Our No Asshole Rule - <AUTHOR> http://www.adventur.es/adventures-blog/2014/12/22/no-asshole-rule <comment><USER2> Upvoting this because it's worthy of discussion, but in my mind a little off- base.

Ever work in a big, dysfunctional environment? I have. My job is to help teams work better, so I get a chance to work in startups, BigCorps, government IT shops -- pretty much everything.

As a rule, large dysfunctional environments are full of people who are extremely polite to each other. You have to be: when you've got a thousand people, you can't walk around ticking people off. People don't survive like that.

But those are the worst places to work. Even worse than the out-of-control, balls-to-the-wall startups. Why? Because hidden apathy is rampant. People will smile, help out, be polite -- even applaud new ideas. But nothing changes. The organization has eliminated assholes to the point where _no difficult conversations take place_.

Don't go there.

Ever see a high-performing team? Got news for you. Sometimes people say things they shouldn't. They're incivil -- but not on purpose. It's just that they care deeply about what they're doing and you're not always able to express criticism in the most fluffy way possible.

A better way is to go with fierce opinions, lightly held. People have difficult conversations, sometimes with invective and emotion, but from a standpoint of caring for each other and the work. Once they've made their case with as much vigor as they like, they're amenable to change.

So it's not assholes. Everybody is an asshole. It's part of being human. It's manipulative people -- weasels -- whether they use bullying or "facilitation" to manipulate. People who don't have a clear and simple mission that everybody knows and agrees with are poison to any organization.

One business self-help guy put it this way: intent counts more than technique. You can be a _bit_ rough around the edges as long as you mean well and are flexible. What you can't do is use aggression to force people to your will. But there are plenty other tricks besides aggression to do this, and they're all bad.

<comment><USER3> It's also worth pointing to Tuckman's "forming, storming, norming and performing" stages of group development. The example you describe is an institutional level of norming.

During the performing stage, which many teams never actually reach, teams can exhibit arse like to outsiders. They have become a unit that fully understands each other, knows how to raise objections efficiently (often read as rude by outsiders), and doesn't want anything to break up the amazing experience that is being part of that team. Adding a new team member into the mix will upset the balance and push the team back to previous stages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > We have no tolerance for dishonest, manipulative, belittling, or egocentric > individuals

This seems code for "I don't want an egocentric person here with more confidence than me." Honestly, it depends on the role. I want my guy who handles negotiations to be a tough character. I want my lawyer to be fearless. I want my security guards to be unafraid to assert themselves if they see something.

This is what both this guy and Paul Graham get wrong: there simply is no "one good personality" for businesses. We need a mix of personalities to get things done effectively, or at all. Yeah my coders and sysadmins should probably be INTJ's, but I don't want an INTJ sales guy.

I also think there's folly in being ultra-sensitive and ultra-politically correct with hiring. So what if someone has more confidence than you? Is it such a threat to your company and well-being? I think this idea of a young company being a nerf-game nerdfest of humble geeks all "being nice" is asinine. These companies get eaten up by tough guys who just can out-compete them. Niceness comes with a lot of limits and in the long run, can't compete. Look at how quickly Google has given up its 'no evil' mantra, for example, or how Bill Gates had to transform from 1980s geek hero to 1990s hated Bill Gates. It was a limiting philosophy, especially when you have shareholders.

<comment><USER5> > This seems code for "I don't want an egocentric person here with more > confidence than me."

I think this is entirely your projection on the article; I didn't read it that way at all. I've worked with confident, effective people (including sales people) who possess none of the negative attributes the article talks about, and are all-around nice people to be with.

<comment><USER6> One of the nicest men I've ever met was my father's estate lawyer.

He could certainly be hard and firm when he needed to be, but perhaps because he _was_ so nice when he didn't, he really didn't have to leverage much more than a flat tone when that hardness was needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder how they determine if someone is an asshole. Sounds like a perfect opportunity to fire anyone. Because this line:

> We have no tolerance for dishonest, manipulative, belittling, or egocentric > individuals

, made me think that this blog post was written by an asshole.

<comment><USER8> This is what they claim:

"There are two almost sure-fire ways to understand someone's perspective. The first is to eat with them. How do they treat the wait staff? Are they demanding, or easily agitated? What happens when things aren't perfect? The other test is to meet their significant other. What qualities did they choose in the person with whom has the most influence over them? We call these the asshole acid test."

<comment><USER9> And if your meal with them also reveals that the person asks the waiter whether the meat is Halal, or that their significant other is the same sex as them, then you had better have a better argument than 'I just didn't like the way they treated the waitstaff' or 'I don't like their SO' to justify not hiring them...

<comment><USER10> This is a an unworkable viewpoint because it has no limiting principle. What if a person comes in for a job interview and is wearing a turban because they're a sikh? Should you put up a screen between you and the interviewer? Give them a voice changer so that you can't tell if they're a woman or a man. Use an interpreter so that regional dialects or accents cannot be detected. Ban pork products from your cafeteria in case a candidate comes in. This is not a winnable strategy. At some point you have to acknowledge that assholes can take advantage of anything.

Incidentally, I do think that taking people out for drinks to evaluate their character is a lousy practice but simply because many people don't drink for many reasons. Not because someone might secretly find out you're a religious minority.

<comment><USER9> It means you need to use defensible candidate screening practices that clearly relate to assessing the candidate's fitness for the role. Asking to meet their current squeeze or taking them out to lunch to evaluate how they treat the waitstaff are not easily defensible. Asking them questions in an interview room about how they have previously performed in similar roles is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A no asshole rule is bullshit. What you want is a no bully rule.

Being harsh is alright. The people are respect the most are those that have the balls to come up to me and say "your idea is rubbish, your point of view is stupid". Yes, this guy is an asshole. But he is a good one.

What you want to avoid is the bullies. The ones that will insult you for no reason. Belittle people to feel better. Those are the ones that are dangerous for a team.

Everybody is an asshole from the point of view of someone else.

<comment><USER12> I know it's kind of popular in hacker culture to claim that you can't possibly disagree or critique without being a total dick, a la Linus, but it just isn't true. It's an excuse and nothing more. If you're in surgery or under fire in a foxhole or are storming into a burning building then perhaps you don't have mental attention to modulate your tone of voice. Otherwise, act like a professional adult. It's not that hard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> But what about employees that aren't assholes per se (in the sense that they are evil or egocentric), but just socially awkward?

To give one example: A intellectually brillant employee wants to explain some complicated programming or math concepts so that the other people at the company can become better - a very noble plan. But because of their social inaptness this is considered to be rude and arrogant by the other team members.

<comment><USER14> When dealing with engineers it's very important to remember a few things:

       Engineers are all basically high-functioning
       autistics who have no idea how normal people
       do stuff.
       Cory Doctorow

A milder form of this is frequently called Asperger's syndrome.[1] Sorry for the extended quote, but its from the Harvard Medical School family health guide, so hopefully there is at least some scientific consensus behind it:

       Despite normal and sometimes superior intelligence,
       people with Asperger's have difficulty understanding
       social conventions and reading social cues. As a
       result, they often seem tactless or rude, and making
       friends can be hard for them. They may be unable to
       take hints, keep secrets, or understand metaphor,
       irony, and humor. The meaning of gestures, tone of
       voice, and facial expressions are a mystery to them,
       and their own body language and expressions may be
       inappropriate or hard to interpret. They stand too
       close, talk too loudly, and don't make eye contact.

Having said all that, in my experience engineers are often very coachable and can be taught social skills. The quintessential stereotype for this character is the scientist Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory.

[1] [http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0305a.shtml](http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0305a.shtml)

<comment><USER15> Please don't stereotype groups of people, regardless of how consistent your observations of them have been.

It's pretty damning to a group to automatically assign them to autism or asperger's syndrome, both of which are medical disorders only properly diagnosed by doctors. It's like automatically treating the elderly like they have Alzheimer's. It also ignores that there can be (and are) great variations within groups, and applying a label on them can have reverberating consequences in policy.

I'm sure you and Cory Doctorow have good intentions, so please don't take this as an affront against you. I'm just tired of people (especially the media) generating ridiculous stereotyped images of people. Good examples of these are the socially inept "nerd" Sheldon Cooper that you mentioned, the misunderstood genius that helps the heroes save the world in movies, and reclusive haunted writers. While I'm sure people of each type actually do exist, we should't treat people any differently unless we have a valid reason, and even then we should try to understand them as an individual.

I understand that I might have taken your comment a bit out of context, so I apologize for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Asshole" is not a class of people, it's an insult. That being said I'd rather deal with a rough-edged person than listen to crap like this. If you write something down, please make sure its intellectually valuable and reflected and not just a random polemic load of crap that could have been generated by a half-arsed algorithm.

We live in a world where algorithmic natural language generation is a real thing. I can only strongly suggest that now is the time to start communicating in an intelligent fashion because being able to express a philosophically sound thought is the only thing that distinguishes you from a machine nowadays really.

<comment><USER9> I strongly suspect you are a Markov chain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was not an asshole when the company hired me...the company turned me into an asshole!

<comment><USER18> I know the feeling. I work with a real asshole, and that in turn has turned me into a asshole. I have to fight it on a daily basis, and it makes me really hate coming into work. I just try to stay positive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This did not pass my bullshit test... does that make me an asshole?

<comment><USER20> This is what I call a 'content free' article.

Yes, it's nice to wax lyrical about zero-tolerance of baddies, and we can all rally behind such a idea, but the practical side of how to implement this without some egotistical maniac deciding whimsically who is an asshole isn't viable, and if they _do_ think they have achieved such a utopia, I'll bet dollars to donuts that they are deluding themselves. Case in point, this article is intolerant. Intolerant people are in actual fact, assholes.

Also, as Michael Palin once said regarding the early days of scoring Monty Python work, paraphrased, 'if you won't do anything out of principle then sooner or later you're left with nothing but".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Meeting a potential employees significant other? I would like to see the person that agrees with that. :D

In the end its a managers ability of good people judgement to keep problematic personalities out, in combination with probation periods.

Unfortunately sometimes some of them slip through and are even rewarded with promotions (happened in two of my previous jobs), even though all colleagues hate them, by employing the good ol sucking upwards, kicking downwards strategy.

</comment><comment><USER22> It sounds to me they don't like some people for whatever the reason, tag them assholes and refuse to "tolerate" them. I've always wondered whether the criteria for an asshole is the same for each intolerant individual.

<comment><USER23> Sounds pretty assholeish to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Adventur.es takes a proactive, zero tolerance approach to assholes.

Oh good another zero tolerance policy to be abused. That's forward thinking...

Look I don't like assholes as much as the next guy / gal (I mean asshole is an insult so that's a no-brainer) but this post is just smack with the egocentric quality they are against and just sounds naive.

</comment><comment><USER25> Isn't it at least sort of true that one person's asshole could be another's best friend?

Plus, we all have bad days...of course you shouldn't interview on one of those but it could happen.

What if the person has no significant other at the time..does that automatically make them an asshole?

</comment><comment><USER26> There's quite a good book called "Assholes: A Theory"[1] that explores why some people are so hard to get along with, and more importantly why we _need_ people like that. Assholes are quite often a catalyst to change, both in the sense mentioned in the article that they make you want to walk away from some things, and in the sense that working with them can force changes to the status quo in things that otherwise things will fail if they stayed as they were.

[1] [http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Assholes.html?id=GCqXH...](http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Assholes.html?id=GCqXH6WQdVMC&redir_esc=y)

</comment><comment><USER27> For those who read till the end:

      The other test is to meet their significant other. What qualities did they choose in the person with whom has the most influence over them? We call these the "asshole acid test.

I like the idea, and would love to meet every candidate's SO, but I can't imagine how this would work out well, practically speaking. I'm also thinking in reverse - what if my SO's prospective employer requested to meet me - knowingly that the hiring chances will depend on how they read my personality...I'm not sure it's a great thing to put people through.

<comment><USER18> I would imagine they have a big dinner, with drinks etc. Invite all significant others (Candidates and Employers) to make it a kind of "fun" thing. I would be super proud to have my future employers meet my SO. Also, she's a really solid sounding board, and she could point out that the employers are actually "assholes".

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's bizarre how this article seems to suggest that "asshole" is some kind of objective quality, rather than just a label we use for people we don't like.

I'd say anyone who has "rid their company of assholes" has simply fired the people they dislike (while retaining people that somebody, somewhere, thinks are assholes). To imagine otherwise would require a much more rigorous definition of "asshole" than is evident in the article (it sounds like they've basically gone with "I know it when I see it").

</comment><comment><USER29> Well-intentioned of course, but I think people need to be vigilant against this sort of thing ossifying into something less savory. Or in other words, it is possible to be an asshole about being anti-asshole. I keep seeing that word more and more in these discussions, and I noticed the phrase "no tolerance" is used very heavily here. See how zero-tilerance worked for our schools.

</comment><comment><USER30> I see why adventur.es see the need to do something like this, but like all methodologies, this recipe is liable to being hacked, cargo-culted, and used as a weapon for assholes, believe it or not. There is no hope of measuring and comparing objective data. I suspect, this is a far too simple answer to a real problem. It was surely meant well, but it will end up producing worse.

(Edit: Typo)

</comment><comment><USER31> I wonder if this is more about homogeneous cultural norms. If you respond to criticism the similarly to the way I do, I can predict how to provide effective criticism.

In a small team, i think the conventional wisdom is spot on - hire a really good cultural fit, even in favor of technical chops.

In a larger organization you're inevitably going to have a wider distribution of values simply because there are more people. At a some point the organization needs to figure out how to get people to play nice together. The larger the organization, the more tolerance for variance is required. I guess if you're doing something really cool or are willing to pay a lot that can be mitigated just because you'll have a larger pool of candidates.

Of course, you can't really figure out how people respond to stress until they're stressed, which happens way way after they are hired. It's probably a better heuristic to figure out how the organization can cope with wide variance norms, rather than trying to pick people that act like me.

</comment><comment><USER32> Some people are too nice and others are too mean.

In the middle are people who can hold themselves and others accountable and whose behavior cultivates a culture of respect and teamwork.

In my opinion, assholes are people whose behavior (intentional or not) shuts down creativity and collaboration.

The key thing to understand is that companies learn as a team how to get the desired results. This means people need to be able to communicate, to trust their coworkers, to feel comfortable putting themselves out there, etc. Success is made up of thousands of small interactions.

Assholes are people who get in the way of healthy team functioning by bullying, trying to be right all the time, intimidating others, etc.

Some assholes are smart and have something to offer, but it should be weighed against the cascade of downsides as well.

</comment><comment><USER33> What checks are there to ensure that those enforcing the rule are (1)doing it correctly, (2) not themselves a-holes?

And, assuming it's possible to implement this rule, how do you prevent exploitation, and hence, extinction?

</comment><comment><USER34> So there's this term I love that has sort of fallen out of use recently, but it's useful in this conversation:

"grinfucker"

IE, the kind of person that is socially extremely polite and gracious, but fucks you over in subtle ways.

I totally agree with the spirit of this article, but I think they've defined "asshole" as "caustic person". I think the most corrosive people are actually the grinfuckers -- the people that will smile at you one day and stab you in the back the next. I like caustic people! They might be difficult in the moment, but at least they're honest.

</comment><comment><USER35> Good article overall. Requiring to meet the "significant other" is illegal in the Untied States. Marital status is taboo. I find a person's driving tells the most about their personality.

</comment><comment><USER36> Having a meal with someone is a great test to see if someone is an asshole. Of course, very few will be such huge assholes that it shows up at the first meal.

A better approach is to just keep a lookout when you scan their online profile (which you _should_ ). Everyone will have some posts on Twitter/HN/FB/Reddit/Disqus that they aren't proud of, but the assholes will be immediately visible.

Having no visible trail on the Internet could be a sign that you are privact concious but I'd go so far as to say it's a liability these days.

</comment><comment><USER37> Sounds a bit constipated to me.

To be serious it depends greatly on the definition of asshole. If it means that racist, sexist, other discriminatory behaviour and general mean or vindictive behaviour is not tolerated that is good. It does need to be careful that it doesn't prevent disagreement and dissent when they are appropriate. Really not keen on interviewing and judging on partners either. The question of how they treat people of perceived lower status (waiting staff) is probably valuable on the other hand.

</comment><comment><USER38> Given that a number of the typical "asshole" traits fall under various psychiatric diagnoses like Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Histrionic Personality Disorder, I'm kind of surprised that we don't see more lawsuits over firing people like that.

Not that I'm advocating that _every_single_person_ fall into a protected class, but I do believe that most people's personalities are inherent. I certainly don't know of any reformed assholes...

</comment><comment><USER39> I think this is a useful policy but one danger to watch for is definition creep. Any policy of exclusion can be unconsciously used to discriminate. And that gets to the second challenge, is that the folks most likely to get along are the ones with the most common set of life experiences and that can lead to a lack of diversity as well.

</comment><comment><USER40> Of course, your realize the issue with a no asshole policy, right?

Everyone left is full of shit. <grin>

</comment><comment><USER41> I lived in Columbia, MO for nearly 10 years. It is absolutely full of assholes. I wonder how they're still in business. :)

</comment><comment><USER42> What do you think about meeting the "significant other" as a test ?

</comment><comment><USER6> The responses to this thread remind me of nothing so much as this comic: [http://amultiverse.com/comic/2015/01/05/its-about- ethics/](http://amultiverse.com/comic/2015/01/05/its-about-ethics/)</comment>


The Accelerator Wall: A New Problem for a Post-Moore's Law World - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/processors/the-accelerator-wall-a-new-problem-for-a-post-moores-law-world <comment><USER2> Also interesting was the benchmark construction for GPUs: "we have selected 24 popular game benchmarks including Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, GTA V, and Portal 2. Figure 5 shows the results of five applications (other applications show similar trends). Each of the presented applications was tested on over 20 different GPUs and normalized to the oldest GPU chip evaluated" [http://parallel.princeton.edu/papers/wall- hpca19.pdf](http://parallel.princeton.edu/papers/wall-hpca19.pdf)</comment>


Sysadmin Magazine Special Edition - <AUTHOR> https://www.netwrix.com/sysadmin_magazine_november_2016.html?cID=70170000001HuwI <comment><USER2> You go very far to ensure I can't download your magazine. Is it even worth giving you my personal information?

Well, that's what I thought. 8MB of useless advertisements and screenshots, with very little actual content, which actually can be found elsewhere.</comment>


Show HN: Konami Code Using React Hooks - <AUTHOR> https://codesandbox.io/s/yq6lvqxo6x <comment><USER2> So basically hooks can be used as state mixins. I wonder if we can wrap them entirely up in a @decorator and trivially apply them to SFC.

Also makes me wonder about the same concept for class components.</comment>


Ask HN: What online CS degrees would you recommend? - <AUTHOR> I'm applying to the OMSCS program at Georgia Tech.  Any other CS programs worth considering?<p>If it matters, I'm a self taught developer looking to take advantage of my employer's tuition assistance benefits. <comment><USER2> I couldn't afford this one but it's one of the strongest universities in Oregon for such a thing: take a look at the online CS degrees offered from Oregon State University ([http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/online- degrees/undergraduate/...](http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/online- degrees/undergraduate/computer-science/)). They also operate osuosl -- a popular mirror for linux and oss projects: [http://osuosl.org](http://osuosl.org)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll take a look.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You mention you're self taught -- do you have an undergraduate degree?

The OMSCS FAQ[1] is vague about whether such a degree is required:

> "significant professional or other work experience with supporting > recommendations may qualify as an adequate substitute for the appropriate > academic credentials, however _work experience will not take the place of an > undergraduate degree_."

<comment><USER4> Univerity of IL is also vague about this on the degree requirements page: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13385544](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13385544)

I would assume it's a hard dependency for any US school Msc offering. I do know in many European countries you can take a Pre-Masters which is a 2 semester program to make you eligible. For example TU/e has an english taught Msc in security with some classes taught by Tanja Lange and DJ Bernstein [https://www.tue.nl/en/university/departments/mathematics- and...](https://www.tue.nl/en/university/departments/mathematics-and-computer- science/education/graduate-programs/masters-programs/information-security- technology/degree-structure/) with the requirements being that Pre-masters program for non degree holders (sadly, not online option as you do research and conduct a Masters Thesis).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> UIUC has this:

      https://cs.illinois.edu/academics/graduate/professional-mcs-program

<comment><USER6> I did this (2010-2014) and recommend it.

The courses are all top notch. There's no distinction between on-campus and online students - all take the same courses (the courses that are online- enabled) and are graded on the same curve. Video recordings of the class are posted for the online students.

Cost: ~30K USD.

I recommend contacting past students of the programs you are interested in and ask for access to past classes - the online coordinators/admins will help you.

Another decent option is [http://www.online.colostate.edu/degrees/computer- science/](http://www.online.colostate.edu/degrees/computer-science/).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> NCSU has something similar to the OMSCS. I took a few courses and had a positive experience: [https://engineeringonline.ncsu.edu/grad_degrees.html](https://engineeringonline.ncsu.edu/grad_degrees.html)

For those that need some background in Computer Science (say you have a B.S. in something else but want to learn Comp Sci fundamentals) there's also the programming certificate course: [https://engineeringonline.ncsu.edu/PS/CPC.html](https://engineeringonline.ncsu.edu/PS/CPC.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> Oregon State has a post bacc program that I've heard good things about, I'm considering that myself.

</comment><comment><USER9> What about nanodegrees from Udacity, does anyone have experience?</comment>


Capital One Announces Breach Affecting ~106m US and Canadian Customers - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/ <comment><AUTHOR> Alt link in case of paywall for WaPo [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us- canada-49159859](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49159859)</comment>


Why Self-Discipline Is Overrated - <AUTHOR> http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/selfdiscipline.htm

<comment><USER2> Buddhism figured this out a long time ago - instead of "self-discipline" there is "mindfulness", a permanent understanding of what is going on with you and around you. Focusing not on the self but on the truth will avoid many of the faults mentioned in the article. The ego should not be controlled - it should be dissolved.</comment>


Austrian Minister Calls for a Constitutional Right to Pay in Cash - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-12/austrians-need-constitutional-right-to-pay-in-cash-mahrer-says <comment><USER2> Everybody in these discussions always mention privacy, but there's an equally important consideration which seems to be often forgotten: reliability.

With electronic forms of money transfer, both the sender and the receiver need to have an account with some entity. There have been cases where pressure has been put on these entities to close someone's account, like for instance [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/caving-government- pres...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/caving-government-pressure- visa-and-mastercard-shut-down-payments-backpagecom) . With cash, there's no risk of someone closing your account, since it doesn't need one.

And, of course, there's the fact that all working electronic forms of money transfer I've seen are online; if the network is down, you can't do anything. Cash is offline.

<comment><USER3> As far back as 1995, the association of banks here in Portugal created the PMB ("Porta-moedas Multibanco") which was a chip-and-pin card made for small transactions, and which didn't require neither a bank account nor an Internet connection to pay for stuff.

One would load it on either an ATM (using your regular debit card) or an authorized shop (using cash), and the card itself would store the balance.

They eventually discontinued in 2006, since it didn't really caught on.

<comment><USER4> We have a similar system here in Germany (established in 1996) [1]. Still up and running and widely in use! (i.e. 141,2 million EUR loaded onto cards, 118,4 million EUR spent with the cards in 2013, see the German wikipedia page)

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> With negative interest rates becoming more prevalent and the IMF calling for the abolishment of cash to allow levying negative interest rates on all balances, I think it's perfectly valid to want a right to pay in cash.

On the other hand, negative interest rates have been prevalent for all of fiat history, thanks to monetary base and commercial bank money inflation. Negative nominal rates only make it more explicit.

<comment><USER6> "Negative nominal rates only make it more explicit."

Not really. Inflation happens when there is a real resources constrain. You are demanding more from the economy that the economy can produce. If you have doubts about this, just look into the result of the QE programs that have generated not inflation.

Negative rates don't need this condition and don't make really sense. First they push money in the system and then they pull money from the system, but everything continues the same.

In fact, negative interest rates can be seen as a way of avoiding doing the logical thing: fiscal policy and direct investment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What we need is not the right to pay in cash but the right to pay anonymously.

In fact we need a broader constitutional right of privacy.

<comment><USER8> IMO simpler is better. A legal guarantee for anonymity that might end up being backed by complex technology is worse than a legal guarantee that you can pay with paper money regardless of anonymity. That's because paper is less likely to have an unnoticed back door (what anonymity does Bitcoin provide if your PC is running a keylogger?)

In fact this makes me think of all the nice things we could have if support for simple mechanisms was legally required in various areas of life.

<comment><USER9> You are right, and that is why for instance online voting does not get serious attention. It is far easier to implement all requirements with pen and paper. First one that your vote should be known only to you. I would not trust any computer based voting software. I can easily imagine next day some sad people could come over to my place and question me why I voted for wrong person.

<comment><USER10> Yes. Electronic voting can be made anonymous and secure, but only an expert would be able to verify (or even understand) that.

Everyone can understand pen and paper voting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A few reasons why banning cash is a bad idea:

1) When you get into financial trouble and are unemployable for some reason, there is no way for you to earn something on the side so you can feed your family and pay the bills.

You can only submit to social services. There was one case in Germany where social services threatened a women to cut off the payments if she didn't take a job as waitress in a brothel. This is an extreme example, but you get the idea why it is a always a bad idea to be dependant on some bureaucrat.

2) The only ways to earn money or trade is to take a job or create a business. As it happens the government controls what types of jobs and businesses are allowed. This is also bad for businesses as not every startup is being run from the very beginning like a serious business following all regulations. Often it is a side business that develops into something bigger.

3) A group of politicians decides to run a media campaign to demonise a certain profession or type of business. You can now expect that you get a special XX% tax or loose your money because how could you dare to be successful.

4) I imagine it is very nice for power hungry officials to know about every payment made and received by every citizen. Did you ever buy something (of course legal) that you wouldn't like everyone to know about? Well if you do something they don't like this might end up in the public.

5) it gets very hard to invest money in a way that prevents you from being taxed arbitrarily by the government. (for example haircuts) Even if you bought physical gold the government would know about this and demand you to give them a share.

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, from [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cashless-society-erico- matias...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cashless-society-erico-matias- tavares)

Pros:

\- Enhance the tax base, as most / all transactions in the economy could now be traced by the government;

\- Substantially constrain the parallel economy, particularly in illicit activities;

\- Force people to convert their savings into consumption and/or investment, thereby providing a boost to GDP and employment;

\- Foster the adoption of new wireless / cashless technologies.

Cons:

\- The government loses an important alternative to pay for its debts, namely by printing true-to-the-letter paper money. This is why Greece may have to leave the euro, since its inability or unwillingness to adopt more austerity measures, a precondition to secure more euro loans, will force it to print drachma bills to pay for its debts;

\- Paper money costs you nothing to hold and carries no incremental risk (other than physical theft); converting it into bank deposits will cost you fees (and likely earn a negative interest) and expose you to a substantial loss if the bank goes under. After all, you are giving up currency directly backed by the central bank for currency backed by your local bank;

\- This could have grave consequences for retirees, many of whom are incapable of transacting using plastic. Not to mention that they will disproportionately bear the costs of having to hold their liquid savings entirely in a (costly) bank account;

\- Ditto for very poor people, many of whom don't have access to the banking system; this will only make them more dependent, in fact exclusively dependent, on government handouts;

\- We wonder if the banks would actually like to deal with the administrative hassle of handling millions of very small cash transactions and related customer queries;

\- Illegal immigrants would be out of a job very quickly – a figure that can reach millions in the US, creating the risk for substantial social unrest;

\- If there is an event that disrupts electronic transactions (e.g. extensive power outage, cyberattack, cascading bank failures) people in that economy will not be able to transact and everything will grind to a halt;

\- Of course enforcing a government mandate to ban cash transactions must carry penalties. This in turns means more regulations, disclosure requirements and compliance costs, potentially exorbitant fees and even jail time;

\- Banning cash transactions might even propel the demise of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. The share of US dollar bills held abroad has been estimated to be as high as 70% (according to a 1996 report by the US Federal Reserve). One thing is to limit the choices of your own citizens; another is trying to force this policy onto others, which is much harder. Foreigners would probably dump US dollar bills in a hurry and flock to whichever paper currency that can offer comparable liquidity.

<comment><USER11> > \- Force people to convert their savings into consumption and/or investment, > thereby providing a boost to GDP and employment;

So we shall all sacrifice our private property rights. There is stuff I own and I do not care if someone wants to take it for the GDP. It is mine and it will have to taken by force.

I have to say coming from a former communist country I'm really sickened by the Socialist direction Western countries are taking today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am suspicious of their motives. They say it's to curb illicit trade using anonymous cash but I'm suspecting they will like the side effects of removing cash. People wouldn't be able to do bank runs as easily which would give even more leverage to the central financial planners using techniques like negative interest rates. I really think cash shouldn't be abolished until we have a decent alternative(maybe some crypto currency).

<comment><USER13> Motives are irrelevant, I think all the nut jobs that have been saying this for years, that the government wants to take away people's right to cash have been right all along.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wouldn't bet any money on Western governments guaranteeing anonymity when it comes to electronic payments in this day and age. If such protections can be granted to cash, that'd be a win, in my opinion--even if it isn't a complete solution.

</comment><comment><USER15> Without cash, how will you give money to beggars?

<comment><USER3> By giving gift cards backed by an SV startup, of course!

[https://handup.org/giftcards](https://handup.org/giftcards)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Cash is underappreciated today in the name of terrorist financing and etc.

Its easy to give to someone to buy stuff for you or pay them back or save up pieces.

Electronic cash can't do everything it can do with as much simplicity.

Admittedly with larger amounts there's no doubt to the electronic system.

In Sweden its kind of frowned upon to pay in cash, which is weird.

<comment><USER17> > _Its easy to give to someone to buy stuff for you or pay them back or save > up pieces._

I can do all of these things with Venmo, PayPal, Google Wallet, etc.

> _Electronic cash can 't do everything it can do with as much simplicity._

I find those online tools a lot easier to use and less cumbersome than cash.

<comment><USER16> I don't. The other person needs to have these things, as does the intermediary.

Bet you removing $10 & handing it over from my pocket beats all these in a time test.

While its cool to use those, not always. UK banks are nice in the sense you can transfer instantly/free but its more of a hassle entering the account number in (which isn't really that hard, but handing over cash is much easier).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's amazing what has been written for public cameras and their privacy issues when at the same time your lovely government wants to know all your domestic purchases or even you to report them incomes you receive in other countries.

<comment><USER13> And yet still forces you to file their taxes, despite having all the information available to them to simply send you a bill at the end of the year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm conflicted. Bags of cash are also the preferred way to conduct shady business. I think some cash flow limit from each account would work better than a classic either/or solution.

<comment><USER20> > Bags of cash are also the preferred way to conduct shady business.

That is police's problem. I am tired of LEO offloading their duties and costs of business to society.

<comment><USER19> ehm, then again, who pays for police?

<comment><USER20> This way I am paying twice. Once for the police work, once with my privacy. If police cannot do their job - we disband them and create something better in their place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if the minister wants this right to be enforced at every shop. Should I _always_ be able to pay cash for goods/services? What if I buy something online?

Card payments also have many upsides besides ease of use for the customer. Currently the Amsterdam transport company is planning to disallow cash payments in buses because of the many armed robberies of bus drivers.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This proposal may be due to the increased calls to ban cash:

\- Bloomberg: Bring on the cashless future [1]

\- FT: The benefits of scrapping cash [2]

\- Bloomberg: Europol Director Sees Case for Scrapping High-Value Banknotes [3]

\- Handelsblatt: The death of cash [4]

\- Norway's Biggest Bank Calls For Country To Stop Using Cash [5]

\- Spiegel: Leading German Economist Calls For Cash Ban [6]

\- Bloomberg: Citi Economist Says It's Time to Abolish Cash [7]

\- Telegraph: Bank Of England Chief Economist Calls For Cash Ban, Urges Negative Rates [8]

And from a Morgan Stanley presentation, in which its head of EMEA equity research Huw van Steenis, points out [9]:

"What I learned at Davos: We should move quickly to a cashless economy so that we could introduce negative rates well below 1% - policy maker"

..adding: "One of the most surprising comments this year came from a closed session on fintech where I sat next to someone in policy circles who argued that we should move quickly to a cashless economy so that we could introduce negative rates well below 1% – as they were concerned that Larry Summers' secular stagnation was indeed playing out and we would be stuck with negative rates for a decade in Europe. They felt below (1.5)% depositors would start to hoard notes, leading to yet further complexities for monetary policy."

[1] [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-31/bring-on- th...](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-31/bring-on-the-cashless- future)

[2] [http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/8ef4dcb0-ca6f-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/8ef4dcb0-ca6f-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953a0,Authorised=false.html?siteedition=intl)

[3] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-08/high- value...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-08/high-value- banknotes-should-be-binned-to-fight-crime-sands-says)

[4] [https://global.handelsblatt.com/edition/354/ressort/finance/...](https://global.handelsblatt.com/edition/354/ressort/finance/article/the- death-of-cash)

[5] [http://www.ibtimes.com/norways-biggest-bank-calls-country- st...](http://www.ibtimes.com/norways-biggest-bank-calls-country-stop-using- cash-2276140)

[6] [http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/bargeld-peter- bofi...](http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/bargeld-peter-bofinger- will-muenzen-und-scheine-abschaffen-a-1033905.html)

[7] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-10/citi- econo...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-10/citi-economist- says-it-might-be-time-to-abolish-cash)

[8] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of- england/11874061/...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of- england/11874061/Negative-interest-rates-could-be-necessary-to-protect-UK- economy-says-Bank-of-England-chief-economist.html)

[9] [https://imgur.com/qnEwiha](https://imgur.com/qnEwiha)

</comment><comment><USER22> It's a pity that franc is no longer backed by gold.

<comment><USER23> Is there usable currency which is actually backed by gold?

<comment><USER24> There are various coins made from silver or gold that are also valid currency.

For example all German 10 euro silver coins that were released between 2007 and 2010 are made from 18g sterling silver. <[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_gold_and_silver_commemora...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_gold_and_silver_commemorative_coins_\(Germany\)>)

After 2010, the silver price got too high so they first reduced the amount of silver in the coins to 62.5% and then got rid of the silver entirely.

With the current price of silver the silver in the coins is worth $8.158 (it was worth more than 10€ for a while).

<comment><USER22> There is also WIR [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIR_Bank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIR_Bank) which is backed by assets, but I think it's not targeted at individuals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am kinda hoping for things to go the other way.

Let anyone (any person, any company) have an account in the central bank and use that directly for payments. Let that and only that be "legal tender".

Then there would be no need for the government to do costly guarantees for depositors in private banks, no need for cash, no need for a costly blockchain and so on.

Taxes could be collected much fairer and efficient.

Negative interests rates could be implemented without distortions.

<comment><USER26> I'm not one of the trolls who oppose all taxation, but statements like "Taxes could be collected much fairer and efficient" scare the hell out of me.

One fundamental thing about taxes is that, when enforcement of each and every law is not totally possible, totally unfair taxes are also not possible.

What you propose is totalitarianism, or eventually leads to it.

<comment><USER25> No. I am just proposing a less bureaucratic totalitarianism.

<comment><USER26> What I'm afraid is less bureaucratic and more efficient totalitarianism. The bureaucracy may actually be a safety mechanism: the government can't go to the extremes because it'd be buried in paper.

Whereas in electronic surveillance and control...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: why is San Francisco "the leader?" - <AUTHOR>

Everyone says it and I just watched an interview with Paul Graham and he says that Silicon Valley is clearly the leader.  Why? With the technology of communications these days (which will only improve), where you are physically located is becoming less and less important. Could you list some reasons why it is still (and will remain) important to be physically located in Silicon Valley? Thanks. <comment><USER2> It's been discussed ad nauseum, but here's a summary:

1\. Investors like to talk in person. They don't feel like the have the soul of a company until they've shook hands with the founders and had a few conversations. There is an old truism that being within 30 minute drive of an investor is the best indicator of whether they will fund your company.

2\. Nerds and entrepreneurs like to talk. A lot. While HN is a lovely way to talk, it's also pretty low bandwidth and it has high latency. Talking to others is how you figure out your business, and in the rest of the world, talking about a startup "wastes your time and annoys the pig".

3\. It's reasonably nice to live here, so a lot of smart people live here by choice. You have to hire smart people eventually. And not just nerds. You need lawyers who know about startups and will work on retainer. You need accountants who understand that you're an idiot about taxes and finance and need guidance. Basically, the friction of doing business is lower in the valley (SF isn't really the center of this magical place, though it's gaining lately...the center of the action is Palo Alto and surrounding regions).

4\. Stanford. Stanford is designed to churn out technology startups. It has a great MBA program and a great comp sci program, and it is extremely involved in startup culture. I doubt any other university is as tuned to producing students who start startups as Stanford is.

There's probably other stuff, but I think those are the biggies...and the ones that can't be easily replicated by mere talent or ambition or stubbornness. Luck might do it. But realize that even lucky companies (like Boston-based and YC-backed Tsumobi) end up coming to the valley to get funded. Despite being in Boston, the second largest "startup hub", for a year since WFP07, they didn't get further funding until they came out to the valley to stay for a month...and Ron Conway spotted the raw intelligence they bring to the table.

The benefits of the valley are obvious after you spend some time here. Will it change? Maybe. But not fast enough for it to make a difference to your current company. It'll be decades, possibly more, before tech startups outside of the valley have the same odds as those in the valley.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think you answer your own question. Because of technology, it is irrelevant where we are physically located. So people live where they enjoy living and San Francisco (i.e., Bay Area) is a great place to live. Here you will find successful as well as not yet successful (and still hungry) entrepreneurs and technologists. So it is a great place to do startups as well. And you see the trend even within the Bay Area, the center of mass is definitely moving North.

</comment><comment><USER4> Investors in Silicon Valley don't require or necessarily want business plans... try that on the East Coast.

</comment><comment><USER5> <http://searchyc.com/why+silicon+valley>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42933>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=174298>

<comment><USER6> [http://www.ycombinator.search.xirium.com/cgi- bin/search.cgi?...](http://www.ycombinator.search.xirium.com/cgi- bin/search.cgi?p=0&q=why+%22silicon+valley%22)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=182746> \- Why You Must Be in Silicon Valley

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=174298> \- Ask YC: Where to startup? (If not the US, then Canada or UK?)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=116600> \- Why Seattle might be a better place to start a company than Silicon Valley</comment></comment>


BBC News website: responsive design in beta - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/News-responsive-design-in-beta

<comment><USER2> I'm one of the developers working on this site.

For those of you who are on a wanting to see the site mentioned in the page: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news?view=beta](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news?view=beta)

You can ask us about any of the technical points of our site here: [http://github.com/bbc-news/feedback](http://github.com/bbc-news/feedback)

<comment><USER3> Not sure if those images are supposed to be full of jpeg artifacts. Examples:

[http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/130/media/images/52908000/jpg/_...](http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/130/media/images/52908000/jpg/_52908535_bn-448x252.jpg)

[http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/130/media/images/73349000/jpg/_...](http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/130/media/images/73349000/jpg/_73349959_73349958.jpg)

[http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/130/media/images/66387000/jpg/_...](http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/130/media/images/66387000/jpg/_66387685_66387684.jpg)

Also the top\nread|watched bar has a font that is very difficult to scan, at least under Firefox on Linux.

<comment><USER2> We use pretty aggressive compression on images at the moment, so yes. We need to start work on guessing the user's network speed so we can show higher quality images.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I read the negative comments before looking at the site myself, and was expecting to agree with them. But now I've looked at it, I think it's pretty good.

The design could do with a bit more 'refining', but then so could the old one. It's just the old one has the advantage of being something that millions of people have already gotten used to. It's hard to fairly compare your feelings about something you use every day vs something new.

</comment><comment><USER5> I like how the feedback in the comments is unanimously negative.

>Please DO NOT spoil the easy to read nature of BBC news page on the PC desktop

>please refine the design at desktop resolutions

>Seems to me that content starts to disappear or change whenever there's a 'responsive design' revamp.

>A huge backwards step for desktop users

>Looks like another redesign which will result in reduced service for anyone who uses a desktop

</comment><comment><USER6> A lot of valid points on the downsides to the design.

But from a progressive enhancement perspective it's an interesting approach. The users who benefit from this are the ones with a slow connection and old phone, with the desktop + broadband users paying the penalty.

As a desktop user, I don't like progressive enhancement especially as the content I'm trying to read bounces around the page as it gets built.

If the goal is to optimise the user experience, I would have thought a nicer way (for the user, not so for the developer) would be to create content bundles for the different responsive modes and get it served up server side based on interrogating the user agent and looking up which support html5 etc.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm curious how this design is responsive when, on the desktop, it still doesn't utilise my browser windows full width. It feels even more plain and full of whitespace than the current site.

The screenshots in this post don't show the vast swaths of whitespace on either side of the page. Is everyone inside the BBC still using a 800x600 CRT?

<comment><USER8> An extremely wide site risks becoming unreadable due to long line lengths, so a max-width will be set to prevent this happening.

<comment><USER7> BBC news pages don't tend to have long bodies of text though. Even news reports tend to be concise. There's nothing to stop full articles and analyse from columnists being columnar, but imho the news front page could use space more effectively. It's currently just a big list of headlines, and when I go in to a category that interests me (like Tech or Science) ... i just get another list of headlines. How about two columns at least?

I've used Firefox's zoom feature to make it fill the page, and it'd look fine if they did so... you'd just get more on screen.

I can't imagine how the vertical use of space is further burdened for US readers who have ads to contend with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A representative of the technical team did a talk at the Mobilism conference. Which was my favourite of all talks that conference. Interesting stuff.

Video: [http://vimeopro.com/mirabeaunl/mobilism-2013/video/68025331](http://vimeopro.com/mirabeaunl/mobilism-2013/video/68025331)

Slides: [http://www.slideshare.net/jcleveley/mobilism-2013-a-story- of...](http://www.slideshare.net/jcleveley/mobilism-2013-a-story-of-how-we- built-responsive-bbc-news)

</comment><comment><USER10> Seems like there's way less content visible on desktop in beta mode. It's not responsive design, it's just lowering the design to the lowest common denominator.

<comment><USER4> I'm pretty sure it only seems like it. If you compare the sites side-by-side, it's all still there, it just feels less crowded. Which is a good thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Direct link to responsive site: [http://m.bbc.co.uk/news](http://m.bbc.co.uk/news)

<comment><USER12> That link still loads the normal site for me. Is the beta invite-only? I didn't see anything in the article about a link to the beta.

<comment><USER8> If you scroll to the bottom of [http://m.bbc.co.uk/news](http://m.bbc.co.uk/news) and click "mobile site", it forces the new responsive site.

<comment><USER11> Ah you're right, it was just giving me the mobile site because I already had the cookie I guess

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The business page has a headline: "Energy firms told to hand back £400m". Is character encoding really that difficult?

Screenshot: [http://imgur.com/Sl2Hf1m](http://imgur.com/Sl2Hf1m)

</comment><comment><USER14> By my count there's approximately half as much content on the new responsive site. It feels lazily designed.

<comment><USER4> Are we looking at the same thing? I've got the new site open side-by-side with the last, and the total amount of content looks the same.

<comment><USER14> I counted the number of items on each page (links to news stories) and came up with 38 vs 75. I make that approx half the amount of 'stuff'.

Here's a side by side screenshot of what I see. [http://imgur.com/HmiHhe2](http://imgur.com/HmiHhe2)

EDIT: I was counting items in the whole page. In that screenshot I count 11 vs 51, which is a greater difference.

<comment><USER4> Ah ok fair enough. There's no less content on many other pages I compared though. And as for the amount of stuff on the homepage, I wouldn't say the old site necessarily had the 'right' amount. I find the new design a bit easier on the eye, easier to scan, and more conducive to delving into specific topic pages that interest me. I don't know though, I might just be subconsciously overcompensating for all the negative comments because I feel they're overly harsh. It's impossible to really know how good a redesign is until you've lived with it for a while.

<comment><USER15> Agreed. Looking at old and new is striking. I much prefer the new as it focuses on the important content. The old looks like a product of organic growth (understandable) that seeks to pack in as much on the homepage as possible (and "Above the Fold"). The homepage isn't the be-all, end-all of a website and should pull you in to other areas for exploration.

Calling it "lazily" designed is condescending and disrespectful of those who put their time and effort into this. Thick skins are required for web design/dev, but some professional courtesy is appropriate, I think. The developers themselves are here. How about something more constructive? What would YOU change? (OP, not callum85)

<comment><USER14> Hi there. Yes, always a balance between objective comments and what I would say to someone's face (although the word 'lazy' is on the mild end of things). I love the BBC, feel that their news reporting is broadly trustworthy, and would gladly pay a license fee.

I'm talking about the homepage here.

Why did I use the word lazy?

My first impression is that the new version feels more in the direction of a news aggregation site. Looking at it, the structure is much simpler and the hierarchy is shallower. It feels like the relationship between content and layout doesn't require any editorial input, like the headlines could have been drawn from any aggregation source (I'm talking about the layout not the content).

Looking back at the current site, it appears that editorial input has gone into the structure of the layout. The Ukraine story leads with a headline and then has various other pieces looking at the story from different angles. Similarly, it feels like for the Clegg vs Farage bit the editor has said "we want to do something about this subject, let's have a headline and some other items about it".

That's the reason I used that particular word. It feels to me that the new layout could be automatically generated current one couldn't, at least not quite so easily. Ergo it feels like someone has put effort into a curated news experience vs an automatic one. So I think I stand by using the word for that reason.

The above is my personal impression. I may be factually wrong. But we all respond to immediate experience don't we?

And then there's the principle of mobile first, and what happens when it meets a site like this. There is no question that responsive is difficult to do.

Maybe I do want to see less on my mobile, and maybe that's suitable for that medium. Allowing that to impinge on the desktop version, however, isn't something that sits well with me (or with others by the looks of things), especially if it means I am presented with a narrower view (one story on subject X presented to me on the front page rather than more than one).

Different audiences exist on different mediums. I listen to BBC Radio 4 news and the news team puts together a programme in a certain way. I've heard the news on other less wordy BBC Radio stations and it's tailored to that audience. I'm glad that they acknowledge that different audiences want to consume news in different formats. It's not just the length of the story that differs, it's the style of presentation, selection of stories, and form of analysis. That feels like a very good analogue for the comparison here.

The argument that you should see the same content in both cases (mobile, tablet, desktop) isn't open and shut. I see a huge disadvantage in the new homepage on a desktop, and I can't assume that the same idea hasn't at least occurred to some of the BBC people. To say "we need to make it work on mobile" is a laudable aim, but to then say "and we'll make sure that looks nice on the desktop too" feels lazy.

What would I change?

I'd have an explicit conversation about mediums and formats. And I'd have my point of view, because I'm me.

I'd keep the desktop site as it is. Mobile is important. You can drop bits from the desktop site to make it work on mobile. You could even do it responsively, although that would increase the overhead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Yes, finally the sidebar can take up a third of my ten inch iPad screen. Yes.

</comment><comment><USER17> The redesign has been complete disaster for readability on the desktop.

Go look at:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/robertpeston/](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/robertpeston/)

See how little actual _information_ they've managed to fit into the desktop design, you have to scroll miles just to scan the stories.

The design itself is rubbish with everything seemingly randomly spaced out.

Not impressed at all.

I'm actually getting really disillusioned with the mobile first movement, what it seems to actually mean is completely broken desktop experiences.

And bootstrap, as much as I love it, is part of the problem moving to mobile first.

<comment><USER18> I can see zero difference in the information density between the existing non- responsive design of that page [0], and the beta version of the responsive design [1].

While your point that mobile first design inevitably causes a lack of information density at desktop resolutions has some merit, it does not apply in this case.

[0] [http://cl.ly/UFuw](http://cl.ly/UFuw)

[1] [http://cl.ly/UFzs](http://cl.ly/UFzs)

<comment><USER17> They have been using those blogs to test the new layout.

If you went there over the last few months you'd be asked to give feedback on the new design.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Eugh, I _hate_ change

</comment><comment><USER20> At the last newspaper I worked at, which admittedly was in a state capital, the vast majority of our readers were during the work hours, at their office desktops. It's never made much sense to me the idea of treating that use case as archaic and ancillary...except that making things "responsive" is seen as a catchphrase of being forward thinking, something newspapers are desperate to jump on having missed the boat for far too long

</comment><comment><USER21> Well that's an ambitious project for a company that just fired all it's developer departments so it could hire cheaper workers in Salford. For those of you who don't know Salford, it's the music of Joy Devision made solid.

<comment><USER22> They still have developers in London

<comment><USER2> Yes there are. I'm one of them.

<comment><USER23> Why let the facts get in the way of a good rant? :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bashhub  – Bash History in the Cloud - <AUTHOR> https://bashhub.com/ <comment><USER3> There are people who use bash enough--and in such a way--that they'd benefit from this kind of .bash_history backup and analysis.

There are people who would not be wary of sending this kind of information remotely to be stored by someone else.

But I think the intersection of these types would be small.

<comment><USER4> Well, the people in the first category will usually be smart enough to setup a sync without using an external "cloud service".

<comment><USER5> > Well, the people in the first category will usually be smart enough to setup > a sync without using an external "cloud service".

Apart from some, like myself.

How would you go about it, given the need for 2-way sync? I've ruled out rsync, could see Git working but not particularly performant to run every 20 seconds to keep the history in sync between machines.

<comment><USER6> I use git to sync my dotfiles (pulled in by SaltStack because I'm crazy enough to put my workstations under config management) I just have a script that does a git commit -am "automated push on $(date)" that triggers when I lock my screen. It's not perfect but it works well enough for my needs, though I don't sync my bash history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like the idea a lot, but the security implications of this are scary. May as well just do a cloud based key stroke recorder.

<comment><USER8> In defense, you're not recording keystrokes. Simply taking bash history which is already recorded locally and moving it to the cloud.

<comment><USER9> You are giving all your bash history to a third party, that is incredibly scary and if you can't see the security implications then you need to rethink your product.

<comment><USER8> Agree privacy is a concern. You can configure what you do and don't send as well.

<comment><USER9> Seriously I don't think you really understand the implications here or you aren't taking them seriously, if you did you sure wouldn't be talking about this so nonchalantly. You should seriously shut this down before you get some young programmers/admins fired or worse.

Also from your FAQ what the hell is "strong level encryption", can you not name it? Can you go into the extreme technical details of what encryption you are using, how data is protected in memory and at rest?

<comment><USER10> The FAQ says 'storage level encryption' which presumably means volume encryption, but in any case is unlikely to protect against anyone gaining access to the box, only against someone making off with the physical storage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >#ignore added to any command will omit it from being saved. Simply add it to the end of any command and it won't be recorded in Bashhub.

A space at the start of the command will do the same in Bash itself - <USER2> this work for bashhub?

<comment><USER8> Yes, if you configure your history to ignore space. It won't be put in Bashhub.

Actually just added a filter command as well. You can export BH_FILTER="some- regex" and it'll ignore all those commands. Just released in 0.0.14!

<comment><USER8> [https://github.com/rcaloras/bashhub-client#filtering- command...](https://github.com/rcaloras/bashhub-client#filtering-commands)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I might be okay with this if the data was encrypted client side prior to upload.

</comment><comment><USER13> How does it compare to shellsink?

[https://github.com/joshuacronemeyer/shellsink](https://github.com/joshuacronemeyer/shellsink)

(Besides being actively developed.)

</comment><comment><USER8> Creator here! Wow, didn't think this would get posted on HN all of a sudden. Would love to hear your feedback or ideas, I'm very actively developing the project. firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER11> The security implications are terrifying.

<comment><USER14> I'd hope not. What winds up in _your_ bash history?

[In case it wasn't clear, above was mildly tongue-in-cheek; secrets should _not_ be in your bash history, but of course things approaching (and including) PII may well be]

<comment><USER15> Not saying I make of habit of this, but sometimes you have to pass sensitive things as arguments (passwords, api tokens, customer data, etc), it happens.

I think client side encryption by Bashhub would alleviate this security concern.

<comment><USER11> One of the AWS config utilities comes to mind - you have to paste in your AWS key if running interactively.

<comment><USER15> Actually `aws configure` is interactive when it asks for input. Those values won't be stored in `history`.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Weird that one would agree to that. I don't even store my shell history on private computers.

<comment><USER14> _" I don't even store my shell history on private computers."_

Any particular reason for that? It seems devastating to usability, for unclear benefit...

<comment><USER16> It was the default behavior on OpenBSD's pdksh and my paranoid self grew to like it.

I view abusing your shell history as a symptom of lack of automation and functions/aliases.

Results May Vary, but in a way it made me more organized.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is very interesting. Somewhat related, by _far_ my biggest history- related usability/efficiency win has been to separate out different history files for different contexts.

</comment><comment><USER17> If you rely on your shell history to the level that you need synchronization via a cloud-based service, it should be a signal that your automation needs work.

</comment><comment><USER18> chattr +a ~/.bash_history

<comment><USER11> What does this do?

<comment><USER19> After some experimentation, it makes a file impossible to delete.

Very clever, +1.

<comment><USER11> I wonder if this solves the issue of multiple bash instances clobbering history.

<comment><USER14> From the bash manpage:

        If the histappend shell option  is  enabled (see  the description of shopt
        under SHELL BUILTIN COMMANDS below), the lines are appended to the history
        file, otherwise the history  file  is overwritten.

        histappend
            If  set,  the history list is appended to the file named
            by the value of the HISTFILE  variable  when  the  shell
            exits, rather than overwriting the file.

<comment><USER11> [http://askubuntu.com/a/80380/288724](http://askubuntu.com/a/80380/288724) looks like it might be my issue, specifically

> The bash session that is saved is the one for the terminal that is closed > the latest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I have routinely kept my history "best effort" for many many years now by exporting HISTSIZE=10000 and HISTFILESIZE=1000000, and then occasionally doing a cp -a ~/.bash_history{,-$(date +%s)}. I actually use this history archive, and wish it was higher fidelity. (In practice, I am thinking I should just run all my sessions through script... ;P.)

[http://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man1/script.1.html](http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/script.1.html)

I have thereby had it on my todo list for a month or so, ever since I learned of the bash DEBUG trap, to instead store my history into an sqlite3 database and have it separated by host. Seeing this reminded me "oh yeah, I really should do that" (as no: there's no way in hell I'm going to just send all of the commands I type to some random guy with a website ;P).

This is "the simplest thing that could possibly work" and might very well break if you set some crazy history configuration variables I don't use. Note that it works for pipes specifically and only because it can overwrite the same entry to the database multiple times using "insert or replace" (prevention of which is what normally makes these scripts so complex).

        histsql=~/.bash_sqlite3

        sqlite3 "${histsql}" '
            create table if not exists "session" (
                "id" integer not null primary key autoincrement,
                "address" text not null,
                "process" integer not null,
                "tty" text not null,
                "user" text not null,
                "start" timestamp not null default current_timestamp,
                "end" timestamp null
            );

            create table if not exists "command" (
                "session" integer not null,
                "line" integer not null,
                "time" timestamp not null default current_timestamp,
                "pwd" text not null,
                "text" text not null,
                primary key ("session", "line")
            );
        '

        histmac=$(ifconfig | sed -e 's/  *$//; /\(ether\|HWaddr\) / { s/.* //; q; }; d;')
        histtty=$(tty)

        histssn=$(sqlite3 "${histsql}" "
            insert into \"session\" (
                \"address\", \"process\", \"tty\", \"user\"
            ) values (
                '${histmac//\'/''}', '${$//\'/''}',
                '${histtty//\'/''}', '${USER//\'/''}'
            );

            select last_insert_rowid();
        ")

        function histend {
            sqlite3 "${histsql}" "
                update \"session\" set
                    \"end\" = current_timestamp
                where
                    \"id\" = '${histssn//\'/''}';
            "
        }

        trap histend EXIT

        function histadd {
            local data="$(HISTTIMEFORMAT= history 1)"
            if [[ -z $data ]]; then return; fi

            data="${data#"${data%%[![:space:]]*}"}"
            local line="${data%%' '*}"

            data="${data#*' '}"
            data="${data#"${data%%[![:space:]]*}"}"

            sqlite3 "${histsql}" "
                insert or replace into \"command\" (
                    \"session\", \"line\",
                    \"pwd\", \"text\"
                ) values (
                    '${histssn//\'/''}', '${line//\'/''}',
                    '${PWD//\'/''}', '${data//\'/''}'
                );
            "
        }

        trap histadd DEBUG

<comment><USER14> _" (In practice, I am thinking I should just run all my sessions through script... ;P.)"_

I've been doing this for on-call work, actually. It really helps to be able to review what was seen, what was done, how long things took, &c.

For me, the purpose of a typescript is almost entirely unrelated to the purpose of a history, though - history is things I reach for, more than things I review.</comment></comment>


Simple Truths Smart People Forget - <AUTHOR> http://www.marcandangel.com/2011/01/10/10-simple-truths-smart-people-forget/

<comment><USER2> Weird. How did this spammy self-help blah-blah make it to the front-page? Must be a slow news day or simply vanity: "Hey, I am smart, I want to see what truths I forget! Vote up, cause we're all smart here."

<comment><USER3> I am starting to think that certain people upvote things to read later if they are blocked by their corporate firewall (like this site for me). As HN gets more popular, I think the trend is for these votes to get more frequent while the old-timers still don't upvote much at all.

I have been thinking of this for a while, and this might seem like a good enough of an example. Anyone else have any thoughts?

<comment><USER4> Just counting old-timer votes doesn't seem to change the ranking much: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2073513>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> #11 People who understand psychographics will cater content to you by stroking your sense of intellectual superiority.

<comment><USER6> #12 there seems to be an endless supply of this drivel / content spam being upvoted in HN.

<comment><USER7> Perhaps it is a new kind of SEO?

<comment><USER6> I think it's just the old type of SEO ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> #2 – Happiness and success are two different things.

Could not agree more. Our definition of happiness often includes "Success". And people's definition of success is quite relative, depending on other people's current perceptions and ideas of how we should be or what people envy, or image.

I retired 6 years back, spend more time sitting and walking in parks, feeding and playing with stray dogs, and remaining in the present moment. I've never been happier. Others see mine as a life wasted - dropping a high paying job, loads of money to spend, and becoming a miserly bum !

<comment><USER9> I strongly disagree - Success is "The accomplishment of an aim or purpose" (OED), not "becoming a high-powered executive with a tastefully thick, subtly off-white, watermarked business card" or whatever mystery definition of success this article seems to be using. It has absolutely nothing to do with other people.

Anyone who claims to be successful but not happy, has failed in setting the right goals, and is therefore not truly successful.

You are evidently successful, because you are happy. Your goal seems to be to retire from work and chill out in the park. A goal which you have achieved. The surfer in the article appears to have the succeeded in being able to surf all the time.

<comment><USER8> I was not going by dictionary definitions, but by what people around me seem to think. In my country, success has very much to do with whether you are in a coveted job (usually meaning an MBA or engineer/doctor/civil services). This changes over the years, e.g. software engineer came and went. MBA is now going out.

People feel they are happy if they are conforming to the societal definition of success. Your society may be quite different.

<comment><USER9> Dictionary definitions only reflect the actual meaning of words in conventional use by the speakers of the language. If the OED were prescriptive, then the definition of success would simply be "outcome", whether positive or not, as that is the original meaning of the word.

Perhaps your language has a different word which is conventionally translated into English as "success", but would better be translated as "prestige". In that case, you are right - happiness and prestige are two very different things. History is littered with notoriously unhappy, yet highly prestigious individuals.

I do concede that achieving a degree of prestige is a popular goal, and it is an obvious way of demonstrating success; but prestige is not synonymous with success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> #4 – Having too many choices interferes with decision making.

I think most of us are painfully aware of this in everyday live. At least, I find it very hard to buy a new TV or stereo or phone, because I want to have the best device for my budget. Comparing all devices from all manufacturers on all interesting dimensions (size, price, power usage, brightness, CI+ support, ...) is almost impossible. The result is that I usually either buy nothing, or buy the product from Apple.

<comment><USER11> I've given up on having the best device for my budget in some arenas. I want a new TV, but I'm not going to evaluate all the options. The time it would take to do so is worth more than the value I can gain by finding the best TV for my budget, so it would be a net loss.

I'm finding it's quite liberating when you stop caring! Even if I do evaluate every option I often feel unsatisfied after a purchase, worried I got the wrong thing, and more often than not a better option comes along a week later. For my new TV I will walk into a shop, ask them for the best ones for my price range, pick one that seems good, and I'll be happy with it. Who cares if a better model comes out the next week for the same price? Not me, anymore!

<comment><USER12> With consumer electronics, I think that's a wise move. There's very little difference in most devices that are in the same price range these days. I don't recall that being the case 20-30 years ago.

I went shopping with my grandfather a couple years ago for a new monitor for his computer. We got a flat panel 20" for about $160 (IIRC). It was a name he hadn't heard of. He was only looking at the Sony and Dells initially, cause he hadn't heard of the other company before. We spent a few minutes looking at the 'off brand' one, and we went with it, saving about $40. Absolutely no real diff in the quality, weight, performance of this one vs the 'name brands' in this case - certainly not for his needs.

<comment><USER13> I think that is because in the old days, brands manufactured their own stuff. Today, major brands subcontract out manufacturing and assembly to some no-name outfit in China.

Now, if the owner of said outfit has ambitions, he'd want to sell his stuff (that he sees being sold by the big names at 2x the cost) directly to the consumer. But he has no brand name; so it'll end up being sold as some generic name as "lucky star" or "super max"; or he'll license the brand-name from an old brand (I'm looking at you, Westinghouse).

The classic story is that of Lenovo. They used to make Thinkpads for IBM; and then one day decided to just buy the brand from IBM.

I heard once that there are basically only 3 laptop manufacturers in the world; all the laptops you see (Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer, etc. etc.) are all made by one of these 3.

So, to answer your question: compare the specs of the no-names with those of the big-names. If you find specs that are mostly identical, then you're basically getting the same thing at a lower price. However: you won't get the customer service and after-sales support that big-names carry. Plus, there's the possibility that the no-name may be selling the stuff that the big-name's QA rejected, so the quality may be suspect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _No matter how you make a living or who you think you work for, you only work for one person, yourself._

This advice is the key to remaining motivated in a job that doesn't challenge you. The best manager I have ever worked for got me thinking from the perspective that I should treat the organisation I work for like it was my own business. Once I applied that mentality I found that I was a lot more focused and determined to have an impact on the bottom line.

I still spend half my day on HN though!

<comment><USER15> I can only think that way for so long. Because eventually, your boss or manager will push the company in a direction you don't agree with..and then it will make you realize why you want to have your own company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> #11. The proper marketing can make even the most mediocre content irresistible.

      - turn prose into a list
      - target a specific audience
      - challenge them by telling them they're doing something wrong

For example:

"Common Sense" --> "10 Simple Truths" --> "10 Simple Truths for Smart People" --> "10 Simple Truths Smart People Forget".

<comment><USER17> Cosmo copywriting: it works. (You could write a book on how playing on people's aspirations to be Smart People, 10X Engineers, etc etc works at getting their attention, too. It's almost as effective as "... That $DISFAVORED_OUTGROUP Doesn't Want You To Know")

<comment><USER18> 10 Simple Truths That'll Drive Him Crazy In Bed

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _Having too many choices interferes with decision making._

I think humans are optimized for pair-wise decision making. We do "okay" with 3 or 4 things but beyond that, I've noticed a distinct inability for most people to make wise decisions.

I'd also add #11: Most people don't make rational decisions. I've noticed that quite often, even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary (all signs point to "this is a bad decision!") people will continue to make poor decisions. They usually survive that by also having an amazing ability to justify poor decision making.

and #12: Most people make their way in the world more less/fine with IQs of around 100. If you believe you are smart, you should be able to do anything that any normal person can do if you set your mind to it. And normal people can get an impressive amount of mileage out of 100 IQ points. I've noticed that many very smart people tend to use their intelligence as a crutch or excuse for why they can't do something. Usually it's w/r to socialization, but can also affect other areas -- simple things like paying their bills on time or showing up to meetings on time. The stereotype of the absent minded professor comes to mind.

</comment><comment><USER20> Regardless of what have been said above I like to be reminded. It helps to stay afloat.

</comment><comment><USER21> I completely disagree with #8. A bad friend can be a cancer in your life, and blaming yourself for their failures is an extremely common way of dragging yourself down. Assuming that it's usually something to do with yourself, or that it's better to forget the past is just asinine.

</comment><comment><USER22> The author wrote "smart" in the title, but the content is valid for everybody, smart or not. ;-)

I guess the use of "smart" in this title is just marketing to atract readers. Everybody knows that most people think that they are smarter than the mean! ;-)

<comment><USER23> I think you could replace "smart" with "ambitious" because a lot of this is advice for people to simply slow down a bit and reflect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> #7. Though this example may be hold true, I don't always relate corporate promotions to being 'good' at something. One thing that I've definitely learning is the people you know (your 'visibility') is as important (maybe more) than what you know.

</comment><comment><USER25> From the guidelines:

> If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, > we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to > "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys."

</comment><comment><USER26> "Happiness and success are two different things."

My favorite take on the topic is the old one:

Success is when you have what you want. Happiness is when you want what you have.</comment>


Establishing release management policies for RubyGems - <AUTHOR> http://blog.majesticseacreature.com/establishing-release-management-policies-for

<comment><USER2> Looking good. Reading this though, I couldn't help thinking that Bundler and RubyGems should possibly be the same thing. They are both pretty much essential to running/developing any non trivial Ruby application. Why not make them the same so we don't have compatibility problems? This would remove a lot of code from Bundler that is used for supporting a bunch of old versions of RubyGems. It would also pretty much dissolve compatibility problems between the two, since there would be test coverage to make sure everything worked for that version.

<comment><USER3> Not everyone wants to use bundler.

<comment><USER2> I'm not advocating requiring bundler (that would be stupid). I'm just saying that they seem to go hand in hand, bundler could be a "feature" to RubyGems, kind of like how Capybara "absorbed" Steak, since it was a natural extension/feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd like to hear more about what is being done on the packaging front, specifically Rubygems v Debian.

Last I heard, the Debian folks weren't too happy with RubyGems because people who install RubyGems can upgrade gem dependencies without updating dpkg resulting in an inconsistent state. IIRC there was effort underway to bring RubyGems and all of it's gems into the dpkg repository.

<comment><AUTHOR> The Debian situation has always seemed a bit unreasonable to me because RubyGems is designed to be a tool for Rubyists, not sysadmins. The overhead of doing operating system level integration to respect various package systems and the way they work would be way too much for the RubyGems team.

However, if changes need to be made to allow third party packagers (such as Debian) to use RubyGems in the way they want, those issues should be revisited. It's not reasonable to expect RubyGems to change its core focus or support lots of Debian specific functionality, but it is reasonable to think that if all that is needed is some extension points or something like that, the issues should be dealt with.

Please ask the Debian folks to file tickets against RubyGems, or to re-raise discussions on the rubygems-developers mailing list.</comment></comment>