What "stay hungry, stay foolish" really meant? - <AUTHOR> http://umangjaipuria.blogspot.com/2008/10/motivation-or-lack-of.html

<comment><USER2> It's been several years since I have read about Maslow, but I think this is an incorrect interpretation.

The hierarchy is a pyramid because upper levels are built on top of the lower ones. Without fulfilling the physiological needs, you are unable to move up the pyramid. This makes very good (and common) sense: if you are starving, you won't have any cognitive excess to think about self esteem or spiritual fulfillment.

Maslow's theories have historical value and reflect their zeitgeist (explains much, predicts little), but they don't fit with the idea of "being grounded in the lower levels." It's not like you choose which level to stay at. Rather, fulfilling the lower levels enables entry to higher levels.

More relevant: Terry Gou, CEO of Foxconn (thank them for your Apples), said "hungry people have clearer minds." It fits with the interpretation that maintaining a survival drive can boost initiative, but again, I doubt this is Maslow.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is so interesting really. The the contemporary Buddhist concept of breathing or mindfullness trying to tie your emotions to a physical act that grounds a person in the present moment. To true to be ignored.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hungry people get brutal.</comment>


Space Tourism Isn't Worth Dying For - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/10/virgin-galactic-boondoggle/?mbid=social_twitter

<comment><USER2> You could have said the same thing about early airline travel: how awful that pilots should die so rich jet-setters can get to Europe quicker.

History proved that airline travel is pretty worthwhile for connecting the world. I think it's too early to dismiss the impact of eventual mass market space planes.

</comment><comment><USER3> The author is projecting his preferences onto others as if they were objectively obvious. It is a very arrogant thing to do. Let the dreamers dream. Ridiculing their aspirations in a moment of tragedy smacks of Schadenfreude.

</comment><comment><USER4> Test pilots are not Adam Roger's property. He doesn't have any right to decree whether it's acceptable or too dangerous to do. Nobody is forcing anyone to become a test pilot.

What a disgusting, totalitarian mindset.</comment>


Ask HN: Your advise wanted for how to get into programming - <AUTHOR> What's up everybody?
I suppose threads like this come twice a day but I only found dated and less relevant content through search.
Would definitely appreciate your thoughts if you could spare a few mins to me.
Here's the situation - me, a 27 year old, BSc and MSc in Entrepreneurship, tech savvy guy, just recently started to learn to do some dev stuff.
So what got me started is the 'android development for beginners' course at Udacity.
So I have been going through stuff like XML and now focusing on HTML/CSS, which should always be handy for basic webpages. So next step for android dev is to learn some java of course.
My goal is to get solid skills at web dev (full-stack), but not like aim to 'master' it.
Plus, that I would like to become a good android dev.
Currently I am going to approach this by learning the HTML/CSS/JavaScript thing for front end and Ruby/Rails for back end. Learn Java as my main/core programming language.
So questions:
1. How does my 'roadmap' sound to you, would you recommend something different about how to go into webdev (perhaps Python/Django?)
2. Is javascript as the programming element of a webpage being replaced? Or should I learn it plus libraries like jQuery?
3. Is it feasible for someone that doesn't intend to become a full-time programmer to get good at more than one core programming language like Python, Java, C, etc. Or are they so different that it's best to get good at one than mediocre at multiple?
4. What would you share as tips for learning more about CS (I would love to get a good grasp of it).
Thanks so much for reading! And please pitch in, even if it's a sentence!
All best,
Deyan <comment><USER2> If you were going to build a house, and could only pick one tool, which would it be? You need several tools, but woodworking tools work best for 90% of all houses whereas steelworking tools are limited to a much different type of building. Stick with what's popular and common, some techs will have more open and supportive communities than others.

I'd place a goal or milestone in your roadmap - you will learn the tech along the way - make something that you want.

To be honest, you're trying to cram 5 years and 3+ complicated techs into a beginner project; some languages and platforms are actually re-usable... e.g. If you use React Native and MERN backend, you only need to learn Javascript. Your proposal has 3+ langs, but they're wildly different in terms of code/debug/deploy in the real world.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for pitching in. And yes, that's why I think I am placing safe bets with popular stuff like Ruby/Rails and Java.

I am actually quite eager to work on it and am not scared of spending 5+ years to get good at it. I just wanted to know whether my thinking of a good way to get into coding sounds okay. For example, I read that starting programming with C is not a very smart way to do it, as it is more complicated (low-level is the right term I think).

Could you please elaborate on your last sentence - do you mean that if go with Java, I should stick only with it, and not try to spread myself too widely with other langs? In other words pick one generel purpose lang?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> 1\. I suggest you choose a Java-like language as secondary to avoid cognitive burden. That way, similarities (semicolons, brackets, OOP, etc.) are closer. PHP, C#, and Node are examples.

2\. Learn them both. Vanilla JS is good in Node and good enough in the browser. But for things that are really hairy (AJAX, DOM manipulation), jQuery will be your friend.

3\. Yes, it is possible. It's all about determination.

4\. Just do it. Going through a learning course does nothing if you don't apply it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for addressing my questions! Appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just build your thing with whatever you've got. The important thing is to finish. Once you finish it will be pretty obvious what you'd like to improve. Start looking at other tools and languages from that perspective. Your goal should be to know what different things are good for (and what they aren't) and when to use them, rather than mastery of any single technology.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for posting. The hard thing for me as someone that does not understand clearly what I am getting myself into is knowing that after X I do/learn Y. And I was afraid that if I finish X I might be at a dead end, e.g., not knowing what to do next. That's why I wanted have a clear idea of what would be a good set of programming skills for me to aim for from the start. Thanks again for the tip!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hi, id suggest starting with the codecademy courses they give you a pretty good picture of whats used for webdevelopement. The execises are well explained and the community is full of friendly helpful people.

codecademy.com</comment>


Deleting your browser history could land you in court - <AUTHOR> http://www.aol.com/article/2015/06/08/deleting-your-browser-history-could-land-you-in-court/21192727/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl14|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D-89584969

<comment><USER2> Oh, yeah? Deleting call history, too?</comment>


Show HN: Scip – Save money on Uber and Lyft with location arbitrage - <AUTHOR> http://www.askscip.com/ <comment><USER2> Sounds very cool and useful, but I think the site needs to do a better job of explaining exactly how it works.

Do you need access to my Uber/Lyft credentials or app? Does this integrate with Uber/Lyft apps somehow, or does it find a ride and then hand it off to one of those app? I assume that I still pay via Uber/Lyft, is that right? Do you make any money from me using this app; if yes, how?

Congrats on getting something out there! I'd love to see it on Android so I could try it :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't understand how this is supposed to work. What are the 35 locations?

<comment><AUTHOR> We get rates from a 1/4 mile in multiple directions from your pickup point and the same for your dropoff point. We do these requests to both Uber and Lyft, and deliver you the cheapest fare.

Kind of like comparing rates from different airports when traveling, except the airports are super close and you're riding in a car instead of a plane</comment></comment>


Korg Monologue – Monophonic Analogue Synthesizer - <AUTHOR> http://www.korg.com/us/products/synthesizers/monologue/ <comment><USER2> Korg has to be my favorite synthesizer company atm. They really hit the sweet spot of great aesthetics and usability. The sound is, of course, a matter of taste. The monologue is more mid-rangy than you'd expect from an analogue synth but I guess it has its place and, more importantly, it gives the synth a unique character. Personally I think the market is over-saturated with emulations of classics.

Someone else mentioned that the Monologue seems too limited and I think that's the wrong way to look at it. What counts, imo, is that a synth has a certain something that makes you want to be creative with it. The monologue/minilogue does that for me. While there is a place for complex synths, too many knobs can turn you from intuitive playing to abstract thinking which is not necessarily what you want as a musician. An extreme example: There are more people who made a career out of tweaking a 303 or a Moog than there are people who did so by (actually) programming a dx7 or a modular system.

<comment><USER3> I am of the mindset that the really interesting world is software synths. I love all the tools and sounds out there.

I use to buy chips for chip tune sound and own a few hardware synths. Now software rules for me.

<comment><USER4> I went with softsynths for a while, and you certainly get a wild variety of sonic possibilities for a lot less money. They are fantastic for sound sculpting. If I was going to do a movie soundtrack, or sound design for games or something, I would likely rely on them almost exclusively.

However I found myself really missing the immediacy of knobs and buttons, especially when I got back into playing my Korg MS-2000 with other people. That's not a true analog synth, but it has a front panel that is comparable to them. I have used MIDI controllers to try to get the same kind of feeling from a softsynth, but there's something to be said for having your control surface's layout match that of your synth--I never had the same kind of intuition about keying in or tweaking a sound via MIDI controller as I do with the Korg.

I dream of an interface that can be physically rearranged so that its knobs and sliders mirror the layout onscreen. Like a tactile touchscreen. A good synth's signal flow can be understood by "reading" its control layout, whether it's hardware or software, and for me at least, there is a huge loss when mentally mapping a well-designed interface to a boring row of eight unlabeled knobs.

<comment><USER5> Knobby synth (ms2k, sh201, jp8k or 8080, Supernova, ESQ1, DW6k/8k, AX60, KS4, AN1X etc etc) + knobby/easily mapped controller (i use Axioms and Novation SL Mark 2 even tho the pots/faders/encoders have proved not especially reliable) is a great combination.

(And when korg/roland/Yamaha/teenage/Waldorf/DSmith come out with new stuff, i'll spend some time on sonicState's youtube channel and the forums (Wigglers, Slutz, /r/Synthesizers) to see what the excitement's about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Korg essentially disrupted an industry doing exactly the rules outlined in the innovator's dilemma.

Starting with the monotron, then the monotribe, the volca series, now the minilogues. They're the only big 3 (roland, korg, yamaha) who has a competent analog synth division. The other two are stuck continuing to double down on their digital recreations of classic analogs (roland ACB)

<comment><USER7> Speaking as somebody who really liked his Monotrons until the novelty wore off and I didn't really have a use for them as effects chain devices nor did I want to hack them (honestly so much potential in them) and I sold them at a terrible loss, which is typical for me, I do have to admit that I think Korg's approach keeps me interested and itchy to buy some of their newer releases time and again.

<comment><USER8> > _Speaking as somebody who really liked his Monotrons until the novelty wore > off [...] and I sold them at a terrible loss_

"Terrible loss"? They were some of the cheapest synths out there, less than what people pay for coffee in a week.

<comment><USER7> Selling all three for the price of one is not a good business model. I have terrible luck / no talent in buying and selling things. This I readily admit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Fancy seeing this here - cool for sure. One of the music journalists I follow, Peter Kirn, has a piece regarding this release:

[http://cdm.link/2016/11/gallery-korgs-synth-line-gets- refres...](http://cdm.link/2016/11/gallery-korgs-synth-line-gets-refresh- including-new-monologue/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd consider getting a Eurorack modular synth.

Advantages:

1 - it's much more fun to build your own synth out of components than to buy an off-the-shelf system designed and built by someone else

2 - and you get to build exactly what you want

3 - there are literally thousands of modules to choose from, giving you much more flexibility and features than any integrated synth

4 - lots of cables to make a patch, which can be fun to mess with and interesting/intriguing for audiences to look at

5 - audio and control voltages are the same, so you can do things like change synth parameters with audio

Disadvantages:

1 - price, typically much more expensive to get equivalent functionality to a cheap integrated synth. [A]

2 - size - much bigger than a typical integrated synth [B]

3 - lots of cables to make a patch, which can make recreating a patch a pain compared to a digital/hybrid synth

4 - can look intimidating to someone unfamiliar with modular synths [C]

5 - making a modular patch can be slower than just dialing in a digital patch

Notes:

[A] - But you don't necessarily need to replicate everything, you can have partial functionality that will still be useful and fun, and may get effects that would be hard to get any other way

[B] - though Eurorack is still much smaller than some other modular formats

[C] - But it's not hard to pick up, and learning modular synthesis is fun

<comment><USER10> I'd add another advantage: The physicality of it all. That was what drew me to it. It's kind of related to your advantage #4 and advantage #2, but it's more than that.

The physical nature makes it easier (for me at least) to remember instinctively what does what. I've build my synth exactly how I want it... I've put module X right where I want it between module Y and module Z. Using it as often as I do, my muscle memory kicks in and my arms remember where things are. I can recognize most of the modules and controls by touch. It makes composing, experimenting and performing to be almost exactly the same process (at least the way I do it) - which is something I've been striving for for my entire musical life.

That said, I wouldn't actually recommend Eurorack to most people, simply because of the extreme price.

<comment><USER9> The price issue can be mitigated in a number of ways:

1 - Buy used. You can get a lot of great modules in great condition used.

2 - Build your own, either from kits or (if you have the skills) from scratch. There are tons of kits out there, and you can make some pretty unusual and interesting modules with them. Plus, making your own helps you to understand them better, and help you to repair them yourself if they break.

3 - Limit your appetite for modules. You don't necessarily need a 4 voice modular synth, with 4 copies of every module. Try limiting yourself to one voice, or even to just a few modules that perform a small number of functions. That can still be really useful.

4 - (Related to 3): Combine your modular synth with an integrated hardware synth or even soft-synths. That way you can get the best of both worlds, and the non-modular synths can make up for what you're missing in your modular, again letting you limit your modular to just those functions that you need, thereby reducing the price of your modular.

5 - Buy from the less expensive module manufacturers like Doepfer. Their modules are often a fraction of the price of many other manufacturers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I own a Microkorg and must say that I'm not really impressed by the sounds the Monologue offers; it seems far too limited and doesn't have that deep punchy bass that the Microkorg offers. And it's a lot more expensive too. It makes me think of the iPhone 5C.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure where you're getting your pricing, but the Monologue is $299 [1] and a new MicroKorg is $399 [2].

The MicroKorg is a great piece of equipment, but it's also prone to aliasing problems at the upper end, which shouldn't be present in the Monologue since it's all analog.

The MicroKorg also offers different features: FM Synthesis and a Vocoder. The Monologue has a full 16 step sequencer, wheras the MicroKorg has only an arpeggiator.

For this price point I think a lot of mucisians are going to find the Monologue is a good value. It isn't far off the MiniBrute which came out at $400 and has less features.

[1] [http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MonologueBK](http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MonologueBK)

[2] [http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/microKorg](http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/microKorg)

<comment><USER11> Seems the Microkorgs have gone up in price over the years. I paid about $250 for it when I got it a few years ago. I noticed you can still get them for $200 second hand.

The aliasing can be a bit annoying indeed. You can really hear it when slowly bending a high lead. I don't think it uses band-limited waveforms. But for bass lines it is absolutely fantastic!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a synth guy I'll say what I said on SonicState again here - nifty but at 299.99 I don't know why I would choose this over the more capable Korg Minilogue. Where this is mono and therefor can only play one note at a time the Minilogue is a ploy 4 synth so you can actually play cords on it. Of course there are more distinctions between the two but that's the most obvious comparison point for me.

I love the look of it and it's cool they are pushing more analog gear out the door at reasonable prices. But for me I still don't know why I would choose this over the Minilogue which can be had on the used market for close to $400. The only real practical use I can imagine for this is to use it as a bass synth compatible to the Roland TB-3 or TB-03 Boutique. Or to augment aTB-3 bass synth which is digital, to give it some nice bottom end; I do that with a moog slim phatty currently when needed,which is a pricier approach but I also use the Slim Phatty for some other synth duties, it's quite a versatile bit of kit.

[http://www.korg.com/us/products/synthesizers/minilogue/](http://www.korg.com/us/products/synthesizers/minilogue/)

Edit: type-o on # of voices.

<comment><USER14> This seems to be an answer to the Microbrute / Minibrute market of small, cheap(er) mono synths for bass parts.

But to me it just doesn't stack up. Sure, it's got the onboard sequencer, which you're going to need somewhere in your kit. But the voice seems too similar to the Minilogue without any of the real low-end depth you can get from the Arturia devices.

But I'm with you, I don't really see what purpose this serves that can't be better served by a brute or moog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Artirua's been doing this for a few years, including their Brute lineup; the MiniBrute and the MatrixBrute would be the closest comparison. [https://www.arturia.com/products](https://www.arturia.com/products)

<comment><USER16> I bought a Minibrute three years ago and it has cured my lust for gear ever since. After seeing the Minilogue however I'd love it if Arturia threw their hat into the analog polyphonic ring.

<comment><USER17> > "I bought a Minibrute three years ago and it has cured my lust for gear ever > since."

Because it was so bad or because it was so good?

<comment><USER16> It sounds so good that you practically have to go out of your way to make it sound bad. It has a much wider array of sound design possibilities than what you see people using it for on youtube - I even made a great sounding woodblock sound on it.

So yeah it's really good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Who is the target audience for this? Why did they spend quarter of the video on colors? Why does it even matter? It made me feel like the device is probably not that spectacular if color is one of its main features.

<comment><USER7> I read that it's E-to-E so it's essentially a replacement for a bass player. One you can program or play live. $300 to never have to deal with a bassist again is, in some circles, quite a bargain. I've seen several MiniNovas and other small frame synths in the wild, from dive bar acts to openers for larger venue groups like Run The Jewels.

Re: Color. If there is an aesthetic theme for one's act, then having a matching color is simply a nice-to-have. Personally I have a bad habit of tearing apart things, painting them, and trying to get them to work again so they're not just the average off the shelf piece of kit, and I can identify my own stuff easier.

<comment><USER19> > $300 to never have to deal with a bassist again

Are bassists dysfunctional or sth?

<comment><USER7> In my experience, no more so than any other person in a band, but the principle is that for the up front $300 you won't have to pay the machine at the end of a gig. All things considered it's customary to lightly jab each other based on the chosen instrument (singer, guitarist, bass, drums, keys) as a form of endearment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm glad to see the move back to fully analog synths.

<comment><USER21> I see it as a move forward :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I am such a fan! Great sounds, accessible, designed to be fun.

Korg often leaves me wanting just a little more in a good way.

Play. That's the best. People can just play. Serious or fun, it's all good.

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't understand the point of this, aside from the hipster factor.</comment>


3 Days of Inpatient Care in New York - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/fp24qc/3_days_of_inpatient_care_in_new_york/ <comment> java-man very sad read. a preview of things to come [to every hospital].</comment>


Dell Leaks Details of a 24" UHD 4K (3840x2160) Monitor - <AUTHOR> http://www.anandtech.com/show/7556/dell-leaks-details-of-a-24-uhd-4k-3840x2160-monitor-the-up2414q <comment><USER2> Watch out for problems with the monitor. New ultra-high-def monitors often have problems such as lag or poor color accuracy.

Before buying this, you need to wait until a professional with a colorimeter and a lagmeter evaluates this monitor if you remotely care about color accuracy or gaming. Resolution isn't the only consideration when buying a new monitor.

<comment><USER3> > Resolution isn't the only consideration when buying a new monitor.

Sure it is! Reading on a monitor is pure torture ever since I bought a Retina MBP. If this is anywhere close to being affordable (realistically: no) I'd buy it for that reason alone.

<comment><USER4> >> Resolution isn't the only consideration when buying a new monitor.

> Sure it is!

So you'd be fine with a 3840x2160 monitor that has a 5Hz refresh rate? Or one with a 500ms lag time? Or one that only displayed in grayscale, or in 8-bit color?

Resolution is perhaps the most important consideration, but by no means the only one.

<comment><USER5> Yes. Actually, I'd be _excited_ about a UHD e-ink display (which is basically what you're describing.) It'd be perfect as a second monitor to throw documents up on to read at my desk, while I kept the primary for more interactive stuff.

<comment><USER6> So it needs to be UHD _and_ e_ink. There goes the "UHD is everything I need" argument

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> With the 39" Seiki 4K "tv" at less than $500 shipped, the $3,500 pricing level on the Dells seems excessive. I'm certain the Dells are better monitors, but are they 700% better? If Seiki revs their model line-up to include display- port, all these official monitors will really be in trouble.

[http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DOPGO2G](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DOPGO2G)

<comment><USER8> A 4K 39" TV has less resolution than a 4K 24" monitor. Just do the math!

This isn't about real estate; it is easy to buy a big monitor, but about pixel density.

<comment><USER9> Your point about the importance of pixel density is a good one, but the pedantry is misplaced. Resolution in the context of display resolution has referred to pixel count, not pixel density, for decades.

<comment><USER8> Yes, that was a mistake on my part. I meant to just talk about pixel density and somehow wrote in resolution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I really wish companies would stop selling monitors with their logo placed obnoxiously on the front. I don't care if they put the logo on any other part of the display, but why do they have to ruin the front of it? I really love looking at plain black slabs, with nothing to distract me from the content within.

I want to buy a couple of monitors and mount them. But there's just one small thing stopping me. I don't know if it's just me, but something _feels_ wrong about rotating a monitor with such a prominent logo.

<comment><USER11> I think this is a problem too. I can understand the manufacturers wanting their logo on the bottom though.

If I was a screen manufacturer I would have a speaker bar on the bottom that has the logo and a few easy brightness controls on it - total Fisher Price usability.

I would then add in a feature for the pros - have it so the speaker/controls bar can be folded up under the screen.

In that way people that like their bling logos could have the logo on view, those that just want a panel can have no distractions.

If engineered nicely you could have USB and video inputs on the drop-down bar made accessible from the front.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have recently gotten a taste of ultra high resolution monitors.

My coworker got the new Dell XPS 15, which has a QHD+ 3200x1800 screen. Just a heads up to coders, unless you plan to hunch your back or get new glasses, very few of you will enjoy the screen as much as you think you would.

<comment><USER13> Why's that? I picked up a QHD+ Samsung a few weeks ago and have been loving it for development work. All of the development tools I've needed so far have respected Windows' DPI scaling (which came set at 200% on the Samsung, making it easy to spot when a program failed to scale correctly).

The only major culprit so far has been Dropbox, which is infuriatingly frustrating to use at HiDPI. So bad it makes me want to move everything to SkyDrive or Google Drive.

<comment><USER14> How much do you actually interact with dropbox's UI? I would think that most of the time you would just be using it through the standard file/directory interaction things (file browsers, shell, etc).

<comment><USER13> Configuring selective sync (which was a must since this was on a laptop with a relatively small SSD) is particularly excruciating, and I do need to tweak that from time to time when large folders are added. The window that pops up when you click the system tray icon also has the scaling issue, which is something that I do need to interact with on a daily basis. Luckily, it's not quite a bad as the selective sync configuration, but it's still pretty rough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> 3840 x 2160 in 24 inches = 183.58 pixels per inch, compared to 204 for the IBM T220/T221

We're almost back to 10 years ago, yay.

<comment><USER16> And in 10 years we may even return to CRT refresh rates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm left wondering how long until we have mainstream video cards capable of driving games at these resolutions? Seems like we're a ways off...

<comment><USER18> Oh yes, we are way, way off at this stage. Check this recent benchmark from Phoronix (on Linux, at least, Windows gaming may be a little better in performance...): [http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_uhd...](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_uhd4k_gpus&num=4)

With a Titan card from nVidia, maxing out at 20 FPS on Unigine, it's pretty depressing. We need to see a 2 to 3x fold performance increase in graphics cards for gaming to be realistic on 4k screens.

<comment><USER19> Bare in mind that the Titan is not the fastest GPU, the 290x and the 780ti are. And they're decent at 4K: [http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/11/geforce_gtx_780_ti...](http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/11/geforce_gtx_780_ti_vs_radeon_r9_290x_4k_gaming/)

<comment><USER18> Depends what you call decent. 15 FPS(minimum) at medium settings in Crysis3 is hardly what I'd call decent for the best graphics chip out there. I'd say it's playable at best, but far from being where you want to be.

<comment><USER20> No, they both had 24 FPS minimum at medium settings.

Minimum really isn't all that interesting, though. A single low spike won't ruin a gameplay session. The average FPS was 42, the low spikes were few and far between. It's absolutely playable - that's the entire basis for which the settings were picked btw.

<comment><USER18> Average FPS of 42 is OK, but in any serious FPS you'd want to have 60 FPS constantly at least. Any number lower than that and your shooting accuracy decreases greatly with the framerate.

So, playbable, probably, but enjoyable, not so sure about that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> most impressive stat to me: 1.07 billion colors

my how far we've come from the good ol' days of CRT

<comment><USER22> Err ... color resolution was never really the problem with CRT technology.

<comment><USER23> Yeah. I hope that I'll live to see non-CRT consumer displays with _actual_ 5->10 ms response times and _real_ blacks, but I'm not too optimistic.

<comment><USER24> An OLED screen will deliver that (pure black and sub-ms response time). And they are on sale now as televisions (albeit at scary prices along the lines of US$13000 for a 55" screen). 4k OLED screens with a 55" diagonal have also been demonstrated. From the sounds of things, new manufacturing techniques are being developed that will bring the prices down to sensible levels.

Here's a review of one of the screens currently on the market: [http://www.digitalversus.com/tv- television/lg-55ea980w-p1619...](http://www.digitalversus.com/tv- television/lg-55ea980w-p16197/test.html)

Strangely, the first few OLED TVs at size have been concave (presumably more "because they can be" rather than because they need to be). Flat screens are also hitting the market now: [http://www.oled- info.com/oled_devices/tv](http://www.oled-info.com/oled_devices/tv)

<comment><USER23> We'll see how long it takes for good OLED tech to make it into the consumer computer monitor market. When I was younger, it was predicted that we would have affordable 600dpi, sub ms switching time time LED computer monitors by the early to mid 2000s.

"The market" is often an obstructionist bitch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> And to think I thought the Thunderbolt display was pricey at $1k. I love it, but I don't think I could possible realize (or notice) the increase in capability unless working heavily in graphics and video, and that's assuming that the machine attached to it has a card that takes advantage of it.

<comment><USER26> The Monoprice 27" (using the same panel as the Apple Thunderbolt display) is under $400 this weekend: [http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=109&cp_id=10909&cs_id=...](http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=109&cp_id=10909&cs_id=1090901&p_id=10489&seq=1&format=2)

I have one beside the same size thunderbolt display and I like the monoprice one better (it seems to have a more effective anti-reflective coating).

<comment><USER27> Not too mention the Thunderbolt Display is outdated with its MagSafe 1, USB 2.0 ports, still present FireWire and it's thicker than the new iMacs.

<comment><USER28> Thunderbolt displays come with a MagSafe 1 -> MagSafe 2 converter in the box now.

<comment><USER27> I'm aware of that. But it's not quite the same as an updated Thunderbolt Display that will come with a native MagSafe 2 cable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'd be very happy with an 8-bit colour 2560x1600 24" monitor. It would be more affordable and way easier for graphics cards to run, why is no-one making one of these!?

<comment><USER30> The whole idea behind 4k is that you can feed it 1080p content and it will be displayed no worse than it would be on native 1080p display. In other words it allows easily swap between having conventional 24" 1080p performance or full 4k resolution, and this swapping can be relatively easily be done on a _per- application_ basis, or possibly even more granually. Imagine eg having a WebGL context being pixel-doubled while the text on the same page being rendered at full resolution.

In comparison, in a 2560x1600 24" monitor you'd get either quite big/ugly double-pixels, or scaling artifacts of non-integer multiple scaling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Dude. Sweet! If the price is reasonable, I'll buy 2-4 for my desktop. I'd love to have the knock-off cheap dead pixels Korean version even more, actually.

<comment><USER32> I picked up a couple Korean 27" 1440ps for the desktop for around $300 and loving them. They're even overclockable.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, Korean monitors are great if you're on a budget. My only complaint is that they are ugly as hell. Every single one I've seen. But hey, you can buy 3 1440p monitors for under a grand!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've been looking at a higher resolution monitor than my 30" Dell and found that there are these things called "TVs" that apparently have 4K resolution but in 55" format.

I'm after screen real estate and want to see a lot of code at the same time. Does anyone have any thoughts about replacing my 30" work monitor with a 55" TV with a lot more resolution?

<comment><USER34> Although not 55", a post above refers to: [http://tiamat.tsotech.com/seiki-4k](http://tiamat.tsotech.com/seiki-4k)

It seems like if you do not do gaming, you should be fine.</comment></comment>


Is Nintendo hitting the skids? - <AUTHOR> http://nohighscores.com/node/982 <comment><USER2> Every major announcement Nintendo makes is met with this type of cynicism. The truth is that Nintendo is the only company who has the balls to try something new, and is willing to fail in order to bring gamers fun new experiences they couldn't have before. The fact that the Wii caused the competitors to react by incorporating motion controls into their games makes it pretty clear that we should expect to hear about Sony and Microsoft's amazing new touch-screen based controllers sometime in 2014.

<comment><USER3> I think the big cause for concern isn't Nintendo's innovation, it's the fact that they can't inspire third party developers to really innovate on their machine. As Gimicky as the controls were on the Wii, it was and is a decent system (granted mine has collected dust for 2 years) but it just didn't have the support to make it a gaming system worth mention in the mind of traditional gamers.

<comment><USER4> Nintendo originally assumed that their slimmed down hardware would be attractive to 3rd parties because they wouldn't have to change their toolchains. Unfortunately the industry was already moving on and dropping the Wii meant less complication in the workflow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm discouraged to see that Nintendo is going to continue using physical media as the primary channel for sales. Sony and MS are already experimenting with full game downloads on the current generation, and it's not too much of a stretch to think that the sales distribution for their next consoles will heavily favor downloads.

<comment><USER5> How do you sell downloaded titles on the secondary market?

It might just be the games I've purchased but on the PS3 I haven't gotten any discount at all by purchasing a new game via download.

With physical media I can buy it, play it and sell it back for almost half price when I'm done, I don't keep games for very long.

With a download, i'd have to pay half the price to make it worth my while.

Though I'll admit i like to browse video game stores so I don't really put in a value for the time it takes to go and purchase the game since i'm going to be at the store anyway. I guess this may be different for others.

<comment><USER4> I'm ok with sacrificing the second hand market on the alter of digital downloads. Getting away from the constraints of physical distribution has opened up so many options for pricing on services like Steam, and it's allowing startup companies like Runic Games to really thrive. The future of game companies is going to be so much leaner then they are right now.

<comment><USER5> > I'm ok with sacrificing the second hand market on the alter of digital > downloads.

I am as well, as long as it works out monetarily in my favor. Under my current scenario all downloaded games must be about 50% cheaper to make it worth my while.

Otherwise there isn't a value proposition there for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The reaction from the game industry as a whole, even including the fringe elements, has been pretty lukewarm. Another gimmicky peripheral, unknown hardware capabilities, and it sounds like Nintendo hasn't locked down silicon yet, meaning that next year will be all first party titles and it'll launch, again, without third party support.

And then you get response from people like the developer of Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery EP, which highlights exactly what a lot of people are thinking:

<https://twitter.com/#!/the1console/status/81023029114699776> <https://twitter.com/#!/the1console/status/81023726652624897>

Couple that with Nintendo's level of hostility against indie devs, and their complete failure to grasp what it is that is making iOS such a threat to their gaming business (hint: it's the app store, not the touch screen), I can't help but think that Nintendo has peaked and is now on the way back down.

They may still make a lot of bank off of their wacky controller and kid friendly gimmicks (though I wonder how friendly it will be in a group of children and only one of them gets to use the special controller), but their days of influence in the game industry are coming to a close, methinks.

<comment> T-R They seem to be trying to position themselves so that they're not viewed as competing with App Store games. Granted, they still, to some degree at least, have to compete over developer resources, and their attitude toward indie developers is incredibly ill-advised.

I really don't see the controller as gimmicky, though, at least in the sense that touch screens in general aren't really seen as a gimmick anymore, and other aspects of the controller have been done before. Moreover, someone upgrading this time would actually have to buy _fewer_ peripherals than for previous systems.

Harsher things were said of the Wii, and it was ultimately pretty successful. I'd wager Nintendo will stay relevant precisely long as it continues to produce quality first party titles, but not a moment longer.

<comment><USER7> If the only thing keeping Nintendo relevant is their first party software, I would expect them to go the way of Sega fairly quickly. I don't think Nintendo will be in the hardware business in 15 years unless they dramatically change their corporate culture and attitudes towards third party development. That means everything from who they allow to develop titles to what tools they provide for development. Given the overall level of enmity they've created amongst the indie development community and the large third party devs (thanks for telling everyone about the motion plus about half a year too late, jerks), I strongly doubt they'll win any hearts and minds. The only reason any third parties even bother with Wii dev now is because of the marketshare, even then, that marketshare has not resulted in the expected returns for most third parties.

<comment> T-R Not insignificantly, though, Sega dropped the ball on their (already limited selection of) first-party software before they dropped out of the hardware business. Nintendo has multiple franchises that are all at least as strong as Sonic was in the Genesis days. Nintendo's console sales have always been held up by first party franchises - they burned bridges with 3rd parties long ago by charging extortionate license fees on the SNES. It'll be interesting to see how far they need to go to tip the scales against them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> T-R I don't really understand all of the characterizations of the new controller as "novel", "risky", or even "innovative", for that matter. It's essentially an application of the concepts behind the (very successful) DS, and the idea of having a separate screen for one player has been done before on a home console with the Gamecube's Gameboy Advance connectivity - which mostly only seemed unsuccessful because it was non-standard (Pac Man Vs. was great, but no one had all the hardware to play it).

The concepts aren't new - the same is essentially true of the 3DS (aside from the occasional game that uses Augmented Reality, which hasn't, as far as I've seen, been heavily advertised). The bottom line is - are customers ready to shell out for a hardware upgrade, and does the ratio of price to quality/number of good games convince them to do so? So far with the 3DS the answer has been "no", but whether or not the same will be true for the WiiU is anyone's guess.

</comment><comment><USER8> "More and more, Nintendo is looking like a lumbering, hubristic giant overconfident in their brand identity and almost unresponsive to industry trends and changes."

Nintendo reminds me a lot of Sony. A Japanese company used to winning by always doing things its own way. Wii was an incredible success, but it all seemed so random, the product of a cool novelty coinciding with an economic boom. Nintendo has coasted for a long time on the considerable goodwill/might of their brand and properties. The marketplace never really cared about a lack of genuine innovation or progress, so long as there was a new Mario or Zelda around the corner - consider that even now they are releasing a console whose tech will only be on par with consoles released 6 years before it. In a way it's refreshing because Nintendo is a game company that just cares about games.

But I really think Nintendo is in real trouble now. There are ridiculously cheap (and very good) mobile games for the smartphones everyone already has, while consoles now live and breathe with rich internet-based ecosystems (which Nintendo couldn't have cared less about with Wii). I'm very curious to see how Wii U will sell considering 9% unemployment and the Wii paperweights currently sitting in living rooms across America.

</comment><comment><USER9> Things that have changed:

1) Xbox+Kinnect outclasses the Wii/mote in a pretty incredible way.

2) iOS is eating into DS sales and making even $10 games look "expensive" (good $.99 apps are smaller but have updates/new content which makes them seem like amazing deals).

3D was a foolish key-feature to tout in their new handheld, they should have copied Apple's AppStore (which they tried to do with the DSi but it compares poorly).

<comment><USER10> 1) Nintendo Wii release date: November 19, 2006 Kinect release date: November 4, 2010

I should hope the Kinect outclasses the Wii. But Nintendo is already moving on so I'm not seeing a point here.

2) You made this up? The release of the Iphone (June, 2007) had no affect on DS sales. <http://i.imgur.com/Z7kkd.png> I couldn't find breakdown stats for game sales but I don't see why people would continue buying DSes but not buy games. Also Nintendo doesn't loss lead their consoles so every sale is profit, unlike launches by Microsoft and Sony.

<comment><USER9> Note: I said iOS, not iPhone. The competitor to the DS is the iPod Touch (all my friends kids' of about 7y+ have one now - 4 years ago it was DS/PS3/Wii). The last kid-friendly home party, the kids weren't crowded around a Wii/PS3 like years before, but an iPad.

Check out their stock price over the past 5 years: [http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1...](http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1308172232657&chddm=494615&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=PINK:NTDOY&ntsp=0)

Their precipitous decline (and lack of recovery) pretty much coincides with the debut of the Apple App Store (mid-2008).

Nintendo even recognizes the fact: [http://www.businessinsider.com/nintendo- execs-admit-apple-is...](http://www.businessinsider.com/nintendo-execs-admit- apple-is-the-enemy-of-the-future-2010-5)

<comment><USER10> More like the release of the app store caused massive growth for apple

[http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1...](http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1308180283329&chddm=567174&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NASDAQ:AAPL&cmptdms=0&q=PINK:NTDOY&ntsp=0)

Comparing the two it's obvious to see Nintendo ran into the same trouble apple did, followed by apple creating an entire new market segment for itself to grow into. Nintendo on the other hand has reached market saturation and is trying to up-sell DS owners into a new model. I find your analysis lacking.

And yes, obviously now that Apple is selling games Nintendo sees them as a competitor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Didn't people just like this say the first Wii had behind-the-times hardware, and that it would fail from lack of DVD support? It's like all the tech geeks who've spent years trying to line up the specs-to-price ratio of Apple vs. PC products, and are bewildered that so many people prefer the former, applying math where intuition is needed instead.

You may be impervious to design, but I assure you, users are not.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm interested in the hand wringing motivation. This is the company that had the 'GameCube' if you will recall and completely _missed_ participating in the generation of consoles before the current one.

So while current technology is long in the tooth as it were and market saturation is cutting into sales. That doesn't mean they are dead unless they are mismanaged (see Sega, Coleco).

Somehow I don't expect really creative changes like we saw with the Wii and its controller technology coming from Sony or Microsoft, in that I think it seems to be outside their risk profile. Of course the new crop at Microsoft seems to be a bit more aggresive. (I believe that because Kinect was a much more interesting response to WiiMotion than the Move was).

</comment><comment><USER13> "Yeah, we all know that Nintendo's first party development is the best in the business"

Is it, though?

Microsoft makes Halo and Gears of War, plus others. Sony makes God of War and Team Ico's awesome games (Shadow of the Colossus, etc.), LittleBigPlanet, etc. (I know both make even more than this, but I'm not a big gamer anymore)

I think "Nintendo makes the best first party titles" just isn't true anymore. At least in a "we all know" sense. I'd say it is at best debatable, and at worst simply untrue.

(Zelda and Metroid ARE really awesome, though.)

</comment><comment><USER14> >Particularly in light of all that promise and potential that was squandered (or possibly illusory) in the Wii's original incarnation.

...the what?

What exactly was squandered in the Wii's original incarnation?

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

>As of June 2011, the Wii leads the generation over the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in worldwide sales,[7] and in December 2009 broke the record for best- selling console in a single month in the United States.

What more could you possibly want?

>When I saw the controller, my first thought was "$500".

Probably not. Nintendo has never launched a console at $500. The Wii was noted for being cheap, and I really, really doubt they'd launch this without being able to make it at a similar price point to their previous offerings.

>Sure, the Wii U looks impressive. But no Blu-Ray or DVD support? Really?

I sure as hell hope not!

...okay, maybe not that emphatically. Still, there's a Blu-Ray player built into my TV, and as far as I can tell that's becoming common. I don't need a peripheral to do that for me, and I certainly don't want them to tack on an extra $50 for a capability I already have.

Besides, who uses DVDs anymore? It's all about Netflix.

>As Microsoft and Sony move ever closer to evolving into that mythological set-top box that does it all, how do you justify buying a presumably expensive console that does just one thing anymore?

Because _I don't want a set-top box that does it all_. It's bad enough (but acceptable) that video games are closed-source; hopefully my media doesn't have to be the same way.

>Mario and Zelda brands no longer sell systems in the long term when the competition is so stiff,

...alright, my Zelda fanboy is showing, but Skyward Sword is probably going to make me shell out for a console and I haven't bought one in a decade (I habitually use my friends' consoles, though).

>They know this, which is why they bend over backwards to assure everyone that they have the support of firms like EA, Activision, THQ, and Ubisoft. But when you're releasing behind-the-times hardware that has features and peripherals completely different than competing platforms, it makes the prospect- and return on investment- of developing much riskier.

This I agree with, but on a slightly different point than the author.

Last I checked it wasn't close to easy to get a license to develop games for the Wii or 3DS. You have be a big company to afford a site license for the dev kit and you need specialized hardware to load your stuff onto the system. Nintendo doesn't need EA and Ubisoft; for one thing, EA sucks. Nintendo really needs to open up to independent developers. This is where Microsoft really shined with the Xbox ecosystem, obviously bringing some of their desktop expertise to gaming.

Forget weirdness worries -- indie devs _love_ developing for unique hardware and odd platforms. Independent game developers thrive on the iPhone App Store. They also built the Facebook application ecosystem. By contrast, large, established firms shy away from developing for unique hardware, because of the uncertainty involved.

The proper strategic direction for Nintendo is to stop chasing EA and learn to open up to independent game developers. Even Apple, the infamously elitist company's infamously elitist company, has figured that out.

Incidentally, as one other commenter has pointed out, Apple and Google via iOS and Android seem to pose more of a threat to Nintendo than do Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo had an unshakeable stranglehold on the handheld gaming market until the iPhone came along.

<comment> T-R I wholly agree with you, though I think what he may have meant by "squandered potential" was their decision to target their marketing (and many of their first party titles) at more casual gamers, seemingly abandoning their core audience.

<comment><USER15> I interpreted "squandered potential" to the motion-based controls being relegated to cliche or uninspired gameplay.

<comment> T-R Good point. There was an absolute dearth of games where mouse-like control would make sense, which is what the controller was actually good at. A few mediocre FPSs, a port of Pikmin, and I don't even remember any Tactical RPGs or RTS games.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _the generation's top titles either pass you buy_

Or get better editing.

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't know. I've had some of my best gaming experiences with the Wii, but they're all Nintendo games, and they are widely spaced. Too widely spaced in my opinion to really justify getting a Wii again. There really wasn't much of any other developer on the console.

It's sad that Nintendo is starting off the next generation by continuing with a disk based system. Every console now has an online store, why not keep it to that? Why not open up with an Apple like app store (but don't call it that) and get more developers involved?

Nintendo is just lumbering forward until AppleTV finally supports the app store and kills whatever Nintendo was thinking about.

All you need is an app store on the AppleTV and you can have a iPad or an iPhone controlling the system. What does Nintendo bring to it? The balance board?</comment>


Amazon Workers Facing Firing Can Appeal to a Jury of Their Co-Workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-25/amazon-workers-facing-firing-can-appeal-to-a-jury-of-their-co-workers <comment><USER2> This is such a poor implementation of what has proven to be a very robust mechanism.

Since the employee is being fired (deprived of something), they are "the accused" and "the burden of proof lies with the accuser". All the charges that are presented must be presented in such a way as to be challenged. Allowing the manager the last word -- and not allowing the employee to even be aware of what was said -- indicates that accusations are being made without being challenged.

The selection of jurors -- three non-managers or one manager -- seems strange in part because it recognizes a hierarchy of people and in part because it involves such a small number of people. The validity of a jury hinges in part on a certain notion of the equality of people -- we don't have juries of 12 ordinary people or 2 senators in the United States because we don't expect that senators are "more just" than ordinary people. It's hard to see why expecting managers to be "more just" is any more reasonable.

<comment><USER3> This isn't all. Sometimes, even when you're not a _fire-worthy employee_ (for lack of a better term), just to fuck you up, the manager could choose to mark you as "least effective" in the year-end / mid-year review and not really put you up for a PIP... Now... even though you performed good enough, there's no jury to appeal to. What happens next is that the manager could then systematically deprive you of quality work and come year-end / mid-year review, s/he has a solid case to PIP you and throw you out. Note that, being marked "least effective" essentially means that one can't transfer internally to other teams unless someone wayy higher up the management chain approves of the transfer.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't see this seemingly happen with multiple people across multiple Amazon development centers.

This place is toxic and puts way too much power in the hands of the managers, and the net result is that the managers have their favourites, and that the engineers are nothing but puppets, and that engineers are busy back-biting each other, and the managers enjoy the shit show from the sidelines. Despite not having any moral high-ground, all managers in an org review every reportee in that org with absolutely zero fairness, there's no integrity whatsoever, from what I've heard.

And I'd be lying if I said this _thinking_ didn't take it roots right at the very top of the management hierarchy (...according to employees I've spoken to).

<comment><USER4> Why do you stay?

> I'd be lying if I said I didn't see this seemingly happen with multiple > people across multiple Amazon development centers.

<comment><USER5> I've asked this question to multiple Amazonians who have worked there for 4 years or more, and I've yet to hear a decent answer. There are many companies that have sub-40hr work weeks that will pay you as much as Amazon (plus stock grants), but yet most won't make the time for an interview.

All the people I know at Amazon in Seattle consistently get home after 7pm most nights, and a handful of those people come in on the weekends for 10 to 12hrs to fix mundane bugs that aren't in need of immediate fixing. Amazon's high pressure work culture encourages this terrible practice of burning the candle from both ends, but Amazon definitely doesn't create quality products on the first try in part due to this.

<comment><USER6> >All the people I know at Amazon in Seattle consistently get home after 7pm most nights, and a handful of those people come in on the weekends for 10 to 12hrs to fix mundane bugs that aren't in need of immediate fixing.

I can't speak on everyone at the company, but the campus is basically empty at the times I leave at 7-8 (which isn't often and usually happens when I show up at 11-12). My own building is 95% cleared out by 6pm on a daily basis.

Not saying what you hear isn't true, but it's definitely appears to be the exception rather than the rule from my experience.

<comment><USER5> Payments and Alexa don't appear to be that way from what I've seen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the immediate problem with setting this up as a legal preceding is that it gives everyone involved a fundamentally wrong idea.

It suggests that the employee is on trial, but you can't be on trial if your performance is poor because poor performance is not a crime. Yes, I'm sure everyone involved understands academically that it's not, but reading the article, the comments here, I think the internalized intuition at work is casting this as a matter of justice.

Hiring, retention and firing are not mechanisms to enforce some sort of justice, they're about ensuring that employment is mutually beneficial.

It's extremely hard for someone looking at being fired to have this kind of detached view of it, especially if you're already inclined to view the world in terms of justice, but you shouldn't because it will mess with your head. The first thing you want to do if you leave a job for any reason is move on, not feel like you've been exiled or ostracized. And if you come into an interview with a chip on your shoulder, that makes it significantly harder to get a new job and move on.

And this is not just a problem employees have, many managers are prone to criminalize employees who don't do well or hold grudges against people. That leads to capricious behavior and corrosive office politics, and you do not want them in leadership roles.

<comment><USER8> You are I think jumping to your conceived ideas about how labor law works if labor law and precedent says that this is how it is.

You have been in the army so during your time you were employed and the UMJC is a legal system is it not?

<comment><USER9> The employment status of a soldier is very different than an at-will employee, not to mention the differing nature of the work...

<comment><USER7> I know, we had demo day last week. Turns out it's short for "demonstration," not "demolition." :-(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > She wasn't invited to watch her boss's presentation, and he got the last > word.

Hearing the argument of your accuser and being given time to rebut with evidence contradicting it is a critical part of a justice system.

<comment><USER8> And in the UK this would be an automatic lose in court - even if say the employee was found bang to rights.

And best practice is to have an appeal stage so you can appeal the verdict to a manger completely outside of your reporting chain.

<comment><USER11> In the US it could be too.

While many companies in the US can fire an employee for "no reason" that doesn't mean ANY reason or any process. If the company has a process that isn't fair, an employee could potentially sue over that. Granted other factors come into play but if a company sets up a system like this they still have to do it fairly, a judge could potentially decide the process is unfair.

<comment><USER12> _> While many companies in the US can fire an employee for "no reason"_

Side note since you mentioned "firing". The article's title ("facing firing") may unintentionally overstate what Amazon's appeal process is actually appealing.

Based on the text, Amazon's "appeal process" is to challenge the status of being put on PIP - the Performance Improvement Plan. It isn't to appeal a firing. (Although I understand that some see that as no difference if a PIP is ~99% equivalent to getting fired eventually.)

If the employee wants to keep working (at least temporarily) for Amazon, he/she doesn't need to appeal. What a successful appeal does is let them work _without_ PIP targets hanging over their head.

<comment><USER13> PIPs are the worst. I've seen them basically emotionally destroy people when they were probably not the right tool. In many of those cases firing would have been better for them.

<comment><USER14> I've only ever seen one person successfully negotiate a PIP and keep their job (for another year, until they took a much better offer at a company that paid them more and treated them better).

The biggest thing is to ensure that the targets in the PIP are both realistic and measurable. All too often I've seen people being asked to meet a bar far higher than is possible (and not even met by top achievers at a company) and with no real way to measure it other than "if I think you're doing good enough".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My thought is, why would you try to appeal?

If you've been marked for firing, obviously management has a poor perception of you. Sure, your coworkers can vouch for you and stop the firing, but to management you're still a marked man or woman. You might still have your job, but you're probably looking at poor performance reviews and no raises for a few years. I know very few people who've ever dug themselves out of a situation like that.

You'd be far better off to just leave for another company and start fresh.

<comment><USER16> You also could, it's implied, find a job elsewhere in the organization.

I agree that continuing to work with a manager who wants to fire you doesn't really work for anybody.

<comment><USER17> I believe if you're labelled as non-performant or whatever, they don't allow you to move elsewhere at Amazon.

<comment><USER18> My understanding is that it's technically allowed but almost impossible in practice. Few managers and even fewer of their managers want to take a chance on an underperforming worker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I like the idea of breaking off a boss/employee relationship that's not working and allowing the employee to find a different position in the company rather than just terminating the employee.

However, why not hire an independent mediation firm to judge? Why put current employees in a position of taking sides? It seems like the unfairness cited in the article would be nearly unavoidable as relationships and reputations between the judges, the bosses and the employee would all be put to the test.

<comment><USER20> > I like the idea of breaking off a boss/employee relationship that's not > working and allowing the employee to find a different position in the > company rather than just terminating the employee.

Yeah, there's two sides to it though. On one hand, its very, VERY common when an employee isn't performing that the problem is incompatible team/manager (it might be incompatible with the company, but often its a localized problem).

On the other hand, I've also worked at companies that -always- assumed the problem was the employee/team relationship, and critically incompetent employees would linger around and waste the time of several teams before they were canned, which was an obvious outcome to anyone who had worked with said employee. In one case of a company being way too nice, some dude I worked with took almost 2 years before being fired, when NO ONE wanted to work with him. Imagine how many things we could have done with the 150k+ a year he was paid during that whole ordeal...

<comment><USER21> > In one case of a company being way too nice, some dude I worked with took > almost 2 years before being fired, when NO ONE wanted to work with him. > Imagine how many things we could have done with the 150k+ a year he was paid > during that whole ordeal...

Sure but you shouldn't consider the 150k+ on its own; you should compare it against all the goood employees who would've been fired in a different system that you ended up saving.

I like to think that it's better to keep one bad person than to fire good people for no reason but I admit that may be more an emotional stance than a logical one. And let me also say that by bad person I mean one who isn't technically able to do well, not one who is a jerk.

<comment><USER20> The bad employee does do untold damage though. They don't live in a vacuum. Good people quit over them (and not everyone is comfortable with blaming it on an individual, so management may not even know they're the reason). Workspace can become toxic. Rumors can start spreading making people not accept a job.

So you lose a lot of people by keeping a bad apple, too. In the example I gave above, at least 4-5 people I know for a fact quit over them before they were dealt with.

<comment><USER21> > Workspace can become toxic

Well this is why I tried to specify only keeping people who were performing poorly not because they were unpleasant to work with. Do people quit because they feel like their coworkers aren't smart or hard working enough?

<comment><USER20> All the time. The worse is at a high level people don't even realize it, because very quickly the entire workplace becomes "mediocre", and you don't even realize its lacking in "good people" from lack of reference points.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Do the employees given the three options know this is coming? IE, has their manager communicated to them as part of their daily communication that there is a problem? If not, Amazon really needs to start there. If I have to fire an employee for performance problems, it should not be a surprise to them.

</comment><comment><USER23> If only there was some sort of organization that workers could collectively be apart of and contribute to. An organization dedicated to worker's rights, an organization that would make sure whimsical decisions couldn't aversely affect people's lives because they're in the wrong class in an organization/society.

I understand the comment is snarky, but it's really quite absurd in my mind that this is an actual headline, instead of it being a bad joke (which I guess it kind of is). Because it's not even your "peers." It's mainly still just upper management trying to put on a facade of peer judgement.

</comment><comment><USER24> In the most charitable light, this is organizational cargo-cult.

"What if we brought the court of employment law into Amazon? Wow, wouldn't it be great for Amazon? It'd cost less, move faster, and be more fair! Oh and the employee too, because whatever is good for Amazon is good for everyone!"

It's the similar to how some school district replace superintendents with CEO's and then blush when cost-cutting and sexual harassment kick in [1].

Unthinkipng, these prganizatibs replicate the trappings and rituals of the seemingly successful without understanding why they're successful; doing so in the faith that a new world is right around the corner if they just believe hard enough.

Right under the surface, of course, is our collective loss of faith in society, and thus the impetus to award public power to private entities. Handing over healthcare, our rights, our freedoms in the "hopes" that companies will govern us "better" than our elected government. From a single modern republic to multiple feudal realms: the reality of Libertarianism realized.

[1] [http://graphics.chicagotribune.com/chicago-public-schools- se...](http://graphics.chicagotribune.com/chicago-public-schools-sexual- abuse/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER25> There can be plenty of reason not to trust a jury of co-workers.

Somebody I worked with was fired. He wasn't doing much work and seemed to devote most of his days to manipulating his image. He was not just "managing up", in fact if he were better at that maybe he could have survived longer. What he did especially well was molding perception of peers.

Maybe tops ~3 people working closest with him knew he was full of shit. But in very far breadths of the organizational tree, he spread the word that he was the guy to talk to on the team, pulling all the weight. If you asked most of his colleagues to this day, they would probably tell you he was a productive to high-performing contributor, which he was not.

I think this is actually how he got the job in the first place. He schmoozed far and wide in company X, then more productive employee lands a gig at company Y, where I worked, and he greased the wheels through social connection to also go there. I suspect he collected stock options at some pretty good places over the years doing this.

<comment><USER26> Are you implying that he was doing anything wrong? Unless he was especially unproductive or ignorant at his job, then the schmoozing can be seen as a multiplier.

At a certain level in a company, playing golf with the client _is_ the job, as it closes the deal.

<comment><USER25> I am implying that. In the time since this story I've had a lot of time to think about the ethics of this situation. Even if he was a sleazy liar, sleazy liars are people too, and someone getting fired is drastic. But to use your terms, a multiplier on a negative quantity is more deeply negative. He was doing his job duties none at all or poorly. Other people had to clean up after his messes and lies. I created a throwaway account to tell this story because he was the most sociopathic IC I've seen in the business, and my career is not brief, I am not normally phased or automatically put off by sociopaths.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I mean, I suppose this is better than no review process whatsoever. But the real solution is to just have a union, so that the fired worker has some representation.

(For management workers, I favor a similar process but that would require some changes to labor law to be fully protected. You could still have a union without that, but it's not going to be one that has the same recognition.)

<comment><USER28> I would argue that a fair appeal process is much better than a process involving a union which always sides with the employee. In Canada we recently had a case where a union negotiated a glowing letter of reference and the sealing of a personnel file... for a serial killer: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/long-term-care- inquiry...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/long-term-care-inquiry- elizabeth-wettlaufer-1.4717729)

<comment><USER27> Obviously the union shouldn't have filed a grievance without investigating. Most unions wouldn't. But this adversarial system appropriately shamed the union for not investigating first and resulted in an outcome of the person being convicted.

Seems quite silly to use this as an example for why those of us who are not serial killers shouldn't have unions. But I guess serial killers ruin EVERYTHING.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Systems of justice are _incredibly_ annoying, and invariably involve a lot of careful fine-tuning that goes completely out the window with every new addition.

It reminds me a little about how every time a new package manager comes out, the peanut gallery all chimes in with "well why don't we just use OS packaging?"

Package managers and justice systems hard-enforce legibility in a way that completely breaks the second the landscape does. You _have_ to do the hard work of making a new one. Getting by with what you have only increases the workload on the already-busy humans. There are Debian packages for various extremely well-used Ruby gems. But somebody got motivated enough to do that work.

Similarly, if you introduce the wrong system of justice into a human social regime, it creates all kinds of perverse incentives. The task of preventing bad outcomes from perverse incentives then gets compounded onto the few extremely busy people that have to juggle being cops along with their existing jobs.

</comment><comment><USER30> It seems extraordinarily generous to offer a choice of severance or a hearing in front of an impartial "jury", as alternatives to a PIP. Anyone who's been working for a while knows that when you get to a PIP, you basically have one foot out the door. Relatively few people go from PIP back to a valued, productive employee.

<comment><USER31> I knew exactly one person who got put on a PIP by his manager and didn't end up fired. It ended up being because his manager got fired first, and his new manager saw that the PIP was completely ridiculous and the employee was in fact great. Nonetheless, it took that guy's career years to recover. He was basically his team's technical lead, but he was but was still ranked and paid as an entry-level engineer.

<comment><USER32> I'm surprised the employee in question didn't spend the rest of his tenure at the company applying to other jobs and printing out resumes. Why would you stick around with such a yoke around your neck?

<comment><USER33> An abusive employer, just like an abusive SO, can demoralize you to the point where you think you deserve the abuse and that nobody else will take you.

Getting out of that pit is genuinely hard. One of the companies I worked for back in the day was abusive, and it took me a very long time to get out. I eventually mustered up enough confidence to leave, but I stayed for ages even after I realized the company was toxic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Maybe they are trying because they are widely known as being a horrible place to work. But man that sounds like Survivor and getting voted off the island... or Lord of the flies...

Just sounds weird and broken.

</comment><comment><USER35> PIPs and firing are the path of least resistance for lazy managers.

From a Covey or Drucker style of leadership...

If the Manager interviewed and hired the Employee, then the default assumption is that the Manager failed to "lead" and train the Employee.

If the Manager inherited the Employee (via re-org) and is cleaning house, then that's a different circumstance. But still not an excuse for lazy leadership.

</comment><comment><USER36> The "jury of their co-workers" is a scary farce that begins with the continuous 360 feedback that is built into their current employee performance model. I have read that this is integrated into the WorkDay HR software platform, which is used for timesheets and everything else.

You might have a disagreement with a co-worker, and next thing you know, you are getting live feedback, behind your back. And then after that... you are begging to not get fired. Someday, the jury and appeal process might get automated through WorkDay as well. Sounds fun!

Bezos is an investor in WorkDay and Amazon uses this 360 feature. Other companies use it too. See also: [https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/the- amazon-controvers...](https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/the-amazon- controversy-what-is-missing-in-its-performance-management-360-feedback)

</comment><comment><USER37> I remember reading about this system in some business class. They're generally well-received by staff, prevent arbitrary termination, and give feedback to manager who may not know what the realities of the job are. Is Amazon's version of it any good? I don't know, but I do know there's literature on it. I can appreciate the cynicism of Amazon trying to manipulate things in their favor, but you're forgetting that this is a check on the authority of managers to empower workers. Without such a system the person would have just been fired and they would have had no recourse. It's like giving a homeless man a dollar and he goes "what, you can't spare 5?"

</comment><comment><USER38> This is a really cool and refreshing idea on paper, but in reality it fails miserably. If one chooses the three nonmanager workers to be on the jury, they can lean towards the "support the working man" idealogy and strongly favor retaining worker jobs. On the other hand, managers might tend to favor corporate interests, and be more likely to reject appeals. The article mentioned that these employees who appeal can look at lists of potential jury people for them so they can select who would best sympathize with them. Employees literally get to select which bias' they want in their jury lineup.

Not to mention the vast resource cost of these programs. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of employees, what if every single employee that was set to be fired made an appeal? How many thousands of man hours would that chew up?

Lastly, and probably the most important is that lasting tension with boss figures. If an employee challenges a boss and they win, that boss is going to forever have a grudge against them. I'd think that could be fixed by if you win an appeal, you are automatically transferred under a new boss that isn't allowed to view your previous work history at the company.

Again this is good in theory, but changes would need to be made for this to be an effective system. Bravo on Amazon for installing this type of plan though. As much hate as Amazon gets for running what are basically sweat shops in their warehouses(I know, I've been in them, it's soul crushing), at least they are in some small part giving employees a voice. Then again, this could be a rigged system for all we know and it's just to save face.

<comment><USER39> > How many thousands of man hours would that chew up?

Given that replacing a developer could easily cost 50k or more, even if only 10% of the appeals were successful you'd still be looking at saving a huge amount of money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> * doesn't apply to warehouse workers

</comment><comment><USER41> This is a good way to keep people aware of the status quo and be controlled by seeing and participating in these things. To paraphase Agents of Shield "How do you keep such control over all of your slaves?" "He has them kill each other, that's what I'd do."

</comment><comment><USER42> Seriously fuck this stupid shit. When I was there this fucker in India bribed my manager for a ticket to the US on L1 Visa as our new manager. Once there his only goal was to sell as many US-based jobs to Indians in India as possible. He kept telling me I had to set up meetings with India, set up one on ones with his buddy in India. Fuck that guy. Now there is no way in hell I would subject myself to a "jury" that had assholes like that on it. Sometimes you just have to realize your manager, your team, or your company are just unfixable shit and leave.

</comment><comment><USER43> Seems like the process just adds politics where they aren't needed. It makes it harder to fire bad employees, and incentives bad employees to play politics on the way out.

If I worked for Amazon, I'd want no part in the process. Bad situations end best when everyone cuts their losses quickly.

In my experience, the best way to get rid of someone is to offer a generous severance period. In theory, the person can take a long vacation or get two paychecks for a few months.

</comment><comment><USER44> I worked at Amazon developing various portions of the core software that drives their website. Code I wrote runs billions of times per day...

While there, I was told to do many things that I think are not a valuable use of my time. I pushed back on many, and attempted to keep productive. It was very frustrating and stressful.

Eventually the stress came to a head and I vehemently told my boss that I thought the task I was being told to do was idiotic. I requested to go home for the day sick for mental health reasons, as I was unable to cope with the stress that moment.

My boss refused to let me leave for the day and continued arguing with me. The discussion then obviously went too far and I said "I would like to kill [someone who is my friend at Amazon]." I meant it only as an expression of the intensity of how much I was upset. The friend I mention knows this also and would confirm this if asked. I was just freaked out and stressed beyond my capacity to deal.

My boss forced me to go back to work after this exchange. After 4 hours he then came and got me and took me to a meeting with HR and security. They accused me of threatening to kill my coworker ( which is a horrible misunderstanding ) I explained clearly that I meant no such thing, and pointed out that I asked to and needed to leave for mental health, and they didn't care.

They said I have to go home at that point and would be forbidden from returning to work for 2 weeks. This upset me further. I assumed I would never be returning and was being fired. I pleaded with them to just give me the day off as requested and they refused. They forced me to stay home for a week.

I went home and told my wife what happened. She had just passed the first trimester of her pregnancy. She saw the doctor about the pregnancy 2 days previous and the baby was perfectly healthy and there were no problems.

After learning what happened to me at work, she was so stressed over it that she started bleeding later that day. If I was fired at that moment I would lose my house and be homeless in Seattle; I didn't have the funds to endure that.

She had a miscarriage 2 days later as a result of the stress and worrying. She nearly bled to death. My child died because of Amazon's reckless disregard for mental health.

Amazon did allow me to return to work after a week. I went back to my job and had to continue working for the same manager responsible for my child dying for another 4 months.

During that time I told anyone who would listen at Amazon what happened.

Eventually HR approached me and told me I could not keep telling people and they would fire me if I do.

They gave me the following four choices: 1\. Quit of my own accord and tell whomever I want ( no severance ) 2\. Continue talking about it at work and get fired 3\. Stop talking about it and retain my job ( my performance was high and I had recent great reviews; they had no other issue with me ) 4\. Accept a severance of $30,000 and leave the company peaceably ( layoff )

I chose option 4 and started my own startup ( carbonstate.com ) I only had enough funds to run my startup for a year, and have not made any money on my product. I have since had to rejoin the industry to pay bills.

<comment><USER22> Wow. That sucks. That manager sounds like a dill-hole.

We've had a tasks over the years that were lame/boring/whatever. My response to my developers is always the same, "Somebody has to do it. That somebody could be 'Jenkins'. I give you every Friday afternoon for L&D. Hint hint."

Also, actively refusing to do work that needs done isn't the best approach. Voice your opinion, then do the work. Repeat until your manager gets the hint. If he doesn't, find another job (because the manager isn't doing his job, and nobody should spend their career working for somebody not doing their job).

<comment><USER45> What about that manager "sounds like a dill-hole"?

Realize that we have one very biased viewpoint with some very broad claims that cannot be verified.

He "was told to do many things that [he thinks] was not a valuable use of [his] time". Not his call. He doesn't get to allocate his time to parts of the project he feels "deserves" his attention. In some regards, it feels a little arrogant.

And he pushes back on them. He _creates_ the very stress he is decrying here. His capacity to deal seems to be quite low.

And then he asked for a day, blew up, then got two weeks. He apparently was told he was going to be on leave for two weeks, but assumed he was being fired. And since, in his mind, he's always right, that's the mindset he went home with.

He blames his wife's miscarriage on his manager. Because "she was so stressed" over it. Let's ignore how this guy seems to turn everything into a life or death struggle. Stressing himself out so much at work that he gets a 2 week furlough, the stresses out so much during the furlough, that the shorten it to a week.

And despite claiming earlier that being fired at that moment would leave him homeless in the street, a mere 4 months later, he acquired enough capital that a $30k severance was enough of an addition so he could work his startup for a year. 4 months. From homeless to having a year's worth of backup.

And apparently was able to find a job. Which he probably could have done 16 months ago as well.

When someone's life is crisis after crisis and nothing ever seems to be their fault, you really have to wonder just how biased their views are.

I mean, he's down to essentially blaming not wanting to follow Amazon's style guidelines on causing his wife to miscarry. How about this? Don't want your code held up on styling complaints? Follow the fucking guidelines. Regardless if you like them or not. Those guidelines are for company-wide consistency, not anyone's personal preference. And if those guidelines are what he was complaining about, it's no wonder he's had 8 jobs in 17 years. He's so goddamn convinced that only he knows the one true color of the bike shed, that anyone who disagrees must be wrong.

And it doesn't matter just how good that person is at other things. If the minute you ask something of them that they disagree with, they shut down, you just can't work like that. Discussion is fine. Disagreement, to a degree, is fine. But when a decision is made, it needs to be executed.

<comment><USER46> > What about that manager "sounds like a dill-hole"?

If one of your team members is under obvious stress - _and is asking to leave for the day_ \- fucking let them leave for the day.

If you don't do that - if you continue to poke at someone who's obviously having a hard time - then yes, you're a dill-hole.

<comment><USER45> Having a hard time doing what? Not following the OTB style?

I think there should be some concern for a person's mental health. And sometimes I think people should be allowed to take a day off just because they can't mentally cope at work.

I don't think that every claim of such is valid. If someone comes up to me and says the government radio signals are causing his brain to fill up with wrongthink, he may be under "obvious stress", but it's a problem solely on his end. He doesn't need a mental health day, he needs a psychologist.

And that's an extreme example.

I mean, look at the guy, he took a two week furlough and found a way to make that stress him out. Everything stresses him out. You can't not stress him out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Silo'd specialized software engineers often don't have the benefit of these relationships with other employees

Whether it is for nomination for employee of the month

or being acquitted in a workplace tribunal

the most introverted people have to go out of their way to let people know how productive and beneficial they've been, and that is a losing proposition

</comment><comment><USER48> I've been on an actual jury for a murder trial and it was one of the worst experiences of my life. I'd rather just get fired and move on.

<comment><USER49> If you're asked to be on the jury for a random other employee at the company you'd rather just get fired?

<comment><USER48> Hah no, I meant I'd rather be fired than to be on the other side of a jury. I don't like how the sausage is made.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I hope I'm never in a spot where I have to grovel for my job, via some peer review judgement, instead of leaving for a better job.

</comment><comment><USER51> And how anonymous is that process?

It'd be a "great" way to rat out those who support people deemed unfit...

</comment><comment><USER52> Sounds like a violation of labor law under Electromation.

</comment><comment><USER53> Almost as you had some labour legislation...

</comment><comment><USER54> This sounds surreal.

</comment><comment><USER55> I was just reading about how horrible and exploitative Amazon is. How they deliberately hire the weak, the afraid, the vulnerable. I can understand the mindset that designs an employment and recruitment system with the purpose of being able to thoroughly abuse and exploit employees. Doesn't make it any less horrible. I no longer buy anything from Amazon. They're scum. I see well-paid employees expressing their conscience and saying they won't work on surveillance, or won't work on military projects. Where are the well-paid Amazon employees taking a stand against their own company's mistreatment of other employees? I wouldn't be surprised if we had some reading this very thread. Maybe they can tell us. I expect they just don't think about it. Take the money, try not to think about it.

From elsewhere:

 _Bezos defended Amazon in a fireside chat with Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner on Tuesday evening, saying he was "very proud of our working conditions and I am very proud of our wages that we pay."_

He's proud of it. He's proud of the return to the workhouse. He's proud of rolling back workplace protections. He's proud of paying a pittance. He's proud of it all. Or is he oblivious?

<comment><USER56> Of course he's going to say he's proud of it; he's kinda obligated to. I'm willing to bet he neither knows what the day to day working conditions are, nor does he care.

It does remind me of an anecdote: Early in my career, I worked for Western Digital. They had a headquarters campus in a smaller city in Orange County. When I was there, they started growing. We didn't have the parking space, and people ended up having to park pretty far away up a hill. People were grumbling quite a bit about it, and it had a negative effect on morale to not be able to find a spot in the morning or coming back from lunch. At one of the quarterly "employees ask questions of the CEO" things, someone asked what was being done about the parking problem. The response, from the person who has a reserved parking space, came, "I wasn't aware there was a parking problem."

<comment><USER55> When Bezos goes to Europe, people travel from other countries to join public protests against him. Hard to miss that. He knows.

[https://youtu.be/eD25AWW1fwE](https://youtu.be/eD25AWW1fwE)

The protests outside his shareholder meetings might also clue him in.

[https://youtu.be/KQdsyO5mu1Y](https://youtu.be/KQdsyO5mu1Y)</comment></comment></comment>