SOPA could ban TOR - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2011/12/22/sopa-bans-tor-the-us-navys.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

<comment><USER2> Actual URL of the article is [http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346592-281/how-sopas- cir...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346592-281/how-sopas- circumvention-ban-could-put-a-target-on-tor/)

Please submit the actual sources, not news aggregators or link sites.

</comment><comment><USER3> How can USA promote freedom of speech through these tools, and then turn around and ban them themselves? If the world's belief that America is a role model for democracy hasn't been killed by now, passing SOPA will certainly kill it. They might as well release Hillary Clinton from her job because nobody will take her seriously anymore if this passes.

<comment><USER4> """If the world's belief that America is a role model for democracy hasn't been killed by now, passing SOPA will certainly kill it."""

I don't think many countries consider the US a "model for democracy". More like a greedy global cop with a (not so hidden) agenda and holier-than-thou attitude.

Which reminds me: " _I'm well-known for my sarcasm. But even I wouldn't have thought of placing a statue of liberty in the harbor of New York_ ". (George Bernard Shaw, satirist)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the "democratic" downvoting

/s

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> VPNs are used by our own government and many US businesses. Even something simple like SSH is enough to get around an IP block. There is no way this language will hold up.

<comment><USER6> SSH and VPN software aren't "designed or marketed...for the circumvention or bypassing" of SOPA. Neither, come to think of it, is Tor.

<comment><USER7> Well, it would have been weird (and impressive) for people to market technology against a law that had yet to be written.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ironically, _even if Tor becomes illegal_ , the effect of SOPA passing could be millions of people flocking to Tor (or other onion projects such as I2P). This would be a net positive for internet freedom: Tor would work better, using Tor would not be a suspicious activity, and the government would have to either arrest millions of people or suck it up.

<comment><USER9> Small technical correction: I2P uses Garlic routing, which is based on the same basic ideas, but is implemented very differently.

<http://www.i2p2.de/how_garlicrouting>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You know what? This might be the perfect thing to kill SOPA. I've heard suspicion (I'd venture to call it a conspiracy theory, except it doesn't seem all that outlandish) that Tor is actively used by various intelligence agencies, in the US and otherwise. The theory being that a network like Tor is only useful for hiding CIA traffic (for example) if the majority of traffic on Tor is non-CIA related.

If SOPA effectively bans Tor, I could imagine the head of the CIA placing a strongly worded phone call to the President ensuring that the bill gets vetoed... Yeah, I wouldn't count on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is how things play out either.

<comment><USER11> Given that Tor was originally developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory it wouldn't be surprising if they were still using it [1].

But I don't think the CIA would care about SOPA. They are quite able to use "illegal" technologies, and don't need the law changed to do it.

[1] <https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en>

<comment><USER10> The point is that the CIA would need many non-CIA individuals in the US using Tor to effectively mask CIA traffic. Sure, if SOPA outlaws Tor that would not prevent the CIA from using it, but if it effectively reduces the number of others using it, then Tor becomes useless for the intelligence community.

 _Edit_ : Also, thanks for the link. I had forgotten, but the Tor project tacitly admits to an ulterior motive from the intelligence community.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Next: SOPA could ban USB thumb drives

<comment><USER13> Ah hell, let's ban punch cards too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> How is this possible? I was under the impression that TOR by design cannot be shut down by an external source. Am I off base here, or is this another "series of tubes" example of how congress doesn't understand technology?

<comment><USER15> As long as you're using TOR to connect to any regular site, your traffic will eventually exit the TOR network through an exit node. If that node's ISP performs packet inspection and traffic originating from it ends up hitting an URL for illegal content on a download site, the exit node could be taken down and it's owner prosecuted.

Only hidden services using the .onion alternate TLD are safe.

<comment><USER16> Is .onion technically considered a TLD? Even thigh its outside the DNS system?

<comment><USER17> .onion is a pseudo-top-level domain host suffix (similar in concept to such endings as .bitnet and .uucp used in earlier times) designating an anonymous hidden service reachable via the Tor network. Such addresses are not actual DNS names, and the .onion TLD is not in the Internet DNS root

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "To be sure, it's unlikely that the attorney general would try to force Microsoft, Apple, and Mozilla to rewrite their operating systems (...)"

Subtle...

</comment><comment><USER19> Shame on CNET and BoingBoing. This is hyperbole and they _know_ it.

At the very end of the below committee hearing, Rep. Zoe Lofgren proposed an amendment that would ensure TOR and the friends aren't effected by SOPA. Rep. Lamar Smith, committee chairman, requested that she shelve the amendment so they could work on the issue out-of-channel.

<http://www.justin.tv/unearthed365/b/302702510>

Edit: I missed the paragraph in the CNET article that addresses this. Perhaps my wording is a bit strong, but I'm sticking to my guns.

<comment><USER5> Rep. Smith defended the language saying it was an important piece of the legislation. Without, it had no teeth.

He also said he cannot make guarantees that this section will not limit global free speech.

<comment><USER20> Don't these guys take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they are sworn into office? How is attempting to pass a law to subvert free speech not breaking what they swore to protect?

<comment><USER16> Politicians and most judges, and almost all lawyers, are paid specifically to come up with plausible sounding reasons why nothing violates the constitution.

It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Next generation perovskite solar cells with new world-record performance - <AUTHOR> http://exactlyscience.com/archives/11845.html <comment><USER2> Blogspam of

[http://news.unist.ac.kr/next-generation-perovskite-solar- cel...](http://news.unist.ac.kr/next-generation-perovskite-solar-cells-with- new-world-record-performance/)

with author credit (Joo Hyeon Heo) stripped out. Original has graphics also.</comment>


IT Managment Machiavelli Style - <AUTHOR> http://venturevillage.eu/the-samwer-way-according-to-machiavelli-1

<comment><AUTHOR> These guys are well known for people cloners in Europe. There is a lot of press about them so its interesting to hear what people in american think about them. Most recently they tried to clone Air BnB and went into competion with them , their site is called Wimdo. Im interested to see if more articles come out about the Arguements for cloning US Sites in Europe and how you can prevent. Highly recommend</comment>


Stanford pilots Intro to CS course taught in JavaScript instead of Java - <AUTHOR> http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/02/28/cs-department-updates-introductory-courses/ <comment><USER2> Which language to use for _Introduction to Computer Science_ shouldn't be a big issue-- _Computer Science_ should be programming language independent. The syllabus I envision would teach concepts independent of programming languages (but use multiple programming languages as examples) and would begin with a discussion of computer architectures, computer instructions sets, and assembly language.

<comment><USER3> I learned Intro to CS in Ada back in 2009 or something. Loved it.

I don't think it matters what language and making the language a big deal is like making the OS choice a big deal. It never mattered and it shouldn't matter.

</comment></comment><comment> gingerbread-man MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Caltech, and Cornell use Python; Harvard and Princeton use C; Berkeley uses Lisp :); Illinois and UWash use Java

It's interesting how diverse the language choices of CS101 courses are at different universities.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm waiting for a CS101 taught in PHP.

</comment><comment><USER5> JS no. Swift or Go - yes please.

<comment><USER6> Or Rust, or maybe F#. All interesting choices, but wouldn't it be like choosing a company for their students?</comment></comment>


Docker sends SIGKILL to all processes on the host if a CRLF start-script is used - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/moby/moby/issues/40265 <comment><USER2> I thoroughly enjoyed that.</comment>


Show HN: Lumn.io – The most awesome stories - <AUTHOR> http://www.lumn.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN! How do most of you find stories you care about on the web? Everyday, I have a few go-to sites that I use but usually only find a couple stories I'm really interested in...Extending this circle of sites is difficult as well with 1000's of news/media options (e.g. Vice, NPR, Gizmodo, HBR, CNN, Medium...the list goes on forever) which site to try out and then I have to take the time to find stuff I care about on those sites. Furthermore, this is complicated by each site organizing content such that it's easier to see what they want you to see vs what might interest you (agendas). I've come to realize that it's really difficult to find great stories on a daily basis so thought what if people could share any story they found on the web (from anywhere!) and have this content in one place, then instead of organizations deciding what we see, the community gets to decide that. I put together a simple site to see if people are interested in sharing stories they find on the web and also in discovering interesting content and wanted to see what you all thought.

Wrote a short 'About Us' section to more or less summarize what I'd like to achieve. [http://www.lumn.io/documents/about_us](http://www.lumn.io/documents/about_us)

Keep in mind this is a work in progress. I'd love to see some of the interesting stuff you all read. If you have any feedback/comments, feel free to email me at email@example.com</comment>


World's oldest fossil trees uncovered in New York - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50840134 <comment><USER2> Is the precision on dating these trees really enough to say that between these two fossils that are over 386 million years old, this one is older by just two or three million years? That seems like a difference you'd expect well within the error bars of however you measure fossil age - is there some way they conclusively can order these fossils without knowing exact ages or anything?

<comment><USER3> Perhaps they know the stratigraphic relationship between the sites and can estimate that way? (If one fossil is above another and you can rule out faulting or overturning, then you know which is younger.)</comment></comment>


Google confirms experiment to remove full address from URL bar in Chrome - <AUTHOR> https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/06/15/google-confirms-experiment-to-remove-full-address-from-url-bar-in-chrome-details-opt-out-mechanism/ <comment><USER2> > "We think this is an important problem area to explore because phishing and > other forms of social engineering are still rampant on the web"

Yet this will make it even easier to phish within a domain, eg instagram/youtube?</comment>


Ask HN: How do you go about acquiring your initial customers? - <AUTHOR>

I'm in the process of developing a new web based app which is targeted towards estate agents (B2B).
I was curious to learn more about how you initially acquired your first set of customers when building your MVP? Did you email any potential leads explaining what you are developing? Did you call them? Do you have any advice or tips you could provide me?
I have already created a landing page explaining the concept and a form to capture any potential leads. I have also created the screens in HTML of what the application will look like so I can provide them with a demo in order for them to get a good grasp and feel of how it will work.
I'm basically attempting to validate whether I have a potential product or not - ideally, if my idea is validated and my leads express interest I would like to work with at least 10 of them and develop a MVP. Would you have personally gone about doing it this way? <comment><USER2> You seem to be on the right path by saying you want to work with 10 of them. However, it doesn't sound like you're ready for your first customers, since you haven't talked with any of them!

While you think you have a great idea that will change the real estate business, the truth is that you don't know at all. You need to start talking to real estate agents. Send emails, phone calls, offer to take them to lunch, drop by their office. Talk about your idea (focusing on why they should care -- what will this do for them?). And -- importantly -- listen to their feedback.

Once you've had several in-depth conversations with 5-10 of these folks, you should know what they care about, and what the value of your product is to them. At that point, it should be easy to get your early partners to pay for the service -- after all, it was pretty much designed for them!

Also recommended: Steve Blanks "4 steps to the epiphany".

<comment><USER2> One final thing - be resourceful. You have to call, email, visit, get referrals to, use linkedin (seriously, linkedin is great for b2b companies because people on Linkedin actually want to talk/connect with you!).

Doing the whole landing page "Field of Dreams" approach isn't going to work. Be resourceful (or, if you're into this term, hustle!).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Do you have any pre-existing experience or connections into the estates agent business? If possible, I would start there and with them.

If you don't have any pre-existing experience or connections into that market, it's still possible to find success but it's going to be a long and challenging path to forge...and so before even building much of an MVP, I would spend some time getting connected and ingrained in that world (which will likely have the happy side effect of revealing a lot of the real 'problems & opportunities' within).

</comment><comment><USER4> Boots on the ground. Before the product was finished being built we had interviewed dozens of potential customers, etc. Don't be afraid to walk up to strangers and at the end of an interview, ask someone who they think would be helpful person to contact. The latter trick starts to point you toward more influential / bigger players. We had a check before the alpha version was done.

</comment><comment><USER5> Talk to the customer directly! Pick up the phone and call them.. Everyone tries going viral.. but your chances are so slim. Let your customers do the work for you. It won't happen overnight, but if you believe in the process, it will work.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all the feedback, it's really appreciated.</comment>


Meet the PayPal mafia - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/13/magazines/fortune/paypal_mafia.fortune/

<comment> tsetse-fly This has been posted before. Twice.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=79713>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=84297>

<comment><AUTHOR> sorry - first time I saw it

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> It doesn't mean new people to YC have read it. If it gets voted up (this article has 11 points as I post this) then it is news to someone (or 11 someones)

</comment><comment><USER3> 'hyperintelligent' please.

More like hyperlucky to get out of the dot-com boom of the late 90's with billions instead of millions.

<comment><USER4> Lucky? They IPO'd after the crash with a profitable business. It's currently worth billions MORE than it was before- eBay got a great deal.</comment></comment>


Hacking the Oculus Rift DK2, part II - <AUTHOR> http://doc-ok.org/?p=1124

<comment><AUTHOR> Here is a link to Part 1: [http://doc-ok.org/?p=1095](http://doc- ok.org/?p=1095)

Doc-Ok (and others) are getting closer to reverse engineering the Oculus DK2 so hopefully we can have an open source Linux SDK soon. Maybe even before Facebook/Oculus releases their official version!

We are looking for more help, so if you're on irc, pleaes join us in #openhmd on freenode.net</comment>


Linux One Liner - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/look-what-i-made/9c18385ba0f0

<comment><USER2> Am the only one that thinks it shouldn't count as a one-liner if you need to use a semi-colon?</comment>


Should first employee at YC funded company work for free? - <AUTHOR> http://answers.onstartups.com/q/24947/2692

<comment><USER2> It's doubtful this is even legal, which should raise serious red flags. In many jurisdictions, if you're not (reasonably) compensated, the intellectual property belongs to you. In California, they have to pay you if you're doing real work.

[http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2010/04/15/can-a- califor...](http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2010/04/15/can-a-california- company-have-unpaid-interns/)

[http://laborlaw.typepad.com/labor_and_employment_law_/2007/1...](http://laborlaw.typepad.com/labor_and_employment_law_/2007/11/unpaid- internsh.html)

Moreover, the company is being stingy. Why? They don't want to commit to you in the long term. Fair enough, but think ahead. What's going to happen after YC? They will get a company, and you will get nothing. They will either kick you to the curb or they will offer you peanuts to stay. Will you be happy with that?

Negotiate wisely so you're getting something for the work you do. If they don't want to cough up equity, they must pay you. If they can't pay you now, agree to defer your compensation (essentially an IOU) which you can convert into equity after a certain date if it isn't paid up. They should pay you a higher than market rate (double) as well because you are the one taking the risk here; i.e. that they won't ever be able to pay you.

It sounds like your decision making is distorted by your goal of getting YC experience. If you want a YC experience, why not just apply yourself? You don't need YC either. There are hundreds of other startups in the Valley you can cut your teeth on. You have limited life energy. Why give it away for nothing?

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, they should work for free, and YC founders have _droit de seigneur_ , "first dibs"†, on any date/partner/hookup said "employee" brings home.

Guys, it's 2011, not 1511. Feudal system & slavery are over. Sheesh.

\--

† an earlier edition incorrectly spelled this as "dips", we thank our careful readership for the correction.

<comment><USER4> It's "first dibs":

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

<comment><USER5> I actually like "first dips" in this context. It's a much more vivid mental image.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As so often happens on the Internet, there has been a rush to judgment here. I emailed the guy who posted that question, asking him if a YC co had made him an offer of the sort he described, and here's what he said:

"No company has made me an offer along these lines. I was trying to second guess them from a conversation I had. I thought I'd ask that question so I was properly armed should they come back with this kind of offer."

</comment><comment><USER7> An employee needs to be compensated for their work. If that's in the form of salary or equity, that's your business. However, you need to be compensated, somehow. Otherwise, it isn't work, it's charity. Non-deductible charity at that.

If someone is asking you to work for nothing (no pay, no benefits, no equity), you need to walk... no run... away from that deal.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that the company would open itself up to IP issues if they weren't compensating you. Let's say you came up with some killer code to do something that the world needs. Who would own the IP? The company that didn't pay you? You're not an employee if you aren't compensated - it isn't work for hire. So, now they have a problem.

<comment><USER8> I think you meant "you need to run... no walk... away from that deal." Other than that, all good points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The answer to all questions related to 'should I work for free,' is 'no.'

The point of work is to get paid, or to at least, get something valuable for the work. An internship might be an example of not getting paid but getting something of value. Barter would be another example...

If you are going to work for free, work for yourself. At least then the finished product is your intellectual property and there is some possibility of you making money off of it directly or indirectly.

</comment><comment><USER10> No. Just because they got into YC doesn't mean you should work for rent. They haven't made it, they've still got a significant chance of failing, and you working there is going to directly impact whether or not they _do_ make it so you should be rewarded beyond "living expenses".

If they can't appreciate that then bugger them. I can't help but feel there's no way they _couldn't_ appreciate how significant a third set of hands would be and you shouldn't work for them anyway because there is something rotten there.

</comment><comment><USER11> First answer nails it. If you're taking a risk and taking a hit to your income, you're a cofounder. Congratulations, and enjoy your equity.

If you're not getting a big slug of equity, you're an early employee; enjoy your below-market, but way-above-subsistence, salary.

One would hope that YC companies aren't abusing their brand and cachet in order to underpay employees. It's not necessary; given the capital available to these companies, and the caliber of people willing to work for YC firms, the optimal solution is to raise the funds you need and hire the people you need, _not_ to hire the next tier down at a rock-bottom rate.

</comment><comment><USER12> And unless your equity starts vesting right away, you should be getting a salary. You don't want to work for 364 days, then get laid off and get absolutely nothing for your efforts.

Not that people would do that, but if you make it possible, it could happen.

<comment><USER13> I would actually go even further, and say that unless your equity is comparable to that of the founders, you absolutely should not be working for free.

<comment><USER14> The founders clearly do not consider this person a founder so I don't think founder equity is appropriate at all.

<comment><USER15> The founders opinion isn't decisive.

Even if it's legal to make such an offer, no one is obligated to accept it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> No, of course not.

</comment><comment><USER16> Aside from whether this is ethical or not, its not legal in California. Even interns have to be paid at least minimum wage.

<comment><USER17> In most states, afaik, unpaid interns are not allowed to be working on things that provide income to the company.

<comment><USER14> So what if, like almost all startups, no income is being generated?

<comment><USER17> hrm. That's an interesting stance, and I don't know!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Get equity

Get paid

Whether they are in YC or not is irrelevant. YC is a nice to have but not a determinant in your compensation.

1 year cliff

4 years vesting

They also have money in the bank (Thanks to Yuri)

</comment><comment><USER19> Surprised a company getting into YC would try and run with a deal like this. I mean yes you have no money and want to scale up, but you have to at least give someone a significant equity chunk up close to the founders to expect someone to take on the same risk. Otherwise they are just an employee and should get market rate.

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't think you can even use the word 'employee' if you're not being compensated for your work.

I'm sad that someone presumably talented would even entertain the thought that working for nothing is in any way reasonable.

(i.e, Sad at the reality that skilled people are gullible and undervalue their worth)

</comment><comment><USER21> Absolutely no: no salary makes you a co-founder (who should have a large equity stake). No equity makes you a contractor/consultant (who should receive an above market salary, as they receive no equity or benefits).

The options are (pre-series A): large chunk of equity (1-2%), a below market salary. Post-series A: market salary, good amount of equity. Series-B and above: above market rate (you're longer offering a "life changing" amount of equity, yet you aren't offering the benefits/bonuses/etc.. that larger corporations can), some equity.

If a company is offering something significantly below this (co-founders without equity, salary significant lower than other same-stage companies) they won't be able to hire people who have other options.

This sounds just strange: either the co-founders are very inexperienced, or they're deliberately looking for people who can't get _any other job_ (why else would someone take this?)

The only exception to this is if you really can't get another job, but want one: if you have no professional programming experience, studying CS isn't an option for you, yet you have the confidence that you'll be able to learn and grow in that position until you're able to get a better job. The founders have to also consciously realize that this is what they're offering you (so that they can serve as a reference when you apply to future jobs). Think of it as a (more intense) form of internship.

</comment><comment><USER14> Did this really happen? I would be surprised at the lack of acumen of a YC- approved company. While the experience of YC is priceless, you should of course be getting a salary or equity of a little of each. And unless the sustenance pay is at least minimum wage, it might be illegal in California. If this really happened and there wasn't some mis-undertanding, I would question the credibility of the company.

</comment><comment><USER22> Founders equity (> 20%) == Same risk as founders, same pay as founders.

Employee[0] equity (<20%) == some salary depending on equity stake.

Whether it's a YC company or not doesn't matter. There are now over 250 YC companies, and 60 in this current batch. They are _all hiring_. You have a choice.

There are over 300 startups funded through Angel List this past year (a number of them YC'ers). They are all looking for engineers as well.

Google is looking for thousands of engineers, Yelp a couple hundred(pre IPO), Zynga a couple hundred (pre IPO), Facebook a bunch (pre -IPO), Twitter a couple hundred (pre-IPO). And, they are all competing for the same talent pool... you.

Not only that, but if it's a current YC company, you know they just got around $180k in money right off the bat, so they have a bit of something in the bank to pay you.

</comment><comment><USER23> I disagree with a lot of the naysayers here.

Assuming this arrangement is legal (which others have pointed out might not be correct), I'm not sure this is such a bad deal.

Assuming you have access to all the YC dinners, the talks with pg et. all, etc., this is close to a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get an up-close look at one of the greatest institutions for startups around. That's worth a lot in itself.

I'm specifically talking about a case where the deal is _only for the 3 months of YC_. If someone came up to me with a deal to live in SF for 3 months and go through all of YC and learn from the experience, at the cost of _only_ 3 months for myself, I'm not sure that I wouldn't be extremely tempted.

</comment><comment><USER24> Will you be able to take public credit for your contribution, and will it be big enough to impress people? What I'm thinking here is that if they become very successful and well known, and you can point to them and say "I'm the guy who built their infrastructure" or something like that, that might get you a really good high paying job somewhere else or get a good consulting career launched.

But generally, unless you have some specific plan like that in mind, I think the vast majority here are right and it is a bad idea.

</comment><comment><USER25> Anybody working for free should get exactly the same equity as the founders. Or more than that if the founders are getting salary/benefits.

</comment><comment><USER26> the arrogance of a company to even propose such a relationship with an employee blows me away

</comment><comment><USER27> Only if you believe in the people (and to a lesser degree the project) then I'd say it'd be good to consider it. Or if you're independently wealthy enough and value the y-comb experience that much.

<comment><USER28> _Only if you believe in the people_

If they do not cough up equity or salary then they don't believe in you. Which should be a red flag, you are letting the fact that they got into YC blind you to the fact that it is a bad deal all the way around. It is the only reason I could fathom that someone would even be entertaining such a deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> probably not. If you have enough funding to give the employee a salary, you might as well. I think it would turn off a lot of talent if they weren't getting any salary whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER30> see <http://shouldiworkforfree.com/>

The only problem with Jessica's chart is she didn't make the NO in red font and twice as big.</comment>


Google's CEO is increasingly boxed in by regulators, critics, and employees - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-19/everyone-s-mad-at-google-and-sundar-pichai-has-to-fix-it <comment><USER2> So what is this? A big PR piece so we'll feel all sorry for 'that poor Google CEO that's got such a tough job'? (first paragraph, he talks about how he's "not good at multitasking", and some things are "difficult".)

At least, that's what I'm thinking after reading the article. it kinda makes sense, too, that Google is looking for a bit of a breather after this much coming against them. Still, I think the stuff they're dealing with is pretty much what they asked for.

\- ads next to "unseemly" youtube videos: this is their core business, and in every other place you buy ads it matters where those ads are placed and who sees them and in what context. This problem is exactly what Google is expected to solve.

\- gender inequality: this seems to come with the territory. every other CEO in the US, not to mention North America & Europe (etc.) is dealing with this too.

\- staff protest about Trump immigration policy: the CEO was on their side. In his words, "the fight will continue." He doesn't get to say this is a headache he's got to deal with when he takes that kind of approach.

\- a big regulatory fine. From what I've heard, it's almost impossible that Google wasn't rather careless in letting this happen. 'ask forgiveness, not permission' seems to be a mantra that Google follows, and this seems to be an instance where they're now asking forgiveness.

\- and finally, Google is 'too big' and people are worried about its power. "boo hoo, we were too successful."

[sources for everything are in the main article or linked from it]

Deal with it, Sundar Pichai. You've got the same job every other CEO has got, and the same pressure. Buck up.

<comment><USER3> Indeed, the public and regulators are not pushing enough, the floor needs to be hotter for the CEO, whoever is in charge.

Google has lost its cute startup image long time ago and people have realized companies are never out there for the social / greater good, just for profits.

It's time to break up Google.

<comment><USER4> > It's time to break up Google.

Just like Apple, Facebook and Amazon?

<comment><USER3> Apple and Amazon actually sell you a product, they are not in the business of selling yourself to others.

<comment><USER5> Why would that mean they are less deserving of regulation? Microsoft sold products during their regulatory troubles, so did the Rockefeller empire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _> Google has historically stumbled in the difficult business of hardware, despite several multibillion-dollar attempts, including the $12 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility (since sold off for $2.9 billion)_

Are we really _still_ repeating this nonsense? The $2.9B number quoted above was merely what Google sold Motorola Mobility's _handset_ division for. It also sold the company's set-top box division for another $2.35B, plus it kept the $2.9B cash hoard that came with the acquisition, and additionally $2.4B in tax credits and a patent portfolio valued at around $4B.

Add those numbers up, and you get $14.55B.

Source: [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1987261-googles- acquisition...](https://seekingalpha.com/article/1987261-googles-acquisition- of-motorola-not-such-a-failure-after-all)

Another source, with somewhat different numbers, but in the same ballpark and an order of magnitude above what Bloomberg reported: [https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/did-google-really- lo...](https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/did-google-really-lose-on-its- original-motorola-deal/?_r=0)

<comment> shawn-furyan > Are we really still repeating this nonsense?

I get the sense that this "fact" was used BECAUSE it's "well-known". It serves the narrative purpose of showing that Google is fallible, rather than sinister (truth be damned).

The article begins by describing the CEO of one of the 10 largest companies in the world's office furniture. It was clear from the outset that this was not going to be an article terribly troubled by a sense of duty to present a completely neutral reading of the relevant facts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article title is "Everyone's Mad at Google and Sundar Pichai Has to Fix It"

The very short TL:DR is that Pichai is beset on all sides by people who expect Google to move mountains, reinvent itself. It goes on to discuss Pichai is a leader/person and ends on the quote "As Pichai has learned, Big Tech companies can no longer skate by on faith in their fundamental benevolence"

<comment><USER8> > Pichai is beset on all sides by people who expect Google to move mountains, > reinvent itself

TIL not showing fake news or having your advertisers associated with ISIS videos is "moving mountains".

<comment><USER9> While you're considering zaphar's post and mentally designing your "get rid of ISIS videos" system, remember that YouTube gets 400 hours of video uploaded every _minute_

<comment><USER10> So, you'd only need an average of 18,000 people on duty around the clock to do review of everything uploaded to YouTube.

At $15/hour pay, that's only about $2.4 billion/year for reviewers; all told, with supervision and other overhead, maybe on the order of $7.5 billion/yr.

It's probably not _impossible_ for Google, and it wouldn't even make Google unprofitable. But it would make _YouTube_ unprofitable.

<comment><USER11> TIL there are still people who think Google brute-forces anything.

<comment><USER10> The post you are responding to does not indicate anything about my belief in what Google currently does (well, except that it makes the amount of money it's financial reports say it makes.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am actually happy that life becomes more difficult the bigger companies get. It was a good thing that Microsoft got some heat in the 90s and stopped dominating the market. I hope that Facebook and Apple also will also get more scrutiny.

<comment><USER13> All those firms you've mentioned are already too big. Anything they do will generate scrutiny so they've stopped innovating. That's why Google is trying to take up role as an 'angel investor.' [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/google-and-amazon-are- ready-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/google-and-amazon-are-ready-to- disrupt-small-business-lending-former-obama-advisor-says.html)

<comment><USER14> What is your evidence that Google has "stopped innovating"? In my opinion Google is very focused on making sure that innovation doesn't stop, because if it stops they will lose.

<comment><USER15> Google acquires innovators, it doesn't innovate much itself. Everything new Google has launched since like... Chrome, has been an acquisition, or an integration of a couple of acquisitions together. (Sure, that work is not small, but at the point Google got involved, the innovative part was mostly over.)

Self-driving car team was picked up wholesale from a university, DeepMind was an acquisition, most of what Google Lens is was from an acquisition. Projects like Ara, Jacquard, and Tango were all from Motorola's ATAP division, which they acquired. Almost anything you see coming out of Google can be traced back to an existing thing that Google purchased, rebranded, and relaunched.

cromwellian's comment probably lends to explaining some of why: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15519220](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15519220)

<comment><USER14> You miss some key products (>1B Users) Google has created completely within: Search, GMail, Maps, Calendar, etc.

Many of Google's products did start from acquisitions. Though those startups can't claim all the credit. Most wouldn't have become as big as they are now without the capital and talent that Google brought to them.

<comment><USER15> I specified: 'Since Chrome'. All of those products predate Chrome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Recent Xoogler. My observations/opinions:

\- To many inside, the company feels like it lacks direction. It feels like the leadership doesn't know where to take Google and this pervades pretty much everything;

\- There is a lot of discontent at the the amount of money Google throws at executives. I mean Sundar got paid ~$200m LAST YEAR. Levandowski got $120m+. Back in the day, Patrick Pachette was parising the benefits of scrappiness, which saved $40m in travel costs that year. Incidentally, his was paid ~$40m extra that year;

\- It feels like there are constant reorgs going on. This plays into the directionless point above but is also symptomatic of politics run amok and middle managers creating work for themselves and covering their asses. I mean a decision can never be judged good or bad if it lasts at most 6 months before another reorg.

\- Some units were deliberately keep apart from Google. Most notably Youtube, Android and X. This exacerbates a cultural drift such that Google is really becoming autonomous and separate business units;

\- Internal mobility is harder than it used to be and also less advisable for your career, as a general rule.

\- It takes too long to do pretty much anything, particularly anything UI related. This is in part because UI work is looked down upon by the engineering leadership and the tech stacks are like 10 years behind the rest of the world.

\- Sundar came up through Chrome and still seemed to me see everything through a Chrome colored lens. Chrome in particular had (has?) a bad rep for hazing and their retention numbers for women engineers in particularly aren't great.

\- Google promotion culture seems to value individual technical ability above all else. I can see how this breeds the views of the likes of Damore. Worse, it seems like a lot of PAs tolerate someone being an ass if they're a high performer, which is an unfortunate reward loop.

\- This all said, there are a lot of talented and great people and projects at Google. At the same time you could probably get rid of half the company because they don't really seem to have anything to do.

\- Left to their own devices teams will create work for themselves. This is most apparent in Maps, which definitely went through a period of new work and features making the experience decidedly worse by, say, unifying data pipelines because consistency to some is an absolute good.

\- The effects of Vic's disastrous reign can still be felt and Larry needs to take the ultimate blame for that.

\- There seems to be little or no regard for the harm in burning user trust. This comes in many forms but includes announcing projects and then cancelling or abandoning them.

<comment><USER17> > _Google promotion culture seems to value individual technical ability above > all else._

If I was at a company that promoted people on anything else but their merit and skills, I'd leave immediately because of misalignment of values. If hard work and skills are not valued, the company itself is doomed.

<comment><USER16> Superficially what you say might be right but the truth is far more insidious than that.

For one your prospects are tied to how well your project does. Sounds reasonable right? But what this results in is many teams battling to "win" with politics often playing a large role in who is the victor, rewrites of existing code essentially to prove your technical prowess and make your promotion case and little to no valuation of team value rather than individual value, namely that teams are (or can be) greater than their sum of parts.

The last point is a key one and an area where the likes of Damore go wrong. The best team isn't one simply that's the sum of the people who individually had the highest "merit".

Put another way the cynical view is your shit never breaks no one notices but if it breaks in a big way and you fix it, well that's impact. Likewise adding a feature isn't nearly as much impact as rewriting the whole thing from scratch.

<comment><USER18> A better way to put this is, in general, refactoring code to make it healthier, or improving product excellence by fixing some long running bugs, does not get the same visibility as launching something.

However, to be fair, I haven't been at many companies where "cleaned up code base with large scale refactor and improved documentation" gets you noticed. It's just not as sexy as a customer facing launch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Google should learn from old Microsoft's mistakes and voluntarily become more partner-centric before they are forced down that road by the Government.

<comment><USER20> In what way is Microsoft more partner friendly than Google?

<comment><USER21> You can install Linux distributions and run them in Windows from Microsoft's own store. The bulk of .NET is open source. VSCode is pretty good. No one seems worried Microsoft will suddenly shut Azure down or lock non-Windows operating systems out. They did a lot of work to make git work on huge, complicated projects (for Windows) and shared it. ([https://github.com/Microsoft/git](https://github.com/Microsoft/git))

Meanwhile, Google is...well, where are they? They never did give us that Linux Google Drive client they promised. They announce products then shut them down, so no one can really trust their products. Even the ones we had before Google lost its way (I miss Reader's trends feature). Aside from whoever's on the Takeout team, Google seems to have stopped caring about sharing and working with others.

<comment><USER22> There's plenty to criticize in Google, but this idea that MS is suddenly so much better is absurd, in my opinion.

Microsoft open sourced .NET. Meanwhile, Google... open sourced Android, Chromium (including V8), Tensorflow, Go, Dart, Angular, Kubernetes, and literally hundreds of other projects. They also fund Let's Encrypt and contributions to third-party OSS projects on their annual Summer of Code.

And Microsoft was discontinued plenty of products: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Discontinued_Microsof...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Discontinued_Microsoft_software)

Finally, MS still uses patents as attack weapons, which AFAIK Google has never done.

<comment><USER23> Android is a very bad example in that list. Most of the rest makes sense, but Android doesn't.

Android is a project where nowadays not even the dialing app is open source anymore, nor the calendar, email, home screen, nor camera.

Android is a project where OEMs are banned from shipping competing forks of Android as long as they ship a single device with Google's Android.

<comment><USER11> Sounds like a complaint that Google has open-sourced the OS they derive their product from, rather than open-sourcing their proprietary product.

<comment><USER23> Google had open sourced all of Android, until 7 years ago.

In 2010, even the Google Search and Google Talk apps were open source.

But Google is moving every year more of these features into the proprietary apps.

Nowadays you can't even use the OpenGL ES drivers anymore without going through the proprietary Play Services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> With great power comes great scrutiny. And rightly so.

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't get why Google cops so much flack. Other companies which are considerably less useful (facebook), more intrusive (facebook), actively manipulate user psychology (facebook), sell highly addictive harmful products (Snap inc, big tobacco) or are destroying the planet (the frackers, Schlumberger), seem to escape much criticism.

</comment><comment><USER26> Putting Sundar Pichai in this highly public position was a great move for the founders.

</comment><comment><USER27> I didn't know that Sergey Brin and Larry Page still held 51% of the company. That feels unreal.

<comment><USER28> 51% of the voting shares

<comment><USER29> If they still owned 51% of the company their respective net worth would make even Bezos seem paltry

<comment><USER12> Market cap is around 700 billion at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This just sounds like whining from someone who gets paid a metric shit-ton of money to run google. Frankly, he should just shut-up and get on with his job, If its too f __king hard, resign.

</comment><comment><USER31> With political power comes political problems.

</comment><comment><USER32> Once a company gets listed in NYSE, govt should impose tax on its revenues, not profits;

</comment><comment><USER8> > Discussing the issue, Pichai deploys the vocabulary of an apologetic CEO > that's become de rigueur in Silicon Valley since last November. He says the > word "thoughtful" 13 times and "deeply" (feeling, listening, en

I'm reminded of the BP CEO on South Park. Not that he's actually anything like that guy, it's just what comes to mind.

> Pichai's solution to the gnawing problems of fake news and illicit content > that slip through Google artificial intelligence is, no surprise, more > artificial intelligence

Of course it is. What do they say the definition of insanity is again?

> has stirred general alarm about AI; he thinks computers that make their own > decisions and are smarter than people could enslave humanity.

at least google isn't saying this.

</comment><comment><USER33> Oh no, the internet search-driven-advertising monopoly is getting some static from regulators. Not Fair!

Maybe the CEO should have a 3 martini lunch with some Investment Bank CEOs.

</comment><comment><USER34> if we as a society idolized our leaders less, leaders would not have it this hard. But we idolize them in big part because they are encouraging it. So that's where perhaps leaders should start: don't idolize me, I am a person, with similar deficiencies that you all have.

</comment><comment><USER35> Awww... the poor multi-millionaire has actual hard-work to do! How pitiful!

</comment><comment><USER29> Headline is pretty clickbaity

<comment><USER36> We've changed it to language from the subtitle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is a pretty funny headline

</comment><comment><USER38> Paywall

<comment><USER39> open the link in anonymous mode and it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> What about Elon Musk or John Carmack running Google? I would love it.

</comment><comment><USER41> Pretty easy. Google will innovate like a startup or die slowly. All the other stuff is noise

<comment><USER12> They will probably end up like Microsoft or Oracle. Solid companies but the magic is gone. Same probably for Apple after Jobs.

<comment><USER15> Agreed. Mostly because the amount of cash companies like Google and Apple have mean they can afford to not be magical for a long time. They have plenty of cash they can burn while trying to regain that magic.

After Microsoft lost it's pedestal, it didn't go anywhere remarkable until Nadella's big cloud services push, where they have changed up quite a bit and reentered the marketplace in a big way.

There may just be a point a company becomes too large to ever completely die, since they have enough cash to spend decades looking for a way to revitalize themselves. Though I say that as we've seen former giants like Sears be brought to the brink of death.

<comment><USER18> I don't know why this was voted down, but there is merit to it.

Successful, world changing product launches are mostly serendipity, luck, and timing. You could have the right product at the wrong time, or the wrong product at the right time, or both. Most of the home runs (Google Search, iPod, iPhone, Windows 95, etc) happened because of simultaneous fit of product and time. I'd argue the original Mac was too early, and Win95 was timed right.

In 1984, the vast majority of people weren't ready for a home computer, especially at $5000+ in 2017 dollars. Computing was still highly technical and reserved for specialists -- even though the Mac wanted to change that. It wasn't until the mid 90s and into 2000s, where hundreds of millions of people were ready to integrate computers as "must haves" as part of their life. Microsoft rode that wave, the way Google rode the wave of the internet explosion, and Apple rode the wave of the mobile that had been building.

Everyone's looking for the "next big thing", they're spending money like crazy in a thousand different directions: AI, AR, VR, Health, Cars, etc. But no one knows.

There's the assumption that it's AI, because of the scale, but does AI need a big company? Part of the assumption is you need lots of data, an inherent advantage for big companies, but what if you don't?

AlphaGoZero just proved, that unlike AlphaGo, you can start with nothing, and still succeed.

Silicon Valley executives fear the big AI breakthrough will happen at a small startup, come out of nowhere, and disrupt them. AI firms are being bought almost as soon as they form with no product.

All the while, what if the next big breakthrough isn't even AI? What if it's battery chemistry? If someone discovers a battery with just 10x the density, it would change everything. For example, drones could fly for 5 hours instead of 30 minutes. What would that enable?

It's hard to compute what the downstream effects of small disruptive changes in tech will bring, and if history is any guide, new companies will come out of no where with shocking results.

One of the things small scrappy startups can do is, ignore the bad rep and government oversight. A large company that missteps will grab the world's attention, so they have to be risk averse, which means slow. Google can't ship a self driving car that kills people, but startups can ship self driving aftermarket add-ons that do, because in the worst case, they lose the investors money, and they start another company, they don't end up exploding $200 billion in market cap.

<comment><USER42> >AlphaGoZero just proved, that unlike AlphaGo, you can start with nothing, and still succeed.

There are various types of AI. The type of AI AlphaGo is something that needs computing power and smart people. The kind of AI you see in Google Photos and Translate is what needs large amounts of data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I guess when you want to control everything and position yourself as the controller of all things, then people expect you to do that.

Google's problem is that it's too big and some of their core values are starting to become mutually exclusive of each other; you can't be a "you"tube where anyone can upload anything but also pull in TV-level advertising dollars.</comment>


Enable MP3 support for Commons uploads and TMH/etc. playback - <AUTHOR> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120288 <comment><USER2> Never thought I'd see MP3 as a free, open standard. Will Safari drop support for it now?

<comment><USER3> You jest, but you do realise native Opus support was added to iOS11 and macOS 10.13 right?

<comment><USER4> In standalone files, though? Or just in WebRTC?

<comment><USER3> [https://webkit.org/blog/7726/announcing-webrtc-and-media- cap...](https://webkit.org/blog/7726/announcing-webrtc-and-media-capture/) only talks about WebRTC, but according to [https://hetzel.net/2017-06-12/ios-11-opus-support-in- podcast...](https://hetzel.net/2017-06-12/ios-11-opus-support-in-podcast- feeds/)

> iOS 11 comes with native playback support for the Opus audio codec inside > the CAF container.

> In Beta 1, there is no support for playing Opus in CAF files in Safari, but…

> Podcasts.app supports Opus playback, if you claim the file is AAC, although > it's CAF containing Opus.

<comment><USER4> So, it doesn't support Opus in its native container format, but you could potentially do some JS trickery. Hmm :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is a lot of mp3 media out there, but I would encourage people to use Opus[1] where possible.

[1] [http://opus-codec.org/comparison/](http://opus-codec.org/comparison/)

<comment><USER6> is this built into device hardware?

<comment><USER7> Sure! As Opus is used for audio in WebRTC and many Voip products there are hardware implementations available and shipped in masses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> From the discussions there, in summary, it seemed that: MP3 will be supported by MediaWiki, WMF legal team has approved usage MP3 in Wikimedia projects, and Wikimedia Commons and other wikis will discuss whether to enable MP3 uploading.

</comment><comment><USER9> Finally one will be able to play the embeddded audio files that are on wiki pages on sone platforms/software. MP3 is far better supported everywhere than OGG.

<comment> TD-Linux You can already play Wikipedia's audio files on Edge or Safari. Try it here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Adventure_Lights.ogg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Adventure_Lights.ogg)

Spoiler: it's ogv.js.

<comment><USER10> Doesn't work on iOS, even though the official ogv.js demo works.

<comment><USER11> Adding on to this: iOS doesn't play mp3 for mp4 containers either. Encoding media to play on an iDevice means resorting to AAC, which doesn't have as good licensed codecs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't see a compelling reason to enable this. Opus is superior in every way.

<comment><USER3> > I don't see a compelling reason to enable this.

Clients support.

<comment><USER7> WebRTC uses Opus. I don't think a web browser that does not support WebRTC is worth caring about.

<comment><USER3> WebRTC requires Opus support _for WebRTC_. That does not mean arbitrary containers with an Opus stream inside is supported.

For instance Lollipop supports Opus _in a Matroska container_ , iOS11 supports Opus _in a CAF container_ , ...

<comment><USER7> So? Even Microsoft Edge supports Opus in webm.

<comment><USER3> 1\. LAV filters do that, if you can't install LAV filters (Windows 10S?), it won't work

2\. and as expected you're now tearing the lawn running with the goalposts, supporting opus and supporting opus in webm are — as I just told you — very different requirements

<comment><USER7> [https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/04/18/webm- vp9-and-...](https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/04/18/webm-vp9-and-opus- support-in-microsoft-edge/)

edit: I won't continue arguing since you keep editing your posts.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to be productive in a small startup - <AUTHOR>

Hi we are a small startup with around 10 people in total and 3 developers. We are still in a stage of doing things that don't scale, but I have the feeling that the development is not productive at all. It takes us a long time to finish bigger features because we have to do a lot of others things.<p>Out of your experience what works best for the dev team at a small startup, so that it ca be productive. <comment><USER2> Set proper expectations. Everything takes about twice as long as you think, so it's best to break things down into as small steps as possible. This is the heart of agile / iterative dev, where productivity is measured by what you learn and validate about your startup's premise.

If you're not feeling productive from day to day, it's because you're biting off more than you can chew.</comment>


How To Become An Email Ninja - <AUTHOR> http://anthonypompliano.com/2013/05/08/how-to-become-an-email-ninja/

<comment><USER2> I use multiple emails personally. One for junk/not sure websites, personal, work, etc. Multiple emails might sound hard to manage, but it ends up actually easier to use. Check personal and work emails on a regular basis. Email for junk, once in a blue moon. I can scan emails a lot more efficiently this way.</comment>


Questions you should ask your interviewer - <AUTHOR> http://www.talentzoo.com/news.php/Questions-You-Absolutely-Must-Ask-Your-Interviewer/?articleID=9159 <comment><USER2> Speaking from my experience looking for internships during school and for jobs after graduating, the questions you ask your interviewer are really important. Sure, people tell you that it's important because you want to look interested or like you've given the company thought, but more than that, as a person who's new to the workforce, it's important for you to learn about what's out there and what to expect.

Answers to questions about work/life balance like, "What time do people usually come in and leave?", "Do coworkers hang out outside of work?", etc. differ greatly between companies.

For internships, knowing the scope of your internship and the level of responsibility is a must.

Questions about workflow are also crucial. Where do new ideas for products come from? If I have an idea what's the process for getting it implemented?

And if you can't think of anything else, just ask what _they_ think you should know about the company. Maybe you don't know what you don't know!

You shouldn't feel like you're walking a fine line between looking disinterested for not asking questions and looking entitled for asking them. Even if you bombed the interview (and who hasn't), asking questions about the company will give you more information for comparison at the companies whose interviews you succeed at. And if you have multiple rounds of interviews, feel free to ask the same question to multiple people to get differing opinions.

The company you go to is going to be part of your life for a long time, educate yourself about work environments just like you educate yourself about your field.

</comment><comment><USER3> > What has the employee turnover rate been?

At least at MSFT, we were not allowed to answer this question. These rates can also be deceptive at face value, as you really want to know the breakdown between good attrition (fired a poor performer) and bad attrition (somebody they wanted to keep left).

Zero is also not a good answer, as it means that either they never fire anybody -- and you get to work alongside non-performers who make the same money as you -- or they fail to encourage significant enough personal growth that people occasionally outgrow their position faster than the company can make them a new one for them. Both are very, very bad situations. Well, unless you're just trying to cash a check.

</comment><comment><USER4> "Interviewing the interviewer" is an important strategy to help understand what you're getting into and helping to make sure the whole process remains two-way. But it's a fine line between making an assessment and appearing selfish. Many of OP's questions are problematic...

 _"How many clients has the company added in the past year?"_

I would prefer trying to assess growth rates outside the interview. In many cases, you should be able to get an idea some other way. This question shows lack of initiative. And, in many cases, the interviewer may not even be permitted to answer it.

 _"What has the employee turnover rate been over the past 24 months?"_

Too much focus on the negative. You don't like when they ask, "Why did you only stay with Company X for 3 months?" They'll feel the same way.

 _"What's the company's policy on work/life balance?"_

You might as well say, "I intend to deliver 40 hours of my time for 40 hours of pay. If you need extra help, ask someone else. Big turnoff.

 _"What kind of tools are provided to help me do my job?"_

Better: "What kinds of things do you need me to do to help the company achieve its goals.

 _"In the first 60 to 90 days, what's my first priority?"_

Actually, this is a great question. It can paint a good picture of your life and shows that you're ready to get to work.

 _"Are employees required to sign a non-compete contract?"_

By asking this, you are identifying yourself as a problem. If someone asked me this question, the first thing I would think would be, "What is he up to and what is my risk?"

For technology companies, just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it.

When interviewing someone else, I appreciate good questions. They show interest and possibility. But I get a bit concerned when too many questions are of the variety of "What's in it for me?"

I think it's always a better idea to present yourself with President Kennedy's attitude: "Ask not what the company can do for you, ask what you can do for the company." Find a way to present yourself that way while still learning everything you need to know.

<comment><USER5> > For technology companies, just assume that the answer to this question is > "Yes" and sign it.

No no no no... I agree with the general tone of your post Edward, but strongly disagree with this. Anyone working in a field they have any possibility of working in again should never sign something that will complicate that. And the same with ownership of IP developed on personal time.

Once a company has made the decision to hire you they are invested in you. If you can't get them to bend on amending the contract don't sign it. Starting your own company is stressful enough without the possibility for an ex- employer to take legal action. Add that to the fact that people are much less likely to start a business in a field totally unrelated to what they currently do, and you have something that is entrepreneurial suicide.

<comment><USER6> A non-compete is reasonable but it should also have a reasonable term... e.g. while employed, and perhaps for a period of 2 years after leaving.

That said, overly restrictive non-competes tend to be unenforceable, but I agree you don't want the hassle of a legal fight even if you ultimately prevail.

<comment><USER7> _2 years_?! _1_ is excessive in my view. Now, if I was paid handsomely for those 2 years, fine. But to not pay me _and_ say I can't go work at other competitors - that's too much to ask for 2 years. I've had a couple 6 month non-competes - that's liveable. 1 year - I'd probably do it. 2 years? I doubt I'd sign.

<comment><USER8> As a call centre drone I was required to sign a non-compete for Nokia saying that I wouldn't work for any other mobile phone manufacturer for a period of three years.

In practice I no one cared what their phone goons did after they left, but I suspect it was applied to everyone they hired, either directly or through outsourcing (like I was).

In fact, after the outsourcer lost the contract several of the people I worked with immediately went to do phone support for Samsung or Motorola (all three were in the same building).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Are employees required to sign a non-compete contract?

Standard answer is Yes, which is fair because it protects the company from you hanging around for a month and then moving straight to their competitors. Non- compete prevents that by requiring a cooling off period of (typically) two years.

A more interesting question is if you are allowed to work on your own projects. It seems like an obvious question, but in some countries it is not. For example, EA (Electronic Arts) is in Canada and they explicitly told me at the interview that _everything_ that I ever code while employed with them would belong to EA. And then added that I shouldn't really have time for personal projects if I am to work for EA diligently... at which point I collected my dropped jaw from the floor and left.

</comment><comment><USER10> The question that made at least two recruiters sweat in my last interviews:

      "Why do you like to work for this company?"

I was quite surprised. One would assume, that they have a perfectly prepared answer for a question like that.

<comment><USER11> I'm also fond of

      "What's the thing you like least about your job?"

<comment><USER12> I always figured that would be unfair to ask - they might feel they have to lie to keep their job, or they might not want it to get back to other employees.

I like to ask what they like most about their work, which gives them a chance to talk about their job, the company, others in the company (usually), and their role.

<comment><USER11> 'they might feel they have to lie to keep their job'

Because that's not a warning sign at all! _boggles_

Most people of course answer this question in the same way an interviewee does when asked 'Why did you leave your last position?'. Nobody will ever answer 'that jerk across the hall, I can't STAND that guy'. They will answer something that gives some insight into the company culture. I don't think it's a coincidence, for instance, that easily half the people at Google I've put this question to have answered something along the lines of 'management chaos/confusion', 'the tendency for two internal projects to be competing with each other without even knowing about it', etc.

I should have added the followup to my first question is what they like most. Both can be very informative, of course, and following up with that helps put them at ease for the rest of the interview, since many interviewers aren't expecting a question like this one. But it's really worth it. An interview isn't just to answer 'will you hire me', it also must answer 'will I enjoy working here'. The second is much more important to me.

<comment><USER12> It's a warning sign, but I doubt interviewers would give honest negative answers unless they were about to leave. I think it also puts them on guard. Asking what they like tells you not just what they do like, but can also tell you what they don't like, by omission.

<comment><USER13> As an interviewer, I have _never_ had a problem answering this question honestly. Anyone who shows discomfort with the question would give me a bad feeling about the company I was interviewing.

It's perfectly normal to have things about your job you don't like. What's so bad about talking about them?

<comment><USER12> What if I (the interviewee) happens to know your boss, and your boss doesn't know you have issues with the work? That's why as an interviewer I'd tend to be circumspect.

<comment><USER13> I have no problem with _anything_ I say during the course of conducting an interview getting back to any of (a) my manager, (b) HR, (c) Legal. None!

What's all this fear about the boss knowing you have issues with the job? _Everyone_ , repeat, _everyone_ has some issue, however minor, with a job. Owners, managers, etc. already know this. It's not something to hide unless you're working in a really sucky place that can't handle any level of dissent. And in that case you should probably think seriously about leaving (unless you like that kind of thing).

Wanna know what my answer is to most candidates who ask me about something I don't like about my job? The bureaucracy. We are in a highly regulated industry and it can take an annoying amount of time and paperwork to complete some tasks and it gets tedious and frustrating at times. There, I said it. Believe me when I say that the people I work for are well aware of this problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As an interviewer, I've usually made up my mind by the time I let the candidate ask questions. My "tell" in interviews is that I tend to forget to give people I've rejected a chance to ask me questions. So, I'm not looking for the candidate to show deep insight with just the right set of questions

But, asking a bunch of overly aggressive questions will earn a candidate a "might not play well with others" footnote on my evaluation. The questions in the article are great. Getting confrontational when you're supposed to be making a good impression is a bit of a warning flag.

My advice: Use your questions to make sure you understand what kind of work you'll be doing. Use them to understand the team dynamic. Carefully use them to understand if the company has a reasonable business plan. Don't be a jerk and ask a lot of confrontational or trick questions.

<comment><USER15> >But, asking a bunch of overly aggressive questions will earn a candidate a "might not play well with others" footnote on my evaluation. The questions in the article are great. Getting confrontational when you're supposed to be making a good impression is a bit of a warning flag.

Can you give examples of these kinds of questions that you've been asked in the past? I'm imagining a question like "You think you can kick my ass in arm- wrestling?" to be one but I'm sure you have different thoughts on it :)

<comment><USER14> My favorite one was the guy who looked up my name on a list of resumes he had printed out from LinkedIn or something and asked me why I was in such and such a role when I was clearly more suited for another role based on my experience. First of all, he was wrong, and second, creepy!

Just in general, be respectful. If you disagree with an answer, ask a clarifying question or move on. Don't tell me in the middle of an interview that out whole approach is wrong, especially when it's on a fairly subjective matter. We're doing the interview to learn about each other, not to convince each other about development philosophies. If you don't understand that there's a time and a place for disagreement, it's a warning sign to me (not saying disagreement is bad, but there are times when it's much more appropriate than others).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A lot of interview advice articles mention asking questions as a way of impressing the interviewers. I see that as a side benefit, and one that you earn only if you approach it the right way.

Although it may not appear so to folks straight out of college or who have been unemployed for a while, the goal of the interview is not to find a job. The goal is to find a job that's right for you. The job will dominate your life. You'll spend more time there than on any other single activity except sleeping. You'll time your friends, your family, your vacations around this job. For something that's that big a deal, you want to know what you're getting into.

So going in with a set of things you want to know about the environment is good; use those things to start conversations. Asking a canned list of questions and pausing for the response won't do much, even if it's your own personalized canned list. Listen to the responses. Ask follow-up questions. Know what you value, and respectfully try to find out if they value the same things. Bring up your curiosity at any appropriate place during the interview; you don't have to wait until the end.

That curiosity, that commitment to finding the right environment is what will impress interviewers, not the mere act of asking questions.

</comment><comment><USER17> When interviewing candidates I am always very careful to _give_ an accurate account of what I feel the expected work life balance is - I certainly wouldn't regard it, as one commenter does, as a "red flag" if someone asked about it.

<comment><USER18> What kind of work-life-balance does the company you interview for offer?

<comment><USER17> I would say "pretty good" - which is probably why I bring it up. This particular office is also in a superb location which is a big factor to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> One of my favorites: "What was the last unit test you wrote, and what did it test and why?"

If you just ask a question about whether they do unit testing, you'll get a suitably vague and chirpy response, but specifics will normally get you a clearer answer - usually starting with a few seconds of embarrassed shuffling in their seat while they wrack their brains :>

<comment><USER19> The other trick, since I've just been on the interview circuit and used this one a bit: use previous companies brain teasers/language puzzles (eg. worst feature or wart of language X) against the current one.

If they don't do any language puzzles or ask you hard questions, then either a) run screaming or b) use that as an excuse to ask a hard language question.

<comment><USER13> As an interviewer this gives me absolutely no useful information! The questions I ask have to be relevant to your ability to do the job. Brain teasers and opinions about languages aren't.

Now, if you have, e.g., C++ and Python on your resume and I ask you to compare how easy/difficult it is to do a certain operation using either language, that can give me insight into your experience using them. Just asking what your most/least favorite language feature is doesn't.

ps, why would you ask an interviewer a language question?

<comment><USER19> If you're looking for a senior developer with 5-10 years experience in a language it's a useful gauge of experience and whether they think about the language that they work in , particularly if it's something that might bite you. eg. What does the following do in Python 2:

      try:
          my_dict['foo'].append(result[1])
      except IndexError, KeyError:
          my_dict['foo'] = [result[0]]

And you ask interviewers language questions to find out the same thing - namely, whether they _really_ know what they're doing. I'd rather do interesting work, and not get stuck explaining list comprehensions to a bunch of people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Think of your interview as a conversation, rather than an inquisition.

I think there's a danger that a candidate might appear confrontational if they bombard the interviewer / interviewers with a list of questions that they're unprepared for.

The goal of the interview is to find out if the candidate is a good fit. Focus on that (common) goal - ask questions to that help you assess the problem in a way that's as pragmatic as possible. After all, it's in both of your interests to find out whether an appointment is likely to realistically work.

</comment><comment><USER21> Down for me, google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4o0E3Aa...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4o0E3AaVkkYJ:www.talentzoo.com/news.php/Questions- You-Absolutely-Must-Ask-Your- Interviewer/%3FarticleID%3D9159+http://www.talentzoo.com/news.php/Questions- You-Absolutely-Must-Ask-Your- Interviewer/%3FarticleID%3D9159&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com)

</comment><comment><USER22> Seems more like a list of, "things you should figure out about your prospective employer without actually asking the questions listed here."

<comment><USER23> Exactly.

 _"Are employees required to sign a non-compete contract?"_

Really? Why do you need to ask this question (as opposed to just looking at the contract)? Asking this at the interview stage only makes it look like you are interested in going somewhere else (BEFORE) you even have this job...

<comment><USER24> Indeed. It's like asking "Will I be expected to sign a prenup?" on the first date.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> OT: Dickbar popping around the place meant that I spent 5 minutes trying to get adblock to work on the cdn and then gave up, don't know why I stayed so long. Don't know what's happened to adblock either ...</comment>


Warning: Don't Use the New Piratebay! - <AUTHOR>

Looks like it runs by the government.
(sources: http://bit.ly/1KjVrXB | http://bit.ly/1zcVsnG)
This is what a friend of mine got a day after downloading a movie there:
"Dear XXXXXX (Primary Account Holder),
We have been notified that copyrighted content may have been shared using your internet connection without permission of the copyright owner. What does that mean?
Content owners (artists, moviemakers, authors) and their representatives routinely monitor peer-2-peer networks to see if their content (like music, movies, and TV shows) is shared without their permission (without it being paid for). If they notice somebody sharing their content without their permission through a Time Warner Cable account they let us know.
As the primary account holder, you are responsible for making sure your account is not used for copyright infringement. Please note that we don't know which computer or device may be the one to have triggered the notification; it could be any device using your account.
Did you give them my personal information?
We have not shared any of your personal information with the content owner to help them find the files. The content owner simply provides us with an IP address and we contact you directly on their behalf.
And what if this continues to happen?
Sharing content without the owner's permission is a violation of U.S. copyright laws, and our acceptable use policy. Under the Copyright Alert System (for more on CAS click here: http://www.copyrightinformation.org/alerts), further instances of infringement using your account may result in our undertaking measures that will temporarily affect your internet experience. The range of actions may include redirection to a landing page for a period or until you contact Time Warner Cable. " <comment><USER2> Even if they were seized and nobody has provided any evidence to corroborate that, there is no way they'd have a 24 hour turnaround on warning letters/emails.

It is just a coincidence. No doubt if your friend downloaded something "yesterday" they also downloaded something a week ago, two weeks ago, a month ago, and so on.

Also the fact that that email doesn't say what they infringed is extremely odd as well as when. Doubly so as you can find a sample of this exact email that contains exactly that content:

[http://help.twcable.com/twc_copyright_alert_notices.html](http://help.twcable.com/twc_copyright_alert_notices.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> in the email they also specify the file and date it was downloaded (yesterday)

<comment><USER3> Because it's simple for a copyright holder to monitor torrents and track the IP addresses of them. They simply reported the IP addresses to TWC and it likely kicked off a semi-automated email to the address on your friend's account.

This has nothing to do with the government now running TPB.

<comment><AUTHOR> i asked him and he used to download a lot of torrents. yesterday he used the new piratebay for the first time and got this email the next day. i attached 2 articles tht also speaking about the issue.

<comment><USER4> this is not enough evidence to claim the government is running a torrent honeypot.

in fact, they have no need to, torrents and peers are all publicly available, your friends IP could have been pulled just as easily had he downloaded from any other torrent website.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's well known that ISPs work in conjunction with labels / publishers / whatever to send these kinds of letters. Example: [http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1181838&sta...](http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1181838&start=80)

It's automated, and in the case of my ISP, they even call your house.

They're still magnet links. You're not even getting content on TPB.

EDIT: Use a blocklist, require encryption. That should help.

<comment><AUTHOR> any links for tools?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I had a roommate who downloaded from the pirate bay despite my objections. The ISP account was in my name so I would regularly get these emails, albeit from a different ISP. This was 2 years ago. Unless they've been run by feds for a long time, I am more apt to guess that this is a result of TWC monitoring traffic.

</comment><comment><USER7> Simple: use put.io.</comment>


Show HN: HeapSort – Jobs for Full Stack Software Engineers - <AUTHOR> http://www.heapsortjobs.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi Guys--I'm a co-founder at HeapSort. We just launched our MVP this week and we're looking for constructive feedback from the developer and startup communities.

In the coming weeks we'll be launching a series of powerful resume building tools specifically for full stack engineers. It's not just another job board-- we're going to totally change the way developers convey their skills to employers.

We welcome any thoughts, comments, or suggestions.

-Casey

<comment><USER2> Please include a broader description of Full-stack developers accurate to the term historically over the years.

Full-stack to many (more than not) means hardware, software, and the associated network setup, all in one person.

Being fluent in front/backend software only was normal, not specialized.

Edit: added detail to request

<comment><USER3> Is this still true in the days of the cloud?

<comment><USER2> The cloud is nothing new, where openstack exists today to run your own cloud, there were ways to do it in the past. Many solutions end up on dedicated servers in the long term as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting idea. I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

I love the full stack and want to pursue it as my post-grad career. That being said, it seems like full-stack people are only really valuable in situations in which their full-stack capabilities of wearing multiple hats is competitively needed.

IMO, that only happens in the early stages of a startup or temporary resource constrained company (i.e. a project etc.). I.e. the working arrangements are in somewhat temporary in nature.

So the biggest issue I see with become a full stack developer is how to chase after these inevitable temporary work arrangements. That's my biggest hesitation: How do I make sure I have a constant stream of work if I assume that my current gig/work is gonna be limited in time.

I'm no expert, but I don't expect the conveyance of skills to be a major problem, it's more like a matching problem of people who need something done, but can't afford to hire multiple people for that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good points.

First off, thanks for checking out the site. You are absolutely correct that full-stack engineers are _not_ needed at organizations of every size and structure. They are, in my experience, in the highest demand in any organization that has a small to medium size technical team. The reality is that many teams of this size exist--there are far more small teams than their are large ones in the workforce. I come from a background in news media, specifically newspapers. Let me tell you that EVERY news organization, even at the local level, needs full stack developers. Almost none of them need, for example, an Angular.js specialist.

Larger organizations, especially proper software companies, can afford to diversify their workforce into highly focused and manageable skillets. But, that does not mean there is no place for the full stack engineer in these companies. Positions like Operations Managers, Data Architects, Heads of Technology, Directors of Application Development and even some Project Managers are filled very well by candidates with full stack engineering backgrounds.

So its important to note that these positions do exist in organizations of all sizes and in many cases, they are a fast moving career path into management. I do recommend this path post grad--I've been working as a full stack developer for nearly a decade, and the biggest struggle I've had is having to turn down work. That's exactly why I started this project, because I have more jobs coming across my desk than I can apply for.

In my personal experience recently as Head of Technology for a startup company, conveyance of skills really was a big challenge for us. We needed highly capable engineers, and headhunters were throwing us lots of unqualified talent. That's a tough pill to swallow when you are paying many thousands of dollars just to _search_ for talent on a startup's budget. I felt that had I been given some very quality insight into the skills of the talent pool, I could have done a much better job of vetting the candidates myself for our specific needs--another concept that pushed me to start this project!

-Casey

<comment><USER5> And it really depends on how the company breaks down their development teams. Some do it by function, but some large enterprises divide things by business area - so you'll have a team for accounting, one for packaging, one for manufacturing, etc. In that sort of structure, generalists are much more valuable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "full stack web developer"

What do we call people that are _actually_ full-stack, rather than just the front-end client/server parts?

<comment><USER7> In the context of Web development, what are the parts of the stack that are not the client or the server? I thought those were the things that defined the Web.

<comment><USER8> I'm a full stack dev that's built out distributed systems and has filled in for the role of "resident DBA" while still doing backend and frontend dev.

Now I'm learning biomedical NLP.

So what do we call me? Stuffed-full-stack dev?

There's more to life than knowing Rails and Coffeescript.

<comment><USER7> Note that the phrase employed here was "full-stack _web dev_ ". It sounds like you aren't doing web development, so that would be the distinction.

<comment><USER8> The point in time I was referring to, _was_ full-stack web dev _plus_ DBA & scale-out work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not sure what a full stack developer even is.

Take me for example...

I've been programming since the 80's (started at 7), I have 16 years experience with Linux as both a desktop and a server OS, I've programmed for money (often as side jobs) in VB6, Delphi, C# and PHP/Python.

I've put entire systems into production from design to deployment, some of which have up-time's measured in years.

I know database design (I can normalise, understand the value of key constraints, views, triggers etc), I know a couple of different PHP frameworks (I currently use Laravel for most things with composer and vagrant). I know my way around JS mostly (I generally just pick up what I need on the front end), I have an excellent knowledge of HTML and CSS.

I also have a good grasp of SME networking (I ran the network for a multi- occupancy shared office building as well as been in-house developer).

That is about a tenth of the crap I've picked up over the years.

Am I a "full stack developer"?

<comment><USER10> I bet if you started calling yourself one you could get away with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What kind of filter will be in place to be assured that these are full stack jobs?

For example, for the Bradford and Galt Consulting Python/Django job... "some Javascript". This does not scream "full stack" job to me, "some Javascript". What do they use for DevOps? Will I get to write C or Go? Unless they use the SomeJavascriptMVC.js framework, I'm guessing their JS is... mostly trivial. To say nothing of DevSales or project management responsibilities.

<comment><AUTHOR> The filter is not there yet, but it will be soon.

We've got a proprietary algorithm in development that identifies the scope of both a candidates skills and the skills required by a position.

Without divulging too much secret sauce, we'll be filtering out positions that do not meet our definition of "full stack" and we'll also be conveying to candidates just how "full stack" each position is with a rating system.

<comment><USER11> It'll be interesting to see what, if any gradients emerge.

Technically the "generic OSS based web" stack starts at debugging Linux kernel code (and sys admin _cough_ DevOps _cough_ ), up through the OSI layer (with particular stops at the application(?)/HTTP-serving layer (and supporting code! aka: breaking out C to write a faster Rails router) and then again at the WebKit/Blink rendering engines, plus v8/JavascriptCore-whatever-Safari- names it, through CSS (Safari's CSS JIT work anyone?) through behaviors of said implementations. Plus add a stack of project management, requirements analysis, business analyst, and product design/UX.

To make this problem worse that's just one of many stacks. The native app development stack. The good boys and girls doing work with custom hardware (robotics, waldos etc) with realtime hardware requirements for example. A "generic MS based stack" which behaves similar in parts with very noticeable differences in places. Etc.

How-some-ever I suspect most, if not all of your employers will be looking for some sliver of the "full stack". Like the employer I mentioned earlier, whose definition of full stack is "Mostly Server-side Python but you should be OK at simple HTML/JS/CSS too". Or the new startups looking for people who can "write Javascript on the serverside too!"

<comment><AUTHOR> The reality is that "Full Stack" means different things to different people, as evidenced by some of the threads here.

That said, "people who can fill multiple roles" isn't exactly a marketable title for a demographic. And while "full stack" may have a variable degree of definitions, there is a commonality between them, and it resonates with our target audience.

You're right, different gradients will emerge and we'll facilitate that--we'll be the ones grading them, in fact, and make it easy for you to find the jobs that align with your skill set.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> your city search is broken ... i type in gibberish ("asdfasdfasdfasdf") and get a Django error dump. Srsly ... this should be fixed asap. I'll say one thing about your clientele they rather have things work good then look nice. But both are important, welcome to the web.

</comment><comment><USER13> Are there any sites which match "Vice Presidents/Product Managers/Program Managers/Directors" to companies who need them ? and showing samples of their work !

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be nice for job boards to require companies to post salary ranges. But I guess you wouldnt get much traction from companies that way because they want all the leverage..

<comment><USER14> To some extent, this is what Hired.com (formerly Developer Auction) is trying to resolve. I think they're able to coax salaries upfront from companies because they filter and curate the applicants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This looks like a really cool idea. I like the idea of having a place for full stack developers to build a "digital cover letter" and showcase code samples within it.

</comment><comment><USER16> What distinguishes your site from a site like AngelList.co?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd say quite a few things. We're focused on developers, not companies. This is not a place to showcase a startup or court VC money; this is a place where developers can build a new type of interactive resume and leverage it to find solid jobs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> I thought full-stack meant hardware, software, and the networking layer? If anyone's like that, interested to chat.</comment>


WeChat failed to go global - <AUTHOR> https://www.techinasia.com/wechat-global-expansion-fail <comment><USER2> Missing E2E encryption is deal breaker for me. But I'm likely a minority demanding that feature.</comment>


Postage for PostgreSQL - a free, open, fast replacement for pgadmin - <AUTHOR> The dev team hopes you like it, but we hope you complain about any issues even more. <comment><USER2> Hi,

at least you should

a) offer screenshots

b) indicate the license in the landing page (Apache)

c) link to your github repo: [https://github.com/nunziotocci/postage](https://github.com/nunziotocci/postage)

d) finally, I am not sure "What would make an admin app for PostgreSQL a must have? Is there some feature that psql has that Postage needs? We need to hear what you have to say! Call us at (817) 503-9545." is the most appropriate channel for HN audience. Somehow, "create an issue on github" might be more audience friendly.

And maybe offer a linux client to download

And your landing page html with paragraphs coming from left to right is annoying.

<comment><AUTHOR> we'll address a,b and c Monday. i don't see any reason to completely drop the offer of phone support. No one has to use it. Our emails are all listed on the contact page.

Hmm, the source version is linux and bsd compatible, we'll make that explicit on the site as well.

We'll also remove the animations Monday.

Thank you for your feedback. Let us know if we can ever return the favor.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.workflowproducts.com/postage.html](http://www.workflowproducts.com/postage.html)</comment>