, good camera, recent Android, low bloatware, but normal (not tablet) width an height?

<comment><USER10> [https://www.gsmarena.com/battery-test.php3](https://www.gsmarena.com/battery- test.php3)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think I could live with 9000mAh. This is just a bit too thick...

</comment><comment><USER11> It's only a bit smaller than the first phone I ever used.</comment>


Please review. Kikutext: engage your community through text messaging. - <AUTHOR> http://kikutext.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAPSqBMQJEU> Here's a demo video.</comment>


Chelyabinsk Meteorite Collided With Asteroid Before Hitting Earth - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/05/22/chelyabinsk-meteorite-collided-with-asteroid-before-hitting-earth

<comment><USER2> > While more research is needed, the proposed timeline suggests that asteroids > — including NEOs that pose a potential threat to Earth — may have much > greater longevity than previously estimated.

The phrasing here is a little confusing. Is it just new that NEOs can be this old? What was the thinking before? That no asteroids could be that old? Or that no asteroids that old would ever come near Earth (if so, why)?

Am I missing some information (e.g. said meteorite was in some sort of unstable orb around Earth / the Sun for a long time)?

<comment><USER3> I believe the common thinking is that the giant gravity wells of Jupiter, Saturn, and the Sun are often considered a shield for the inner Solar System planets. Thus, given enough time (10 million years per the article) these wells attract and destroy a vast majority of free rocks, preventing them from threatening Earth.

But (my conjecture) if there's far more random junk flying around out there, that's going to force a re-think of how we guarantee the safety of space travel past the Moon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _The team estimated the massive collision happened up to 290 million years > ago._

The title seemed to imply a different timescale.</comment>


Failure is a feature: how Google stays sharp gobbling up startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/17/3322854/google-startup-mergers-acquisitions-failure-is-a-feature <comment><USER2> Google managed to hire Evan Williams, Biz Stone and Dick Costolo, but couldn't produce a meaningful competitor to Twitter.

Failure is a feature indeed.</comment>