Jeff Bezos' email to Amazonians - <AUTHOR> Dear Amazonians,
If you haven't already, I encourage you to give this (very long) New York Times article a careful read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html
I also encourage you to read this very different take by a current Amazonian:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/amazonians-response-inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-nick-ciubotariu
Here's why I'm writing you. The NYT article prominently features anecdotes describing shockingly callous management practices, including people being treated without empathy while enduring family tragedies and serious health problems. The article doesn't describe the Amazon I know or the caring Amazonians I work with every day. But if you know of any stories like those reported, I want you to escalate to HR. You can also email me directly at [edited]@amazon.com. Even if it's rare or isolated, our tolerance for any such lack of empathy needs to be zero.
The article goes further than reporting isolated anecdotes. It claims that our intentional approach is to create a soulless, dystopian workplace where no fun is had and no laughter heard. Again, I don't recognize this Amazon and I very much hope you don't, either. More broadly, I don't think any company adopting the approach portrayed could survive, much less thrive, in today's highly competitive tech hiring market. The people we hire here are the best of the best. You are recruited every day by other world-class companies, and you can work anywhere you want.
I strongly believe that anyone working in a company that really is like the one described in the NYT would be crazy to stay. I know I would leave such a company.
But hopefully, you don't recognize the company described. Hopefully, you're having fun working with a bunch of brilliant teammates, helping invent the future, and laughing along the way.
Thank you,
Jeff <comment><USER2> Full email content previously here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10071600](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10071600)

Also note that the redacted email is not anything special. It's just jeff@, making it a highly dangerous proposition for amazon employes to attempt to send anything there.

</comment><comment><USER3> Everyone should read Steve Yegge's classic rant about Amazon (vs Google/Facebook)[1], in particular his description of Bezos:

"We're talking about a guy who in all seriousness has said on many public occasions that people should be paying him to work at Amazon. He hands out little yellow stickies with his name on them, reminding people "who runs the company" when they disagree with him. The guy is a regular... well, Steve Jobs, I guess. Except without the fashion or design sense. Bezos is super smart; don't get me wrong. He just makes ordinary control freaks look like stoned hippies."

1\. [https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX](https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX)

<comment><USER4> Every time I read it I'm confused about the first sentence... Does he mean everyone?

<comment><USER3> I interpret it as "employees are told they [employees] should be paying him [Bezos] for the privilege of being able to work at Amazon, rather than being paid a salary by Amazon".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it's kind of telling that the author of the pro-Amazon blog piece was contacted by "someone internal" (probably his boss or boss's boss) and asked if he had cleared the piece with PR and if he had read the company's social media policy (in my big company experience, that kind of contact is never a good thing).

Presumably he'll be fine now since Bezos is citing his writing, but I can't help but wonder what the "someone internal" would have done otherwise...probably issued some kind of warning about social media.

<comment><USER6> Yeah it is very telling. Its pretty clear they have a very strong "You must toe the party line in public" policy and that is never a good sign.

<comment><USER7> True enough, though that's hardly unique to Amazon either. Apple is likewise famous for that.

Really, I'm seeing a bunch of grousing here on HN that doesn't seem to support the NYT allegations at all, which are much more serious.

<comment><USER6> Yes but I've never worked for such a company and it seems to be mostly "big names" that, frankly, I wouldn't want to work for anyway.

So to me its still "odd".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Even if it's rare or isolated, our tolerance for any such lack of empathy needs to be zero," Mr. Bezos said in an email circulated to all the retailer's employees.

My note: Zero tolerance policies without recourse for correction are a perfect example of the Amazon inhumanity. Straight from the mouth of the leader. There's your culture problem right there.

</comment><comment><USER9> "doesn't describe the Amazon I know " \- I've heard that type of excuse used time and time again by higher ups who are actually just shedding responsibility for the culture they've cultivated. It adds insult to injury.

<comment> _-__--- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

<comment><USER10> A "no true Scotsman" fallacy would be a response like "the people acting this way aren't true to the Amazon spirit".

Instead, the response is "I don't see that happening at Amazon". That's a direct refutation of what's being claimed. Whether you believe it or not is a separate story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Amazon has built itself a reputation for being a meat grinder, where bright- eyed employees go to be burned out, only to be replaced by another. Even their interview process reflects this sad state of affairs.

That reputation wasn't built overnight, and it won't change overnight, despite what one out-of-touch billionaire says.

<comment><USER12> Speaking of their interview process, I am occasionally contacted by Amazon recruiters. I always ask them to explain negative reports of their work culture from various sources. I include links. Now I can use a NY Times article!

The recruiter response is, invariably, that the article that I read did not really say what it said, or that the things that I thought were bad are actually good. None of my questions about workplace specifics ever get answered. One of these is always "Do you expect salaried employees to work more than 40 hours per week?"

Seems like that would be an easy one to answer, right? Just say either "no", or "yes" and a specific number. They have never answered directly; it has been equivocating all the way.

So I'm not surprised at all that Bezos would simply deny what is actually happening on his watch, as reported by current and former employees, far below the C-level ranks. As they say, the first obstacle to fixing your problem is admitting you have one.

</comment></comment><comment> norea-armozel I like the idea of getting employees to 'dream big' but pushing their families and personal time to the side or outright eliminating it is a huge problem with companies like Amazon (imo they're not an isolated company as I've heard similar stories from friends who have worked in SV). It just doesn't seem to me that productivity for its own sake is a dangerous precedent since it doesn't pay back to the employees what's lost (time with one's children, spouse, and friends).

Programming is not anything like working on a factory line. On a factory line you fill one tiny task of assembly and/or inspection within an allotted time frame and production quota. Programming it's a matter of analysis even on the most mundane task of bug fixing. Analysis takes a variable amount of _time_ which sometimes over shoots estimates since a problem or a desired feature per business requirements can be found to be novel to the existing codebase. Or sometimes we're lucky as programmers and it's as easy as expanding on a tiny sliver of existing business logic but that isn't a guarantee by any stretch of the imagination.

</comment><comment><USER13> HN discussion on the original NYT article: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10065243](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10065243)

Earlier response by Tim Bray (who works at Amazon): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10070115](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10070115)

</comment><comment><USER14> > I want you to escalate to HR

(to determine if we can safely fire you)

<comment><USER15> HR works for the company not you. You'd be crazy to escalate anything that could get you fired or demoted to HR.

If you do want to leave, find a job somewhere else, give notice to leave, then at the leaving interview say only nice things, smile, nod, so you don't get screwed on the recommendation call. Then leave.

Once again, HR is not your friend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> From the pro-Amazon blog:

 _" because the NYT article is [...] designed to make past data reflect current reality at a company that has done quite a bit to change its ways "_

So uhm, "ok we were bad but now we are better, honest!"...

</comment><comment><USER17> Words are cheap. (Unless priced by the agency model on kindle).

</comment><comment><USER18> Some parts are very telling (in order):

1\. There is no example in the email of nice act(s) that he is personally aware. Just like politicians do, he should have put: "This doesn't describe the Amazon that gave Mr. X two-months paid leave to deal with his wife cancer or when Susan had ...".

2\. Threatening tone: If you know of anything escalate to HR or email me. That is some comfort. Dear billionaire: The NYT article reflects 100% of my experience at Amazon. Please help. Best, Insignificant Analyst

3\. "... our tolerance ... needs to be zero". Needs to be??? Are we at 20% tolerance level? Why it isn't zero already?

4\. "...I don't recognize this Amazon and I very much hope you don't either". Hope??? Are you kidding? Should be: I'm SURE you don't either".

5\. "...I don't think any company ...could survive...thrive...in today's highly competitive tech market". Translation: Our stock price tells me we are on the right track so FU NYT.

6\. "People we hire here are the best of the best". Err... if you go to a random coffee shop in SF and ask the first 100 people in the door where the best of the best work I bet Amazon would probably account for <3% of the answers.

7\. "You are recruited everyday ... you can work anywhere you want." Translation: employment here as at will. If you don't like it there is plenty other places for you to work. So don't even bother sending me that email to me or escalating this to HR. Just leave.

8\. "I know I would leave such company." Finished too early the sentence he should have continued: "leave such company, but I can't because IT IS MY COMPANY. When you get your own company and become a billionaire like me you will understand. In the mean time just leave so I can hire another guy just like you.

9\. Again, Jeff is full of hope. Should be: I'm sure the Amazon described in the NYT article doesn't exist. We are a fun place to work..."

10\. Thank you!!!! Really? The NYT picks you to pieces and you end the email to "rally your troops" with Thank you? No call action, no initiative, no passion, no "let's prove them wrong"???

</comment><comment><USER19> > So true. There is certainly skill involved, one of them is almost certainly > the ability and willingness to exploit your fellow human beings. I'm > completely lacking in that skill so, woe is me, I will never make a billion. > . .

If you want to pretend you're the noble righteous fake victim of other's exploitations, and if you want to pretend that people who are really successful are "evil" and their success is somehow fake as it's founded on exploiting people, you're just suckling to the disempowering lie that so many people delude themselves with : instead of taking responsibility for your success, and believing, correctly, that it is about the choices you make, you look at the successful, choose jealously over inspiration, and instead of creating improvements to better your situation, you delude yourself with fabrications to diminish their success and make you feel better, closing the perceived gap between you lack of success and their success, not by taking real action that could create results for you, but by believing these lies for the fake pay off of pretending others are "wrong" and you are "right".

It's sad you fell back onto this fake victim delusion, instead of choosing to take responsibility for your life and create improvements that could lead to results for you. And it's sad that you saw in my sincere words trolling, what's triggered for you there is what you bring to it, and what's triggered for you is your responsibility, it's got nothing to do with me. Pretending it does is just being a fake victim, again, instead of taking responsibility.

</comment><comment><USER20> This note from Bezos is cruel, farcical and delusional.

Have we forgotten all the reporting on exploitation of labor in Amazon's supply chain, from the Verge story on how Amazon was having warehouse workers sign 18-month non-complete clauses; through the Independent's account of Amazon's recruitment of neo-Nazi security guards to intimidate immigrant workers working and living in crowded dormitories in Germany; through the Mother Jones first-person account of the soul-crushing and body-destroying conditions inside these same warehouses; through the stories about the 100 degree conditions in some warehouses, where Bezos was too cheap to buy air- conditioning and preferred to have ambulances waiting outside to carry off workers as they dropped from heat exhaustion? (Naked capitalism blog has a good review of all this).

Now we see that this same callous attitude towards "human capital" extends to the white-collar employees in head office, and suddenly everyone is shocked, just shocked, and we get this BS denial from the CEO.

The real story here is the pervasive and intensifying erosion of working conditions (and in fact, wages) for all workers, at all levels of our oligarchical capitalist economy.

</comment><comment><USER21> The "different take by a current Amazonian" is amusing

\- only work there for 18 months \- technical bar raiser \- engineering leader

If you're one of the chosen ones then Amazon is a great place to work, and its a SDE-driven culture, and if you're on top of that, then life is good.

And the claim that there's no "culling of the herd" is false. Its called top grading. Managers stack rack employees during the annual performance review process and a certain percentage out of any group must be given the lowest reviews and put on "PIPs" (in other words starting the process of firing them).

And I'm a non-anonymous ex-Amazon employee that worked there for 5 years.

The company may not be as bad as the worst examples from the NYT piece, but its far from a good company to work for. Best advice for any current Amazonian is to work there just long enough to get it on your resume and learn stuff, then switch jobs, get more pay and find a better environment.

</comment><comment><USER19> > your entire post is a pretty damning conviction of yourself. I feel sorry > for you.

Not really. I'm not substituting hating on others success and pretending it's "evil" as a substitute for actually taking responsibility, creating improvements and getting results.

That's what I'm pointing out critics of Amazon are deluding themselves with, and this attitude, the fake victim attitude, the I-don't-have-a-choice attitude, is fundamentally disempowering. It's the very cause of their purported disempowerment, and it's not going to help them achieve results, or create improvements -- leading them to have more things to complain about, which, unworkably, they blame on others.

</comment><comment><USER22> Jeff Bezos: Out of touch with reality since 1999

<comment><USER23> I don't think he would be worth $50b if he really was out of touch.

<comment><USER24> There are plenty of out of touch billionaire dinosaurs. Google Sheldon Adelson. Google Robert Kraft. He remains 100% convinced that nobody below him has ever violated any rules or cheated. Having billions of dollars is the quickest path to becoming an out of touch dinosaur.

<comment><USER19> Out of touch with what? I think the person who is out of touch with reality is the person who doesn't know how to get what they want from reality. And who doesn't want " 1 billion dollars " ?

<comment><USER25> I don't, especially when you experience the things you will have to do to get it and keep it.

You might want to read some thoughts from a guy named Siddhartha. Craving a billion dollars is just going to make you miserable until you get it, and then when you have it you will crave another billion or something equally toxic to your well being.

Money and spending it is just another kind of drug. Once you have it and all the stuff you can buy with it you will become an addict. You will then crave a new and bigger high trying to acquire or spend even more of it. You know what kind of stuff junkies do to get a fix, billionaires are pretty similar, hence this topic we are discussing here today.

Its way better to stay grounded, do the things you love, and enjoy life. If you can make a billion doing that then you probably should take it, but it shouldn't be your goal in life unless you want to turn in to a complete ass.

<comment><USER19> Wanting it is one thing. Do you have the skill to get it is another? People talk a lot of trash excusing themselves for not having the skill to get it, pretending that they never wanted it. You only have the luxury of the choice you talk of, when you really have that choice, when you could make that billion, and then you renounce it. Otherwise, it's just kidding yourself. Think on that, grasshopper.

<comment><USER25> So true. There is certainly skill involved, one of them is almost certainly the ability and willingness to exploit your fellow human beings. I'm completely lacking in that skill so, woe is me, I will never make a billion.

It seems I will have to settle for doing the things I love, enjoying life, as I strive to avoid screwing people.

You do seem to be the sensei of trolldom and to have found your one true skill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Your entire post is a pretty damning conviction of yourself. I feel sorry > for you.

I'm pretty sure you don't know me, and I get that you're comfortable offering your certain opinion of me based on not actually knowing me, tho I don't want that to dismiss what you said because this leads to a very important point.

Speak about anything you care about -- not just the things you feel you are immune to judgement on yourself.

This is so important.

in other words, if i'm only going to express an opinion on subjects i'm safe from judgement on, that doesn't make me a very reliable source ( huge personal bias ) and i'm choosing to try to protect my ego ( and also not challenge myself in what could be opportunities for improvement ) instead of saying something inspiring with regards to ways improvements could be made in general.

if i did that id be choosing ego and me over contributing to technology and progress and success. that doesn't work.

it's pretty simple. i believe in technology, humanity and progress and success, and i see clearly a lot of the ways that people limit themselves and their thinking and sometimes i choose to say something about it. a reason contributing to that choice is because i care about these things, and it works for people to work on them, and if you are not working on them, not because you're not capable but because your perspective doesn't work, then theres a big opportunity for improvement, that sometimes i choose to contribute to meeting with what i say.

i know i pick the subjects that get the most pushback, and a reason contributing to this for me is because this is the ones that are holding people back the most, the ones that are most important and where people are most stuck by the clarity missing from the ways they are getting in their own way. it's like the importance of working on the big opportunities, if you only pick the areas where there are small safe bets, you think small and the results you get will be small.

so in contributing to the meta opportunity of the psychology with which people approach this work, just like with the opportunities in tech themselves, if you choose to contribute to the area with the riskiest biggest bets the results you get will be the greatest.

what i am doing by pushing back here in the middle of controversy is the very essence of what we do as founders.

</comment><comment><USER26> Translation:

"If you haven't already, I encourage you to give this (very long) New York Times article a careful read"

\- I can't stop you from reading it so go ahead, we have nothing to hide. It's "very long" ie. No one has time to read it all and you shouldn't either/it's of bad quality and could easily be summarized.

"I also encourage you to read this very different take by a current Amazonian:"

\- said article has no merit versus an article written by someone who actually works here. Never mind the bias.

"Here's why I'm writing you. The NYT article prominently features anecdotes describing shockingly callous management practices, including people being treated without empathy while enduring family tragedies and serious health problems. The article doesn't describe the Amazon I know or the caring Amazonians I work with every day. But if you know of any stories like those reported, I want you to escalate to HR. You can also email me directly at [edited]@amazon.com. Even if it's rare or isolated, our tolerance for any such lack of empathy needs to be zero."

\- these are bizarre isolated cases, empathy must be respected. Probably because there are serious legal ramifications for us if we don't so donth take it elsewhere, raise internally so we can make it go away. Also note that I dont mention working you to a pulp on weekends etc. Fuck you. You're here to satisfy my "vision".

"The article goes further than reporting isolated anecdotes. It claims that our intentional approach is to create a soulless, dystopian workplace where no fun is had and no laughter heard. Again, I don't recognize this Amazon and I very much hope you don't, either. More broadly, I don't think any company adopting the approach portrayed could survive, much less thrive, in today's highly competitive tech hiring market. The people we hire here are the best of the best. You are recruited every day by other world-class companies, and you can work anywhere you want."

\- again, isolated cases so all good. You better not think like that, you're an "amazonian" we're fucking hard to get into, we're "world class". You should be thankful we gave you a chance. We THRIVE mother fucker are you a loser or an amabot?

"I strongly believe that anyone working in a company that really is like the one described in the NYT would be crazy to stay. I know I would leave such a company.

But hopefully, you don't recognize the company described. Hopefully, you're having fun working with a bunch of brilliant teammates, helping invent the future, and laughing along the way."

\- if you feel like that get out. We don't care. Get out. But if you don't, you're a winner who laughs at working your life away for me while I amaze myself at what people will do to remain "winning".

</comment><comment><USER27> Does it piss anyone else off that he uses the term anecdote? 'I was forced to go back to work the day after my miscarriage' What an anecdote! Just makes me believe that he is a megalomaniac and a bit of a psychopath.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'd rather hear laughter from the actual employees than the CEO.

</comment><comment><USER19> People will hate.

If their opinion was worth 1 fucking dollar -- then Amazon wouldn't be.

Then Bezos wouldn't be.

People vote with their aspirations and their payments every fucking day.

Who cares what some jaded loser writers put towards their credo of anti- corporate injustice fabrication?

It just perpetuates their deluded worldview and makes it easier for them to deal with the suffering they endured from their own choices that left them without a cent. And they're jealous, and they go to invent an evil, to pretend they're right, to make them feel better, about not having any proof of how "right" they feel they are.

The one's who are "right" \-- they have the money. Because they understood what reality is.

It's simple.

[ Hello to everyone -- I will take your hate all day and make it awesome. I know there's a lot of delusion triggered by this article, especially when someone pushes back against the compelling fake view that a hugely successful company is "evil" \-- bring it, I am here to help you see clearly. Please tho, keep it here, abusive emails will be published. ]

<comment><USER29> > _The one 's who are "right" \-- they have the money. Because they understood > what reality is._

Your entire post is a pretty damning conviction of yourself. I feel sorry for you.

<comment><USER19> If I tar myself with the same brush -- what of it ? If what I say is correct, even if I express the same dysfunctional pattern, what of it? The fact that I may or may not see it in myself doesn't affect my ability to see it in other people.

I don't require your pity, I accept it tho, if that's what you want to give. It just makes you feel better. Feeling sorry for someone is a way to make yourself feel better than them, revealing your own insecurity.

I'm always looking to learn and for opportunities to improve. Could what I describe of others be something I do ? Of course.

At least I have the courage to say it, perhaps knowing that I exhibit it still. Willing to learn. I am. Are you?

Start where you are. Or you'll never get where you want to be.

Struggling against blaming others, instead of taking responsibility, struggling against doing, instead of hating, is something anyone can encounter. The point is, to see you have a choice, and choose something that works.

If you want to pretend you're already above that, and look down on me, the very need to look down on me shows me you aren't. If you were past this, and I wasn't, you'd help me with it. That's what you do when you've been through something.

When you haven't been through it, you can be afraid of it, and you accuse others of it to deny it of yourself. Because you haven't yet owned up to dealing with it yet.

That's the mechanism. That's what going on here.

So maybe your statement was just a damning accusation of you.

If you're gonna get personal you got to be prepared for how that reflects on you.</comment></comment></comment>


Bitucket is down (again) - <AUTHOR> https://status.bitbucket.org http://status.bitbucket.org <comment><USER2> how many other peoples work flows completely depend on bitbucket? We deploy from our bitbucket repositories

<comment><USER3> My workflows are dependent on bitbucket for deploys. I could work around if I needed to, since I keep other copies of the repos. NORMALLY. Today's different though: I just happened to be in the middle of migrating from one server to another. I practiced the procedure last week and got my notes perfected on how to do it. Of course, those notes are on bitbucket, unavailable...

Lesson learned! I'll make sure that bitbucket's never the only place that something resides, from now on...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> why was the URL submitted as https? The cert belongs to statuspage.io and threw me a error page.

if you're resubmitting a URL to HN put a random parameter to the left

ie. status.bitbucket.org?r=99

<comment><USER5> Is doing this against policy or encouraged? I don't see it mentioned here^1, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

1: [http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Back up and running again.</comment>


Follow the CAPEX: Cloud Table Stakes - <AUTHOR> http://www.platformonomics.com/2017/04/follow-the-capex-cloud-table-stakes/ <comment><USER2> I'm having trouble reconciling him showing Amazon as the lowest spender by far of the three with their place as largest player by far. Are they just tremendously more efficient? I wouldn't imagine so given they're all essentially renting out a physical resource to their customers. Maybe I misunderstood something about the article?

<comment><USER3> Google and Microsoft's infrastructure supports search (which is vast) and other workloads beyond cloud infrastructure services.

</comment></comment><comment> throwaway-1209 Is it just me or the "trillion dollar" figure is completely unrealistic? I mean, even if there are no price wars (and they are inevitable), there isn't any realistic possibility to capture all of IT spend. With price wars in the picture, we'll see a race to the bottom which will erase much of the margin, and make some of the "table stakes" capabilities unprofitable to some of the players, further cutting into the profits.

<comment><USER4> This year's market for IT is around $3.5T, and the pie is still increasing. Public cloud grabbing a quarter of that by 2020 seems entirely feasible.

[http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3482917](http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3482917)

<comment><USER5> But "datacenter systems" are only 170B out of 3.5T there..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It will be interesting to see the followup article where the author will focus on IBM and Oracle which are arguably targeting a different market share to AWS, Microsoft and Google.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a personal pet peeve: people classifying the build-out of facilities as "CapEx."

You can classify portions of your AWS bill as capital expenditure with a bit of effort, and none of it requires breaking ground on a new facility. It's not entirely clear how much of that type of maneuvering goes into the underlying numbers.

<comment><USER8> How do you classify portions of your AWS bill as a capital expenditure?

I'm not familiar with this, assuming your context is as a user of AWS?

<comment><USER7> Yes, that's the right context.

In short form, you have to go with dedicated tenancy on your instances, 3 year RIs, and get your auditors on board with it first.

It's not worth the hassle for most shops until they're looking at a seven to eight figure annual AWS spend.

<comment><USER9> IANACPA, but based on your "In short form" sentence, I guess I see what you mean and how it could be treated as capex. Still, from a layman's point of view, it seems sketchy as hell to me in that the primary goal looks to be making the operating budget look more profitable than it really is if the AWS spend can be amortized over a couple years.

<comment><USER7> You're not at all wrong. Changing how things reflect on the income statement is a bit of smoke and mirrors; it doesn't change the underlying truth, but does change how they're represented.

It's a weird, weird world.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


DotGo2016 – "Acclaimed" Euro Dev Conf Lacks Suff Toilets, Shafts Women to Comp - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@virtuallysue/dotgo-2016-its-a-man-s-world-646620519e6d <comment><AUTHOR> This is a response from an old friend of mine: [http://imgur.com/a/4MSRr](http://imgur.com/a/4MSRr)

I think it's fair to say that both of us believe that women ought to have their own place to comb their hair, fix their lipstick and gossip about clothes and boys.</comment>


How Apple Avoids Paying Billions in Taxes - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2012/11/how-apple-avoids-paying-billions-taxes/58681/

<comment><USER2> A better headline would be "How _insert multinational coprp_ avoids paying billions in taxes" I'm no apple fan, but this is the norm for most (all maybe?) big corps.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder why Ireland doesn't change their "if the Irish subsidiary is controlled by managers elsewhere, like the Caribbean, then the profits can skip across the world tax-free"[1] law. If so many huge corporations utilize the tax loophole, you would think it would be in their interest to tax that at least _somewhat_.

[1]: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/28/business/Doubl...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/28/business/Double- Irish-With-A-Dutch-Sandwich.html)

<comment><USER4> Because as soon as they do that, there's less of a reason to spend a lot of money setting up an expensive corporate HQ in Ireland.

<comment><USER3> But is it actually that expensive to set up a corporation in Ireland?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh man, the math behind this stuff must be fascinating -- designing a system to shuttle money around while minimizing latency and tax rates would be so much fun.

The economic/ethical implications of what Apple and others are doing according to this article are considerable and worrying, but all I can think of right now is some kind of sim-tax-evasion game.

<comment><USER6> What math and what system ?

It is simpler and easier the way Apple does it now. Money originates in each country that a sale is made some of which flows into the regions e.g. Americas or APAC. It would be much harder to be constantly moving money in and out of the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why do we as a society let them get away with this?

They are benefiting from all the social services regular citizens are (police, roads, water, public schools, etc.) without paying for them.

This is robbery. They are robbing America's future.

<comment><USER8> The society let them get away with this because the earnings are outside of the USA. If they do need to pay taxes for outside earnings then the company will just move to an other country.

<comment><USER7> Sounds great for the future of America

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The amount of stupidity in this article is startling.

There are plenty of legitimate and common sense reasons for why Apple would keep much of their overseas earnings overseas. There are financial reasons e.g. minimizing wasteful forex conversions. There are legal reasons e.g posting collateral for court cases or tax disputes. There are logistic reasons e.g. having money on hand to make it easier to acquire companies or hire new stuff.

If Apple really wanted to avoid paying taxes then they are plenty of ways they could do this. But they DO pay taxes. Just not US taxes for non-US revenues.

</comment><comment><USER9> NY Times infographic here: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/28/business/Doubl...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/28/business/Double- Irish-With-A-Dutch-Sandwich.html)

Sadly, this is the 'norm' for many, many corporations - including Google.

<comment><USER10> Your criticism may be better directed at those who write the laws, not those who follow them.

It's not only the norm, it a company's fiduciary responsibility to minimize tax liabilities. If these activities are against the intent of the law, a simple rule change should suffice.

<comment><USER9> I certainly can't blame a company for taking advantage of existing loopholes and we _should_ challenge our lawmakers to close said loopholes. However, I can question their ethics, stock market be damned.

This whole "it was my duty" mentality and shifting the blame... hmm, now where have I heard that before?

<comment><USER10> If the behavior is unethical, what exactly would be the correct and ethical way for these companies to calculate their taxes? If it's so cut and dried for you, maybe you can help us all out here.

You call it a loophole, suggesting that there is a design flaw in the law that is being exploited. What specific part of the law is flawed, and what was the drafting intent that has been misapplied in the law as it stands?

I'm really serious. It's disappointing to me that so many people are ready to assume unethical intentions, when the details and issues are far from clear to me (and likely not clear to them). Maybe there is a country that has done it correctly?

Accounting for business in multiple tax jurisdictions is really complex, and I can only assume that we had some really thoughtful people drafting the existing laws.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> its despicable that companies like Apple reap enormous rewards and take advantage of American infrastructure and consumers, but don't have the decency to pay their fair share of taxes. I'm not a lover of taxes or the American government, but I think that successful corporations (and people) need to give back to the countries in which they operate.

<comment><USER12> For 2011, Apple paid $8.28 billion in income taxes, on $34.2 billion income, for an effective rate of 24.2%.

Similar for the other companies mentioned in the article. For instance, I believe Google paid around 20%.

<comment><USER13> Are those taxes that Apple paid because they were taxes on Apple as a corporate entity, or taxes paid by Apple onbehalf of its' employees who were being taxed on their income?

I don't believe that there is an accusation that the workers at Apple are avoiding tax, but that the company is avoiding tax.

<comment><USER14> It's corporate income taxes. Apple does not pay taxes on behalf of its employees.

<comment><USER13> Ah, my ignorance of US financials comes through then... so there is no US equivalent of the PAYE system or a withholding tax to ensure non-avoidance by employees?

When tzs refers to income tax, that traditionally means personal/employee income in the UK whereas corporation tax is the tax on profits levied to corporations.

Hence, tzs's statement above reads as if Apple did pay income tax on behalf of their employees, but makes no mention of corporation tax or an equivalent.

Too many similar terms used differently from one place to another. Now I understand the downvote.

<comment><USER15> Tax witholding for salaried employees is entirely normal and customary in the US, but the article is not about those individual taxes, and US taxpayers wouldn't ever describe the taxes as being paid "by" the employer on employees' behalf.

<comment><USER16> Careful. Employers shoulder half the burden of payroll taxes, which take the largest bite out of most employee paychecks.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


PragPub magazine #2, august 2009 - tomh- http://www.pragprog.com/magazines/download/2.pdf

<comment><AUTHOR> The PDF really is designed like a magazine - not for screen reading (text way too small to start with). Which.. strikes me as odd, because I suspect most people won't be printing this out.

</comment><comment><USER2> Is there any way to get a feed of just the magazines? I don't really have any use or interest in a feed of their books, but I'd love having the new magazine just show up in my RSS reader.

</comment><comment><USER3> The coffee article is brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd take HTML over these big sparse PDFs

<comment><USER5> It amazes me that OS X handles PDF navigation in its reader so poorly (not that Acrobat Reader is any better). Sure you get crystal clear rendering. But paging, scrolling, yeck!! An HTML browser handles this much better.

<comment><USER6> Try Skim.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've read both issues of this magazine and really enjoyed them. This is the first magazine since Make that has really impressed me.

<comment><USER8> I keep hoping for a magazine that will recapture the glory days of _Dr Dobb's Journal_. (Or _Creative Computing_ , or _Kilobaud_ , for that matter.) PragPub is nice, but, ultimately, meh.

<comment><USER9> What would it take for a publication to have that feel?

<comment><USER8> Did you read any of those publications? There was (for me, at least) a latent excitement underneath the surface, of the absolute _coolness_ of the possibilities that seemed to be at our fingertips. Every issue was filled with articles that had somebody showing you how to do something you never even dreamed of.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I read DDJ back in the day. And yes, I felt that sense of excitement. What I was wondering is, how did they do it? I think you're onto something with the two-fold "Here's something new to do, and here's how you can do it."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Denormalize by Configuration - <AUTHOR> http://www.1schema.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> 1Schema = Visual Schema + Formulas + configurable Denormalization Engine

Later, we will include benchmarking, profiling, and dynamic recommendations in schema designer.

Make NoSQL accessible to everyone!</comment>


Concur.next — Java - <AUTHOR> http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/10/01/C-dot-next-Java

<comment><USER2> Couldn't you argue that java.util.concurrent.* (and its equivalents in Python and Ruby) already did a lot for concurrency? It isn't Erlang style concurrency (not the actor model), but it's a lot more accessible than mutexs, semaphores and condition variables.

That being said it would be interesting on what fills Java's niche for Erlang- style concurrency ( there's some fairly interesting work done around Scala's actor model: <http://wiki.github.com/jboner/akka> )</comment>


Mozilla Launches a VPN, Brings Back the Firefox Test Pilot Program - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/10/mozilla-launches-a-vpn-brings-back-the-firefox-test-pilot-program/ <comment><USER2> See earlier discussion at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20927832](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20927832)

</comment><comment> ga-vu Duplicate: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20927832](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20927832)

<comment> ga-vu Oh, my bad. It's TechCruch... so they're allowed.

<comment><USER3> Nope, we just need a bit of time to see things.</comment></comment></comment>


Bitcoin Mining Boom Sputters as Prospectors Face Losses - T-A http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/bitcoin-mining-boom-sputters-as-prospectors-see-real-cash-losses.html <comment><AUTHOR> I am a bitcoin miner and I have made a 8 BTC profit this year taking into account electricity fees. A common misconception is that you need to actually mine bitcoins to mine bitcoins. Instead over the last few months smart miners have been ditching their Bitcoin ASICS and instead have been using old GPU rigs and new scrypt(aka Litecoin) asics to mine through auto profit switching alt-coin pools. These pools automatically mine the most profitable alt-coins like Litecoin and Dogecoin, then take the earnings and automatically trade them on exchanges for Bitcoins. While obviously profits are down compared to last fall, I am still making a nice ROI everyday, even from the very first GPU rig I ever built.

This week CEX/Ghash.io the largest bitcoin mining pool just launched their own auto-switching pool [https://ghash.io/MULTI](https://ghash.io/MULTI) (Warning must sign up through CEX.IO). This will probably be the biggest one soon as its hashrate has tripled today already, but for the last few months the big three have been the following:

[http://www.clevermining.com/](http://www.clevermining.com/) [http://wafflepool.com/](http://wafflepool.com/) [https://www.scryptguild.com/](https://www.scryptguild.com/)

This is an always up to date profitability comparison of these pools vs. straight Litecoin mining made by Bitcointalk user Suchmoon: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VOAhFX1XRizdaTp71qnY...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VOAhFX1XRizdaTp71qnYI5pRh9VIZEQ51LHuGUmxri0/pubhtml)

<comment><USER2> What's the ballpark cost of the hardware that you used to get those 8 BTC?

(It's interesting information for observers, of course people are turning on hardware that will run profitably, but mild opportunities aren't going to drive a whole lot of purchases)

Edit: If you have the rough 'replacement costs' floating around in your head that's interesting too. So not your actual costs, the approximate cost of bringing equivalent power online right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> At one point, people used Graphic Cards (or, more specifically their GPUs) to mine Bitcoins. Over the last couple years, dedicated ASICs eliminated graphic cards, to the point where (according to eBay) - a $30 USB dongle [1] @ 1.6GH/s is more efficient than any graphic card [2] which top up around 1GHs/ at the high end.

Given that a _lot_ of graphics cards were purchased for the sole purpose of mining bitcoins - I'm wondering if there is a huge surplus of cheap graphic cards out there now?

Strangely enough - eBay still shows graphic cards that were popular for mining, like the ATI Radeon 5970, still selling for around $300. [3]

I'm guessing that's evidence that the graphic card market wasn't wildly impacted by bitcoin mining?

[1] [http://www.ebay.com/itm/Brand-new-AntMiner-U1-USB-Bitcoin- Mi...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/Brand-new-AntMiner-U1-USB-Bitcoin- Miner-1-6GH-s-2-2GH-s-Fast- Shipping-/191098233391?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c7e57a22f)

[2] [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#Graphi...](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#Graphics_cards).

[3] [http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=AMD+5970&LH_Sold=1&_osa...](http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=AMD+5970&LH_Sold=1&_osacat=0&_from=R40&LH_Complete=1&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR3.TRC1.A0.H0.XATI+Radeon+5970&_nkw=ATI+Radeon+5970&_sacat=0)

<comment><USER4> People still use GPUs for mining scrypt-based coins (LiteCoin, DogeCoin, etc), though ASICs for those started hitting the market recently and profitability has slumped with bitcoin prices and difficulty increases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The technology of cryptocurrency is cool, but Bitcoin has definitely been in a ridiculous bubble. Seems to be popping, but you can never be sure.

<comment><USER6> Bitcoin is a bubble, but not in a bad way. All monetary goods display a "bubble" phenomenon. Their price cannot be explained by their use demand alone but by a monetary premium. This is true for gold and it's true for the dollar (which has no use value at all, unlike gold). This idea is explained best by MM in his bubble theory of money:

[http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.com/2013/04/bitcoin...](http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.com/2013/04/bitcoin-is-money-bitcoin-is-bubble.html)

Also see: [http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/04/on- mone...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-monetary- restandardization.html)

<comment><USER7> And approximately at the same time the bitcoin bubble ends, and the so called experts and analysts are proclaiming the death of crypto currencies, that's when you will know that crypto currencies are finally on their way toward the mainstream. At least that's how things typically work when bubbles form around new technology (eg the internet).

<comment><USER8> Seems like extreme confirmation bias. Many just die.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well, don't worry, malware writers will generate enough bitcoins to sustain the system.

The cost of mining to them is practically zero.

<comment><USER10> While I'm not sure if you're joking about mining as theft, if you're not, what you're saying makes perfect sense. Non ASIC based cryptocurrencies provide one of the greatest botnet monetization schemes I can imagine. Low-risk, hard to trace.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> There's no such thing as a free lunch, and many people believed they could mine one lunch at no (or very little) cost and expect that lunch to last forever. That's very unfortunate, but who wouldn't see that such a utopia would come to an end. It's like thinking that electric cars will replace other cars in 10 years or 20 years (there's too much at stake , the environment being last on the list). Even if the public was to embrace a such a "currency", governments would step in (and they did) realising they would have no control. The very fact that it became an object of speculation and was making people richer meant it wasn't a currency anyway, it was no better than property, therefore spawned a bubble as a natural phenomenon.

Bitcoin, like Punk certainly isn't dead.

Bitcoin sounded and looked like the sex pistols a year ago, now it sounds and looks like Green Day.

<comment><USER12> There was a free lunch for the first movers which was the impetus for these guys who moved in late and started losing money.</comment></comment>


New Quantum Paradox Clarifies Where Our Views of Reality Go Wrong (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-clarifies-where-our-views-of-reality-go-wrong-20181203/ <comment><USER2> A couple threads on this from when the paper came out:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18666392](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18666392)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18023452](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18023452)

I think there might have been others too.

<comment><USER3> The discussion at Scott Aaronson's blog[1] has some fascinating to-and-fro in the extensive comments, including claimed refutations and detailed responses to them from one of the paper's authors.

1: [https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If I understand correctly, the paper asks us to imagine Alice's friend making a 'classical' coin flip, and Alice modeling and measuring her friend's lab as if the coin flip were a quantum superposition of coin heads/coin tails.

But this is simply wrong. The error creeps in in the second assumption:

> An agent can analyze another system, even a complex one including other > agents, using quantum mechanics

This is likely a good assumption, but quantum physics would tell Alice that the coin's atoms are all firmly in a state corresponding to either 'heads' or 'tails'. The author is actually making the following assumption:

> What we classically think of as chance is completely interchangeable with > the unpredictability of quantum superpositions.

This notion has already been proven wrong many times over.

</comment><comment><USER5> After reading a lot of comments about this, several of which said "there must be something to this if there are so many different views on why it is wrong", I think a better title would be "New Quantum Paradox Gratuitously Confuses Where Our Views of Reality Go Wrong".

I can't say anything about physics, but when people disagree on why something is inconsistent, that does _not_ mean it's consistent and correct, it just means they are choosing different fixed points to reason from.

When someone (an author of the paper) keeps going "oh, you keep changing your view of why I am inconsistent", I think they are just trolling. The attitude seems to be, "if I confuse you, I win, and if I claim to be confused then you lose".

</comment><comment><USER5> From the comments on Aaronson's blog analogizing why the paper is wrong: "I have just enough money for one beer. I have just enough money for a sandwich. So tonight, I will dine on a beer and sandwich"

</comment><comment><USER6> The Reference Frame also discussed this[1] and showed why the paper is wrong.

[1] [https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/04/frauchiger-renner- trivial...](https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/04/frauchiger-renner-trivial-to- see-that.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> It makes me wonder whether quantum computers can actually solve problems... Does this mean that each person can get a different result from the same calculation done by the same quantum computer?

Doesn't this make quantum computers completely useless?</comment>


Two traps in iostat: %util and svctm - <AUTHOR> https://brooker.co.za/blog/2014/07/04/iostat-pct.html <comment><USER2> Blog post is from 2014.

Regrettably, neither this post nor any other more recent article on Linux performance measurement seem to answer the natural followup question: what metric(s) should be used to measure disk utilization instead?</comment>


China's Filtering Software Contains Pirated Code - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2348705,00.asp

<comment><USER2> > _the Green Dam code uses DLLs identified with the CyberSitter name, and even > makes calls back to Solid Oak's servers for updates._

If I were Solid Oak Software, I would've been ecstatic. They just basically got a root-level access to millions of PCs and they are not bound by any EULA provisions. At the very least they can stick a SETI@home client in their DLL and help finding those aliens already :-)

<comment><USER3> Larger and potentially more reliable than any of the other botnet either. You could probably sell parts of it off at a profit. Most useful would be to donate the compute time to folding@home or Prime95 IMO.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Associated Press reporting on same issue:

[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBwCrEGktm...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBwCrEGktm0kHwXlr4uZqdTkVMZQD98PDSG80)

</comment><comment><USER4> how terribly unsurprising...</comment>


Ask HN: I've made a huge mistake; working in tech is killing me - <AUTHOR> I have been depressed my whole life. Recently, I've been doing some serious work getting it under control. I've hit the major points: diet, exercise, and sleep; I now experience true enjoyment on a weekly basis. However, it has thrown into relief how miserable I am as a tech worker.
I never graduated college. It was simply unnecessary for my getting a job. At my current startup, I am surrounded by people interested in "shiny" new technologies or experiences rather than solving problems well and going home to enjoy those experiences. At first I thought my dysphoria was related to this culture fit, but I'm realizing the underlying problems are endemic: I think the tech industry is actively misanthropic. There is this implicit belief in progress, in particular that tech represents some inherent advancement for the human race. To some extent I agree; however, for every positive thing tech enables (e.g. space exploration), there are hundreds destroying people's lives: think Uber rapes, Uber's bait-and-switch driver policy (have a loan! Oh we're paying you less next month, btw. Hey you got that loan payment?), industrial food production, global warming, resource exhaustion, increased work hours, increased mental illness, the illusion of enjoyment via Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc; I enjoy some of the content, but most of it is wasting my time and making me miserable. I now consider smartphones as a whole to be a mistake and an epidemic of addiction as bad as any drug. Clearly, I do not belong in silicon valley; SF feels like Mordor if Sauron peddled crack mansions. The future makes me physically panic.
However, voicing these concerns will get eye rolling at best. At worst, it is taboo and people start looking for exit signs. Were I to leave my job, I have nothing on my resume that could get me hired in another industry. I have no other goals in my life, career-wise, and I am painfully aware that software is eating the world. How can I escape? <comment><USER2> > However, voicing these concerns will get eye rolling at best.

It's because most people intuitively understand that while a few of the concerns your express could be legitimate, a vast majority of them are histrionics peddled by media in order to sell page views. Hence, a candidate solution to your conundrum: stop watching/reading news.

<comment><USER3> While this may actually sound patronizing, it's correct. Agonizing over these things is not a result of some profound grasp of reality and the ultimate causes for XYZ problems that have been around (i.e., the bell curve of ethical behavior as expressed in human beings at present). If you really wanted to pursue tech, you'd be a positive force in it rather than trying to pigeonhole tech/software for ever-present human foibles. It would make more sense to be a part of the evolution of technology. In any case, if things were so bad due to software, I'd simply point out that working in society generally could easily be pinpointed as promoting certain values which will have deleterious effects (in addition to the positive ones).

TL;DR. Needless hand-waving at best.

On the other hand, if it is really "killing" you, you might want to try pinpointing legitimate reasons for why you believe that is so. Or don't and just start from scratch in a new venture in the military or a nondescript job.

<comment><USER4> > Agonizing over these things is not a result of some profound grasp of > reality and the ultimate causes for XYZ problems that have been around

Since most problems are solved by first recognizing a problem exists, why is the OP's grasp not profound or accurate?

> If you really wanted to pursue tech, you'd be a positive force in it rather > than trying to pigeonhole tech/software for ever-present human foibles. It > would make more sense to be a part of the evolution of technology

Unfortunately, being a positive force doesn't always change the direction of things if the momentum and direction is toward a wall or cliff.

I'm not anti-tech, but certainly appreciate what the OP has observed.

<comment><USER3> >why is the OP's grasp not profound or accurate?

As already pointed out, but perhaps not so clearly, it is neither profound nor accurate due to misattribution. The OP attributes faults of human beings and their actions to software and tech, when software and tech are clearly not necessarily at fault for such, even if they might be found to facilitate those behaviors.

> I'm not anti-tech, but certainly appreciate what the OP has observed.

I'm glad you can appreciate it, but I'm still at a loss how anything of this kind can make much sense beyond a debilitating neuro-degenerative disorder. The OP would be better of seeking remedial assistance through technologies like trans-cranial direct current stimulation.

<comment><USER4> Thank you for clarifying the first point. Agreed, the fundamental problem exists beyond tech and software. I guess coming to grips with that lets us use tech as a means to an end - a tool - that can be beneficial. The fact that we're discussing it on this medium shows that software and tech can be positive. The OP probably is looking at the general trend and state of problems tied to flaws in us as humans and other macro influences.

I'm sure that a solution exists that might be even simpler than tDCS. A walk through the woods always helps me ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The problem is that people only want the positive issues and don't want to focus on negative issues. It is the way society in the USA has developed.

You raise some points about negative issues nobody wants to talk about. They just ignore them and hope they go away.

Some people do care about negative issues and instead of complaining about them they try to find a solution to the problems.

I have in the past complained about negative issues, but it got me nowhere. People just don't want to hear the negative things and problems, they want to hear solutions and other ways of doing things.

Don't discount yourself, you have at least some skills you picked up working in Silicon Valley. For one you can use a computer, for second you can write with a computer, for third you most likely know something about programming or technical skills about a computer.

There are a lot of people who don't have the skills you have and they have gotten jobs working with a computer. I used to be in an IT department as a programmer/analyst but I also trained the non-IT employees in how to use a computer and the programs I wrote.

If you just have skills in using a computer, which you obviously have, you should be able to get a job in a Non-IT career. You already know how to use a computer, so don't feel down because there are a lot of people who don't know or can't use a computer.

Just list your IT job and what skills you learned.

The most important skills are social skills and people skills, without that you can't hold a job.

You can find another job, and you can go to any state or city you want to go to for a job. It won't pay as much as a SV job, but in other places the economy is better and doesn't have high costing rent and housing.

</comment><comment><USER6> _Were I to leave my job, I have nothing on my resume that could get me hired in another industry_

You don't say what it is you do as a "tech worker", but regardless, whatever it is there are similar positions doing it outside of the tech industry. _Every_ industry employs developers, support, project managers, product managers, admin, etc. And here's a little known fact: the majority of those industries not only pay better than the average outside of the valley, but the jobs are less stressful and less filled with 'tech bro' idiots.

My advice would be to get in touch with a recruitment agent who specialises in an industry that isn't tech.

</comment><comment><USER7> "The future makes me physically panic" \- me too long time ago m8, I'm glad I m not alone with this when I have read ur post. I have been thinking there is something wrong me.. The only twist between us is that I'm unable to get into the tech industry ' cos lack of relevant experience and age.

"I have nothing on my resume that could get me hired in another industry." \- "How can I escape?" All I can suggest you is, think about what would u like to do what are you good at in, create some reference in that industry with domains and make some international experience also therefore you are able to reply for the reference check. After that sell yourself on the interview. Non tech industries are not that smart as whom works in IT. I know that because unfortunately thats how how I operate to survive this life.

sorry for the bad english, thats my third language.

<comment><USER8> You and OP are not alone I'm with You :) Take a time and read about burnout: what is that, reasons of that and what to do. (There is a plenty of sciencific papers about this) It's really a killer! I have it 2 times in 6 months at one workplace, before I managed to leave.

I'm feeling kinda better now, but this feeling of panic will never completely leave me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The tech industry is more than the "startup world" and SF. For every developer working at an Uber there's thousands more working at normal companies, working normal hours, and living in places where they are happy, not where the hype cycle tells them they should.

Also, your resume is better than you think. Most jobs don't require you to be a ninja. I didn't get a degree and have been a developer since 1998, with healthy earnings despite at times using uncool languages (spent most of my career doing ColdFusion) and outside of the startup world (Dallas and Houston). My current life is great, though boring to those in your typical VC- funded party (I write software that helps hold UPS and Fedex accountable to their guarantees); however, if I had to, I could easily freelance and earn and above-average income.

tl;dr The tech industry is more than the startup and SF world, and you can be happy working in tech elsewhere. Optimize for happiness, and don't let others pick your priorities.

</comment><comment><USER10> I attended an event in SF about the mistreatment of non-technical employees at tech companies, and how tech people can become allies. For example, security guards in tech companies are not unionized, and many workers had experiences with their employers "forgetting" their pay, or asking them to come in overtime with very little advance notice.

There is also grassroots activism of all kinds in San Francisco, including protest against Uber for exploiting their workers under the guise of "the sharing economy", or protest of Airbnb for raising already exorbitant housing prices. You might have to look beyond the tech community to find these events, but your position on the inside gives you some unique opportunities to help. Best of luck.

<comment><USER10> For example, [http://meetu.ps/e/BwlPx/nLH2C/d](http://meetu.ps/e/BwlPx/nLH2C/d)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> You have transferable skills. You can learn the rest.

Start saving, and saving hard.

Start re-training for some other industry.

Once you've got your new qualifications or whatever create a skills based resume[1].

Come up with some reason why you wanted to change industry. Make it positive.

The start applying for as many jobs within your chosen new industry as possible.

Or you could stick with your current job, but reduce the hours and use the extra time for charitable work.

</comment><comment><USER12> You could start at the bottom and do some manual labour with your hands.

Alternatively, you could save up some cash and invest in a small mom-and-pop style business. You will never compete with the capitalism-machine of Amazon/Walmart, but I believe small, side-stores will always exist, simply because they bring that personalization that big stores can't.

You probably won't "change the world" or mask your amassing of wealth to billionaire status with your "$1 salary", but maybe that will make you happy.

Being your own boss can be hugely gratifying and you can probably help the 4-6 families of the workers who work with/for you live decent lives as well.

People will eye-roll you, cause you described the valley as Mordor, but the grass isn't always greener. The snow-sweeper in Chicago would trade that shitty weather and job for the free food and good weather the GooFaces offer.

</comment><comment><USER13> There is potentially some bad tech out there, nuclear weapons and man made virii. But the tech being uber isn't evil or bad. Some of the people that use that tech is bad, and uber the company seems to be bad. But there are a lot of people and companies out there that are bad that have nothing to do with "tech" Perhaps you should join an established company, out find a company that is doing something you like. There are plenty of people out there that want to solve problems. Go find them.

</comment><comment><USER14> Go work in tech at a bank, regional bank. Its slower paced, no magpies chasing shiny new stuff. 35h/week, mandatory vacation and good pay.

I'd go back but my startup is now profitable.

</comment><comment><USER15> Let's not confuse Silicon Valley startups with the entire tech industry. You might want to try working at a company that just tries to make a profit solving everyday business problems rather than "changing the world" or "disrupting the X industry".

Also, there are lots of jobs for tech people outside the tech industry (many more than in the tech industry). Any big business is a huge user of technology - think of how much software it takes to run a big bank.

</comment><comment><USER16> Move to Columbus, OH. Low cost of living. Nice down to earth Midwestern people. You can continue in tech if you want without the silicon valley madness. If you don't want to do that there's plenty of other stuff going on. Sounds horrible. Sounds worlds different from the tech work I do. In Columbus, OH.

Seriously, when you remove all the stress and mania of silicon valley I think you'll be feeling much better.

</comment><comment><USER17> Silicon Valley is its own kind of bizarre, soul-killing bubble. Stay in the industry, but move somewhere where humanitarian values are prized. Portland or Seattle sound like much better fits for you.

</comment><comment><USER18> How about joining NGO that you think it really makes the world better? Like Wikimedia / Mozilla?</comment>


A.G. Schneiderman Launches Inquiry into Cryptocurrency "Exchanges" - <AUTHOR> https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-launches-inquiry-cryptocurrency-exchanges <comment><USER2> I suspect they would find some efficiently fraudulent manipulation in the complete absence of regulation, if only those exchanges were regulated enough to retain data sufficient for such inquiries.

<comment><USER3> Fortunately all the cryptocurrency in and out transactions are irrevocably documented on a public legder.

<comment><USER4> One exchange user selling to another user on the same exchange (or to themselves, i.e. a wash trade) needn't hit the public ledger.

<comment><USER5> Indeed. Only when crypto funds leave the exchange does it hit the ledger. When it's in the exchange, it's all in their private database.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting to see it's in new york - I wonder what role the big players in finance have had in lobbying for this. Nonetheless, this is great. I would bet every single crypto exchange has their hand deep in the honey pot so they deserve whatever an investigation turns up.

<comment><USER7> > I would bet every single crypto exchange has their hand deep in the honey > pot

I really doubt it. These exchanges are making unbelievable amounts of money in fees. There's no reason for them to risk that just to make a little more.

<comment><USER8> These exchanges are all operating completely outside of any regulation or oversight. I wouldn't be surprised to find if most of them were completely insolvent and didn't hold a good majority of the crypto currency they claim to. I also wouldn't be surprised if a good fraction of their exchange volume was completely fabricated.

If you use these exchanges, you are basically playing in a wild-west casino where the house has every single advantage and every incentive to siphon off every dime of your money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Boy, if only there were some big New York banks that would love to help these exchanges smooth things over with Mr. Schneiderman in exchange for some controlling equity...

<comment><USER10> > _big New York banks that would love to help these exchanges smooth things > over with Mr. Schneiderman_

The New York Department of Financial Services and Attorney General's offices are some of the few state offices that relish going after banks. If you're a New Yorker, getting a dispute resolved with a large bank typically only involves Cc'ing one or both (if the facts are on your side).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just reading the questionnaire... This is going to be huge as in this is going to be the foundation on which the government will go after the exchanges and enforce consumer protection...

<comment><USER9> Apologies if I don't feel particularly "protected".

<comment><USER11> I am fully protected against all bitcoin/token/blockchain scams, I wont touch this stuff with 10 foot pole...

<comment><USER12> You're also extremely protected from ever making any profits, I'm glad people like you stay out of crypto out of fear.

<comment><USER11> Don't you worry, I make plenty of profits in the markets, using AI trading robots, but I would never transfer 6 or 7 digits account to one of those shady exchanges, just to watch my money being stolen by crooks...

Just wait few more months and the sign "This domains has been seized by the FBI" will start to pop around...

<comment><USER9> Why would you move such a large amount to an exchange all at once? It's much safer to move smaller amounts and move the funds to your own crypto wallet with your own private keys, that way you don't have to trust them with large sums.

<comment><USER11> You need money to make money in trading...

For investing, not surprising, the whole thing is going the way of the tulip bubble... it's just not worth discussing a 25 year old technology still looking for a problem to solve...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'll point out the obvious, just to get the discussion going: it's reasonable to suspect that the motivation is not consumer protection but subversion of technology which presents a challenge to the FIRE economy, which has a tragic stranglehold on NY (my home state).

How will we know the difference? What will we do if indeed it's the latter?

<comment><USER14> > it's reasonable to suspect that the motivation is not consumer protection > but subversion of technology which presents a challenge to the FIRE economy

No, it isn't. It's only reasonable within the tiny fantasy world of True Believers where the whole world is conspiring to keep the glory of cryptocurrency down. This is the exact same action that would be taken against any other unauthorized, unregistered securities trading. Not to mention an area which has become infamously rife with scams and fraud.

Schneiderman especially has a sterling reputation with regard to pushing against the great financial powers and investigating crimes in that area.

<comment><USER15> >the tiny fantasy world of True Believers

Let's not give them the benefit of the doubt here. They're shills. They have a vested financial interest in twisting logic and reason to convince the world that a secret cabal of bureaucrats and bankers are conspiring against this particular technology.

This is the primary problem with discussing anything crypto-related online. In a technical discussion about the merits of Linux and free software, you can be reasonably sure that whomever you are engaging with does not have a financial interest in pushing their particular stance. It seems like in any crypto- related discussion, it is impossible to find honest, impartial debate.

<comment><USER13> > Let's not give them the benefit of the doubt here. They're shills.

Excuse me - are you addressing me with this comment? My identity is not secret. My contributions to open source software (and to higher education in New York State) are reasonably well known.

Are you seriously directly calling me a shill right now?

Is this the level of discussion that we've reached on HN now?

FWIW, I think my comments have been pretty moderate. I don't see anything that is even vaguely construable as shilling. Nor am I positioned with anywhere near the resources to make shilling worthwhile.

Rather than a shill, I am a long-time NY activist who has deep problems with the way my government has interacted with nearly every facet of the (largely toxic) financial industry in my state. I don't think that concerns regarding the underlying motivation of the AG's office are _ever_ unreasonable to raise, and certainly not here.

<comment><USER15> Sorry, I was not referring to you here, although I realize that it's confusing given the threading. I was more referring to some of the other posters here (the "True Believers" referred above).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Too bad they didn't question the big banks as assiduously 10-12 years ago.

<comment><USER6> Were you Don Quixote in another life? It's almost like the banks don't have thousands of different products and services ran by hundreds of thousands of people all working on different things. "Let's investigate the banks and see what comes up!" Good luck with that...

<comment><USER16> Please leave the personal comments out. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> since when one guy can crack down on global exchanges. this is why we need decentralised exchanges

<comment><USER18> He's not 'one guy'. He's the chief prosecutor of the state that happens to be the home of one of the world's financial capitals.

If you want New York money, you need to deal with the New York legal system.

Decentralized exchanges won't help you either. Any time you interface with a nation's currency, you're going to deal with that nation's government.

<comment><USER17> sure but he cannot do anything to an exchange that operates from Malta or Honk Kong.</comment></comment></comment>


How the BBB Seal Actually Negatively Impacted Conversions on an ECommerce Site - <AUTHOR> https://www.goinflow.com/bbb-seal-conversions/ <comment><USER2> 503 errors negatively impact conversions too.

</comment><comment><USER3> I totally agree with this blog... The BBB is a place people go mainly to complain (unlike other review sites). Especially since the BBB wasn't originally founded on reviews but on grading/rating businesses.

Just goes to show you that even with a perfect 'A' score, people will still read the reviews! Adding the BBB badge to your website is just one more way for these mostly negative reviews to be seen.

(TL:DR; I disfavor reviews on the BBB site more than other sites because of how it was founded -- people generally go to the BBB to complain --- which is definitely why I could see it causing a decrease in conversions.)</comment>


Google Glass almost at 100k USD on eBay - <AUTHOR> http://www.ebay.com/itm/google-glass-/281092946313?pt=US_Cell_Phone_Replacement_Parts_Tools&hash=item417271f989

<comment><USER2> Just some relevance, but everyone who is getting a set of Google Glasses has done so through joining the Glass Explorer Program. Upon joining they have all agreed to terms of the following [1]. These are not the terms which will apply upon general release.

'If you resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person without Google's authorization, Google reserves the right to deactivate the Device, and neither you nor the unauthorized person using the Device will be entitled to any refund, product support, or product warranty.'

Since the original auction has been removed, here is a screenshot for anyone who missed it. [2]

Also, from a legal point of view, I believe that the first sale doctrine, does not apply in this situation because, 1) people had to apply to join the program, and then agreed to the terms of the Glass Explorer Program [3], 2) They are just shutting down the device. Your ownership and property rights are not affected.

[1] : [https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-zeDA7Huey9o/UWy- qZX9LbI/A...](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-zeDA7Huey9o/UWy- qZX9LbI/AAAAAAAA-oo/Wz3iDxZk0AE/s803/13+-+1)

[2] : <http://www.chrisacky.com/images/glasses1.png>

[3] : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass#Glass_Explorer_Pro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass#Glass_Explorer_Program)

<comment><USER3> "Google reserves the right to deactivate the Device"

Wow, is it even possible for Google to do this? I mean, if they can do it for pre-release versions, how can I be sure they won't deactivate mine's whenever Google want's

<comment><AUTHOR> technically, it does not seem too far fetched.

I don't really know why, but I thought of the infamouse "we have root" quote of Mark Shuttleworth.

Also, if Google is able to install automatically software on your phone (by following your input in Google Play, of course), I wouldn't be surprised if they could brick it remotely.

<comment><USER4> Androids can be potentially bricked by a system-signed app [0], I wouldn't be surprised if it has a similar counterpart in Glass.

[0]: [http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.perm...](http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.permission.html#BRICK)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> He's taking the auction down apparently. Here's his rant:

"Please note: this auction is being removed, due to finding out that Google Glass cannot be resold once obtained. Since I have not received anything other than confirmation from Google that I have been selected for the #ifihadglass contest, I was not given the terms of service agreement that those who received the first batch did indicating the device could not be resold. So, all of you who apparently have no life aside from posting in forums about this auction can sleep well tonight knowing that the glasses will not be sold. Thanks to Patrick Nugent (eBay user torwolv) and the many others who have driven up the price for their own amusement. #ifihadalife Sorry for being a recent college graduate that was hoping I could possibly resell my Google Glasses to help pay down my student debt. Yes, I am everything that's evil in the world. Anyway, nothing to see here anymore. Take a screen shot, it will last longer!"

</comment><comment><USER6> Where's the outrage here about first sale doctrine and how a ToS shouldn't be able to dictate what you do with 'your' property.

</comment><comment><USER7> Looks like some fraud going on here. Look at the bidding history: [http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&_trksid=...](http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&_trksid=p2047675.l2565&rt=nc&item=281092946313)

Started at $5,000, then the same user bid $5,100 all the way to $84,000 without anyone else bidding. Checking out the user history, this looks like the only thing they've bid on.

<comment><USER8> Did you read the auction description? It appears the owner is taking the auction down anyway due to resale being against the google glass ToS.

<comment><USER9> He also implies bidding fraud.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This wouldn't happen if the initial allocation of Glass units had been done in sane way, like setting a market-clearing price, rather than basing it on Twitter follower count.

(And yes, I'm pissed that I didn't get one.)

<comment><USER11> Did you see the list of people who got them? A significant number had no followers at all. I doubt the median follower count of selected accounts was much different from the median follower accounts of the active twitter population.

> setting a market-clearing price

That would be _way_ less of a random sampling than what they have now. You don't get good feedback by having it available to such a tiny segments of the population.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't know if Google are going to like this if they figure out who it is. I would be inclined to say that they won't honour their agreement to sell them a beta pair if they don't even plan to use them.

What does everyone else think on this? This to me is like buying a ticket to a show with the sole intention of turning a profit on it?

<comment><USER13> I was a participant in the Chromebook pilot program and I received a CR-48. When applying for the pilot program you had to agree that you wouldn't sell the device to anyone else (I don't know where the ToS for that is, but that was the gist). The terms implied that you weren't really receiving the device for "free", you were receiving the device on the terms that you will test it and provide feedback. I suppose it would depend on the ToS of the Google Glass pilot program, but I don't forsee Google smiling upon this as selling CR-48s was strongly discouraged by Google.

<comment><USER12> I can see the auction has been removed now for that exact reason. My main issue with it was that it is not fair for other people that entered the the program for a trial pair of the glasses. The guy has clearly stipulated it was to pay for his student debt, doesn't seem fair for people actually wanting a pair for genuine reasons.

<comment><USER14> On the other hand, people outside the USA weren't allowed by Google to sign up for the Glass trial program. This gray market could provide access for those who couldn't get one.

<comment><USER15> This is less of a first round of sales and a more of a public beta test and market research rolled into one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does google own all beta test units or do the beta testers?

<comment><USER17> It's whatever Google wants, because they can "hack" your device and kill it if you assert your property rights.

And no company has been charged with the CFAA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> i picked up glass yesterday at google's campus. they are freaking sweet! not worth $100k though. $1500 was plenty :)

</comment><comment><USER19> This wont be up long.</comment>


Stripe Supercharged - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bestunning.net/stripe-supercharged-20-apps-help-take-you-take-your-stripe-app-to-the-next-level/

<comment><USER2> No, you can't put _your own startup_ at the top of a listicle.</comment>


When Google Almost Went Bankrupt [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ozy.com/c-notes/googles-top-lawyer-david-drummond-on-ozy/30003.article <comment><USER2> That site layout is terrible.

<comment><USER3> Agreed! Such little substance, it's almost like a small dollop of tuna on top of three pounds of lettuce garnish. That's a salad, they tell you, eat it up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> God I really love that story at the end. It reminds me of Gates and the early days of MS where they were trying to sell their BASIC interpreter before even having written it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Anyone have a tl;dw?

</comment><comment><USER6> great video</comment>


Google Releases Glass Specs - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/15/google-releases-full-glass-specs-full-day-battery-life-5mp-camera-720p-video-16gb-flash-memory-bone-conduction-transducer/

<comment><USER2> Here are the key specs:

Display: High resolution display is the equivalent of a 25 inch high definition screen from eight feet away.

Camera: Photos – 5 MP; Videos – 720p

Storage: 12 GB of usable memory, synced with Google cloud storage. 16 GB Flash total.

Battery: One full day of typical use.

Compatibility: Any Bluetooth-capable phone. The MyGlass companion app requires Android 4.0.3 (Ice Cream Sandwich) or higher. MyGlass enables GPS and SMS messaging.

<comment><USER3> Not sure if all of those can be called "specs", really.

They're very much on the soft side of things, instead of giving voltage and capactity (in Ah) of the battery, all you get is a very approximate runtime.

The "spec" for the display, which arguably is the core piece of tech in a pair of _electronic glasses_ doesn't even use the word "pixel".

It's interesting that the recommended format for photos is 640x360, on a device that is said to be 720p capable. Of course, 720 / 2 is 360, which is ... weird.</comment></comment>


Every major disruption was first dismissed as "a toy" - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/learning-by-shipping/is-a-toy-21312a5c8aea#.84ydnlvu0 <comment><USER2> I found nothing meaningful in this post.

I know for a certainty that "1995 — "Internet is a toy"" deeply and seriously mischaracterizes the history.

Why should I believe that those other quotes (like, "GUI is a toy" for 1986) are real and characteristic of then-current beliefs? Why does it only show evidence for the incorrectness of the quote, and not evidence of who made the quote?

The transistor was a major disruption that was not, as far as I know, ever considered "a toy". Nor was the integrated circuit. Nor was the blue LED.</comment>


Japanese designer turns the umbrella on its head - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/6/5181152/japanese-designer-turns-the-umbrella-on-its-head

<comment><USER2> It's quite innovative but still has the same principle. Water is going to drip.

<comment><USER3> When you close the umbrella the wet surface will be enclosed. Apparently, it's a wise choice to use that umbrella.</comment></comment>


Vulnerability in OpenSSH: add undocumented "UseRoaming no" to ssh_config NOW - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/msfriedl/status/687635945642967040 <comment><AUTHOR> This is from an OpenSSH developer, and looks quite serious.

It seems to be a client only vulnerability, but we never know. Roaming feature has been in OpennSSH code for a while, but is undocumented: [http://superuser.com/a/826734/47771](http://superuser.com/a/826734/47771)

 _Edit_ : Official communication: [http://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh- unix-dev/2016-Jan...](http://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix- dev/2016-January/034679.html)

 _Edit 2_ : Affects 5.4 - 7.1 [http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20160114142733](http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20160114142733)</comment>


CasperJS 1.0 stable released - <AUTHOR> http://casperjs.org

<comment><USER2> For nodeheads who also do web development, this is a great tool. The syntax is incredibly familiar, and tests are executed quickly.

Selenium is a better tool to test cross-browser compatibility, but if you're just testing your program logic PhantomJS/CapserJS can get you there (IMO) a lot quicker & easier. JS devs can get moving quite quickly.

</comment><comment><USER3> For scraping, how does this compare to pjscrape? (<http://nrabinowitz.github.com/pjscrape/>)

<comment> iso-8859-1 Well CasperJS is primarily a testing framework. But PJScrape and CasperJS are both tiny in comparison to PhantomJS. It doesn't matter much which one you choose. I'd go with CasperJS since it's more popular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can anyone compare this to Selenium? Which do you prefer to use and why?

<comment> iso-8859-1 If you have a single-page JavaScript application, I would use CasperJS. The JavaScript engines are functionally almost equal if you use frameworks. The usual "clickAndWait" Selenium verb doesn't work with single-page apps since it expects the page to reload. See [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3703458/click- clickandwai...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3703458/click-clickandwait- not-working) Obviously, this is not a problem with CasperJS and PhantomJS, they are much more tightly integrated with the browser, and you can click elements by ID without needing the ugly "waitForElementPresent" hack. The only issue I've had with CasperJS/PhantomJS is that you can't reliably test Emscriptened apps since the QtWebkit version is old and doesn't have Float64Array support.

If you want to test for layout issues, or if you need something more stable, use Selenium. PhantomJS 1.8 has WebDriver support: <http://phantomjs.org/release-1.8.html> If you want headless Selenium.</comment></comment>


Google's Grid Meter Looks to Save Homeowners Some Green - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailytech.com/Googles+Grid+Meter+Looks+to+Save+Homeowners+Some+Green/article14221.htm

<comment><USER2> Compare and contrast: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=477384></comment>