Unintuitive Things I've Learned about Management - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-year-of-the-looking-glass/unintuitive-things-i-ve-learned-about-management-f2c42d68604b <comment><USER2> This should be re-written:

"You must like dealing with people to be great at management."

This is more accurate:

"You must like talking with people to be great at management."

When I first started managing, I tried to send people a lot of email. I like writing, so email comes naturally. One thing I learned, rather quickly, is that most people don't like writing. Even well educated people don't like writing. Most people find it easier to talk than to write. Most people would rather talk an issue through than write about it. The more difficult the issue, the more that people want to talk.

The next line should have been the sub-headline:

"Imagine you spend a full day in back-to-back 1:1s talking to people. Does that sound awful or awesome?"

This bit is very true:

"Unfortunately at many places, you're roadblocked in advancing your career unless you become a manager. This sadly incentivizes the wrong outcomes, in which people who don't love dealing with people become bad managers, and both they and their team suffers."

I wish this was more true:

"In more technical roles, we are fortunate that many companies support separate but equal career tracks, where at a certain level of seniority you can choose to go deep into the craft of your discipline or go into people management."

I have mostly worked with startups during the last 16 years, and in all of them the top managers were paid more than the top engineers. The only "exceptions" were the founders who weren't paying themselves. But obviously, their path to renumeration is very different than it is for those of us getting paid a wage.

<comment><USER3> My experience is you must spend considerable one-on-one time with each of your reports to be a "good" manager. You need to allocate at least 30 minutes per day (1 hour is better) just talking (averaged over the week) and not micromanaging. You don't even need to talk about work, you just need talk devoting 100% of your attention to the person. If you do this then everything will be great no matter what else happens - if you don't you just build up management debt that will come back and bite you in the backside at some point in the future.

Of course the problem is as soon as you have more than a few direct reports you will run out of time in the day and you will start to build up management debt. I haven't solved that problem :)

<comment><USER4> Just another counterpoint, the airing of which is therapeutic in stopping me from downvoting due to rising tension at the thought of what you've suggested and my experience with managerial-ilk and their uselessness in the past (and I haven't, because I think you're contributing, but understand just how visceral my feelings are towards this). There needs to be a counterbalance to your advice.

Just no. Just GOD NO. Want to be a good manager? Get the hell out of my way. You're not there for my benefit (i didn't hire you, and odds are, I probably don't think you should have a job at all, let alone one that pays more than me) so don't pretend you are. Its insulting to both of us. I'm there because you've hired me, given me money, to do some labor that you can't/won't do. If I want you, I will come to you, and it will usually be because some genius decided that I don't have the authority to fix a problem or do something. If you come to me, its because you're telling me to spend my labour on something else.

If you're going to make yourself even vaguely useful, be my human shield to keep the rest of the useless people (read: management/executives/marketers/HR) and distractions away from people actually doing work.

I appreciate this is all context sensitive and my response is filled with hyperbole, but you'll also hopefully understand that i'm particularly frustrated with managers/employers in our society wanting to be my mother/psychiatrist/friend? If I wanted to be your friend or meet with you, do you think people would have to pay me money to be in your presence?

Its not a very Hacker-esque movie, but there's a brilliant line from the English patient:

"I once traveled with a terrific guide, who was taking me to Faya. He didn't speak for nine hours. At the end of it he pointed at the horizon and said - Faya! That was a good day."

<comment><USER3> Well I am glad you are not down voting just because you don't agree with me :)

I am not sure where I suggested that a manager is supposed to be there for the employees benefit - the role of the manager is to maximize the performance of the employee and team. I also didn't suggest their role is to mother or being a friend either (although being a friend can help).

The major job of a manager is to ensure translation of business objectives into output that is directed towards the end goal. You might think you understand exactly what your job is, but it is exceptionally common for people to not really know what the company is working towards and exactly what management wants them to do, or what is important (to the company). This is not a failing of anyone, but just a consequence of incomplete information.

Vice versa it is also very common with hands off (or too busy managers) to not know what the blocks or distractions are that are impeding progress. The whole situation becomes even more fraught when the business objectives are fluid and changing.

The only way to achieve the business objectives is to spend time making sure the information flows happen and problems are solved. I wish there was another way as it is incredibly time consuming.

<comment><USER5> > it is exceptionally common for people to not really know what the company is > working towards and exactly what management wants them to do

This is exactly the phenomenon I am referring to in my comment (see sister comment on this thread level). Often no one know what management wants them to do including management themselves. The end goal is clear but how to best get there is anyones guess.

<comment><USER6> > The end goal is clear but how to best get there is anyones guess.

Surely it's the job of the team to work out how to get there? As the article states, managers are/should be facilitators, not necessarily the experts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> First, I've read a metric ton of these kind of posts, and Quotations from chairman Powell ([http://govleaders.org/powell.htm](http://govleaders.org/powell.htm)) pretty much sums up the best bits of all of them. If you nail those I don't think you need anything else.

Second, this is mostly good stuff, other than the first. Some (many) have called me the best manager they've ever had. Which is nice, even though I see myself as a leader rather than a manager. That said, I dislike talking to people. I do only when I have to. What I do really well is to take the heat for my team. Anything (and I mean _anything_ ) goes wrong the blame stops with me. I also admit in front of my team and my managers when I'm wrong.

Conversely, one of my peers is a spectacularly good talker. And he lays blame like nobody's business. He also never backs down when he's demonstrably wrong. Talking to people doesn't hurt, and I guess enjoying it is a bonus, but a good manager make it does not.

<comment><USER8> I think the gist of the first point is that there is a lot of _communication_ that needs to happen. Talking is not the point; understanding others and making yourself understood is the point. And for most situations, currently, that just happens to involve a lot of talking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've never really seen 'separate but equal' career tracks be true. The manager track is always better compensated and has more say in the direction of the business.

IMO - talking with people makes both parties feel better but is overrated for affecting change. A better way to manage and grow talent is to put people in a position to succeed. This involves giving the right tasks to the right people, removing obstacles and distractions, understanding when and how to prioritize production(product stories) vs productivity (i.e tooling, infrastructure, and tech debt). None of this happens in 1:1s. You need to intimately understand your developer lifecycle and how your engineers are getting blocked or where they're wasting their time and how to go about fixing that. Even though they're often mediocre communicators an engineer-manager is better at making those decisions.

<comment><USER10> "Giving the right tasks to the right people"

I'm wondering how this works in a self organizing team. If people are taking tasks that aren't their strong suit, what can you do as a manager? Hand select stories?

We currently do that, partially because many of our team are newer to the company, but also because we think we can choose fairly well, since our team is somewhat splintered in our products (iOS in obj-c, android in Java, the rest in js).

<comment><USER11> It's possible to give the final say on task selection to the programmers while still allowing the manager to have useful input. Instead of bossing people around, the manager just offers their opinion, and the rest of the team respect it as being from a position of oversight. And if they really disagree, they can explain their reasons and the manager is better informed in future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nice article.

I'd suggest for anyone making the transition into management (particularly from a more technical background) who is after some concrete advice - start by reading 'High Output Management', and getting a subscription to Manager Tools.

In terms of the article, I'm not sure I would use the term 'senior' to apply to a manager (or individual contributor), until they are at the 10-15 year experience level (which may come in much more or less than 10-15 years employment based on circumstances).

<comment><USER13> Manager Tools is awesome. It has helped so many of my reports become much better managers & leaders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > "You must like dealing with people to be great at management."

This is what I always assumed, and why, as an introverted programmer, I avoided the management track until my late 30s. Turns out, I'm a pretty great manager (at least that's what other people say, fellow managers have been taking cues from me, and my teams have been loyal to the point where it still stuns me when they say it out loud), despite being definitely not a people person. Of course it helps that I'm an (ex-)engineer leading mostly engineers, which is already a great improvement compared to what many are used to.

I do like working _for_ people, I like watching my people thrive and be happy and productive, and I like taking on the challenges involved in making that happen. Which does involve working with people, but that is just what it is to me: hard work. I don't hate it, but I don't love it either. However, because it's hard work it is all the more satisfying when it's successful. More satisfying than coding has become at some point.

My highest goal is to make sure that everyone is happy and autonomous in their work and the results just keep flowing. Because that's when all those messy and complicated people will leave me the hell alone...

</comment><comment><USER15> "How do you motivate a team? [...] I'd say first and foremost don't be an asshole"

agreed. the easiest way to get people to walk out the door is to be a jerk to them. it's amazing to me when i encounter a manager type that hasn't yet learned this very basic lesson.

<comment><USER16> But we look up to assholes don't we? Steve Jobs. Michael Jordan. The Wolf of Wall Street. There's something to be said by that. If only "different people are motivated by different things".

<comment><USER17> There's nothing in The Wolf of Wall Street to look up to. It's a story of pointless people greedily shitting all over everybody because they've got nothing better to live for.

<comment><USER18> Apparently, he seems to be good with teaching people how to be persuasive: [http://jordanbelfort.com/](http://jordanbelfort.com/)

<comment><USER17> Looks like your run-of-the-mill time share salesman to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Being higher on the totem pole has its status and pay advantages. You get more respect from others pretty much across the org's layers. But it's definately a different scene, that many tech. people I know wouldn't want to do.

The biggest insight I think after going into management is the importance of an employee's attitude. I always had a chip cause I was kind-of a rock star, and I can see now, how that can irritate a manager.

For a dream team, I'll take a group of people who are just generally smart (can learn any new technology, can adapt) and have a great attitude (basically, people who care), over other qualities. Plus, attitudes are contagious, like a virus. Both good and bad.

</comment><comment><USER20> Nice article, but I don't find anything unintuitive about what it says.

<comment><USER21> I think that depends a lot on your perspective and background.

For example, consider someone who grew up 'macho'. By that, I mean an environment where not looking weak is more important than being efficient, the word of the boss is king, etc, etc. It's an archetype that definitely exists in the world -- if you start with someone from that perspective, a lot of the stuff in the article is definitely unintuitive.

(Not saying your perspective is invalid, of course. There are probably other archetypes that I could've picked to try to illustrate the same effect but hopefully 'macho' gets the idea across enough.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> If the author of this is spending all day in back to back 1-1s (which wouldn't surprise me, I've seen this in lots of companies), and they have 7 people working for them, then that means every day an hour is spent in a 1-1 with your boss if you are on this team. Don't they have a job to do other than socializing with their superior? Does this boss have a job to do besides chat up the staff?

Managing is a chance to amplify your own effectiveness, the goal isn't to 'manage' all day, the goal is to get work done. A manager's #1 priority is to build a team that can get things done quickly and well. The kinds of people that can get work done well, in a steady state don't need an hour a day, or even an hour a week of 1-1 time. There are exceptions for totally new grads or in exceptional situations where in depth coaching is needed, but exceptions aren't the rule.

To put it as mildly as I can, if a team needs constant supervision, the manager has done a terrible job.

<comment><USER23> The rule I use is "The rule of 11" \-- you really can't have more than 11 direct reports.

I try to give 30 minutes to each direct report every day. This is not to "manage" them. This is not to "socialize" with them. I do not see them outside the office, and they are not my "friends".

Each person becomes invested in the job. They become better performers. They feel that the company is important. At 11, there are no longer enough hours -- so, if the number of direct reports gets to 11, you need another management layer.

The reason for this? If this is done, this is the easiest way to get maximum performance from the team members.

In your analysis, my team members each spend 30 minutes talking with me -- but 7.5 working. And, working more effectively. I am never surprised and schedules are always met.

What do we talk about? Process improvement. What is going wrong, with suggestions to fix it. Especially introverts, who can see what is happening, but are loath to communicate.

Using this simple approach can give a "10x" multiplier to a team. The "kinds of people that can get work done well, in a steady state" also benefit. By telling me how to improve the "steady state".

FredW

<comment><USER24> You really talk about process improvement for 30 min a day with every single team member separately? As a developer that is unimaginable to me.

<comment><USER23> Understand that as a developer, you are more important than me. It is likely you make more money than I do (at most organizations I have been in).

But, say something goes wrong. The defect is then tracked back to your work. What happens? (PS. this is purely hypothetical, I just want to make it imaginable for you).

We talk, and I may bring up "Five Whys". Are you familiar with this technique? Assume you are not. We may discuss the role of process. Not for process sake, but process improvement. To make your life easier. Since you spend 1/3 of your life at work, you have an interest in this. I then suggest you google this, and that we should carry on this discussion in (say) a weeks time.

Note that this entire discussion takes 30 minutes. The follow-up will take 30 minutes a day over 4 days, but _you_ will be doing the bulk of the talking. Because you want to. I don't get angry with you. I shield you as much as possible. But (again, this is hypothetical), this is your mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. What is interesting is that you know more about fixing this than I do. After all, I am but your manager. I want to teach you techniques to learn from what happens, listen, and propose approaches.

See? That is management. I will let you push the idea(s) to others. Actually, the modification of the idea that works for you.

Initially, I find I drive the conversation. But, as people become comfortable with me, they drive the dialog. I facilitate and eliminate problems to productivity.

Now, for the bonus answer -- rule #2 for an effective manager is to deal with issues immediately. Your desk should always be clear (as best as possible). I maintain _all_ current open issues on a white-board, where status is immediately inspectable.

Back to "5 Whys" \-- if I think that will be valuable to more people, I may create a training session -- which will be referred to in the 1 on 1s. And this is how I would manage a larger group (7 to 11 people). And, the value I can provide to being a "manager of managers"; value to the people I am indirectly managing.

Yes, I try to give 30 minutes a day for every team member.

FredW

<comment><USER25> Tbh you sound like a terrible manager. I imagine some developer rolling his eyes as he gets called into your office to hear another technique blathered at him for a defect he couldn't have possibly prevented. His coworkers took him out for beers later where they cheered him up with jokes at your expense. You weren't there of course, you're not their friends.

<comment><USER26> An important part of a manager's job is helping keep self-centered self- unaware primadonnas contributing productivity to the team, despite their short-sighted immature attitude. It's rather like parenting in that respect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is a little off topic, but a question that immediately popped into my head was... how does a manager deal with salary?

I haven't managed before, so these questions are all hypothetical. Any insight is appreciated.

I would like to think that most managers would like to pay everyone as equally as possible to show equal appreciation right? But... there's also a question of talent scarcity, then how do you balance out salary for something like that? I wouldn't want an engineer thinking their worth is less (or that they are appreciated less), because their pay is not on par with the scarce talent person. If you put that scarce talent person below market rate, how would you deal with him/her constantly wanting a higher salary (assuming he/she deserves it)? Would you just have to let that person go at some point to maintain salary levels? But you REALLY need that resource, and rejecting that person would just cause that person to eventually leave.

<comment><USER28> Firstly, this is something that's going to vary depending on the company and the rules they've got in place. The larger the company, the greater the chance that there's a whole lot of rules in place that confine a manager's choices on the matter of salary. You also have to break down what you mean by salary...are you talking offer letters or raises, because the two are often entirely separate concerns.

I can give you my own perspective as someone who's managed at a very large company, which will give you an idea of some of the lunacy and arbitrariness of how salaries were determined. First, there's offers that we extended. For hiring, managers were given a headcount number, not a budget. This led to most managers trying to hire as senior talent as they could find until they were told no (i.e. you're maxed out on Principal- and Staff-level engineers). However they could always get as many Senior-level engineers as they wanted, so very few managers ever hired I's and II's. When offers were extended, a lot depended on the desired salary of the candidate and the salaries we were allowed to offer for their designation. This is where the dance with the recruiter makes a difference. People unskilled in that and/or unaware of their worth would come in low on the "let's just see if we're in the right ballpark" number and get lowballed in the offer and there was very little a manager could do about that. People who came in high got preemptively booted from the interview process. Once offers had gone out, there were a couple of ways things could go. Either the candidate was expecting a lot more and took something else, the candidate accepted, or the candidate pushed back. How they pushed back is interesting...H1-Bs would almost never negotiate on salary, but would want the faster EB-2 visa process whereas citizens would push for more money or stock. Occasionally, there was an exceptional candidate who would push for more money than was allowed in the salary band for their intended designation (i.e. SWII can make up to $130k and the candidate wanted $145k). In those cases, we'd almost always simply bump their designation to one with a higher band if we were allowed to.

However the hiring process was remarkably sane in comparison with the process for giving out raises. Raises were limited to a degree that I always felt bad about not being able to keep pace with the market rate for developers. Almost always, if there were two developers at the same level, the one with the fewer years of experience would be earning a higher base salary. The one who'd been there longer would almost certainly get more RSUs, but that compensation is intended to reward you, not make you whole, so it seemed like the base salaries should have been more consistent too. The way that raises were limited was a formula based on 3 ratings that we'd have to give each of our direct reports. We'd then have a large meeting where managers defended their ratings to calibrate across the business unit. At the end of calibrations, there were quotas our business unit could not exceed for the higher ratings, so we were often forced to lower someone's rating simply because we had too many good people. Once ratings had been hashed out and approved by upper management, each employee would be given a range of percentage increases that we could assign without needing approval. However the overall increase for our entire teams couldn't exceed a certain percentage. Think of it like a MMORPG...you've got a certain amount of gold to spend and you have to decide how to strategically deploy it in such a way as to maximize productivity overall, only you never have enough gold. It was possible to request a one- time adjustment which would have to be cleared by upper management, but those were rarely approved without a really good reason.

That's a long-winded explanation, but I think the overall takeaways are: 1) It can be a Kafkaesque process where it's easy for what people are paid and why they're being paid that to become almost entirely disconnected. Filling out those forms was somewhat like filling out your taxes. You put in some numbers and the software spit out a resulting number based on logic that was rarely comprehensible. 2) The initial setting of salary and the adjustments are almost entirely separate and it's really hard to adjust salaries after the fact. We had people quit and get rehired because it was simpler to adjust pay that way. 3) Researching your own worth is super important...a little time on GlassDoor or otherwise figuring out what you're worth can really pay off in the long run, since you'll correctly set your initial salary. 4) At the end of the day, managers are human. All things being equal, I gave higher ratings and more money to the people who created fewer problems for me and helped keep the rest of the team productive. Whether it was scheduling a return flight from a vacation on Monday morning and then coming into work that day or letting your phone die so you couldn't answer late night pages...all that stuff got remembered and the people who maintained their professionalism and made my life easier got the better raises.

I hope this helps answer your question.

<comment><USER27> This was all pretty clear and insightful, thank you.

So, at the end of a calibration, if you were forced to lower someone's rating, does that mean their salary would be lowered as well? If so, how does that typically end up when you break the news to that person?

Also, how do you figure out how much you are worth? You can compare with what X position is getting paid in the market, but wouldn't this just be cherry picking?

<comment><USER28> Thanks to inflation, you don't have to actually lower salaries to effectively lower salaries. You just give raises that don't keep up with the rate of inflation. Employees with low ratings would usually either not receive a raise or the raise would be small (~1%). Low rated employees would also usually get small equity grants (under $5k/yr). But even delivering this kind of news is hard. If the employee has been through an EoY period before, they're conditioned to expect a nice raise and news like this feels like an insult.

As far as how to determine how much you're worth, you can look at GlassDoor and the spreadsheets that have been circulating. There's also salary data out there...not sure how you get it, but my company gave it to managers to guide our decisions on pay. They were dumb enough not to limit it the positions that we managed, so I got to see pay ranges for my position and even look at what I'd get paid in various other parts of the country. But the best way that I know of to gauge your worth is to spend time applying for jobs. Since most recruiters will drop you if you throw out an oversized salary requirement, it's not that time consuming to start at a number you know is over and work down to the point where you start getting put in their hiring pipeline. I also advise people to actually go through the full process as much as possible, as long as you can keep your current employer from finding out. When you come into the process wanting the high end of the salary band, you need to nail the interview process, and practice really does help you avoid being nervous and gives you the ability to read your interviewer better so you can give them what they're looking for. Also, for engineers, the hiring process can actually be fun when you remove pressure from the equation. If you don't care if you pass or fail the process, you're just going to try to solve problems and learn about better engineering practices which you can incorporate into your own work. Many places will even give you a free lunch.

<comment><USER27> Thank you for all the information

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> You don't have to like talking to people to be a great manager, but you do have to like talking to people to enjoy being a manager. Related, but not the same.

</comment><comment><USER30> Exactly which part of "you must like dealing with people to be great at management" is unintuitive?

<comment><AUTHOR> "2\. Having all the answers is not the goal. Motivating the team to find the answers is the goal."

That's one that I still sometimes struggle with as an engineer-turned-manager. The natural growth phase along this path is engineer to team lead, where you are probably still the most knowledgeable and where having the answers is workable and even desirable. The next step to leading a couple of related teams you can also usually get by by trying to have the answers. At some point right around there, it flips to where you know less than the people you lead and need to change your style as a result. I've seen a lot of people struggle with that (and I personally still occasionally struggle with it).

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> "Unfortunately at many places, you're roadblocked in advancing your career unless you become a manager. This sadly incentivizes the wrong outcomes, in which people who don't love dealing with people become bad managers, and both they and their team suffers."

Random thoughts on this..

A good manager, who builds & runs a good team can achieve far more than any single great employee.

There are no one man companies worth $1bn.

It's appropriate that manager compensation reflects this value for shareholders. The problem is that organisations are very poor at training managers, business schools don't do it at all as far as I can see. MBA's are about money and "problem solving", other courses produce "human resource managers" which is code for pseudo lawyers and process administrators.

Strategic action to create and foster human capital outside academia is woefully lacking in our economy at the moment. Companies are increasingly ephemeral and are not invested in developing people in the way they were, there is a fight for "talent" that seems to suppose that business capabilities are innate and not learned, and disregards the benefits of team work and corporate culture. How many times have people reading watched teams and projects smashed up by new hires (or early career) from Harvard, LBS or IMD who then get promoted to do even more damage or bugger off to consultancy or some other corporate? 6 months of good numbers followed by 5 years of turmoil and painful retrenchment - if you are lucky.

Loyalty is at the heart of bad management, pension schemes locked people in meaning that they were tied to shareholders in the long run. Corporate software is the epitome of this issue - we used to chant "that fine for you but we have to live with it" at vendors, now everyone looks at the latest lashed up piece of crap and things "well, if I am here in five years then no one else will have the faintest idea that this is my fault and anyway I will probably be sacked for not filling some form properly so sod it."

The McKinsey driven cult of performance management (cf. In Search of Excellence, Build to Last and Beyond Performance) has done huge damage. This sets managers against employees in a forced pantomime of marking and red queen style denotions of performance. Management time is burned in handling a dangerous (in career terms) process which ruins their relationship with their teams, employees are asked to do things that demonstrate their performance that are orthogonal to actual performance, and not vital things like supporting team mates or their management, developing for four quarters hence (vs. 2 weeks hence) implementing infrastructure for others and so on.

<comment><USER32> "A good manager, who builds & runs a good team can achieve far more than any single great employee. There are no one man companies worth $1bn. It's appropriate that manager compensation reflects this value for shareholders"

Is what the manager does really more valuable? Sure, the team wouldn't work without a great manager. But it also wouldn't work without great team members. All of those people are replaceable with someone of equal qualities, and not with someone else who isn't as good in some way.

Thus I think any claim that managers should be compensated more has to rest on the idea that management is more difficult (which is presumably true in some cases and not others, depending on what the team is doing).

Managers shouldn't be seen as leaders sitting above the team, they should be seen as a member of the team with a specific role focused on business objectives and ensuring that the others on the team's work is going smoothly.

<comment><USER31> I think it's interesting how little statistical or empiric information is around to underpin argument in this space. So, that said, I guess I am just going on experience when I say that good managers can make an average team into a good one and bad managers can turn great teams into poor ones. I think that the value added can be large and the value destroyed significant. Thinking about a team of 6 contributors and one manager six folks delivering at the differential good vs poor seems to me to be likely to be much greater than the whole value of one person who is delivering at "excellent".

2 * 6 * x > 10 *x ?

Also 6 is a reasonable team size, but in reality I think very strong team managers tend to attract more staff and handle them efficiently up to much higher numbers (in the past I've been part of functional teams >14)

Senior management (managers of managers) can have much greater multiplicative effects. Turning a poor manager into a good one (or getting rid of the so and so), helping good managers really shine, and setting the right agendas and behaviors (don't be a jerk, talk about your stuff, fess up fast) and most of all empowering people and getting them to believe in a future can make 100's of people go from delivering 0 value to delivering scores of millions in a few years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> we manage things, not people. people are led, not managed.

<comment><USER34> freudian slip

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This was a great read. Thanks for posting this.

</comment><comment><USER36> Sorry, but all of those points are intuitive to me.

</comment><comment><USER37> Brilliant

</comment><comment><USER38> The idiocracy movie covered this very well: "lead, follow or get out of the way"

<comment><USER39> That's a George Patton quote...not from Idiocracy</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Payment solutions for a marketplace app? - <AUTHOR>

The project I'm currently working on is a marketplace style web app, facilitating sellers to sell their products to customers though the web app, with me taking a cut in the process. I've been doing some research on possible payment solutions tailored for this type of web app, I've come up with the Amazon FPS Marketplace and not much else at this point.
Can anyone give any guidance or the benefit of their experience with what might be some good options to investigate further?
The full merchant account/payment gateway option would be my least preferred, due to the seemingly higher costs involved, but if this option has enough advantages over something like Amazon FPS or Paypal in so far as enabling the marketplace style model I'm going for in the most user friendly way, perhaps the cost might be worth it? Particularly seeing as my ideal situation would be to have something as seamless as possible, such as:
1. Buyer places order via website and pays by CC without appearing to leave website
2. Buyer's payment is transferred directly to seller's bank account, minus my cut, notifications sent out to buyer and seller etc.
It appears that using Amazon FPS or Paypal would necessarily require more screwing around for the customer/buyer than this. But the lower cost of such options is attractive on the face of it, particularly as the ticket price of the products my prospective sellers will be selling is not huge and I'm realistically not expecting an immediately massive amount of orders to be processed through my site when it first goes live.
I'm not in the US.
Any comments much appreciated. <comment><USER2> I think you have two options. First, to become a payments aggregator as Dan Manges pointed out. You would essentially be performing the same function as Paypal does on ebay today: facilitating payments between buyers and sellers. That's a very difficult model for a lot of reasons.

The second option you have is to use Paypal's adaptive payments. I'm not familiar enough with it to know if it would fit your needs but it's the only solution out there that potentially provides enough flexibility to do what you want and get you out of aggregation.

I don't think Amazon's FPS has the flexibility or the international reach to do what you need.

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like adaptive payments are available in my country, I'll check it out, thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It can be difficult to get a credit card merchant account to do payments aggregation: [http://www.braintreepaymentsolutions.com/blog/high-risk- mech...](http://www.braintreepaymentsolutions.com/blog/high-risk-mechant- account-third-party-payments-aggregation)

It might be easier to have the buyer's entire payment transferred to the seller and then bill the seller for your cut separately.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment and link.</comment></comment>


Jerk not Speed - <AUTHOR> http://loganvolkers.com/blog/2014/5/15/measure-surge-not-speed

<comment><USER2> I'm colorblind. I cannot read the graph :(</comment>


Ask HN: Impossible client? Impossible playing field? - <AUTHOR>

I'm running into an issue, I s'pose, that seems related to the "curse of knowledge." Everyone tells me in response, "You know too much about the details, etc." But is this really the case? I sincerely wish to ask HN for the fact that I am losing my mind. And it seems to indicate a larger issue, related to the fact that most people literally respond with shock and almost fear when they see me work at my Terminal or vim. I'm afraid to work in public now, honestly, since doing so brings about so much bloody negative reaction. (All of my clients have been this seemingly difficult. I'm starting to worry if I can even work in this city. Months back, say in the summer, a lead developer at cPanel responded with confusion: "What is SASS/LESS/etc?")
But please review this e-mail (and I'll keep the typos):
To Client,
Also, did you go through my last e-mail regarding github? You mentioned changes on the site, and github would be he easiest way to keep track of those changes. It would also ensure that we are on the same page. Please review that e-mail. If you did not receive it, please let me know.
I have also looked into digital signage solution that are cheap. We are looking at rough $30-$40 per sign to run a small microcontroller system that can manage those displays. Here is a link to the idea: https://github.com/wireload/screenly-ose
---
His response?
"Hey man- I just saw it this wknd - not really sure I understand it" <comment><USER4> Maybe you're talking with nincompoops.

But maybe -- and perhaps more likely -- you're just a terrible communicator.

Perhaps you have genuinely poor written communication skills, and are incapable of holding a conversation without the proper social cues that non- programmers or other coworkers need to feel like you're not exerting your ego.

Communication skills, social skills, soft skills, they are _all skills._ They're not things that necessarily come naturally to people, and they're things you can practice, and things you can get better at.

I can't think of one good reason to have a casual conversation with _anyone_ and mention GitHub. The only situation is if I'm a GitHub salesperson, or we're having a very non-casual conversation comparing tools.

Those aren't normal conversations. GitHub is not a tool that normal people use. Suggesting it to someone who is not a professional developer demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of your audience, of their skill set, of their engagement level, etc.

By definition, being a developer takes you out of "normal," so you're not really well-suited to judge how other people are receiving you. This is why you feel like it takes "large expenditures of energy on my part" to talk with them. When, strictly speaking, _no-one has to talk with you._ Talking is _entirely about the other person._

Growing up, I did speech contests, which teach you how to present and how to deliver an argument and how to articulate your ideas well in a short span. Something like Toastmasters would help you practice that today.

That doesn't help you social situations, or in professional relationship building like business requires.

A friend of mine has a coworker who is socially rude. The coworker constantly interrupts, and their voice gets higher and higher pitched and they talk faster and faster when they think you're not "getting it." The problem is, all the senior developers "get it," he's just so enamored with his idea that he's not seeing the practical issues. The coworker is really looking for agreement and praise, not discussion and critique; his statements are leading, and his questions are rhetorical.

My friend finally sat this coworker down and explained how he needed to learn how to act like a normal human being having a normal human conversation. My friend now physically intervenes in conversations and points out every instance of verbal malfeasance, and the coworker is learning to control himself and convey his ideas reasonably, to think before he responds, and to actually consider someone else's perspective for once.

This friend, years ago, would stand over my shoulder and edit my emails with me.

My friend doesn't scale, but maybe there's someone you trust -- not a programmer, a normal person -- who can do things like edit your emails for you -- that's what _editors are for_ \-- and who can shadow you in conversations and talk with you about them afterwards.

<comment><USER4> I think it's telling about the audience here at HN that no-one, in a set of threads about communication skills, called out that my second and third sentences were positively and unnecessarily _brutal._

Some commenters may say, well, we see the overall point and agree with it, those two details could be overlooked.

But, the whole point here about empathizing with the client, is that _those are the two details that matter._

I could have structured this argument a little differently and been much more positive (a compliment sandwich, they call it) and lost none of the impact.

<comment><USER5> You're right in that your second sentence was unnecesarily harsh.

However, the third one didn't strike me as so brutal, but I also agree that the beginning could have been worded better.

This reminds me of several discussions on how many people with some characteristics of aspergers/autism are bad communicators because they're worried about being right and not about the other people's feelings - <USER2> believe that saying what they consider to be the truth doesn't offend.

(I'm searching for some interesting articles on the subject, but I didn't save the links and now can't find them).

I have very bad communication skills myself, that's why I found Carnegie's points about other people's feelings so important (others might find it obvious).

Edit: I also think that most people in Hacker News are more inured to criticism, or able to take it better, and so might be harsher themselves - <USER3> not think it wrong when someone else is harsh like in your case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You and your client are two people separated by a common language.

I followed your link to Github. This is the first item:

       "Improved scheduling with jQuery-based time/date-picker.
       Removed secon"

Well not exactly, I skipped over:

      "Merge pull request #31 from ASoft-se/bugfix_get_assets"

Plus:

      "Clone in Windows"

And:

      "Branch: master" etc.

If I'm your client, do you really think I want to deal with that? If I'm your client do I even care about that level of detail?

There are some sausage factories which are interesting, architecture is generally one for which people love seeing the process of creation. Most aren't, as your experience using VIM in public attests.

Your client cares about a few simple things: when it will be done, how much it will cost, and what it will do. If your email explains those details it will be successful.

The fact that your client saved trying to understand your solution for the weekend indicates meaningful effort on their part, but it's not surprising that they are baffled by Github. It's not for lay people.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER7> As mentioned by vitovito your problem is most likely effective communication.

Take this post for example, there is very little structure, the main points are clouded by seques that don't lead anywhere, here is how I might have written it instead:

"Hi everyone,

I have been encountering a problem with several of my clients, both past and current. It seems they become intimidated whenever I start discussing anything vaguely technical e.g. Version control ala GitHub.

Have any of you come across a similar problem in your line of work?"

It might be worth taking a class or at least picking up a book on communication, presentation and debating which should cover many of the problems.

On a separate issue you posted an excerpt from an email. It seems t be that the client would not be requesting information on version control for a website (although that may be the case) - in my experience this is probably a query regarding content management in which a CMS would seemingly be a better fitting solution - this should be taken with caution as I do not know anything about this client and so could be completely off course.

</comment><comment><USER8> As others are pointing out, I think your issue is being able to communicate effectively. But then, you might ask what is effective communication especially in your context? Clearly, your client is not as tech. savvy as you might want him to be. So instead of mentioning Github directly for example, you need to think about the end goal that you want to achieve. In your example, I believe you wnat your client to agree to use Github for tracking the code changes, communication etc. But instead of saying that directly, you could say "Hey as you mentioned that the site needs periodic updates, I propose using a tool that will reduce the time and error to put a fix and update your site regularly. This tool is available online and can be accessed both by you and me anywhere through internet. We can do it without this tool but it will increase the time to make changes to the site and ultimately cost you more"

Now you have given the "what" to the client and not the "how". The "what" is thte importance of using the tool (github) but you don't want to say that directly. The client will see that you are giving them an option to reduce their risk/time to update the site which is the end goal, not github. Github is just a medium that u decide for the client.

The next question from the client could then be "Ok so what would it take to get this tool up and running. how much? how long? " But now, you are already half way through.

</comment><comment><USER9> My first instinct is, when a client doesn't know what Github or something like that is, just use it and teach them later if you must. For issues like this that have relatively limited downside, better to ask forgiveness than permission and just get on with it.

Regarding his response, that usually means call him and explain it in a conversation. Hackers tend to be email-oriented b/c it's asynchronous, but many business people tend to be phone-oriented.

Short terse emails like that where they don't elaborate on why they don't understand or ask any followup questions tend to be a strong signal that they're not email people. So just schedule a call and explain instead.

</comment><comment><USER10> Anytime you have communications problems just do the following. Tell them "Hey $name, I'm really focused on getting this project done the way you want it. But I seem to have misunderstood some past points. Could you refresh my understanding of the goals we have to work towards? Thanks!"

They will either:

\- Ask you what your doubts/issues are.

\- Make up their minds as to what the next step is.

* Or fire you. :) Either way, you dont want to work with people who you cannot communicate with.

<comment><USER11> "Either way, you dont want to work with people who you cannot communicate with."

Don't agree with this at all. There will always be non-technicians who you have to communicate with. If you can't express what it is you need to communicate in non-technical language it is _your_ problem, not theirs.

i would rightly fire someone who refused to at least try to make an effort to see it from my point of view, and continue.

<comment><USER10> What I meant is that he should not work in places where communication is not important. Meaning companies where there is a culture of them versus us. Of course its important to be able to communicate to non-technical people. It is a required skill. So, can I have my job back? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> First mail:

I can still work with any site content or typographical issues until we meet next (which may be after I heal over the weekend). So I should be healed up before next week.

We can collaborate on the minor issues of the site using [link to issues page for repo] or we can collaborate through e-mail. This way we can have a digital paper trail.

The link to github is also available on the bottom footer of your site. I use github to manage my development of your site, so it may be beneficial to become familiar with its issue tracking system: <https://github.com/blog/831-issues-2-0-the-next-generation>

Github's issue tracking system has become much celebrated, and issue tracking itself is a very important part of developing sites.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Mentioning anything like github or modern tools, on average, puts me in a position where I am either shocking or apparently showboating in a conversation. Everything is testosterone, and my mild speech impediments make it next to impossible to converse with people without large expenditures of energy on my part.

I'm honestly at wits end, as is obvious by the organization of this post.

It's not schizophrenia, but over the past year, it has become markedly clear that I am the only person I actually can talk to... Maybe I'm just in the wrong crowd. Or maybe the crowd is too small?

<comment><USER12> How has your life changed over the past year? In reading some of your comments and replies, you seem kind of defensive. I know it's kind of natural when you're getting picked apart by your peers, especially in this environment (a generally respectful crowd). However, I would consider that some of the communication failures with your clients (whether your fault or theirs doesn't matter) might be caused by insecurity. I've known a lot of programmers in the past who were naturally insecure people and this manifested itself in conversation. Where they would say "Yes, I'll set up a cloud based solution with redundant storage and a jquery front end" (and feel a bit of satisfaction about sounding smart) I would just say "Yeah, I'll get it done and send you a login". After a year of working, everyone came to me internally with issues instead of the guy who's been here for 8 years.

Anyhow, don't get down on yourself. It seems like you're in a frustrating situation in general and you tried to air out one grievance to get some relief. Unfortunately it appears to have frustrated you more. Just realize that a lot of people here are trying to help. Also, no one here can fix your client so naturally they're going to concentrate on the only thing they can help fix: you. You might have to go out of your way to accommodate your client, but that's why you get paid right? If it isn't worth the money then stop taking jobs with non-technical clients.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> How do I track issues then? I sent the link to the issues page.

What is all this sexy and intuitive UI for if I cannot even mention it? Github repos look just like file folders in most GUI OSes.

<comment><USER4> This is a good example of what I meant when I wrote, "talking is _entirely about the other person._ "

"How do I track issues" is almost irrelevant, because _it's not about you._

It's about the client.

What is the easiest, most comprehensible way for _the client_ , whoever they are, whatever their level of schooling completed, wherever they live, to tell you what they need to tell you, whatever that may be?

Making them comprehend an issue tracker (which is a term only programmers use, normal people don't think of themselves as having "issues" which they need to "track"), which regardless of the GUI that GitHub built, is still constructed atop a system designed by _someone who writes Unix kernels for fun_ , is not that way.

Maybe that way is, they call you on the phone and explain it to you for every issue. Maybe that takes up too much of your time, so they call your secretary and you call them back once a week and do a big round-up.

Your job as a consultant is to _figure that out_ and provide it. It's not to write code. That is secondary to _being able to relate to someone's business problems._

<comment><AUTHOR> Then I should scratch the CMS, github, and only contact him by phone for typographical and content issues.

I see now. Thank you. With luck, these experiences will be very much transferrable to other projects.

<comment><USER5> I've already recommended it above, but I'm going to reiterate the suggestion of Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People.

It's even available online :)

<http://erudition.mohit.tripod.com/_Influence_People.pdf>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I really, really do not wish to come off this aggressively, but are we following the reasoning: mentioning github > probably a bad writer/should re- assess abilities to communicate?

Really?

<comment><USER13> Think about it from the client's perspective - using Github issues might be your preferred way of tracking the changes he requests, but it is unlikely his preferred tool. He just wants to email you the changes he wants and have them made - the implementation is not his concern.

As soon as the client feels like he doesn't understand what you are saying, you stop becoming a problem-solver and start becoming a problem. In addition to whatever responsibilities he has on his end, now he needs to try to figure out what you are saying. The key to a happy client is removing problems from their plate.

Here's a different way to communicate the same things as your original email:

        $CLIENT, you mentioned that you wanted a few changes
        to the content of the site. If the changes are easy
        to describe, you can just email them to me and I will
        take care of it. Otherwise let's sit down/have a
        phone call about the changes.

        I've also done some research into the digital
        signage that we discussed. I found an option that
        will cost $30-$40 per sign, is that within your
        budget? I can present all the options I've found
        at our next meeting.

Notice that I tried to avoid any deep technical details (e.g. after you email me the changes, I will add an item to the bug tracker and do feature-branching to implement the changes then deploy to the staging server). My version is not perfect either, but I think it would be better received.

<comment><USER14> I read your version, and I get an entirely different gist than what I got from reading nerdfile's for part 1. I thought he was talking to the customer about using version control. In your version I get issue tracking. I've had both conversations (issue tracking & version control) before with non-technical people.

An easy thing nerdfiles could have done was to attach the email in question. In that situation, there's no need for the client to dig through their emails to find something they may or may not have deleted, may have ignored, or had end up in their junk folder. Then you can trade out "If you did not receive it, please let me know" with "I've attached it for your convenience".</comment></comment></comment>


Creating an Effective Elevator Pitch: A Guide for Startup Companies - <AUTHOR> http://venturesocially.tumblr.com/post/1235807426/creating-an-effective-elevator-pitch-a-guide-for

<comment><USER2> This url will get you the entire article including the 12 points mentioned. <http://venturesocially.tumblr.com/tagged/elevator_pitch></comment>


E-cigarettes have a problem: They keep blowing up - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/636056/e-cigarettes-have-a-problem-they-keep-blowing-up/ <comment><USER2> I want to get my mom to switch from real cigarettes to e-cigarettes. This kind of publicity puts me off.

Any tips from users?

<comment><USER3> I know some people who vape. It has not been tested yet to see if it is harmful. You can build your own or buy one already made or e-cigarettes that look like paper ones. A real popular one recharges with a USB port.

I never heard of them exploding before, must be bad batteries.

My brother-in-law vapes and it doesn't harm his teeth like real cigarettes. He had to get them worked on.</comment></comment>


I quit - <AUTHOR> http://bensw.com/blog/I-quit/

<comment><USER2> It would be nice if he explained why...

<comment><USER3> Or if there were any context or substantial content whatsoever. I realize this was probably written only for the author's own self-expression, but I can't see any reason for it to be here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Congratulations on your decision. A lot of the time I feel like I should drop out of school, but don't because status quo just seems easier.</comment>


Linq and list comprehension for C++ - <AUTHOR> http://pfultz2.github.com/Linq/

<comment><USER2> This is a really impressive piece of macro and template hackery.</comment>


How an Engineer Earned 1.25M Air Miles by Buying Pudding (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/how-an-engineer-earned-1-25-million-air-miles-by-buying-1339646546 <comment><USER2> why is this here?</comment>


Cryper 2015 V2 - <AUTHOR>

The file and folder encryption tool for Windows 7 - 10.
http://www.cryper.net
As Windows do not offer a simple way to encrypt single files, which you want to share with others, Cryper might be the tool you are searching for.
The main property of Cryper is the simple workflow. After entering a password or choosing a key file you just have to drag'n'drop the files to the appropriate symbol on the main window, to start a encryption or decryption action.
With the settings of Cryper you are able to adjust it's behavoir to optimize your workflow. <comment><USER2> I just have to say: due to the grammatical errors and shady looking pages, is comes off as malware.

I'm not saying it is, but I wouldn't trust that website.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi I'm sorry if there are any mistakes in gramma. I'm a developer from germany and so no english native, but I can promise, that the software contains any malware.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Bitcoin price index – as a service - <AUTHOR> https://usethisprice.com <comment><USER2> Anyone here dropping coin on Ripple?</comment>


The Slime Mole Is As Good an Economic Model as Any - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@katierosepipkin/the-slime-mold-is-as-good-an-economic-model-as-any-ebec4062acd7 <comment><USER2> Somebody, please correct the title from "slime mole" to "slime mold".</comment>


A Sticky String Quandary - <AUTHOR> http://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/strings.html <comment><USER2> I read this and I agree with everything that he says - but I also think it makes Haskell look worse than it is to some passer-by.

My impression is that the Haskell community is very self-critical (which is great), but someone just peeking in from the outside might think that Haskell is still in the random hobby project stage, and that it still hasn't figured out strings.

That's totally not the case though! Strings are solved, just a bit annoying to use sometimes. We're running Haskell in production and it's amazingly stable and hard to break.

I wish the community was bigger though, that's why I'm posting this to encourage everyone to try it.

<comment><USER3> Stability seems like an orthogonal issue to the standard string representation being "quite possibly the least efficient (non-contrived) representation of text data possible". As a production Haskell user, what do you do when you have to load a large amount of text data?

<comment><USER4> > As a production Haskell user, what do you do when you have to load a large > amount of text data?

Use Text [https://hackage.haskell.org/package/text](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/text)

"The Text type represents Unicode character strings, in a time and space- efficient manner. This package provides text processing capabilities that are optimized for performance critical use, both in terms of large data quantities and high speed."

<comment><USER3> Isn't "hackage" the not-fully-vetted / unstable namespace of packages? Is it recommended to use hackage packages in production systems?

<comment><USER5> In the case of the text package, it's a well-respected _de facto_ standard regardless of its official status, and probably as safe a dependency as you're ever going to get in practice.

Anecdotally, everything serious I write in Haskell uses Data.Text by default these days, and just converts to and from other representations like String as necessary. It's mildly inconvenient for things like writing Show instances or integrating with a library that uses a different convention, but still better in almost any context than using String by default IME.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra Haskell has well known deficiences in its std lib (Prelude).

I would make a conjecture that it's also true for Lisps (quality of std lib is poor often) and other powerful libraries.

On other hand, languages of simpler kind, like Java or Python, have more adequate std libs.

It's because, for a really powerful language std lib has to be opinionated. And people understand that but they can't agree on something. So they live with whatever common denominator. And lost a lot of traction there.

A counterexample is Clojure where std lib is very nice if heavily skewed towards FP, reinforcing my point.

<comment><USER6> Complaints about Haskell's prelude usually fall strictly under the definition of "first-world problems".

"Ugh, this length function isn't parameterized over the integrals?"

Or, alternatively:

"Ugh, this length function is parameterized over the foldables?"

People will never agree what's best, but it doesn't really matter. One nice thing about Haskell is that all the "default" functions, types, and data structures are just imported from the Prelude library. You can just import your own version if you want, and people do that.

<comment><USER7> I wish this was the case, but it's not. A bad string type and lots of partial functions are legitimate red flags, not "first world problems".

<comment><USER6> > A bad string type

It's only bad in the sense that it's inefficient. It's preferable to most other string types in many ways. It's also totally reasonable to have in the prelude: [] is there, and Char is there, so really all they've done is slapped the two together. The current situation (importing ByteString or Text for performance) is pretty good IMO. Haskell doesn't have Map or Set or anything in the prelude, so I think it's reasonable to leave powerful packed text types out as well. In fact, I would even support leaving [] out of the prelude and making the import of Data.List explicit.

> lots of partial functions are legitimate red flags

This is true, but the fact that we're even complaining about this is a first- world problem. Other languages have partial behavior _built in_ to the language. Try going to a python or java developer and telling them "array access should return an optional type instead of throwing an exception on out- of-bounds". This is totally reasonable to deal with in Haskell, but inconceivable in other languages.

<comment><USER7>
      The current situation (importing ByteString or Text for
      performance) is pretty good IMO. Haskell doesn't have Map
      or Set or anything in the prelude, so I think it's
      reasonable to leave powerful packed text types out as well.

Interesting. Maybe all we have is a community problem then? Since `String` is right there, and `Text` is both an additional dependency and an import away `String` gets used in situations it shouldn't.

      Try going to a python or java developer and telling them
      "array access should return an optional type instead of
      throwing an exception on out-of-bounds".

Alright, I think we have synthesis. From a Python programmers perspective the Prelude issues are somewhat trivial. From a Haskell programmers perspective it's offensive to good engineering. So it depends on your perspective:)

<comment><USER6> Agreed on both points.

It's unfortunate that people use String just because it's there, or Int when they should use Word (because Word wasn't added to the Prelude until recently). For example, it's awful that length returns an Int. It should return a Word or be generic.

Indeed, the Haskell programmer is the one I'd say lives in "the first world".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft showed how light its new Surface is by comparing it to a MacBook - <AUTHOR> http://www.tuaw.com/2014/05/20/microsoft-just-showed-how-light-its-new-surface-is-by-comparing/

<comment><USER2> Buried as dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7773024](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7773024).</comment>


Olap4j: A New Open Standard For Analytics? - <AUTHOR> http://drdobbs.com/java/229401533

<comment><USER2> The first open standard for multi-dimensional cube analysis is SQL.

For those interested, the link to Dr. Dobb's is shockingly poor. Check out the official site:

<http://www.olap4j.org/></comment>


Four easy ways to screw up your seed round - <AUTHOR> http://blog.faction.vc/four-easy-ways-to-screw-up-your-seed-round/ <comment><USER2> "The difference between the ones that make it and the ones that don't? They just keep going."

Survivorship bias anyone?

</comment><comment><USER3> Concise yet impactful. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER4> Worth reading a few times!</comment>


Segway inventor's next endeavor - <AUTHOR> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/02/01/segway-inventors-next-endeavor/?iid=SF_F_River

<comment><USER2> <pedantry> David did not kill Goliath with a slingshot[1], the weapon of choice of Dennis the Menace. He killed Goliath with a sling[2], a weapon capable of hurling stones 400+m and one which was regularly used by ancient armies. </pedantry>

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingshot>

[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)>

<comment><USER3> I'll take your pedantry and raise you one: "Slingshot", the shot (rocks, clay, etc.) that is slung from a sling.

It's a stretch though...

<comment><USER4> Or "sling shot", as in the event of a shot with a sling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I sure hope Dean Kamen will not be remembered as the guy who invented the Segway but as the guy who came up with AutoSyringe and his work on dialysis pumps.

<comment><USER6> Fun fact: The core of AutoSyringe and his dialysis pumps was delivering super precise dosages of medication. DEKA applied that same technology to the new Freestyle Coke machine (delivering super precise amounts of soda concentrate), in return for Coca Cola helping them distribute the Slingshot.

<comment><USER7> That fact is not just fun but incredibly helpful to understand what's going on with this story.

The Cola company is apparently not that altruistic after all - world view saved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Kamen believes that the program could have 5 million women entrepreneurs running businesses by 2020."

So they're only hiring women? Why? Seems like a pretty sure way to violate local anti-discrimination laws.

<comment><USER9> First of all, it doesn't sound like they are "hiring" anyone; that would run counter to being an entrepreneur =).

Second, I assumed the statement meant that Kamen et al. would be especially receptive to local women running the machines. Remember, that women are likely to be repressed in countries where this machine is going to be useful. Empowering women in developing countries has a history of being an effective way to lift people out of poverty. For examples, I point you to the success that microfinance has had in lending money to women.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think that localization and distribution of these types of processes like making water drinkable is going to become a huge trend, just because it makes a lot of sense.

For one thing, its easier to scale out in smaller chunks. Its also more robust to have lots of small production going on than to centralize. And technology tends to miniaturize.

I think that there may be other small but incredibly capable devices for producing things like food and goods. This leads to less reliance on more centralized traditional 'economic' distribution systems and greater security for local groups and individuals.

<comment><USER11> There does seem to be a trend toward more distributed and self-reliant production being enabled by improving technology: 3d printing, aquaponic gardening, biofuels, etc.

Still, the lower-level components and building blocks of the technologies that enable these applications still needs to be designed and distributed, and even those who generate their own electricity, grow their own food, and purify their own water are going to find it challenging to manufacture their own solar panels, construct their own pump systems, etc. More and more hackers might be designing homebrew electronics, but we're still a long way from DIY silicon fabrication.

So it's not that the large-scale, centralized economy will go away; it's that as the value of economies of scale in production of consumption goods diminishes, the centralized production systems and complex distribution networks of the industrial economy will pivot, and end up supplying tools and raw materials more, and finished goods less.

I bet over the next century, we'll see a gradual reversal of the economic patterns of the last 150 years or so, with more and more people adopting a kind of high-tech homesteading, fewer people working as employees for others, and finished goods being increasingly produced by end-users themselves or by smaller cottage industries, with the industrial infrastructure increasingly supplying inputs rather than final products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't understand. What happened to his Stirling Engine that was supposed to provide low-cost energy and _also_ produced potable water as a side-effect?

<comment><USER13> I think that was a common misunderstanding/misreporting, Dean Kamen proposed using the Stirling Engine to power the Slingshot (the Slingshot being the waterpurifier which is mentioned in the linked article).

At least according to How Stuff Works, they were two separate machines: [http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green- tech/re...](http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green- tech/remediation/slingshot-water-purifier2.htm)

"But the two devices may fit together even more harmoniously. The generator happens to make a lot of extra heat as it burns fuel -- up to 85 percent of it doesn't get used. But when the generator and purifier are connected by a tube, hot air can blow into the purifier. There, it can do work, heating the incoming water and surrounding the purifier like a jacket, trapping heat inside. With help from the generator, the purifier can be even more efficient."

<comment><USER14> I used to work at DEKA, and this is correct.

<comment><USER12> Hmph. And I recall seeing Kamen on TV touting the completed Stirling Engine and showing pure drinking water as a side-effect. This is why I asked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It creates drinkable water, which is valuable in the absense of drinkable water. But its a stretch to think everybody should use one, to 'save water' somehow. It takes energy to run; that energy comes at an ecological price. In fact, energy and water have been called analogous in ecological calculations (reference?). So it may be a net loss, greenwise, to use this machine to recycle wastewater from your house for instance.

<comment><USER16> True, but if you have energy that can't be easily stored or transported, it might be worthwhile using that energy to make clean water. For example, the solar panels in 3rd world countries can only charge batteries up to a certain point. The solar cells would still generate energy but there's no place to store it so one might as well use the excess for clarifying water.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting move from Coke, especially after their criticisms by countries such as India after abusing the water supplies in rural cities.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca- Cola#Water_us...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca- Cola#Water_use)

<comment><USER18> I don't trust Coca Cola on this one bit.

They're in the business of scarcity (Dasani bottled water).

Why teach a man how to fish when you can keep selling him the fish?

<comment><USER19> >Why teach a man how to fish when you can keep selling him the fish?

If you think someone is going to come along to teach fishing anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I want one of these hooked up to my house - all outbound water should be run through it and i would like to be returning/recycling the water I receive.

At 8K in its current form, that's worth every penny.

They should get the cost to 4K and charge everyone in the developed world 8K for it - get one give one fashion.

<comment><USER7> Rainwater and urine - ok. But when it comes to human waste (the other kind) I'll rather trust our waste processing / drinking water facilities (as well as a couple hundred kilometers of nature in form of rivers).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Coke has the distribution channels to get the Slingshot into the hands of those who need it."

I think this is the key .. as long as it's not anther profit venture, this might just work.

<comment><USER22> Why is it the key that a company helping people doesn't make a profit?

<comment><USER21> Because I don't want to live in a world of profit and power.

<comment><USER23> Even if that were shown to be a much more effective way to reach these goals?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'd like to know how much water this makes in how long. A hair dryer is no 60w bulb, that's for sure.

<comment><USER25> Well you are looking at 24-48 kwh per day of use and the article says that the machine purifies ~250 gallons in that time. So approximately 10gph at 1-2kw.

<comment><USER26> (1.5kW*24hr)/225gal ~~ 150 J/g, which is in line with the figures reported here

[http://www.aquatechnology.net/vaporcompressiondistillers.htm...](http://www.aquatechnology.net/vaporcompressiondistillers.html)

Ideally, one only has to push the water back and forth over its phase boundary by an arbitrarily small delta-T, so the energy consumption can be arbitrarily small too. The 150 J/g is all heat leakage.</comment></comment></comment>


NCCIC finds most threat actors use publicly available tools for cyber attacks - <AUTHOR> https://hub.packtpub.com/5-nation-joint-activity-alert-report-finds-most-threat-actors-use-publicly-available-tools-for-cyber-attacks/ <comment><AUTHOR> NCCIC, in collaboration with cybersecurity authorities of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States has released a joint 'Activity Alert Report'. This report highlights five publicly available tools frequently observed in cyber attacks worldwide.</comment>


HTML5 Face Detection + Canvas + JavaScript = HTML5 Glasses - <AUTHOR> http://wesbos.com/html5-video-face-detection-canvas-javascript/

<comment><USER2> Can't wait until this is possible in real-time.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sweet!</comment>


YCombinator Remote Program - <AUTHOR>

We need @ycombinator to start a remote program and goes international, So every idea turns into a startup around the world, please vote <comment><USER2> It wouldn't be YCombinator then. There are residency programs elsewhere all over the world for people to participate in. It's about the human capital and the location. So no, let's not move YC to be a franchise system, because it'd lose a lot of what makes it great.

</comment><comment><USER3> _" So every idea turns into a startup around the world, please vote"_

If you need to have somebody else give you a seal of approval and support, you shouldn't be starting your own business. In fact, the vast majority of ideas don't need to _be_ a business.</comment>


Ask HN: How do 'big' companies manage access and passwords? - <AUTHOR>

However you manage access in your company; whether its key files certificates or passwords - you have to record that information somewhere for business continuity.
So, ultimately, it comes down to passwords being kept inside peoples heads which can't be sustainable (people leave).
So what I'm wondering is: how does a big corporations manage this?
Surely at Google there can't be just a text file somewhere with a password in?
I'm looking for big companies and how they manage their access so that in our startup we can manage this important process better.
Any help appreciated. <comment><USER2> <http://passpack.com/en/home/></comment>


Richard Feynman and The Connection Machine - <AUTHOR> http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0504.html?printable=1

<comment><USER2> Another view at the same project, courtesy of Daily WTF:

      By my third interview, I finally got the hang of things:
      I quietly sat while the interviewer read my résumé for
      the first time and then listened to him talk about his
      exciting computing project. While I can't remember what
      his project was, I do remember what his response was to
      my question about its application in science or business:
      "errr, I'm not sure; I guess I don't really understand
      why you'd ask that."

As you can guess this person wasn't hired.

<http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Thinking-Machines.aspx>

</comment><comment><USER3> _The act of discovery was not complete for him until he had taught it to someone else._

That's an amazing trait. As an aide, to get a more complete view of what Thinking Machines was don't miss this: <http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Thinking-Machines.aspx>

<comment><USER4> I find the only way I can truly master a topic is when I have to explain it to someone else. It requires me to stop hand waving and have honest explanations for every part.

This paragraph really blew my hair back:

 _"In retrospect I realize that in almost everything that we worked on together, we were both amateurs. In digital physics, neural networks, even parallel computing, we never really knew what we were doing. But the things that we studied were so new that no one else knew exactly what they were doing either. It was amateurs who made the progress."_

Don't ever _not_ work on something just because you are an amateur and there are all these fancy experts out there. Even if you never contribute something new, it'll always be new and exciting to _you_.

<comment><USER5> I don't know if the joke from my native language gets through, but it is not unlike the French Jean archetype-series:

"This guy came to me and asked me to explain it. I explained him once, and he didn't understand. Then I explained him again for a second time, and he still didn't get it. By the third time I was explaining it to him, even I managed to understand it, but he was still clueless."

It is why experienced teachers are good...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems to be a repeat of a previous submission, <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=191212>. But yeah wonderful article.

<comment><USER7> Repeats that are more than a year old are absolutely fine. Less than that may be ok, but I wouldn't push it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here is a promotional movie about a later thinking machines model <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blvC0DA96dI>

</comment><comment><USER9> I've read this before but RF is one of my personal 'heros' in life and so find it as touching today as ever. And a tacit reminder that no matter who any of us are the forces or nature apply equally. I'm sure that one day when cancer is eradicated from our lives that it will be someone who read RF.

Thinking Machines eventually went out of business but if I remember correctly the s/w part of the company became part of Sun, which as we all know, also is no longer. The company DNA has ended up in Redwood Shores, home to both SQL the language and SQL the airport.

There are a lot of very interesting youtube video interviews with RF from the British TV series Horizon.

<comment><USER10> I've seen this story before too, but I always enjoy re-reading it.

I especially enjoyed the part where Feynman showed up and they didn't have anything important for him to do right away, so they sent him out to get office supplies. A lot of people would have thrown around a lot of attitude about how running an errand like that was beneath them. Even though Feynman really was a big shot, he never acted like one (and he despised those who did act that way). It was just a job that needed to be done, so he went out and did it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Danny Hillis' PhD thesis (MIT 1988) on the Connection Machine: <http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/14719></comment>


Programming in D: A Happy Accident - <AUTHOR> http://dlang.org/blog/2016/06/29/programming-in-d-a-happy-accident/ <comment><USER2> Agree! Teaching programming is a notoriously difficult task than doing it.</comment>


How Google Will Win Airline Tickets - <AUTHOR> http://maxcho.com/2011/04/how-google-will-win-airline-tickets/

<comment><USER2> It is pretty clear, that when people are discussing places in gmail and chat etc. Google will be able to offer google-direct travel offerings pertaining to their discussions.

Further, they could offer full trip scheduling suite in which you could schedule multi-traveller trips where everyone's calendars are shared and you can see what dates best work, attache each separate ticket to each persons google checkout account/card yet have one person able to plan for the group.</comment>


Ask HN: Try out Oculus VR in SF? - <AUTHOR>

Does anybody know where I can demo an Oculus DK2 (http://oculusvr.com/dk2/) in SF? I'm willing to pay a fee to try it out (or make a donation to charity). <comment><USER2> The SFVR meetup ([http://www.meetup.com/virtualreality/](http://www.meetup.com/virtualreality/)) is a great place to demo DK2. The next meeting is wait listed, but if you join the group and RSVP early you can attend the one after that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>


ØMQ: The Theoretical Foundation  - <AUTHOR> http://www.250bpm.com/concepts

<comment><USER2> Is ØMQ such a big topic, that so many people would like to really (finally) know, what the theoretical foundation of it is? Tim, what did I miss?</comment>


Ask HN: Do you recommend compressing js files to remove extra whitespace? - <AUTHOR>

I feel like I am using a lot of javascript on my new project and I am wondering if it's a good idea to run my JS files through a service like 'jscompress.com' to speed up execution time.
These compression services mostly strip out "extra whitespace" and "comments" to speed up execution times, but compressing makes the file look messy.
These online compression services allow you to do a couple of things, but I am not sure which is more beneficial (if at all).
Option #1: Upload and combine js files to consolidate and compress.
Option #2: Just compress files keeping them separate.
If anyone has a recommendation please share. Thanks fellow hackers. <comment><USER2> I'm curious why there is a problem with making "the file look messy?" Your users will likely never look at it (unless you are building something for JS developers) and the compression should really only be a step in your deploy (save, compress, run tests, deploy to server). So theoretically no one should ever look at the compressed files. That being said if you have a lot of JS it can really improve load times of sites but thats about it.

As for the 2 options you listed, there are 2 benefits of option 1 over 2 (given that no one is ever going to look at the compressed files). First, some JS compressors do a better job when they have all the files together as one large file. Second, consolidating them all down to 1 file significantly decreases the number of requests the client has to make to your server. This reason alone will probably have a bigger impact on your sites performance than compressing the files alone so I would definitely recommend you look into it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well "messy" makes it harder for me to read and I prefer neat code. Do you have any recommendations on sites that compress js files? I've noticed several sites, but not sure if one is better than another. Thank you for your input. It is appreciated.

<comment><USER3> As pilom mentioned, no one will be reading your compressed (also known as "minified") code. Your day-to-day programming will be in a non-compressed form of JS. When your code is release-ready, you go through the aforementioned deployment process.

I tend to use YUIcompressor, but I don't think any of them differ much.

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Stripping out comments and whitespace is unlikely to speed up execution (technically, I suppose it will speed up parsing, but I wouldn't have thought skipping comments and whitespace makes up a noticeable portion of the runtime of most scripts). It will probably speed up download time, although the savings might not be as large as you would expect because JavaScript can and should be compressed by the server using gzip. Most authorities on making pages load faster seem to recommend minifying JavaScript and combining files where possible.

Consolidating the files reduces the number of HTTP requests the browser has to make, which can make the page load faster because each request has some overhead. On the other hand, JavaScript libraries can be loaded from a CDN like <http://code.google.com/apis/libraries/> , and if you do that users may already have a copy in their cache, whereas if you load one combined script including a library and your own code from your own site, users won't get that caching benefit.

Finally, debugging minified JavaScript is a serious pain, so don't minify any JavaScript in active development, just when you are ready to move to production.

</comment><comment><USER5> Is there a particular performance issue that has lead you to ask this question?

It's generally good practice to consolidate and minify your js files, but don't waste time planning how you do that during your development phases.

The reason I ask if you are having performance problems or page loading performance problems is that generally people get hung up this, and often the code files are the least of your worries. Badly created images and many of them can be a killer - try to look at what you can do here first.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'd use something like Grunt (<https://github.com/cowboy/grunt>) as a way to minify & concatenate your files for deployment.

That way, you can work with a file formatted to your liking, but when deployed, it will be optimized.

</comment><comment><USER7> With or without whitespace - after gzip the difference is only about 1% or so. Bundle your js files together. Place script tag in the end of your html doc to allow parallel downloads.

</comment><comment><USER8> Yes. Who cares if your file looks "messy"? When you are delivering _any_ content to users, it should be as minimal as possible. You, as the developer, aren't reading the compressed files. They should be compressed automatically as part of your deployment cycle. If you don't have this automated, then include it in your manual process. Develop normally locally, but before you push stuff out run it through a compressor.

Also, I recommend the Google Closure compiler instead of jscompress. Just leave it set at simple unless you are explicitly using Closure. <http://closure-compiler.appspot.com/home>

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you</comment></comment>


Rev. Robert Palladino, Scribe Who Shaped Apple's Fonts, Dies at 83 - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/arts/design/rev-robert-palladino-83-scribe-who-shaped-apples-fonts.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 <comment><USER2> I frankly never believed Jobs's story about "auditing" the typography class.

Back in the day, there was a lot of worry in the computer industry about getting sued for copying "look and feel" of software developed elsewhere. I think Jobs story about being all about fonts was conveniently "remembered" after he visited Xerox PARC and determined that Apple should build on the WYSIWYG work PARC had done.

Jobs was a copier (and perversely concerned with being copied, two personality traits that certainly go together in the Freudian sense) and it fits much better that he would see font choices at PARC and suddenly start talking about this course he mysteriously took with no records being kept of it. In his own words from the Reed.edu article, "But 10 years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac." ha ha ha yeah right. Too bad the dog ate his original copies.

Props to Rev. Palladino though, sounds like a cool guy even if Steve never took his class.

</comment><comment><USER3> I recently converted all of the classic Macintosh fonts to modern dataforks, if anyone is interested. Clone to ~/Library/Fonts. Warning: If you don't want your system font to turn into Charcoal, remove the 'Charcoal 10.11' folder.

[https://github.com/JohnDDuncanIII/ClassicMacintoshFonts](https://github.com/JohnDDuncanIII/ClassicMacintoshFonts)

</comment><comment><USER4> More about Steve's time at Reed is available in this article: [http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/december2011/articles/feat...](http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/december2011/articles/features/jobs/jobs.html)</comment>


The Trouble with Bubbles (talent, angel & incubators… oh my) - <AUTHOR> http://calacanis.com/2010/11/18/the-trouble-with-bubbles-talent-angel-incubators-oh-my/

<comment><USER2> I liked that post from Jason, I found it quite insightful. I just disagree with the talent part. Yes, it's tough to hire the best in Silicon Valley, but frankly, moving to Oklahoma will not make it better.

Is there an angel bubble? There is definitely a major uptick. I agree with his reasoning. Angels have money. Even the stock market is back higher than it was before the 2008 crash. So cash is available. But for how long?

<comment><USER3> If there is a talent bubble causing salaries to surge, it must be HIGHLY localized... say, at the top 3% of talent.

<comment><USER4> Actually, I've been hearing stories of 80-100k out of school for developers. That would be the high/highest end of salaries in cities like Boston, Austin, seattle, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1\. What did I get right? 2\. What did I get wrong? 3\. What did I miss?

Interested to hear yc folks thoughts on the incubator bubble that the massive success of YC and TechStars has caused.

<comment><USER5> My question from this was, if you shouldn't be in Silicon Valley or NYC and choose a different city, how does that affect your ability to raise money? And what does it cost to give up some of the community/cross-pollination effect that goes on in those major areas?

<comment><USER4> 1\. It is much easier to raise money in the Valley than any where else-- certainly. However, based on what I've seen from Open Angel Forum, you can raise money in Seattle, Boston, Los Angeles and Boulder almost as easily, and at a similar (maybe -10-25%) valuation.

2\. Los Angeles, Seattle, Austin and Boston specifically have a lot of angels and not a lot of great companies in my experience.

3\. You will give up some cross-pollination, yes. However, you will experience less turnover and competition for talent. The best thing an up and coming startup could do in my mind right now is move to Seattle, DC or Boston.... there are so many amazing developers there who want to work at a kick-ass startup. If Twitter moved their HQ to Seattle right now they would get a flood of folks from Amazon, Microsoft, etc. to join them.

<comment><USER6> I don't see those valuations nor investor traction in Seattle, Boston, or LA. Not sure I ever have for Seattle and LA.

Part of the reason there is that they aren't in the Valley echo chamber. Farther you get from home, the less press you get, therefore the fewer people thinking "what a great company".

<comment><USER4> at the Boston, Seattle and Los Angeles Open Angel Forums we have seen companies that are slightly less (10-35%) further along than the Valley and New York City, but that have valuations that are much less (50%).

Folks in those cities are raising $250-500k at $1.5-2m valuations, where in NYC and the Bay Area/Valley we see $4-6M valuations.

You are correct that those companies get less press.... however, they just have to be creative and successful and they will get it (RedFin and Groupon and Gowalla come to mind).

<comment><USER6> So... if valuation is a big driver/deterrent of angel deals, why don't you spend the majority of your time chasing deals in those cities or other similar areas with entrepreneur/tech talent but less angel competition?

Maybe you are - it doesn't come across that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "With Twitter, Zynga, Facebook and Google in the ultimate game of one- upmanship, small startups are simply not going to be able to compete for talent in the Valley." I disagree, there will always be a sizable handful of engineers that would rather work in a startup environment than in a big company like Google or Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER8> The following quote reminds me a lot of what pg said in "Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy"

 _Let me repeat that: great startups grow independently of the stock market.

The fact is, the public markets rarely have much effect on a startup at all._

</comment><comment><USER9> if i read one more title like this:

      blah, blah, and blah, oh my!

or like this:

      blah or: How I Learned to Stop blah and Love the blah

i'm gonna punch my monitor!

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure why you're being voted down. These cliches _are_ awful. Not clever, not any signaling mechanism that you're a friend of Dorothy or a fan of Kubrick or anything else. Just awful.

It's enough to prevent me reading the article unless the author has already banked some serious credibility with past work.

<comment><USER9> non-haters gotta hate</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can I increase my revenue by the end of the year? - <AUTHOR> I'm a freelance web designer/developer, but I currently generate most of my income due to one big long-standing contract. This pays my bills, but I'm approaching a house purchase next year and the total amount of income I bring in in 2020 will massively affect the mortgage I can get.
Next to my main contract I have some stuff on the internet generating some regular revenue via Adsense.
I can't renegotiate my contract at the moment, and I can probably maneuver my Adsense stuff a bit to make it more efficient.
Are there some other ways I could use my skill set that could help me improve my financial situation? Given the short time frame I'm looking for things that I can do with my skill set but don't require a long time to spin up, and ideally generate significant returns.
Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> Launder money. Get a friend to buy $100k of services from you. Then give them the money back.

This will cost you the taxes, so up to you if it's worth it.

<comment><USER3> That's a hell of a friend. I can't get my money back on 4 digit loans. It might be easier to convince valid clients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do you want to have a mortgage that is larger than your income otherwise might support?

I'm not sure that's a wise choice.

As for your skills, we would need to know what they are to even have a clue what you could do with them...

</comment><comment><USER5> The most straightforward way would be to find and take on additional freelance contracts, wouldn't it? Why is that not the first thing on your list? Alternately (and it might be trickier), you could raise your freelance rates. Those two levers seem like the most direct way you could increase your revenue.

Advertising (especially programmatic advertising) isn't having a good year.

</comment><comment><USER6> Why do you want to get a mortgage that you may not be able to service? Consider whether you're creating unnecessary problems for yourself.

</comment><comment><USER7> Here's some ideas.

Ask the existing client for referrals if you can.

Set up a landing page at Carrd or Github Pages or wherever with your experience/skills if you don't already have a website. Make sure your LinkedIn is up to date.

Reach out to digital agencies and software shops for overflow work. They always need help. It's not great for building your name and isn't terribly lucrative but you can definitely drum up projects fairly quickly. And they will be repeat clients since they have a client roster to tap into.

Almost every tech these days has a Slack or Discord with an informal job board. Monitor and respond.

Reach out to established freelancers. The good ones are busy and get more leads than they can service.

Upwork isn't terrible if you target the high end and pick a specialty. Do not try to compete on price or list yourself as a jack of all trades.

Reach out to recruiters and let them know you're looking for additional contracts.

Post on the monthly HN Looking for work thread.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd put that mortgage aside for 2 years, we are heading into a global recession. Prices will plummet.

<comment><USER9> Lower interest rates could make borrowing more attractive (the entire premise for lowering them), which can drive up prices. Current monetary policy could also drive up prices through inflation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What's your skill set?</comment>