Review: Tesla Model 3 lives up to hype - <AUTHOR> http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/henry-payne/2018/02/26/tesla-model-three-test-drive-detroit/110880692/ <comment><USER2> Is anyone else not enthused about the single screen for all instrumentation? I was talking to friends about it this weekend, and as someone that works in technology I have quite a bit of distrust in the idea of one screen for all your essential driving information, including fuel capacity, speed, warning indicators, etc sharing space with the entertainment and navigation system when operating something as fundamentally dangerous as an automobile (even if we often forget how dangerous it is).

* I don't want to be at the whim of some designer's ideas as to whether when I switch navigation screens my fuel gauge and current speed should shrink or move to a separate area for better design flow. I want them at the same location no matter what.

* I don't want the added complexity of the entire entertainment and navigation system working against the stability of the system. I don't want poor quality of some random widget crashing my only information display.

* After the Jeep hacking a few years ago where there wasn't enough separation between the internet connected devices and features essential to operation of the vehicle, many commenters here were saying anything without an air-gap between the internet and CAN-bus is a security problem.[1] That may or may not be extreme, but putting everything together like this means I _really_ want to know what steps they've taken to segregate and secure high-importance data channels in the car. I _really_ hope the answer isn't "we have software that is responsible for firewalling access." When it comes to something like this, I really want some physical and/or hardware level separation.

1: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9921557](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9921557)

<comment><USER3> Yep, I've commented on this before. It's a safety hazard and is bad UX.

Having seen and dealt with the Model S screen before, no thank you, not interested.

<comment><USER4> It's worth noting that Model S can control a lot of things from the steering wheel buttons. (You may already know this, but many commenters in the past haven't.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Having to look down at a center-mounted console to see your current speed seems dangerous.

Really, the whole "remove all tactile console controls and slap in an iPad" thing seems lazy and tacky.

<comment><USER6> disagree. having buttons and knobs just because it's the norm and auto manufacturers don't want to risk changing annoys the crap out of me.

remove every single tactile element. have convenient touch interface. have usable voice control. that's the future. that's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes.

Edit: what is it with people not reading the message before commenting on it? _that 's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes. that's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes. that's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes. that's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes. that's also an exaggeration, but i'd like the pendulum to swing there and see where it stabilizes._

<comment><USER7> Knobs are safer, a flat screen by definition requires your eyes to be on it to use since there is no tactile component. And if your eyes aren't on the road...

<comment><USER8> You are thinking about this based on your experience with traditional cars. When you drive today, think about all the moments of interactions that you have with the car while driving. It is fairly limited. You would change volume controls, turn on wipers, skip music, call someone etc. And almost all of those controls are either available via the steering wheels knobs or readily available on the giant screen (e.g., climate controls). The touch screen is really there for secondary controls such as vehicle settings and user preferences. Most people are thinking that you have to navigate some menu to increase volume. But that's not the case.

<comment><USER9> But even if they're right on the giant screen, you still have to look. A dashboard knob can be used without ever taking the eyes from the road.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm sorry, but the big flatscreen in the middle of the dash is just moronic.

I don't want to have to take my eyes off of the road to see my speed.

Humans like controlling things via touch. Ironically, since touch screens are smooth, there is zero tactile feedback. It's impossible to use it without looking at it, and if the driver is looking at the screen, they aren't looking at the road. This is especially true because of the touch screen's position relative to the driver.

A head up display projection directly on the windshield, directly in front of the driver (with control buttons on the steering wheel) should be the bare minimum for any modern car.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'd like to see some real-world reports on how useable having most of the controls in the screen are. My first concern is being able to accurately interact with it while the car is moving -- personally my arm would be bouncing all over the place from car motion when the arm is extended that far.

As a point of reference, my Ford has their new Sync 3 system, and I often need to steady my hand by resting the thumb just past the edge of the screen. Many controls are available on my car as physical knobs, levers, and buttons, in addition to the screen, but some things like setting dual-zone climate control or manually moving the vent between floor and dash are screen only. And I typically can only mess with that at a stop light.

Now the counter-arguments on the Tesla would include that their self-driving capabilities decrease the risk of looking at the screen for a few seconds, and the screen placement probably helps too. But I'd still like to see some long- term reports as situations arise, such as when a passing truck sprays water/mud on the windshield and you need to quickly increase the speed of the wipers to high and put the windshield wash on. Or a rapidly changing climate condition causes the windshield to suddenly fog over (doesn't happen that often, but it has for me periodically), and you need to take a glove off to get the screen to work.

My other gripe is that the screen isn't molded into the dash, but on a stem sticking out -- it doesn't really look like it is part of the car. And looking at the pictures, the only thing I can think of is that this was a cost cut, as it is probably expensive designing and manufacturing all the normal dash controls.

But then again, I could be wrong, but if not, I really hope the rest of the industry doesn't follow. And I hope that this isn't a trend for Tesla, and future models will have more driver friendly controls.

<comment><USER12> I suspect the rest of the industry won't follow because we have many decades worth of research into why tactile buttons and knobs are a good thing while piloting vehicles. This just reeks of Musk overriding his designers in service of a pure vision, and frankly it's reckless and I plan to give Teslas I see on the road a wide berth so they don't murder me while trying to change the airflow via touchscreens with zero feedback.

<comment><USER11> From a "visual" statement, at least from the pictures, something about that dash (at least to me, others may differ) screams out "cheap" and "cost cut". I'd really like to know if this was the case (cost cut), or if it really was a design choice.

<comment><USER12> My suspicion is less cost cutting and more designers not being allowed to do good work. A lot of the interior decisions feel like the results of edicts from the top by someone who has no design sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> All these comments about hardware buttons will in a few years inspire the same chuckles reading comments about how hardware keyboards are absolutely essential for cellphones from 2007.

<comment><USER14> Somehow almost all phone manufacturers in 2018 still include hardware buttons in their phones, precisely when the UX of a hardware button is better.

<comment><USER15> The Model 3 also has some hardware buttons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Should I cancel my Model 3 reservation and get my $1000 back?

Or could I sell it off to someone who now wants a Tesla Model 3 faster?

<comment><USER17> Tesla doesn't allow that without written consent ([https://teslanomics.co/can- i-sell-my-model-3-reservation/](https://teslanomics.co/can-i-sell-my- model-3-reservation/)).

That being said, you can try buying the car and re-selling it immediately.

Whether someone would take you up on that offer is another question.

<comment><USER18> Additionally, in the agreement you sign when you take delivery, I believe there is a clause requiring you to not resell for a profit.

<comment><USER19> Good luck enforcing that. Sell the car at cost and sell a token item for the remainder...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't understand everyone's complaints about Model 3 missing tactile buttons. I went from BMW (which had buttons everywhere) to Model S. I have had the S for 2 years and have never missed any tactile button. Nor have I met any Model S owner who has said "I missed those buttons". Tesla allows for an overnight test drive. Try the S. You will not miss any buttons.

<comment><USER20> > Nor have I met any Model S owner who has said "I missed those buttons". > Tesla allows for an overnight test drive.

The second sentence helps explain the first: people who would miss the buttons don't become Model S owners.

<comment><USER8> I don't think it explains anything. A car purchase decision is based on a number of different factors. Availability of buttons is certainly one of them, and it is reasonable to believe that many Tesla owners have bought their vehicles despite lack of physical buttons as a compromise. For example, in the Model X forum, you would see a lot of X owners buying the car despite and Falcon Wing Doors and complaining about it later. This doesn't happen at all about the lack of physical buttons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If the Tesla model 3 was really shipping with an advanced UI, it would feature real tactile dumb buttons. Instead, it removes utility for 'clean' lines. I appreciate the approach (e.g. it worked for Apple), but soft buttons are a bane, IMO.

<comment><USER22> Perhaps each to their own, but I find the maze of meaningless buttons on most steering wheels to be far worse

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> For anyone interested, Doug DeMuro's video on the Model 3 is probably the most informative I've seen:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te6VqldjTT8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te6VqldjTT8)

<comment><USER24> One of my favourite reviewers. He can be a bit hokey at times, but he truly understands and appreciates cars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The instrumentation probably won't age well. In 10 years the screen will look like a relic from the stone age.

</comment><comment><USER26> Tesla now has a ton of experience. Can someone please help me understand why Model 3 production has been so challenging? I get this part that it requires a new production line and have its own part list. Is that the challenge?

Btw, detroitnews.com is a navigation nightmare - popup after popup, auto play ads

<comment><USER27> > I get this part that it requires a new production line and have its own part > list. Is that the challenge?

Yes. Making cars is hard. Making them with a low defect rate is harder still. Making a completely new car on a completely new line is super hard, especially if the cars have to be relatively cheap.

<comment><USER28> Hopefully the Model 3 has a lower defect rate then previous Teslas

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Need comparison to GM Bolt EV, probably it's most direct competitor. My bro just got one of those, and it seems to live up to the hype as well.

<comment><USER30> I'm curious if the average Model 3 buyer is the same as the average electric car buyer. The Model 3 isn't just an electric car the same way a GM Bolt EV is, the Tesla has all the self-driving features that are still relatively unmatched by other offerings in the market. The Autonomous Bolt EV doesn't go into production until next year.

<comment><USER31> I would consider another EV - for me that's the main I'm looking for in my next car. The reason I'm waiting for a model 3 rather than already driving a Bolt or Leaf is largely a matter of battery longevity. I want to have some assurance that the battery will not need replacing in the first 5-10 years. Tesla so far seems to be the best in that regard with their large packs and active pack management. The beauty and performance of the car are a nice plus, but even with that I'm not certain I'll wind up with a 3.

<comment><USER32> What data have you found regarding superiority of the Tesla Model 3 battery pack vs the Bolt.

From my research, the Leaf is far behind, but the Bolt and Model 3 seem very similar almost to the point where I'd guess driving style and heater usage would make up the difference.

<comment><USER31> I was basing that concern mostly on bad reports of the Leaf battery, good reports of the Tesla battery (someone put together a data set of range loss vs mileage) and lack of data on the Bolt.

I haven't seen data yet on the Bolt. The other child comment suggests it's favorable, though. If new data shows the Bolt as having similar longevity to the Tesla then it's more of a contender for me, although I don't think highly of GM or their cars in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I just want to add that the car doesn't totally lack hardware controls. There are some buttons and up/down sticks on the steering wheel.

</comment><comment><USER34> I wish they'd make one with less premium content and minimal weight, priced and competitive with something like a GTI or Civic Si.

I'd also like a Civic Type R, but the wait-list on those is just as silly.

They're making great cars, but you have to wait for them.

</comment><comment><USER35> Although not professionally taken, those interior shots make it look terrible inside. The back seat looks like it might before a base model Dodge Dart or something. The dash looks like it is a vehicle driven by Robocop.

</comment><comment><USER36> Holy cow, I didn't realize they were missing production by so much.

Estimated 20k in December and ended up being just 1,500. May as well have said they'd make a million of them lol.

<comment><USER17> "missing" is relative.

The original official (from Tesla/Musk) estimate for mass production (5k / week) of Tesla 3 was 2020.

In 2014 they moved that back by 2 years to early 2018.

In late 2017 they moved that forward by 6 months, to mid 2018.

So depending on which official estimate you're looking at, they are either 6 months late or 1.5 years ahead.

<comment><USER37> > The original official (from Tesla/Musk) estimate for mass production (5k / > week) of Tesla 3 was 2020. In 2014 they moved that back by 2 years to early > 2018. In late 2017 they moved that forward by 6 months, to mid 2018.

A friendly correction: funnily enough, the terms 'moving/pushing back' and ' moving/bringing forward' in time work in the opposite way to how non-native English speakers (such as myself) tend to understand and use them. The mental image I use to remember it has the event looking at me from the future, so bringing it 'forward' moves it closer to where I stand, in the present.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> iPhone of the cars? Does it mean you will have to deal with some stupid or inferior solutions forever because Apple thinks it's so perfect that nothing can be fixed?

</comment><comment><USER39> Was the product hype ever a "hype"?

I thought it was the _production_ hype that had investors worried.

</comment><comment><USER40> "Unless you've been living on Mars, you know the Model 3's production launch has been a pickle "

And if you're living on Mars...your Roadster is on its way

<comment><USER41> That launch had some issues as well... You'll have to head over to the asteroid belt to pick it up.</comment></comment>


Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson on Business: Make Everything Your Own - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cent/make-everything-your-own_b_356915.html

<comment><USER2> I am always surprised by how the people in the entertainment industry are so driven and hardworking. People often over-emphasize the talent or luck part, e.g. his name "50 Cent" was acquired from a chance meeting with Eminem in the subway, but this is quite misleading.

Compare this piece of writing with:

"The Steve Martin Method" [http://www.calnewport.com/blog/2008/02/01/the- steve-martin-m...](http://www.calnewport.com/blog/2008/02/01/the-steve-martin- method-a-master-comedians-advice-for-becoming-famous/) "be so good they can't ignore you"

Jerry Seinfield's "Don't break the chain" [http://lifehacker.com/281626/jerry- seinfelds-productivity-se...](http://lifehacker.com/281626/jerry-seinfelds- productivity-secret) "the value of continual incremental progress"

<comment><USER3> I agree with what you said but a quick clarification. He was already known as 50 Cent before he met Eminem. He took the name from a famous "stick up" kid in NY from the past. He made an album on Columbia before he met Em but was dropped when he was shot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
      The ultimate power in life is to be completely self-reliant, completely yourself.

That's terrible advice for me. I suck at working with others and trusting others and have a tendency to try and do everything myself. Problem is, in short term you can get more done quickly but in longterm doing everything alone does not scale. It's hurt me many times and something I've proactively worked to improve in the past year(with good results).

I'm sure there must be others on the other end of the spectrum who'll find this advice more helpful.

All said, I have tremendous respect for 50 cent. He's got an incredibly sharp business mind. Just look at how much he made off of Vitamin Water.

<comment><USER5> vitamin water got famous because he was already famous. as its easy to make money when you are already rich..its easy to make your products famous when you are famous to begin with

<comment><USER4>
      its easy to make your products famous when you are famous to begin with

If that was true, every celebrity would be making few _hundred_ mil from endorsement deals. Not just a few like 50 Cent.

<comment><USER6> 50 Cent took his payment in company stock, that's why his pay out was so huge. I'm sure if other celebrities followed suit, they'd see similar returns.

<comment><USER4> Exactly, that makes him different from the average famous person:)

<comment><USER7> that, and 9 scars from bullet holes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There are some powerful concepts in here. A lot of HNers are seeking financial independence and they embody much of what 50 cent wrote in this piece. However, I hope we all remember his comment about not becoming dependent on _our own money_ as well. Strength continues to come from within, even when you're not working for the man.

I also like the application of these thoughts to addictions, in all forms. Any addiction is an incredible loss of power.

</comment><comment><USER9> More of Fifty Cent's life advice was previously posted:

"50 Cent's 10 lessons for success in business - and in life"

"Most people think first of what they want to express or make, then find the audience for their idea. You must work the opposite angle, thinking first of the public. You need to keep your focus on their changing needs, the trends that are washing through them. Beginning with their demand, you create the appropriate supply."

[http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertai...](http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6837225.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=829998>

</comment><comment><USER10> I really liked reading this. I was only vaguely aware of this guy before seeing this article and the other one posted a while ago that wallflower has linked to. I must say, I find him very impressive.

What interested me most about these two articles though was his ability to articulate his thoughts so well. I've noticed that it's frequently the case that successful people are very good at clearly saying whatever it is they want to say. This is a trait I'm trying to develop myself.

</comment><comment><USER11> The title is misleading. 90% of this article is spot on.

</comment><comment><USER12> It's pronounced "fiddy".

<comment><USER13> Ferrari F-50

<comment><USER14> If he could move a few packs, he could get a hat, and that'd be dope.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This latest project of Robert Greene, Machiavellian new age self help guru, seems to find it's way here far to often.

<comment><USER16> Having the clarity of mind to see things for what they are, is really necessary to understand so many things in life deeply. Calling Robert Greene a "self help guru" and disparaging his work fails totally in that regard.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is Bitbucket down, too? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> [http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/bitbucket.org](http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/bitbucket.org)

Looks like its down for everyone, at least according to that web service!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Github is back and Bitbucket went down.

[http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/bitbucket.org](http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/bitbucket.org)

What's going on today?

</comment><comment><USER3> GitHub is not down anymore: [https://status.github.com/](https://status.github.com/)</comment>


The Uncomfortable Truth About Entrepreneurship That Nobody Wants to Talk About - <AUTHOR> https://www.inc.com/thomas-koulopoulos/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-entrepreneurship-that-nobody-wants-to-talk-about.html <comment><USER2> You got to be:

\- insanely committed to hustle and win

\- mostly impatient

\- relentlessly resourceful

\- initiative

\- comfortable in ambiguous situations and new territory where there's likely no one to ask for help

\- passionate

\- grounded in radical honesty

\- emotionally intelligent such that you can escape negativity and not get bogged down in downward spirals, but look for positive, virtuous spirals up

Lack any of these: failure likelihood goes way up.</comment>


Documentation Is Your Secret Weapon - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/documentation-is-your-secret-weapon-d0362e85c9d3 <comment><USER2> _Even if you say your app "schedule workloads" or "manages containers" that still doesn't even tell me all that much. As the worst example, I once worked at database company that didn't use the word "database" on their webpage._

Some examples:

Hashicorp:

[https://www.hashicorp.com](https://www.hashicorp.com)

I'm using Consul, Nomad, and Vault from Hashicorp -- no thanks to their homepage which should be bragging about how great their products are.

I'm a big fan of JetBrains, but their front page doesn't immediately tell you why they are so great.

[https://www.jetbrains.com](https://www.jetbrains.com)

</comment><comment><USER3> So many good advices here for any project or product documentation.</comment>


Apple and Google's wage-fixing involved dozens more companies, over 1M employees - <AUTHOR> http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/ <comment><USER2> People decry the greed of financial sector employees, but one of the best things about moving there from silicon valley was that people had a pretty good idea of their worth as a proportion of the firm's balance sheet.

I really appreciated that compensation expenses on the balance sheet of a typical investment bank are fixed at 37-39% throughout the year, with the delta between salary and allotment being paid out as bonuses. It significantly improved my income.

I would gladly work at a tech company with a similar incentive structure, and I think more engineers should start asking for it. Financiers get paid a lot in the form of bonuses, but the correct answer is not to daisy cut by hollowing out their income. We should be asking why tech employees don't also make the same kind of revenue.

When Google and Apple have profits per employee of over $1M but the average engineer salary is only slightly higher than $100K according to glass door while both these companies are building stockpiles of cash holdings, something is obviously broken.

I suspect part of it is the 'doing it for passion' mantra, but another part of it was Apple HR's now obviously crooked refrain of 'we pay the prevailing market wage'. Just because I'm doing something I'm passionate about doesn't mean I like getting ripped off.

<comment><USER3> While I don't agree with the wage-fixing thing, I can tell you that the "average engineer salary slightly higher than $100K" at Google is not even close to true. When I worked at Google 7 years ago, in the heart of this controversy (IE when salaries were theoretically depressed), as the lowest level engineer just out of college, my salary after bonus was over $100k. Any current mid-level engineer will probably be making between $200k-$300k in total monetary compensation from salary/bonus/stock. And this isn't counting the tons of other benefits (cadillac health coverage, free food, generous 401k matching, etc).

I'm not trying to be a shill for Google here, but I think it is a little misleading to say Google is hoarding all of this money and making their engineers live on pennies. The engineers are paid well, and while they (and other tech companies) don't have the partner-type structure, there still are competitive forces driving wages up (assuming the companies are generating profits and can afford it). And... if an engineer wants a partner type structure, they can always just quit and found a company where the wealth accumulates for them just as directly as it does in finance.

<comment><USER4> >I'm not trying to be a shill for Google here, but I think it is a little misleading to say Google is hoarding all of this money and making their engineers live on pennies. The engineers are paid well,

It seems to me you're sneaking in a little argument about what people 'deserve' here, and appealing to a predatory modesty. OH, sure, google is making an insane amount of money, and they're not passing it down to the people doing the work, but do workers NEED that money? Couldn't they, in fact, get by with _less_ than they're paid now?

<comment><USER3> No, not at all. I quit Google to work at a startup not because I didn't like Google, but because I felt a startup was a way for my compensation to more directly align with the value I could help create. And obviously my belief at that time was my "real value" was far higher than I was being paid at the time.

I really just wanted to dispute the numbers here, because I disagree that big tech companies are somehow more unfair to the employees than finance companies. Assuming there aren't illegal anti-poaching agreements, market forces operate in SV the same way they operate in the finance sector to drive up salaries of talented employees.

And it seems to me that if you want to strike off on your own (which is a risky but good was of generating "true value" for yourself), it is easier to do that in SV with a tech startup than it is in the finance industry.

<comment><USER5> > Assuming there aren't illegal anti-poaching agreements, market forces > operate in SV the same way they operate in the finance sector to drive up > salaries of talented employees.

Isn't the entire point of this debacle that there _are_ anti poaching agreements, however?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've lived and worked in the bay area for 30 years this month. Scary to think about but it lends an interesting perspective.

At some point in their growth, senior management is far enough away from the day to day engineering that the differences between individuals becomes nearly completely obscured except for a small percentage of standout folks.

This level of management is incenting a group to 'grow the company' and they need more folks to do more things. The problem is that engineers have wildly variable effectiveness in a role (they aren't fungible as folks would like) and the recruiting group is being rated on 'quality hires'.

So if you split the population of engineering talent into loosely defined groups of 'employed at a hot[1] company', 'employed at a non-hot[2] company', or 'unemployed' the recruiters consider these (unreasonably) to be 'best', 'ok', and 'not ok' groups to recruit from because they correlate the hot/not- hot bit to their incentive probability.

In the 80's it was Intel, AMD, and National Semiconductor all trying to growth by hiring the 'hot' talent from their competitors. In the 90's it was Ebay, Yahoo, and Sun, and in the naughts it was Google, Oracle, Intuit, Paypal etc.

So you have this system set up and the 'cheapest' way (in an economic sense) for a recruiter to be successful is to exploit the work of some previous recruiter that was successful and recruit the top talent from their pool into your pool. Combined with California's labor laws which favor employees and you end up with a situation that repeats itself over and over and over again.

The issue is that recruiting quality people out of the entire pool is "hard" and poaching the top engineers at a competitor is "easy." We don't incentivize recruiters to do the hard work, which leads to a host of other problems as well (like ageism, university discrimination, etc)

[1] 'hot' in this context is buzzworthy or having good growth and execution press. (exemplars, 'Google', 'Facebook' or 'Apple')

[2] 'non-hot' is a company that is idling along (not failing) but not generating a lot of buzz either (exemplar 'Computer Associates' or 'IBM')

</comment><comment><USER7> Thinking about it a bit, I bet this wasn't born out of a desire to want to keep wages down per se, but a desire to avoid turnover of productive up-to- speed people.

It's quite funny to see that the downsides of near-instantaneous at-will employment are hitting companies so hard that they're willing to engage in such a boneheaded scheme, when sympathy is normally focused on employees.

Perhaps if these companies want to bring back some semblance of employee loyalty, they should start incorporating longer termination notice periods in their contracts and making employees happy _before_ they want to leave, rather than treating individuals as interchangeable cogs and getting what they ask for.

<comment><USER8> _Thinking about it a bit, I bet this wasn 't born out of a desire to want to keep wages down per se, but a desire to avoid turnover of productive up-to- speed people_

I understand your thinking but I don't think it logically holds together. If the main concern was stability, that could be addressed by matching/topping any competing offers ... so you're right back to this being about holding down wages.

<comment><USER7> Your method would increase complexity while making the pact harder to hide, and keeping down wages is a nice side benefit. Keep in mind people generally don't _start off_ trying to do overt wrong.

<comment><USER8> I really struggle with some of the thinking on HN.

If anything I might buy the argument that Jobs was a huge control freak and that's what drove him to do this more than anything else, but how do you think this went down.

Jobs really didn't like having his engineers poached because it disrupted continuity. So he said to himself ... what am I gonna do? what am I gonna do? Offer 2x whatever Google is offers? Noooo ... that would never work. I need to call up Google and threaten a poaching war?

I'll go with Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is the best.

<comment><USER7> Jobs's ego could certainly have been a large part of it. But doubling salaries isn't a solution because the competition will raise salaries to counter their people leaving and you'll be back in the same insecure position while paying twice as much.

And please note, I'm certainly not defending any of this behavior, just examining possible motivations.

(And well that's how exploration of different narratives goes, it's a constant struggle compared to simply picking from the limited two-sides-max of mainstream press)

<comment><USER9> You just mentioned two doublings like it was nothing. 4x salary. Not something that can be glossed over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What I don't get is that I see Eric Schmidt strutting around in all kinds of media these days, how come no one ever asks him about his role in this shit?

<comment><USER11> Cynical view: The media does not challenge the powerful and the wealthy, they merely act as PR hacks.

<comment><USER12> industry media is usually fawning

\- why pay a writer to write a whole article when you can just reprint a press release with slight edits?

\- they live in fear of "losing access" because they have nothing else to cover

\- kool-aid-drinking sells

E.g., can you imagine TechCrunch announcing a new startup and then criticizing its concept? it would make startups would think twice about giving them any releases, writers would be able to produce less content, no kool aid.

outsider media, on the other hand, can land on the other end of the pendulum of being overly cynical, paranoid, underinformed etc.

<comment><USER13> I actually think a lot of media has both sets of problems at the same time. They will take press releases or whatever and reprint them coated in identical thin layers of snark and generic cynicism, without providing any real criticism or context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > The agreement prompted a Department of Justice investigation, resulting in a > settlement in which the companies agreed to curb their restricting hiring > deals.

Wait, the result of an investigation where wrongdoing was found is ... that the companies agreed not to do it anymore? Yes, I know there is a still a civil class action lawsuit going, but still.

<comment><USER2> For those who don't know, to sign up for the ongoing class action suit, go to [https://www.hightechemployeelawsuit.com/](https://www.hightechemployeelawsuit.com/) and request a form.

Apple gave them my old address (even though they know my current address), so I had to request a claim number since the mailing got lost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The funny thing about all of this is that a"cold call" block is actually something the engineers might want.

As a software engineer: I've been chased by recruiters while heads-down on a project. It's an annoying distraction. With the tools at my fingertips (glassdoor, social and professional networks of other engineers that aren't particularly restricted by corporate borders in a deeply-interconnected era), I know the market value of the job and I know who's willing to offer more and less; I also can know about the corporate and engineering culture of the other companies. In short: if I want a change, I know where the door is and I know who's hiring. While in general, I'd agree with the notion that decreased price signalling could depress wages, I think it's a stretch to push software engineers working at the listed companies into an "oppressed workers" mold; it's a notoriously well-compensated field.

It's certainly a booby-trap to reason from one's own experience. But I find myself thinking that software engineers themselves might welcome the idea of a "no cold-call" list.

<comment><USER16> Do recruiters actually call you? I've gotten countless emails, which are easy to ignore—but I think I'd go insane if they started trying to call me.

<comment><USER17> Recruiters definitely sell telephone contact sheets to each other (or take them along when they change companies).

I've even had recruiters call me on my desk phone at work trying to do a sales pitch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> To entrepreneurs, business people, managers, etc.:

Please remember that your company is more than its product – it's a group of people surrounded by a community of family, children, neighbors, etc. Whether your goal is world-changing or niche, do your best to take care of those people as professionally as you can. Business is business of course, but don't rationalize bending the rules just to make a few more bucks.

If you get caught, you'll pay. But even if you get away with it, remember how powerful a guilty conscience can be at turning profits into dust.

<comment><USER19> That's a nice thought, but I don't think sociopaths suffer much from a guilty conscience.

I do believe fines and jail time have some effect on them, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> [edit] Yes, I know we have a title limit here, thanks for pointing it out again and again. The question is why the, in my humble opinion, most important word of the original title was dropped.

OP: Revealed: Apple and Google's wage-fixing cartel involved dozens more companies, over one million employees

HN: Apple and Google's wage-fixing involved dozens more companies, over 1M employees

Maybe this is too nit-picky even for HN, but: Why does the headline here on HN only name "wage-fixing" (aka the symptom of the problem) instead of also naming the underlying cause like the article does: This is a _cartel_. Dropping the word has a whiff of spin.

I sure as heck hope they get the treatment they deserve and that this will strengthen the understanding that this type of stuff is exactly why you want strong unions. Judging from the history of both in the US, I'm not holding my breath, though.

<comment><USER21> The Pando article itself is spin. It wasn't a 'wage fixing cartel'. It was a non-poaching agreement, which may or may not have resulted in lower wages as a side-effect. I'm not sure it's even accurate to call it a 'cartel'. A cartel agrees to fix prices, which didn't happen in this case. They didn't even agree to fix wages, so the article is essentially bullshit in my opinion.

<comment><USER22> A cartel are competitors who privately agree to essentially not compete, and this can include on the production side (which in this case are tech workers). The unavoidable, and intentional impact of that is wage suppression. This isn't a "maybe", this is absolute certainty: A rising Google upset the apple cart by offering more than those other companies were, and everyone else was sour that they'd have to start paying more to keep their employees. This agreement, without any doubt at all, took money out of the pockets of tech workers.

I'm generally a fan of Google, but I have a negative opinion of Eric Schmidt. So many times he says and does things that seem so fundamentally detached from real life.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that the hero of this story -- the only one who actually saw that it was wrong and probably illegal, was Edward Colligan, then the CEO of Palm - [http://pando.com/2014/02/19/court-documents-reveal-steve- job...](http://pando.com/2014/02/19/court-documents-reveal-steve-jobs- blistering-threat-to-ceo-who-wouldnt-join-wage-fixing-cartel/)

<comment><USER21> Not according to any defn i can see. All defns say a cartel regulates production and output.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is absolutely ridiculous. There should be some seriously punitive fines for this.

While I can see the lack of sympathy because these employees are so well compensated and rewarded for the work, if this affected blue-collar jobs instead there would be people on the streets, and quite rightly.

As someone else pointed out, Google and Apple are probably making on the order of $900k/year profit per employee - there is obviously cash in the bank to pay market salaries without resorting to disgraceful tactics like this.

</comment><comment><USER24> So, what people don't realize, is that this affects the entire industry, whether you were employed by one of these companies or not. With over 1M employees driving "market rates" for salaries, others followed and competed on those terms. This also impact hiring and employment for so many.

Basically, anyone paying a competitive market rate these days is effectively benefiting from this. As a programmer, you should approach companies with this mindset.

</comment><comment><USER25> Anecdotaly, I recently moved home to San Francisco from Charlotte, NC. The dominant employers in Charlotte are the big banks, and there aren't a lot of major tech companies there. I was surprised to find that the pay scale -- contract or salaried -- is about the same or less in SF for a senior web developer, despite the great difference in the cost of living in those cities. Maybe this explains it.

<comment><USER26> My unproved explanation is about age, young people tend to not want to work for banks (citation needed).

Young people can afford less salary but prefer equity, fun culture, amenities and perks (citation needed 2).

A Sr. Java Developer living in Charlotte, Atlanta or Texas needs to make a 6 figure salary to stay in a middle class level quality of living (2 kids, single family home, 2 cars, hole foods market)

A Single Developer in SF needs the same amount of money to live well in the city with roommates.

a NC bank wanting a good web developer can either pay a young SF developer the same money she is making there to compensate for the loss of "living in SF is more fun for young adults than in Charlotte" \+ "it's a bank, we don't have a ping pong table or beer in the fridge" effect. Or pay a salary that is going to be enough for a bit older developer who has a family, to live comfortably.

If you consider that there is a cost to moving to Charlotte that is more than a monetary cost, that cost needs to be taken into consideration in the compensation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Shocking, but not necessarily surprising given what has already been revealed.

Seems like the kind of thing that a union would help protect against.

</comment><comment><USER28> The apologetics here are nauseating. You want to be slaves. Maybe technical labor ought to form its own cartel and stop working for these companies. Let the executives clean their own toilets.

</comment><comment><USER29> I wonder what the general mood is regarding this in Apple and Google. More importantly, I wonder if there are going to be any significant repercussions. Would appreciate comments from employees of these companies, whether this information being uncovered has had any effect in the workplace so far.

</comment><comment><USER30> Interesting that it has reached the UK. Maybe we need an investigation in the Uk/EU as well.

<comment><USER31> I think this is the relevant bit of law, point (e) about the conclusion of contracts being subject to other parties, as this covers the conclusion of employment contracts, among other things.

1\. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market, and in particular those that:

(a) Directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions

(b) Limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment

(c) Share markets or sources of supply

(d) Apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(e) Make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations that, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts

[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=262491:cs&lang=en&lis...](http://eur- lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=262491:cs&lang=en&list=262491:cs,262487:cs,201150:cs,114690:cs,71708:cs,27020:cs,426:cs,108:cs,&pos=1&page=1&nbl=8&pgs=10&hwords=article%2081~&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I seem to be in the minority here, but legality aside, I don't see an agreement between companies not to poach each other's employees as a terribly sinister thing. In fact, it seems entirely reasonable to mutually agree not to actively recruit employees from another company.

Once you talk about refusing to hire potential employees who apply of their own volition, that would be another thing, but in my mind "no cold call" != "wage fixing scheme".

<comment><USER32> (I assume I'm likely missing something though, so I welcome counter-arguments. Would this still be a problem even if all they had done was avoid actively recruiting?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Tech workers totally don't need a union.

<comment><USER12> Part of the kool aid is that you, yes you, are merely a plutocrat-in-waiting so of course don't make things worse for yourself when you're going to be CEO of a billion dollar company.

The extremely enginuitive and extremely lucky are going to strike it big and have these concerns. But you're enginuitive and lucky, right?

<comment><USER17> If you're going to be smug and offensive, at least don't make up words.

<comment><USER12> I couldn't think of the word I wanted and that sounds like the word that would mean what I wanted it to mean, so I was very enginuitive in my wordification

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Will the CEOs ever go to jail for this. This is clearly more than a TOS violation, which can land people in jail.

</comment><comment><USER35> All the law firms in NYC (perhaps other cities) pay the same salary to all associates. It's agreed upon between them.

That being said, it's not exactly a suppression of the salary as I believe it is quite reasonable, but more like an equal playing field. You wouldn't go to another firm based on salary.

<comment><USER12> There's no part of that that isn't illegal collusion and if true then there would be overwhelming incentive for some aspiring legal minds to launch class action suits against that

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Your contribution at a big company amounts of a little under half the compensation equation (the rest is politics). If you want to work at a big company spent half your time playing the game. If you want your life to be about your work go to a startup.

</comment><comment><USER37> Does anyone know how we sign on to the class action? I was at Microsoft and then Google during this time and this probably affected my starting salary at Google.

<comment><USER38> Go to [https://hightechemployeelawsuit.com](https://hightechemployeelawsuit.com) .

If you were affected, you should have gotten a (snail-mail) letter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Don't be evil.

<comment> hippee-lee My impression of that as a corporate mission is that is sounds good enought that most folks think, yeah that's a good thug to pursue.

Having said this irl to other developers, the more I think about that, the more it disappoints me. Why? Because when I think about the mid level employee faced with making decisions, and they have to have an internal dialog with the selves as to if something is evil or not there are a lot of influencing factors that come into play. Is compensation bonus or promotion tied to the thing under consideration. How do individuals differentiate between evil and just really bad? My guess is that human nature (my own included ) is a lot easier swayed to 'well this is morally or ethically bad but not evil' when my own self interest is a factor in the decision to do or not do certain things.

Thinking about that slogan for the last fee years makes me wish they had gone the opposite direction and raced to the top: be righteous, be ethical, be morally strong.

For full disclaimer, I live in a world of my own construct where the glass is always half full and the scales always balance. However for, practical reasons, I have learned to understand the motivations behind the way the world and adjust my expectations accordingly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Reading the actual text that's included in the article it seems to say that this is a non-poaching agreement for senior level roles. Specifically it says not to "Cold Call." It specifically excludes engineers and non-senior level roles so the allegation that it's over 1M employees is also not accurate as that number would include non-managers.

<comment><USER41> reading the actual text in the article, how do you come to the conclusion that it is for "senior level roles" only? It talks about "staffing talent" "recruiting teams from any company" "one of our sales guys" Nothing in the article seems to limit it to just senior level roles. Where does it specifically exclude engineers and non-senior level?

<comment><USER19> Some do-not-call agreements were at the senior management level, and some were not. (at least, that's what I thought I read)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Oh good ol' Silicon Valley

<comment><USER19> It's funny how the alternative to S/V wages and staff is almost always to go to India (or similar place), as well, rather than ever consider branch offices in any smaller towns in the US.

But of course, there's no talent in Denver or Des Moines, but plenty overseas (if it's cheap enough)

It's intolerable to have to call somebody on Mountain Time or Central Time, but OK to have to coordinate meetings on the other side of the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Oh boy! It's just worth asking what kind of world we're leaving behind for our predecessors.We're pushing humanity forward but at what cost .

<comment><USER44> I think you mean successors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Incredible how so many people still kill to work at those companies. Maybe this is a sign that likes of Google on are on decline at least as far as their ability to attract top talent is concerned.

</comment><comment><USER46> What is the going salary in a general sense for a UI/UX Developer in Silicon Valley these days? From junior to mid to senior level? Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm actually really confused. I don't understand how companies agreeing to not cold call each other's employees is "overwhelming evidence of wage fixing".

<comment><USER30> And presumably if you found some one standing over a corpse hacking at it with a blood stained axe you'd think they where trying to administer a new form of CPR?

Its direct evidence for Christ's sake.

<comment><USER47> Ehh, no? Look I'm not saying it's a fair/legal practice what they did. I'm just not a law expert and don't see how it's direct wage fixing(indirect, sure).</comment></comment></comment>


Sleuthing Search Engine: Even Better Than Google? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/sleuthing-search-engine-even-better-than-google-1423703464

<comment><USER2> where can I download it?</comment>


Elon Musk is launching a tunnel digging company to reduce traffic in cities - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2016/12/17/elon-musk-tunnel-digging-boring-company/ <comment><USER2> It will be the project/company that ties all his projects together.

\- Tesla: At least one lane will be for self driving cars only, moving at higher speeds. Giving more reasons for people to buy Tesla and other self driving cars.

\- Hyperloop: Not exactly his main focus these days, but tunneling may be an alternative to pylons even though it will be more costly.

\- SpaceX: He will gain first hand experience needed for tunneling on Mars.

<comment><USER3> He's doing so many different things and on that scale, literally anything he does can be tied in into all his other businesses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seriously, can we clone Elon. I'm hoping all those kids he popped out via in vitro were actually just clones.

* Elon Musk Has Created His Own Grade School Because Of Course He Has | Motherboard || [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/elon-musk-has-created-his-o...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/elon-musk-has-created-his-own-grade-school-because-of-course-he-has)

</comment><comment><USER5> What law/precedents exist around underground land ownership? Do the surface owners have rights to the land below it to a determined depth?

</comment><comment><USER6> I generally like what Elon Musk does, but this sound to me like a patch for the cities that works extraordinarily well with his other business Tesla. What we need is more and more sustainable public transportation. Trains, subways, etc that can last 40-60 years without replacement.

Tesla cars "might be" eco-friendly but building cars, batteries, etc is a pretty wasteful thing if you have to replace your car in less than 10 years... Just wait few years until new cars start having forced system updates that block your car and ask for a replacement.

</comment><comment><USER7> This could also be a stepping stone to reducing Hyperloop tunneling costs

</comment><comment><USER8> Now I just can't stop thinking about the comparison between humans and ants.

</comment><comment><USER9> Roads for ants. Flying cars will happen first.</comment>


What's the State of Automated Software Development? - <AUTHOR>

On the surface, it seems that automated software development is a difficult, but solvable problem.  What I mean specifically is that you have a bunch of inputs and data, the desired or associated outputs, and then formulate a black box with predictive capabilities using new inputs.
So for instance, if you feed the program a bunch of stock market information (quotes, news, P/E, etc), it can create algorithms and software for creating a stock portfolio that can give a return of i% in 6 months, and a 95% confidence interval of +-5%.
Is something like this possible? Are there impossible problems in developing such software? Are there research institutions or private corporations that already have similar technologies/programs? <comment><USER2> This is basic information theory. If there's a smaller way (a formula, a pattern, etc) to represent data, then the larger representation has wasted bits (wow, that was a frightfully poor explanation, sorry).

OK, how about this - lets say there is an ideal smallest way to represent a problem, and you can generate any other view of the problem based on that ideal representation. Well, that's just a DSL - pg is always saying "write a language for the problem, then write your program in that language". That's about as small as you can get. Other views of the same problem are accidental complexity or Steve Yegge's rants about code compression (Java vs Ruby/Javascript vs Lisp).

As far as your stock market example, you could use a genetic algorithm to predict a formula to invest with. But as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results. This is a problem that humans can't even figure out, let alone computer programs.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, there are impossible problems in developing such software. Fully specifying what a program needs to do is no less complicated than writing the program.

</comment><comment><USER4> Are you familiar with undecidability?</comment>


Patreon alternative powered by Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://bitpatron.io <comment><USER2> Most of the site seems broken (clicking on the demo and then going to subscribe opens [https://subscribe](https://subscribe)). But it's a great idea.</comment>


Official: FBI probing PA school webcam spy case  - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/20/AR2010022000679.html

<comment><USER2> I was pleasantly surprised that the main reason for the FBI investigation wasn't "oh noes child porn!" It would be really sad if child porn was the only way to get the authorities to look at misconduct like this.

<comment><USER3> The problem with computer misuse laws is that they often come down to proving intent. That's why you'll see a lot of computer criminals being hauled up for fraud etc. simply because it is easier to prosecute them for it.

In this case they have a clear intent to spy (especially as it looks like they have been spying). So it looks like the right laws will get applied.

I think it would be extremely difficult to prosecute them with CP laws anyway.

<comment><USER4> Prosecution depends on what pics the staff were emailing around. If forensics turns up salacious pictures, along with inept cover ups that demonstrate intent, _then_ the fishing expedition starts. Depending on how out of control the school was, the Feds could end up with an open-ended fishing expedition into staff home computers and a warehouse full of evidence.

<comment><USER5> As used as a term of art "fishing expedition" just isn't correct usage here. Those are searches etc. that are based on a pretext and are looking for anything possible to zap someone.

In this case, we are presuming that a broad based search won't happen unless and until evidence of real violations are found, upon which the FBI will naturally want to discover the scope of them.

Even then, to search an individual's home computer without any evidence the individual was engaged in wrongdoing would _in theory_ not hold up in court. But the FBI is famously abusive and publicity hungry and "child p0rn is the root password to the US Constitution".

<comment><USER4> I see two likely scenarios:

1\. A prissy, overbearing administrator did this carefully, with due attention to privacy of records.

2\. Misuse of the webcams was rife and uncontrolled. School staff were emailing funny webcam captures with no regard for privacy, public opinion, or self preservation. The investigation will rapidly turn into "copy every hard drive touched by a staff member". I.e., a fishing expedition.

<comment><USER5> No, it's only a fishing expedition if the copying is done on a pretext to find _something_ , _anything_ to "get" someone with.

If the extreme of #2 occurred, it would only be sane to copy every disk drive to preserve evidence. Given the real cost of examining disk images (especially for deleted pictures), I wouldn't be surprised if the searches wouldn't then be driven real evidence ... although I suppose after capturing metadata it would be easy to see "who has or had a copy of this picture or video".

But even then, even if abusive in scope, it's not a fishing expedition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article I got didn't say anything about the FBI, only that the school official was defended by the district. Title: "Pa. school official defended in webcam spy case"

<comment><USER5> Yeah, the AP story has been replaced on more than one site.

Search for

      MARYCLAIRE DALE FBI probing Pa. school webcam spy case

and you'll find a copy of the original one (MARYCLAIRE DALE is the author; fortunately my outbox has an email I sent to some friends that quoted some of the article).

Right now this works: <http://www.physorg.com/news185826013.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really hope people who approved and actually did this end up in jail. This is just way too illegal.</comment>


Should computer programming be mandatory for U.S. students? - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.infoworld.com/fatalexception/archives/2008/10/mandatory_compu.html

<comment><USER2> I agree in principle, but the "introductory" programming classes I have taken were all so bad, I can't imagine anyone actually learning a bit of useful programming from them. Before we force people to take the classes we have now, how about rethinking Computer Science 101 so that it leaves you with some actual knowledge. A good start would be teaching it in python ;-)

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't be fooled, the average Joe won't ever dig computer programming, it's the same with mathematics or physics. No matter if it is taught in school. Guess why?

</comment><comment><USER4> LOL!! Yes in the same way that _making paper and ink_ is presently.

<comment><USER5> The problem is that computer literacy is a shifting sand, unlike other skills - teaching someone word processing years ago isn't going to help them do an effective google search today.

So while I think programming is an overkill, knowing the fundamentals might be worthwhile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> No.</comment>


Do all YC startups use Clerky and have the same style of terms in offer letters? - <AUTHOR> I just received an employment offer to join a YC startup. We negotiated the offer and reached an agreement in a few terms verbally (which includes the benefits and visa/GreenCard sponsorship). I am requesting the employer to include what has been agreed to the offer, which is a reasonable request to me. The employer mentions that the offer is generated through Clerky and standard and all YC startups uses the same standard offer for hiring; as he doesn't have an option to include new agreed terms in Clerky, he has to pay thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer to include the terms and he is not willing to do so.
I don't see my request as a lack of trust to the employer but to have a clear contract which reflects the terms agreed and I think it's better for both sides. However, the employer thinks otherwise and sees this as a clear lack of trust from my side.
My questions:
Is my request unreasonable?
Do really all YC startups use Clerky for legal documents and the documents are standard and fixed and cannot be amended?
Is the employer reasonable in saying that my request to include the agreed upon terms in the offer indicates the lack of trust from my side (while personally my request doesn't arise from a lack of trust)? <comment><USER2> I'm sorry to say this, but this employer sounds like a scumbag. If this is how he treats you (by lying and trying to exploit you) at this stage, how is he going to treat you once you're stuck with him?

> _he has to pay thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer to include the terms_

This is utter bullshit. Call 5-10 local lawyers, tell them what is needed, and find out how much it would cost. Present the employer with the names of those lawyers and their prices.

> _Is my request unreasonable?_

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Always get everything in writing, no matter how much you trust someone. For all you know, the person who made you the promises will be at a different company or dead in a few years.

It's completely normal and reasonable to get something in writing, and it's either naive or malicious that someone is refusing.

</comment><comment><USER3> There might be a way to meet both your needs. If you are satisfied with everything else, there is no harm in letting the hiring process go ahead. Ask the employer to send you the offer letter but don't sign anything yet.

Once you have the offer letter in hand, CONSULT A LAWYER on your own dime to prepare the following. (Even if the employer's lawyers prepared the agreement and modified clerky agreements, you would have to get your own lawyer to review any agreement before you sign them)

Step 1: Write down your verbal agreement in an email. For example: "Thank you for the offer letter. I would like to take this opportunity to document in writing what we discussed over the phone. Specifically, \-- As part of my employment agreement, you will provide me with a blue pony within 2 business days of my landing in SFO. \-- Within 90 days, You will also provide me with a visa and bear all costs for the same. If this is also your understanding of our discussion. Please send me an email back specifically stating that."

Step 2: \-- Strike out any clause in the standard agreement that says that there shall be no other verbal or written agreements (your lawyer can help identify these sneaky clauses). Initial all pages. Sign it. \-- Attach and Send it back to him/her. \-- Ask him to make 2 copies of that set, initial all pages AND any struck-out clauses and send one copy back to you.

This way he/she gets to use Clerky and you get a good written documentation any agreement.

If he refuses to do that. Don't take the job.

NOTE OF CAUTION: Its not up to your employer to give you a green card or a visa. The US Government has to give you one. Your employer will have to pay "thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer" to a visa or green card anyway.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you absolutely need to take this offer, draft up a written agreement outlining all the terms you two have verbally agreed to. Have you and the other party sign the form and email yourself and the company a digital copy of the signed form. Also, ask your boss to reply to the email and confirm the agreement to be valid.

<comment><USER4> Given the fact that they were not willing to pay for any legal fee to get you onboard, I would be worried about whether they would actually fulfill their promise of providing you visa/GreenCard sponsorship down the road.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> (Also, assuming your HN username can be traced to your real name and therefore your future employer, I'd suggest deleting this and re-posting it under a throwaway username that can't be traced to you.)</comment>


The 50-year Gartner Hype Cycle for Smalltalk - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@richardeng/the-50-year-gartner-hype-cycle-for-smalltalk-da03030d3595 <comment><AUTHOR> This must be the longest hype cycle in human history!</comment>


The $160 Lesson: Apps Beat Devices - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/01/the-160-lesson-apps-beat-devices.html

<comment><USER3> I think this is more of an example of multi-use tools that are good enough beat single use tools in a lot of situations. Now, the fact that the touch can be programmed/additional functionality added for cheap is a nice feature - <USER2> there is no reason there couldn't be apps (aka new functionality) for his keyboard or his mouse.</comment>


Why I'm learning to code at 35 - <AUTHOR> http://3monthsofcode.tumblr.com/post/126095177110/why-im-learning-to-code-at-35-8-year-old-me

<comment></comment>


Why Apple's 3D touch failed miserably? (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/hackernoon/why-apples-3d-touch-failed-miserably <comment><USER2> The link goes to 404</comment>


The Beauty of LaTeX (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nitens.org/taraborelli/latex <comment><USER2> A very useful tool for writing LaTeX when you are often switching locations is ShareLatex. You can write LaTeX in your browser. It allows collaboration too, similar to Google Docs.

[https://www.sharelatex.com?r=890185d4&rm=d&rs=b](https://www.sharelatex.com?r=890185d4&rm=d&rs=b) ( <\- referral link, a referred user enables me to add more collaborators to my projects. Here's a non referral URL: [https://www.sharelatex.com](https://www.sharelatex.com))

</comment><comment><USER3> (La)TeX the typesetting engine is great, but (La)TeX the language is clunky. Without proper support for namespace, it's rather difficult to abstract and write macros without worrying about side effects. I have real troubles to guess which package a command is from.

Are there any alternatives that have solved this problem?

<comment><USER4> [http://patoline.org/](http://patoline.org/) tries to be better and it seems like the authors have a good grasp of typesetting.

<comment><USER5> Is this project still alive? The main page is copyright 2012 and both the mailing list and the bug tracker appear to be down.

The tarball is still there, though.

<comment><USER6> > Is this project still alive?

pmeunier ([https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pmeunier](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pmeunier)), one of the authors, discusses this a bit at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8026930](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8026930) (though without, I think, committing to any definitive answer).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Year is wrong, BTW.

I remember reading this a few years before 2011.

Edit: here we go, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1173226](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1173226)

<comment><USER8> Thanks, the earlier discussion you found was pretty good IIRC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It should be noted that word does indeed support all ligatures and glyph variants since Office 2013. Transparent text is also possible, put I guess it already was back then.

<comment><USER10> Until it supports something like the Microtype package, it won't come close - see [http://www.khirevich.com/latex/microtype/](http://www.khirevich.com/latex/microtype/) for instance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would also like to encourage you to have a look at ConTeXt. It goes the other way for LaTeX and wants to think you about layout more. I use it to create all my slides and have far more fun than with LaTeX beamer for that.

<comment><USER11> Mind sharing a link please? ConTeXt is not really searchable.

<comment><USER12> Did you actually try? Search engines are powerful, e.g. googling 'context tex' or 'context typesetting' returns pages of relevant results.

<comment><USER11> Searched for "ConTeXt", didn't get any meaningful results and gave up. Not my brightest moment, to be honest.

<comment><USER4> You have to add some context :D. Yes, ConTeXt is so old that "Google" (or any kind of search engine) wasn't a thing back then, leading to that unfortunate situation.

The Wiki is really good and links to a lot of resources, the TeX stackoverflow also provides lots of help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My main problem with LaTex: it is not composable. Explanation: you can't plug a random piece of LaTeX inside a random container (environment or macro), without it being formatted completely wrong, or without it triggering all kinds of error messages.

Composing objects hierarchically should be natural (easy), and the user should not be required to read tons of documentation for each case.

I think HTML does a lot better in that respect (though it has its flaws too).

<comment><USER14> In general, I dislike the stateful nature of LaTeX. There are many commands that change some variable at some point in the document, which might have ramifications way later, with no easy way to trace it back to the original command.

Some kind of consistent, closed, scoping would greatly benefit many areas of LaTeX in my opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have been using LaTex for many years and I like it, but what's stopping other document editing software (like Word) to reach the same level of quality of results? LaTex has been around forever, but nobody else is close to that quality.

<comment><USER16> Even on modern hardware it takes quite a while to compile a latex document (seconds!). Word basically has to compile the entire document with every key you click in order to show you the WYSIWYG interface.

<comment><USER17> Lyx is a WYSIWYG editor for Latex. It shows you quick typesetting in the WYSIWYG editor, but you can compile the underlying Latex document for beautiful typesetting.

<comment><USER16> No, Lyx is not WYSIWYG, but WYSIWYM. E.g, it doesn't show you how your document will look, but it shows you how it is structured.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I would like to start using LaTeX actually. I like that LaTex would work will with source control, and that you can use a simple editor like Vim to edit.

I hate using word and have a load of random formatting applied to my document. I am fed up with using the 'format painter'!!!

<comment><USER19> Go for it - it's simpler than you'd imagine. You may find this beginner's guide a useful starting point: [http://www.andy- roberts.net/writing/latex/](http://www.andy-roberts.net/writing/latex/)

[disclosure: I'm the author]

<comment><USER20> One of the things why ms word will always be miles ahead of latex is that it doesn't need a guide to start writing a document.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This article claims that "LaTeX supports Unicode". Does it now? Can you just drop in encoded characters from any language your fonts support, and get them rendered correctly? That would be a huge breakthrough, and last I knew, this is not at all the case.

LaTeX supports rendering various kinds of diacritics and math symbols, through its own mechanisms that aren't Unicode. If you want Unicode, you need to use a separate project called XeTeX. XeTeX's home page [1] introduces it as "Unicode-based TeX".

[1] [http://xetex.sourceforge.net/](http://xetex.sourceforge.net/)

<comment><USER22> It works for stuff like äöü. It does not work with math mode stuff like \sum.

For UTF-8 write into the preamble: \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The thing that makes me wonder is that all these typographical features should be easily supported by a WYSIWYG editor. From my perspective all it would take would be for Microsoft to buy some professional grade fonts and to put a couple of developers on the problem. None of this seems like it's inherently incompatible with the WYSIWYG workflow.

Am I overlooking something here?

<comment><USER24> Typeface designers are really annoyed about this. It's not just Word and Pages that don't have this stuff available to users, even Adobe is behind on it.

> OpenType was introduced in 2000. It is now 2014. How is it possible that > [...] users are still unable to properly access and exploit these > fascinating typographic possibilities because the font menus in apps with > typesetting capabilities have barely evolved?

[http://ilovetypography.com/2014/10/25/why-a-better- opentype-...](http://ilovetypography.com/2014/10/25/why-a-better-opentype- user-interface-matters/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I still remember when I was binding my thesis. The printing shop offered the option to engrave text on the book cover. But they only accepted Word documents as template for it. I gave up as soon as I tried to do smallcaps in Word.

The thesis was nicely typeset in LaTeX and it would have been ridiculous to make the cover look far worse than the actual text.

The engraving was supposed to be something like 3€ per line. But it didn't even support basic typographic features because of Word. That was just ridiculous. That's why my thesis has a plain cover and the shop lost 12€ (- expenses) per copy.

</comment><comment><USER26> > Common ligatures are essential to professionally typeset text.

I like the idea, and they're aesthetically great, but I think they're too rare now for it to be wise to use them. People will be confused and distracted. I have only one anecdatum, which is that Slack chat uses a font with ligatures, and I have heard several confused comments about them. For niche professional documents, like research papers, I'm sure it's accepted and expected, but you're probably already using LaTeX for those anyway!

<comment><USER27> > For niche professional documents, like research papers, I'm sure it's > accepted and expected, but you're probably already using LaTeX for those > anyway!

I think by LaTeX you mean Microsoft Word. For social sciences, at least.

<comment><USER28> In hard sciences LaTeX is pretty much the de facto standard. So much that most people in those fields automatically assume papers that don't have the LaTeX look to be subpar science. Of course, one of the reasons for its prevalence is the math support that's lightyears beyond anything Word can offer.

<comment><USER9> Did you have a look at word's math support in recent years?

<comment><USER29> I find using the equation editor in Word to be physically debilitating. Pretty much any software involving tiny graphics and fine mouse work triggers severe eyestrain headaches and neck fatigue.

There's a document here, describing keyboard entry:

[http://www.chem.mtu.edu/~tbco/cm416/EquationEditor_main.pdf](http://www.chem.mtu.edu/~tbco/cm416/EquationEditor_main.pdf)

It's basically a markup language of sorts, and I'd use it if I were presently writing a lot of text with equations.

For better or worse, working in industry, my reports are free of equations! I've formed the hypothesis, that when managers and non-technical people see an equation, they assume the report is "incomplete," i.e., the equation needs to be turned into an actual result.

I've been to academic talks where, instead of typeset equations, the author just copies the source code from their MatLab file to a PowerPoint slide.

<comment><USER30> In university I used Word 2007 to type math lectures in real-time. I never had to resort to the mouse at all for equations. You seem to be thinking of the stripped-down MathType equation editor that was bundled with Office for a while (before it had native math support). The PDF you linked is for Office 2007 onwards and shows that the markup language you mention is mostly like TeX with a few simplifications, e.g. smart handling of things like x^12 which is then actually x¹² instead of x¹2. Basically it uses parentheses where TeX uses braces and needs a lot fewer of them because of more natural tokenizing.

<comment><USER29> I think you're right. I plan on trying it, next time I need to enter equations into Word. For me, the key to ergonomic use of the computer is being able to look away from the screen. For instance, I can type text forever without constant focused eye contact with the screen, which greatly reduces the eyestrain issue.

And I suppose a useful thing is that if you do misspell one of the keywords, it just sits there until you correct it, as a reminder of what you were trying to write.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> You can have the best of both worlds (TeX and WYSIWYG) with LyX and possibly other editors that I didn't use much (Maple used to render to LaTeX 20 years ago and it worked kinda nice).

<comment><USER32> Well, WYSISOROWYMG (what you see is sort of reminiscent of what you might get), provided that you don't need to use much in the way of ERT ("evil red text", the LyX derogatory term for LaTeX literals). LyX prefers WYSIWYM (what you see is what you mean). The only way you can get anything approaching a layout view while typing is to carefully adjust the editor width, and even then line breaks will only be approximate (because hyphenation hasn't been computed) and there's no indication of pagination. I like LyX for straightforward documents, but it's not WYSIWYG, and it doesn't claim to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Is there a current goto standard to get this functionality in the web browser? A javascript framework that supports ligatures, river elimination, dynamic hyphenation and so on?

</comment><comment><USER34> Lout ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lout_%28software%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lout_%28software%29)) is a nice alternative to TeX and co, with a much better language. It uses the TeX typesetting algorithms underneath so quality is similar. But it suffers from the inverse network effect: its good, but few use it, therefore few use it :-( Hope mentioning it here gets some new customers.

</comment><comment><USER35> Why do people compare LaTeX with Word? Shouldn't the comparison be against QuarkXPress and InDesign, software products which are designed as layout tools, not word processors, and can easily address all of the typesetting issues as LaTeX?

</comment><comment><USER36> I wrote a quick tutorial to LaTeX a few weeks back for those who might be interested in starting using it. [http://dendory.net/?w=544fb21d](http://dendory.net/?w=544fb21d)

</comment><comment><USER37> I prefer HTML & CSS, maybe with something like restructuredText on top.

<comment><USER4> For print-quality stuff?

<comment><USER38> Yes. CSS (in Chrome and Firefox and modern IE; not Safari, despite Apple's typographical reputation) supports OpenType features like ligatures, stylistic alternates, kerning, true small caps (not using the CSS font-variant property, using the font-feature-settings property), lining/oldstyle (and proportional/tabular) numbers, etc.

HTML/CSS typography can be very sophisticated.

<comment><USER39> And at the same time, HTML/CSS typography is in the stone age compared to LaTeX. No microtype without manually tweaked <span> soup, awful justified layout, CSS regions and columns are a work in progress, and all of this is unusable for print because there is no concept of pagination.

<comment><USER38> Good justification/hyphenation requires Javascript, yes. That's still an existing weakness. But there is absolutely pagination control.

HTML + CSS isn't perfect, of course, but the difference between HTML and professional typesetting is much, much smaller than the difference between Word and professional typesetting.

<comment><USER22> > there is absolutely pagination control

Put something at the bottom of the current page, like a footnote.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Survive Gentrification of the Drupal Community - <AUTHOR> http://www.darrenmothersele.com/blog/2015/11/16/surviving-open-source-gentrification/ <comment><USER2> I think conversely that Drupal 8 is the swan song. Too late to the party. Everyone who was really unhappy with the spaghetti bowl of code in prior drupal versions has already moved on. Those who have not, are not interested in rebuilding their sites on a new platform. They just want Drupal 6 to keep working.

Drupal 8 is not a gentrified neighborhood, it's more like the ghost cities in China: clean, modern, well-designed -- and empty.

<comment><USER3> What have they moved on to? I'm investigating CMS's for a client (an task I have entirely no experience with). Is Joomla any better? Or is the whole concept of CMS dying?

<comment><USER4> They haven't moved on.

You're not going to get an accurate picture of the CMS market here on HN. Most folks here are developers...PHP CMS's are not what they are interested in. The prevailing opinion on HN is something like "CMS's suck, you should build it yourself with node/React" or whatever.

If you need to build a content website, and the information architecture is complex, Drupal is a very strong choice. I haven't use D8 yet, and I would not recommend building a high-profile project on it yet, unless you really want to be an early adopter. But D7 works well and will be supported for a long time yet to come.

If your info architecture is fairly simple, take a look at Wordpress. You'll have an easier time finding low-cost vendors than with Drupal. Drupal is powerful but expensive.

<comment><USER3> Very believable. I'd have probably responded with the "prevailing opinion" to myself if I hadn't been the one that asked the question. :)

<comment><USER4> Ha! :) IMO the true advantages of a popular, open-source CMS are not in the code, which I think most developers will agree tends to be idiosyncratic at best. The advantages tend to be business-type advantages, like:

\- It's easy to find case studies to help explain and plan your project.

\- It's easy to find vendors who can build or support the technology. That makes it easier to run competitive RFPs, and fire/replace vendors without having to rebuild from scratch.

\- You benefit from a security program that has a lot of inputs--a lot of bad guys trying to get in, and a lot of good guys trying to keep them out. The code is battle-tested and frequently patched.

\- You benefit from a community module system that has a lot of inputs. Chances are if you want to do something, there is a module to do it, or at least get close.

\- You can more easily empower "tech savvy" employees to do pseudo-development tasks like build filtered lists and manage content workflows. It's easier and cheaper to scale tech-savvy employees than full developers.

\- There are enterprise-savvy support options available.

\- It's easy to find hosting.

Developers, particularly those who want to innovate and build new tools and products, tend not to value these sorts of things as much.

<comment><USER5> This isn't restricted to an open-source CMS; any popular CMS gives you this. SharePoint is the gold standard in DIY CMS platforms, and everything you mention above is doubly true of SharePoint. It's certainly easier to find a SharePoint developer than a Drupal developer.

I mean, there are downsides to SharePoint: it's commercial software and there's more friction than with Drupal. But I'm not even sure how relevant that is anymore in today's IaaS hosted world -- I can go on Azure and deploy a Sharepoint server in 5 minutes from an image and the licensing costs are baked in.

But you're right about developers not valuing these -- CMSes are for established businesses that need a technology platform to manage their messaging across multiple channels. If you consider yourself a product hacker, then something like a CMS isn't likely to be interesting to you.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you be interested in a wiki for cheat sheets? - <AUTHOR>

I often find very clever or interesting 'cheat sheets' around the web, such as the HN post this morning on Max Burstein's "Python Shortcuts for the Python Beginner". And there are always helpful cheat sheets on programming languages and server config files and text editor/IDE keyboard shortcuts that I have found quite helpful when learning a new platform or technology. However, I always have to spend time looking for them around the web.
So I thought, perhaps a community wiki would be a good place to get all of these together in one place (with the authors' permission on a case-by-case basis, of course). Then, if I decided to pick up Scala one of these days (been meaning to), I could hop over to wiki.cheatsheets.com or whatever and search for Scala and see what has been posted.
So my question is, would this be something worth pursuing? Do you folks think it would be useful? Would you use it and add content when you came up with something? It wouldn't even have to be software dev specific topics. A cheat sheet on rules of thumb for baking would fit the guidelines, I would think.
Any thoughts or suggestions? <comment><USER2> Question: how do you define cheat sheet?

I like cheat sheets (regex, vim, Gmail hotkeys, etc.), but I wouldn't include the article on "Python Shortcuts for the Python Beginner" in a list of cheat sheets.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd like to define it pretty broadly, but it could certainly be narrowed down if there's a consensus among users that it's too broadly defined, like you're saying. In general I would define a cheat sheet as a quick reference guide with easy access to useful bullet points that are pretty universally applicable, i.e. things that everyone should know.

<comment><USER2> I'd consider portability. My favorite cheat sheets are images or PDFs (one page only). Adding an element of graphic design can really upgrade a cheat sheet.

(Do some searches for cheat sheets in Google Images, and you'll see what I mean.)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What tech stack to learn for Web dev in 2020? - <AUTHOR> One of my friend is switching career from English teacher to Web dev. What tech stack should one learn in 2020 for viable web development? <comment><USER2> Python; ReactJS; Mongo; MySQL; Design Patterns

Some bash; docker and general awareness of DevOps hoopla</comment>


TCP backdoor 32764 – how we could patch the Internet (or part of it) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.quarkslab.com/tcp-backdoor-32764-or-how-we-could-patch-the-internet-or-part-of-it.html

<comment><USER2> I guess this is yet another reason not to rely on firewalls and outdated notions of "internal" and "external" networks for any kind of real security.

Increasingly, it seems that firewalls are doing less to improve actual security, while continuing to hinder legitimate network connectivity and the deployment of new protocols.

<comment><USER3> I think you're conflating firewalls and NAT. The idea of "internal" and "external" networks still apply in a non-NAT environment but what takes some getting used to is that with full end-to-end connectivity, you're back to an implicit "default-allow" policy where NAT created an implicit "default deny". The answer is to have a default deny firewall rule on your border router (your home gateway appliance), and then allow services as needed.

<comment><USER4> Everything he said applies to a typical legacy corporate network that has a centralised default-deny firewall on front of it (but no NAT).

Host-based firewalls are much more flexible and have many security advanteges.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The direct source of this information is the github page mentioned in the article, [https://github.com/elvanderb/TCP-32764](https://github.com/elvanderb/TCP-32764)

</comment><comment><USER6> Corresponding shodan search: [http://www.shodanhq.com/search?q=port%3A32764](http://www.shodanhq.com/search?q=port%3A32764)

Edit: search directly for the vulnerability

[http://www.shodanhq.com/search?q=port%3A32764+ScMM](http://www.shodanhq.com/search?q=port%3A32764+ScMM)

[http://www.shodanhq.com/search?q=port%3A32764+MMSc](http://www.shodanhq.com/search?q=port%3A32764+MMSc)

</comment><comment><USER7> The use of the vulnerability to repair the vulnerability is very cool. I've done some related work, which may be of interest when one wants to patch a bad binary on the router (instead of simply removing a bad binary as done in this article). [http://eschulte.github.io/netgear-repair/pub/netgear- repair....](http://eschulte.github.io/netgear-repair/pub/netgear-repair.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm disappointed that this wasn't taken to its logical conclusion: use the backdoor to remote-patch affected routers.

<comment><USER9> It's about liability, the possibility of failure, and touching stuff that isn't yours. If someone does write such a program, it better be thoroughly peer reviewed. That said, I'd prefer to have a bricked router than one with a backdoor...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anyone played with this?

term1$ tcpdump -i en1 -X -n port 32764

term2$ telnet 192.168.0.1 32764

Output doesn't show the expected hex code. Is this naive?

<comment><USER11> Yeah, I tried but with my external IP:

        $ telnet [redacted] 32764
        Trying [redacted]...
        telnet: connect to address [redacted]: Connection refused
        telnet: Unable to connect to remote host

Does this mean my router has no backdoor? Is it clever enough to avoid detection?

<comment><USER12> Are you running one of the affected hardware models?

<comment><USER11> No, but I have a fairly uncommon router (not ISP supplied) so I was curious if it also had a backdoor. It doesn't respond on LAN so it seems my DrayTek Vigor 2750N is backdoor-free for now...

<comment><USER13> That just means it's free of this particular backdoor.

<comment><USER11> Hence "for now...". A new backdoor could surface tomorrow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Reminds me of the backdoor in D-Links routers: [http://www.devttys0.com/2013/10/from-china-with- love/](http://www.devttys0.com/2013/10/from-china-with-love/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Can we use the exploit to actually apply this patch?

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm hoping that some day a lawsuit is successfully taken against a device maker who does this.

</comment><comment><USER17> cool article - I do think the easy fix is port forwarding?</comment>


Setting the date to 1 January 1970 will brick your iPhone, iPad or iPod touch - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/12/setting-the-date-to-1-january-1970-will-brick-your-iphone-ipad-or-ipod-touch <comment><USER2> So in theory I could create a SDR setup using openBTS and then go around sending a GSM date of 1970-01-01 "bricking" iphones left and right?

Alternatively a bug or misconfiguration in the GSM time service could "brick" phones.</comment>


Show HN: Traveldays – A Minimalist Travel Diary - <AUTHOR> http://traveldays.com <comment><AUTHOR> After posting it here and showing it to a couple of friends, I decided that the onboarding process needed more work. I think it's much more user friendly now. Got some of the inspiration from this thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23167324](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23167324)</comment>


BasicThinking blog now for sale on German ebay - <AUTHOR> http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260343987629&fromMakeTrack=true&ssPageName=VIP:watchlink:top:de

<comment><AUTHOR> Some details in english here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=423707>

</comment><comment><USER2> 117 bids and 20K EUR in a few hours, not bad so far but still under minimum price, six more days to go.

</comment><comment><USER3> there must be a better place to sell this than ebay?

<comment><USER2> I feel like the other german auction sites really missed a great marketing opportunity there.</comment></comment>


Population Growth: A Genius Machine? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/population-growth-a-genius-machine/66880/ <comment><USER2> Even genius doesn't contribute greatly to society without a good deal of economic advantages. How many Einsteins were there throughout history who didn't have time to sit around pondering physics, but were instead mediocre hunters because of the need to eat?

Yeah, we might have more geniuses with more population, but if we can't support the population they're not going to do the wold any good.</comment>


Fletcher's Checksum - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher%27s_checksum <comment><USER2> The original paper "An Arithmetic Checksum for Serial Transmissions" is worthwhile reading. Fletcher's background as a physicist shows through and the analysis is interesting as it contrasts to many other papers I have read on codes.

Also: note the section in the Wikipedia page on the Adler checksum, which was an attempt to improve Fletcher's checksum by substituting a prime modulus. This stands to reason as a prime modulus is usually important in codes. This change was probably not backed up by analysis and through direct simulation has shown to actually weaken the checksum.

Just pointing this out as an example of what I have observed personally: people tinkering with codes (nothing wrong with that) to improve them, without bothering to understand the analysis they would have to do to prove that they hadn't made things actually worse.

[yet another edit:] If you find error-detecting and -correcting codes interesting or mysterious, read the original papers! So many fun and interesting things to see there, and it is a chance to motivate a look into areas of math you might be unfamiliar with. 'Nuff said.

</comment><comment><USER3> For some context, the Fletcher checksum algorithm is used by bother ZFS and APFS (the new Apple filesystem for iOS and macOS). So it is a fairly wildly used checksum algorithm.

<comment><USER4> That was my first thought: "ZFS, Jeff Bonwick!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Related:

Modulus without Division, a tutorial

[http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/bcd/mod.shtml](http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/bcd/mod.shtml)

<comment> Iwan-Zotow [https://lemire.me/blog/2016/06/27/a-fast-alternative-to- the-...](https://lemire.me/blog/2016/06/27/a-fast-alternative-to-the-modulo- reduction/)

<comment><USER6> That is an alternative to using the modulo function for hashing, not an alternative implementation of the modulo function.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 'The Fletcher checksum cannot distinguish between blocks of all 0 bits and blocks of all 1 bits.'

For some reason, I find it fascinating to read about such a fundamental limitation. But I understand it doesn't apply much in the real world.

<comment><USER8> Presumably it depends on the modulus used? I think the article is assuming a modulus of 2^n-1.

As the article says, Adler-32 is a specialization of Fletcher-32 that specifies a modulus of 65521 - that would seem to avoid this limitation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> related, the Mojette transform used by ROzoFS (an HPC filesystem): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojette_Transform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojette_Transform)

</comment><comment><USER10> i have used this on couple projects most notably:

\- wireless network packet checksum \- filesystem checksum

good thing is that comes in variations, 16, 32 and 64 bits wide

</comment><comment><USER11> Not quite my tempo.</comment>


Forth, Basic, and VGA output. The 80s had some surplus, multi-core chips. - <AUTHOR> http://www.parallax.com/tabid/407/Default.aspx

<comment><USER2> Isn't André LaMothe doing something similar with his XGameStation (<http://www.xgamestation.com/>)? Or are they related?</comment>