A Desk That Allows You to Stand or Sit - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/technology/personaltech/22basics.html?ref=technology <comment><USER2> I built my own for $200. Mine has a treadmill underneath it too.

<http://blog.8thlight.com/articles/2010/2/25/walk-and-code>

<comment><USER3> How much of the $200 was the treadmill?

<comment><USER4> $140

<comment><USER5> Nice. Sounds cheap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been using the steelcase airtouch adjustable desk for about 3 months and I can tell you that it has made a huge impact on my workday. This desk has improved my productivity significantly because I'm no longer bothered my my back or by the low desk/high chair combo I was confined to.

It's not just the standing that helps-it's the ability to switch back and forth easily. Before this desk, I could feel my back start to tighten up after about 3/4 of my work day. Now when I feel a twinge of a backache, I switch to a standing position and things feel much better. Another underrated benefit of the desk is the ability to change its height _while I'm sitting_. In the cases when I either lean lower and sit straighter than usual, this desk allows me to move the monitor to eye level without much effort, thus preventing neck aches.

One problem with the steelcase, however, is that it doesn't go high enough. I have a colleague that is 6'2" and he finds that the standing height of the desk is too low for his tastes. I'm shorter than he is, so this isn't as big of a problem for me. Now if only I could afford to buy one of these for home.....

 _edited: clarity_

<comment><USER7> We looked at these for the office (we have Steelcase Leap chairs and love them) but they're $1400 desks. Yikes!

<comment><USER8> So? A $2500 computer will be obsolete in a few years. A $1400 desk will (hopefully) last at least a decade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here in Denmark motorized desks are the norm rather than the exception. I am always surprised when others speak of them as a curiosity.

I tend to stand for about 25-50% of my time working. It really relieves the back to get up and shift around for a bit. Helps to burn a little calories too, during what would otherwise be sedentary office time. I also seem to work more focused when standing up. Finally, it is a lot easier to do pair work with a colleague while standing - no jostling chairs around for position.

A sit/stand desk is a condition of employment for me, nothing less.

<comment><USER10> They are the norm in all kinds of office work in Denmark, or among hackers/the type of people who would read HN?

Very cool if they are widespread in all kinds of workplaces. Makes me a little jealous.

<comment><USER11> I think it has to do with the law requirement that every employee should be able to adjust his/her workplace to be ergonomical. In practice, the only reasonable way to do this is to give everyone height-adjustable desks and chairs. I'd love to see some monitor arms tho.

<comment><USER12> Dang laws for the benefit of human health and quality of life. Don't they mandating such things cuts into the holy bottom lines?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have been using such desk for the past 5 years and will never go back (maybe like switching to Dvorak + Typematrix). Anyway, in Europe, you can buy just the electrical part and mount your own desk on it.

I bought my one here: [http://www.bueromoebel- werksverkauf.de/inwerk_bm/sofort_lief...](http://www.bueromoebel- werksverkauf.de/inwerk_bm/sofort_lieferbar__steh-sitz-tisch- gestell_ohne_platte___elektrisch_hoehenverstellbar_von_630-1300mm_gestell___inwerk_dynamik___in_breite_variabel___zum_nachruesten_oder_fuer_individuelle_tischplatten- bm17063.htm)

You can find it through other dealers (this one is in fact a drop ship company specialized in office stuff). It is cheap but the start/stop of the motor is a bit rough, better not to have a full cup of coffee on your desk at the same time. I had one in Denmark with a very soft stort/stop but it was way more expensive (1500Eur+).

</comment><comment><USER14> I got an artist's stool. Instead of adjusting the desk height, I merely hop on and off the chair as necessary.

<comment><USER15> What stool did you buy? I've been wanting to do that but can't find a nice one.

<comment><USER14> <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001MS719M/ref=oss_product>

I bought it "blind" and lucked out; the assembly was simple and it's worked reliably so far(just a month or so now).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I made an adjustable height desk recently, using the frame of a GeekDesk and a salvaged door:

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/psmith/4491882894/in/set-721576...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/psmith/4491882894/in/set-72157623646834487/)

The door is from a Habitat for Humanity ReStore. It was ~$25. I sanded, stained, and sealed it, and mounted it to the desk frame.

The frame was $550 so not the cheapest solution but I love the extra space, flexibility, and plan to have it a while.

<comment><USER17> A co-worker built his using the GeekDesk frame and a butcher-block table top that he scavenged from somewhere. Quite nice.

<comment><USER16> Interesting -- I considered looking for salvaged butcher-block but worried it'd be too heavy for the motor to lift. (The docs say the motor is rated for 80 kg max.) Has he had any issues with raising the top? I'd worry about burning out the motor.

<comment><USER17> It's a 1" thick table top, not the thicker butcher block you often see used in kitchens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd like to get one, but at $750, it is way too expensive!

<comment><USER19> My reaction too. What's the cheapest, non-sucky option anybody has used?

<comment><USER20> I used an ikea adjustable desk. However, I really needed to keep your desk clean, because it was a manual adjustment. It became too much of a bother, but I am considering readjusting it as a standup desk again now that I'm working at home again.

<http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/60111123>

<comment><USER21> I can vouch for this desk, and it's nothing short of wonderful. I've been using it for a year as a standing desk, supporting the load of a 24" iMac, a second monitor, and a stereo receiver. The trick to avoiding back pain is to make sure the desk is at elbow height. It feels like it should be lower, but anything short of elbow height will cause serious pain. Picture of it in use: <http://cl.ly/beQ>

<comment><USER20> I presume you put your monitors on a separate shelf to keep them at eye level. That is how I set it up, anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> <http://pic.rossradford.com/SetUp01.jpg>

The shelf and wall mounted display work for me, I can't go back. Originally I set this up to counter the constant hunched posture I get at work. For anyone who tries this:

\- You will need to adjust the height of your keyboard at least once.

\- Get a foot rest, I plan to build one into the wall.

\- Opposite that wall is a couch. With some nice speakers you can have a decent home theater going. My 24" Westinghouse has a great one touch brightness adjustment. It might seem small, but native 1920x1200 resolution makes even blueray movies look good.

</comment><comment><USER23> Here's an old post from the Make blog on how to build a stand-up desk on the cheap:

[http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2006/06/diy_standup_desk.ht...](http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2006/06/diy_standup_desk.html)

<comment><USER23> ...and Lifehacker had a more recent article on turning a file cabinet into a stand-up desk:

<http://lifehacker.com/5503957/the-file-cabinet-standing-desk>

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have been looking into drafting tables for this very purpose - used ones can often be found in the local buy & sell for quite cheap. Being adjustable by design, they look ideal (not sure about weight capacity though). Anyone have any experience using one of these as a computer desk?

</comment><comment><USER25> I have a similar looking one to the geekdesk model, but it was from a local company at a cheaper price.

Had to add some improvised shock absorbers and place it against the wall because my monitor would otherwise shake when typing...

Did investigate several other options after that, up to 1500 euros and they all shake (the expensive one even more so).

Does the geekdesk model also shake?

That said, with my shock absorbers (just two pieces of memory foam), and sliders under the desk to move it against the wall, it works just fine and a great investment for general health.

Also have a mini stepper to do an hour of stepping in the early morning, whilst I read my email and check my RSS reader.

I may upgrade to a treadmill later, see <http://officewalkers.ning.com> for inspiration

<comment><USER26> It sounds like you need to train yourself to strike the keys with less force... That in and of itself is better for your body, too.

<comment><USER25> I don't strike the keys with much force at all (I use the tiny apple keyboard).

It's because of my arms (and wrists) resting on the desk and transferring that force to the desk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A lot of comments miss the point that the table should allow you to stand OR sit - standing all day is probably as hard on the back and legs as sitting. That rules out most of the DIY options. I also wouldn't trade away a properly crafted desk plate with a nice finish, bezel, body contour etc.

Really, these desks aren't that expensive considering what people are ready to spend on other gear and gadgets with a life span of one-two years. (I would personally trade in my Aeron for a motordesk if forced to choose).

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm a huge fan of the Biomorph desks (<http://biomorph.com>), particularly the Personal desk in maple. I've got 4-5 in various places I work.

They're expensive ($2K), but I keep a standing Google search for them and buy them used ($400-600). Very well made and quite worth it.

You can crank 'em up and down but that's pretty tedious. Best to just leave 'em all the way up.

<comment><USER28> I bought a used Multi some time ago. It's awesome, the build quality is superb.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I love this concept - not everyone realizes that the original design idea behind the cubicle was exactly this kind of feature: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Office>

We lost the idea along the way, but I am glad we're getting back to it.

</comment><comment><USER30> "Drafting table? / But that was in another country; / And besides, the bench is dead." (apologies to Will.S.)

Large wooden drafting tables, and tall four-legged drafting stools (with foot- rest cross-bars, topped by a square seat sloping slightly forwards), used to fill many of the classrooms in the engineering school I knew many moons ago.

Alas, it mostly got 'updated' to standard tables and plastic chairs. But those unpadded high seats still strike me as healthier than hunching in a chair.

An old furniture store might have some around - a cheap alternative to expensive desks.

</comment><comment><USER31> That article got me to Googling for lecterns and podiums. Wow, some of those are very, very expensive. And the ones that are more stand-like than furniture don't look like they'd stay upright if a cat jumped on them (as you know a cat will!).

This is the cheapest I found locally -- just $15! -- but it's not local enough for me to get there economically efficiently. If you're in the NY/NJ area, though ...

<http://cnj.craigslist.org/fuo/1700842957.html>

</comment><comment><USER32> I have one of these, I bought it because I was having back issues. I have the mini version that I used with my own desk top. I alternate back and forth during the day standing and sitting, usually a few hours at a time either way. It took a little getting used to, but it has definitely helped my back. An added bonus that isn't immediately apparent is that you can easily adjust the desk height when you are seated, which I find helps my back quite a lot.

</comment><comment><USER33> Buy a second monitor $300 Buy a second keyboard $15 Buy a 4-way USB $15 then add a little stand to the existing table, $50.

</comment><comment><USER34> I have the geekdesk or something that looks exactly like it. I love it. I sit in the mornings and after lunch switch to standing mode. Occasionally if I have to really focus or type a lot I will switch back to sitting mode, but it definitely helps to get me move around more / feel healthier.

</comment><comment><USER35> I feel like making somersaults in front of my desk but I usually just end up in unusual sitting positions e.g. with my legs on the wall or one knee in my face as right now. But I don't think I could ever stand standing. That makes me tired and wanting to lie down just thinking about it.

</comment><comment><USER36> I just have 2 desks at work and two monitors. Works pretty well for me.

If you don't want to buy two monitors (hint I didn't) then you could always make a desk with a hand crank. That wouldn't cost too much, it seems like a motor and controls is the expensive part of that desk.

</comment><comment><USER10> Question for those with standing/adjustable desks: How long does it take to get used to standing for long periods of time?

Maybe it's all the sitting I do, and maybe I've atrophied a few muscles, but I feel like I'd get tired pretty quickly..

</comment><comment><USER37> I just stick my laptop on top of a filing cabinet at work that's sitting right in front of a window. It could be a little taller but it's close to the right height and I get an upgraded view

</comment><comment><USER38> _An inner-tube accident as a teenager left Mr. McNutt with a bad back._

I wish they had elaborated a little more about this tantalizing nugget. Inner- tube rafting, blowout on a bike,... ?

<comment><USER25> These stories always make me think it's fabricated PR. Sit/stand tables existed before the geekdesk, but a story like this is of course good marketing.

<comment><USER39> I don't know, he seems like a stand-up guy to me...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Is this newsworthy? Where I work, all desks are motorized. Some even store up to three different heights, for easy access without fiddling to get the right height.

<comment><USER40> Ikea has motorized desks (sorry about the Swedish):

<http://www.ikea.com/se/sv/catalog/products/90088946>

About €450 (for the stand only).

<comment><USER25> Unfortunately they don't supply this to all countries where they operate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Can anyone who uses an adjustable height desk comment on the impact it has (if any) on their productivity?

For some reason, it sounds hard to procrastinate standing up :)

</comment><comment><USER42> Wouldn't it be great to have a classical church pulpit to rest your laptop on, then have your Holy Code propagate to the masses?

Maybe at 0800-RENT-A-CHURCH ;-)

<comment><USER23> I've done that...a lot of churches are getting WiFi, and even though the intent is to cover the church school or office, you can often find some sweet spots in the sanctuary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Does anyone know the rated spec on these for max weight? That is, what is the motor capable of lifting without damaging the desk?

<comment><USER43> I emailed the company and got the following reply: The official (i.e. conservative) maximum recommended regular lifting weight for the frames is 176 pounds

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Cool. I've seen and used stuff like this at peer's company in Stockholm, in 2000, just before the dotcom crisis.

</comment><comment><USER45> Both have horizontal bars underneath. I prefer my knees and shins nonbashed when I have the choice, thanks.</comment>


Repeal the Patriot Act petition. - <AUTHOR> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-patriot-act-and-stop-all-acquisition-digital-information-without-warrant/7P5RWltx

<comment><AUTHOR> I know that these petitions don't always get the result that we'd like. Nor is it the only way to fix the problem.

I hope that anyone reading this post will email their representatives as well as the administration (even if you think the petition is a waste of your time). If there is one thing that Congress will respond to it is a demand by the people (that's us) for a change.

Edit: Thanks waterphone. Yeah you should call your representative as it is more effective.

<comment><USER2> FYI, it's more effective to call your senators and representatives than it is to email them.</comment></comment>


Girl wants to work for Twitter. Creates site.  - <AUTHOR> http://www.twittershouldhireme.com/

<comment><USER2> I think she crossed the line from 'I'm so impressed by your company I'll make a big fuss to get hired' to 'I'm mildly unhinged'.

<comment><USER3> I'd still want to interview her. Even if she's crazy, she could be the right kind of crazy.

<comment><USER4> Would you want to hire someone who's a huge fan of the service vs. someone with some professional distance? I meet people who gush to me about the Windy Citizen sometimes and that's great, but I'm always a bit more impressed by the people who offer useful criticism of how to make the service better.

<comment><USER3> It would ultimately depend on how the interview would go. I'm not sure she's so much an ass kisser as she is just really excited about the company. But I agree, giddiness and dog-like loyalty definitely do not impress me as much as useful criticism. That being said, I'd much prefer a highly motivated and happy employee, who feels the company and their role in it have meaning, to, oh, an employee slightly more productive who doesn't really care. Happy people are much better company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks like the site is dog slow and overloaded by a little traffic. Mirrors the target company well.

<comment><USER6> Actually, her writing is forward, personal (sometimes a little too personal for my stodgy taste,) and affable. Her personality pours through what she does, and on twittershouldhireme.com and her personal blog, she expresses an understanding and passion for the hyper-social zeitgeist that is finally going mainstream. I'd say she is a great candidate to work at twitter, and agree with tptaceck below about how great it would be to have such motivated candidates.

<comment><USER7> Yeah - if they don't want her after this, someone else will.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just FYI: she's not looking for a CS-related position. She's apparently a great fit for being the CEO's executive admin.

[http://www.twittershouldhireme.com/executive-admin-to-the- ce...](http://www.twittershouldhireme.com/executive-admin-to-the-ceo/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Someone linked her to this comment thread and she responded on her twitter:

 _Haha, they aren't very nice over there. Enthusiasm apparently is a threat to the bitter._

<http://twitter.com/jamievaron/status/1307535902>

<comment><USER10> Bitter? I already have a job. A job I created for myself. :)

<comment><USER11> not sure how does that keep you from being bitter...?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ever hire someone insanely smart and qualified and had them turn out to be a total dud? Ever object to a candidate, get talked down from a "NO HIRE", and then had that person turn out to be an absolute total rock star?

I'd kill for a candidate pipeline that produced people like this. That's enthusiasm, initiative, and (a very small amount of) cleverness.

<comment><USER13> >I'd kill for a candidate pipeline that produced people like this. That's enthusiasm, initiative, and (a very small amount of) cleverness.

Judging by these character traits, I'd wager the pipeline that produces people like this opens somewhere in LA. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Others that are similar:

<http://www.googlepleasehireme.com/>

<http://hiremejimmyfallon.com/>

<http://www.hiremeseth.com/>

<http://www.hiremealiciakeys.com>

<comment><USER15> <http://www.youshouldhireme.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> am i missing where she says what her skills are that would actually make twitter want to hire her?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope. For that, you'd have to go to her personal blog..and even there, you don't get much.

Blame Penelope Trunk. She creates these monsters.

<comment><USER17> "Blame Penelope Trunk. She creates these monsters."

I'm going to leave HN for the day, because there isn't going to be a comment or submission to top that today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Twitter at one point had a recruiter specializing in finding female CS people. I'm told they made at least one hire from this source. I wouldn't be surprised if she gets an interview, given Twitter's desire to maintain some gender balance.

<comment><AUTHOR> But she's not CS. She's like "breathing girl who wants to play with the boys at the cool company."

That's the irony of the thing.

<comment><USER12> I'm trying to figure out what this comment means. What's a "breathing girl"? Who are "the boys"?

<comment><AUTHOR> It wasn't that deep a comment, at all. It was more like, she's a girl who wants to work a technical company but doesn't have discernible technical skills that she's touting. But as someone mentions downthread, she's just applying to be the secretary. So, I stand corrected.

But there was no sexual innuendo embedded in my comment, at least not as intended it anyway in the slightest.

<comment><USER12> Who are "the boys"? The technical people? I was pretty sure they had "girl" developers too.

Also: we should acknowledge that there are technical roles that don't require lots of training; for instance, first-tier QA, or technical support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Relentlessly resourceful. Twitter's new Founder Associate?

[http://twitter.jobscore.com/jobs/twitter/founderassociate/bQ...](http://twitter.jobscore.com/jobs/twitter/founderassociate/bQJwJGQfOr3zBkaaWP50_m)

</comment><comment><USER20> Interesting idea, but the presentation is remarkably unprofessional. I mean... cookies + me = job? I think that the enthusiasm and originality is great but I just don't understand the tone of the site, considering it's intended application.

<comment><USER21> we r in ur servers, fixin ur twitterz.

"Something is technically wrong. Thanks for noticing!"

What does "professional" mean, exactly?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> My honest opinion, she should be a little more creative.

</comment><comment><USER23> You know... these types of sites are a great way to show your enthusiasm for a specific thing. I made a website (wpi-should-let-me-in.com) a while ago to get me into WPI. It worked, but unfortunately they didn't give me enough money.

I wish you good luck and hope that Twitter sees that people like you will certainly be useful/helpful.

</comment><comment><USER24> Here's my question for Jamie: why?

</comment><comment><USER25> ... Creepy much? If I saw this, I'd be more creeped out than impressed. Especially the part about dreaming about Evan Williams.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Oh and the whole idea is damn clever. She's going to get a job out of it, probably better than the one she's targeting.

<comment><USER26> For a better, more successful effort, check out Judson Collier's stop-motion video application to be community manager for CrowdSpring:

[http://blog.crowdspring.com/2008/12/12/can-he-really-do- hand...](http://blog.crowdspring.com/2008/12/12/can-he-really-do-handstands/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> On the whole I am unimpressed. The idea is funny, but she doesn't have anything to back her initial wow value.

If she really wants to get the job she should incorporate twitter into her site in a unique way and _show_ rather than tell them that she is indeed capable of creative community-building.

</comment><comment><USER28> She should add a title tag on her front page, and very frankly, some pictures would do well to help her cause.

</comment><comment><USER29> I did something silly like this too a year back, sent a tweet to Evan Williams asking for a job and he replied too with "Great, Do you code" kind of tweet.

<http://twitter.com/azharcs/status/781605391>

</comment><comment><USER30> We actually just had a guy walk in our door out of the blue to ask for a job. It didn't come off as 'motivated' -- rather, a little creepy.

</comment><comment><USER31> Let's see: missing title tag on home page, inconsistent navigation. So much for polish.

</comment><comment><USER32> Kind of ironic that she created a blog, instead of a twitter feed, for this.

</comment><comment><USER10> She made the site, but what the heck is she going to do working for twitter.

</comment><comment><USER33> Aim high.</comment>


FDA Is Green-Lighting Drugs at Breakneck Speed and Raising Alarm - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-06/fda-is-green-lighting-drugs-at-breakneck-speed-and-raising-alarm <comment><USER2> Honestly, this just makes the agency sound like the least dysfunctional agency in the states. They said recent tech breakthroughs allowed them to collect information faster and that companies are communicating with them more</comment>


Ask HN: What do you do for SEO? - <AUTHOR>

Curious to hear how other people think about SEO.  What are you guys doing for SEO today and when do you start worrying about SEO?  Are you using agencies, doing it yourself, etc.? <comment><USER2> I've attracted over 50 million unique visitors to my sites using organic SEO over the past 10 years. I've always focused on the content and never tried to game the system. I never tried to do link building, etc.

I started out reading highrankings.com - they are a whitehat seo proponent. Just been following white hat all along and Google has rewarded me throughout.

<comment><USER3> Hijacking top comment: I follow guidelines in: [http://www.google.com/webmasters/docs/search-engine- optimiza...](http://www.google.com/webmasters/docs/search-engine-optimization- starter-guide.pdf) \+ SEOMoz.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The only "SEO strategy" that works is being relevant so the relevant people link to you and having a technically correct site (parseable HTML, appropriate status codes).

Not even keywords on domains or URLs matter as much anymore after Google's Panda. Agencies are snake oil vendors and a great way to waste time and money.

<comment><USER5> Agencies know more than your average joe. They aren't snake oil at all. It's a thriving industry.

<comment><USER6> The problem is that 10 years ago, the cutting edge marketing companies did SEO. Now, _EVERY_ marketing company does SEO because it is a death sentence to say you don't.

That means there are plenty of agencies that do little more than Facebook+AdWords, pretty URLs, and the other usual suspects.

<comment><USER5> If pretty URLs provides value to a business, that might be all they need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I actually wrote about this very subject a couple of months ago regarding a craigslist web app I help create.

[http://blendah.com/post/37787050142/how-to-get-a-top- google-...](http://blendah.com/post/37787050142/how-to-get-a-top-google- ranking)

Hope this helps.</comment>


IMF sees pandemic causing global recession in 2020; recovery in 2021 - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-imf/imf-sees-pandemic-causing-global-recession-in-2020-recovery-in-2021-idUSKBN21A33O <comment><USER2> Me and my SO have now almost fully recovered from COVID-19 after a rough few days.

Now that I have these anti-bodies in my blood, should we not be allowed outside, spend our money and help the economy?

There are must be at least 100 000 people in my (small) country that are now immune. A number that is growing faster than published number of infected.

Let's make a plan for our return to society. Let us wear a mark or put a stamp in our passports or let's think of something clever.

I feel like I could be doing a lot more than just working from home with my newfound super-power.

<comment><USER3> Donate blood! Plasma (?) can be separated and the antibodies used to treat other sufferer!

<comment><USER4> If you have had coronavirus you can only donate at minimum 3 months after symptoms have ended.

And no. Antibodies can not be used to treat other sufferers.

<comment><USER5> Using antibodies to treat patients appears to be on the pipeline - [https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2020/infectious- dis...](https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2020/infectious-disease- experts-recommend-using-antibodies-from-covid-19-survivors-as-stopgap- measure.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That seems unrealistic to me. We are on the brink of a depression and I think if we go over that brink it will take a decade to fully recover. I hope I am wrong.

From Wikipedia: "In most countries of the world, recovery from the Great Depression began in 1933. In the U.S., recovery began in early 1933, but the U.S. did not return to 1929 GNP for over a decade and still had an unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940, albeit down from the high of 25% in 1933."

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure exactly how good a measure GNP is of this, but for what it's worth the US GNP both absolute and per capita was slightly above its 2008 level by 2010, and has kept climbing ever since. [https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united- states/gnp-...](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gnp- gross-national-product)

By contrast the UK still hasn't come close to recovering to the same level: [https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united- kingdom/gnp...](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gnp- gross-national-product)

So maybe the US at least is in a better position than it was in the 1930's to recover on that measure?

<comment><USER8> How do the numbers work? You can see growth is positive in some years but the GNP is going down?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I rather doubt anybody knows what's going on.

Suddenly shutting down north of thirty percent of all global economic activity is absolutely uncharted territory.

<comment><USER10> On the other hand it's a straightforward economic slowdown, there's no hidden or surprising cause and effect, we understand what's going on. Before the pandemic there was no shortage of capital. We should be able to recover from it well.

Unless we fail to contain this virus, or find a treatment for those severe cases and the situation lasts for months on end. In which case we're screwed :)

<comment><USER11> Probably not that simple.

If we had a planned and publicly notified and unified worldwide lockdown and curfew for 20 or 30 days, including the stock markets - the recovery would have been sooner. People and businesses can take that hit.

But with segregated efforts, some doing serious lockdowns and some not so serious lockdowns, where countries are interdependent, the timeline is unknown and hence the impact is unknown. Businesses might be able to stay healthy may be 15 days more. But beyond that is a strong possibility, and hence the economic impact is going to be much larger and uncertain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Learning from the H1N1 pandemic"

"A major contributing factor to some of the criticisms of the management of the H1N1 pandemic was that its mortality impact was considerably less than had been predicted. "

"The documented worldwide mortality from H1N1 is 50–100 times lower than conservative pre-pandemic predictions and substantially lower than seasonal influenza deaths."

Source: [https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/22/1/7/489927](https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/22/1/7/489927)

How do they make sure that the mortality rate is between 2-3%? Same goes for the hospitalization rate, based on which the entire flattening-the-curve decisions are made.

From what we know many will recover with mild symptoms. Those "many" may not even be tested and accounted for total Covid-19 cases

Edit: I'm not trying to dilute the seriousness of this situation. Just questioning the statistical models based on the source above

</comment><comment><USER12> My (not entirely serious) plan for getting rich: Wait until the economy hits rock bottom and buy cheap stock on a wide range of economies, than forget them until my SO and i retire (round about 40 years from now), then rediscover our assets, sell and get rich

<comment><USER13> You're not going to time the bottom, but you can put a floor on your profits if you assume things will get back to where they were two months ago, and start buying little by little now. Because currently you can find many companies that are at 50% discount already.

<comment><USER14> Just don't pick companies that end up going bust.

<comment><USER13> Good point. This is still a highish risk investment, but again if you have faith in the government long term and distribute your investments, you should come out ahead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's possible, the market jumps at every little bit of good news. Once we are on the other side of the curve, we'll see what happens.

</comment><comment><USER16> Who could foresee that shutting down most major world economies an for undetermined length of time could cause a recession?

<comment><USER17> The pandemic experts who warned the world of the consequences of inaction did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Right now I'm gathering up as much cash as possible to buy throughout this downturn. I'm loving the cheap index funds. Then again I am saving it mostly for 10+ years from now.

<comment><USER19> Currencies are not as save bet IMHO. For years and years Central Banks have _printed_ money ( _Quantative Easing_ ). When people start to distrust a currency like Dollar or Euro we will see a economic downturn as not seen since 1929.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, I'm mostly saving money instead of spending it and buying index funds.</comment></comment></comment>


Databases in Song - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jyx8iP5tfCI

<comment><USER2> It might mean something if you already know everything about it, and I have no doubt it's very clever if you're a database guru, but it's useless if not.</comment>


Chloroquine trial halted after 11 patients die on high dose - <AUTHOR> https://nationalpost.com/news/world/covid-19-brazil-trial-for-drug-chloroquine-touted-by-trump-stopped-after-11-patients-die <comment><USER2> When this clusterfuck first started revealing itself, the forsythia plants in my town had just started flowering.

Every time this chloroquine stuff comes up I just hear Jude Law's character from Contagion in my head saying "forsythia" over and over again in different sentence fragments.

Unfortunately the SEC isn't going to send men to arrest anybody this time.

<comment><USER3> I had the same thought. Here's the clip from Contagion where Jude Law's character, an internet crank, promotes it on national television:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHZ8wx6J36Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHZ8wx6J36Q)

<comment><USER4> Man I really need to watch Contagion then...

<comment><USER5> It's interesting watching it now. I watched it last month and it felt like it was a documentary for what hasn't happened yet in this epidemics.

<comment><USER6> 1 year ago, I'd have thought this movie was typical Hollywood hyperbole.

Watching it recently, the scene where Sanjay Gupta is facilitating an interview about the virus was like deja vu. He was literally on TV doing the same thing recently, but for real this time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This title is misleading. They didn't halt the _trial_ , they halted one treatment arm (the arm with a very high dose). They continued with the 'low' dose (2.7g - about the same dose as used to treat malaria). The high dose was over 4x more of the drug, at 12g.

<comment><USER8> I haven't looked farther than the linked article, but assuming their reporting is accurate:

> However, higher dose use of chloroquine (600 milligrams as opposed to 450 > milligrams) was stopped after just six days, after 11 of patients who were > given the greater dose died.

To me that reads as an increase of about 1.35x rather than 4x.

<comment><USER9> 600 mg chloroquine twice daily for 10 days or total dose 12g

450 mg for 5 days, twice daily only on the first day, or total dose 2.7 g

<comment><USER8> That 600mg part of the study ended at 6 days. The potential total dose in a future that didn't happen seems irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> COVID-19 is obviously very scary and I fully understand why we'd want to lessen some restrictions to allow novel treatments to be tried. But as bad as things are, I think people underestimate how much worse they could be if aren't careful when easing those restrictions. There seems to be a mentality that people are going to die anyway so we should be trying anything. That seems to underestimate the potential to make things worse, not just in terms of deaths but also in terms of quality of life for patients.

<comment><USER11> This is why FDA is not recommending it as a treatment for everyone, only off- label.

<comment><USER12> Here's some clarification I googled because I was a little confused by your comment:

TL;DR - The FDA only approved it for emergency investigation, not treatment. (as of 2020-03-31):

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/03/30/fda- ap...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/03/30/fda-approves- anti-malarial-drugs-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-for-emergency- coronavirus-treatment/#3d0c01045e5d)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is this the more toxic variant though right? It's meant to be hydroychloroquine

<comment><USER14> Here in Brazil, for whatever reason, the president has been talking up chloroquine, while Trumps talking point is hydroxychloroquine.

I don't know how people who have no medical training or experience who are actively trying to undermine their advisors with such experience determine which of these medicines they're going to place their bets on, but given the lack of good results in either, it seems like either bet is as bad as the other.

<comment><USER15> China had more luck treating COVID with chloroquine phosphate (which is more toxic), but hydrochloroquine sulfate is more available in the US.

<comment><USER16> COVID-19 kills anywhere between 0.7-4% of the people it infects. (Some countries like Italy saw a much higher mortality rate, nearing 15% in Italy, I believe, but that was due to the breakdown of the overwhelmed health services).

How would one even tell if any of the chloroquinine derivatives have been effective without a systematic study when 96 out of 100 people (at worst) would have recovered anyways? That's another thing that makes the 20 person French study which kicked off all this so much more ridiculous.

There was a 44% chance that they would have all recovered without any intervention. But it was probably higher for this group since they did have intervention, and they clearly had a high level of medical assistance.

<comment><USER17> > COVID-19 kills anywhere between 0.7-4% of the people it infects. (Some > countries like Italy saw a much higher mortality rate, nearing 15% in Italy, > I believe, but that was due to the breakdown of the overwhelmed health > services).

That is mixing up IFR and CFR. We don't have any good way of knowing IFR yet, and it may be quite a while before we can get a good estimate. The denominator in CFR is confirmed cases, so Italy's inflated CFR could be (and probably is) entirely related to the lack of sufficient testing.

<comment><USER18> Italy has a very high IFR of 1%, the same rate as their every year flu epidemic. Or better very two years. The flu comes every two years. Italy has traditionally the highest flu death rates in the world. This year, with COVID-19, it is still lower than in a bad flu year.

When you read 15% this might be the CFR, the case fatality rate. But only about a tenth is getting tested. So it means nothing. You can only look the death numbers, and after it settled down at the excess death rate. From there you get the real IFR. So far we are at an IFR of 0.3 - 0.6. A little bit higher than the flu, but in absolute numbes lower than a bad flu year.

<comment><USER17> IIRC, Italy had a health care professional study that put their IFR at something around .35% or so. Similar for Germany, and the CDC just did a study of HCP's here and came up with 0.26% IFR (but the sample was 75% women).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder what happened with the WHO study: "20,000 healthcare workers [will receive] #chloroquine [and] will be tested daily as currently used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis for three months or until they are diagnosed with COVID-19."

[https://www.who.int/blueprint/priority-diseases/key- action/R...](https://www.who.int/blueprint/priority-diseases/key-action/RD- Blueprint-expert-group-on-CQ-call-Mar-13-2020.pdf)

<comment><USER20> Maybe it will be discontinued, now that the loudest promoter of hydrochloroquine has decided to pull their WHO funding...

(The city is on fire! Those hacks at the fire department failed to predict the earthquake! Fire them all!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The researchers gave whopping doses of chloroquine to both groups: (a) high dose chloroquine (600 mg chloroquine twice daily for 10 days or total dose 12g);

(b) low dose chloroquine (450 mg for 5 days, twice daily only on the first day, or total dose 2.7 g)

In addition, all patients received ceftriaxone and azithromycin.

So group (a) got 1200 mg chloroquine the first day and group (b) got 900 mg chloroquine the first day. No wonder they had irregular heart rates! Luckily a review board stopped group (a) treatment before they killed all the patients.

In contrast, the regimen for Covid-19 _successfully_ used by Dr. Zev Zelenko on ~700 patients is:

1\. Hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for 5 days,

2\. Azithromycin 500 mg once a day for 5 days,

3\. Zinc sulfate 220 mg once a day for 5 days.

[https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3829492/posts](https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3829492/posts)

The zinc sulfate is _important_ because it raises the blood level of zinc (Zn++ ion). Chloroquine is a zinc Zn++ "ionophore" which marshals Zn++ across the cell's outer wall into the cytoplasm where the Zn++ can halt viral replication.

"Chloroquine Is a Zinc Ionophore":

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182877/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182877/)

(PDF) [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/jo...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/jo..).

Some researchers seem to be missing the point that chloroquine and its analogs may play a different role here than in malaria, acting not directly against covid-19 but as a facilitator for Zn++, which then halts covid-19 replication.

Zelenko's use of an antibiotic(azithromycin = Z-Pak) is a prophylaxis against potential secondary bacterial infection; the antibiotic would not likely play a role against the viral infection directly.

Once again we see that randomized, double-blinded clinical trials can be more deadly and less informative than ad-hoc studies performed on the battlefield of medicine.

<comment><USER22> > In contrast, the regimen for Covid-19 _successfully_ used by Dr. Zev Zelenko > on ~700 patients is:

For all we know, it was a successful placebo. Anecdotal evidence does not constitute scientific fact.

<comment><USER23> A single piece of anecdotal evidence does not constitute scientific fact.

~700 pieces of anecdotal evidence is a study.

<comment><USER22> If there's no randomly selected control group then the value of the results are fairly minimal.

<comment><USER23> The remaining population of COVID patients is a good control group. Or, if you prefer, randomly select sub-populations with similar demographic statistics.

<comment><USER22> Yeah sorry, I don't think you understand how control groups work.

<comment><USER23> Yes, let's throw out valuable field evidence just because it doesn't fit some narrow definition of "valid experiment".

Compare 700 people who received a treatment to 700 demographically similar people who received the standard treatment in the same or similar hospital and you're going to get a useful result.

We can do your fancy RCT later when we aren't dying en masse from a novel and highly lethal virus.

<comment><USER22> I mean, people have tried doing studies like that for CQ/HCQ. They are riddled with questionable assumptions (that patient groups are similar or treatment regimens are equivalent) that make their conclusions completely unreliable.

In the end we will most likely find that all positive anecdotal evidence found was just confirmation bias. That's why RCTs are so important.

<comment><USER24> That's ridiculous

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/)

<comment><USER22> In vitro is not the same as in vivo

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Austria stopped all uses of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine for covid-19 a few weeks back citing bad outcomes and from what I can tell it's not the only country. I feel like the only reason trials are kept alive are the popularity in the US.

</comment><comment><USER26> To be clear, because the title makes it ambiguous, 11 patients died because of the treatment, or 11 paitents died of covid-related/suspected causes despite elevated treatment? It's a crucial distinction. The article doesn't perfectly specify which either. Covid-19 is already becoming known for causing cardiac problems in some patients, so if they were killed by a fatal heart arrhythmia, how to be sure that the medication caused it to be fatal instead of the disease progression itself due to myocarditis or something related combining with said arrhythmia.

</comment><comment><USER27> Arrhythmia is a well know complication and contraindication of Chloroquine. This should have been identified by the doctors prescribing it and NOT PRESCRIBED IT for at risk patients.

<comment><USER28> Unfortunately, COVID may also be associated with hypokalemia, so even patients without comorbidities could be at risk for TdP. HCQ may have therapeutic or prophylactic benefits, but it's definitely not without serious risks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Also interesting read on some more background of the drug: [https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/20/ch...](https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/20/chloroquine- past-and-present)

</comment><comment><USER18> Horrible article. Now what was the problem? CQ or HCQ? Major difference in those two.

</comment><comment><USER30> Those dosage numbers are completely OFF the charts. Thats ridiculously high dosage. In India, it's 200mg for treatment of Covid 19.

600mg WILL kill you. I don't even understand who approved that!

</comment><comment><USER31> I think a high dose of any reactive medication or drug is deadly.

<comment><USER32> This is a meaningless statement.

For starters, to call a compound "reactive" means it's eager to participate in chemical reactions. I'm unable to discern what you were trying to say, but I'm betting it isn't that.

To continue, yes, at the limit, a sufficient dose of anything will kill you. The difference between the therapeutic dose and the lethal dose is referred to as the therapeutic index: wide is good, narrow is dangerous.

(hydroxy)chloroquine has a fairly narrow therapeutic index at the doses being tested for acute COVID-19 intervention. That's not a property you want in a medicine. It would have to be that much more effective to make up for the risk it poses to the patient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> It irks me to see chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine being used interchangeably in the media. This study used chloroquine. Trump touted hydroxychloroquine.

"Hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine, is effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro" [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0)

<comment><USER34> Hydroxy what? You mean I bought the wrong stuff? [https://leafbrands.com/hydrox/](https://leafbrands.com/hydrox/)

<comment><USER35> Just wait till the stories of imbibing hydrogen peroxide start coming in! /s

<comment><USER36> Well know quack Dr Joseph Mercola has been pitching this for a couple weeks now.

<comment><USER35> Wow, that's disturbing. The typical household variety isn't strong enough to do much more than give you a nasty upset stomach and maybe vomit a bit. I guess drinking a lot might cause irritation. But if quacks are peddling this, it's only a matter of time before someone gets creative and finds some of the 12% stuff in some hair dye kits and other beauty products. Internal chemical burns are pretty nasty stuff, and surviving the ordeal is option

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> They were giving 1.2 grams a day to the patients that died. That is significantly higher than what is known to be a safe dose. CQ is also not indicated for anyone with underlying heart conditions. Since COVID-19 is known to cause heart damage as well as lung damage in the late stage of the disease using these drugs in the late stage of the disease has built in problems.

The article doesn't mention anyone in the lower dose group dying of heart problems, though heart attacks and related problems are things that are known to happen to people with COVID-19. The lower dose study is continuing and was not halted. Presumably there will be a subsequent study published with those results. I agree that it is a bad idea to be taking 1.2 grams a day of CQ. During the century of widespread CQ use the fatality rate due to side effects was certainly no where near what they managed to obtain by overdosing patients in this reckless study.

</comment><comment><USER38> From the article:

"The Brazil study was undertaken with 81 patients at a hospital in Manaus, in Amazonas state. As well as chloroquine, patients were also given azithromycin, an antibiotic also being used in the U.S., often paired with chloroquine. However, higher dose use of chloroquine (600 milligrams as opposed to 450 milligrams) was stopped after just six days, after 11 of patients who were given the greater dose died."

So they canceled a test with higher doses, not tests with regular doses.

Meanwhile they touched several times on the fact that Trump touted the drug. If trump recommended hugs, the media would write an article about how choking people is bad.

<comment><USER39> It's not that trump said he likes to breath air, so everyone became fixated on that. It's that this is one of many (dozens at least) of things he has said were solutions, cures, miracles that would deal with covid-19. These went through the fox news world and now my elderly relatives are fixated on getting it (they are otherwise healthy). Because fox news and all these other non- medical people keep harping on it, the elderly people, the same ones preyed upon by certain news sources get the wrong idea about this.

<comment><USER40> There are two stories here: One is whether one of the most promising drugs to stop the pandemic is actually dangerous, and the other is what Trump said and whether he was right to say it blah blah blah.

Thanks to the inclusion of Trump in this article by National Post, anyone who has strong views about Trump (most people in North America) are now focused on the second story, instead of the first.

<comment><USER41> Best I can tell, the article doesn't even mention the cause of death. :-) Did they die because they were given HCQ or did they die in spite of being given HCQ? We'll never know.

And the paper itself ([https://web.archive.org/web/20200413181618/https://www.medrx...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200413181618/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20056424v1.full.pdf)) doesn't say that either, and mentions that this study's randomization was flawed in that older patients with heart disease were assigned to the high dosage arm of the experiment.

<comment><USER42> They saw people were getting heart arrhythmias in the original Brazil study. Anecdotally, a doctor I know has been seeing an increase in arrhythmias on patients treated with HCQ at lower doses if they already have a pre-existing circulatory problem. What is really irking me is that we still don't even know if it's really doing anything.

At the same time, my elderly parent is taking HCQ for arthritis and appears to think she is invincible, going to the store each day in the middle of Queens, the world epicenter. She tried to send me links to Trump's touted Dr. Zelenko about how it's a miracle cure.

<comment><USER41> We don't even know if eggs and butter are "good for you" so I'm not surprised we know jack squat about HCQ beyond anecdotal evidence, which most studies you will find in the press seem to either ignore, or set their studies up s.t. they fail. In particular, per anecdotal evidence HCQ+Zpak+Zinc is the most effective combination, and only if given at the onset of symptoms. Yet routinely we see either just HQ or HCQ alone, or HCQ (with or without Zpak) given to patients that are so far gone it's unlikely to make any difference. Just read the original study fer chrissakes, it's publicly accessible. Sure it's not "randomized" or "principled", but at the very least _try_ what Raoult did in the first place, maybe? Exactly as he did it?

<comment><USER42> It looks like Azithromycin is for clearing bacterial pneumonia. Certainly this is a possible and probably common complication of viral pneumonia caused by COVID-19, but I'm sure doctors are well aware of ways to treat secondary bacterial pneumonia.

Just looking at what doctors are saying about Zinc, it seems like there could be something to it, especially if an individual is Zinc deficient, but it's not at all clear it's anything like a silver bullet.

[https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2...](https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=228691)

We have no idea what the mechanism of action if for HCQ. My doctor friend tried looking it up and it seemed like there are many possible pathways, many of which are still being researched, that modify immune response. There was one statement that speculated if HCQ could act directly on viral particles by changing pH near a key molecule. My attitude is, great if it works, but we still are very far from knowing that for certain.

One thing that I think is worth keeping in mind is that if a medicine kills 1% of the people we give it to, and we give it to a large number of people relatively indiscriminately, it's about as bad as COVID, which kills 1-5% of victims (though as much as 15% for high risk patients).

<comment><USER21> tehjoker says _> "_We have no idea what the mechanism of action if for HCQ. "<

Here's one paper showing that chloroquine allows Zn++ ions to pass into the cell cytoplasm where viral replication takes place. Zinc halts viral replication:

"Chloroquine Is a Zinc Ionophore":

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182877/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182877/)

(PDF version) [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/jo...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109180&type=printable)

<comment><USER42> Thanks for the link. I looked around and I saw that 2 uM Zinc inhibited SARS- CoV-1 in vitro, while human cellular concentrations of zinc are typically in the tens to hundreds mM range.

As a non-expert, there are two things that occur to me. That either something weird is going on, or zinc is very tightly controlled by the body and the range is really important. This means that taking extra dietary zinc without an ionophore probably wouldn't do much. So maybe CQ would help promote additional Zinc. According to one review article I was reading, Zinc concentration is naturally increased during immune response unless the virus hijacks the Zinc system.

This information makes me open to the possibility CQ is doing something, but so far the real world results have been unclear. One study showed that CQ had no effect on patients in France. If it's the Zinc that's making the difference and they didn't give Zinc, that would possibly explain the results, but the body also has abundant supplies of Zinc and adjusting intracellular concentration by 2/1000 of the ambient concentration shouldn't be a big deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm going to note this:

The body is the landscape where this battle gets fought. "Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." is a treatment policy that should be expected to result in some patients dying.

 _Trump has been vociferous on the drugs' potential benefits, but among those to contradict his views are his own top expert Anthony Fauci_

Edit: I stand corrected. The above still horrifies me. I've edited out the inaccurate framing. It's absolutely not intended to make replies to me look dumb. Quite the contrary.

This comment has been extensively edited. Hopefully, this is the least worst handling of blurting something out that expresses my concerns badly.

<comment><USER44> _> this is being tested not because medical professionals think it's a good idea, but because the US president has been loudly promoting it_

The article is describing a trial in Brazil, not the US.

Also, the trial used chloroquine, not hydroxychloroquine. They're not the same.

<comment><USER23> Furthermore, the studies on chloroquine started at least a month before the US president ever mentioned hydroxycholoroquine in mid March. E.g. this one from early Feb: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0)

So the research is not only being conducted because of the US president's promotion.</comment></comment></comment>


The Dangers of a Startup Democracy - <AUTHOR> http://foundread.com/2008/03/07/the-dangers-of-a-startup-democracy/ <comment><USER2> I'm not entirely sure about this. The author's points do make sense on some level, but maybe his experiences don't really lead to such generalizations. To what extent what he's gone through is the outcome of personal choices and not "rules of the game"?

First, he appears to suggest that one should not go into business with friends. I've actually had a positive experience working with my friends, largely because I choose decent, hard-working people to be my friends and that's exactly the type of people I want to work with. Also, I like to become friends with people I work with. Does that mean I should fire them or quit the job once I think of them as my friends? Surely, the team should differentiate between the relationships they have during and after working hours, but in my opinion and experience, the concepts are not exclusive. What's important is clarity of expectations and defined relationships.

Second, the democracy of a startup is sometimes exactly the reason why people choose to join the venture. Let's face it, distant promises of great fortunes only feed the gut, not the stomach. So people join to have a say. They can task for someone elsewhere and with pay. How much extra equity does the idea entitle the person to anyways? To deal with the issue, though, the team should have clearly defined areas of competence / leadership. The author may have led the way with the business plan creation, whereas someone else took the responsibility for the development.

All in all, it's unfortunate that the author had to go through this, but I am not yet ready to follow all of his suggestions.</comment>


Computer Science in Italy is just wrong - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/9340daa3c90c

<comment><USER2> Wow. Medium.com is really going wild about publishing badly written, uninteresting pieces.</comment>


TikTok has recently traded at valuations of $105-110B on private markets - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-20/tiktok-owner-s-value-surpasses-100-billion-in-private-markets <comment><USER2> I really can't fathom how this is possible. The largely young demographic (which I'm guessing warrants this valuation) has a track record of jumping from platform to platform, whichever is trendy for a given year.

With that in mind, how are investors seriously willing to get behind this company in such a big way?

<comment><USER3> This was my first reaction also but making a quick google search it seems that TikTok has 500 million users. That's a lot. Doing a pretty simple calculation of a dollar per user per day, you arrive quickly at 180 billion dollars of advertising monetization a year. It is really just another scale. But yeah, maybe i am way off and the valuation is still absurd.

<comment><USER4> Where did you get that "simple calculation" from? If Average user is worth to TikTok a dollar per day that means that ad buyers are willing to give it to TikTok from their advertising and marketing budget. Which means that the average user should spend at least few grands each year on advertised products and services, which does not seem likely.

Also, this is not how valuations are estimated. 180 billion _per year_ is a huge amount (for comparison Apple revenue for 2019 is 260B). One applies a revenue multiple that depends on the stage of the company and industry but for early booming social media site is in the range of 20-40. So the estimate of 105-110 probably comes from the range of 3-5 B yearly revenue estimate

<comment><USER5> let's not quibble over semantics of "simple"

anyway the valuation clearly must include investor perception of their growth trajectory.

<comment><USER6> I think the more appropriate wording would be "completely pulled out of thin air and not relevant calculation"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What happens if Chinese big tech starts dominating the world? Since the US no longer dominates manufacturing, if the US starts losing in services too, what advantage will the US ever have on China?

<comment><USER8> Soon Tiktok will be banned in the US by an act proposed by FB lobbyists.

Smart for them to hire an American CEO, though. But I still believe FB has more lobbyists.

Another possible outcome is they will be forced to sell TikTok to some holding companies in the US.

<comment><USER9> What's the worst that can happen?

China banning US services seems to have worked out just fine for their tech industry, so maybe _more_ countries should do that, not fewer.

<comment><USER10> I've been saying this myself for a while now. Take the EU for example. Why doesn't the EU have a silicon valley rivaling our silicon valley? They have a larger population and a larger economy. Not only can they afford to invest in their silicon valley, they have a market to sustain it. Where is their facebook, google, apple, youtube, etc? Even more baffling is india. The US has a lot of indian tech workers. Why doesn't india bring some home and build their own tech giants. Instead their major "tech" companies are outsourcing companies which essentially "sells" indian workers all over the world. Why not use those workers to build indian tech companies? Why isn't there an indian whatsapp? Why did india hand that market over to facebook? None of this makes any sense.

If they don't want to follow the "chinese model" because of any perceived stigma attached to it, then follow our model. The US became an economic powerhouse due to protectionism. Every major economy in the world developed under protectionism.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States)

I used to think it was because politicians are old and think tech is magic, but I'm just starting to believe most of them are outright lazy and incompetent.

<comment><USER11> Europe is fragmented not only by language but by law, culture and other things as well... It's not trivial to be available to all europe at once (Spotify/Netflix for example are not available in several eastern european countries)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As others have mentioned, this hacker news headline is deceptive. The valuation is with respect to ByteDance, which has a business suite beyond TikTok. Even the article headline mentions this: "TikTok Owner's Value Exceeds $100 Billion in Private Markets"

There are other facts about ByteDance such as having nearly 100k employees and a moderately size AI research lab that makes this news less surprising.

<comment><USER13> >moderately size AI research lab

Isn't their AI lab actually quite good? If I remember correctly, they create personalized news stories that are actually read and consumed.

<comment><USER12> It isn't an ultimate metric, but they have 150+ papers listed on google scholar, which is not a small amount. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=byt...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=bytedance.com&btnG=)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> TikTok proved to be a perfect secret clubhouse for Gen Z sensibilities of humor, nihilism, and celebration of differences. But as older generations pile on that do not pass the "vibe check", it is already slowly starting to ruin the party. It's still the best party in town, but hopefully ByteDance is humble enough to realize TikTok's success is about a lucky coupling of a format and cultural moment.

<comment><USER15> If what you're saying is true, then in a sense a lot of these apps are like the Seinfeld of the time. Eventually the season finale happens, and very few end up being a Simpsons (Facebook).

Profit while you can I guess.

<comment><USER16> Seinfeld still makes good money though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > It's the first salvo of ByteDance's goal to reach 100,000 staff globally by > the end of the year, outlined by Chief Executive Officer Zhang Yiming in an > internal memo last month.

Can someone explain to me the rationale behind such an aggressive employee headcount? Do they have larger ambitions or are they trying to justify the valuation? It just strikes me at an incredibly large number of employees for the service.

<comment><USER18> ByteDance has a huge suite of apps already (in China). Several of them could independently be unicorns without international expansion. I don't see why they wouldn't want to both grow that number and expand what they already have to other markets

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> First glance: seems about right; pretty popular/trendy site

Second glance: oh that's in Bs, not Ms; nevermind!

<comment><USER20> In comparison Disney is valuated at $128B.

<comment><USER21> that is a mind blowing comparison. Thanks for highlighting

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Maybe something worth mentioning: The ratings on google play [1] dropped from 4.5/5 to 1.2/5 because they deleted a video criticizing a TikTok user and did not delete a video endorsing acid attacks, but it seems like it's mainly ongoing in India. [2]

[1] [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zhiliaoapp...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zhiliaoapp.musically)

[2] [https://www.indiatvnews.com/technology/news-tiktok- gets-1-st...](https://www.indiatvnews.com/technology/news-tiktok-gets-1-star- rating-on-google-play-store-here-s-why-618838)

</comment><comment><USER23> [https://outline.com/YZZ9rB](https://outline.com/YZZ9rB)

</comment><comment><USER24> >The trading of ByteDance is reflective of the global wave of consumers who agree that ByteDance can displace Facebook as the leading social network

If this came true, what would be the ramifications for US national security?

<comment><USER25> Facebook security issues were an influencing factor in the past elections. How much worse can it get?

I don't think that rooting for Facebook against a Chinese built competitor is rooting for national security.

<comment><USER26> Neither are ideal, but at least we can compel the CEO of Facebook to testify before Congress. Good luck trying that with a Chinese national.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is the parent ByteDance, not TikTok...

</comment><comment><USER28> Anyone care to comment on the sustainability of these platforms?

Facebook has a strong network grounding effect (a few of them) and it may be around for a while.

But these 'hyper short form' things like Snapchat and TikTok I feel to be faddish. The 'form' is here to stay, but unless the platforms have lock-in they are fickle.

I think Apple, FB, MS, Google have strong incumbency, even though Snapchat is growing ... I'm not so sure.

That said - the world is still coming online in droves, and Snapchat only has 200M users meaning a lot of upside, and possibly an opportunity to entrench themselves.

<comment><USER29> I'm not sure that I would put Snapchat and TikTok in the same bucket. Snapchat has very strong network effects among a certain significant demographic. It has a feature that suggests people you may know and a variety of techniques (Streaks, BFFs, Snap Score) intended to keep people using it daily. Think of Snapchat more like a messaging app than like a social network.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Here today, gone tomorrow. Like AOL, Myspace and Compuserve before them.

TikTok doesn't have anything other than a fleeting fascination with today's youth. As they age, the next generation will find something else.

Does TikTok even have assets? real estate, manufacturing capabilities, intellectual property ... oh and paying customers?

</comment><comment><USER31> If you believe in the power of targeted marketing, believe in TikTok. I didn't log in, I gave this app no information about me at all and it managed to turn 1 or 2 likes into a stream of endless content that hit a certain spot for me. I had to delete it.

</comment><comment><USER32> Same reason honey was sold for 4 billion, they have an absolute ton of data on their users.

</comment><comment><USER33> Social media in the US was always something I thought that Chinese companies couldn't penetrate due to cultural differences. The fact that they have means so many more US tech businesses are potentially at risk, because China's tech sector is extremely strong on the software side, even on the open source side (Ant design for react, Vue js). This is despite relatively high anti-China sentiments: see Koa-router being transferred to a Chinese maintainer: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19158218](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19158218), granted there are concerns with transferring a popular package to an unknown person for money, or Huawei's problems penetrating US market. Companies often have to hide their Chinese origins, such as OnePlus (a subsidiary of Oppo).

<comment><USER34> Maybe this isn't a substantive comment, but I think China understands America more than the other way around.

<comment><USER35> Thanks to Hollywood, American TV shows, and the Internet being predominantly US/English dominated, every country understands America more than the other way round.

<comment><USER33> There's also the massive Chinese diaspora.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Feels like Twitter buying Vine and not executing made this possible?

<comment><USER37> Yeah, killing vine was such a huge mistake.

<comment><USER38> they really should just start it up again. i'm sure there's many who would love to get off the chinese service

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am happy for these news. Facebook has a monopoly on social media, and it's good for competitors to grow strong enough to challenge it.

<comment><USER39> In theory that sounds nice but as far as trusting a company with my privacy/data, a Chinese backed social network is probably one of the only entities I would trust less than Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Why the clickbait title instead of the original ("TikTok Owner's Value Exceeds $100 Billion in Private Markets")?

</comment><comment><USER41> Two words: market depth.

It's just like bitcoin. In an illiquid market you can easily trade small volumes at ridiculous valuations.

</comment><comment><USER42> [https://archive.md/0eXcB](https://archive.md/0eXcB)

</comment><comment><USER43> There is an insane amount of push to make TikTok happen. I am relatively certain that it will go nowhere.

</comment><comment><USER44> Being successful in the TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram market segment seems completely random. These apps have so many features in common with each other and none of them really do anything innovative. TikTok is definitely not the only vine clone in the world, but for some reason this is the one that is worth $110b

</comment><comment><USER45> Makes sense. The fed's inflated the money supply quite a lot.

<comment><USER46> Twitter and Snapchat are both "only" worth around $25B each

This isn't just about a money printer.

<comment><USER47> Tiktok: 800 million monthly active users worldwide.

Twitter: 330 million monthly active users worldwide.

Snapchat: 360 million monthly active users worldwide.

Maybe TikTok should "only" be worth $50B?

<comment><USER48> Are Twitter and Snapchat allowed behind the Great Firewall?

Honest question, I don't know

<comment><USER29> According to [http://www.chinafirewalltest.com/](http://www.chinafirewalltest.com/) (not sure how legit it is), twitter.com is blocked and snapchat.com is allowed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Good news. Finally some social network without FB and Google!

<comment><USER49> OK, it is not really a social network right now, but I suggest they will move in that direction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Are these guys also funded by Mayoshi Son and Softbank.

</comment><comment><USER51> Paywall. Impossible to read it

<comment><USER52> [http://archive.is/0eXcB](http://archive.is/0eXcB)

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> after rating drop on google still expensive

</comment><comment><USER54> Do any of these kind of apps ever make money? Or do they just get pumped and dumped?

<comment><USER16> Yes. Billions in profit

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Pretty insane. It will be replaced by another app-du-juor in 4 years. Social apps follow a pretty predictable schedule where cohorts are strongly associated with high school and college demographics moving through phases of their lives.</comment>


Headset to read dog's mind - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2526360/The-headset-lets-DOG-talk-Prototype-analyses-pets-thoughts-translates-human-speech.html

<comment><USER2> More info on the Indigogo page - [http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/no-more- woof](http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/no-more-woof)

That, by the way, is the entirety of discussion from previous submissions of this story:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6934457](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6934457)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6935467](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6935467)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941486](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941486)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6949669](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6949669)

Don't be surprised if you don't get much discussion here.

</comment><comment><USER3> This reminds me of a far side cartoon about a dog bark translator [http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/dog-bark- tr...](http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/dog-bark-translator/)</comment>


Hiring Without Agencies - Lessons Learned - <AUTHOR> http://wip.engineroomapps.com/post/3927805265/hiring-without-agencies-lessons-learned-part-1 <comment><USER2> Is it possible that this experience was influenced in any way by the fact that they're trying to find a "Senior iPhone Developer" for under £40k? That's ~$65k, and thus roughly $100k shy of what you'd need to offer before you started to pique the interest of any good iPhone Developers in the current market.

<comment><USER3> The UK has relied for too long on relatively cheap but willing tech. labour.

I believe one major factor that enabled this was the boom in home computing in the early 80s. I don't know whether it is fair to call this unique (to the UK), but it certainly helped to have the BBC heavily involved with the BBC Micro effort and even TV coverage: '<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Computer_Programme>. I remember back then even the shallowest computer user might have had a go at typing in a program from the back of a magazine.

This provided two generations of willing workers, the first being the adults taking up computing, a few would become entrepreneurs and many of the rest would see it as a career transition and happy enough to get a "bump" in wages for skills in a new domain.

For some, this "bump" was pretty significant for them personally, I've known good people in the UK tech sector who started out as car mechanics, waitresses and the like where IT has improved their personal circumstances no end.

Then there's the second generation, these are the kids who grew up in the 80s boom time and it would seem natural for many of these people to make their hobby their career.

But the problems start here.

Firstly, there was no third generation to follow on, both mainstream culture and even schools completely forgot about programming. Kids grew up with consoles, with few having an idea what it takes to make the games they play. Schools replaced programming with "IT skills", meaning spreadsheets and Word docs, ostensibly because it was easier to train teachers to 'teach' this.

Secondly, there is often a working class attitude in UK tech which shares some similarities with Jante Law. This is debatable, but I do think part of that comes from the first generation, who never thought they would be doctors or lawyers so had lower aspirations and feel pretty grateful for having a 'decent' albeit moderate wage.

However, for the second generation, they would more likely have gone to university and studied Comp. Sci. or a.n.other course and entered the industry. When they look at their similarly educated peers, they will often find themselves on a lower rung than those who chose to go into management or one of the older traditional professions.

That second generation now have kids going to University, and I am guessing that they have a slightly less rosy perspective on the IT sector than when they first started out.

So the net effect of this is that the number of Computing graduates is declining [http://www.cphc.ac.uk/docs/cphc-computinggraduates- june08.pd...](http://www.cphc.ac.uk/docs/cphc-computinggraduates-june08.pdf) .

Perhaps the same thing is happening elsewhere, but I think in the meantime it is time for UK tech. to start weaning themselves off mediocre salaries for tech. sector professionals.

<comment><AUTHOR> The bump in CS uptake was due to the dotcom boom rather than any long term trend. CS still has a higher average salary than most other subjects.

<comment><USER3> The boom had an effect, although the number of IT professionals grew (slowly) after the boom (see page 4 of the link), and I'm fairly sure it doesn't solely explain the collapse in Computing degree applicants.

Also, when looking at average salary consider the continuing growth in the number of people going to university. Also simultaneous collapse in the number of CS grads is likely to help maintain the higher average.

<comment><AUTHOR> The papers actually quite weak, as there a strong distinction between IT and software development (and CS (G4xx) and IT degree), which the paper doesn't really pick up on. They make the mistake of using HESA data which classifies all IT degrees as computing.

Non-development IT roles in the UK have been dropping dramatically over the last decade due to outsourcing and automation while developer roles have been increasing (roughly 10,000/year).

Salary data in general has a relatively small impact of choice of subject. Most 16-18 years old have a very limited understanding of salaries by degree subject and are often under many false misapprehensions (for example thinking most law students will become lawyers). Choices are far more driven by cultural trends.

<comment><USER3> I think you're splitting hairs in the first point, it's also strange though that CS grads also have the highest unemployment rate: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10477551>. Which seems to contradict your point about developer roles, or speaks to other issues.

However, I absolutely agree that it is cultural trends that drive the choices, which goes back to my original point that now there is a broader cultural understanding of what life is like in the tech sector and that tech hasn't woke up to this yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not splitting hairs this is actually a major issue. I run a developer job board, before that I founded a social mobility non-profit that specializes in understanding university admissions and outcomes. I'm intimately familiar with the data.

The BBC article is based upon the JACS classification of Computing which incudes IT subjects. From anecdotal evidence CS has very low unemployment and IT has high unemployment, but due to HESA using the JACS classification a graduate in Business IT is considered the same as a graduate of Computer Science.

If you split universities which only teach CS from those that teach IT, you can see very clearly in the HESA data that Computing has a much higher employment rate at universities which don't teach IT (this isn't clear cut evidence as universities which don't teach IT tend to be academically stronger universities; but it does back up the anecdotal evidence).

I wrote to the universities minister asking him to get HESA to split CS and IT data after he gave a talk at TechHub, but sadly he didn't respond.

<comment><USER4> Try writing to your own MP. You'll almost certainly get a reply. If he/she's not interested, then try engaging Tom Watson MP's interest. Odd for a ministry department not to respond, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This has been going on for a quite some time. There's another side-effect of this strategy that the author doesn't explicitly mention. Even if you're willing to pay the recruiter's fee, you'll sometimes get to the point of making an offer to a candidate and they'll essentially be offended by the offer, since it's lower than the amount listed in the recruiter-overhauled job description that they saw.

I had one candidate ask me point-blank if I was low-balling him because I thought he was under-qualified in some way. It turns out that perception was based on the job description he saw and after I explained that the number he saw wasn't ours, he accepted the offer. But I refuse to work with that recruiter any more.

<comment><USER6> Seems pretty clear that the recruiter provided you with a very valuable service, that the qualified candidates you really wanted to make offers to weren't willing to respond to ads citing the insulting salary range you thought you could get away with.

The simple fact is that if you can not afford to hire qualified developers, you should not be in business. Please leave software development to the professionals who are able to make money at it.

<comment><USER5> Are you a recruiter or something...? This seems like a pretty hostile comment which is based on a number of assumptions by you.

Why do you assume that we can't afford to hire developers or that we offered an insulting salary? The developer accepted the offer -- he was initially disappointed because of the _unrealistic_ range that the recruiter advertised.

Also, the fact that the candidate responded to the recruiter's ad is indicative of nothing. If I post an interesting job description and 3 recruiters repost it with the details tweaked, many candidates (I know some avoid recruiters) are apt to respond to the first one of the four that they come across.

Your comment about making money seems completely out of left-field. We do make money (been in the black for a decade or so) and if we didn't, your comment seems unnecessarily harsh. So with that comment you ran the risk of being wrong, a jerk, or both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _I've got Google alerts setup for our ad, and I'm seeing it being cloned all over the place by different recruitment agencies. Basically, they copy your ad, remove all your details so candidates don't know who you are, and then post it up all over the place._

This happens for people who post resumes, too. My experience was so bad that I ended up removing my entire profile from LinkedIn after one-too-many harassing phone calls from agencies. They are evil, but I haven't found a way around them yet. My current employment gig is one where an agency is marking up my hourly rate 100 percent; they indeed charge the company double what they pay me. It infuriates me, but there is very little I can do. Agencies specialize in one thing only and that is: information distortion. Doesn't matter if it's a recruitment agency, real estate agency, or "talent scout" for one of the glam professions like music or acting. The wider the distortions become between buyer and seller, the more the agency can leech.

They're good at it too: flooding job boards, cloning candidate resumes or company job descriptions and twisting them however they wish.

And it works! Good for them, crappy for us. Agencies are very good at convincing one party that a "Senior iPhone developer" or an "MBA who knows Linux and is an accounting whiz" is an elusive and rare creature, while simultaneously shaking their heads at "this job market" where _any_ job offer is a good offer, and by golly -- stick with the agency, and they'll find you something better; once they're done sucking you dry for an hourly rate, they find you something "permanent" for 30-40 percent of your yearly salary offer, of course.

P.S. I think the agency doesn't know _I know_ how much they're robbing me: they're big on "keep this [hourly rate] confidential" which I am, technically . . . the number is; the percent is not. The only party that confidentiality benefits, though, is the agency. Makes no sense.

<comment><USER8> I've seen contractors come and go working at a fortune 500 and just recently I've learned of those practices...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> For salary comparison, in 2001 a _TRAINEE_ manager at McDonalds in London could earn £21,000

Now, back in 2001 when the tech bubble popped it was like one of those games where the music stops and there are too few chairs. All the people who'd been riding the contracting gravy train suddenly realised there were no more contracts† and they panicked. At _that_ stage you would see the computer programmers who had a wife, girlfriend and a mortgage to support leap at a £25k job.

On the other hand, Leeds (where I have also lived and worked) was enormously much cheaper than London in a couple of respects, such as real estate. One of the places I worked had an intern, great young guy, real go-getter, would do any dirty task you set before him (like network admin _ick_ :D ) ... and he was on £10k. When I found that out, I was amazed. I asked him how he could afford that. turns out he lived in a shared house with lots of other students or recently ex-students, and they _couldn't afford to turn the heating on in winter_ ††.

†They say that when New York sneezes, London catches a cold. They're right. All the big institutions slapped down an immediate ban on new hiring and no new contracts except for critical projects. Then after a couple of weeks it got upgraded to at least a six month ban on all hiring, even for critical projects (presumably for those they could fill them from people they already had). As contracts ended, they weren't renewed. It was brutal.

††For reference Leeds is one of those places where they get snow on the ground during winter

</comment><comment><USER10> I've had numerous interesting interactions with recruiters over the years, as well as directly with hiring companies. The biggest benefit agencies seem to offer is initial screening, but it's also where they seem to fall down the most. When a recruiter can't tell me anything more than "MySQL, PHP, JavaScript", they don't really understand the client's needs or the position involved.

I find that perhaps 1 in 10 or 15 calls I get from a recruiter involves someone with a clue. Sometimes they know the tech and can talk about the client's architecture and needs, other times they will admit they're not technical, but they have had some dealings with the company directly (often for extended periods) and have a good idea about the type of person who would be a good fit. But it's still rare that I'm talking to a recruiter who, imo, is actually providing some degree of service to the hiring company (let alone my side of the equation).

More companies might be able to 'go direct' without needing a recruiter, but many don't know how to sell their own company to a potential employee. Money helps, certainly, and they'd be able to offer more if they weren't involving a recruiting agency, but it typically takes a committed involvement from the company to do the initial screening.

I used to think recruiters had _no_ place, and that companies should always go direct. I've found that strategically, it makes sense in a few cases if they need a specific skill and don't want to broadcast to the wider market (their competition) about upcoming plans. However, those instances are pretty rare.

</comment><comment><USER11> The idea of agencies copying and pasting your ads is a bit shady of course, but the takeaway from this is pretty simple - you need to pay more.

<comment><USER12> Agree. The take-aways are:

\- Recruitment agencies that play dirty do so because they are unable to add real value. Avoid at all costs.

\- Offer the right salary for the job, and you might have more luck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm the one who posted up the job ad, and the who wrote the blog.

As @ig1 said (from coderstack.co.uk), the salary is not _that_ far off; £38K goes a lot further in Leeds than in London.

Maybe "Middle-Weight iPhone Developer" would have been better.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is how I would have dealt with this situation:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2346729>

<comment><USER14> Exactly. Take the time and small expense to officially register the copyright. When they clone it and slap their name on it you can sue for damages and you'll win. It might even be a profitable business on its own if you act as intermediary for those actually posting jobs... a "job dilution protection service" that costs them nothing but makes you money.

edit: at the very least, in the US you can issue a DMCA takedown notice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Thanks for posting this - I think regardless of market rate you've identified a key problem in the hiring industry, especially in software. The incentives for recruitment agencies/headhunters to do ridiculously shady things like copy your ad and then sell you candidates (without even necessarily telling you they promised the candidates more money) are high because companies feel so lost in the hiring process, sometimes they are willing to pay. And they usually get burned/waste a lot more time and money (in my experience).

Good for you for calling them out when they're clearly not providing a respectable service to you OR the jobseeker.

</comment><comment><USER16> Changing the salary is obviously wrong.

Other than that, finding developers for you that didn't see your ad and bringing them to your attention for a fee seems like an honest business (if not one I would be interesting in being in).

<comment><AUTHOR> Claiming you represent a company when you don't isn't honest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is fantastic. You just delivered another selling point I hadn't even considered yet for our app (I'd say more about it, but I'd like it to be a little more done for a 'Show HN').

Much thanks!

</comment><comment><USER12> On a similar vein, amusing stories from another UK company

<http://recruitmental.com/>

</comment><comment><USER6> Your salary is absurdly ridiculously pathetically low given the things you were asking for. It almost seems like a joke or onion article. That's obviously why you had a problem and all the rest of the insights you are having about this don't really count since the ad would not be considered serious by any qualified candidate. Sorry.</comment>


Cross-platform open communications in VR with Matrix.org - <AUTHOR> https://www.geektime.com/2017/04/04/matrix-org-brings-cross-platform-open-comms-to-vr/ <comment><USER3> The battle for open comms versus walled gardens is just starting for VR - <USER2> is our chance to define whether the metaverse is decentralised or not. (disclaimer: I work on Matrix and am probably biased :)</comment>