How to save Sun/Sparc/Solaris, and why - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1597 <comment><USER2> This guy uses "security" as a value prop for SPARC and Solaris 3 times in this article. But there is no such value prop for either technology. Solaris is not more secure than FreeBSD or even many Linux distributions. And despite the mocking jab, the Itanium processor has a far more powerful and flexible security model than the SPARC does.

<comment><AUTHOR> Murphy is an unabashed Solaris/Sparc partisan, but he usually makes good points (in past posts, not much data on this one). I appreciate his dissenting from the majority viewpoint - thundering herds are prone to occasionally going off cliffs, as recently demonstrated.

I also believe he's right in thinking Sun is getting a raw deal from 'the street'. Of course, it would help if Sun could sell its way out of a wet paper bag ...

<comment><USER3> It does seem that many of the problems are down to short-term views from the "investors" forcing certain courses of action. The evidence does not show that bankers are any better running a computer company than they are running a bank.

(disclosure of bias: my startup runs on Sun + Solaris)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Witness, for example, Intel's "new" Nehalem line - it's great right? By Wintel standards, it is - but if Sun hadn't lent AMD some people to design x64 and then supported the company by building its own motherboards to demonstrate what x86 multi-core could do, you'd be paying HP's prices for Itanium desktops - Itanium performance, and Itanium security._

I call [whatever the highest HN-agreeable word that substitutes for "bullshit"].

The Itanium was never positioned for the desktop, and even if it was, it never had the performance to get the job done. It's slow, hot, and is a compromised design for desktop use.

AMD did to Intel what Toyota, Honda and Nissan did to GM in the 70s-90s: surprise and delight at the bottom end, and move upmarket slowly while the incumbent sleeps.

Intel made the mistake that Joel Spolsky famously warns us about -- don't rebuild things you don't have to; AMD bet on the opposite color and won big time.

 _most of the market, and many among Sun's own staff, have no idea how the SPARC products line up against x86; no appreciation for the differences between Solaris and Linux; and no interest in learning how unloved products from Sun Ray to the CMT cryptology processors can produce huge savings and/or productivity improvements for customers._

Honestly, the more you know about "how the SPARC products line up against x86" the less palatable it is.

Sun has too many irons in the fire. On one hand you have the few-core UltraSPARC processors that power the big iron. The servers are big, hot, and not clockspeed competitive with tier-1 x86 hardware costing 1/10th the price.

On the other end you have the T1/2/2+ many-core processors that are woefully anemic price:performers except possibly in trivially parallelized tasks.

My experience (as an engineer in a multi-billion dollar company building from the ground-up over the last couple years) is that there's no compelling reason whatsoever to go with SPARC hardware unless you have to. We've purchased a few products with a legacy on SPARC, and these systems have been treated like appliances by the vendors -- they don't want us using Zones or ZFS, and they don't support us analyzing the applications using DTrace.

Linux is doing to Sun what Sun did to IBM. The difference is IBM had the benefit of more entrenchment and vastly deeper reserves. They managed to evolve away from "pushing iron as an end" to "pushing iron as a means to an end" -- where that end is consulting dollars.

<comment><USER5> "Sun has too many irons in the fire. On one hand you have the few-core UltraSPARC processors that power the big iron. The servers are big, hot, and not clockspeed competitive with tier-1 x86 hardware costing 1/10th the price."

I find it interesting to see comparisons based on clock speed becoming common again. Different architectures behave differently and SPARC performs differenty (read "better most of the time") than x86 at the same clock. I thought people learned that from the PowerPC Macs. I find this supremely ironic coming from a person nicknamed "iigs". Any half competent programmer could make a 6502 run rings around a Z80 with four times its clock in the Apple II days.

"On the other end you have the T1/2/2+ many-core processors that are woefully anemic price:performers except possibly in trivially parallelized tasks."

Like... Oh! web-serving! And virtualization. And database workloads. You must be right: those T1/T2 have no useful purpose.

While Linux and x86 killed Sun on some workloads (it was Windows who killed the Unix workstation, BTW) being able to properly cast hardware to a given problem is a skill far too few people possess these days. Perhaps you should look more closely into your "legacy" Sun stuff and learn about the good parts.

<comment><USER4> _clock speed_

Yeah, I knew when I wrote that I chose poorly. I mean perf per core: that is to say, tasks that require clock speed.

 _web serving, virtualization, database workloads_

Virtualization: Virtualizing Solaris is a practical non-starter -- every workload I've seen has fallen into one of two categories: either full system integrated applications (the appliance model that the majority of third party application providers seem to insist on these days) or common internet workloads (DNS, SMTP, HTTP). The former are more or less uniformly disallowed by vendor best practices -- nobody wants to do it. The latter is arguably better served by using the tried and true virtualization of the 1970s: preemptive multitasking multiple processes in a single host image.

I have been attempting to advocate Solaris virtualization in our organization and have failed. I can't make a case for it that has justified even one server purchase (or reclaim).

Web serving: $1000 PCs have been doing wire rate 100mbit static file serving and SSL for a decade or so. A lot of web workloads tend to coagulate around serializing resources (databases being the big one). In cases where that's not applicable, an arguably better solution is to cluster cheaper standalone machines. If there was a web workload that didn't apply well across multiple machines but could be run efficiently on multiple cores in the same image the T1/2/2+ would be a win. I don't know what that workload would actually be, however.

Database workloads: Maybe, and probably for certain loads, but a Google search for "T2000 oracle" doesn't look promising.

 _properly cast hardware_

I'll see your "properly cast hardware" and raise you "do the right thing for the business". Esoteric hardware shopping is fun for engineers but it's not sound decisionmaking for the stakeholders. Shame really, as I quite prefer the IIgs's Apple Desktop Bus keyboard over the spongy thing on this ThinkPad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, not a single mention of DTrace or ZFS. I believe that these are the best reasons for keeping these projects going.

<comment><USER2> I'm really kind of mystified by how DTrace has captured people's imaginations. How could something like DTrace justify an _entire server platform_? I have it on my Mac, I'm a professional reverser, and it's never the first thing I reach for. I'm serious, what's the huge win here?

You never, ever hear people say that Detours is a reason to switch to Win32. But Detours seems, if anything, more useful than DTrace.

<comment> patrickg-zill Dtrace is useful because you can run it without having to interrupt any processes on the machine, and it is safe (won't cause kernel panics) and lightweight (won't slow the machine down too much) enough to use on a production site.

DTrace lets you instrument either 1 process, a collection of processes, or all processes at the syscall level. Want to know which processes are usinng disk IO; then what the size of the IO writes is? You can do that. For instance, you might want to tune your RAID controller stripe size to your IO-intensive application.

Etc. etc.

<comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure syscall-level instrumentation isn't the win with DTrace, since every modern Unix provides a safe, lightweight method for collecting that info. In fact, if you know how DTrace actually works, what Sun is doing is actually scarier than, say, truss.

I'm not saying there isn't a DTrace win; just that you haven't shown it.

<comment><USER7> DTrace's innovation is that it provides an easy to use interface which allows people to get results they want in a way that would otherwise require significant low-level expertise and engineering time. That people like it should come as no suprise to the entrepreneurial crowd here - it's just another twist on Make Something People Want.

One thing I particularly like about DTrace is its awk-like language makes it easy to borrow snippets of useful code from existing DTrace scripts. When I needed the equivalent of linux's Paco [1] tool on my OSX box I found I could easily build it from the code of /usr/bin/dtruss[2] and /usr/bin/pathopens.d[3]

DTrace is also what apparently powers Sun's Storage Analytics[4]

[1] - <http://paco.sourceforge.net>

[2] - [http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.5.5/dtrace-4...](http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.5.5/dtrace-48/DTTk/dtruss)

[3] - [http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.5.5/dtrace-4...](http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.5.5/dtrace-48/DTTk/Proc/pathopens.d)

[4] - [http://ctistrategy.com/2008/12/17/sun- storage-7000-analytics...](http://ctistrategy.com/2008/12/17/sun- storage-7000-analytics-overview)

<comment><USER2> It's funny, because the awk-like D language is my least favorite aspect of the system. DTrace had an example to build on in this space: libpcap, which is the lingua franca of packet-level network programming on every platform at every performance level. If they had just took their probes and promoted an API with Python bindings, I'd have been all over it.

<comment><USER7> While there are benefits to that approach, I'm glad they didn't do things that way. Putting performance issues aside, I think it's a lot easier to develop, test and maintain a small single purpose language then a cross-platform library with a public API and suite of bindings to an evolving language like Python.

<comment><USER2> You think _Python_ is less a moving target than a newly invented Unix-bound domain specific language for system tracing?

<comment><USER7> Given the size of its team, DTrace would never have succeeded as a library with bindings to even one dynamic language like Python because the support burden of doing that is enormous. Developing, maintaining and testing dynamic language bindings on multiple platforms has got to be one of the suckiest programming tasks in the industry. Just ask anyone who has ever had to support a PyQT or PyWx application on multiple platforms. There's a good reason why Python's only stable cross-platform gui is the one whose underlying gui library has been dead for a decade.

Maintaining cross-platform bindings to a popular dynamic language like Python, Ruby or Perl is like fighting a war on three fronts. You have to expose the basic features of the library in a useful way while the os vendors are breaking things in their zeal to support new features and and hardware while at the same time the dynamic language developers languages are "improving" their languages in significant semantic ways.

In contrast the DTrace developers and porters only need to worry about kernel internals - the D language is trivial to maintain and nobody who matters in that community wants it to be anything other than what it is: a tool for admins to find out who or what to blame when something isn't working as it should. The people who love DTrace the most and are willing to part with their cash for it aren't programmers or hackers, they're DBAs and storage guys who get wet dreams about stability, uptime and security who don't tolerate willy- nilly changes to things that work for them and worrying that D will evolve too quickly is like worrying about the something like gdb command set will get out of control.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which companies give programmers offices? - <AUTHOR> Often when I suggest to non-programmers that programmers should get their own offices, I'm met with incredulity: "Where do <i>any</i> programmers get their own offices???" Microsoft and Fog Creek come to mind, but where else? <comment><USER3> On the general question of open vs. private offices, my views have tempered over time. The first time I worked in an open office, I hated it. But I've come to realize that a lot depends on the layout of the office and that there are better and worse ways to configure one.

The first case -- the one I hated -- had a) long rows of desks, b) bright overhead fluorescent lights, c) a lot of noise due to being in a large room with sales/marketing, d) a lot of visual distractions due to people walking up & down the aisles, and e) few available areas to go to collaborate away from your desks.

Now, I'm also in an open office, but I find it quite livable, because: a) my desk faces the wall, for fewer visual distractions, b) the room is comfortably lit (ie, not too bright)[1], c) it's a smaller room with only engineering and is generally quieter[2], d) there are enough areas to go if you need to collaborate.

All this is to say that, while the evidence is that open offices generally suck, there's probably a number of ways to ameliorate their problems to some degree without having to resort to private offices. I don't think I'd prefer an office to my current setup, actually.

[1] I think this element is underrated. In fact, I'd be curious to know if there's a verifiable correlation between brightness levels and how loud people tend to talk. There's something about a dim room that seems to induce people to lower their voices.

[2] Small, but not too small. There's a sort of sweet spot. I was once in a room with 3 other people and it was maddening because it was generally quiet but every little noise -- coughing, swallowing, etc... -- was seemingly amplified by the overall quietness to became hugely annoying. (An inverse concept explains why I can work quite well in a coffee shop despite the background din.)

<comment><USER4> _a) my desk faces the wall, for fewer visual distractions_

I'm sitting here feeling stunned that anybody could ever _want_ their desk facing a wall, as the implication (in terms of any "open plan" environment) is that their back is facing, well, nothing. IOW, somebody can walk up behind you unnoticed. Me personally, I _hate_ that with a passion. I'd pay money to have my desk facing out with my back to the wall, just so nobody can walk up behind me.

<comment><USER5> I feel anxious when anyone can see my screen. I should be able to visit HN without feeling guilty as long as I'm getting my work done, but when I'm facing a wall, it's almost paralyzing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Stack Overflow does. I'm an engineer there and we still think providing private offices to our engineering team is important for their productivity. This includes engineers, SREs, designers, data scientists, PMs, and others.

However, most of our engineering team is remote and if they're not in one of our locations, we give them pretty much what they'd like to build their own home office or go to a coworking space.

For me, I'm actually nomadic, so I tend to work from wherever I'm staying or end up in cafes a lot of time. I still get the support I need if my work "station" isn't optimal.

TL;DR Stack Overflow provides private offices, but is really flexible, especially given its remote policy.

<comment><USER7> I'm still occasionally sad that I bombed an interview at SO a while back. I had prepped for more of a front-end/full stack JS role, and got asked a series of low-level data structure questions. I thought I did alright given the circumstances (I did work out the correct answer to each one), but the interviewer wasn't impressed.

I asked for a do-over and they said no. Oh well...

<comment><USER8> Typically companies will let you 'do-over'/re-apply in 6-12 months, so there's still hope!

<comment><USER7> Haha, yea, but I ended up at IBM Watson, which has been a pretty good gig so far. (It was a little better before they flip-flopped on remote, but that hasn't affected me as much as I thought it would.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Old Microsoft: it was a BillG ethic: anyone touching software got an office: software design engineers, PM's, QA, even admins ... it allowed one to be quiet and focus. And signaled to co-workers - do not disturb ...

<comment><USER10> Most new buildings at Microsoft now have open office plans.

<comment><USER11> This is mostly due to employee demand (although some employees are very angry about it).

<comment><USER12> Microsoftie here. I haven't seen any indication for it to be due to employee demand. The vast majority of engineers on my team, and my last N teams, have agreed it was top down from leadership; and even those that preferred open offices agreed that cost cutting and space utilization are likely driving factors.

To contribute to the broader discussion; SOME teams here still have offices, but it's a dying breed. I consider myself very lucky that I found one that did, and it was certainly a factor in my choice.

<comment><USER13> Former Apple employee here. That sounds exactly like what I witnessed. The new Apple HQ is very much open office and the design was definitely top-down from execs - I just know that I had no input at all even though it was my workplace. Always got my best work done at home.

<comment><USER14> If companies can't afford to give programmers their own offices, then they should just let them work remotely from their own private offices in their homes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have a small private office that I just lease myself. I bicycle in every day and work "remote" for IBM. It's fantastic.

If I want some noise, I'll work from home (I have a 3-year old.)

The down side is that IBM's management has recently done a 180 on remote working and is now "strongly encouraging" me to move to one of their offices and work in a cubicle.

I'm pretty sure they won't actually fire me for not moving, but any promotion is probably going to be harder to come by until things (hopefully) swing back in the other direction.

Or I'll just retire. The benefit of living in Ohio is that I can save like 40% of my salary and still live comfortably. (And lease an office for $225/month!)

<comment><USER15> > Remote, IBM

Did this not affect your role: [http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business- news/ibm-tells-its-...](http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/ibm- tells-its-remote-employees-get-back-office-n763441)

<comment><USER7> Yea, before that, everything was roses. After that, I was initially told that I would be fired if I didn't move on site (I was given a few location choices).

I said "no", got a new job lined up, and then about 4 months later, they decided not to fire me (they apparently did let go of some people, I was an exception).

I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it was at least hinted that I shouldn't expect a promotion. I never received any of it in writing, it was all phone calls from the start.

I did get a 5% raise a few months later, though.

<comment><USER16> That's gotta be quite the complement to your value to the company. Not only did they not let you go, but you still got a decent raise later. Even if they hinted that you won't be eligible for promotions (I imagine that decision comes from someone higher than the person allowing you to continue working from home), I'd still be feeling good about myself if I were in your shoes.

<comment><USER7> Yea, I'm really pretty thankful; I think my teammates and manager really went to bat for me when the whole thing came down. Without their help, IBM almost certainly would have let me go.

It didn't work out so well for a colleague of mine who was on the design team. Despite several other teams within IBM trying to hire him, the company stayed the course and let him go. I don't know the full details, but I do know that he's a world-class web/mobile engineer and we're definitely worse off for loosing him. He's in Pittsburgh, if anyone is looking for someone there (or remote): [https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshuabsmith/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshuabsmith/)

<comment><USER17> I just reached out to him. Thank you so much for letting us know about their short sighted decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Stack Overflow has blogged about their private offices for developers many times before. This is a post from 2015, I'm not sure if that's still the case: [https://stackoverflow.blog/2015/01/16/why-we-still- believe-i...](https://stackoverflow.blog/2015/01/16/why-we-still-believe-in- private-offices/)

<comment> 52-6F-62 Colour me green with envy. I'm working in one of those fabled "cubical farms" mentioned in the post.

Half of the company has gone full open office, and the laggers (who didn't get redone before the last CEO suddenly quit) seem to not be changing. I could wander elsewhere in the building to work once in a while, but eventually people would start questioning where I am.. and I'd be missing out on my single monitor and ergonomic seating. I work for a modern company with 30 year outdated office structure... At least its feeling that way today. Yep, right there -- there's the envy!

<comment><USER19> A lot of people would be jealous of your cubicle setup, including me. If your company decides to update their '30 year outdated office structure', you'd most likely be stripped of your cubicle and have no real private space. I'd venture a guess that you'd curse yourself for taking your precious cube for granted.

<comment> 52-6F-62 You've got a point, I do like having a little personal space to drop my things, but I'm actually not sure what I'd like better. I'm not much of a nester. Yet an office... especially like the ones at SO would be pretty sweet.

This is the fist time I've worked in a cubicle. I rarely see sunlight, although I recently was moved about 5 feet closer to a window (with walls still in the way). I used to either work outside (in other occupations), or at varying locales. It's new to me to be tied to one place, bathing in fluorescent lighting.

Recently the company took offices away from people and moved them into cubicles, including management. The open office spaces have more private sections to tuck into for the day, they're just bookable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> My programming career involved an office at every position (Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cisco, HP, XTime, VMWare, and a handful of private equity groups). As I was transitioning into another field, the "open office" craze was taking over. I could be wrong, but I have a strong feeling I would not have enjoyed it. Nothing like being an hour into analyzing a core dump to be jerked back to reality by someone interrupting you!

<comment><USER21> An hour focused on one thing? Lucky you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> My team at Parse.ly is fully remote/distributed -- and one of the motivating reasons I formed the team that way was to reproduce the feel of Fog Creek's "bionic office", but in each engineer's home office space.

I discussed this a little in my "Notes on Distributed Teams" presentation here:

[http://pixelmonkey.org/pub/distributed-teams/notes/#open- pla...](http://pixelmonkey.org/pub/distributed-teams/notes/#open-plan-vs-open- source)

Here's how my personal home office looks:

[https://flic.kr/p/v1NZ73](https://flic.kr/p/v1NZ73)

(Shameless plug, here are the positions we're hiring for, if you're interested! [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14902227](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14902227))

<comment><USER17> Just out of curiosity, why do you have two webcams?

<comment><USER22> Oh, simple explanation -- I have two computers. I have an always-on Mac Mini these days, and then a docking station for a Lenovo X1C. One webcam on each. (Since we have a remote team, I sometimes sit in on meetings [listening only] while doing work on my laptop, and for convenience and to save CPU, I do it from a second machine.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> At Garmin in Salem, OR, they have four-person quads. These are enclosed spaces with an additional central table, storage, ceiling and door. Though not my own office, I liked it. Quiet, everyone had a corner with ample space, and a nice group dynamic formed. Devs would move occasionally and you'd get to know other people pretty well.

</comment><comment><USER24> That's why programmers should work remotely. It's the best thing I've ever done for my career. Moved back from Management to IC because it was remote and it's been amazing.

<comment><USER25> Remote work is great for so many reasons. Off the top of my head:

For the company:

       * less office space expense
       * bigger talent pool
       * low cost benefit
       * increased documentation
       * encourages the trend towards outcome based management (as opposed to butts in seats)

For the programmer:

       * more control over their work environment
       * more control over their time
       * no "commuting" subsidy for their employers
       * arbitrage payscales and standard of living
       * working vacations become possible

There are some downsides in terms of increased coordination costs and I have some friends that will never get to work remote because of security concerns, but for most developers this trend is fantastic.

<comment><USER26> One of the downsides is managers think we don't do anything all day as they can't stand over us monitoring for efficiency, so insist we are available at a whim on Slack, which makes Slack the new open office where you have to stop reasoning about what you're building and answer somebody's meme post on Slack or a manager's musings that would've been an email in the past you could reply to later. To me this is just as great as disturbance as the door opening to the foozball and video game room with a crowd of people yelling.

<comment><USER27> When management don't understand how to gauge productivity they resort to this "ass-in-seat" metric. It's the circumstance I've dealt with in most of my software positions and also the source of most friction to WFH or remote employees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> My 600-person company, a wholly-owned part of a much, much larger national multi-billion dollar company has single or double private offices, with doors, for the entire staff, new hires, IT, admin, everyone, at our headquarters in SV as well as our smaller, satellite offices. AFAIK, there is no plan to change this. If, however, our current lease isn't renewed and the company moves, all bets are off. I've heard rumors that our parent company isn't happy with the "wasted" space. We'll see.

<comment><USER29> You might want to "name and not-shame" them, some people want to know because they want to work for companies like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> AccuLynx - we aren't even in a tech hotbed. Just little ol' Beloit, WI. We got to build a brand new office building with offices for all devs. Great place to work, awesome perks. We saw a marked throughput improvement after moving to the new office.

<comment><USER31> > we aren't even in a tech hotbed

That's precisely why you have offices. Real estate is extremely cheap there compared to tech centers such as SF/ Bay Area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I manage developers for the publishing arm of a professional association. While I did not have an office when I started as a dev here over a decade ago, all of our developers now have their own offices while we two managers share one. Priorities.

Immediately prior to this, as a junior member of a non-IT/IS-department rapid development group for a utility company, I was relegated to whatever cubicle they could find to stuff me in, usually on the periphery of the call center area. This is also where they'd stick the COBOL guys they'd had to hire back as consultants, along with others who didn't fit into any of the (many) union contract workflows.

(I was a listed as a line-item in the same cost code group as a rented photocopier or scanner, meaning that for most of my tenure there I had ZERO contact with anyone from HR. It was glorious.)

</comment><comment><USER33> Most people programming in National Labs get offices, though you might need to share with one person. If you are in the bay area, think about SLAC or LBNL.

<comment><USER34> Depends on where in SLAC you're working. If you're in the IT building, you'll frequently need to share a larger room with 3-5 other people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Honestly, I'm less concerned about an "office." A cube with high walls is more similar to an "office" than an open layout where everyone shares a table.

What's more important is company culture. Does your company expect you to accept interruptions at any time for any reason, no matter how trivial? Is your manager willing to run interference when suddenly every new employee in every department shows up expecting that you'll handhold them?

You can have an office with a bad company culture; you'll find that your office door is always full of lurkers, or you'll find that you can't walk between your office and the bathroom without getting mobbed with "urgent" requests that need your attention immediately.

What's more important is to ensure that management avoids distractions, that newcomers in other departments are trained, and that processes are established and followed when needed. Handholding should not be required from any engineers; instead mentoring and process refinement goes a lot further than a door that you can close.

</comment><comment><USER36> Micro Focus in Provo, UT provides offices. The last company I worked for was a mature startup with an open floor plan. Most of the noise complaints were mitigated by noise cancelling headphones which were purchased for each engineer.

<comment><USER4> In my experience, noise cancelling headphones don't really solve any problems. They do nothing for "visual noise" and even for audio, the noise cancelling mode just feels artificial (which it is). I find that, for myself, I rarely want "no noise", I just want the quiet rush of the AC vents, maybe the pitter- patter of footfalls in the distance, etc. But no loud noises / talking / music / etc. in the immediate area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've had multiple federal government programming jobs with offices. I consider it a requirement at this point.

</comment><comment><USER38> I think choice is important. Some people prefer one, some the other. The best working environment I've experienced in my life as a software developer was at Bell Labs in the 80s, where small private offices was the norm.

On the other hand, its good to have open working areas available when they are appropriate. In Bell Labs, we'd often congregate near the railings overlooking the Holmdel atrium while our build finished or downstairs in the large open seating areas.

<comment><USER39> This. Just let people choose for themselves. We have a regular open office room, a special "quiet zone" open office room, and several smaller rooms to retreat to if you want even more privacy.

There are people in all three areas, usually the same ones. There is no one size that fits all. Just let people choose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Epic in Madison, WI, gives all employees their own offices. (I can't find a source but I've been on a tour.)

<comment> tuna-piano The (only?) female-founded, tech unicorn you've never heard of. For some reason, Epic, and it's enormous success, doesn't get much coverage.

<comment><USER41> Not sure more coverage would be good for them. I graduated from the U of MN so I was well aware of them, they were always recruiting. They had a reputation for only hiring fresh grads, enticed by 'perks', and then working them as hard as possible until they quit. They probably see it as in their best interest to not be talked about too much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The last place I worked where I got a private office (and probably the last place I ever will) was the MITRE Corporation in Bedford, MA, a federally- funded R&D corporation. Level AC-5 and above got solo offices, AC-4's had to share.

</comment><comment><USER43> Two places that allow you (actually they prefer) to work remotely are Avaaz (avaaz.org) and Canonical. Both may share the cost of a rented office. I can't speak highly enough of either - awesome teams, awesome missions.

</comment><comment><USER44> Microsoft is switching from offices to open office plans. Buildings with offices are slowly being remodeled to open plan.

My first team started off two-to-an-office (unless you had something like 5 or 6 years of seniority, in which case you'd get your own office), but they moved to open offices when their building got remodeled.

<comment><USER45> I'm hearing that things are moving in that direction as well. Were there reasons provided or were you asked for your preference at all?

<comment><USER46> I was invited to an employee feedback session at Microsoft. We were asked to discuss teamwork and collaboration and float any ideas we had for changes that could be made to improve them. There were plenty of ideas, none of them involved open offices. Strangely, the consultants running the session used "different workspaces" as an example several times. After it showed up on the slides for the fourth time, I brought up the rumours about moving to open offices and said I thought it would harm productivity and wouldn't have a noticable effect on collaboration. Private offices with whiteboards and enough space for 3-4 people to stand and talk are fantastic for collaboration as-is. Several other attendees voiced their agreement. I don't recall anyone advocating for open offices. When the session ended I suggested to the senior Microsoft representative there that a survey be conducted to gauge engineer's preferences on work spaces. He said those decisions weren't in his hands (almost certainly true). I never did get such a survey.

The open offices that I did see at Microsoft were actually pretty nice - <USER2> were discrete spaces with room for ~25 desks and 2-3 meeting rooms attached. Certainly better than the spaces I've seen at startups, but still not close to individual offices in terms of pleasantness.

As for a reason, I suspect it's the same reason they unified dev and test into a single discipline. "Because that's what Facebook does."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Do pretty much all programmers in Microsoft get their own office?

Is it as simple as that or there's more to it?

<comment><USER48> Definitely depends on the group, but I think mostly just whatever building you happen to be in. The building I'm in is newly remodeled. Meaning entirely open-office.

In my opinion, my building/group/whatever does it wrong by jamming so many bodies in the same room together. There's 26 desks here in a room that looks as though it could comfortable fit about half that many. I've since adopted big sound-proof headphones and a wall of monitors that eliminate most distractions. But the biggest annoyance to me is that there's constantly a line for the bathrooms. Too many people for what the building was originally designed for, I think. Assuming we better limited the room capacity, I could likely tolerate this just fine.

<comment><USER49> > Too many people for what the building was originally designed for

OSHA regulates the ratio of employees to toilets ("water closets"). Check this table [1] and file an OSHA complaint [2] if the requirement isn't met.

[1] [https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_tab...](https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9790#1910.141%28c%29%281%29%28i%29)

[2] [https://www.osha.gov/pls/osha7/eComplaintForm.html](https://www.osha.gov/pls/osha7/eComplaintForm.html)

<comment><USER50> I assume those numbers are per employee by gender, right? If my company managed gender equality we'd be right at the limit if all the desks were full. Maybe that's why the facilities guy gets cranky if people take over meeting rooms for contractors or interns?

A certain online retailer of books and counterfeit electronics has slightly larger bathrooms and a similar layout in its new buildings, but worse gender equality. They may actually be in violation.

<comment><USER49> Your assumption is correct. Men's and women's toilet facilities are counted separately for each sex by OSHA. The exception is single-occupancy rooms, which can count for either sex.

(It's not clear the exact algorithm one should use in counting a mixture of multi- and single-person restrooms, but I would presume it's something like, count all the men that can use your male restrooms, count all the women that can use your female restrooms, and take everyone left over and see if they fit is your unisex restrooms.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> 2 years back We used to get a cabin office @Qualcomm for all Engineers same as VPs. Now Staff Engineers and above still get cabin office and others have moved to cubicles. We have a lab where most of us sit in the afternoon to collaborate. I must say this is the only place where I saw in my career where a fresh grad got cabin offices. It feels great to code in isolation uninterrupted. It also feels great to collaborate in lab with other folks and also code there.

<comment><USER52> I searched "cabin office" on Google, but the results were largely about offices in cabins. I have a feeling you mean something else. Would you mind defining them for me?

To clarify, I'm not familiar with your usage of the word "cabin" in this context.

<comment><USER53> It's a regular room, nothing special (in terms of using the word "cabin"). 4 years ago at San Diego interns were 3 to a room, regular engineers were 2 per room, and I guess at some point it became 1 per room.

Kind of useless for me though, because I spent almost 90% of my time in a lab (and a large portion of engineers spend most of their time in a lab). The lab is a large noisy room. with people next to each other. It was a good deal though; if I had stayed past my internship and gotten comfortable enough to write a lot of code before wanting to test it, I could've spent more time in my office.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I've worked for financial firms for 31 years. Almost all of that time, I've been a programmer on a trading desk sitting right next to traders. There is constant noise and shouting. I can tune out a lot. EXCEPT: TV noise, and idle chit chat like you'd have down at the pub. As long as people are focused on work, I can tune it whatever they say. Strange.

</comment><comment><USER55> We mostly have 2 people/office. We would have done individual offices but the office space we found to rent was perfect except the offices were larger and so it was a LOT cheaper to use the existing build-out.

It is working well. People mostly are heads down getting their work done. So add Windward Studios to the list where all developers get offices.

</comment><comment><USER56> All full-time employees at SAS have their own office.

</comment><comment><USER57> At Google, it depends on which building you're in. I sit in an office with 3 other people. My manager sits in an open pod in the hallway.

</comment><comment><USER58> I have my own office at Apple here in Cupertino (just a software engineer)...I'm glad that almost all our teams are moving to Infinite Loop as opposed to the new campus :) . Most of our offices hold two people though (still better than open offices!).

<comment><USER13> I remember the IL buildings having almost exclusively single-occupant offices and cubicles throughout the 2000's. In the last few years you can't even find a parking spot out there. Maybe things will be better for you with people shuffled to the new hell building.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Oracle does provide private offices in their Santa Clara location. This has mostly to do with this being the old Sun Microsystems buildings. It might have changed now, though after rapid expansion of their public cloud engineering group.

</comment><comment><USER60> Automattic. But it's remote, you have to supply your own office. They contribute $250 toward co-working space.

<comment><USER61> What if you live in NYC where a coworking membership is around $500 a month and an office $1000?

<comment><USER62> It's contribution; it's not supposed to cover the full cost.

<comment><USER29> If it's your employer, they should be paying for the entire cost of your office.

<comment><USER63> If you're hired as a remote employee, basing yourself in one of the most expensive cities in the world is your choice, not your employer's.

<comment><USER29> Good point, and I guess it would be up to the employee to negotiate more $ for their office (if possible).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Adobe in San Jose. (At least it used to.)

<comment><USER65> They are in the process of dismantling those office and creating an open office plan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Parse.ly is 100% remote and I've got a pretty sweet home office :)

<comment><USER67> In the USA... Given real estate prices in tech hubs, who can afford an office space anymore, let alone private offices! I imagine working from home will become the new normal. At least until the FCC allows ISPs to throttle Internet connection speeds so much that ISDN lines start looking attractive. Hopefully they make the phone company maintain those copper phone lines!

<comment><USER68> this fcc comment is so uninformed. getting rid of net neutrality will make service way better because you will be able to pay for a line with prioritized access for video conferencing and remote presence. net neutrality is what makes it impossible for individuals with a public isp connection to get the same quality as corporations with their own private networks.

<comment><USER69> >net neutrality is what makes it impossible for individuals with a public isp connection to get the same quality as corporations with their own private networks.

Right, its definitely not the ISP monopoly/duopoly

<comment><USER68> yep. all of those qos and traffic shaping features on routers don't actually do anything. that is why it should be illegal for public isps to use them. makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Intel still has the old-school high-walled cubicles in some places. But gradually, floor by floor, building by building, they've been renovating, and you know what that means! More openness. To their credit the new motif is 1) more aesthetically pleasing, and 2) not TOTALLY open.

In other words, not this fuckin' nightmare... [http://workdesign.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/Open-plan-o...](http://workdesign.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/Open-plan-office-014.jpg) ...but more like a range going from this... [https://media.glassdoor.com/l/ce/49/d7/6c/intel- office.jpg](https://media.glassdoor.com/l/ce/49/d7/6c/intel-office.jpg) ...to this... [http://media.glassdoor.com/m/2d/0e/af/40/desk-with-a- view.jp...](http://media.glassdoor.com/m/2d/0e/af/40/desk-with-a-view.jpg) ...and even this... [https://media.glassdoor.com/l/17/25/41/7c/intel- office.jpg](https://media.glassdoor.com/l/17/25/41/7c/intel-office.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER71> Esri gives just about everyone their own office; aside from people displaced by moves or visiting, I've yet to encounter a programmer without one.

<comment><USER72> Another Esri HNer i see!

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> If your work is classified you almost certainly get an office.

</comment><comment><USER74> I worked for a successful medium sized business called SpeakWrite early in my career that specialized in voice transcription for the legal industry. The company was founded by a former lawyer, and the office culture was very traditional. The software team was treated with respect, paid well, and everyone had their own office. It was great! Having worked in tech/startup culture since then, I much prefer the traditional office culture. Now I work remotely as a consultant and have my own office, but miss working on a closely knit team.

</comment><comment><USER75> Most DoD and DoE jobs/contractors have personal offices. In fact, I've never seen one that doesn't at least have a cube-farm and most just have a personal office and then meeting rooms and then lab-space, depending on the job. Cubes are terrible in their own right, but it's better than an open office by a lot. At least you have somewhere to put pictures of your kids up at eye level.

</comment><comment><USER76> I would hope most companies that consider software to be their core business give programmers offices, even if they have to share those offices with another person on the same team. Most companies that do not often consider programmers secondary to their core business, which is a good reason not to work there if you have a choice.

<comment><USER77> I mean I would hope so too, but it appears to be patently not true. Thus the ask HN question, where can one find these mythical offices.

<comment><USER76> Well, the only place where a non-programmer would treat the idea that programmers should have offices with incredulity would be a place that doesn't value software as its core business.

I mean, most "programmers" don't work for software companies; many of them are employed by banks and insurance companies. It's natural for that to be treated weird there.

<comment><USER77> "the only place where a non-programmer would treat the idea that programmers should have offices with incredulity would be a place that doesn't value software as its core business"

But this is also not true, see e.g. Facebook, Google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> At least give me my own 64sqft cube, and then have some decent lighting. I'd far rather live in a cubefarm than be rubbing elbows with the person beside me. It's not perfect, but having some degree of "my space" is really essential.

Oddly, I had my own office when I was working in IT at 17, but now it's harder to find.

</comment><comment><USER79> I'm literally about to go talk to recruiters and I'm going to try it: I'll take $20,000 off of my pay if co will provide an office with a door I can close.

I'll report back what they say.

I just recently was working in an open office and the difference between daytime and evening (after everyone else left) was dramatic.

</comment><comment><USER80> Universal Avionics provides their Engineers private offices. It was important to the founder of the company, so when a new building was constructed it was specifically arranged to provide as many offices as possible, even if some are internal (no outside window).

</comment><comment><USER81> Microsoft comes to mind? I've only been in a couple of buildings in the Seattle campus, but it was the typical open-air shared desks that you see in many other software companies recently. Are they known for using desks otherwise?

</comment><comment><USER4> When the day comes that Fogbeam Labs has an actual office, and employees, I absolutely intend to make sure that everybody has a private office with a door. Unfortunately, I can't say when that will be.

</comment><comment><USER65> I don't think any decent size company could afford to do that in Bay Area. The real estate prices are too high to give personal offices to everyone and that's why open office plans are adopted.

</comment><comment><USER82> I shared a two person office at the university that I worked at before my current job. If that sounds like a good deal in exchange for 50% of the industry salary, I believe they're hiring... :)

</comment><comment><USER83> The book peopleware argues for the middle ground. Shared offices. Rooms with a door, with 3-4 people. You have quick collaboration, but also are closed off from unrelated distraction.

</comment><comment><USER84> MathWorks (Natick, MA).

</comment><comment> alok-g Qualcomm

<comment><USER85> If you are in QRC, T, N or S. I think the newer buildings are open office plans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> [https://www.mathworks.com/](https://www.mathworks.com/)

</comment><comment><USER87> Everyone at ESRI has their own office.

</comment><comment><USER88> Programmers dont have individual offices ? How can you think with others distracting you ?

</comment><comment><USER89> Reynolds and Reynolds in Houston.

<comment><USER90> BUT! This comes with some caveats... check glassdoor. Be cautious and don't undervalue yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> i had my own office at cPanel, albeit a small one but it was a pleasant personal space.

</comment><comment><USER92> Epic systems

<comment><USER93> If you're speaking of the Healthcare Giant based in Wisconsin, I believe you share an office with one other person.

Or at least on the Verona campus. It's been a while since I've been around those parts.

<comment><USER76> Sharing with one person is still better than a cube or open plan.

<comment><USER94> Or, depending on the person, much much worse.

<comment><USER95> In the late 90s I shrared an office with a guy, and he was great and really nice - we both liked to work with the lights out...

But he had a very peculiar look to his face, like a charicature. So when we would spin round in our chairs to discuss something, he'd be talking to me about something very serious about work and I would start to giggle.

He would say "what why are you laughing?" And I would have to say things like "in sorry something you said just reminded my of something funny"

I had a really hard time maintaining a straight face around him - I felt so bad about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> Work for companies that support remote work. You'll always have a private office.

</comment><comment><USER97> Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Laboratory. Everyone has an office with a door.

</comment><comment><USER98> Luminoso, a natural language processing company in Cambridge, MA.

</comment><comment><USER99> PTC in Needham, MA does if you're on the ProE/Creo team

</comment><comment><USER100> Cpanel, Houston Texas

</comment><comment><USER101> We have team offices at Smarkets.

</comment><comment><USER102> You mentioned it in the question already, but when I worked at Microsoft _as a contractor_ I got an office.

</comment><comment><USER103> Fog Creek Software does iirc

</comment><comment><USER104> ibm

</comment><comment><USER13> Apple placed me in an experimental building where they were changing the interior design constantly, trying to decide how to design their new "space ship" building. The whole time, I fumed at no longer having an office and having to work in an open office design. I could not focus due to audio and visual interruptions while I worked (programmer) in the open office spaces. But no one ever asked me for my opinion about the experimental open office environments!

Now this: [https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/08/08/apple- pa...](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/08/08/apple-park- employees-floor-plan-hq-spaceship-aapl.html) "Apple staffers reportedly rebelling against open office plan at new $5 billion HQ"

Glad I wasn't the only coder there who utterly despised the move to the open office design.

<comment><USER105> So what do the _designers_ think of the new office?

I once was at a place were designers always had the last word (maybe because CEO was an architect), hence their new offices looked like a much cheaper version of Starbucks. With fewer couches and the few walls that made it were all made of glass.

The company is no longer around. These days just nearby their old offices brings back horrible memories.

<comment><USER106> Designing seems like a collaborative thing. I'm a writer and nothing peeves me more than open offices.

Some tasks require isolation. Writing is one of them. I reckon programming is similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> Wouldn't it be more appealing for companies to allow their employees to work remotely?

</comment><comment><USER13> Thanks for the info! At my last workplace (Apple), the department had brought in a ton of H1B visa workers from body shops and I'm skeptical about if it was legal. They were all crammed elbow-to-elbow in bullpen cubicles. As a contractor at the time, I sat on a bench in the hallway because there were no free bullpen cubes!! The bathroom urinals always had pools of urine beneath them, due (in part) to excessive use. The toilet seats were always urinated on. Oh, good times.

<comment><USER49> > The toilet seats were always urinated on.

I don't get this; this happened at my workplace too, until we installed a coded lock on the restroom (which was otherwise accessible to anyone in the building). What kind of boor has a professional job but can't piss in a foot- diameter hole and is too lazy to clean up when he does so?

<comment><USER13> Hate to say it, but I caught a guy one day after he completely ruined the toilet seat and it was an Indian H1B contractor. No I didn't go chase him down at that point.

Please don't ban my account, that's true and anecdotal - 75%+ of my coworkers in that department were Indian so maybe it was just the odds.

<comment><USER108> No, you can't comment like that here, and yes we've banned your account.

No reasonable idea of civility ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)) would include "anecdotes" about the grossness of other races' or nations' bathroom habits. I'm flummoxed that this became necessary to state explicitly, but I guess everything happens if you moderate an internet forum long enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> Who else read "... gives programers coffees"? :-D

PS: Seriously, free coffee is more important to me than an office. I like open working environments.</comment>


Ask HN: Now websites ask for your Real name, ID/Passports. What's next? - <AUTHOR> In the future, I think we will need to make a full background check like when you apply for a credit card to use any service. What do you think?
I'm a bit worried about this and what can we do to mitigate this problem?
Another problem is that this data will eventually get leaked (see quora today https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18594564 ), so your real identity will be linked to everything you do online forever.
Why is it bad? You might lose a job, you might get lower credit score or you might even get more limited in life (can't buy flights, high-speed trains, hotels or travel freely...) ... just because you posted something that is not conventional or similar. <comment><USER2> I'm happy enough to avoid any service that will want ID/passport photos.

'cause we can already see "What's next" \- it's a blog post that starts with "We take our customer's privacy very seriously", and then goes on to demonstrate that they did not. (Today's example is Quora. Last week's was Starwood hotels getting popped for half a billion customer records.)

</comment><comment><USER3> > "what can we do to mitigate this problem?"

You can always refuse to use web sites that ask for personal information without a legitimate reason. If enough people do this, these sites will either change their practices or disappear.

Which web sites did you have in mind?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't personally need to use, but help in my marketing process: Facebook, Twitter, Quora and every other popular social media.

<comment><USER2> Quora. Current holder of the #1 position on HN's front page with this: [https://blog.quora.com/Quora-Security- Update?share=1](https://blog.quora.com/Quora-Security-Update?share=1)

Just don't. And if you have, close your account. (Not that it would have helped, it sounds like Quora "helpfully" retained user data for you "in case you wanted to reactivate your account", and that all got popped too...)

<comment><AUTHOR> As I've said, I use for marketing purposes, I don't personally need it. But I need it to make money. I understand that I can find a different service, but that fact I already know. I'm looking for some new ideas.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Gen Equity (1999) - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/1999/07/pilgrims/ <comment><USER2> This article demonstrates an important point: it has always been possible to portray Silicon Valley as a self-parody. Or at least that is has for 20 years.

It's always possible to portray a domain where people have very ambitious plans in this way. I'm sure you could write a similar article about people coming to LA hoping to become famous actors, or people coming to NYC hoping to become famous artists.

<comment><USER3> Well the difference there is that people wanting to become actors or artists know it is a long shot, and that most likely they will end up waiting tables or tending bar in hopes of a big break that never comes. At least in times of bubbles, SV isn't like that - people found companies and hire people who do quite well until the bubble bursts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This New York Times piece on Bitcoin written right before the last mega-crash reads the same way: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/13/style/bitcoin- millionaire...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/13/style/bitcoin- millionaires.html)

To quote Warren Buffet. When people get greedy, get scared. When people get scared, get greedy.</comment>


Ask HN: Stupid Question – How to undo accidental upvote/downvote? - <AUTHOR> It's such a basic thing, but I'm not sure how to do that on HN. Call it old age, but sometimes I accidentally click upvote when I had to click downvote and vice versa. How can I undo that? It hides both the icons as soon as I click on any of them, and I don't want people to feel bad about my mistake (And there are studies which show downvotes affect more downvotes)
Edit: There might be some answers saying the Karma points don't matter. If that is the case, we should just remove the voting system altogether. It's more about not making the comment writer feel bad, than the Karma points (and I know you feel bad on downvotes). <comment><USER2> You can't but you can always let the person know, and then if you really want to undo your mistake, look at their profile and find a few recent submissions/comments and upvote TWO to 'undo' your mistake.

<comment><AUTHOR> And that might mean I'd have to upvote a couple of his/her comments which I don't necessarily agree with, just to correct a mistake in which I downvoted a comment I agree with. I create an even bigger mess :).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Karma is Newtonian. There are no accidents. Or if you want to be statistical about it, it all evens out in the way that it should on the scale of the universe.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've seen a post from someone else that indicated that they replied to undo a downvote. That is, if I understand correctly, you can't downvote a post and also reply to it. If you reply, it clears your downvote.

Alternate approach: Create another account, log in in that account, and fix it there.

</comment><comment><USER5> You don't. It is not considered necessary for you to correct downvotes.</comment>


The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users - <AUTHOR> http://freeculture.org/blog/2013/04/23/dont-let-the-myths-fool-you-the-w3cs-plan-for-drm-in-html5-is-a-betrayal-to-all-web-users/ <comment><USER2> TL;DR:

# __Myths __

1\. that DRM doesn't work; that it exists to protect creators, but since it is easily cracked and can be worked around, it is largely ineffective and irrelevant

2\. that DRM in HTML5 is a necessary compromise to finally bring an end to the proliferation of proprietary browser plugins such as Adobe Flash Player and Micrisoft Silverlight

3\. that the web needs DRM in HTML5 in order for Hollywood and other media giants to finally start giving the Web priority over delivering media over traditional means

# __Reality __

1\. DRM is not about protecting copyright. That is a straw man. DRM is about limiting the functionality of devices and selling features back in the form of services. ([https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBY...](https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2))

2\. DRM in HTML5 doesn't obviate proprietary browser plug-ins, it encourages them. ([https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/defend-open-web- keep-d...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/defend-open-web-keep-drm- out-w3c-standards))

3\. The Web doesn't need big media; big media needs the Web. ([http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open- enterprise/2013/02/bbc...](http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open- enterprise/2013/02/bbc-attacks-the-open-web-gnulinux-in-danger/index.htm))

# __So sign the petition __

<http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5>

<comment><USER3> Honest question - why is having a framework that allows for others to provide some form of DRM different from any other plugin system that exists currently?

<comment><USER4> Different, how? It's different in several ways. For one it's not a plugin framework, it's a DRM plugin framework; meaning it's designed specifically with 1 use case in mind. Secondly its expressed intent is to take away functionality; I'm not aware of any other instance where a web API is created to disable features of a user's computer. I'm sure we can rattle off more ways that it is different, but I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

<comment><USER3> >> For one it's not a plugin framework, it's a DRM plugin framework;

A DRM plugin framework is by definition a plugin framework. I relly don't want DRM in html either, but I have a hard time finding logical arguments against it, and I don't see how this is a good one. If you could further your point, I would love to hear it.

>> Secondly its expressed intent is to take away functionality

Take away what functionality? The ability to download audio/video? Again, playing the devil's advocate, I would imagine a vast majority of the content that would be streamed using the DRM encodes would not be streamed using the video element currently - it would be streamed over flash/silverlight, etc (think netflix, hulu). If that is the case, what is it we are losing?

>> I'm not aware of any other instance where a web API is created to disable features of a user's computer

To be fair, this isn't. EME is just a way for people to create addons that leverage native encryption. The same is true of the current plugin system.

>>I'm sure we can rattle off more ways that it is different, but I'm not sure what you're looking for here. I am looking for logical reasons to say why adding EME hurts the open web so when I get into arguments I have better reasons other than 'I hate it'

<comment><USER5> A DRM API in HTML5 harms users by legitimizing and enabling restrictive technology under the banner of the free and open web, with all the practical harm (lack of control, reduced bargaining power, security issues) that loss of freedom entails.

If the framework is no different from existing frameworks, why do we need it?

<comment><USER3> >>A DRM API in HTML5 harms users by legitimizing and enabling restrictive technology under the banner of the free and open web, with all the practical harm (lack of control, reduced bargaining power, security issues) that loss of freedom entails.

In whose eyes does it legitimize it? Are you saying someone will be convinced that DRM is ok because it is in a web browser?

>>If the framework is no different from existing frameworks, why do we need it?

Because it is different. Native solutions are more likely to be faster and more secure than external plugins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards.

There is nothing to be won by resisting hooks for DRM in the browser however appealing it seems to take a principled stand. The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross- compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the push for native apps is even stronger.

Really, all you'll do by resisting this, is teach the majority of consumers who don't know any better that the Web sucks, and all of the enjoyable things they want are to be found on iOS or other proprietary locked down distribution platforms. That if you want apps that deliver the stuff you are interested in, you have to look outside the web.

Back when Chrome proposed dropping H264 support, I was infuriated, even though I fully support WebM as the mandatory to implement codec. I don't think "purity" really serves the platform, flexibility does, and the best way to register you don't like DRM is to simply stop consuming any and all media which uses it. Not just Web media, but _all_ media that's DRMed.

A DRM free HTML5 spec is not going to force Hollywood to allow you to play Games of Thrones on your open source Linux browser.

<comment><USER7> Emscripten cross-compiled codecs are better than black-box, closed source DRM codecs built into partially or fully proprietary browsers like Chrome and Internet Explorer. Do you really think a DRM plugin would ever work in Firefox or Chromium?

If they really want to ship DRM, they can do it using the same tools everyone else uses, without special monopoly-preserving treatment or 'protected media paths' or kernel hooks or tailor-made plugin APIs. Big Media is no more deserving of special treatment or protection than any of the other industries that want to build apps on the web, and the idea of dedicating time and resources to babysitting a dying industry when there are REAL PROBLEMS that could be solved instead is ridiculous.

The problem is that they know as well as we do that DRM doesn't work, and DRM especially doesn't work without the aid of special kernel/software hooks like the Windows PMP and OS X's anti-debugging protections. This is why they're so desperate to get DRM baked into the HTML5 spec and baked into browsers. The reality is though, adding DRM to browsers produces no value for anyone other than the lazy big media companies that can't adapt to the modern world. It doesn't produce value for consumers, it doesn't produce value for developers outside of big media, and it doesn't produce value for the people who actually produce video and audio content. All it does is enrich IP lawyers and executives.

Furthermore, the idea that lacking DRM somehow makes the web 'suck' is preposterous. Do you know anything about the web? If the web sucks that's entirely separate from whether or not it can play encrypted video. If it sucks, it's because browsers are full of security problems, websites are poorly designed and poorly engineered, web accessibility for the disabled is poor, web performance is miserable in many markets, and ISPs like Comcast continually abuse their monopoly status to overcharge and under-deliver. Encrypted video is so far from a real-world concern or priority for ordinary people that suggesting it's somehow NECESSARY for the web to not suck makes you look absolutely raving insane.

<comment><USER8> How can the "lazy big media companies" adapt? What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public?

<comment><USER7> You're assuming that blockbuster movies are a business model that will continue to work in the future. That's highly questionable - in the game industry developers and publishers are being forced to accept the possibility that the blockbuster model is no longer going to be a reliable source of revenue or the right way to develop things. I won't claim to know enough to say whether this is true for film or television, but it is at least reasonable to ask 'maybe the reason these products require fragile, overcomplicated DRM solutions is because we're building the wrong products'.

I hate to use this analogy, but this really seems like a potential buggy-whip situation: It's quite possible that the content Big Media is producing is simply no longer relevant, even if the lack of relevance is due to changes in how people consume media and not because people are somehow no longer interested in explosions or big-name actors.

<comment><USER6> Possible, I'll buy that. Maybe YouTube will one day kill off the major networks and studios, and production will get cheap, just like startups have gotten a lot cheaper to run with EC2.

But I'm still going to go see Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness and I'm not holding my breath that a non-DRM version will be cooked up outside the blockbuster system anytime soon. :)

<comment><USER9> Is there any doubt that Star Trek Into Darkness could raise an unspeakably large amount of money on a crowdfunding platform?

It looked very much like fans of Firefly would have been able to raise enough to continue making the series but they were given not very subtle hints than getting involved in a crowdfunded production would have been bad for the showbiz careers of those involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I can't believe that DRM is even on the table. It's ONLY purpose is to prevent third parties from accessing content, which is pretty much the antithesis of the web and open standards.

For me, what it all comes down to is this: HTML5 is supposed to have open standards, so if I implement those standards' specifications in my own web browser, I expect to be able to view and use websites that are HTML5-conformant.

If DRM goes through, this is what will probably happen: Internet Explorer and Google Chrome (two closed source browsers) will definitely implement it. Opera might implement it (who really knows what they'll do?). Chromium and Firefox probably won't implement it. DRM content will likely only be viewable on those two browsers, and only on a supported platform. If you use Firefox on Linux Mint, you're SOL. If you developed your own web browser, you're SOL. Even if you use Firefox on some closed source operating system like OS X, you're SOL.

</comment><comment><USER11> My take is that Google in particular likes this development (though are probably trying to stay away from it publicly for political reasons) because it allows them to easily (ie. with studio blessing) pilot monetizing their vast YouTube-watching userbase by offering paid content services and user profiling far beyond what is available on cable networks (eg. by selling 'anonymized' matches of consumer viewing behaviour in conjunction with email, location, sleeping-schedule as determined by a cross-section of Google services, etc.). Existing Google projects and their recent significant investment in video (patents, new LA offices, Android 'Smart TVs', ChromeOS Google Fiber) all look like they will benefit from this type of development. With all due respect to people who work at Google, please consider protesting internally in parallel to this public effort, or leaving.

<comment><USER4> I think Google has a checklist of Chromebook deficiencies and they are just checking Netflix off by doing this. That it will ultimately make it a little easier to do things like you suggest is just an added bonus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Back in the real world, the web is not inevitable. The alternative to HTML5 DRM is for vendors to turn away from the web and HTML5 altogether.

The web is still open by default, versus other platforms being closed by default. The best architecture is to support fine-grained plugins with well- defined semantics than just some big black box <object> element that could be running anything.

<comment><USER13> Indeed. Vendors won't be forced to make a HTML5 version - on the desktop the formula that's allowed them to provide browser plugins hasn't changed, and on mobile they're already making an iOS app and an Android app because today, apps provide a better experience than websites anyway. Sure, your niche mobile platform will be left without any way to experience the content, whereas if not for DRM they could provide an HTML5 player as a least common denominator, but it probably doesn't have enough users for them to terribly mind.

That's not to say that HTML5 EME addresses this, just that nobody is going to be forced to use HTML5 in any case. (It's possible that a proprietary but common CDM standard could be created to allow the least common denominator on mobile, since the regular route of browser plugins won't work there, but that would be its own can of worms.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> What is the complaint. It isn't clearly summed up here.

Noone will force you to use DRM on your website. Noone will force you to browse websites that use DRM.

What do you care what others choose to do with their sites and content, unless you believe you have the right to access everything everyone creates, in an unrestricted fashion, for free, in perpetuity.

<comment><USER15> > Noone will force you to browse websites that use DRM.

If you want to stay legal and watch their content, you bet they will. Major networks will require their distributors to use this DRM. Sure, you don't have to use their content, but the point of fighting it is that we want to use their content and are trying to prevent them from this step.

<comment><USER16> Excellent point. We take away the previous held concept of possessing media, making money by renting it to you repeatedly, then lobbying Washington with the profits to make it illegal to not play by our rules, and you're addicted so you can't break the habit.

<comment><USER14> What? Addicted? Really?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is because all you dummies were too busy lauding Google's services and nobody notices how "evil" they are.

This came as a proposal from Google. It was tested in Chromium first. The DRM is essential for their "World-saving" ChromeOS that nobody really cares about.

<comment><USER18> Yep, if Google implements DRM, no one can stop it. The web is a platform for big software vendors after all, because no other player can virtually implement and maintain this enlarged platform and browser runtimes. Evil browser vendors will take over the role of evil plug-in vendors. Game over.

I predicted this catastrophe when everyone was attacking Flash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> DRM is based on obfuscation at the core. How would this ever work with open source browsers?

<comment><USER20> It wouldn't. The explicitly stated plan from the people who originated this proposal involves proprietary browser plugins.

<comment><USER4> Not necessarily browser plugins. Could be browser or OS or hardware.. Each website has control over what DRM it accepts, which leads to a world where hardware eventually becomes the requirement.

<comment><USER21> Regardless if it's technically a plugin or part of the OS accessed through a bridge, or anything else, EME fundamentally depends on proprietary code (and that code will not be part of any open source browser).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What's the solution? Forking html?

<comment><USER23> The solution is waiting it out. They caved on music; they will cave here too. All that is required is patience: something that is admittedly rare in the tech world, but it works.

<comment><USER24> Not at all clear to me that waiting it out is a winning strategy. There is no deterministic path for other media to follow music away from DRM, and indeed there is a threat that a faux-standard as proposed will mean that DRM becomes the expectation and demand of/by record companies, again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Wait, so the W3C is actually letting this happen? How the mighty have fallen.

<comment><USER26> It's still a proposal at this point. It should be opposed, obviously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It appears that the spec for EME doesn't provide a mechanism to reliably detect decryption failure, this will be inconvenient to end users. This could be alleviated by adding a mandatory tag that includes a hash of the decrypted video for verification purposes, to be tested by the client while streaming the content. If the hash is missing or incorrect the media must not play.

The Tiger Tree Hash system is already being deployed for this purpose in other systems.

</comment><comment><USER28> NetFlix is one of the companies pushing this.

<comment><USER29> Also, note that Google is one of those companies as well. They forgot about "not being evil" with this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The W3C must ultimately do what it thinks is in the web's best interest. Not the interest of big media companies, or the interest of those against DRM. If they implement a system by which DRM can be reasonably added to the spec to bring those users and companies into the fold, I don't think I'd have much to call them out on, even though I don't like DRM. That bone is to be picked with the media companies themselves.

<comment><USER31> The W3C will ultimately do what is in its members' best interests: it's an industry consortium.

Its members are whoever paid the membership fee.

There are plenty of instances of the W3C doing things that its members asked for that were either irrelevant to the web or detrimental to it, because there is no "W3C" per se when it comes to getting stuff done, just the set of members.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Consumers don't care about DRM or No-DRM they care about convenience. Large players do not care about technology either they just want control over their market. Under this circumstances the question is what stand should W3C take ?

Should they try to keep web as open as possible or should they play to the tunes of Google and Microsoft and introduce features that benefit them.

As I see it, web standards should be as open as possible.

</comment><comment><USER6> Why are optional WebIDL bindings really any different than NPAPI bindings? foo.getDRMStream() is bad, but document.getElementById("drmpluginelement").getDRMStream() is somehow fundamentally better?

Seems like mostly a distinction without a practical difference. Some browser platforms won't be able to ship with the bindings for this, likely the same browser platforms that can't ship the NPAPI plugin.

<comment><USER33> Well, we can at least not make the situation worse. We already have NPAPI, let's not add another proprietary plugin API.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Whether or not Encrypted Media Extensions(EME) is included in HTML5 SHOULD NOT be construed as a referendum on DRM. The HTML5 standard is not the place to determine if something is ethically/morally good, advancing humankind, or will even work.

If some orgs or people want a means to retrict the playing of media in HTML5 by downloading keys from a license server then so be it. The HTML5 standard should be as inclusive as it needs to be to represent the needs of all parties. If enough parties desire this functionality then who are we to say they cannot or should not have it.

</comment><comment><USER35> I can't read the article, probably a HN DOS.

However, I really can't see the point of doing DRM in html5, it will just result in browsers becoming the equivalent of the evil plugin everyone hates(only certain browsers/platforms will be able to run the content).

Why not just leave html5 video open, and let those who wish to distribute DRM'd content build their own client-side players for the OS's they wish to support. Or let them build apps on top of Adobe AIR or Silverlight out of browser.

</comment><comment><USER36> Just wondering, is there any provision in any OSS license (or scope to add one) that prevents the code being used in any DRM software or firmware?

I know it wouldn't act retrospectively, and I'm not sure if any OSS libraries are actually in use in any DRM software, but it may at least set a trend. I'd love to see the next open source game changer be open to all except those who oppose openness :-)

<comment><USER37> No, by definition, since that would no longer be Open Source.

<http://opensource.org/osd>

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I don't see the big deal.

Right now DRM depends on proprietary plug-ins. If this is allowed in HTML5, DRM will still depend on proprietary plug-ins.

What is different?

edit: also, browser vendors don't have to implement it if they don't want to. Really, I don't like this DRM thing that much, but I am kind of indifferent to this.

<comment><USER39> >What is different?

That's kind of the point. The people promoting this seem to be misunderstanding what the result would be. It would in no way reduce the amount of poorly written proprietary code full of security vulnerabilities. It would just move it around a little.

But in the meantime it breaks the web. Even if you support the new HTML5 spec, you can't _actually_ support it without having the proprietary black box necessary to make it work. You break the ability of the web to be platform agnostic. For the web to work at all you'll soon end up needing the black box, because once it's there sites will use it. So if the black box doesn't exist for your platform or you want to create a new platform then you'll be locked out of most of the web. How can that be acceptable?

<comment><USER38> But it is NOT platform agnostic anyway.

That is my point. Right now, you have to have certain plugins to see certain sites. At _this very moment_.

So according to the new specification, there won't be <embed> with a specified plugin in TYPE attribute (or something similar in <object>), but probably something else and similar with EME. Why does it matter so much?

If this is not passed, evil corporations will use <embed> and <object> again. If this is and browsers will support it, they will use EME instead.

Again, I can't see any big change.

<comment><USER39> We should oppose the old plug-ins just like we do the new ones. The big change is that the old plug-ins have been starting to die out. People originally used Flash because it was the best way to play video in a web browser, not because it had DRM. As improvements to HTML eliminate the non-DRM need for such plug- ins, the plug-ins start to go away. Apple got away with prohibiting Flash on iOS because it became possible to use Youtube et al without it. We ought to be encouraging the legacy plug-ins to finish going away, not reintroducing new ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I think it's good.

Once it's implemented, you can just patch Firefox or Chromium to dump the unencrypted video stream before sending it to the H.264/WebM codec, and you get an universal method to trivially liberate all "DRM"-encumbered web content.

</comment><comment><USER41> Site is incredibly slow (I see Wordpress is doing its job again). If it goes down, here is a copy of the html: <http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=fnutc6A3>

</comment><comment><USER42> Here's a mirror (I think) of the post:

[http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.freeculture.discuss/681...](http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.freeculture.discuss/6814)

</comment><comment><USER43> Forgive my lack of knowledge, but does this mean that in future motherboards or CPUs could be sold that lock out non DRM files, or something in our hardware like that?

</comment><comment><USER44> Alas, article does not explain where the betrayal is. Or even what the author considers "web". Someone is too self-centric and has no idea what an average web user is and what he wants.

Honestly, rants like this sound a lot like "allowing same-sex marriages will destroy the sanctity of marriage" and alike. How exactly?

Will the ability to have DRM'ed content in HTML suddenly shut down "the open web"? No.

</comment><comment><USER45> DRM is bad.

</comment><comment><USER46> EME =/= DRM.

<comment><USER16> Technically speaking, you're right. EME is not DRM, it's a facilitator. From the spec "facilitating the development of robust playback applications supporting a range of content decryption and protection technologies [read DRM]." I may have inserted that last part. Using a new acronym affords Hollywood more time to get implementations in major browsers while we try to raise awareness. Most consumers don't know about DRM, fewer still about EME!</comment></comment>


Euclid: the game - <AUTHOR> http://euclidthegame.com

<comment><AUTHOR> There is something really addictive about this game!</comment>


Green IT: The Solution for Gen-next Business - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitivity.com/articles/2008/05/green-it.html Business is not only meant for making profit rather it must have some social and environmental obligations too. <comment><USER2> Very nice</comment>


30 years ago: Voyager 2's historic Neptune flyby - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2019-08-years-voyager-historic-neptune-flyby.html <comment><USER2> I was 10 when Voyager 2 flew by. I was certain trips to Neptune, pictures, and further exploration would become common. And 30 years later, we haven't gone back. It's far, expensive, priorities, and all that. And now enough time has passed I may never see us get there again.

 _sigh_

<comment><USER3> There's hope, the New Horizons to Pluto was much faster, and before that I was _sure_ I'd never live to see Pluto.

<comment><USER2> The price of that speed is don't blink or you'll miss it. We should have something orbiting Neptune, _now_.

<comment><USER4> Why? How should we decide to spend the resources it orbit Neptune? Why not Saturn or Jupiter; why not land on a comet? Why not put a human on the moon again or perhaps spend the money or medical research or nuclear fusion. What about Neptune seems so compelling to you? I would never have thought it an important or memorable goal and just want to hear why Neptune is so alluring.

<comment><USER2> Because the 10-year-old me was teased with pictures and mysteries I want answers to. Because it's so far. Because it can't see more than a pale dot in my telescope. Because it's so alien. And because we have been there, done that on everything you mentioned.

Perhaps if I'm ever granted the opportunity to present my case before NASA and Congress, I might offer a more well-thought-out explanation. But right now, "because it would be awesome" should suffice.

<comment><USER5> Check out the recently proposed Trident mission, and I guess write your congressperson while you're at it

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Live broadcast from that day: [https://youtu.be/Y11CVuxfvPE](https://youtu.be/Y11CVuxfvPE)

<comment><USER7> Wow, we really took for granted having Carl Sagan on tap for this kind of thing.

<comment><USER8> I'm kind of relieved he's not around to see what's become of everything these days. Though the rise of the private space enterprise and its associated new space race would give him a lot of hope.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I remember "Neptune All Night" on PBS from WHYY that night. It was one the first things I ever videotaped. It was awesome seeing the images coming down.

<comment><USER10> I stayed up, well, all night watching it with my father. Amazing experience.

Sometime around then, we also got a computer modem, and one of the first things we did with it was find some NASA BBS where you could download images from Voyager 2. At a blazing 300bps. The long-distance charges were probably more than what I pay for a week of gigabit internet service at home now.

<comment><USER11> My dad and I would set the VCR to record the daily press conferences and watch them in the evening. Good times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I remember reading in a 1986 SciAm about how the team worked around spacecraft failures, like compensating for temperature and the doppler effect in the sole functioning radio receiver, and slowly rolling the entire platform to compensate for seizing motor shafts: [https://books.google.com/books?id=rYIJJP7audkC&pg=PA42#v=one...](https://books.google.com/books?id=rYIJJP7audkC&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false) (New Scientist)

</comment><comment><USER13> We need another Voyager mission with updated cameras/sensors.

<comment><USER14> The voyager program was made possible by a very specific alignment of the planets which only occurs every 175 years

<comment><USER11> The joke the JPL crew always say is that the last time the planets aligned like that was when Thomas Jefferson was President and he blew it.

<comment><USER15> That joke was actually used on President Nixon. It's mentioned in the movie The Farthest.

[https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.2017081...](https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20170811a/full/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Storing Multi-Line Strings in JSON - <AUTHOR> http://gun.io/blog/multi-line-strings-in-json/

<comment><USER2> why doesn't (s)he use "\n"?

<comment><USER3> The github API uses "\n" inside blobs for multi-line strings, and it works out easily.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Has anyone received the late interview invitation for YC S15? - <AUTHOR>

We sent our late application for S15 few weeks ago and we haven't received any email yet, a part from the confirmation after the submission.
I know that applications are read just before the next batch starts and since it starts in 2 weeks I wonder if anyone has already received an invitation for the interview.
Anyone? <comment><USER2> Just heard.</comment>


Quantified Man: How an Obsolete Tech Guy Rebuilt Himself for the Future - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/02/quantified-work/ <comment><USER2> _"he thinks every white collar worker will need to adopt a similar regimen soon"_

God, I hope not! I like the idea of recording metrics, but on a personal level, it needs to be near seamless or it becomes an additional interrupt, and ultimately a burden. Then you have to review all this crap and decided if it means anything?! It's like going on a trip and taking 3000 photos and then having to go through them. It's an additional job with unclear benefits. Sure, I track my personal fitness, diet, and some sports activities but _everything_! Seems like a make work activity to me.

<comment><USER3> What's even worse is as this quantified personal data is leaked to profit making ventures, there will be more and more pressure to assume "productive habits" or strategies that work well for _most_ people. And then popular wisdom will say that these are the _only_ or right ways to live and if you're not using the methods that work for most people in some situations, you're just stupid.

Then something shitty and unpredictable happens and popular wisdom will say "well, that wouldn't have happened if you were logging all your calls in Google Calendar and tying it to your passion index."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I used to work in the supply chain industry, and this kind of thing has existed in warehouses for decades under the name "engineered labor standards". The armband aspect is just the latest incarnation of it.

One of our customers had come up with an interesting incentive program: you were given "eight hours" of work and could go home whenever it was done. Many of the time-saving tricks that the employees came up with would have been frowned on by OSHA.

<comment><USER5> I suppose the problem here that management realizes that the "8 hours" of work are being done by most employees in 6. They then add an extra 2 hours of work to make the new "8 hours".

Thus incentivising the workers to come up with gradually more and more dangerous ways to save time if they want to go home early. And the workers who stick to H&S guidelines have to stay for 10+ hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My prediction: this will take off at some point, perhaps in one of the big consulting firms, like E & Y or Accenture. It will be justified with phrases like, "Of course we trust our employees, we're just trying to optimize!" The lie will come out when HR comes up with a "company temporal resource utility maximization" metric. The exodus to startups will accelerate.

</comment><comment><USER7> First, they introduced "productivity maximization protocol";

Then they added robots to do some of the work;

Then we all lost our jobs to robots;

...

Then we realize, living on publicly provided food and housing is actually not that bad!

<comment><USER8> you would think so, but this story is scarily plausible: <http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm>

<comment><USER9> I wasn't able to read through the entire story, but I think Karl Marx was onto something. What I suspect will happen is we will transition into a post- scarcity economy. The only question for me is how long it will take, and how painful the transition will be.

I also suspect (although with somewhat less confidence), that the transistion will occur by a single individual having gradually diminishing works hours, and a gradual increase in government 'welfare'.

<comment><USER8> the "two visions" were how to screw up and how to embrace the post-scarcity economy respectively. the problem is that the currently-rich will have first crack at the cornucopia and they could easily feel they have somehow earned the right to it, and need not share it with the currently-poor other than via crumbs of charity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There was a relevant article recently about monetizing tasks to see if it made people more efficient. The idea was to give someone $X every time they completed a task. The end result was that it made people more productive at simple and easily repetitive tasks, and extremely counterproductive for any task that required hard thinking or creativity.

As a developer I hope that software companies don't establish this type of tracking but it would probably work at other types of jobs, at least in the short run. I could see it having a negative effect on company morale as time goes by.

<comment><USER11> If you can categorise the tasks (which is a very big if), you can maintain an index of the time taken for tasks of a given type to complete and value accordingly in effort required. Allow employees to pick available tasks and they will gravitate to where they can deliver most value.

<comment><USER12> And will deliberately slow down when the time and motion guy comes round this is old old school stuff thats been going on on the factory floor for hundreds of years - if not thousands of years.

<comment><USER11> Thought about this but it should be a self-regulating system to some extent. The longer a task takes, the higher its value. If it becomes overvalued (workers are deliberately doing it slowly and making less money than they could, which is questionable), then it becomes more attractive to workers who will complete it faster.

<comment><USER12> MM ever worked in a traditional factory type setting? all the workers collectively do this and if you not you would get sent to Coventry.

And this is tame compared to what used to happen back in the 70's in engineering "go slows" and backhanders paid in brown paper envelopes - I was told "even the tea boy got £900" about a 1/3 of the average wage at the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This level of monitoring is insane - an evil application of gamification. People, unlike machines, do not always work in precise patterns.

The example of the effects on "score" in taking an unschedule bathroom break tells me what I would do with such monitors in the bathroom.

<comment><USER14> > People, unlike machines, do not always work in precise patterns.

Do you believe that biology is not understandable?

<comment><USER13> I believe that biology introduces variables of the type that micromanagers are often ill-educated to understand.

IOW - biologicals operate with more variation than machines.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ha, the subject in the article uses memolane which just announced its shutdown yesterday, <http://blog.memolane.com/>.

</comment><comment><USER16> Surely the effect of importing technology into all workplaces and globalization will result in the remaining jobs being precisely the ones that are the most difficult to measure in-progress and for whom just the measurement itself risks interfering with the job?

That said, the importance of such measurements along the way could stem from the positive feedback loop it creates. Measuring enables you to identify what you can eliminate/automate/outsource etc until you meet some "Creativity Efficiency Frontier"...

Or, there could be other benefits from measurements to do with personal, workplace or even business well-being - perhaps benefits that could be inferred from statistical analysis.

</comment><comment><USER17> Reminds me of the Baltimore Police Department's use of Comstat in The Wire.

</comment><comment><USER18> Ah, the things people will believe in a bubble.

The title is misleading. This has nothing to do with avoiding or overcoming technical obsolescence.

<comment><USER19> A jarring thing to me is that we're talking about technical obsolescence for people at all... workers (especially in tech) can become obsolete so fast, just like gadgets are outdated in a year and obsolete in a few years.

You can't just learn a skill and become really good at it. There's all these "computer skills" and buzzwords that are hot one day then avoided like yesterday's fashion.

On the other hand here in Europe they are trying to push people to work until their 67th, or older, and pensions are reduced year after year. As if anyone will hire you by that age. Heck by that age we'll be long been discarded like an old iPod.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> No.</comment>