Sal Khan responds to critic  - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/sal-khan-responds-to-critic/2012/07/25/gJQA83rW9W_blog.html <comment><USER3> Disclaimer: I'm part of Khan Academy. Not going to chime in w/ my deeper disagreement w/ the original critic and the other article on the frontpage.

I would like to correct a persistent misconception or two.

Persistent misconception: "...we suggest that Khan Academy desperately needs voices of teaching experience. Khan could tap into any number of existing networks..."

Truth: We have four ex-teachers as full-time employees. We have two high school math teachers as consultants. One Harvard Doctoral candidate in Education and one post-doc in neuroscience at Stanford are in residence. One UPenn Professor is also likely to begin a sabbatical with us. We have a 3 person team dedicated to working with and getting feedback from our 50 pilot classrooms and the 15,000 teachers actively using KA in classrooms.

Persistent misconception: "...it certainly requires more than just "two minutes of research on Google," which is how Khan describes his own pre-lesson routine."

Truth: Go read Sal's AMA response (includes the sentence "When I did organic chemistry, I spent 2 weeks immersing myself in the subject before making the first video") before taking one of these "two minute" snipped quotes at face value: [http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ntsco/i_am_salman_khan...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ntsco/i_am_salman_khan_founder_of_khan_academyama/c3bv5hv). I've seen Sal's face light up when he gets an unwieldy new shipment of textbooks to start studying in preparation for his videos. Does he dive right into some videos? Absolutely. Is claiming that his "pre-lesson routine" can always be dismissed as two minutes of Googling disingenuous and patently false? Absolutely.

<comment><USER4> > "When I did organic chemistry, I spent 2 weeks immersing myself in the > subject before making the first video"

I'm sorry, but 2 weeks is not that much time. Most TA's for ochem classes have at least taken 2 quarters (and yes, I can assure you, they also are 'immersed') of the subject, and they aren't in charge of the lecture.

<comment><USER5> Can it be said that his organic chemistry lessons have suffered for this?

Honest question. I have not seen them and I am not in a position to evaluate them even if I had.

<comment><USER6> Organic Chemistry is not rocket science. I haven't seen those videos, but if they are introductory subjects, 2 immersed weeks sound about enough to me. I'll take a look at the videos today and see.

<comment><USER7> Actually, as documented in _Ignition!_ , a great deal of rocket science is, in fact, chemistry — and although the oxidizers are not usually organic, the fuels are.

<comment><USER5> I would suggest that the chemistry parts of rocket science are some of the easier parts (how complicated can burning kerosene and LO2 be?), but I suspect I would piss off a few rocket scientists. ;)

<comment><USER8> Read _Ignition!_. It is, in fact, fairly difficult to find a combination of fuels that ignite exactly in the manner one wants them to, in a reasonable range of temperatures, and can be stored without decomposing or eating the storage container.

<comment><USER7> Of course, _today_ , in large part thanks to a large number of people who died horrible deaths investigating this during the time period documented in _Ignition!_ , it's not hard at all. But it was sure hard until the 1960s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Having the debate framed as 'Sal Khan is the future of education' and 'No, he isn't, teachers are' is bogus. It's a ridiculous dichotomy. It does a disservice to both Khan and teachers to debate this in that way.

There will be many teachers who will use Khan's videos in their teaching (or to augment it), and I imagine that over time Khan will change the way he does things based on his own education about education.

It's self evident that the 'sitting in front of a machine watching videos' isn't the solution to the education. If it were the multimedia revolution wouldn't have petered out as it did. Children (and adults) need a variety of approaches. Khan's is just one.

<comment><USER10> As a child of the multimedia revolution, it was strongly ingrained in us that going to college was the _only_ route to getting a job that wasn't flipping burgers. To even consider learning in non-traditional ways would make you the laughing stock of not only your peers, but the older generations too. I'm not sure learning through multi-media ever stood a chance.

I do feel that those times have changed dramatically. Now all we hear about is the college dropouts who went on make billion dollar companies. It has almost become cool to not go to school. I think the time is finally right for these non-traditional educational services and it just helps that the internet is now widely available to act as the conduit for it.

<comment><USER11> There has to be something regional/cultural about this that I'm missing since I hear this complaint a lot, but don't know anyone personally that experienced it until very recently.

When I went to high school in Pennsylvania the 90s people were still encouraged to into the trades. I have some friends from high school that have gone on to be very successful electricians and welders. Even when my brother went to the same school and graduated in 2007 he was never pushed to go to college. He ended up getting his AA at a local university and is now a paramedic/fire fighter for the same city.

<comment><USER12> Is that not the same principal? Person X chooses career Y and must obtain a certification through path Z.

<comment><USER11> The complaint is that teenagers are being told the only way you'll be a member of the middle class is that you must go to a four year university. People were saying that going into a trade or getting "just" an Associates degree would leave you in the dust of everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >An effective math teacher will point out that "rise over run" isn't the definition of slope at all but merely a way to calculate it. In fact, slope is a rate that describes how two variables change in relation to one another:

What a dumb thing to argue about. I'm not a historian (or a mathematician), but the term "slope" seems pretty obviously adopted from a physical slope/incline/hill. Why? Because it's the easiest visual analogy for us apes to grok. It doesn't come from an earlier term meaning strictly "a rate that describes how two variables change in relation to one another."

If you're trying to teach someone a complex concept, are you going to use a phrasing that has zero significance to them? Rate? Variable? What? The people learning about slope aren't programmers or engineers. Give me a break.

Why not use a visual analogy that makes perfect sense and is still a valid definition: rise over run on a section of a hill, road, roller coaster, etc. I hope whoever is teaching this is relating it to a real world object. Just talking about a line on paper isn't going to help much, but neither is an overly complex definition.

<comment><USER14> Wait till they start learning Calculus - by this point it would be extremely useful to have understood that slope is a rate that describes how two variables change in relation to one another!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> From the article that sparked Khan's response:

>Take Khan's explanation of slope, which he defines as "rise over run." An effective math teacher will point out that "rise over run" isn't the definition of slope at all but merely a way to calculate it. In fact, slope is a rate that describes how two variables change in relation to one another: how a car's distance changes over time (miles per additional hour); how the price of an iPod changes as you buy more memory (dollars per additional gigabyte).

Followed by this in her response to his letter:

>As math was not my subject in school, I don't know who is right but would love to hear from mathematicians out there.

I had to reread all 3 articles multiple times. Then I lamented the sad state of journalism as well as the complete willingness of our society to tolerate the "I'm just not good at math so I won't bother to understand it because I don't think it's worthy"-attitude. What angers me about the first article is not that it went by some editor without the editor saying, hey, this seems suspect, but rather the fact that the journalist decided to write about something she had little knowledge about with a tone that suggests that she thinks she knows knows more than Sal or someone else educated on the subject. An unapologetic combination of ignorance and condescension.

<comment><USER16> The original article criticizing Khan wasn't written by the person who wrote this response.

<comment><USER15> "A guest post I published Monday critiquing the Khan Academy..."

<comment><USER16> Right. She published it as a guest post, but it wasn't written by her. She didn't "write about something she had little knowledge about"

<comment><USER15> Oh my mistake.... you're right. I suppose this is why I'm not a journalist.

On a related subject; note to WP: do not have guest posts published under an editor's byline. Instead of

"By [editor]

[italicized paragraph explaining that this is a guest post published by an editor]

By [actual author]"

Have 1 byline... the person who wrote the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> From the article:

> Below is Khan's e-mail to me, which I shared with the author of Monday's > post, Karim Kai Ani, a former middle school teacher and math coach who is > the founder of a company called Mathalicious. He said Khan is wrong.

So, to summarize, "Khan is wrong, but I won't bother to explain why, he just is, and I have a self-proclaimed expert that says so."

<comment><USER18> Not to suggest that credentials are everything, but, lacking any other information, they do provide useful signaling indicators, from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Academy>

"After earning three degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (a BS in mathematics, a BS in electrical engineering and computer science, and an MS in electrical engineering and computer science), he pursued an MBA from Harvard Business School"

One would hope that his education background might have given him some insight into what "slope" was, and how to best explain it to someone in the 8th/9th grade.

I can _recall_ when it was introduced to me, and I didn't really grok it until a few years later - "rise over run = slope" was complex enough for my brain back then - I can just imagine if people started yacking about "Ratios of variables" - my head would have exploded.

<comment><USER19> How often do you _need_ signaling indicators, though? If someone has sufficient competence at a given field, they should be able to demonstrate that competence by delivering satisfactory work.

The proof should be in the level of understanding of the concept of slope acquired by students using various methods; it doesn't matter at all who is "right" with respect to some formal definition.

<comment><USER18> Totally agree with you that what matters is whether the students eventually grasp the material. What I like about Khan, is he is fundamentally interested in teaching students so they _understand_ the material. He doesn't get caught up in theories of pedagogy or mathematical models or precise correctness - <USER2> sees his job is to communicate a concept in a way that the student says, "Oh, I get it."

Now, with that said - there _is_ a danger in that model of teaching, in which the student gets lured into a zone of comfort. So there _absolutely_ is a place in teaching for instructors who are going to challenge, upset, and disturb the student - resulting in a form of stress that pushes to the student to new heights. This can be a very uncomfortable (and, indeed, upsetting/stressful) learning environment - but it does give students deeper, and sometimes much more meaningful insight into topics.

But that's not what Khan's about. He is the guy you go to when you just want to get over some hurdle about a topic that has frustrated you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "As math was not my subject in school, I don't know who is right but would love to hear from mathematicians out there."

Go find a professor, you sorry excuse for a "journalist".

<comment><USER21> You mean the two who are sitting there disagreeing?

<comment><USER22> Which ones are the "professors?" I'm not trying to be flip but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for the blogger or whatever it is to go find an expert. It's not like this debate is occurring between Einstein and Feynman.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The way I've understood it, Khan isn't trying to disrupt the idea of teachers or schools _per se_ , only alter it.

Basically, the traditional schooling model consists of "lectures" in class, where the teacher presents you with information for an hour, and homework, where you work on problems relating to that content alone in your own time.

Khan says, that's cocked up-- we should let students consume the raw informational content on their own time, where they can pause, rewind, and go over it as many times as they need to in order to understand it without disrupting anyone else, and then do "homework" in the classroom, where there's a focused environment that encourages exploration and somebody who can help each student with their individual difficulties.

Which has always struck me as a pretty straightforward, good-common-sense approach to at least _try_. Why is this concept so opaque to so many people?

<comment><USER24> That approach (students working at their own pace) isn't very novel when you consider the fact that home-schooling has been around for a while.

<comment><USER21> Except that the notion of homeschooling is hugely co-opted by cultists who brainwash their kids. It's hard to get a serious dialogue on homeschooling going when most people equate it to a stand-in for Bible study and avoiding science education.

<comment><USER25> I've heard this said often enough, but most of the homeschoolers I actually know or know of indirectly are pretty lefty or libertarian. Most Christian extremists go to little private schools which are scattered all over the place.

<comment><USER26> There is actual data to look at here: <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf>

Desire to provide religious or moral instruction is at the TOP of the list of reasons people homeschool.

<comment><USER19> ...among those who answered the survey.

<comment><USER27> This is a survey by the NHES, a government organization - do you think there is some reason for selection bias?

Here is the survey's remark on their estimation methodology:

"When applied to survey data, weights allow for the generation of national estimates from a sample of respondents. They also adjust for characteristics of the survey design, nonresponse, and noncoverage. However, biases may exist in the data if weighting procedures have not adequately adjusted for these issues. A large-scale bias study was conducted in conjunction with the 2007 data collection. Readers interested in the findings of the bias study, as well as detailed information on NHES survey methods, weighting, and response rates, can refer to the Data File User's Manuals published online at <http://nces.ed.gov/nhes> ."

<comment><USER19> I think that the fact that the survey was conducted by a government organization and that the targets of the survey were families who had decided not to participate in government-run education, for one reason or another, makes a certain selection bias seem likely.

I'd expect a measure of homeschooling families to want nothing to do with the federal department of education.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What Khan is doing is great. For some students, it is very effective. For other students, not effective whatsoever. Thankfully, dozens of similar offerings have appeared (40 by one count), as well as tools to help teachers create their own video lessons (ie. Educreations). And that's not even mentioning all the other students for whom video is not the best way to learn these topics.

The real problem is the media. And by that overarching term, I mean the rhetoric that various journalists, bloggers, and others have let themselves use for whatever purpose (ie. sensationalism, pageviews, linkbait, etc).

It's understandable that there's been a backlash to Khan. He got overhyped. The pendulum swung too much one way. Now it's naturally swinging the other way.

In the end, this is going to turn out better for students. As critics lash out in both directions (supporters and detractors both have gotten pretty vicious in this debate), there are a bunch of for-profit and non-profit efforts that are creating alternatives. Khan has a smart team too. I'm sure they're steadily improving their offerings.

</comment><comment><USER29> Frankly the response only addresses a small part of the criticism (the definition of slope) and then launches an attack on the critic's motivation. The main point in the original article [1] was that Khan's preparation for his lectures is deficient ("I don't know what I'm going to say half the time") and often resumes to "two minutes of research on Google".

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer- sheet/post/khan-a...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer- sheet/post/khan-academy-the-hype-and-the- reality/2012/07/22/gJQAuw4J3W_blog.html)

<comment><USER30> I found Mr. Khan's response really odd for the same reason.

He's addressing an EXAMPLE the critics used to illustrate their actual point, and fails to completely address the bigger issue.

I thought the critics' points were completely valid, and raise pretty serious issues about the quality and usefulness of the Khan Academy material.

<comment><USER18> How many of Khan's videos have you watched? I've gone through about 100+ of them, and the material has been universally excellent, and certainly met, (and in most cases exceeded) the lecture material that was presented to me at High School/Simon Fraser University.

"Quality and Usefulness of Khan Academy Material?" - you must have gone to an incredible school if you find his material lacking.

<comment><USER30> You didn't read the criticism, did you?

I didn't say anything about how I view Khan Academy content.

I don't use Khan Academy, because I have no use for it. That doesn't, however, preclude me from assessing critique made by others about it.

<comment><USER18> Absolutely I read the original criticism - carefully. It was (in my opinion) complete nonsense by somebody who clearly has an axe to grind.

I have seen over 100 of Khan's videos. On many occasions he was able to clearly communicate a topic that I had been gated on. Doing so in a clear, concise manner. I have colleagues at work that use Khan to help their children through Math. If Khan had existed when I was in university, it would have eliminated 90% of the tutors costs associated with things like linear algebra. So, as I read his criticism, I was asking myself, WTF - this feels like it has _nothing_ to do with the content that I've viewed, which has been _excellent_ in explaining topics that very few (if any ) of the lecturers I had in High School/University were capable of doing.

What it actually reminded me, was of Encyclopedia Britanica's FUD against Wikipedia when it was coming out. The criticism _sounds_ accurate, unless you've actually looked at the content being attacked.

My point is - you can't read the criticism, and make a judgement, until you've spent some time looking at the material to see if the criticisms are sound.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> My son has been watching Sal give lessons for the last year. Sal makes mistakes sometimes. My son usually notices and asks for clarification. We end up with a nice discussion about the topic at hand and arrive at a correct answer. If it's math related, I've got it covered. If it's not, we do some research.

Classroom teachers make mistakes. Textbooks make mistakes. But the system is set up to disallow question of these two authorities. Example: Math class is the first class of the day; teacher follows textbook and textbook is wrong; child questions and is waved off; is that kid gonna remember at the end of the day that she needed to ask mom about this problem? No.

I much prefer when Sal makes a mistake because it makes for a learning experience. What's nice is when my son comes back some time later and tells me that Sal's video has been corrected.

<comment><USER22> No, I think that's great. Is it really like that though. I always feel like this is kind of a caricature: "The teacher would not dare let me question the authority of the textbook." That doesn't seem very serious. I'm sure, and this may sound mean, that this goes on some very bad rural or inner city schools but it's just such a ridiculous thing to say that I find it hard to believe it occurs in more reasonable scholastic settings. But people always bring it up ...

<comment><USER31> It seems to be a matter of convenience. It shouldn't be, but that what it looks like. It disrupts the flow of the teacher's classroom. It's viewed as yet another disruption, but the worst kind of disruption: the legitimate kind that gives the rest of the class an opening to continue disrupting the class. And that could affect perceptions about how this teacher handles a class. No, can't have that so just sit down and shut up.

A good teacher can handle the book being wrong. A good teacher will tell the students that the book has a mistakes on this problem well before they have the chance to discover it themselves. A good teacher will have gone over the material in advance and know what's correct. Instead, we have teachers thrust into roles that aren't near their specialty; teachers that can get a degree and qualify for a paycheck because they can work the system, not because they know how to teach students. And interfering with that teacher's conveniences is not a good thing for a student to attempt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Looks to me like a feeble attempt by Karim Kai Ani of Mathalicious to generate some PR for his for-profit website. What better way to drive traffic then to "build up some controversy" by hating on Khan? Sal's noble efforts have allowed countless people obtain a first-class education at virtually no cost. Shame on The Washington Post for promoting this hidden agenda. Seems like they also have an agenda of their own.

1) Post a controversial guest article bashing a guy whose actually trying to do something good in the world.

2) Act like the neutral party so they don't have to take any blame. Allow Karim to be the scapegoat.

3) Sit back and enjoy while traffic explodes to their site.

I see you Washington Post. You ain't fooling me!

<comment><USER33> Wow, nailed it. I totally missed the Washington Post incentive angle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Can anyone weigh in on their differing arguments regarding the definition of slope? I am not a maths expert by any means, but am genuinely curious who is correct here. Or is this a matter of one being technically correct versus the other being correct in practice?

(Cross posted from the original thread because I genuinely would like an opinion more informed than my own and the totally unhelpful "conclusion" provided by Valerie Strauss.)

*Edit, I missed that he (Khan) posted a video defending his definition <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNaQJjLAhkI>

<comment><USER35> I'm not a math expert either, but rise over run sounds like a perfectly good definition of slope to me, at least for the purposes of an introduction to high school algebra. It is certainly how _I_ was taught about slope, and I went on to graduate from MIT, so whatever nuance this definition allegedly didn't catch did me no harm.

Once you get to calculus, things get a little more complicated, as the slope at a given point is defined using derivatives, but I'm pretty sure that ends up being the same as the rise over the run of a tangent line.

In any case, anyone who would make such a lame criticism, should just STFU. If that's the best criticism they can come up with, they surely can't have much of value to say. Also, when teaching something like algebra, it's more important to make the material approachable and comprehensible, rather than define everything to a level of rigor that would make Russell and Whitehead happy.

<comment><USER36> >It is certainly how I was taught about slope, and I went on to graduate from MIT, so whatever nuance this definition allegedly didn't catch did me no harm.

In that case, this debate really isn't about you. You were probably an exceptional student, who saw the connections between mathematical concepts easily, regardless of instruction. You probably found yourself predicting the next concept a teacher would introduce, because it just "makes sense." Not all students are that way. Most are not.

The two people involved here are fighting over two different ideas. Sal is being pedantic, but is right, _slope_ is defined as ∆x/∆y. What the other guy was saying is that slope represents _rate of change_ , which is a much more important concept to early algebra, and the underpinning of why you actually care about slope in physics and calculus. You probably made the connection effortlessly. I assure you, many students do not.

I teach high school mathematics to both honors and special needs students, and it's important to keep in mind that the instruction is very different between the two populations.

<comment><USER37> "slope is defined as ∆x/∆y"

Do you mean ∆y/∆x?

<comment><USER36> Yup. Caught the typo when I wrote the post, even, but I apparently retyped it the same way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Thats the old response to this critique [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer- sheet/post/khan-a...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer- sheet/post/khan-academy-the-hype-and-the- reality/2012/07/22/gJQAuw4J3W_blog.html)

</comment><comment><USER39> The original critical piece was written by someone with a vested interest in defaming Khan, as he runs a company that is (in a way) a direct competitor. That alone should be enough to dismiss his critique.

<comment><USER40> I disagree that critiques from those with vested interests should be dismissed out of hand. I do believe that their points should be reviewed more carefully, though.

<comment><USER39> My comment was a bit sensationalist... I agree with you 100%, I just stated it a little more black and white than I should have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wasn't aware that KA was a non-profit. Where do they get their money? Entirely donation-driven?

<comment><USER41> Just ask KA for a current IRS Form 990. It will show you just about everything. Here's an example from 2010 - [http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/261/26154496...](http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/261/261544963/261544963_201012_990.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> What's missing from this argument is that traditional education dogma has the same plight. Is anyone ready to state, on record, that any educational platform is perfect and free from error? Khan deserves/requires criticism, but let's not forget that these criticisms apply across the board.

</comment><comment><USER43> Either the people who watch Khan's video's find them useful, and can do things they couldn't do, or understand things better than they did, or not.

Most public school teachers are awful. They have degrees in education, and most university programs in the teacher pipeline are intentionally easier and less demanding than the equivalent 'real' degree in a given subject. 'Math-ed' is a very undemanding degree compared to 'Mathematics'. If high-school teachers were placed under this kind of scrutiny we would be forced to completely re-evaluate how teachers are credentialed and licensed. They aren't put under this or really any scrutiny at all, and probably they never will be. Teacher unions fight as hard as they possibly can to prevent any measurement or evaluation of teacher performance.

Students will continue to try to fill in the gaps in their understanding of these topics, and if there are free resources available to them to do so, even better!

<comment><USER22> The problem is partly economic. Most people very advanced in mathematics, I don't think would choose low salaries teaching kids Algebra or "AP Calc" in the inner city. Sure, there are the "heroes" out there but it's a reality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I never understood why Sal Khan does all the videos himself. Shouldn't they get the best Linear Algebra teacher that they can find for the Linear Algebra series, the best Calculus teacher for the Calculus series, the best Marine Biology teacher for Marine Biology, and so on? Maybe even get two sets of teacher with different lecture styles for each subject?

I've had dozens of amazing teachers throughout my education, all of which were excellent at gripping my attention, having a passion for their subject, and a knack for explaining it extremely well. If I thought my teachers were this good, can you imagine how good the best in the country would be? And what it could do for education to makes those lessons available for the entire world?

It's a shame he does it entirely himself. It's not for lack of funding, that's for sure. Maybe it's an ego thing?

</comment><comment><USER45> This article is emblematic of the hardest challenge Khan Academy faces, IMO, as it tries to change the educational system from the current 'lecture at school, practice at home' approach used by virtually all schools today, to the 'learn at home, tinker and interact at school' championed by Khan Academy.

The hardest challenge is this: disrupting the educational experience _requires buy-in_ from teachers, administrators, regulators, academics, and existing service providers, but all these parties are nearly always resistant to change and well-entrenched in their positions, making large-scale change very, very, very slow and difficult.

The optimist in me wishes Sal Khan and his team only success as they take on, and attempt to co-opt, the educational establishment. The realist in me thinks they face a long, tough battle.

<comment><USER46> The educational establishment won't "buy in" it Khan, just like the traditional encyclopedia establishment didn't "buy in" to Wikipedia. But change will happen regardless because the users of education, the parents and students, will ask themselves the same question that the users of encyclopedias asked themselves: "Why are we continuing to pay for the same old product when a much better product is available for free?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I found quite a bit in the original article that seemed to point to a misunderstanding of the site for someone who hasn't used it. Karim doesn't even mention one of the most valuable areas: the practice area. It isn't just about watching videos, and maybe I'm alone, but I use the practice first and the videos as supplements. Furthermore, the actual videos seem to often feature explanations in a clear way that does not merely point to following a series of steps (see "why division by zero is undefined")

</comment><comment><USER48> Frankly, I don't know why he even bothered to respond. What KA is doing might not be perfect but it is one serious attempt to move education forward in some form. They deserve nothing less than admiration and support. I am sure that they welcome and encourage constructive criticism.

Aside from that, the only way the "(highly unionized) teachers do it better" argument can hold water is if the (highly unionized) teachers start producing students that actually place in a reasonable range in international comparisons.

</comment><comment><USER49> The author of the criticism is the founder of a for-profit start-up competing with Khan Academy. Khan Academy itself is a non-profit.

These incentives should frame everything we hear about this exchange.

</comment><comment><USER50> this also is reminiscent of this nytimes op ed: [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/the-trouble- with-o...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/the-trouble-with-online- education.html/?_r=1)

that conveniently forgets to mention all the collaborative/interactive components built into coursera - the community TA's, the forums, chatrooms, etc etc etc.

moral: don't criticize unless you've actually read the book/seen the movie/etc. or maybe beware of hidden agendas.

</comment><comment><USER51> Mathalicious is doing this just to get popular, I never knew they exists before this debate. Google might improve page rank of mathalicious.com as well due to back links.

</comment><comment><USER52> The critique was written by a competitor. Isn't the motive obvious?

</comment><comment><USER53> This is a storm in a tea cup.

</comment><comment><USER54> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

<comment><USER55> Then you get to shove mind-control worms into their ears.</comment></comment>


Notorious Chicago coder drops Graphic Novel inspired by real computer science - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1826823485/the-boy-and-the-computer <comment><AUTHOR> I am the author and I'm here to answer any questions please let me know if you think this is a relevant project. I look forward to sharing more details of how we actually incorporate hacking tutorials and projects in the book and on the app/digitally.</comment>


16 years after a mass suicide, the webpage is still up - <AUTHOR> http://www.heavensgate.com/ <comment><USER2> From Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_gro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_\(religious_group\))

> Only one of the group's members, Rio DiAngelo/Richard Ford, did not kill > himself: weeks before the suicides, in December 1996, DiAngelo agreed with > Applewhite to leave the group so he could ensure future dissemination of > Heaven's Gate videos and literature.

This isn't surprising. The most dangerous viruses and parasites aren't the ones that kill their hosts immediately - they have to ensure their own survival first. If you view suicide cults as a meme (in Dawkin's terminology, not the Reddit usage of the word), then this makes sense.

<comment><USER3> > The group earned revenues by offering professional website development for > paying clients under the name Higher Source.

Wikipedia cites this[0] article which is pretty interesting. There even seems to be what I assume is a mirror of the original site: [http://www.religio.de/highersource/server/](http://www.religio.de/highersource/server/)

[0]: [http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=199...](http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970328&slug=2531080)

<comment><USER4> >The group earned revenues by offering professional website development

This is the best part of their story. Just because a person does technical work doesn't exclude them from being a moron.

<comment><USER5> Cult membership isn't just for "morons". There have been very intelligent people who, because of perfectly human errors in judgement have found themselves inside cult organisations.

Look at Scientology and lots of other cults like it. The people in it aren't stupid. Brainwashed, perhaps. There are many tricks both seemingly logical/cognitive and emotional that people can be taken in by. The emotional side is important: these people show affection to people who join them, and they often target people who are at uncertain points in their lives. Cult- style groups have often gone after college students precisely because they are at a point in their life where they are unsure about their future and potentially emotionally volatile.

There's a lot of people out there who are living unhappy lives, who find themselves alienated from society, who have a strong but unfulfilled desire to join together in a community with others, who lack self-confidence or enough self-belief to push back.

Cults aren't just stupid people making stupid decisions: sometimes joining a cult is a decision made by an intelligent, educated person in a moment of weakness. And the way the thing is set up makes it not seem cultish when they are joining. Scientology don't tell you about Lord Xenu on day one. They lure you in with promises of making you a better person: reducing your stress and anxiety, helping you with addictions to drugs, tobacco, alcohol etc., helping you succeed in business or education or whatever, helping you have a better relationship with your partner or family. Out of that menu, there's something everyone will want. Those are all the same things advertisers lure people in with. Falling for that kind of pitch doesn't make you stupid, it makes you human.

<comment><USER4> Whoa whoa whoa. You can't take what I said and then decide I'm lambasting everyone who ever joined a cult. That's your projection, not my comment. I'm sympathetic to people who find themselves in a cult or religion that goes against their self-interest. But... there is a spectrum. Killing yourself to somehow spirit away to an imagined UFO following a comet is at the very far end of that spectrum.

My point was that IQ and/or technical competence are no assurance that you won't make really, really bad choices in life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> And the page still has hidden text at the bottom of the page.

Truth be told, this is one of my favorite examples of hidden text, because it shows that people don't always use spam techniques for making money.

I haven't had much luck contacting the maintainer of that page to ask them to remove the hidden text.

<comment><USER7> Why are you trying to contact them to remove the hidden text?

<comment><USER8> It's a joke

<comment><USER9> A dark one, given that the maintainer in all likelihood was one of the people who committed suicide.

<comment><USER7> LOL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >Computer technology enables everyone from Madison Avenue executives to Government agencies to keep a record of your every move, and "flags" are thrown up any time you don't fit their pre-conceived mold of what a good citizen should be. Our right to travel and remain nomadic is rapidly being restricted. We often travel light on spur-of-the-moment instructions, however we can no longer take an airline flight on short notice without harassment. Anyone who purchases a ticket with cash without advance reservations and does not have a load of baggage to check will likely be subjected to baggage searches, interrogation, and suspicion. Even when they can find nothing whatsoever that is questionable, authorities have at times reluctantly let our members proceed, convinced that they are indeed guilty of some crime but too clever to be caught. Police presence at border crossings have increased to the point that you feel you are in a war zone.

About right.

<comment><USER11> Back to the future...

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Right after the mass suicide we took over DNS for heavensgate.com.

We pointed it at aolsucks.org until their t1 melted.

[https://web.archive.org/web/19990429131245/http://www.aolsuc...](https://web.archive.org/web/19990429131245/http://www.aolsucks.org/hacked.html)

We took control of DNS for two weeks. [http://linbsd.org/geek.mp3](http://linbsd.org/geek.mp3) details the rest of the fun we had from snafu.org. The person who did the hack put himself as technical contact...

Glad we got away with it...

</comment><comment><USER13> Their indoctrination vids are a must watch for craziness: [http://youtu.be/AqSZhwu1Rwo](http://youtu.be/AqSZhwu1Rwo)

Check out that thousand yard stare.

This guy reminds me of that insane space cult leader from Star Trek TOS. Apparently this cult was full of ST fans, including wearing "away team" gear while they killed themselves.

<comment><USER14> I remember hearing this at the time, but it's mentioned on her Wikipedia page as well. The brother of Nichelle Nicholas ("Uhura," as I'm sure you know) was a member of the cult and took part in the mass suicide.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichelle_Nichols#Personal_life](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichelle_Nichols#Personal_life)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The wiki page of the sect links to this

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

<comment><USER16> I clicked on that link as well and was astonished

<comment><USER17> by what? that there are people who are stupid like that, or that enterprising individuals or companies would capitalize on their stupidity? i feel like both of those things are well documented in humanity by now...

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure if "stupid" is the right word for this. These companies are capitalizing on fear. Intelligent people can be fearful too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I remember watching the "Hale-Bopp object" fiasco unfold in real time. It's really quite surreal to think about. A person takes a completely innocent picture and it contains a perfectly typical example of CCD bleeding from a background star. And yet in the hands of someone filled with ignorance and a willingness toward self-delusion they are able to convince themselves that it is in fact a picture of an alien space ship trailing the comet. And many other people fall into the same delusion despite many people trying to correct their misperceptions.

And then other folks who have been stewing in their own brand of delusion mix this new delusion with their own eventually leading to mass suicide.

It makes you think about the importance of critical reasoning skills.

</comment><comment><USER20> lol @ meta keywords

<meta name="keywords" content="Heaven's Gate, Heaven's Gate, Heaven's Gate, Heaven's Gate, Heaven's Gate, Heaven's Gate, ufo, ufo, ufo, ufo, ufo, ufo, space alien, space alien, space alien, space alien, space alien, space alien, extraterrestrial, extraterrestrial, extraterrestrial, extraterrestrial, extraterrestrial, extraterrestrial, millennium, millennium, millennium, millennium, millennium, millennium, millennium, misinformation, misinformation, misinformation, misinformation, misinformation, misinformation, freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom, second coming, second coming, second coming, second coming, second coming, second coming, angels, angels, angels, angels, angels, angels, end times, end times, end times, end times, end times, end times, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, God, God, God, God, God, God">

</comment><comment><USER21> How sadly amusing is it that this website can be maintained in its original state 16 years after its owners died, yet publishing companies today routinely fail to protect heir still-alive brands.

Case in point: Michelin Guides [http://www.constructaquote.com/business- insurance-blog/index...](http://www.constructaquote.com/business-insurance- blog/index.php/2013/02/michelin-guides-fury-michel-guides- website/#.UpFRXrK9KK0)

</comment><comment><USER22> A town in my state had a similar case where a family of 5 including 3 children committed suicide ( 3 survivors) by consuming poison [1]. Motive? Apparently, they wished to meet Lord Shiva after their death. They even made a video of it where each one was very delighted before the act. In India, lunacy in name of religion is not uncommon but I was deeply disappointed by the kind of foolishness that prevails in my country even with fairly educated people. However, it is surprising how such an incident could happen in US in name of some Sci-Fi Heaven-Earth bullshit.

[1]: [http://ibnlive.in.com/news/rajasthan-5-of-a-family-commit- su...](http://ibnlive.in.com/news/rajasthan-5-of-a-family-commit-suicide- believing-they-will-meet-god/381854-3-239.html)

<comment><USER23> "Lunacy in the name of religion"

Umm... That's par for the course....

<comment><USER24> A tautology, as far as I'm concerned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This article from 2012 offers some background on the page: [http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/05/02/heavens-gate- website...](http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/05/02/heavens-gate-website- still-active/)

</comment><comment><USER26> I haven't looked at this in 16 years, but I remembered verbatim one of the links and got a little chill waiting to see it again as I scrolled down: "Our position against suicide".

</comment><comment><USER27> ReligiousTolerance.org states that:

'A couple of the surviving members of the group who did not "leave" have been maintaining their web site at [http://www.heavensgate.com'](http://www.heavensgate.com') ([http://j.mp/1cKc0KA](http://j.mp/1cKc0KA))

</comment><comment><USER28> It isn't going to be online much longer.

Domain Name: HEAVENSGATE.COM

Creation Date: 1997-12-18 05:00:00Z

Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2013-12-17 05:00:00Z

<comment><USER29>
       Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.5
       X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
       X-Powered-By-Plesk: PleskWin

Does 7.5 still get security support?

<comment><USER30> Clearly not the server to which would originally have been deployed. Someone is actively maintaining it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is a fascinating, well-written account, a decade after the events: [http://www.laweekly.com/2007-03-22/news/heaven-s-gate-the- se...](http://www.laweekly.com/2007-03-22/news/heaven-s-gate-the-sequel/full/)

</comment><comment><USER32> Interesting that the G in gate from the top image is the green bay packers logo from the NFL.

<comment><USER33> I have bad news for you if you think the packers game up with the idea of a stylized G.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> There is a full documentary on youtube about "heavensgate". [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBTLThA0wOw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBTLThA0wOw)

</comment><comment><USER35> Was Einstein who said that quote about the universe and human stupidity, trying to describe infinity?

Cantor would argue though that some infinities are bigger than others..

</comment><comment><USER36> Of course I had to contact the Kingdom of Heaven admin to see if they made it to the comet: firstname.lastname@example.com.

I wonder if their nads were waiting for them?

</comment><comment><USER37> Their stance on suicide:

[http://www.heavensgate.com/misc/letter.htm](http://www.heavensgate.com/misc/letter.htm)

</comment><comment><USER38> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHz9it70TdI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHz9it70TdI)

</comment><comment><USER39> Wow... stuff

<comment><USER40> I've been working with an awful shopping cart product with template 'tags' that produce HTML containing  and many other unsemantic abominations. You also see  tags still come up on stack overflow... Old tutorials will never die, it seems.

<comment><USER39> nothing wrong with font tags per se (well back then, anyway)... more a matter of what appears to be a complete lack of understanding of the difference between a tag and an attribute. The page is a wealth of HTML abominations and bad quotation mark placement:

alt="To Access Our Book: "Heaven's Gate"

and so on

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> At the time, the site was hosted by Spacestar Communications (now defunct). Now, it's hosted by Cyrus One.

I wonder who maintains it.

</comment><comment><USER38>  i didn't know you could do that!

</comment><comment><USER42> Well, were you expecting someone to take it down?

<comment><USER43> I was expecting nobody to pay for hosting! Websites don't run on magic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> What if it was real and they are gods now.

</comment><comment><USER45> And very Geocities looking.</comment>


Running the run-time time gauntlet - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@codevalley42/running-the-run-time-gauntlet-b106003fa0ef#.lk1mlsll9 <comment><USER2> Moving garbage collection into design-time makes instant sense as it naturally matches the application's activity. However such a move is something that only becomes practical with a technology such as the World Compiler which eliminates the need for code-reuse with its corresponding necessity for run- time allocation of memory. This software development technology has a raft of such large scale advantages.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> While the network is not quite ready for end-users, it is more than ready for developers who want to get started and build agents. We (CV devs and the emergent coding community) are currently in the middle of populating the third layer (of 4) with Agents. (You can track the network's progress on our Dashboard([https://marketplace.codevalley.com/dashboard](https://marketplace.codevalley.com/dashboard)).)

If you're curious and would like to take the system for a spin, I've linked to some template expressions below. Each expression already sets up the contracting of certain agents within the network. Just open the one you want and hit 'Build.' (To view the pseudo-code associated with each expression, just click on 'Notes.')

Build a program that runs on a Linux OS (x86 64-bit architecture) (i.e. contract agents that compile requirements to binary code):

1\. Hello World ([https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#hello-world- da...](https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#hello-world-data- julie-2.xp))

2\. Text reverser ([https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#linux-text- rev...](https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#linux-text-reversal.xp))

3\. Fibonacci calculator ([https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#linux- fibonacc...](https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#linux-fibonacci- sequence-displayer.xp))

Build a program that runs in a browser (i.e. contract agents that compile requirements to js):

1\. Hello World ([https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#hello-world- da...](https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#hello-world-data-julie- js-2.xp))

2\. Text reverser ([https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#browser- text-r...](https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#browser-text- reversal.xp))

3\. Fibonacci calculator ([https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#browser- fibona...](https://marketplace.codevalley.com/pilot.html#browser-fibonacci- sequence-displayer.xp))

You can also take a more in-depth (interactive) tour of emergent coding here ([https://marketplace.codevalley.com/use- it/module0-step1](https://marketplace.codevalley.com/use-it/module0-step1)).</comment>


Social media hate crimes could lead to six years in jail - <AUTHOR> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/social-media-hate-crimes-could-lead-to-six-years-in-jail-8x6wwzmn3 <comment><USER2> "want to read more? Give us your name and email address, because we can't harvest it by default anymore."

Once a place of perpetual conflict, the continent has become a fucking hugbox.

<comment><USER2> On a more serious note, how can you both punish anti-religious speech (READ: anti-muslim speech) and also punish andti-progressive speech?

It's probably not the Lutheran's espousing transphobia.</comment></comment>


Why I prefer Bourbon over Bootstrap - <AUTHOR> http://federicoramirez.name/why-i-prefer-bourbon-over-bootstrap/

<comment><USER2> > _Another thing that bugs me is that I like having fine-control over my > markup. I'd also rather keep the "style stuff" completely out of my markup. > Separation of concerns is always good thing_

Not always, and this is a good example.

HTML is not supposed to be some clean semantic layer, and treating it as such doesn't make things better. Sure, you can keep some style separate but don't overdo it and don't fall for the "semantic" structure BS.

HTML is part of your presentation layer. You need to craft it to work well with what you want to show. Were you need to have sound semantics is your data layer -- that would be your DB/NoSQL/REST service/whatever source.

You're not gonna screen-scrap your pages to extract data out of them to have to care about semantics and separation -- for that you're gonna build services or talk to the DB directly.

Designers, who didn't have much experience in actual MVC history, and were oversold BS terms like 'semantic' they didn't understand, created this whole confusion in webpage development. Instead of asking for proper "black-box" separation between UI/style and code, they treat HTML as some bastard child between data (semantics) and presentation.

Consider how in GUI programming (which is 100 times more mature than the HTML/CSS/JS etc mess) the UI part is not meant to be semantic or anything. It's just a blob of style and output specs.

Having "Semantic HTML" is nothing to be proud of. It's mostly a continued cargo cult, from people with no GUI experience. And it carries all the myths with it (re-usability -- as if the reusable layer would be your HTML and not your data, re-styling with just CSS -- as if anything bigger than a personal site or a free-styling experiment like CSS Zen Garden doesn't require template changes too, etc).

<comment><USER3> > Having "Semantic HTML" is nothing to be proud of. It's mostly a continued > cargo cult, from people with no GUI experience. And it carries all the myths > with it (re-usability -- as if the reusable layer would be your HTML and not > your data, re-styling with just CSS -- as if anything bigger than a personal > site or a free-styling experiment like CSS Zen Garden doesn't require > template changes too, etc).

What if you could style individual design elements and copy/paste those from site to site like [http://staticresource.com/widget- demo.html](http://staticresource.com/widget-demo.html) ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The example in the article narrowly avoids a very common use case that's one of the reasons I enjoy bootstrap - it lets you address multiple width cases in the same line.

EG, if I want a content area that adapts to phone/tablet/desktop, Bootstrap makes it as easy as

      div class="col-xs-12 col-md-8 col-lg-6"

in bourbon/neat it would look more like

      div.class {
        @include media($mobile) {
          @include span-columns(6);
        }
        @include media($tablet) {
          @include span-columns(8);
        }
        @include media($desktop) {
          @include span-columns(12);
        }
      }

I certainly concede that the latter makes more sense from a code-cleanliness standpoint, since it keeps the styling in the stylesheet.

However, for designing in the browser / mashing stuff out quickly, I find myself gravitating towards bootstrap because it makes prototyping really fast, even if it slightly violates the "don't style in the structure" rule</comment>


Advice for young developers - <AUTHOR> https://www.newfangled.com/the_right_kind_of_developer <comment><USER2> Why I wouldn't work for you:

I don't work for free. My time is more valuable than free. Perhaps at reduced rate, but never for free. Working for free makes your clients balk when you finally dare to charge.

I like my free time. Free time gives me a chance to do what I want, as I'm young only once. It's not always easy to have some time off when in college / uni, so the time you can make is time you (should) treasure. How you fill that time does not matter, but it should be fun (as that's what free time should be).

The other points I agree with. Building a portfolio is a great way to get at least one foot in the door. Writing code and text is also a very good way to learn to express thoughts (both of which I do too little of, personally), which also helps your future senior to get a reading of you.

<comment><USER3> > I don't work for free. My time is more valuable than free.

I think this doesn't probably apply for students and/or recent graduates, as it would be a way of escaping the typical "I can't get a job because I don't have experience, and I can't get experience because I don't have a job" catch-22.

True, my time is always worth a certain amount (probably higher than I assume), but if I get a tangible benefit out of it, I could assume that I just switched from "I pay you and you give me knowledge and a degree" to "I pay you and you give me experience and a recomendation".

<comment><USER2> No, working for free is not a good idea. Perhaps for non-profits, but even then you are better off to either charge a friends' price, or just donate money.

How would someone that just graduated pay rent and food when they don't have a job that, you know, pays them?

<comment><USER4> Wealthy parents. An ethical issue with working for free is it gives an advantage to kids with wealthy parents, lowering mobility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Work for free. This is my boilerplate advice for anyone getting started in > any industry, not just web developers. Finding someone that will let you > work with them is not that hard, if you offer to do it for free.

Yikes.... I would never advise someone to work for free for a company. If you want to work on an open source project then that's probably a better use of your time.

The problem with free is that it lowers your worth to a company.m

Heck even university co-op terms pay well these days.

<comment><USER6> That depends on how you class "for free". Most people think free = not being paid money.

I'm actually looking into working for the whole of July for no monetary compensation. But in return, I expect to learn something from whoever I work with/for.

Most of the time money is good. You can exchange that for many things in life. But sometimes, knowledge is better to have as you can exchange that for (even more) money.

And from an employer point of view, you should not be judged by the size of your pay cheque, but by how much value you actually add to a company.

<comment><USER7> _> > Most of the time money is good. You can exchange that for many things in life. But sometimes, knowledge is better to have as you can exchange that for (even more) money._

This is a false dichotomy. With some very rare exceptions, you do not choose between monetary compensation and experience: you need -- and should get -- both.

<comment><USER6> I agree completely, other than calling them rare exceptions. You can't quantify the rarity of these opportunities until you know how big the gap is between your current knowledge and what you'd learn.

The bigger the gap, the less money you are likely to make but the more you'll learn. If you get paid nothing, you're basically there to learn (to the value at least the salary you would receive).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Advertising the 'work for free' thing pushes towards establishing a dangerous culture, in which slowly all first jobs are expected to be unpaid. And some companies would (and some already do) include these 'free' people in their business model.

There is no reason why those companies can't pay a basic internship salary which at least allows you not to work somewhere else to be able to eat and sleep somewhere else than a friends couch (or floor).

And if the company really can't afford that basic salary, I would double question if it's really worth for you to work for them.

<comment><USER9> _There is no reason why those companies can't pay a basic internship salary_

You don't know that. Maybe the company is a totally new idea being started on a shoe string that can't afford to pay much of anything.

Maybe the product or project is a "what the hell" kind of project that doesn't really have any revenue associated with it but won't be even attempted without some free or mostly free time.

Where would the open source community be without people contributing to it for free?

Yours is the kind of thinking that leads to the ever-increasing minimum wage, which sounds great at first blush but whose unintended consequence is the killing off of whimsical tough-to-start or high risk ventures while also denying real experience to workers who lack the job skills needed to actually be productive at the required minimum wage.

<comment><USER10> "How can I possibly start my whimsical high-risk venture if I have to pay my employees enough so they can afford food and shelter? Why does everything have to be stacked in favor of those greedy minimum wage earners?"

<comment><USER9> Always with the us-vs-them mentality. Maybe both sides are risking something. Maybe both sides have something to gain? Those ideas are hard to consider when you only have one perspective in mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you hire people who work for "real" free at a for-profit company, you could get in a lot of legal and tax trouble depending on where you are.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm 30 and I already have 10 years of experience. The job I got at 20 was a shitty job. The next job after that was also shitty. I went through soul- sucking activities at my day job and it almost made me switch careers. Unfortunately I needed the salary. And fortunately I evolved.

If I would be 20 again and I wouldn't need a salary, then I would probably find a bunch of acquaintances to start a project of our own. Something not necessarily with a prospect of a future. Something fun, with no clients, no deadlines and no managers.

Internships are also great, as interns are usually left to work on fun things. But it really depends on the company you're internshiping with. The big ones are kind of cool for interns and I would prefer them (e.g. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Amazon), even though I wouldn't want to work there full time. I would also never work for free. Ask for a salary, even when doing an internship. If a company wants for-free interns, that's not the kind of company you want to work with.

</comment><comment><USER13> Working on non-technical project is a good advice. I like to paint and indulge in photography and I have often seen ideas jumping from one field to the other. Like working on a project that requires front-end work sometimes gets help from while I am splashing paint on my canvas. Photography on the other hand, lets me indulge in the subject at hand. A developer is someone who developer, an idea, a vision into reality. I just do not associate "being a developer" to "being a programmer" anymore.

I did not like the "work for free" advice a lot but I do think that sometimes the only way to work on something that you really want to work on is to give your time and energy to it, for free. I am sure there are people who will not agree with me but I am a big proponent of non-profits (esp the ones who ask for your services, more than money).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, all, for the feedback! I just wanted to clarify on my 'work for free' point. If you have no real-world experience, get some. While you may not get paid at first, the amount of marketable skills you learn will more than pay for that. The point here is not to offer to work for free in hopes that you might eventually get hired (although that can sometimes happen). Rather, the point is that there are a lot of things that you can only learn by being thrown into the context of a fast-moving, multi-faceted company with real clients.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for joining the discussion.

Qualified it is still bad advice. The last thing the software industry needs is a hazing period for unscrupulous companies to take advantage of. If you're really lacking in any demonstrable experience then work on a personal project or an open source project until you can show that you know what you're doing. The pay is the same and what you'll have to show for it is just as valuable (if not a lot more) for future employers -- at least the ones you're likely to actually want to work for.

>> "fast-moving, multi-faceted company with real clients"

Before I got into software I built a public relations agency from the ground up. I used to dream in corporate double-talk. Even I don't know what that phrase means.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why is this targeted at young developers? Seems like this is advice for any developer who is looking to get their start in the industry.

I would replace working for free with contributing to an open source project or working to become a maintainer. People have already pointed this out and I wanted to agree!

</comment><comment><USER16> Definitely all good points, only quibble is that not everyone has the option to work for the their first company for free or would have to take a second paying job to make it work. That limits the amount of time you can spend on your own projects and personal development.

</comment><comment><USER17> Hmmm... I have a feeling that I will see tomorrow a "Why I wouldn't hire you" article over here.

</comment><comment><USER18> I found a health tech company I wanted to work for an asked for an internship. They not only paid me, it is now my full time job. Offer to work for free and if you generate significant value they will pay you.

</comment><comment><USER19> Scrolling on that site is broken. I can't page down without hiding text that I haven't read yet.</comment>


When I was jung - <AUTHOR> http://wheniwasjung.com <comment><USER2> Seems cool but doesn't work for me on OS X Mav w Chrome Canary.</comment>


Google accused of stealing balloon network tech behind Project Loon - <AUTHOR> https://thestack.com/world/2016/06/16/google-accused-of-stealing-balloon-network-tech-behind-project-loon/ <comment><USER2> So

\- they met with Google in 2007, didn't form a partnership

\- in 2011, 4 years later, Google started Loon

\- in 2016, 5 years later, Google gets sued

Makes me think that Space Data Corporation needs cash because they've been unable to make this take off in the 8 years in the interim.

The idea of using balloons to transmit data is not reasonably patentable. Maybe there are patentable implementation details (I'm skeptical), but is it really likely that Google poached them for Loon?

Or is it more likely that Google said "oh balloons transmitting data, cool", talked with a company looking into it, and it came to nothing. It's not like Loon has poached any of SDC's military contracts.

If SDC realistically was going to make this mass-market, it should have happened in less than 8 years; you can't just extract cash when someone successfully implements a generic idea where you failed (in a reasonable system).

<comment><USER3> > The idea of using balloons to transmit data is not reasonably patentable.

They're also suing for trade secrets and breach of contract in reference to the alleged meeting and NDA. If their meeting and NDA did cover this tech, I feel like they have a reasonable complaint. This isn't some company "from" east Texas that is just shooting bolts from the blue.

It's not like they just held the patent and let it get dusty, like you said they've been delivering working products to some markets.

> If SDC realistically was going to make this mass-market, it should have > happened in less than 8 years; you can't just extract cash when someone > successfully implements a generic idea where you failed (in a reasonable > system).

So anytime anyone has an idea of any kind (i.e. no matter how stringent your standards for patentability), someone else with more resources and hands in a lot of huge markets can just say "cool" and then take it? I definitely think the US patent system's standard are terrible to begin with, and that the lack of real administrative effort to filter out unsuitable patents (or not give them for existing technologies) makes it abysmal in practice. But I don't think an environment where meeting with another company (with an NDA, no less!) means they might do business with you or they might just take what you told them and run with it will promote innovation either.

<comment><USER4> "Airborne constellation of communications platforms and method"

Satellites? GPS? Look, just because you say "here's an idea..." doesn't give you infinite protections to realize (or submarine, with exclusivity) that idea.

When an idea is a mild improvement (or slight step to the left) of another, that doesn't make it patentable or protectable, either. Google didn't invent content indexing or the search engine, and yet no one (reasonable) would argue they need to defer the idea of a search engine.

Besides, recovering balloons and transmitting data between airborne objects existed so long before this company, their claims are ridiculous.

<comment><USER3> > Satellites? GPS? Look, just because you say "here's an idea..." doesn't give > you infinite protections to realize (or submarine, with exclusivity) that > idea.

You do realize the patent isn't just the title right? Did you _really_ think that they didn't mention anything in a 73 claim patent that rules out satellites or GPS? Or did you not bother to even look at the thing before you decided, conclusively, it wasn't worth a damn?

And how is developing a business to sell these to the military submarining it? Not everyone has the resources and market reach of a Google or a Microsoft.

> When an idea is a mild improvement (or slight step to the left) of another, > that doesn't make it patentable or protectable, either. Google didn't invent > content indexing or the search engine, and yet no one (reasonable) would > argue they need to defer the idea of a search engine.

If your standard of "mild improvement" includes replacing satellites with astronomical costs to launch and operate with weather balloons that are sometimes within the monetary reach of high school physics programs, then yes, I think that's a sufficient improvement to be worthy of some protection.

There are _so_ many crappy patents out there, but from reading this one (from the standpoint of what I think is right, not necessarily what the law says on this issue) I don't think it's one. Like I said, I'd be more sympathetic to your viewpoint if you bothered to even skim it.

In any case, like I said (repeatedly) in the comment you are responding to, I think the more interesting factor here is the claims surrounding a meeting with an NDA. Especially since they allege that the meeting contained detailed information, like work on how to adapt to winds at various altitudes that they say took quite a bit of study.

<comment><USER4> > You do realize the patent isn't just the title right? Did you really think > that they didn't mention anything in a 73 claim patent that rules out > satellites or GPS? Or did you not bother to even look at the thing before > you decided, conclusively, it wasn't worth a damn?

I'll admit I didn't read the _entire_ patent claim, although I did spend a couple minutes with it.

> And how is developing a business to sell these to the military submarining > it?

I didn't say _they_ submarined anything. That was a genera comment about how patents hold even when the "inventor" (and not many patents these days are actual inventions) decides to not develop their invention. It's a license to lock an idea away.

> If your standard of "mild improvement" includes replacing satellites with > astronomical costs to launch and operate with weather balloons that are > sometimes within the monetary reach of high school physics programs, then > yes, I think that's a sufficient improvement to be worthy of some > protection.

They used weather balloons (already invented) and put a mesh network on them (already invented). To your own comment, it's not like anyone could come in and develop it from under them - it _is_ costly, and that keeps competition at bay. But I still do not see where you think this deserves some exclusivity.

> Like I said, I'd be more sympathetic to your viewpoint if you bothered to > even skim it.

Feeling any sympathy yet? :)

> I think the more interesting factor here is the claims surrounding a meeting > with an NDA

NDA's almost always say things like this (from an NDA we've signed):

 _" Limitation on Obligations. The obligations of the Recipient specified in Section 4 shall not apply, and the Recipient shall have no further obligations, with respect to any Proprietary Information to the extent that such Proprietary Information:_ _(a) is generally known to the public at the time of disclosure or becomes generally known without the Recipient or its Representatives violating this Agreement;_ _(b) is in the Recipient's possession at the time of disclosure;_ _(c) becomes known to the Recipient through disclosure by sources other than the Disclosing Party without such sources violating any confidentiality obligations to the Disclosing Party; or_ _(d) is independently developed by the Recipient without reference to or reliance upon the Disclosing Party 's Proprietary Information."_

So basically, if Google was already thinking about balloon grid networks, and wanted to see if they could collaborate with this company, then ballon grid networks are _not_ covered under the NDA. Nor is anything else Google was considering prior to this meeting, that happened to be analogous. Likely if there is discovery, it will focus on this.

<comment><USER3> > Feeling any sympathy yet? :)

No, because if you skimmed it and then decided to say it was confusable with the prior art of communications satellites, you've just shifted from being lazy to plain disingenuous.

> NDA's almost always say things like this (from an NDA we've signed):

And you've read their NDA? I don't know how much more I have to couch things with allege and supposedly. I have no idea if they're blowing smoke up Google's ass or if they have a real claim. But you sure as hell don't have any evidence to write them off as confidently as you have been.

<comment><USER4> Someone wrote up on the wrong side of the judgemental bed today.

I'm sorry I didn't print out the patent, stash it away, go get a law degree, come back, study it, get a second opinion, and then comment, but hey, neither did anyone here, and yet HN survives.

I read enough to know I disagreed with it. I have been in business long enough to know you don't sign an NDA that doesn't cover internal prior art. I know you think you have a grasp on my ability to comment intelligently on patents and NDAs, but you are mistaken.

And be careful who you call disingenuous. It's an insult of a pretty high order, and were I a lesser person, I might have taken it personally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think we can really make any informed remarks on these claims without more information.

We don't know:

* the NDA terms

* what the "trade secrets" Google is alleged to have taken/used are

* whether the patents are going to stand under scrutiny

* why they couldn't come to an agreement in the first place.

If I were in Google's position, I would probably have either paid them even a minorly extortionate value to come to a licensing agreement (to mitigate precisely this circumstance), or arranged a "clean room" to implement their Loon tech without anyone involved in the trade secrets having input (beyond the necessary "approve/disapprove" from some level of management above the team, since they allege the co-founders were covered by the NDA and knew trade secrets).

It's not impossible that Google is acting in poor faith here, but I don't think we can draw any conclusions until more information comes out.

</comment><comment><USER6> How the hell is this even patentable - its derivative of transmitting telephone and data from a balloon, which was done at least as early as the mid-50's.

<comment><USER7> This isn't just about a patent. This is about blatant theft of a technology they were introduced to under a written agreement of confidentiality. Which they then turned around, copied, and announced as their own supposedly incredibly original development project. All the research and investment Space Data put into to even proving the idea was viable, and Google takes all the credit.

<comment><USER8> I'm certainly not one to be surprised that Google could violate an NDA or trade secrets, but it's not clear to me exactly what they are alleged to have copied. Is it to you?

I mean, the basic concept and viability of an ubiquitous network of balloons providing Internet access had already been presented publicly by Space Data (see [1]), so you didn't have to violate an NDA to know that. The idea that you can control direction by changing altitude is also old as rocks (Jules Verne's _Five Weeks in a Balloon_ is based on it).

And it's not clear to me that they actual alleged that Google copied the actual mechanism and/or used their trial tests data.

[1] [http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520007226](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520007226)

<comment><USER9> An NDA deals typical with disclosing of information. E.g. you visit Google to pitch your product and tell them you plan that launch it next year, or you have 200 customers signed up. The NDA says Google can't tell that stuff to the press or your competitors and possibly can't share that information with other divisions within Google (depends on the wording obviously). It would not cover "they'll copy our idea themselves". This is a standard, central concern with anyone pitching to BigCo and something you talk over and strategize about endlessly before the pitch. Everyone basically assumes it is a risk, hence the old advice "don't pitch to Microsoft", or I guess now: Google.

If this is the basis for the case then it obviously has no merit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The damn patent system needs reform. Plain and simple. Make them short and unprofitable unless you are going to use them to do something useful.

<comment><USER8> What do you mean? Space Data was using them, they built a bunch of balloon networks for the military. It's not clear to me that their allegations are correct, but they can hardly be accused of being an NPE.

<comment><USER11> For civilian purposes that's basically equivalent to being a NPE.

In reality it's even worse, since NPEs typically don't (indirectly) cause physical harm to people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Since this case is more or less obvious I would really like to know how Googles/Alphabets decision making process works.

For example: A start-up with interesting new technology and a headquarter near capital city (Government nearby/useful for lobbing) -> buy it, or a small company in the country -> "borrow" it.

</comment><comment><USER13> When the powerful engage in a mutual struggle with the poor and attempt to overcome it at great expense, it is called theft.

capitalism.

<comment><USER13> Can one of the 5 downvotes, or someone else that agrees with them, please tell me what was wrong with my comment?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If true, it's disappointing that a great organization like the G would do something like this fully aware. I'm inclined to believe, at the moment, if the allegations are true, the PM for this who met with the plaintiffs decided to go rogue rather then it being from further up the chain.

</comment><comment><USER15> With anyone who thinks there is any grounds on this any kinda lawsuit.

I honestly disagree. They (google) try to employ smart people (as any company should do), they pull from creative areas- have you honestly never thought you invented something only to find out that someone else came up with the idea earlier?

I swear that I invented the Jet Ski when I was like 8 years old- like motorcycle but boat... I drew up designed on graph paper etc- mine had a glass shield though, but also used thermodynamic for propulsion (initial versions used a prop).

Jet skis or whatever were around years before I came up with that. I was just a kid. Still though- a stolen idea or just something that other people as smart as you might also independently come up with is a grey area. And the flaw in patent law in the US. To insist on generalizing such as shape of controller or magnets vs. the purpose of real innovation to make an arms race for getting money back on it... I all it all BS In the modern age. Just MIT open source it if you have the guts to.

I am speaking to the general you. Sorry for my long winded jet-ski example. I totally invented that before it was a thing (at least to child self).

<comment><USER16> This isn't a patent troll and this isn't Google independently inventing something. This is Google meeting with the company, getting closed door access to their tech and then deciding to copy large parts of their product. We can argue whether that should be legal in all/many/this case(s) but it's nothing like your jet ski example.

<comment><USER17> Sounds like doublespace/stacker all over again: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_law...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit)</comment></comment></comment>


Six Months Later, Three Start-Ups Find Their Goals Are Elusive - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/business/smallbusiness/12hunt.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss <comment><USER2> I know we've seriously beaten this dead horse, but where is the line between "new business" and "start-up" these days. It would seem to me that everything is being called a "start-up", when in fact, many are just new businesses. I would not call either the bakery or the t-shirt company a start-up, as they are not using technology to take a novel approach to an existing market (or create a new market), nor is the technology really that central to what they are trying to do. One is hoping to set up an online store (hard in the "specialty / gourmet" food world) and the other is trying to market a t-shirt line. These are new businesses, not start-ups (by my definition).

The RentingYourHome guy is definitely a start-up and I feel for him as he seems to be hitting all the standard challenges (too little cash, co-founder leaving, trouble getting/keeping customers). This actually seems like it could be a compelling service, but the actual property owners are a hard group to reach (ie: they are not all farting around online all day) and convincing them that they can do it all online feels like a very, very tough task.

<comment><USER3> Apologies for my ignorance, but is there a link to the extended distinction between startup and new business? I don't quite see how the two are all that distinct, or why the distinction is useful?

<comment><USER4> It's been my take that "startup" connotes something entrepreneurial, where "new business" (or "small business") connotes the start of something that's been done before.

That's a meaningful distinction to make because it involves different skills, a different assumption of risk, and a different level of tenacity needed to be successful in one or the other.

So startup = selling something different. It's about pitching people your idea, and positioning a product creatively in the market. New business is about being seen (e.g. consider starting a franchise pizza shop and advertising on local TV/in print). It's "new" because people didn't know it was there before. But it's not "startup" for lack of its differentiation along the lines of _how_ that something is sold.

I like this defition because it permits that a new company that sells the same old product (e.g. Threadless and their tees) may be called a startup for its ability to creatively position their products.

Exactly when a company transitions from "startup" to "going conern" is another question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Many universities and organisations in India are gearing towards outsourcing legal talent based on UK/US law and it seems only a matter of time before we see a boom in this area.

This is occurring in both ends of the market from the personal-injury no-win- no-fee farms to the high-end specialist areas e.g. trademark law, intellectual property, copyright law, patents, company law etc.

Initially, outsourced legal may start out as something that sucks (and initially do low-level/menial work), but over time will improve with each iteration/cycle to the point where legal outsourcing in India will be able to match its technology outsourcing model and actually be a viable option for US/UK companies.

For many years I have thought a country like India is very well suited to outsource many service-based models in fields other than I.T. which require little physical asset (i.e. hardware and manufacturing cost) and rely more on intellectual talent and in this respect I think the guy may been on to something with the legal services aspect.

However, as is a common reason for startup failure, his timing may be off. It seems the markets in the US/UK are not ready _just yet_. Just my $0.0000002.

<comment><USER6> That's an interesting point. Are there legal impediments in place that prevent such outsourcing? I don't know the law on this. The American Bar Association is a very power organization, with the added detail that their members also happen to write the laws in this country.

<comment><USER5> Not that I know of. In the US/UK you need to be a member of the bar/law- society to practice as a lawyer/solicitor (i.e. represent clients) but there is no reason why the actual work itself cannot be outsourced.

In fact most of the menial work in many law firms are done by juniors (new graduates) or legal-executives ("executives" being people who have little or no law qualification but are able to do the work).

In my old firm (<http://www.lawdit.co.uk>), which I setup years ago with my friends, this was and still is the case in many ways.

I have seen the internals of many other leading firms (Allen & Overy, Ashurst, etc.) that also do this.

Hence, regardless of how powerful the legal lobby against an uptake of such outsource practice, I dare say, the bottom-line and almighty dollar will win in many cases.

After all, if you are getting the same/better quality at a lower cost and faster turn-around (3 people working on a task instead of 1) what would you do?

The precedents have already been set in other fields/industries so I expect it will not cause as much furore as one might imagine and will probably start with the thin end of the wedge i.e. no-win-no-fee farms.

Time will tell :)

<comment><USER6> Is a bar-member lawyer responsible for supervising the outsourced work? Can he be disbarred if something is done improperly?

As an example, for outsourcing of public works projects, a professional engineer (PE) must supervise the project and is ultimately responsible for the project. That is to say, he would lose his license if the project were deemed injurious to the public, etc.

<comment><USER5> Yes. Possibly, depends on what is done and went wrong.

In U.S. we have a few people from Florida Bar who do most U.S. related clients.

Most work undertaken in our U.K. offices with the usual pre/post reviews by the senior legal team/section-head to ensure accuracy, consistency, competency etc. but most of the menial tasks can be done by others.

Everyone gains: juniors acquire skills and experience, seniors save time and can focus on other tasks.

Of course no work is passed until signed off etc. etc.

Legal businesses in U.K. are continously audited by Law Society and other auditors/regulatory bodies so everything conforms to set standards, hence nothing to worry about for clients in these respects etc.

Hope that helps :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _She has built her cafe to $8,000 in revenue a week_

= 416,000/year revenue.

Whole different world, I guess. It's completely possible to have an online business for a few $1000/year in costs. And yet this woman isn't turning a profit yet on nearly 1/2 a million in revenue.

<comment><USER8> I found this interesting, too. Margins should be huge in the cafe business, right? So it must be rent and employees that are costing her so much. I still would have expected a cafe to be profitable with that kind of revenue.

<comment><USER2> Margins are not huge for this sort of business. This am on NPR they were talking with a baker who said that his flour costs had tripled in the past year, his egg costs had doubled, and all of his supplies now had "fuel surcharges" tacked on. While margins might have been comfortable in the past, they certainly aren't now. These folks are between a rock and a hard place and have had to absorb much of these costs in their margins.

People think you have to be crazy to start a start-up these days. No even close, but you would have to be crazy to start a bakery now!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "... Janet Portman, a lawyer and an expert in landlord-tenant law ... said her doubts about the viability of Mr. Takle's business model remain."

Her concerns seemed a little strange to me. How is his model fundamentally different from a traditional property management company, or perhaps it's closer to the software companies that support that industry already? Both models are well established. Some Web-based conflation of the two sounds viable to me. He also offers a tenant screening service, which already exists as well.

"His jaunt to India to look for legal assistance is further evidence of his failure to understand the complexities of the legal world he was wading into."

Where's the complexity? I owned a rental property for a few years, and apart from the initial purchase and subsequent sale, I never needed a lawyer. Of course, you could get sued, but that's hardly routine.

My biggest concern would be that I believe there's already a fair bit of competition in this space, at least for the individual services that he's packaging together.

</comment><comment><USER10> _Whatever happens, Mr. Foley added, "she'll have gained a better business education than she could at the Culinary Institute of America and the Harvard Business School combined."_

Another great example of choosing a start-up over more formal education. If all else fails, you got the education anyway.

<comment><USER11> I couldn't agree with that more. College has a great social life and allows you to mature. But starting a site on the side tought me more then 3 years of school.

But one thing that bothers me, shown by this article, is why everyones uninspired first business idea is either selling t-shirts or restaurants? Probably the worst two industries to chose with their low barriers of entry.

<comment><USER12> A social networking website probably has a lot lower barrier to entry than a restaurant does.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, I've come to realize that most ad supported social sites are very high risk.

Social networks are not very hard to build but depend on a very large scale of users. On the other hand restaurants are more expensive to start and maintain but can survive off a smaller market. Both are saturated with competition and have low margins.

<comment><USER13> Restaurants have a far higher barrier of entry: interior design, inventory management, supply chain, quality control, staffing, just to name a few headaches. That's not even calling into question your competence (assuming you are the chief operator).

<comment><USER11> Barriers to entry includes more then start-up costs. A restaurant can open up on a busy street and advertise in local newspapers to get a sustainable customer base. The marketing and PR costs for a social network are much much higher. They would need at least 100,000 users to A) provide value as a social network and B) make revenue from PPC ads.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>