Udacity aims to teach 160,000 students statistics - <AUTHOR> http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexclusive/2098135/Udacity-aims-to-teach-160000-students-statistics.html

<comment><USER2> Whoever wrote the article should take the course. Lots of numbers are wrong. The plot was wrong -- MIT would take over 2000 years to reach 160,000 students with the intro stats course, not 40. Of course, it's actually a bit less than that -- most MIT students take some course that includes stats. One name per second is over a day, not 4 hours and 27 minutes. Etc.

I tried to post a correction, but it's 'awaiting moderation'. Traditional technique for scammy magazines for avoiding negative comments.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is just an introductory course (as stated in the original article) that I'm signed up for, more to see what it's like than to learn the material (after 5 years of econometrics and 3 years of statistics I'd like to think I knew this stuff). Not the only course I've signed up for (Logic and Discrete maths etc.) but the only one where they got in touch asking us to push it to others - they're obviously trying to break some sort of record with this one. Which I hope they manage. Given how much regular university education costs I'm hoping this catches on before any of my kids want to go.

</comment><comment><USER4> Has anyone done codecademy before or any other free online programming course and how does this Udactiy compares to those? What would you suggest for a total beginner, start off with Udacity? Or together with other courses to replace each other's weaknesses?

Is Udacity specialize for teaching programming? Or like MitX where they are just free online education providers?

<comment><USER5> Start with Udacity, it's university-grade material thought by college professors and/or highly experienced professionals while Codecademy (at the moment) is more like an interactive tutorial that walk you through how to do simple, practical stuff like building an html work, how to use CSSs etc.

You can benefit from both, depending on what you want to build and at what stage of your project you are in.

I would start with Udacity, but be advised it's going to be no cakewalk.

I have no deep experience with MitX (nor Coursera) though I checked them out briefly and they seem to provide insane quality considering they come with no price tags.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm taking CS101 (Python) from Udacity now. Loving it: such a nifty little system they have of getting this information across.

Is the Stats class going to be just basic stats? or are they going to show programming methods for stats?

<comment><USER7> You can find out more about it on the course's webpage: <http://www.udacity.com/overview/Course/st101/CourseRev/1>

The video says that they will have an optional track for programming with statistics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 40 or 50 thousand (at the very best) will end up actually taking the course though...

Still, impressive.

<comment><USER9> If the attrition rate is anything like the crypto course from coursera then around 3-4000 of those will end up finishing the course and achieving a pass.

Which I would argue is still impressive...

<comment><USER10> I'm not familiar with the courses in question, but my impression is that basic statistics is much easier than basic crypto. Obviously, either one could be made arbitrarily difficult, but I've seen more people struggle with things like RSA than with T-tests and distributions.

Also, I think statistics knowledge is more relevant, especially to everyday life, than crypto. Not to say that crypto is unimportant, but statistics is applicable everywhere and changes how you view pretty much everything.

So I think there are some reasons for the stats course to have less attrition than crypto.

It would be interesting to see the attrition of other similar classes at both Udacity and Coursera.

<comment><USER9> That would be an interesting comparison, but I'm not sure what it would show. Comparative difficulty of course material? How good the platforms are? The required student time investment? Perceived rewards? All of these probably contribute in some way

It certainly is a wide new world of possibilities, especially for those of us who want to continue semi-structured learning outside of a university environment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A single lecture of the most simple and most significant equation everybody should know:

youtu.be/umFnrvcS6AQ

The rest is distraction in the current "economy".

<comment><USER12> > youtu.be/umFnrvcS6AQ

Or, you could just watch "The Trouble with Tribbles"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So it's a bunch of video lectures covering material combined with exercises you can do to check your own reasoning?

Congratulations, you've invented the textbook. In video form! Don't get me wrong, a textbook is a nice useful resource, but it's not some kind of "revolution in higher education". The option has always been there to learn stats 101 from the book.

<comment><USER14> I would say it is more a refinement of the classroom than a re-invention of the textbook.

Most of the classes have an overall project that motivate students to see the way through the end and all of these courses have consistency with the design of the other offered courses. Together with the forum and passionate, all-star teachers I would say this is the closest we have come to the future shape of education.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Have also signed up.</comment>


How Quizlet schooled NodeJam - <AUTHOR> http://quizlet.com/blog/an-epic-how-quizlet-won-nodejam/

<comment><USER2> Awesome work. I'm most impressed by how they've set up a way to get quick validation by testing their products in classrooms as soon as possible.</comment>


Right to Repair is already hurling into action in 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://ifixit.org/blog/13003/right-to-repair-2019 <comment><USER2> I would love to see stronger regulations on this. Ultimately this comes down to ownership. Companies have been heavily litigating users out of being able to own anything even if there has been money changing hands. (Also while including terms that make them not responsible for actions performed with a device you don't own).

For example: Sony and Amazon can take away the digital books/games that you bought a copy for. Sony will do it if you ever enact your consumer rights to charge back for fraudulent activity. (See r/playstation on chargebacks) (I'm not just talking about the game/content in question.. I'm talking about your entire library)

<comment><USER3> OEMs are definitely blocking repair, but not through litigation against consumers. The reason is they don't actually have the right to block you from repairing your equipment. The only thing they can do to you is sue you for violating the EULA contract.

EULA are designed to remove your existing legal rights to repair under current patent, copyright, and ownership law. Its the EULA that are unfair and deceptive -- which is why state consumer protection laws can restore your right to repair.

<comment><USER2> When I said litigating I meant they're forcing users to agree to a contract (EULA/TOS) just to use the devices sold.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seems to me like they are hurtling, not hurling.

But whatever it is, more power to them. It is amazing what corporations have got away with since they got the Feds to stop enforcing the anti-trust legislation still on the books. Apparently there is this dodgy economic theory that says as long as prices don't seem to be soaring, monopoly power is harmless, even where it is demonstrably suppressing alternative products, some of which would be markedly better. And, even where prices soar, people might be better off for it, somehow. Or, the monopoly might not actually last forever if they get complacent enough. And so on.

</comment><comment><USER5> There was a recent story on HackerNews about the New York Times, which cut off ad exchanges and still kept growing revenue.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079)

I wonder if it's a similar thing about the supposed benefits companies thought they were going to get about limiting the customers "right" to repair their products.

On one hand, the benefit look "obvious", yet when you take into consideration the second-hand effects (like bad publicity, people getting frustrated by the inability to repair and getting a cheaper alternative) my guess is the costs were bigger than the benefits.

<comment><USER6> Apple admitted that people changing batteries and continuing using old phones affected their profits, this companies need in a way or other to make more and more profit and this means convincing you to get a new device every year or maximum two.

<comment><USER7> That is true, but the current situation is simpler. Design for disassembly and repair is expensive, time consuming, and difficult. It is far easier to have robots slap components together. That is plenty of explanation for phones now shipping.

<comment><USER6> Is it really cheaper or is something we were told. There are repairable phones that are not more expensive because of that, if you mean we can make this phone or laptop 2$ cheaper if we use glue instead of a screws then we can agree that we want to pay 2$ more to have the ability to swap the battery or keyboard instead of replacing the entire or half of the device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I had issues with the battery of my sole MacBook Air. The thing was still under warranty, but I since I needed it for work, I couldn't afford to let it for one week under the care of the local Apple licensee while they were ordering the part (which is mandated by Apple, no way around it).

I ended up buying a battery on iFixit (I had already replaced the battery of my previous model), only to realize that iFixit wasn't selling Apple parts anymore. The "aftermarket battery" I now have is less that ideal, and apparently there's no way to source an OEM battery anymore.

So it's nice we have the right to tinker with our machines, but if there are no spare parts, the point is moot :-/

<comment><USER9> What makes you think the ifixit part is bad? I have found the unofficial parts they supply are of superb quality. I feel bad that I have never used the tool kit it came with again because its of such a high quality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> .. those who do not learn history, are doomed to repeat <the same ask without results>

Seriously, how much "positive" spin can be tolerated at this point? We are in a tsunami of consumer-product waste.. some of it with notable components.. the markets are failing to balance the industrial life cycles.. This is exactly part of a giant fail by humans in geologic time, to adapt to sustainable patterns.

"It remains to be seen if we have poisoned the nest"

</comment><comment><USER11> Intellectual property reform is wayyy overdue. The DMCA needs to be reworded to provide stronger protections to creators. The timetables need to be reduced.

</comment><comment><USER12> The planet are literally on fire due to global warming! Still producers make things that are buy and throw, not made last and to repair! If we are to stop global warming together we need to consume less things that we can repair things so they lasts longer. This will lead to less global warming and less thrash which will mean a better environment that we share!

</comment><comment><USER9> I got some open source hardware recently and I wanted to upgrade it. For the first time I felt the joy of reading a schematic to work out which configuration the board is wired in so I can get the correct part.

I think right to repair, open source hardware and 3d printers are going to be critical if we hope to turn around our throwaway society. It makes me so sad to see average people throwing out perfectly fine electronics because the OEM stopped supporting them or the battery got old.

A few of the people in this thread are suggesting that you should simply not buy these bad devices but the fact is unless everyone stops there is no hope for the environment.

<comment><USER13> I repair and modify computers and game consoles from the 1970s - 1990s and it's great how easy it is to get hold of schematics. I have an Amstrad 8086 PC for example which had full schematics for the PC itself and the monitor in the manual that came with the machine. This was the case with a lot of hifi equipment from this era as well.

A whole device can be brought down by something simple like a dead capacitor which can be replaced in minutes. Without being able to debug that they'd just end up in landfill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I never bought the right to repair cry. I'm a tinkerer - always have been - and an iPhone owner. I bought my phones and knew what I was getting into. I don't think I've ever thrown away any of my old 'unrepairable' tech - I've mostly passed it on to relatives, traded it in, or recycled it. There are all kinds of way to mitigate junk in the environment and you can always...... just not buy.

It's incredibly hard to build a successful product. Just look at the Pebble or other Kickstarter graveyard entries. I would never in my right mind tell Apple to build anything - if I could, I'd be richer than them. I know they have their reasons for designing things the way they do. As a consumer, I am thankful for amazing tech that pretty much works as expected. Telling them _how_ to build their amazing products, which would just make them worse, is the pinnacle of narcissism.

<comment><USER15> You must be young. (this is not meant to be an insult - its about what the younger generation has had taken from them!)

I remember equipment from the late 70s and earlier would have full circuit schematics and repair howtos... On the inside of the case. It was expected and all manufacturers did it...

Until microprocessors got cheaper. That previous circuit diagram was replaced with closed source unreparible microchips. And the code was then copyrighted, with all the ils of copyright law and illegality of sharing.

This was quickly turned to the norm, having sealed closed devices with "no user serviceable parts". The right to repair is to turn this trend around. Its about the right to repair it themselves and share how. Further is that the companies make repairable things. A switch or battery should not trash a device.

The 4th R is the first R: Repair, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. That's the R we should be focusing on.

<comment><USER16> At least as early as the 1940s, some radio & console manufacturers included a full schematic of the circuitry inside the case/furniture. They didn't try to _hog the whole market_. Servicing businesses grew up around repairs, as well as repair manual publishers like Sams (f. 1946). [https://www.samswebsite.com/en/aboutus](https://www.samswebsite.com/en/aboutus)

It's a crime that we've lost all those services _and_ the technicians. Throwaway is a _disease_.

<comment><USER15> I live just south of Indianapolis.. I remember when one of their relatives ran an "everything electronics" store. Was packed to the gills with anything and everything you could imagine. In fact, it reminded me of what Shenzhen is shown now by Bunnie. You could buy new stuff retail, or buy returns and broken or unknown by the pound.

Now, we have wealth upon wealth with technology of all sorts. But those things are sealed with alu lids over the board. Or this talks to the cloud. Or that is glued together with ultrasonic sealing so opening = destroying. Or batteries are buried with ultrasonic and glue and spot-welding. They're made intentionally user-unservicable.

All of it means that you have a snowball's chance in hell in fixing it. And yes, SMT is servicable. So is through-hole. And if these companies provided their pinouts for flying probe or provided probe posts, we could check what part or system is acting up. If we knew their voltages, then following that as a test would be easy. Or someone could re-solder that Atmel 328p DIP (or Arm, or PIC) after using a programmer to reprogram and then use it.

Instead, we see flat screens hauled down to the dumpster. DVD and blurays are dumped. Computers of all sorts and types, that likely have a single miniscule flaw "destroy" the whole device. It makes the game great for consumer culture: consume consume CONSUME! Companies can make shoddy stuff that has a MBTF "warranty + 1 day", and whoops that cap or vreg blows.

Seeing that e-waste makes me cry. I know how much resources are put into that via how much I paid, and I also know how much of that is externalized to our environment.. and Mother Earth's account is going lower and lower. I don't _need_ that new thing. I just want to fix that thing that broke that necessitated me to get the new.

<comment><USER17> Hi neighbor. Indiana has a Bill this year.

Here's what I wrote in:

Hi Justin,

I'm one of your constituents and I'm writing to ask you to support Right to Repair legislation in 2018.

As a Purdue physics PhD (makers all), it's frustrating to see producers of electronic devices (mostly out of state mind you) keep their devices unserviceable by anyone but the manufacturer. Allowing service creates a flourishing repair culture, supports local entrepreneurs, and encourages reuse and recycling.

Please join Terry Goodin in the support for this bill. Let me know if there's anyway I can assist you.

All the best, Rubidium</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How much coffee you drink a day? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> 2 cups min to be alive 3rd cup to ease into serious work

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I have 3 cups on though days, aim to do only 1 per day. I had a couple weeks without coffee, just tea and somedays nothing. I felt it was not worth it.

</comment><comment><USER3> These days it's maybe 1-2 cups a day at breakfast.

Once upon a time I would have probably 8-10 cups a day and even a coffee every night at bedtime.</comment>


Okay Google, you need a cuter name - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38193676 <comment><USER2> Sidenote, but I wish the BBC would learn about this amazing HTML technology called the <a> tag. For example:

> Or as Buzzfeed's Mat Honan put it: "I actively hate saying 'Okay Google' > because it makes me so aware I am interacting with a brand."

That's from [https://twitter.com/mat/status/793570508813893632](https://twitter.com/mat/status/793570508813893632) . But the BBC doesn't tell you that. You have to search for the phrase. It reminds me of the web c. 2001 when sites deliberately omitted links because they thought they'd lose the reader that way.

</comment><comment><USER3> It seems to me that anyone using it, should be able to pick their own alias, as they see fit.

"hey butthead, what's on my schedule for today"

</comment><comment> kyle-rb Microsoft pivoted from having you say "Xbox" to "Hey Cortana". I wonder if that change was a result of people preferring to interact with a personality, or just to make everything the same cross-platform. (Xbox, desktop, mobile).

<comment><USER4> > Microsoft pivoted from having you say "Xbox" to "Hey Cortana". I wonder if > that change was a result of people preferring to interact with a > personality, or just to make everything the same cross-platform. (Xbox, > desktop, mobile).

I turned on the new Cortana voice integration and a day later I switched back to the built in Xbox voice control. Cortana might be a great digital assistant but when it comes to controlling an Xbox it's pretty terrible, the number of times I told it to do something and got the snap interface with something close to what I'd said as a web search...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How about the Japanese katakana-ization: ok googuru

<comment><USER6> Or "Hey Guru". Sounds like Google, sounds knowledgeable, does not sound like a brand.

Also means 'accomplice' which is pretty neat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Hey Google" works as well, and I find it much easier to say than "Okay Google".

<comment><USER8> Personally I'd rather have a long press button activate it. Saying "OK Google"or any derivative is a waste of words me. Apple got it right with holding the home button to activate Siri. I'm really sure why this doesn't exist on Android as it seems to lower the friction quite a bit.

<comment><USER9> It does. Long press on the home button, or press and swipe up.

<comment><USER8> I might be doing it wrong but it might also be that I'm on a Nexus 4. When I do that it brings me to Google search but the voice prompt still needs to be activated via tapping the mic button or using the voice command. Is there a way to change that to just immediately activate it?

And what about from when the screen is off? I have a software home button so can't use it until the screen is turned on unfortunately.

<comment><USER10> Double click home. That defaults to voice. Long clicking also takes me to search.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cameo's CEO on how he plans to disrupt Hollywood - <AUTHOR> https://dot.la/cameo-ceo-on-his-move-to-l-a-and-his-companys-future-2646225672.html <comment><USER3> My friend's brother-in-law used this service a couple months ago for his engagement and wedding, and had a celebrity basically wish them congratulations on the wedding and even mentioned the couple by name (I think you just give them a script of what to say, and they'll record themselves doing it). The cool and maybe the natural part of it was that it didn't look scripted. The celeb record themself on their own phone I believe, and sent it in the form of a video message. Something like Facebook live. When I saw the video message, it seemed very natural. I suppose for your friends who don't know of this service, it'll make it seem like you're on personal terms with a celeb and you received a video from your "celeb friend" saying congrats. I definitely see a market for this service as it reaches the masses and grows.

Birthdays, weddings, anniversary milestones, bar mitvahs, high school graduation. Imagine Lebron wishing your kid happy birthday. And all You had to do was pay $5000 and send a script for a 15-second video.

<comment><USER4> What's the root cause of this pathological behaviour.

Why is it impressive, to a large proportion of the population, rather than just sad and wasteful (as it appears to me).

I mean I get that it's an [fake] indicator of social associations that could have high value, it's more why is that impressive as opposed to people actually acquiring value. Like a "demonstration of ability to pay" but with social credit.

This seems like the social equivalent of when a brand becomes well known for having high-quality goods -- they then put their logo on lots-and-lots of super-low quality goods that people then buy to pretend they have high-quality goods.

It all makes no sense to me.

Is it something about audio-visual media that we can't use it for entertainment without our brains inadvertently treating characters as part of our social circles; then we fail at recognising actors as not being their characters; ...?

Is everyone insane or is there something I'm missing.

<comment><USER5> Comments like this often appear to be the exact sort of status-seeking they claim to hate. "I don't even own a TV," etc.

I really don't think the logical leap between "people like [person]" to "people think it's cute to pay a couple hundred bucks to get a unique message for someone from them."

And then if you want to get into "but some people spend thousands..." \- then we're still just criticizing the extremes of the market, and not so much the concept. Like making a show of freaking out about the fact that some people pay $LOTS for a bottle of alcohol, vs the person who claims they can't understand why others would enjoy alcohol in the first place.

<comment><USER6> It's still quite the leap to me. I'd think most people who like another person would want a genuine social connection with that person if they want anything at all. I'd think that most people who observe a social connection lose respect for it when it's revealed to be highly transactional.

I'm criticizing the very concept of paying something of material value for a social connection, something that society looks down upon in general. When the matter is important, we call it "corruption" and "bribery". When it's not, we call it "sucking up", "selling out", "prostitution/escort-service", "fake".

The point is, paying for a social connection makes it fake. And no one likes a faker.

<comment><USER7> You probably don't like wrestling either? It's fake.

I used to dislike it (and again don't care for it today), but as a youngster, when I expressed disinterest due to its phoniness, a friend pointed out that... "so what?"

Yeah, it's fake. So are movies and TV shows. It's just for fun, and it's not a big deal. People suspend disbelief all the time. When you choose not to, the ones who do always look pretty silly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cameo is one of THE WEIRDEST service I've ever seen, but it shouldn't surprise me at all that it exists I guess.

Looking through the list and seeing that I can get the To Catch A Predator guy to say almost whatever I want for $50, Diamond Dallas Page for $85, The Mooch for $50... it's unbelievable.

The service practically markets itself too, as the more people that share the videos they buy, the more it'll spread. No idea what the end game is here, but it feels like something right out of a dystopian sci-fi novel.

<comment><USER9> Those rates seem really low, for some reason. Anthony Scaramucci, who was a big-time trader at GS and then started his own fund, will record one of those messages for fifty bucks? I don't get it. And just being on this platforms seems to put a specific dollar figure on one's dignity.

<comment><USER10> For "The Mooch" it's probably an addiction to attention that's driving his Cameo participation.

<comment><USER11> He could also just be getting paid $200 for his $50 cameo. Why would this be any different than the other VC subsidized consumer focused services?

<comment><USER9> I hadn't thought of that, you could be exactly right. In fact that should be the default assumption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting side note: Self proclaimed gurus and scammers of every possible kind love cameo's services, too. Makes the programs so much more desirable if your favorite celebrity endorses it, or gives shout outs to the gurus for their "amazing work". Here's one quick example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2BCT01STn8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2BCT01STn8)

</comment><comment><USER13> "Celebrities with over 20,000 Instagram followers – which occasionally stretches the limits of what one might consider a "celebrity""

It certainly does.

I would not classify A-list actors and actresses as "gig economy workers" by any stretch of current understanding of the meaning of that phrase.

Maybe "Talent" (タレント) in the Japanese meaning of the word, maybe.

<comment><USER14> > Maybe "Talent" (タレント) in the Japanese meaning of the word, maybe.

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

> Tarento (タレント) are celebrities who regularly appear in mass media in Japan, > especially television. The term is a gairaigo word – a foreign language > loanword – derived from the English word talent (Japanese does not > distinguish /l/ and /r/ sounds), and has a connotation of "famous for being > famous".

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Super weird, seeing some relatively famous people doing this. Sean Astin is on a bunch of current Netflix shows fro example.

Now some do it for charity, which I think if they had started as a nonprofit and took that angle it could end up huge. Think fo the kind of legacy it could become, though I guess they wouldn't become millionaires going that route...

One shout out to a Silicon Valley alum, whose proceeds go to charity: [https://www.cameo.com/suzannecryer](https://www.cameo.com/suzannecryer)

<comment><USER16> Keep in mind that even famous middle-class actors with regular jobs aren't working right now. Film production has only just restarted in the last week.

Actors are used to taking whatever gig they can. I suspect as film production picks up you'll see fewer of those really well known celebrities on there.

On the other hand, it takes all of a minute to record one of these. You could literally do it in your trailer on set while you wait for them to set up cameras.

<comment><USER17> I'd expect them to do a few takes and "find their motivation" etc.

Many hours go into acting for each minute that end up on screen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've got to imagine this is a _huge_ moneymaker for any celebs that have "event appropriate" fame. For example, I saw a friend get a personalized graduation message from Natasha Bedingfield (singer of that ubiquitous graduation song "Unwritten"). I thought it was really cool, and at a couple hundred bucks a pop I can imagine that Ms. Bedingfield can make more in a month's worth of graduation messages than the average person could in years.

<comment><USER19> Appearance fees for celebs are nothing new. It just used to require talking to their agency. Top celebs probably will still require it. This is creating a market place for mid and bottom tier notables to tap into that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I heard an anecdote on a podcast about Donald Sutherland [1] who has done both high profile and really steady acting work for going on 50 years got done with his last scene and then said: "Well, that may be my last job. I might never work again."

Even established actors are in a fairly fragile position with delays, weird hollywood accounting, and the inherent "gig" nature of their work playing havoc with their salaries.

I can imagine Cameo seems like incredibly easy and steady money (even pre Covid) comparatively.

1 - [https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000661/](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000661/)

</comment><comment><USER21> _The New Yorker_ also wrote about Cameo today. The _dot.LA_ article mentions celebrities in general, but this article specifically covers people with political connections:

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/06/29/from-the- trump...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/06/29/from-the-trump-white- house-to-fox-news-to-the-cameo-app)

Rod Blagojevich (former governor of Illinois) says that Cameo is his main source of income now.

<comment><USER17> You shouldn't always trust everything Rod Blagojevich says :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The venn diagram of contract workers is not a perfect overlap with "gig" work. Just because you're self-employed, selling your services to others on a contract basis, doesn't make that gig work.

<comment><USER23> >Just because you're self-employed, selling your services to others on a contract basis, doesn't make that gig work.

doesn't it? as far as i can tell, the only distinction between "gig economy" and contract workers is that contract workers actually get paid at rates that make it sustainable and that being between contracts isn't a catastrophe, whereas jobs classed as "gig economy" pay low enough to keep the workers desperate for the next gig.

<comment><USER24> Most gig work is done through middlemen/platforms where only some contract work like that exists and typically for longer engagements (ie: through agencies and temp staffing).

Contractors also have more flexibility to develop a relationship with the "client" for better opportunties down the road without the middleman/platform interfering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In my mind, the prices that celebrities can be bought and paid to say anything really casts doubt on whatever other social causes they claim to have.

<comment><USER26> I'd think that they'd be able to reject a request that they aren't interested in or would have them go against their values.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Cameo seems to fit in the proud tradition of companies that have a niche, but are never going to be FANG. I'd put them in a bucket with Medium, Kickstarter, and Patreon. They provide a relatively simple service, they take a reasonable cut, and it has it's place. The problem with them is the Medium problem - <USER2> you've valued your company far beyond its role you essential destroy the business in an attempt to get it profitable to justify the valuation that you've already given it through your series A/B/C.

Whether it's throwing huge cash at A list celebrities, or jacking up the rake on their existing celebrities, or deciding they're a "platform" it's going to be _very_ difficult for their management not to explode their own company through greed.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Whatever the number, Cameo keeps 25% of the transaction and the talent does > what it wishes with the remainder.

That's...a lot. The App Store strategy I guess.

</comment><comment><USER28> I've used Cameo twice, both times for my wife. Both times were a big hit.

I suspect this is one of those startups/services that the HN crowd just doesn't get–but the average person probably thinks its pretty cool.

</comment><comment><USER29> Prediction: repeat business will be low and service will have a reverse viral effect where the more people have used it, the less special it will seem. Fad will die out in a year.

<comment><USER30> Cameo long term business is not that. They want to be the an agent/operator layer to monetize the fame of those "celebrities".

Celebrities bring their distribution (followers) and Cameo gives them the toolS to monetize. They have teased upcoming features like merchandise which is not a surprise since many artists make a lot of money from merch nowadays.

If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. A random Instagram celebrity is probably not great at finding branded deals or creating a e-commerce to sell merchandise. They probably don't have the skill time and/or talent.

Cameo is also likely a challenger to something like Patreon since they have created a transactional 1-1 model that can be easily converted or repurposed into a Patreon type of model.

Last but not least, Cameo is getting a massive influx of data about the value of influencers. They have the opportunity to help people monetize what Instagram or YouTube can't currently monetize which are mentions or sponsored content.

This also makes them an interesting acquisition target just on the merits of the relationship that they are trying to build with those influencers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Random Trivia: High Pitch Eric, a guest on the Howard Stern show is making significant money on Cameo. They (the Howard Stern Show) have speculated that he's one of the top earners on the platform. I believe he's on pace to make over $100,000 this year.

</comment><comment><USER32> Who owns the IP of these Cameos? If the client, I predict it'll be only a short-lived bubble.

Soon a client would use a Cameo to humiliate and destroy the credibility of the performer. Word will get around the celebs and it'll be seen as a trash market.

</comment><comment><USER33> How long till deepfakes make this obsolete?

<comment><USER34> Exactly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I think this service is incredibly cool. celebrities have been making paid appearances at parties and events forever, this is just the social media version of that, a much cheaper way to get a celebrity on your social media feed. I bought one for my wife for mothers day last year, I was a little worried about how it would go over, but she absolutely loved it. Yes, it's a little silly, and no, it doesn't solve any glaring social problems, but it's more memorable and personal than flowers and chocolates.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think Cameo comes at a weird time in human history, where media is so widely distributed/consumed that the number of somewhat-famous people is enough that it has driven down the cost of getting a "celebrity" to do something specifically for you, but is before the adoption of deepfakes that could produce this type of content at almost zero cost (with celebrities that may no longer be alive).

<comment><USER37> Deepfakes of dead celebrities at almost zero cost? Surely the estates of said celebrities have (or will lobby to obtain) the rights to their likenesses?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm just your average web dev, but the Cameo site seems to send a lot of unnecessary information on pages. E.g. the request that fetches recent public videos made by someone seems to include the price paid... because, why? Reviews include the original order id... because, why? This just seems to be asking for trouble. Is this how most AJAX-heavy sites work?

</comment><comment><USER39> Cameo is a fascinating company. Chicago mag also published a longread on the company earlier this year if anyone is going down a rabbit hole: [http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago- Magazine/January-2020/Came...](http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago- Magazine/January-2020/Cameo-Steven-Galanis/)

<comment><USER40> Haha, the headline made me chuckle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> /r/wallstreetbets loves Cameo

</comment><comment><USER42> Is that all it is? Pay a celebrity to say something? Its a gimmick and the novelty will quickly wear off. It will be one of those fads that have a small shelf life because you know the celebrity will say stuff if they are paid so its not a big deal anymore.

</comment><comment><USER43> Hey I still want to exciting watch movies with story lines, no matter what Cameo does.

</comment><comment><USER44> Word up.

</comment><comment><USER45> I don't get what the "clients" get out of this.

Is some down-on-their-luck celebrity wishing you Happy Birthday in order to keep the debtors at bay really that special?

<comment><USER46> Not all of the celebrities are necessary down on their luck - many are current actors or hosts or athletes making millions a year. That begs the question why they'd both with a short video for a couple hundreds of dollars - perhaps they actually enjoy it, who knows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> This very much cheapens the struggle of those driving for Uber etc, we can't conflate an A-list actor with someone scraping by as a real gig economy worker</comment>


Ending Support for macOS and Linux - <AUTHOR> https://www.rocketleague.com/news/ending-support-for-mac-and-linux/ <comment><USER3> This was to be expected, when Epic Games, notorious for not giving a rat's ass about Linux support, acquired the studio behind Rocket League. Other titles from studios bought by Epic will likely follow if they have not already.

This does pose the question on what happens to Linux players who have invested into digital purchases. Online functionality will be disabled so all items will basically be void and the game becomes mostly worthless.

I also wonder if this means that Rocket League will not run on Google Stadia and its competitors, as those platforms mostly run on Linux systems.

<comment><USER4> Is there any major studio or publisher that DOES give a rat's ass about Linux gaming?

<comment><USER5> Paradox has been pretty consistent about Linux support, and in turn I've been pretty consistent about lighting my money on fire by buying their games and the DLCs thereof.

<comment><USER6> It's been pretty consistently broken support. I've run into lot's of things like CK2 only working on xorg, HOI4 only working on x11 (or the other way around), Imperator not working unless you install some c++ runtime lib, EU4 not working at all at the moment for some reason, all on a pretty standard ubuntu 18.04.

Some of those might not be the fault of paradox, but Imperator shows that they didn't even test running it on a stock install.

I've had better luck with proton games, they don't always work but once they do I have far less regressions.

<comment><USER7> > CK2 only working on xorg, HOI4 only working on x11 (or the other way around)

Not sure what you meant, but X.Org is an implementaion of X11 so this doesn't make any sense.

<comment><USER6> I meant xorg and wayland but I just tried everything.

Currently on wayland stellaris and EU4 won't start for me, I didn't even know stellaris was broken until now, that was one of the better working ones.

On xorg they will all start but games are offset and sit below the top bar in gnome, The mouse isn't offset so it's completely unplayable. One of them used to work fine in xorg though, not sure which.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just shut down my work computers and switched over to my personal machine so I could jump into training mode to work on my dribbling, because I watched a few tips videos on lunch I was eager to apply, but decided to check my news feed first. Fuck.

Cost of the game, 12 DLC packs, and 3 season passes just gone. 388 hours over 12 months to build skills I will never use again. And just as many hours watching others play.

Rocket League was the one and only game I decided to break my no-centralized- or-DRM-protected-games rule for because it is an absolutely beautiful, pure- sport game.

Psyonix made a fantastic game, Epic will destroy it. I knew how bad they were but really hoped they were just going to take this piece of art, not fuck with it, and just profit.

The money I've spent on the game as a Linux user is easily measurable, but what about the, no less than 10, people I've inspired to buy the game and the people they in-turn inspired to buy the game? What about the toys my 3 year old wants because he sees me playing the game? What about when it would have been time for him to get a copy? What about all the friends he was going to inspire to get a copy? All because of a single Linux user that went against his own ideals hoping not to get fucked just this one time.

<comment><USER9> Rocket League costs $20 when it's not on sale. Say you get 50 people to buy the game. That's $1,000 in revenue, let's say that 80% of that is profit. So that's $800 that Psyonix/Epic make.

I would imagine the staffing costs to keep Linux and macOS versions of the game running are more than $800/week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I used to love Rocket League, but it seems like every time they make a change, it goes against the community.

First they took some fun, casual games (alternate modes) and made them competitive. The competition isn't the worst, but doing this removed the ability to rematch. Since the games weren't as popular, you'd often find a really great group where both teams were fairly balanced and rematch a dozen times.

This was fun.

They took that away along with the 'Labs', which were alternate arenas. Some went into Rumble (Rocket League with fun tools), but it just wasn't as fun.

With the recent move away from keys, they totally borked their item system. Suddenly near worthless items would cost the user $8. They may have adjusted this, but I've all but stepped away.

It's a shame to see the game slowly go downhill. They had a perfect balance a few years ago that allowed casual and competitive people to enjoy the game. Combine this with the eSports, and everything should have cruised along nicely.

</comment><comment><USER11> Epic started out saying that they would bring the Epic Store to Linux. That was removed. Then this.

I am so glad I haven't bought anything on the Epic Store. I did buy this game on Steam, before the studio was bought by Epic.

Tim Sweeney was right with GabeN complaining about Microsoft; saying Linux was a 'get out of jail free' card. Now he is establishing his own monopoly that is dependent on Microsoft's monopoly on Windows.

</comment><comment><USER12> I feel this is a horrible anti-consumer practice, but their ROI must be incredibly low. I don't remember the last time I played a game on a Mac. I wonder how Apple Arcade is doing.

<comment><USER13> Realistically the 32-bit abandonment in macOS Catalina significantly damaged the Mac gaming market (however "justified" it may be from an engineering standpoint, with many years of warning, etc.). There is simply no good way to tell people that the vast majority of games they probably acquired in the last few years are unlikely to run on any recent hardware.

Some games do move forward to 64-bit but it will certainly require several years for the Mac game market (such as it is) to recover even to the point it had reached.

<comment><USER14> I don't game on Mac, but I did develop for MacOS for a number of years. Who was releasing 32 bit binaries on MacOS in the last 10 years? Snow Leopard was the last major version to support 32 it, it's been deprecated since 2009!

<comment><USER15> Adobe.

Lightroom 6 is the last standalone version that doesn't require subscriptions. It won't run on Catalina and has no good substitute on MacOS (I know about [http://darktable.org/](http://darktable.org/) but it is not performant or Mac-like on MacOS).

<comment><USER16> Once upon a time, I would have suggested Aperture as a Lightroom substitute, but funny thing about that...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So Epic buys Psyonix in May 2019, Rocket League is an Unreal Engine game, and less than a year later Epic/Psyonix drops support two supported Unreal Engine platforms.

Is this isolated? Do I have any rational reason to sweat this as foreshadowing of Epic dropping those as UE4 platforms?

<comment><USER18> Rocket League is on UE3, so hopefully not. They probably just didn't want it to be patched for three platforms.

<comment><USER17> Ah! That's the bit of context I was missing. That makes a lot more sense, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Linux and macOS game development in a nutshell - spend $200K to make $10K, get 10x angry "support requests"

<comment><USER20> Target cross-platform technologies from the start.

Eliminate bugs, make releasing for PC and any console you want easy.

Linux shouldn't really be a special support case, it only becomes one when silly assumptions are made.

<comment><USER21> Have you actually tried to do this yourself? With anything? I feel like everyone in this thread is trying to back-seat drive without realizing the effort that is actually involved in supporting multiple platforms.

<comment><USER22> We're an embedded gaming system (casino) and I make sure we have a platform abstraction layer (2 c++ files per platform), and any project we build can be made for any platform (even Haiku). The amount of threading issues you discover makes this exercise absolutely worth it. The platform files haven't been touched for almost a decade, write once (a week) and use forever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Between these kinds of stories, companies abandoning robust and powerful Desktop applications for their mobile (toy-like in comparison) "apps", companies dropping support for less-popular browsers, os vendors abandoning or downplaying cross-platform APIs like OpenGL, and the rise of halfway-house solutions like Electron, we seem to be headed towards another Dark Ages for cross-platform software. Charitably, this could be just companies saving developer time at the expense of users. Uncharitably, it's explained by developer laziness and/or inability to learn cross platform development.

I remember how frustrating it was in the late 90s being a desktop non-Windows user or non-Netscape user. We seem to be rapidly heading back to those bad days. Yet there's no evil empire like Microsoft dominating the computing world and crushing cross-platform anymore like they did back then. It's just kind of happening and it's sad.

<comment><USER24> It wasn't long ago that there were ~zero games for Linux/Mac on Steam. Now I see Linux/Mac icons on at least a third of the AAA titles. And the most popular games in the world (Dota, LoL, CS:GO, Fortnite, etc) are playable on Mac and sometimes even Linux.

Seems pretty obvious that cross-plat is winning. Especially once you consider the most ubiquitous cross-plat vehicle of all: the browser. It's also the only platform with a built-in ad-blocker and development console, thus the most open and end-user-friendly.

<comment><USER25> It's true developers and so started supporting Linux and macOS more and more But considering Epic used to be a Linux supporter it's sad to see it get outright removed from RL

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Yet another grand failure of the consumer-hostile Games-as-a-Service model

</comment><comment><USER27> > As we continue to upgrade Rocket League with new technologies, it is no > longer viable for us to maintain support for the macOS and Linux

Any idea which specific technologies they are referring to?

<comment><USER28> Most likely stuff like DirectX 12, or third-party middleware without viable MacOS or Linux support.

The deprecation of OpenGL on MacOS is another barrier for that platform - <USER2> either have to buy GL-on-Metal middleware from someone or write a new Metal renderer. If the % of customers on Mac is small enough I can understand just opting to drop that platform.

Hard to say re:Linux, though. Maybe they get more customer service burden out of maintaining Linux support than they do revenue. It's common to hear that from indie game developers, though some developers say the opposite.

EDIT: Also just occurred to me that Valve's ongoing Proton efforts have resulted in Windows Rocket League working okay on Linux: [https://www.protondb.com/app/252950](https://www.protondb.com/app/252950) As a result the devs may have decided it's better to just leave Linux to third parties. Some of the reviews claim Windows-via-Proton is faster than the official Linux port!

<comment><USER3> It'll work, but anti-cheat software can easily mistake the emulated Linux environment to be a tampered Windows environment and flag your account.

It'll work for a while, probably, but there's no way to know how long and if/when you risk an account wide ban.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The only real changes they have been making is monetizing by adding cosmetics. As far as Linux goes this is a pure ROI play, nothing more.

The mac support may have been removed due to Apple not supporting 32bit apps (and the expected return verse cost of going 64bit)

</comment><comment><USER30> I have Proton running RL consistently at 250 FPS using the following start command: PROTON_USE_D9VK=1 %command% -nomovie -high -AllowBackgroundAudio

Without D9VK, specifically, the average FPS is around 145. Be sure to use the above, if you're playing with Proton!

<comment><USER8> But for how long? Given how aggressive this move was (one damn month), I give it less than a year before it's not available in Steam anymore.

<comment><USER31> They shouldn't be able to pull Rocket League from customers who already have it in their library. They couldn't do it with other games like Metro Exodus either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What excited me about RL is the pure sport of it and the insane amount fine grained mechanics one had to learn to get good. Are there any other games with those attributes that that can't be arbitrarily taken away from me?

<comment><USER32> Dota 2

* Plethora of mechanics and combinations possible, make it impossible for two games to ever be the same.

* Steep learning curve but very rewarding

I am fairly sure it will stay around at least for 3-4 more years (given the current popularity and player base).

<comment><USER8> Looks fun but I guess physics based mechanics is what I'm more interested in. And I'm pretty sure this could still potentially be taken away from me on a whim. No DRM and stand-alone servers are a prerequisite, I'm not falling for this shit ever again. This move by Epic was truly the last straw.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> caleb-allen Oof. I was excited to get my linux machine set up again as my entertainment center, with Rocket League as my main motivator.

Guess not

<comment><USER33> Gaming in Linux has basically undergone a revolution in the last 18 months. It's now possible to pretty much play any game under the sun using Proton (Valve's homebrew Wine + DXVK) or Lutris (Wine manager and installation script repository).

The only trouble is games with anti-cheat, which rules out a lot of online games including Fortnite, PUBG and others.

<comment><USER34> You do realise that Proton and similar technologies decrease the incentive for developers to port their game to Linux?

Why bother porting it when you can count on someone fixing it for you.

As for playing any game under the sun. No it doesn't. A lot of things fail and don't work quite right. Also a lot of mods don't work which is half the reason to play games on PC.

<comment><USER35> It's the other way around.

There would be little incentive to port games to Linux without an existing gamer pool which can buy them, and there would be no gamer pool without an initial range of games...

The only practical way to break that vicious circle was the emulation option. Linux gamers play on emulation, but appreciate native ports and form the (initial) buyer pool for Linux games.

So Proton and co are the only reason there's any viable Linux gaming at all. Without Proton, every Linux gamer would have had a Windows install and play with that alone.

<comment><USER34> > There would be little incentive to port games to Linux without an existing > gamer pool which can buy them, and there would be no gamer pool without an > initial range of games...

There isn't much of a gamer pool anyway. This may surprise you the number of people who like to play PC games and really care about Open Source I would wager isn't very many.

> So Proton and co are the only reason there's any viable Linux gaming at all. > Without Proton, every Linux gamer would have had a Windows install and play > with that alone.

Anyone I know who plays games and uses Linux Dual boots. Some people have spoken about some GPU pass-through nonsense with a VMWare which just seems like a faff.

It just easier to buy a drive, slap Windows on it and Steam and be done with it. Until it is easier and more reliable with my whole catalogue I will be sticking with Windows.

<comment><USER35> >There isn't much of a [Linux] gamer pool anyway. This may surprise you the number...

It doesn't surprise me at all. That number would have been zero without emulation like wine/Proton though.

> Anyone I know who plays games and uses Linux Dual boots.

As for myself, I don't play a lot, but a Linux version (native or emulated) plays a big role in deciding which games to buy when I do. It's not due to 'Open Source' reasons though.

Dual boot is too much of a mess for me, I have a separate Windows laptop which I barely use otherwise (it does have a few Windows-only games), it's a bit of an hassle too. I don't feel like booting it and discovering it needs to install 10000 updates. I have already had to reinstall Windows 10 once so I can run a game (the game didn't support the old Windows 10 build, and the in- place upgrade crashed). It's much easier when I can just take a break and run a game on the same Linux system I use regularly.

<comment><USER34> > Dual boot is too much of a mess for me, I have a separate Windows laptop > which I barely use otherwise (it does have a few Windows-only games), it's a > bit of an hassle too. I don't feel like booting it and discovering it needs > to install 10000 updates. I have already had to reinstall Windows 10 once so > I can run a game (the game didn't support the old Windows 10 build, and the > in-place upgrade crashed). It's much easier when I can just take a break and > run a game on the same Linux system I use regularly.

It is odd. I run Windows at work and the machine rarely gets rebooted. No problems what-so-ever. I run a Windows at home and in my Office (I do a lot of SQL SERVER and .NET dev), I rarely have crashes (once or twice a year). I work in a very large office with many other developers and the machines run fine for years on end.

Yet when someone is complaining about Windows on the internet and they like Linux it always has thousands of updates and they need to reinstall the whole OS to play one game. Odd how that comes about. I don't know quite how people manage it. Yet I use the same windows installation for half a decade with almost no problems. It almost sounds like it is operator error.

<comment><USER35> I run Windows at $WORK too, and it runs fine (there were minor issues which would probably have been worse on Linux). Also much of my work is with the MS stack, which is pretty fine too.

It's just I have little use for it at home, so I run and upgrade it rarely. It turns out upgrading from the nearly oldest Windows 10 build to the latest (at the time) crashed the upgrade process on my setup. This is hardly a regular process - I am sure 99% of people upgrade more regularly, and do not skip as many builds.

It's a cycle too, I guess. The less I use Windows the more upgrades the system accurres which makes me dread turning it on more....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Different platforms are better for different things. That's just a fact. This is why I use a desktop PC with windows 10 for PC gaming, Linux machines for my servers, and a Macbook Pro for programming work during the day.

<comment><USER25> Yeah but Windows isn't inherently better at gaming because it gives something the other platforms don't (DirectX12 can easily be replaced with Vulkan) It's a matter of the market choosing it's main Target and sticking to that

<comment><USER34> That isn't true. Windows does provide something that other platforms don't. The APIs and program compatibility are supported forever in Windows.

I can run the original Quake and DOOM on Windows 10 without any problems. A friend of mine like playing GTA 3, it didn't work properly with Windows 8.1. In an update this incompatibility (I forget the exact reason why) was fixed.

That just doesn't really happen with Linux.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> If you want to game on a Mac just fire up Bootcamp. Always blew me away how much better games ran on Windows vs. MacOS on the same hardware. Just night and day difference.

<comment><USER38> I did that for a while but ended up buying a gaming PC for about $1000 and talk about a night and day difference to my $2000 Macbook. 100x the catalogue of games and 5x the performance.

<comment><USER39> It's baffling that Apple puts $180 GPUs in $3000-$6000 computers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> given the popularity of WSL on Windows 10..i think we will see Windows becoming the best Linux platform there is.

A lot of gamers i know have switched to using WSL for development (unless they have political objections).

I think it will be more likely in the future that Linux gamers be asked to become WSL Gamers

In fact, WSL works so well (including Docker and Kubernetes stuff), that i have a strong suspicion that Microsoft sales staff have been leashed pretty deliberately for optics reasons.

<comment><USER41> WSL has no real hardware access and still runs on NTFS which is terribly slow. Windows developers will probably try to fix it somehow but it is not there yet

Another option is to run Windows on top of Linux. But it currently also has some drawbacks.

<comment><USER40> WSL2 (which im talking about ) is blazing fast. It runs a full linux kernel and not the WSL 1 NTFS emulation layer.

[https://medium.com/swlh/wsl-2-docker-edge-tech-preview- nativ...](https://medium.com/swlh/wsl-2-docker-edge-tech-preview-native-linux- containers-w-o-emulation-b41667e6dbef)

It has full Docker Edge support now and CUDA support is upcoming.

I'm genuinely impressed by WSL2

<comment><USER42> WSL2 is just a hyper-v container, which Docker for windows already used?

<comment><USER40> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwhMThePdIo&t=2818s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwhMThePdIo&t=2818s)

WinNT Kernel and Linux Kernel are running on top of Hypervisor platform side- by-side .... not one-in-the-other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Will those users be refunded?

<comment><USER44> I've just submitted a refund request, I'm not sure if it will be granted but I'd hope that others who do not run Windows will also consider making a refund request (unless offline play is your preference anyway)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> But they'll support Windows 7 a product approaching EOL in a couple of weeks.

</comment><comment><USER46> Why can't they use a multiplatform GUI toolkit like Qt, and compile for all platforms?

<comment><USER47> Qt doesn't cut it; it's designed for something completely different: windowed GUIs, not (3D) games. It's the same reason why you wouldn't make a game using WinForms. Basically, games use a different architecture than GUIs.

<comment><USER48> SDL w/OpenGL more or less covers the big three though

<comment><USER49> SDL probably isn't performant enough for AAA titles.

<comment><USER48> Uninformed nonsense, SDL gives you the graphics context and you directly use native calls. It even supports Vulkan these days.

<comment><USER49> Hence the probably part of my comment. I wasn't speaking as an SDL authority.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Feedback Lite – Customer feedback tab and reporting dashboard - <AUTHOR> http://www.feedbacklite.com

<comment><USER2> The Feedback tab on the side of the page looks a lot like it says "Facebook".

Why is pricing based on impressions? Wouldn't it make sense for it to be based on actual feedback collected?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi amarcus, an interesting point on the pricing.

We felt that pricing based on data usage was a more effective means of managing cost than amount of feedback, but we will definitely review this internally. Thank you.</comment></comment>


Who Really Found the Higgs Boson - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/who-really-found-the-higgs-boson-rd <comment><USER2> Does this mean Nobel Prizes in science might soon be effectively redundant? Seems already a little farcical, but nobody blinks and eyelid at a movie star being given credit/prizes for an entire movie because they happen to be the front [wo]man.

PS - Before someone argues with the movie example, let me ask you this: When was the last time a movie star got e.g. an Oscar while staring in a bad movie? If it is really for acting alone, then someone should be able to get it by being in a really bad piece of shit but absolutely killing it for their part. But that never happens, it is always for blockbusters that otherwise do really well (e.g. great direction, writing, lighting, etc).

<comment><USER3> >it is always for AAA blockbusters

You had me up till this part, what is your definition of a AAA blockbuster movie?

<comment><USER2> I've removed the term "AAA" since it both doesn't really mean anything and is hard to quantify.

I've just left it as "blockbusters" which has a more concrete definition: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_\(entertainment\))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _" The original founders infused a collaborative ethic into every person that joined by eschewing personal credit, talking through conflicts face to face, and discussing almost everything in open meetings. But that ethic is codified nowhere; there is no written code of conduct. And yet it is embraced, almost religiously, by everyone that I spoke with."_

Abstracting one possible lesson beyond the specific context -- to me this is an example of an organization where they (successfully) maintain an emphasis on one of their core values by building their culture and habitat around it, rather than typical carrot-and-stick methods. That they've managed this with people spread over multiple countries and backgrounds is a tremendous achievement!

 _" [...] ATLAS management led with little or no formal authority. Most people in the collaboration work directly "for" someone who is in no way related to their home institute, which actually writes their paycheck. For example, during the construction phase, the project leader of the ATLAS pixel detector, one of its most data-intensive components, worked for a U.S. laboratory in California. His direct subordinate, the project engineer, worked for an institute in Italy. Even though he was managing a critical role in the production process, the project leader had no power to promote, discipline, or even formally review the project engineer's performance. His only recourse was discussion, negotiation, and compromise. ATLAS members are more likely to feel that they work with someone, rather than for them."_

</comment><comment><USER5> I had a chance to visit CERN recently - they aren't kidding about the thousands of names on the paper, the scale of the project is enormous, and the ATLAS detector up close is like a space ship engine from a scifi movie. The main CERN campus feels very much Silicon Valley, only with older buildings. (The visitor information centres are neat and interesting too!)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is a fascinating article. I wonder to what, if any, degree this methodology stifles innovation because innovators aren't rewarded. It seems from the article that ATLAS did not think the Nobel Prize was awarded properly to the correct people...would that affect their research in the future?

<comment><USER7> No, the motivation is increased chances for postdocs or lecture positions. Possibly a politician in a funding agency got dissapointed...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I like how the praise the management style without discussing the massive cost overruns the project has incurred.

<comment><USER5> Can you briefly discuss some of the projects that built a 27 km tunnel, packed it full of cutting-edge technology, and didn't incur a cost overrun?

<comment><USER8> I'm sure I could point you to a Tokyo subway project that didn't have a cost overrun.

<comment><USER5> Those don't exactly have supercooled superconducting magnets or elemental particle detectors kind of cutting-edge technology though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Most great inventors in history (an estimated 90 percent) are ripped off and never received credit and monetary compensation for their genius and hard work: [http://cbpowerandindustrial.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/when- ha...](http://cbpowerandindustrial.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/when-hard-work- didnt-pay-off/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Why u no CMS internet? Oh u ATLAS</comment>


Ask HN: Which are the remote-friendly places to work nowadays? - <AUTHOR>

I've always worked remote for several companies as a senior dev but I've lost track on the cool-companies-to-work-being-remote. Any good recommendations? I want to do some fun stuff during 2015. <comment><USER2> I can't tell you which companies are "cool", but I can tell you which ones will not entertain(or do not understand or are generally shitty to work at) remote.

Also, there is a flawed understanding by some US companies where they classify "remote" as anywhere near their offices/city/state/USA (apparently the world is too big).

Avoid:

\- Startups: Especially ones in tech-zones like Silicon Valley, NY, London, etc.

\- Massive companies: Especially ones that are only starting to understand what remote-working is. There are exceptions, but generally, the AmaMicroOracIBMs of the world invest in buildings/offices and measure the lifetimes of those assets over decades

\- Hack shops: Small companies that are involved in the Joomla/WordPress sphere. Generally, it's best to avoid these shops under all circumstances, as they are focused on the commodity side of development

That leaves you with a decent-enough spectrum.

</comment><comment><USER3> Anywhere, really. I think with the exception of Yahoo, most tech companies today will at least entertain the conversation. Of course it depends on what you're doing. It's an easier sell for a dev than a pm, for example. And much easier sell for a software person than a hardware person.

I'd say line up a job and then drop the telecommuting bomb during your salary negotiation. Always worth a shot.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't know about "cool" but here are some companies that employ remote coders:

[http://www.warplife.com/jobs/computer/telecommute/](http://www.warplife.com/jobs/computer/telecommute/)

I'll have lots more soon - I have identified the companies, but do not yet have complete information.

<comment><USER5> Why does God in your footer not have the 'o'?

<comment><USER4> It is out of respect.

I'm not Jewish myself, however among Jewish people, it is considered disrespectful to every destroy a document that has "G-d" spelled correctly. So they write "G-d" unless they intend to keep the document around forever, such as old copies of Torah.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Buffer's entire team is remote, and they write a lot about their approach [https://open.bufferapp.com/distributed-team- benefits/](https://open.bufferapp.com/distributed-team-benefits/)

</comment><comment><USER7> [https://weworkremotely.com/](https://weworkremotely.com/) lists a couple of companies

<comment><USER8> Those companies are mainly looking for "language X developers". I understand how that is friendly to people who have recent experience directly with " language X," but like so many other companies it artificially restricts the candidate pool. That to me isn't generally friendly to workers, remote or otherwise.</comment></comment>


Apple officially discontinues Thunderbolt Display - <AUTHOR> http://9to5mac.com/2016/06/23/apple-discontinues-thunderbolt-display/ <comment><USER2> Does this mean they're abandoning the thunderbolt port all together? As in, will stop making laptops/comps with thunderbolt? Or just that specific display?

<comment><USER3> _Earlier this year, we reported that Apple was planning a new Thunderbolt Display with a built-in GPU and today the company has taken the first step towards making that a reality. According to TechCrunch, Apple has announced that it is officially discontinuing the Thunderbolt Display._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Consumers are best to stick to commodity devices.

</comment><comment><USER5> About time!</comment>


An outdated idea about solar panels has been slowing advancement: study - <AUTHOR> https://www.inverse.com/article/59404-solar-panel-replacement <comment><USER2> Alternative title: "Why don't we make solar panels last 10-15 years instead of 20-25?"

How about no. The technology improves in very small increments, there's no need to replace panels for a 3-5% gain. This smells of wanting programmed obsolescence because the current growth rate will stabilize in the future.

</comment><comment><USER3> _In recent years, the price of solar panel technology has been driven down, but the cost of labor and installation hasn't. As the framework technologies go out of date within a 25-year period, individuals and companies are facing larger costs when they are required replace both the framework system and the panels themselves every 25-30 years in order to install entirely new systems.

In contrast, the authors write that replacing panels more often with newer and more advanced models would allow cross-compatibility between the panels and the system, allowing the framework itself to remain the same while new panels are popped on and off._

So even though the installation and replacement labor is what's expensive, they assume that some kind of cross compatibility will appear, and it will be cheaper? Seems like quite a leap.

</comment><comment><USER4> The cost of installation is why I don't have solar. While I agree 25 year life is a limitation on adopting better panel technology, it's hard to justify the installation costs at shorter intervals.

</comment><comment><USER5> Terrible mobile site.

</comment><comment><USER6> In the HN hive mind, this makes solar even more deadly. With installers falling off of roofs at a faster interval, the death rate per gigawatt will grow.</comment>


Compete in Startup March Madness 2011 - <AUTHOR> http://seatgeek.com/blog/ncaa-basketball/startup-march-madness-2011 We're excited for March Madness here at SeatGeek and thought it would be fun to put together a huge bracket tournament where startups could compete against each other. Please, only one bracket per startup. Thanks! <comment><USER2> I don't get it. I have read the description and have no idea what the hell this is.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all the interest!

To make sure this goes smoothly and we can verify you are with the startup you're representing, please send an email from your company's domain to: bracket [at] seatgeek [dot] com once you're all set up. Thanks!

<comment><USER2> Let's see if the parent comment gets the same 9 upvotes as the submission itself.

<comment><USER3> This link might clear things up for you: <http://bit.ly/ecPfxv></comment></comment></comment>


Check Availability of Social Usernames, Domain Names and Trademarks. - <AUTHOR> http://www.ud.com/ <comment><USER2> I guess with a two letter domain name, they're probably not a fly-by-night scammer, but this would sure be a great way to get a list of names to grab for ransom.

<comment><USER3> "United Domains provides over ten years of expertise in domain registration, offering over 170 top-level domains worldwide. As a leading domain registrar in Europe, we support over 1.2 million domain names from more than 200,000 customers, including Lufthansa, Siemens, and Vodafone."

<http://www.ud.com/contact>

<comment><USER4> I don't feel all that convinced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This does not appear to include US trademark information. That seems pretty important to me.

</comment><comment><USER6> How do we know that the site won't pore through the submitted names and domain squat?

(EDIT NOTE: I had a moment of self doubt and looked up "pore" vs. "pour." <http://www.dailywritingtips.com/poring-over-pore-and-pour/>)

<comment><USER3> See my comment above</comment></comment>


I have been defeated, java sucks - <AUTHOR>

it's not that java itself is terrible, it's what happens to it, when placed inside a corporate env. it gets hacked together, becomes old and outdated, and it makes you hate doing what you love to do. that's what sucks about java. now where do i go? <comment><USER2> I'm over 50. I've been to the zoo to see the animals. Started with Fortran, seen different technolgies come and go, until recently I liked what I did.

Speaking with about 1 year of java, now I know how 9 women can produce a baby in one month. Now I know how a herd of turtles (galapagos tortoise variety) can cross the desert.

The first Fortran compiler was released around 1954. I started 20 years later. Java is proof positive that we have accomplished very little in the way of compiler development in 55 years. Sure, lots of clever languages have been created, but none have made it to the mainstream. Must be the clever marketing. Java has the least semantic density (lines of code to accomplish a given task) of any of the mainstream langauges - more time is spent navigating with some of the incredibly good tools.

If Java is the only language you know, do yourself a favour and learn something else. Not C#, but Perl, Haskell, J, anything. Have a basis for comparison.

I'm going back to fixing bicycles.

</comment><comment><USER3> figure out what you'd rather be doing, and work towards that.

but, you should probably be doing this at all times, anyway. once you saw you fell out of love with java, figure out what you want to aim for next.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think I know what you mean. In corporate environments sometimes the "architects" overdesign their solutions and it is no fun. However, is not really Java. Java can be fun as I rediscovered recently working with GWT. But I had the luxury to make an architecture light enough for my taste.

<comment><USER5> Me too. I find that a quite cool language is hidden in Java. It is just that everyone is trying their best to make programs as annoying and soul sucking as possible with it. Unit testing and a dependency-injection framework like google guice or similar makes java much more fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> 1\. Java itself _is_ terrible. It doesn't have lambdas. Enough said.

2\. _Everything_ gets hacked together and becomes old and outdated.

<comment><USER7> The presence or absence of anonymous functions is the deciding factor in terribleness now? I guess that makes PHP non-terrible, right?

(and yes, I'm being sarcastic)

<comment><USER6> The presence is meaningless; the absence is a deciding factor in terribleness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I studied Java at College. I knew C, Pascal and some C++. I remember VERY CLEARLY hating it. But it was long ago, and I had long forgotten why, so I recently (like 2 weeks ago) decided to give Java another try. And I remember now why.

When you have fscanf, or cin, doing a new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader()) just to read a key from console seems pretty stupid. I know Java has System.In.Read, but why doesn't it have System.In.Readln? (forgive me if it does, but the course I took specifically said it doesn't)

Also, why the redundante names for enum constants? What was the guy thinking when he designed swing? A method that returns you a MessageBox object instead of simply a MessageBox class? I'm sorry about the rant, but Java style feel ackward after coding for a couple years in C#.

</comment><comment><USER9> You must realize that in a corporate env. (where software is not the core product), you are simply a maintainer of highly convoluted systems. You aren't a maker anymore, even though you occasionally create code. If you can embrace this, as I have recently, it will save your life.

<comment><USER5> I wonder if there is any language that a corporate environment could not make to suck.

<comment><USER9> Java was ruined for me in college. I hated it.

I then decided to conquer my hatred of it when I started my first job. I had the help of an interesting project wherein I had LOTS of freedom to learn and make stuff in a lab without the fetters of enterprise requirements... I began to love it.

Fast forward 2 years and I've changed jobs. I feel like I can hack my way out of any nasty problem. Java is more unweildy in this enterprise environment because we are leveraging several enterprisey frameworks, but we can make bigger strides. The framework is doing a lot for us. I am still making stuff. This job is a pressure-cooker, but I'm feeling very fulfilled and I'm advancing.

Fast forward 2 years and I've quit the pressure cooker to be a Rails contractor (actually, easier), I've even got a startup going. Ruby is powerful, and I tell everyone they should be using RoR instead of Java. I laugh at people who don't understand what they're missing.

Fast forward 2 years and I am back in a corporation. Using Java very sparingly to maintain lots of integrated systems. The problems are nasty, there is no feeling of 'making' anything. I resign myself to being the best maintainer I can be. I keep my sanity with side projects. It's easiest to use Python on App Engine, because I don't have to be a sys admin.

The more interesting problems you are solving the better the language you are using seems to be. I would even go so far as to say that if you find someone who loves a particular language, it's because they are using it to solve interesting problems.

<comment><USER5> I think you are on to something. Maybe the ability to code with flow is also a major factor to liking a language and the task it is used for. To sit in an uninterrupted "Aha! I fix!"-loop with the feeling that there is progress and one get kick out of it continuously.

When doing maintenance on patchy code, working with a flub-language, or having a edit-compile-debug cycle that is annoying, one is more likely to be in a "Uh! Wtf!"-loop.

Now... how can one turn these theories around to something useful that one can apply to our day-maintenance-programming-job to make them fun and tolerably? Because they do pay well, and there is typically much to learn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Oh man. You're hitting human stupidity. Not easy to escape that. I used to be an OpenVMS sysadmin. Now I administer enterprise middleware -- ESBs. Just like getting booted from Eden.

</comment><comment><USER11> That convolution situation holds about all programming languages in corporate environments. This situation is even worse in Java though, because it lacks good tool support (yes sure eclipse rocks...) and it is overwhelmed by millions of libraries that do the same thing (but none of them does what you want:D).

</comment><comment><USER7> So I've only looked in passing at Scala, but I've certainly heard first-hand from several people who are forced to code Java on a daily basis that they have managed to use Scala for bits of their system.

They all claim that their lives got better. Might be worth looking into.

</comment><comment><USER12> Spring framework still keeps me addicted to java. It's excellent.

</comment><comment><USER13> SCALA, SCALA and then SCALA.

</comment><comment><USER14> JRuby. :)

<<dons gasoline boots and flamesuit>>

<comment><USER15> Why the flame protection? I hear JRuby is pretty nice.

<comment><USER14> It is. But there are a lot of Ruby haters around, it seems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> For desktop try Qt, C# For web try Python, RoR

<comment><USER8> I never heard of Qt. What's good about it?

<comment><USER17> Qt is a really nice cross-platform gui lib, some consider it to be one of the best examples of how to write an API.

Its written in C++, but has bindings for other languages. It is very mature and robust, has lots of nice tools, and recently was purchased by Nokia, who actively support development.

It is also the platform on which KDE is built.

I've played around with it, the developers seem like very capable people, and the capabilities of the library seem top-notch, but I haven't done any non-web development for a while so I haven't had a chance to really exercise it and see how I like the workflow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Lisp!</comment>


Ask HN: Where to find expired domains? (startup domain search) - <AUTHOR>

I am looking for domains for a new startup and wanted to see if I could find any potential expired gems.
I tired GoDaddy's auction list and it was rather weak.
Do you know of any sites that aid in that type of search? (or any other good domain sites) Thank for the help! <comment><USER2> Why limit yourself to expired ones ?

I've bought some excellent domains off ebay, another option is monikers domain auction.

Another thing you could do is to simply approach the owners of a bunch of domains that are parked and that you'd like and ask them if they'll sell it with a reasonably low bid (say 60% of what you are willing to pay), then see if you get traction.

Last option, and probably the best, is to come up with a good name that is still free, it is definitely possible.

You just have to be a bit tenacious and creative :)

</comment><comment><USER3> If it must be expired domains, try none other than <http://www.expireddomains.com></comment>


A Proof That Some Spaces Can't Be Cut - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150113-a-proof-that-some-spaces-cant-be-cut/

<comment><USER2> Worth noting here that (checking Wikipedia) "triangulation" here is being used in a weaker sense than the usual piecewise-linear triangulation. (Apparently, being homeomorphic to a simplicial complex doesn't mean admitting a PL structure! Not news to any topologists, I guess, but news to me.) If we restrict to that narrower notion of triangulation, it was already known how to build high-dimensional manifolds with no triangulation.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems that, though the posted article is new, the research in question is actually a couple of years old -- [http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2354](http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2354)</comment>


Rights in the workplace - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123024596 It's about time ... <comment><USER2> People have no idea how disruptive to the workplace it would be to give employees a roving right to sue for any termination that could not be justified as being "for cause" (which is apparently what the author of this piece is pushing for).

The issue is not so much a formalistic legal issue as it is a _people_ issue. While most people are good and decent, a minority are not - they will cause trouble for the company, for co-workers, for customers, etc. They are just bad hires who must be let go and there will inevitably be some significant number of these involved in any range of hires.

In at-will employment situations, the remedy for an employer for a bad hire is simple. You let them go. No questions asked. No legal difficulties. Even if the employee falls within a "protected category," it is still easy early on to make a judgment and act on it without adverse consequences.

If the law were to require, as a default (and as suggested in this piece), that an employer have "cause" to do such routine firings, then every employment decision of this type would be the potential subject of a lawsuit unless an employer is prepared to show "cause" through some documented evidence. Such an environment only empowers lawyers who will come in and second-guess the entrepreneurs to no end, all the while suing them for potentially significant damages for an almost infinite number of reasons ("he didn't like my bumper sticker," "he didn't like my perfume," or "my looks" or who knows what). Yes, employers can still act to get rid of bad employees. But the cost of doing this would go up substantially.

What is in danger here is private associational rights. Today, of course, everyone agrees that such rights are not absolute. If an employer discriminates against employees based on some illegitimate criterion (race, color, creed, etc.), all would concur that this is not something that should be protected by an absolute concept of private associational rights. Beyond the illegitimate bases, however, the right to associate with those you like, and not to associate with others you don't like, is such an integral part of small business life that we don't even think of it consciously in the workforce. If this rule is undercut, then all private workplace settings will become like union shops, or like government settings, where it becomes basically a terrifying event to plan for and implement the discharge of an employee.

Is it unfair for an employee to be fired for a bumper sticker? Yes. Do we want the law second-guessing and lawyers armed to sue over every such employer decision? Absolutely not. Why? Because any firing, for any reason, can potentially then be second-guessed and made the subject of a lawsuit and this would change the whole dynamic of the workplace, certainly for small businesses.

Small businesses start and fail all the time and people come and go from them even more so. Does anyone really want lawyers to become an integral part of the routine dynamics of hiring and firing? Or to have to keep elaborate paper trails on each employee because every person hired might be a future lawsuit in the making? I would hope that budding entrepreneurs, of all people, would see the significant shortcomings with such an approach.

<comment><USER3> It seems, though, that small businesses aren't the employers who would be targeted by this law—every story I've ever heard about a wrongful firing has been regarding a large corporation. In such places, there is no single face for the employee to appeal to within the company, and thus no _people_ that are able to fix the "people issue"—this is the exact situation where outside intervention would be helpful.

If the law could distinguish small from large businesses, why not set this law to only affect the large ones?

<comment><USER2> While I used the impact on small business to most starkly bring out the impact of such a law, the impact on larger businesses would be no less radical. The "people issue" is just as acute in large businesses as it is in small. And the effect of mandating cause-only terminations in large businesses would be to create something resembling a union-like environment in which "guarantees" tend to replace incentives, and this is something that employees themselves have consistently rejected when they vote down things such as unions in the private sector.

In addition, the pattern is clear in this area: a labor law of this type applies "only" to large companies when it is enacted. Within a few years, it is either made universal or is applied by extension of the law to smaller and smaller enterprises. Thus, once it is acknowledged in principle that government-mandated "guarantees" trump private associational rights, it would only be a matter of time before such guarantees applied far more pervasively, if not universally, in the workplace.

Thus, in my view, the issue needs to be addressed as a matter of principle and not as a function of the size of the employer. People can disagree but, if they accept this for large companies as a matter of pragmatism, they will (in my view) find it applying to the small businesses of the not too distant future as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Old news, at best; or, misleading hype, at worst.

Corporations are not extensions of the Public Square. It is perfectly reasonable to require certain behavior as part of an employment agreement. If I ran a hamburger stand, I would fire any employee who gave political commentary or rant while serving hamburgers. And, if one chooses to air grievances against one's employer in the Public Square (i.e. on the Internet, or in newspapers), it is perfectly understandable that the employer would dismiss the employee.

To say "the Constitution does not apply to corporations" is in one way simply false: all legal entities (people, corporations, government) are required to adhere to the rule of law -- law founded on the Constitution.

But the bigger point is: the Constitution's purpose is not to protect individuals from corporations -- it's to protect us from _Government_.

<comment><USER5> "But the bigger point is: the Constitution's purpose is not to protect individuals from corporations -- it's to protect us from _Government_."

Although technically correct, I think the insinuation of your phrasing is misleading.

The Constitution does 2 things:

a) establish the federal govt

b) delegate certain, limited powers.

Does the constitution not provide the _platform_ for how citizens' _natural rights_ are protected (Article 3)?

<comment><USER4> Yes, rights with respect to Government. Article III addresses the power of the courts.

<comment><USER5> Isn't the ultimate purpose to protect (the natural rights) of citizens, period?

I.e. protect citizens against the mob (government), other individuals, and other legal entities?

If not, then why would the constitution delegate certain _powers_ to the Federal Government?

<comment><USER4> I think the Constitution defines, beyond the definitions of the core institutions of power, the bounds of power over its citizens.

Laws, passed by Congress, define the rights of individuals with respect to each other, employers, etc...as well as the government.

I'm not claiming large authority here -- just recalling civics and government as I was taught.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've never understood the mindset of labor laws. Employment is a two way agreement - if either party is unhappy at any time, for any reason, they should be able to terminate the agreement. In most cases the employee and employer share risk equally if the other one doesn't work out - and if they don't share risk equally they can always work out their own agreement (like options vesting over time) in a private agreement - no reason to get government involved in that.

Just like if you are upset with a local restaurant you can choose to stop going, and if they are upset with you they can refuse you service.

What am I missing about labor laws?

<comment><USER7> The key difference between the employment relationship and other mutually agreed contracts is simple: high switching costs that are mostly asymmetrical. Losing your job is extremely disruptive to an work, much more so than losing an employee is to a corporation[1]. Because of this, the labor market is in a constant monospony situation.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony>

This is unlike, say, the market for going out to eat at a restaurant. There are very low switching costs for customers with regards to restaurants (and vice versa), so the market is efficient.

[1] Of course in some situations the opposite applies: highly skilled workers are very costly for a corporation to replace and generally have no trouble finding other work. So their bargaining position is excellent and they tend to get market wages. For example, programmers.

<comment><USER8> But if your job puts you in the Monopsony position, wouldn't it be fair to say you picked the wrong job? It might make more sense to try to pick another job that is in higher demand?

I know switching isn't easy - but nobody ever said that life is easy. Why is it the corporations problem if people make the wrong career choices in their lives?

<comment><USER3> Corporations can artificially create a monopsony, just like they can artificially create a monopoly. The music industry, for example, relies on making its talent pool—who are in high demand by the _customers_ —feel like they are in lower demand compared to the record labels themselves, so the industry will be in a better bargaining position.

Sure, once the market is as efficient as it can be, if there's still a monopsony, that's tough for the employee. But if the monopsony can be annihilated without affecting its constituent employers and employees, all the better for all involved.

<comment><USER8> How can they artificially create a monopsony? By talking secretly to each other? It seems to me that if there is a real need, then they would have a hard time doing that.

Take software developers - if it is still true that they are still in high demand. How would corporations go about creating a Monopsony for software developers? Stop producing software? But if software is in high demand, how would they be able to prevent other companies starting up that develop software?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From the article:

 _Lynne Gobbell was fired because her boss didn't like the bumper sticker on her car.

During the 2004 presidential election, Gobbell put a "Kerry for President" sticker on her bumper. When her boss saw it, he said Gobbell could "either work for John Kerry or work for me." Gobbell refused to take the sticker off her car and was immediately fired._

That's pretty hard to believe - unless Ms. Gobbel was working for Bush. Can anyone here speak to the validity of some of the author's claims? It sounds like - with the above example at the very least - wrongful termination lawsuits would punish such firing practices.

<comment><USER10> In most of the US, "wrongful termination" is an urban legend. In over 40 states, employment is "at-will". You can be fired for any reason or no reason.

The exception is for people working under a contract that explicitly spells out remedies for termination without cause. Almost nobody has a contract like this.

<comment><USER11> > The exception is for people working under a contract that explicitly spells > out remedies for termination without cause. Almost nobody has a contract > like this.

You can negotiate for it or look for a job with it if it's important to you. A secondary effect of making it harder to let personnel go is that it makes companies more cautious when hiring. I'm thinking of situations you get in places like France, where a company isn't sure if they'll need the extra personnel in a while, so they rely on temp workers or go understaffed so as not to risk having problems letting people go later.

Tangential: I think people feeling more comfortable freelancing and doing entrepreneurship and transitioning in and out of salaried jobs and freelancing and building companies will greatly reduce employee/employer tensions. Lots of people tend to think of it as "their job" as in their property and a huge part of their identity, which I think is bad for their personal and economic growth.</comment></comment></comment>