The Coming Collapse of Average Managers and Employees - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.hbr.org/schrage/2012/10/the-coming-collapse-of-average.html <comment><USER2> Its not going to happen.

The problem is most places don't even have a way to find out a average manager. The reason is that management layers in almost every big company works like a cartel, they know darn well how to preserve their self interests. Generally you don't get to know until its often too late to do anything about it. The people who suffer the most are not bad performers, but those who fall out of managements favor or people who just can't get political and benefit out of it. The actual performers are likely to be named arrogant mavericks who are bad at team work. They won't be fired, but they will be treated so badly, until they themselves see the wisdom in leaving.

Also this whole GE analogy in these kind of articles is MBA speak. That is talking at high abstract levels, without absolutely knowing what they are talking about. Stack ranking worked at GE not because Stack Ranking is awesome, but because there was some one like Jack Welch to make it work.

Adhering to stack ranking to the letter but not in spirit will basically amplify the problem. Guess who gets the least rank in a political system?

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of this about Google:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4331584>

<comment><USER3> And this one: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2536186>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ah hell.

Go all the way. Most of human value has been created since 1700- medicine, transport, mechanisation etc. Most of that is down to a few thousand individuals, from James Watt to Feymann. If we focus on increasing their productivity (every tenured professor is given state funded housekeepers) we may well increase the invention rate

What we don't increase is the spread of that through society to the benefit of all.

That requires the useless middle managers and useless peons implicitly referred to in this elitist piece of short sighted rubbish

<comment><USER5> Mexico has an interesting take on this: if you get into the upper echelons of academia you can get a salaried do-what-you-want-publish-if-you-want job. Some of the country's best thinkers are paid to think.

<comment><USER6> Sounds like the same take the rest of the world used to have - and still does in a few places.

Ahh... tenure... how we miss ya.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_(academic)>

<comment><USER5> It's different than tenure, they don't have to teach and I don't believe it's associated with a specific institution. I'm not sure exactly what it's called or how it works, I'll have to call a friend or perhaps someone here from Mexico can comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This kind of helps explain Japan's lackluster performance over the last 20+ years for me. The typical corporate culture there seems to focus on getting the mediocre and lagging employees to perform up to par (mind you, their systems for accomplishing this are rather impressive), rather than sharpening the skills and maximizing the contributions of their Ace players (they definitely exist, but are definitely not given their due compared to their output).

<comment><USER8> Japanese mega corps are almost designed to be pathological for their best performing employees. I don't know if that is significant enough to have macroeconomic effects (all explanations of that nature strike me as suspicious just-so-stories), but if you hypothetically think you're good at something, a traditionally managed Japanese megacorp will attempt to a) dilute that aptitude, b) put you on a career track which requires _decades_ to reach the autonomy you'd have at a US company in months or a startup in minutes, and c) compensate quality like a teacher's union does (I.e. forbid it and treat anyone asking for it as a threat to social harmony).

That is not projection, btw. I played the game pretty well for 3 years. That is just me describing a small portion of the well-understood rules of the game.

<comment><USER7> Let's just say that you lasted longer than I did ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hand waving and made up numbers. It's kind of annoying when someone uses precise numbers that they pulled out of the air with no empirical basis as the foundation of an argument.

At the end he asks about the organizations where 60% of value is produced by 40% of employees. Which organizations? How is value measured? No telling because the numbers are just made up.

<comment><USER10> This.

And let's add the obvious remark that if this 40% is that good, than why it is not firing the other 60%? Why do they keep them?

All in all, this is the kind of poor business talk that makes MBAs so irritating.

<comment><USER11> You don't need to say "this." Your comment reads fine without it.

<comment><USER12> If "agreed" were used instead, it'd perform the same function without being called out by people who don't like internet linguistic trends. Clearly indicating one's position in an argument is valuable, and "this" accomplishes that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It is good to see this discussed, but the principle is not news. In [http://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules- Differently/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules- Differently/dp/0684852861) the point is made that average managers try to bring up their bottom performers, while the best managers long ago concluded that you get more mileage out of investing energy in the top ones.

Of course the world is full of average people. They have to wind up somewhere. And organizations full of average people are never going to be able to take the advice to work the superstars.

I'll believe that the slogan _invest in your best_ has been internalized by our society when we devote serious resources to making sure that people with IQs in the top 1% stop dropping out of school faster than people with median IQs do. Anyone care to give me odds on this happening in the next 20 years? I'll take the "No" side.

<comment><USER14> Do you really think people with higher IQ dropping out of school is an issue? Firstly, there are some many other factors at play making a person a "supertstar" (emotional stability, finding out what they love, creativity) but let's agree IQ is one of them and an important one. I'd argue that people on the top 1% are statistically people more interested in learning varied subjects. So unless the person had serious family issues, which is something hard to devote serious resources to pinpointedly correct, whether they drop out of school is not as relevant as them finding what they love and having the tools to learn it, on their own if they're so inclined.

<comment><USER13> I agree with you that IQ is far from a complete measure of what matters, but I do think that it is an issue.

The reason why is because jobs that are likely to use the abilities of a high IQ person generally require a high school diploma, and frequently require a college degree. Therefore denying these people an equal opportunity to get those credentials limits how effectively society benefits from their abilities.

Also I should note that the matter is personal. I have a good IQ and yet I came within an inch of failing to complete high school. Were it not for a teacher named Bernie Bowker, I would not have graduated, gone to college, or had any prospects of getting jobs where my abilities would be useful. I think that that would have been a tragedy, particularly for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Even though GE is generally considered well run, let's not forget that it needed a bailout by Warren Buffett during the financial crisis.

At risk of sounding like I am defending my own mediocrity, the average worker and manager are going to be the ones who can last the distance.

Top performers have a nasty habit of getting promoted, or headhunted. Or burnout. Institutional memory gets lost. Ultimately, it's the average long distance runners who carry the torch to the finishing line.

Not that I dont think the best performers shouldnt be duly recognised and rewarded, but overemphasis on top performance...that's the stuff Enron is made of.

</comment><comment><USER16> As someone who is on the 'high performer' list, I can tell you I have seen this first hand and this is fine, we will work harder, provided we're given an even more outrageous salary. Otherwise, I'm going to get burned out doing the job of my coworkers / thinking for my coworkers every day, monitoring them so they're more efficient and don't go off chasing down bugs incorrectly. I don't need to be managed, leave me alone and I'll make customers and your boss'es boss happy. But this all can get tiresome and it sucks. But give me that bonus/salary and I'll continue on like a trooper.

At my last job, I was given more and more work, and I made everything work without intervention, but I left due to low pay, now the old boss wants to hire me back as the old system seems to go down a lot, while his cheap labor source turns out to be more expensive than he first thought. There seems to be a belief that we can just whip up the high performers when we need them, but this just leads to burn out and turnover. just pay the high performers an ungodly amount and all will be well.

<comment><USER17> High performers are still a great deal, because you can pay them 2x the salary to get 10x the results. Few places realize this, but the ones that do are wonderful to work for.

<comment><USER18> _High performers are still a great deal, because you can pay them 2x the salary to get 10x the results._

The issue, for many companies, is that the perks the high performers want in exchange for this "arbitrage" that exists in hiring them-- very high levels of autonomy, rapid career advancement, implicit trust from the first day of work-- are considered unaffordable in the actual political context of the company.

Companies won't give high performers 10x salaries because the high performer might not deliver if the conditions are bad, but if they give them high degrees of autonomy and interesting projects, that's visible to the less adept workers and it becomes an issue for management. Managers know that if they let their best people follow different rules, everyone will expect the same freedom.

High and low performance don't seem to be intrinsic to people, in the sense that mediocre people can turn excellent given the right conditions, and vice versa. What _does_ seem to be intrinsic is that there are high- and low- variance people. Low variance people are reliable ladder-climbers, and high variance people are the creative ones who might have a mediocre year or two, but then have a huge breakthrough. The top performers are, for the most part, high variance individuals. High-variance people can also fail quite badly, in certain circumstances, so companies are very nervous about hiring them at all. The "corporate ladder" rewards reliable mediocrity, not intermittent excellence.

Intimidation-based management (which has been dominant since 1800) regresses performance to the mean, and its purpose is to reduce variance. When the input-output curves relating skill and effort to productivity were concave, variance-reduction was the way to go, because lower variance was equivalent to higher performance. Now that we're in a convex world (at least in software) variance-reduction fails us.

<comment><USER16> That's a bit of a generalization. Some anecdotal evidence... years ago when I was but a youngin', I didn't get along at my company, got burned out and eventually curled up in a corner and slept/played games. Needless to say I got on the PIP (performance improvement plan). Then I got laid off eventually. I was immature. My manager sucked, but so did I for not realizing this and taking action.

These days, I am simply more mature, and I regret my past somewhat, but at least I am good at learning in general. If you don't regret your past, you aren't growing, everyone does. Now, after life has kicked me around, I know people well, I know how not to be a condescending jackass, and be pleasant, and get things done, and communicate to my manager honestly vs being passive aggressive etc. And I have that same inner drive to figure things out. I'm still the same person, I just don't bullshit around, I keep my mouth shut, impress people with my actions, then lo and behold, when they come to find out more info about me, I tell them, but before that, I remain an enigma. When I came to my group, some underestimated me, I didn't lash out like when I was younger, I just shut up and fixed their bugs.

I do think, as you allude to, certain people just have that knowing, they have it in them, but for whatever reason, maturity, bad manager, etc., they don't rise to the top. I think though, if you are mature, you will realize your manager is crappy right away and address that. Part of being a star performer, to me, is not just tech. ability, but non-technical ability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This assumes mediocre workers will always be mediocre. I've always assumed the job of managers is to find the right place for for bright people they've hired. I've certainly seen mediocre talent turn onto stars in the right environment.

<comment><USER20> This is really the elephant in the room when it comes to any kind of ranking. As humans we always want to make rankings like A is better than B who is better than C... and so on. The reality is much more complex.

If you take K1 kickboxing history, you'll see that pretty much all the top guys have all beaten each other at some point. This makes it pretty clear that "best" is something that varies wildly and may even vary from day to day.

It's no different in software. I can tell you I've had times in my career where I was on fire, out producing any teams I knew about. And I've had times where the burn out was so bad I was producing nothing at all for weeks. How good someone is just isn't static.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> All these senior management types that praise Welch's philosophies seem disconnected from the real world. They seem to think that by constantly managing out under performers (even mediocre staff) and striving to only employ high performers, everything will be peachy keen.

Sorry but this just doesn't fit the real world because in every company, there will be menial tasks. Menial tasks that high performers will refuse to perform.

Look at sports teams. The Chicago Bulls needed utility players to surround Jordan. Does anyone think a team of 5 MJ's or Lebron's would succeed over the long run?

<comment><USER2> >>The Chicago Bulls needed utility players to surround Jordan. Does anyone think a team of 5 MJ's or Lebron's would succeed over the long run?

To add further, if Chicago Bulls itself hire all Jordan grade players. Will they want to the menial job of surround the actual Micheal Jordan or try to become Micheal Jordan's themselves?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This reminds me of an article I read here ages ago on IBM's Black Team. It was (and is) fascinating to me. In case someone hasn't see it, www.t3.org/tangledwebs/07/tw0706.html. Discussed on HN here <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=985965>

<comment><USER23> And largely referenced in Peopleware[1]. Good quote from that book:

 _There is a sense of eliteness on a good team. Team members feel they're part of something unique._

[1]- [http://www.amazon.com/Peopleware-Productive-Projects- Teams-e...](http://www.amazon.com/Peopleware-Productive-Projects-Teams- ebook/dp/B003I84OIU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1352125364&sr=8-2&keywords=peopleware)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Somewhat related idea: given an employee who's stellar in some areas and not so stellar in others, do you try to even their attributes out, or do you develop the areas where they're stellar even further?

I'm a fan of this line of thought: [http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/0...](http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/02/mediocrity_by_a.html)

So many people are focused on bringing everyone up to some base level of mediocrity in every imaginable area, but what if we instead focused on finding brilliance, then doing everything we can to amplify that brilliance?

Which might, of course, include working on some of those areas for improvement, but intelligently, with the goal of keeping those weaknesses from impeding excellence elsewhere.

<comment><USER13> Gallup has studied this exact question. They have found that working on areas of brilliance, and structuring jobs to work around areas of mediocrity, is hands down massively better than trying to address weaknesses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Kinda fails when you don't have A grade directors running the company. Also, how do you identify an A manager, unless you're really picking the productivity of their A workers? Surely weaker managers attribute their success to the weaker employees (to avoid being 'found out')?

</comment><comment><USER17> Rather than getting rid of "average people", it seems more common to sequester top talent. I think this is what's happening with small consulting shops and startups. You often see small teams of incredibly talented people at a startup or consulting firm that create a lot of the major innovations, then sell them to the large companies that handle distribution, etc.

This makes sense because most people are average or below average. There is no way that a GE or IBM can function without large swathes of ordinary people. I doubt we'll see average performers disappear from big companies any time soon- instead we'll see the continuing rise of small startups and consulting shops with a few incredibly talented people.

</comment><comment><USER26> The thing is, you can fill your whole company with go-getting geniuses, but not every task in the company requires that, and if you give the boring-but- necessary work to the whizkids, they're going to get p-ed off and leave.

Stick the smartest on the cutting edge stuff that is the true source of competitive advantage for your firm. Keep the rest for the important-but-dull work - HR, Payroll, etc.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm sort of surprised COst is not mentionned. Can every company afford to hire only the best and the brightest ?</comment>


Permissive Action Links – how nuclear weapons are secured - <AUTHOR> https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/nsam-160/pal.html <comment><USER2> This blog item appears to have been plagiarized from Steve Bellovin's page:

<https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/nsam-160/pal.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Some of the text might have been cribbed, but I have never seen photos of actual "PAL" equipment anywhere before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What does the PAL do when it detects unauthorized tampering?

For fission weapons, isn't the most critical part the core? One design criterion for a PAL is to prevent scattering of fissile material, so the core remains intact, right? How hard can it be for a rogue state or group to create a new bomb given that the fissile core is the most valuable part of a fission bomb?

For a fusion bomb, I guess the PAL would damage the aerogel ("fogbank") among other things. That would take some advanced knowledge to redesign, but whoever has the weapon would still have the fissile material from the first stage even if they can't get the fusion part of humpty dumpty back together again.

The original fission bombs were designed in the 1940s with slide rules. It seems to me that PALs do a better job of protecting against unauthorized fusion detonations than of protecting against unauthorized re-engineering of the bombs into fission or radiological versions using the fission core.

<comment><USER4> While it's commonly bandied about that it's easy to build a nuclear weapon, and I don't dispute that, I think those sorts of claims are contingent on having a pretty wide range in the amount of fissile material you have at your disposal. "Straightforward" bomb designs can be achieved by being willing to start with a lot more than needed U-235/Pu-239.

I would assume that the US has very few of the ancient "enough fissile material to go critical trivially" sorts of bombs. The miniaturization of atomic weapons to fit into, among other things, ICBM warhead nose cones, likely came about by using smaller quantities of fissile material with much higher precision explosives, timings, and pit shapes to push that smaller nuclear pit into supercriticality. Instead of a soccer-ball of dozens of explosive lenses like the Fat Man, you've got maybe two or three lenses tops. Less moving parts, smaller overall bomb, but much much more timing sensitive.

So if tampering or failing the PAL blows out an EEPROM with the detonation timings on it, you've got a chunk of fissile material that's likely not enough by itself to construct a working nuclear bomb without 30-40 years of superpower-levels-of-funded R&D into materials sciences, precision machining of nasty stuff like beryllium, slapper detonators, so on and so forth.

Most of the gigantic TOP500 supercomputer clusters we've built over the years at national laboratories are likely used towards simulating whether the pits, even in their current configurations, are decaying in a reliable way that the weapons still function if needed. Reprocessing a single given pit into a new weapon is quite possibly an even harder problem.

Now, if you can steal a whole cache of nuclear weapons, then it gets a lot more feasible, since you can probably make one "easy" bomb out of a few hard ones, and either way you have nasty dirty-bomb potential, but I think if you had the capacity to build a working nuclear weapon out of a modern warhead, you probably already have them to begin with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like the part where it says "the secret unlock code was set to 00000000." Some things never change.

</comment><comment><USER6> PALs and the START tamper sensors are some of the most amazing implementations of tamper resistance in the history of mankind. They are what got me interested in the stuff in the mid 1990s, followed by the weirdness of DRM schemes for anti piracy.</comment>


Standard Treasury (YC S13) Aims To Make Software That Eats Commercial Banking - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/09/standard-treasury/

<comment><USER2> I'm really interested in a service that allows you to:

a) transfer money between 2 bank accounts for a flat fee

b) allows you to debit a bank account w/o any verification or micro-deposits

<comment><USER3> 'a' is fairly common, I believe. It's ubiquitous in Europe (typically no fee), and in the U.S., Bank of America will let you do an ACH transfer to any account in the U.S. for $3/transfer. Not sure what other banks' policies are.

<comment><USER4> Coming from Europe, I'm also used to exclusively using wire transfers for free. Not so much in the US.

What's the difference between a wire transfer and ACH transfer? (Chase charges me about $19 for every outgoing/incoming wire transfer by the way).

<comment><USER5> Wire transfers are directly from one bank to another, and will go through same-day. ACH is like writing a check, but saves you having to handle the physical paper. It still goes through all the same automated batch processing as a check, so it takes a few days to clear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Kimerling + Townsend = disrupting payments. These guys are great and think this solution is going to completely disrupt the world.

</comment><comment><USER7> Good luck!

I wrote a post a while back about how I would like to be able to set up triggers to take action on deposits -- a sort of IFTTT for your bank. It sounds like Standard Treasury ultimately could make this possible, which would be awesome.

[http://www.recursion.org/2013/3/23/webhooks-for- paychecks](http://www.recursion.org/2013/3/23/webhooks-for-paychecks)

<comment><USER8> Thanks for the link! We have this exact use case in mind, actually. Trigger based web hooks for transactions is definitely something a few people have mentioned to us and that we're talking to our bank partners about.

<comment><USER7> Cool, I will keep an eye out for announcements regarding this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This could potentially be huge!

I had a similar problem once, where my local bank couldn't provide enough functionality through their existing web banking system, so I ended up writing my own REST API for the bank based on screen scraping / HTML scraping. Terrible approach for something that involves money, but luckily this was read-only and only for proof of concept.

<comment><USER8> (I work on Standard Treasury)

Screen and HTML scraping is pretty standard for getting information out of bank systems. That's even primarily what Yodlee does! It's a lot harder to work directly with the banks, but in the long-term it will allow us to offer REST APIs and web hooks that make a lot more sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Connectivity between businesses and bank payment platforms is a huge point of pain for both banks and their customers. Large banks have been focused on resolving this with their largest clients (enabling connectivity to SAP, Oracle, etc.), but there hasn't been a big push elsewhere. Hopefully this will benefit smaller banks and smaller businesses as well.

</comment><comment><USER11> Sounds like what we need... a way to enable a payment from one of our customers to another. Not a wire, not a credit card transaction, can't require anything more than a regular bank account on both sides of the transaction.

</comment><comment><USER12> Zac and Dan know this space inside and out. I've dealt pretty extensively with Wells Fargo and I can tell you it is extraordinarily painful. These banks need all the help they can get.

</comment><comment><USER13> Sounds like a great idea! I wish you strength for the integration part, I do the same thing in the travel industry, the hidden complexity of these systems is absolutely incredible. People complain about win32, but this stuff is one step further. Most of it is still compatible with systems from the early 70s.. Welcome to the wonderful world of TTY, EDIFACT, TPF and all the rest :-)

</comment><comment><USER14> I had the pleasure of working with Dan at Giftly. These guys are smart and have some big ideas. Looking forward to seeing the company grow.

</comment><comment><USER15> Direct banking customer to customer with an API...oh yes many marketplaces would enjoy that (essentially acting like a phone operator that connects both parties).

I can see some value in providing a way for some third party (i.e. the marketplace) to escrow down the line.

Good luck :)

</comment><comment><USER16> Can someone from Standard Treasury comment on the security model they are using for these API's?

<comment><USER8> This question is one we're still answering with banks. The exact security model will likely differ slightly by bank, depending on their idiosyncratic wishes and standards. Also, the security model could be broken down in to (a) How do we talk to the banks (b) How is our system secured and (c) How do end- developers talk to our systems.

For the last one, which is what I think you're asking, it seems like our bank partners will settle on (1) a long, random, high-entropy API secret key (like Stripe) or SID/auth token combo (like Twilio) or (2) Both the secret key AND something like OAuth because banks really want multi-factor authorization. But again, nothing is set yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Curious why their logo appears to be a downward-biased ticker with a negative color combination!

<comment><USER8> (I work on Standard Treasury).

Yes! We need a new logo. Know any good designers: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6014763](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6014763) ?</comment></comment>


How To: Stop procrastination (Dan Ariely) - <AUTHOR> http://bigthink.com/ideas/dan-ariely-how-can-people-overcome-procrastination

<comment><USER2> It's a bit of a misleading title, it's not all about procrastination and it's not much of a howto either.

It's about how you can do many things better than standard economics would indicated if you take into account the irrationality of human beings.

For example, everyone leaves reports to the last minute. Commiting to earlier deadlines makes no sense to a 'rational' human being, but can help actual human beings.

Here's a link to his research paper on this topic: <http://www.predictablyirrational.com/pdfs/deadlines.pdf>

And his book site: <http://www.predictablyirrational.com/>

</comment><comment><USER3> How to stop procrastination, step 1:

Watch a video on how to stop procrastination.

Oh, wait...

<comment><USER4> It doesn't play for me. I guess I'll have to get work done now...

<comment><USER5> I think you'd enjoy my favourite productivity blog:

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

<comment><USER6> I was hoping for something with the same design sense as:

<http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/>

Your link is a lot more cluttered in comparison ;)

<comment><USER4> Haha, it has an RSS feed. I love that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Actually, does not tell how to stop procrastination, just how they might help people stop their procrastination in the lecture (offer early deadlines). How am I supposed to translate this to my real life (where's no professor who'll punish me if I don't keep my early deadline?).

Besides, made me procrastinate my work further by watching the video...

<comment><USER6> There's a strategy called "structured procrastination" where you overload yourself with work to the point where you can only put one thing off to do something different.

One way to enforce early deadlines (well, short deadlines) is to take on another project, get that done, and then for your other project, the deadline is now a couple weeks shorter :)

<comment><USER8> Here's John Perry's essay on structured procrastination:

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Since the website is down, here's a research paper from him that I assume gives you the info from the video (probably more substantive as well)

[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.predictablyirrational.com%2Fpdfs%2Fdeadlines.pdf&ei=aYDkScOWMpTrlQeV7fTfDg&usg=AFQjCNGmkOEDJ0JBsBk7QbKNGZvR9Gn5Aw&sig2=A-fdbyAWslsKj1B1YMBInQ)

</comment><comment><USER10> We'll look at it shortly...</comment>


Ask HN: Ask for earnest money with offer? - <AUTHOR> My co-founder and I have been running a small software company by ourselves in a low cost of living area for several years.  We are in discussions with a larger company in the same industry who says they are preparing a formal offer.  We are expecting it to be high 6-figures, low 7-figures, which could be enough for us to accept, depending on specifics.  We will be working with a lawyer, but want to keep the fees manageable.
I have seen stories where the bigger company takes months in due diligence to inspects financials, code, etc. then walks away and builds their own version, instead of following through with an acquisition.
What can be done to minimize this risk?  We were thinking a non-refundable earnest deposit, maybe 5-10% of the purchase price.  Has anyone come across this on either side of a deal?  I like to think it would discourage window shoppers, but for a larger company this amount it is still relatively cheap for market research and insight into a competitor.  If they walked away it would not prevent their competition, but would at least give us something for our time spent on the deal. <comment><USER2> There was an Ask HN about this with a huge thread of comments. Perhaps you can search and find it-- was within the last year or so.

I'd recommend getting a business person to bat for you on this rather than negotiating directly. And I believe you are low with your 5-10% number, if it goes anything past a simple meeting.

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't found that thread, but might not be using the right keywords. In case this helps anyone else, these threads came up from a couple years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3624505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3624505) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7074264](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7074264)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A strong NDA is probably more beneficial than the earnest deposit. Think of it this way - if their plan is to just do some diligence and copy your business, how will the 5% earnest money stop them? 5% of the purchase price is much cheaper than 100%. So, paying 5% won't incentivize them to finish the deal. It will just somewhat increase their costs.

</comment><comment><USER4> Can you have a lawyer write up a non compete or confidentiallity agreement? That should protect you I would think. Maybe tied into a refundable earnest deposit of 20%. So if they show they have not violated the confidentiallity but do not want to do it, they get the deposit back, afte a year or some such time.

I think yo are smart for worrying about this.</comment>


The Two Silicon Valleys: One of Haves, One of Have-Nots - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/the-two-silicon-valleys-one-of-haves-one-of-have-nots/ <comment><USER2> >> While whites and Asians are making more money, blacks and Latinos are falling further behind.

What is the author trying to say? The truth is blacks and Latinos need to step it up.

I come from a Mexican-American family, and have ten aunts and uncles. I'm constantly amazed (or is it baffled) with the disparity between each of the grandchildren, even within the same family.

My aunts and uncles all have at least 3, and at most 5 children. Some ended up in prison, some ended up pregnant at the age of 14, some dropped out of high school and some went on to finish college. Most are employed at various levels. But when it comes to which ones are 'successful' and don't have the problems the others have, it basically came down to personal choices they made along the way, and continue to make (the oldest is 42 years old, the youngest are just now finishing high school).

The worst-off grandchildren generally have parents in equally bad situations. But one family has two convicts, a do-nothing, but then a nurse and a teacher. The biggest 'help' seems to be from the parent marrying someone who's from a better situation, but it's not always the case. Only about 5 of the grandchildren are married.

My point is these kids all came from the same schools, same neighborhoods, same families, and some of them managed to make it through while the rest became statistics. Much of the problem is that the majority have all stayed put in this rust-belt city with no jobs and no future.

<comment><USER3> I know what you're trying to say, and I understand that you believe you have a set of individuals with upbringings that are relatively equal, for all intents and purposes, but as an African-American your comment rubs me the wrong way. Sometimes, even when people come from the same family, you have to realize that each person's situation is unique. Especially when you have such a disparity in age: from 42 years old to 18 years old.

Allow me to present some counter anecdotal "evidence." I have two brothers. We're all 6 years apart; I'm 21, the middle is 27, and the oldest is 33. We've ended up in vastly different situations due to a series of personal choices affected and limited by the environment we were given. The environment that one grows up in, even within their family, is such an important factor.

The amount of money and mobility my parents had, when my oldest brother was born, was an order of a magnitude less than what they had when I was born. As a result, my oldest brother's only option was public school in an underfunded district for grades 1-12. College was out of the qusetion, even if he could make it! On the other hand, my middle brother had the option to go to private school for grades 1-12, and graduated from University of Miami. For me, it was private school for grades 1-8, and when my parents were faced with the decision of sending me to the same public school my oldest brother went to, they moved instead to send me to one of the best public schools in the state. My oldest brother didn't have that option.

So when you see my oldest brother unable to hold down a moderately well-paying blue-collar job, and me working a low six-figure white-collar job, you can't simply say that one of us needs to "step it up." We are largely a product of the totality of our environment.

<comment><USER4> The problem is that you cannot say whether your older brother is the way he is because of a lifetime of crummy public schooling or just because he's wired that way. The age old causation vs correlation issue.

All else equal (in this case, primarily your family), I don't think school quality has much to do with whether you are relatively dysfunctional as an adult. Family values, work ethic, and god-given intelligence probably make up 95% of your outcome in life.

<comment><USER5> School quality absolutely has a big impact on how well you do in life, that's not even a question. If you go to a school where most of your classmates read 2 or 3 grades below grade level and your teachers struggle every day to maintain order in the class, much less teach the actual subjects, of course it hurts the students. When you go to a school that is overrun with gangs and you have to take care when walking home from school lest you get gunned down, that certainly makes it far more difficult to do well in school.

A kid's upbringing and environment at home also play very large factors. Truth is that all of those things matter.

I think whether or not someone does well in life is game of probabilities. If you go to a bad school, it lowers your probability of doing well in life. If they have great parents maybe that cancels out that negative, maybe it doesn't. Some people will beat the odds and do well at a bad school with bad parenting. But that doesn't mean that access to a quality school doesn't have a big impact.

<comment><USER4> Well, I suppose you are right, but you have to cite an extreme case of literally worrying about getting murdered every day. Do those schools exist? Yes, but they are few and far between, and there is a _world_ of difference between "underfunded" and the case you're citing. Since the original comment made no mention of a gangland war zone at his brother's school (seems relevant to the story) I assumed this was not the case, though I could be wrong in which case I'll concede the point.

Does school quality have an impact? Sure, I think around the edges it does. It can certainly grease the wheels. But over time the people who are wired properly for success (good values, work ethic, god-given intelligence) usually figure out a way. Perhaps more accurately, they don't live relatively dysfunctional adult lives and are unable to hold "neck down" jobs.

<comment><USER3> Just to provide context, underfunded was my nice way of saying exactly what you describe. Kids have been stabbed and gun fights have broken out inside the school.

That was my fault for not making it clear, I apologize.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the clarification. As I said, in these extreme cases then yes, I do believe school plays a larger role than normal.

Also, to further clarify, I think the more important issue with school isn't so much the quality of the learning going on or what material is being taught or whether every classroom has smartboard or whatever. I think it has far more to do with the nature of the kids you're surrounded with, whether one starts hanging out with the wrong crowd which can corrupt all those other things (iq, family values, etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Fewer than half of first-time home buyers in Silicon Valley, including in places like Palo Alto, Calif., can afford to purchase a median-priced home"

Half of people purchase homes that are below the median price.

Thanks for the insight there, NYT.

<comment><USER7> I thought America was over the house-horniness of the early 2000s?

Why is the inability to buy a home in one of the most expensive areas of the US a danger sign? Do you read articles about not being able to afford homes in Manhattan? It's a given!

<comment><USER8> Actually, housing affordability is almost always a policy issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can someone explain why we do not see the "us vs. them " in NY/NJ/CT. I used to live in LI , where a lot successful Wall Street Bankers lived and never once did I hear about this kind of resentment. I am just puzzled .

<comment><USER10> I lived in NYC for 12 years prior to moving to Silicon Valley and spent 8 of those years in the finance industry.

NYC government created a symbiotic relationship with the finance industry. NYC used the tax revenue from the high income earners to build up local infrastructure and make the city a better place. In the 12 years that I was there and the many more that I've been there in the region, the city had improved drastically. This was to the betterment of everyone.

Part of what made NYC great was its transportation infrastructure. It moved millions of people around the city at all times of the day. There was no class structure in the Subways; the 1% rode the subways alongside the service workers. People got a sense that everyone benefited from the increase in income and tax revenue.

This was dramatically different on the west coast. In the Bay Area, the local government create policies (limiting housing specifically) that don't benefit the long term future of the region. Compared to NYC, SF governance is pretty dysfunctional.

When I first moved out here, I was shocked by how lacking the transportation infrastructure was. I always had the vision that Silicon Valley and SF was high tech and that the public transportation infrastructure must be better than NYC. This was not the case. This lead to the high income earners to create a separate transportation system that benefit them (Uber, corporate shuttles, etc). This leads to a lot of friction between the haves and have not.

<comment><USER11> You hit the nail on the head about transit, because the Bay Area's poor transit system exacerbates the problem creating by gentrification and rising rents.

I used to work in Midtown, and commute in from New Rochelle, a city that's mostly working class hispanics with a few yuppie high rises near the train station. The ~18 mile trip used to take just over 35 minutes on Metro North, and the service was highly reliable as well as highly available (8 trains to GCT between 7:02 am and 8:47 am). One stop closer to Manhattan was Pehlam, an upper middle class white area. The next stop after that was Mt. Vernon, a working class black area. There were two other lines through Westchester, each stopping in dozens of towns and with similar service. In sum, it was very practical to work in Manhattan but live in a town where rent wasn't totally unaffordable for people outside the upper middle class.

There is nothing comparable in the Bay Area. Rising rents don't just mean moving a slightly longer walk away from the train, or down another stop, but possibly moving somewhere else entirely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >rents are increasing faster than incomes, especially for the middle class.

This bothers me constantly. The middle class _is_ the "Haves." It would be really useful if more people were aware of and honest about where they actually stand in society, but poor people don't want to be called poor and rich people don't want to be called rich.

</comment><comment><USER13> > Otherwise, the only people left will be the entrepreneurs and engineers.

> "The bar is so steep, the only people who can locate here are the high- > income earners," Mr. Hancock said. "We're losing our middle class in Silicon > Valley."

I don't get it. Does being a engineer automatically make me upper-class? Because I'm an engineer and I certainly make a middle-class income (albeit likely being an upper middle-class income). I'd be willing to bet the average engineer living in Silicon Valley does as well.

<comment><USER14> If you will ever have a mortgage, you are middle class. The lower class don't qualify and the upper class inherit the family estate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "We're losing our middle class in Silicon Valley."

I think the term has been eroded, but historically, white collar _was_ the middle class. Blue collar, white collar, rentiers.

<comment><USER16> It does feel like articles like this pit the lower class against the middle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> >> Fewer than half of first-time home buyers can afford to purchase a median- priced home, and rents are increasing faster than incomes, especially for the middle class.

Dafuq? Isn't that the definition of the median?

</comment><comment><USER18> Why worry? Every boomtown in history had the same things happening, pricing out its original population (if one existed). At least they enjoy the ability to sell their homes for many times the price they paid for it, and buy way better ones elsewhere (especially now when home prices nationwide are quite low on average), this way ripping a great lot of boom's benefits (i'd even say, more than a median techie-newcomer will ever get from it).

</comment><comment><USER19> I am a HN reader, so I have to criticize this article that criticizes Silicon Valley:

Oh, this article is so inaccurate! What cheap journalism! I am so outraged.

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess that was sarcasm.

<comment><USER19> It wasn't. HN readers have no idea what is going on in the world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm not sure why but somehow it hard for non-white to succeed in white society... It is vicious circle.

But I want to point out that belief of newly rich white libertarians that market will solve this in peaceful way is a very dangerous dream. Trotsky said "not believing in force is like not believing in gravity".

</comment><comment><USER21> "We have to be intentional as a community about addressing inequality."

Whenever I read someone making a statement like this or an article about "inequality" I wonder if the author of the statement or article actually believes the bullshit that he's spewing out. People pay so much lip service to the idea of inequality that one would think it appears on some political agenda or another. I suppose it's the expected topic of conversation, even as nothing is done about it. Ever. Call me cynical, but I have yet to see any action to remedy this and I simply do not believe that action on economic equality is anything but lip service.

</comment><comment><USER22> > While whites and Asians are making more money, blacks and Latinos are > falling further behind.

In London it is kind of oposite. You can only live in central london if you are filthy rich, or non-white and get social housing.

<comment><USER23> White people are excluded from social housing in central London?

<comment><USER22> Theoretically no, practically yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The main problem with the article, I think, is that it tries to align the oppositions between native-born and new comer, tech and non-tech, rich and poor, educated and not, advantaged ethnic groups and disadvantaged. They don't really align very well, though they do some, and each deserves its own discussion, if one is really going to talk about social problems.

</comment><comment><USER25> "The public opposes most new construction, not realizing that it's the key to keeping jobs"

</comment><comment><USER26> I have a hard time taking these kinds of articles seriously, because the main premise seems to be "you should feel some sort of moral guilt because you're not solving problems that are important to the author."</comment>


John McAfee predicts $500,000 Bitcoin within 3 years - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/887012614131372032 <comment><USER2> _" if not, I will eat my dick on national television."_ [https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/887024683379544065](https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/887024683379544065)

There's a longbets.org joke in this.

<comment><USER3> I'm guessing he would buy a single coin for $500k in 2020, rather than take the bet loss.

<comment><USER4> He doesn't even have to buy a single coin. He can just buy a fraction for $500,000 if you want to be technical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd sell calls with a $500K strike price all day.

<comment><USER6> Name your expiration and ask. Cheap enough, it's worth the gamble!</comment></comment>


How do you beat the lurker factor ? Got 1000-1500 uniques a month. Feels like two people. - <AUTHOR>

Google Analytics tells me I have 1000-1500 unique users a month. But it feels like I'm talking to myself.<p>Am I boring people to death ? <comment><USER2> Get more visitors, and it'll probably solve itself.

We get about 40,000 visitors a month, and have only a couple hundred unique posters during the same period. Participating users are always significantly less common than lurkers.

Of course, you might have more friction preventing participation than you should. Is your signup process crappy? If you ask more than two or three questions (username, password, optional email address), then your signup process is crappy and needs to be fixed. Do you require all posts to parse a CAPTCHA? Once during signup is probably enough--it's certainly enough until you have a spam problem to deal with. Do you make people agree to a long "terms of service"? Unless you really plan to enforce it in court, don't make folks click through...just include it on the site somewhere so you can point to it when you want to revoke someone's post privileges and need a fair reason to do so.

And, maybe you are boring people to death. I don't know, and couldn't help if you were. Just keep working on improving your site, making it sticky so people stick around and tell their friends about it, provide good content so that search engines send people your way, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, big spikes in traffic often equals more customers. But not always. If you screw up the demographic data in an advertising campaign you just get clicking monkeys who likes to install spyware.

People like my software, but are probably bored to tears by my web presence. And therefore I get very few comments on my blog. I was hoping for more info so I can tune my software. Maybe I have to build in some social stuff into the main website ?

<comment><USER2> Do you have forums?

A blog is just not useful to the vast majority of your users (or, even if it is, they are not investing the time to read it). Our product website gets, as I mentioned, 40k visitors per month...our blog gets about 2000. Our forums are very active, because they provide a mechanism for people to get help and talk about their problems and goals. People love to talk...but it sounds like you're wanting them to only talk to _you_ (because commenting on a blog feels like talking to one person--talking to a forum feels like talking to the world), when what they really want is a range of experiences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Whether it's a blog or a network or a community tool addon thingy, what you need most is to let people know that their contributions are both need and likely not redundant to others. Polls can get the ball rolling, but they are a gamble. Nothing is sadder than a three-day-old poll with two votes. Nothing is stopping you from boosting those numbers behind the scenes, though.

Don't expect people to chime in in a reaction to a specifically popular or unpopular opinion. "Me too" and "Screw you", despite their popularity in popular spots, are no fun to write and won't be written, even if strongly felt, in an empty room. Expressing a unique, rare, and non-antagonistic opinion, and then asking for others, is more likely to get reactions than "I like music, do you like music?" or "Taxes suck, am I right?"

Also, invite pride. If people have profiles or pages, let them create something that they can point others too. Allow for long, weird contributions.

<comment><AUTHOR> My system is not very open. I get 100 000 spam comments on my blog per year. A thousand or so get through the automated defense system. So people who comment don't get a fluid conversation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a good analysis at Trovus [http://www.trovus.co.uk/blogs/137-community-contributor- acti...](http://www.trovus.co.uk/blogs/137-community-contributor-activity)

It certainly supports that your experience is common, and more importantly gives you a framework to improve (ie, make 'Groupies' 'Doers', and 'Doers' 'Stars').

<comment><AUTHOR> DZone whines about this problem every day now :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> well, that depends on what we're talking about here. blog? application? etc..

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm talking about my blog. I have one blog + sign up process for my paying customers. I don't have the server capacity to go free. I sell software btw. I'm trying to give my customers something extra by offering web login, license control, bookmarking, whois, search, etc. It is probably way to boring though.

The blog thing is great. It has tripled my traffic and 25 percent of incoming users are now from search engines.

<comment><USER5> blogs will definitely do that.

there are tons of great resources for blogging that will give you ideas on how to get participation on your posts.

i'd suggest checking out problogger or something similar for ideas.</comment></comment></comment>


UK Government plans to create a "Silicon Valley" in London - <AUTHOR> http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/11/04/uk-government-plans-east-london-tech-cluster-startup-visa-review-of-ip-law-200-million-in-finance-what/

<comment><USER3> Are you a government bureaucrat desperate to leaven all the recent talk of cutbacks and austerity with a touch of high-tech fairy dust? Enjoy the idea of hobnobbing with exciting personalities like Steve Ballmer and Mark Hurd? Follow my simple guide and your country can also enjoy the limitless prosperity and social harmony with which the technology industry has blessed California!

First, you'll need a name. It has to start with the word 'Silicon', even if the only silicon that will be present comes stamped with the Intel logo. Next, choose a geographic feature. Unfortunately, the best geographic features have already been claimed. May I suggest "Silicon Muskeg"?

Now, if you visit the actual Silicon Valley, you will see a lot of office buildings. Ample supply of office space is _the_ reason Silicon Valley is a success. So, the first thing you're going to need is a nice big, empty space to build offices. Lots of them. Try to find an economically depressed area, far from the places educated workers live (cheap!) and miles from public transit. Make sure this area is zoned so that only large, expensive cubicle farms and parking lots will be built, as this is the most efficient use of space. No services are necessary, as the people working here can simply drive into the city if they require food or drink.

Also, it is vital that your new offices be supplied with fiber-optic Internet service. Rare and difficult as this may be to provide, Internet service is what separates your mind-bending city of the future from the primitive hovels your country's technology industry now inhabits.

No replica of Silicon Valley would be complete without tenants! And so, your final task is to fill these offices with the industries that define the dynamism and forward-thinking spirit of Silicon Valley: IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and Dell! Don't waste your time on small fry: Fortune 500 only, please. It matters not if your new offices are filled with call centers and rebate- processing facilities, because the very _soul_ of technology will leach from the telephones and TPS reports, permeating the landscape with the pure essence of innovation.

So huzzah, dear bureaucrat, and godspeed!

<comment><USER4> I'm guessing you aren't currently a part of the east london startup community.

I'm excited. When we moved the company here, one of my co-founders was deported (back to America). Not helpful. The investors here are very good (Index, Atlas, Accel, Eden, etc), but there's not a huge number of them. Official momentum like this has a good chance of getting other investors to have a more official presence here (a few from NY visit with some regularity, but we rarely see the valley's firms).

Little things like good internet will help a lot. My office has just 7 or 8 people in it and we're using a combination of two home DSL connections and a 3G modem. That's the best we can do and it's outrageously bad. Larger offices (20+ people) face an ongoing and unending battle just keeping their team online.

I don't really get the objection to the big tech companies having a presence.. in an ideal world would you want to boot them out of the valley, too? They offer jobs which are both an attraction to new tech talent from all over the EU and a fallback in the case that a startup doesn't work out. Without the presence of big tech companies, you also lose the primary acquirer of small tech companies.

Finally, and most importantly, they didn't just choose some arbitrary "poor" spot on the map. The particular area in east london they're targeting is arguably the best startup hub in Europe, and is undoubtedly the best in the UK. Lots of great founders are already here, and I'm pleased that there's some official support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Our pg has, of course, had much to say about the feasibility of this kind of thing:

* <http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html>

* <http://www.paulgraham.com/startuphubs.html>

* <http://www.paulgraham.com/maybe.html> (a proposed recipe for how to do maybe create a new startup hub; that's actually somewhat more modest than what the tc article describes)

The most salient quote from those articles, IMO: "Of course, a would-be silicon valley faces an obstacle the original one didn't: it has to compete with Silicon Valley."

I would note that if the UK are serious about this "entrepeneur visa" then that could get very interesting. Currently I can't imagine fighting through the federal paperwork required to start a company in California if I weren't already an American. Should this hub nucleate properly I can imagine most non- UK non-US citizens vastly preferring dealing with UK immigration to what has to be a frustrating US system. (Any non-UK non-US folks care to comment more informedly on this?)

And real estate is stupidly expensive in London, so they're halfway to Silicon Valley already.

[Edit: formatting]

<comment><USER6> Working in the UK seems to be relatively easy for people from Commonwealth countries, e.g. India. For EU citizens it's even simpler. I don't know about the conditions for Americans working here, though.

So, I agree, easier immigration is one point to base your leverage on, when competing with silicon valley.

The area around Cambrige, UK, already toys with the slightly pretentious name of Silicon Fen.

<comment><USER7> Pretentious, maybe, but it hosts a world-class company (ARM).

<comment><USER6> More than one. But it takes quite a few swallows to make a summer. (I am working in the Cambridge Science Park.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If they're serious, and it sounds like they are, I'd suggest two more changes that weren't mentioned in the article:

(1) An employee in the UK can currently be required to keep working at a company for 3 months after giving notice. This should be shortened.

(2) Make most non-competes unenforceable. This is a very under-appreciated reason why silicon valley prospers.

<comment><USER9> This is not quite right: 1\. In the UK you are not required to work three months after giving notice unless it is a provision of your contract of employment. If you don't have a written contract - then you will be entitled to a statutory notice period that roughly accrues in weekly units depending on years worked - but with cap. However,you can be paid in lieu of notice. It is fine to employ someone on one months notice - and less if they have worked for you for less than twelve months. 2\. Restrictive covenants are unenforceable in the UK if they are unreasonably wide. ie you may be restricted for a year from hopping into a company that does the same thing in the same area. But not from using you transferable skills in a different company or different area. If someone tries to get you to sign to a two year, 200 mile radius, transferable skill / different business restriction - sign it and don't worry as it will not be enforceable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> When asked can Chile make a Silicon Valley by pouring money into it?, the Chilean minister of economy speaking at Stanford responded that unlike other countries (such as Russia, and now UK) Chile will try the following instead of pouring money into it: 1\. Create Role Models (Young Chilean entrepreneurs that succeed) 2\. Reform the laws (bankruptcy and immigration laws) 3\. Invest in Universities to promote technology 4\. Start networking programs with Silicon Valley (for example they brought a bunch of their entrepreneurs here to work for a while, and are taking some entrepreneurs from here to mix the cultures).

In general he also said that they need to remove the negative view of failure somehow, which doesn't exist in silicon valley, but they haven't figured out how to approach this one yet.

<comment><USER6> Yes. I also caught an interview with Chile's president the other day. It contained remarkably little bullshit for a politician (almost nothing). The interview was about the miners' rescue.

<comment><USER10> I found the Chilean minister of economy's talk quite interesting and smart, but I guess his audience was Stanford students and not the general public, so he could talk differently.

<comment><USER6> That may be true. Even some politicians I heard at home where quite reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I really like the comment:

        > "Facebook will create a permanent home in East London for
        > their Developer Garage programme" – hmm, that's news to us!
        > [...]
        > Dave Nattriss
        > Secretary
        > Facebook Developer Garage London

I wonder how that happened.

</comment><comment><USER12> (copied from the dup'd thread)

Why this won't work: You can't build a startup cluster to "renew an area".

It doesn't work like that. Old Street works because the location is decent (safe and well connected), it's cheap and the other companies there. The area has to attract people who want to work there and you can't artificially build that.

The location they're proposing put this new tech area goes through the area known as "murder mile". Yes it's cheap, but it's high crime rate means startups aren't going to locate there. It would be like trying to build a startup cluster in the Bronx because it's near the NY startup community.

<comment><USER13> Funny you should mention the Bronx! NYC is doing just that. Heh. Article posted today: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1866360>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Thrilled to see more investment money for London. It's so often overlooked compared to the rest of the UK.

I see lots of people desperately trying to push startups/startup culture up here in Edinburgh, meanwhile everyone leaves for London or expects you to relocate to London.

<comment><USER15> It is the network effect. Sure you could try to get all your friends onto Friendster but most of them are already on Facebook. (poor example I know, why would anyone want to do that!?).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Love the sentiment, but I'm not sure they're going about it in the right way. Of course any attention and funding is better than none, but instead of getting McKinsey to advise someone or open a few offices in East London I would much rather:

* UK GOV creates a stupidly attractive tax and investment climate so that VCs are practically falling over themselves to invest in UK companies. The EIS scheme and VCT schemes are ok, but they could make these 10x more attractive. * Create jaw-dropping incentives for startups who deliver on what the UK GOV want, basically exporting services or creating jobs. Those kinds of companies should be afforded amazing incentives such as little to no tax for x years, no crazy 12% benefits to pay employees and how about little to no paperwork. * Perhaps some type of matched-investment scheme, where UK GOV will match investment from private angels or VC's * I am extremely encouraged to see that the gov is thinking about opening up procurement to small businesses. I fear that this won't happen in a timely manner and will face extreme hurdles. It is virtually impossible to get on the supplier list of the gov now, and even if you as a small hosted startup managed to pull of such a feat the first thing the local IT bod would ask for is SAS70 Type II compliance because that is government mandated. It seems crazy to us, being a UK startup, that one of the least likely customers would be our own government. You'd think they should be _mandated_ to buy from small British companies in the spirit of helping your own economy.

It is really difficult to create a climate of risk taking that is evident in the valley which is fairly critical to this whole endeavor, I don't know how one manages to do that. But I sincerely hope someone manages to find out.

There just isn't the same tolerance for risk here in the UK and so the only mechanism I can see to break this scenario is to offer out of order incentives.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is a nice idea but I believe is in the wrong location and the government has missed an opportunity. London simply has far too expensive housing and is too crowded and a lot of smart people won't live there. Silicon Fen in near Cambridge also has very high housing costs. A UK silicon valley needs to happen where its cheap to live, geeks actually want to live there, and there are decent transport links to London. I think a better tactic would be to electrify the Midland Mainline to make the trains to/from the north faster. Then you could make tech hubs in places like Nottingham (which is a fun place for 20-somethings to go out AND has cheap family housing too) or Sheffield (ditto and has rock climbing on the doorstep as well). Its ridiculous how so much tech work in the UK is concentrated in the crowded expensive south-east, and I believe an enlightened government would try to capitalise on the talent in the rest of the UK.

<comment><USER9> Shoreditch - Silicon Ditch - is a great area to work - it has a great buzz and creativity - and living is not too expensive if you head further into east london - you don't have to live in west london, which admittedly is too pricey.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Any votes for Silicon Ditch? "Silicon Roundabout" is one name that has stuck for the tech cluster around the ugly traffic circle in the Old Street area of Shoreditch, East London. I think "Silicon Ditch" is catchier and maybe articulates the British penchant for self-deprecation better...

<comment><USER18> Too similar/evocative of the existing "Silicon Fen" just 50 miles north.

<comment><USER9> Yes but Silicon Ditch definitely evokes the grimey feel of Old Street. A founder of Huddle described Silicon Valley as Reading (UK) but with sun and palm trees. Even if you filled Old Street with sun and palm trees - it would still be grime - central (though I love working there).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's hard to express how angry this makes me feel.

They've just supposedly slashed public spending which will result in the loss of thousands of public sector jobs - mainly in the less affluent north - <USER2> now they're planning to invest some of the 'savings' made from that action into the already over-invested south. Taking from the poor to give to the wealthy.

There are cities in the UK other than London. Birmingham and Manchester for instance.

I am seething.

</comment><comment><USER20> The problem is that you can't "create" Silicon Valley.

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally agree, the bay area will always be preferred over other centers. But I think this will be a great alternative for European entrepreneurs that can't secure a visa to start up in the US.

<comment><USER21> >>the bay area will always be preferred over other centers

I can guarantee that in 5 billion years from now that won't be the case ;-) In this fast moving world it will probably take a lot less time for powerful technology business centers to emerge in BRIC and elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> link to full article: [http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/11/04/uk-government- plans-east...](http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/11/04/uk-government-plans-east- london-tech-cluster-startup-visa-review-of-ip-law-200-million-in-finance- what/)

</comment><comment><USER23> It would be refreshing.... the US is far too restrictive with it's Visas.</comment>


Today the Apple Watch Platform Begins Its Evolution - <AUTHOR> http://arc.applause.com/2015/04/10/apple-watch-launch-developer-platform/

<comment><AUTHOR> The Apple Watch platform's evolution will really start when Apple opens it to allow independent developers to build native apps later this year and designers master a new kind of app.</comment>


Connect: behind the front-end experience - <AUTHOR> https://stripe.com/blog/connect-front-end-experience <comment><USER2> It's always interesting to see real world applications of new Web functionality, so kudos to the Stripe team for pushing the envelope in an environment where mistakes could surely be expensive. I hadn't realised that CSS Grid Layout was a viable option for production use yet, for example, so TIL.

I do wonder whether sometimes the code here is using trendy tools just to be trendy, though. For example, is

        const getDistance = (state, rotate) =>
          ["x", "y"].reduce((object, axis) => {
            object[axis] = Math.abs(state[axis] + rotate[axis]);
            return object;
          }, {});

really an improvement on grandpa's version

        function getDistance(state, rotate) {
            return {
                x: Math.abs(state.x + rotate.x),
                y: Math.abs(state.y + rotate.y)
            };
        }

    ?

<comment><USER3> Yeah, that's a strange piece of code, particularly since it introduces mutation (object[axis] = ...) and additional processing (reduce loop and inner function construction) that the naive example doesn't. It is _slightly_ more generalizable to additional dimensions, but that seems awfully YAGNI to me. I suppose it prevents repetition of the Math.abs call and addition, but again that seems like massive overkill. I'd write it as follows, similar to yours:

        const getDistance = (state, rotate) => ({
          x: Math.abs(state.x + rotate.x),
          y: Math.abs(state.y + rotate.y),
        })

TBH, this thread is pretty nitpicky, but I do agree with your assessment.

<comment><USER2> _TBH, this thread is pretty nitpicky, but I do agree with your assessment._

Yes and no.

On the one hand, the much more interesting parts here are the new APIs they've been using (and also IMHO the intelligent way they're handling compatibility and polyfills). All credit to the Stripe team both for making these tools work and for sharing what they've learned in the process for the benefit of others.

On the other hand, I think there is a real cultural problem in the JS community where newer is equated with better, and those defending that position will not infrequently appeal to authority by saying that Facebook or Stripe or Google or whoever does it so it must be a best practice. Grandpa here is getting awfully bored of young whippersnappers telling him code using new ES6 tricks is better (or, just as bad, that there's something wrong with clear, working code that does things in some older way). A gentle challenge to that assumption in a discussion about how these high profile organisations are using the new technologies doesn't seem either impolite or unjustified.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Stripe's design continually makes me envious. I hope to one day own a product that matches their level of quality.

</comment><comment><USER5> Their landing pages are just so beautiful, like fine art. I do wonder though the return on investment. The pages must take forever to create. Perhaps Stripe just has that much cash.

<comment><USER6> _Perhaps Stripe just has that much cash._

Paypal is far bigger Stripe, so it's not that.

<comment><USER7> That doesn't mean Stripe is small.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Fucking stupendous. Stripe is continually pushing the envelope. Outstanding work.

</comment><comment><USER9> How does CSS Grid compare to CSS Flexible Box ("Flexbox") for user interface design? According to W3C:

* CSS Grid "defines a two-dimensional grid-based layout system, optimized for user interface design."[1]

* Flexbox is "a CSS box model optimized for user interface design."[2]

It looks like CSS Grid is optimized for two-dimensional layouts, whereas Flexbox is oriented around a single axis.

Are there different use cases? Do they solve the same problem in different ways?

[1]: [https://www.w3.org/TR/css-grid-1/](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-grid-1/)

[2]: [https://www.w3.org/TR/css-flexbox-1/](https://www.w3.org/TR/css- flexbox-1/)

<comment><USER10> I'll give an example of something you can't do with a one-dimensional layout system like Flexbox but can do with Grid Layouts: a staggered grid/one made of nonuniform cells: [https://i.stack.imgur.com/QI2ol.png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QI2ol.png).

These come up quite a bit. Look at Pinterest, it is all staggered/made of nonuniform cells.

<comment><USER11> That's interesting, I didn't know about that. Didn't Pinterest migrate its web front end to using react which uses flexbox for its layout system? If so, how did they do this?

<comment><USER10> React is just a View layer, you can use whatever layout system you want to use with it.

I haven't dug into Pinterest's code but I imagine it's most likely a mix of Flexbox and Multi-column layouts: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_Columns...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_Columns/Using_multi-column_layouts).

Edit: See this blog post on how to combine them to achieve the staggered effect: [https://medium.com/@_jh3y/how-to-pure-css-masonry- layouts-a8...](https://medium.com/@_jh3y/how-to-pure-css-masonry- layouts-a8ede07ba31a).

<comment><USER11> Cool, that's interesting to know. I'm mainly used to using react in the context of react native so I wasn't aware that mixing and matching like that was a thing.

<comment><USER10> Yeah React Native uses Yoga as it's layout engine which only supports Flex box. But for React DOM you get all of CSS, warts and all!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting touch for the Accessibility consideration on the site!

</comment><comment><USER13> Fascinating read! Web Animations are always so cool, but I never know where to start to incorporate them into my own work. What resources help one reach this level of expertise?

</comment><comment><USER14> I love all the effects and they really did them well.

I hate that the current trend amongst webdev'ers in that "no added visual effects!" Black text! White background!

I think it's because the guys that are hyper focused at the programming side of things don't want to think/care about design stuff because they aren't that good at it.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is what happens when a group of really enthusiastic and bright people come together to collaborate and build something. CSS/JS feels like a one man army against the browser but really great things can be accomplished if you have the right people for it

</comment><comment><USER16> beautiful stuff

</comment><comment><USER17> It's neat and all but I feel like there's something so utterly unnecessary and gratuitous about beautiful bouncy payment web widgets.

Makes me sad that CSS programmers make truckloads of money while other workers in the economy rot.

<comment><USER18> Hehe I don't care about downvotes I just want to do this:

1\. CSS isn't a programming language 2\. If "workers in the economy rot" while "CSS 'programmers' make truckloads of money" then they aren't in the right industry.

<comment><USER19> (1) CSS is absolutely a programming language, and a difficult one to master at that.

<comment><USER20> No, CSS is a presentational / style-sheet language.

HTML5 and CSS3 together can provide a Turing-complete environment, but on its own CSS is just absolutely _not_ a programming language.

There are no "CSS programmers" and regardless I don't even know of any web developer who gets paid to only write CSS.

Just a healthy bit of advice, consider refraining from using absolutes when engaging in discussions where you could possibly be incorrect.

It places you in a position where you are unlikely to accept that you are wrong due to personal embarrassment.

<comment><USER19> > No, CSS is a presentational / style-sheet language.

That doesn't make it distinct from programming, you've just added more specificity.

<comment><USER20> Sorry bud, that just isn't the case.

CSS is not turing complete, is not a programming language, etc. It is a declarative, presentational language with no processing capabilities beyond extremely basic math.

There is no if, and, or but about it. Are you a web developer?

* edited to sound like less of an asshole

<comment><USER19> The leap you're making is that turing completeness is a requisite to call something a programming language. Not so.

You need to do more editing.

<comment><USER20> I'm not making that leap at all. I specifically classified turing completeness and being considered a programming separately. Read my post again.

A programming language doesn't need to be turing complete. But CSS is neither of the two.

<comment><USER19> I read your post. You clearly brought in turing completeness to try and support your argument. Your other points I've addressed, think we're done here.

<comment><USER20> I can't help it if you misinterpret my words.

But I very clearly did not conflate turing completeness as a requirement of a programming language. I just thought it was worth mentioning that CSS3 + HTML5 _is_ Turing complete.

And you are still completely incorrect about CSS being a programming language. I think we _are_ done here.

<comment><USER19> > And you are still completely incorrect about CSS being a programming > language.

Nope.

<comment><USER20> [citation needed]

<comment><USER19> wikipedia.com

<comment><USER20> I like that you couldn't link it, because it says nowhere on the page that CSS is a programming language.

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

<comment><USER19> You misunderstood my (granted) flippant point which was meant to mean 'lookup "programming language" on wikipedia', not 'go to the CSS page and look for it to explicitly call it a programming language'.

The whole point is, nothing about CSS being a stylesheet or presentational language makes it fall outside of the definition of programming language.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Okay, I'm gonna say it: I had to chuckle at the name "Connect", because there is already [0], and _even more so_ with Stripe also naming their user onboarding flow "Express", like [1].

Beautiful work nonetheless.

[0] [https://github.com/senchalabs/connect](https://github.com/senchalabs/connect) [1] [https://github.com/expressjs/express](https://github.com/expressjs/express)

</comment><comment><USER22> Nice. But in my experience, front-end design always requires some hacks here and there, e.g. because of compatibility issues or because of design flaws in CSS. So either the Stripe engineers are ridiculously clever, or they are just avoiding the difficult stuff.

<comment><USER23> Their work is really about as good as it gets, so I don't really see how you could conclude they are "avoiding the difficult stuff" \- though quite possibly they don't care very much how their pages render in IE 11 (I don't know!).

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Never used stripe before, I haven't even heard much about them before, but their site(and this blog post) is convincing so I was thinking I will try it, but then I bumped into this thread: [https://ecommerce.shopify.com/c/payments- shipping-fulfilment...](https://ecommerce.shopify.com/c/payments-shipping- fulfilment/t/worst-experience-with-stripe-payment-gate-how-many-people-using- stripe-151491)

Well, this isn't so convincing.

<comment><USER2> That thread is about four years old. Stripe got big very quickly and definitely had some growing pains for a while. Their customer support really was that bad/non-existent for a while. It was a lot of hassle to sort things out when we had a dubious chargeback too.

To give credit where it's due, they have improved since. Gone are the days when they were the small developer's payment service and you could expect to reach technical people straight away via their contact addresses, but they do at least seem to reply to messages eventually now.

IMHO they still have room for improvement. In particular, 24-48 hours for a first substantial response doesn't seem unusual, and that's far too long for a merchant who might have one of their own customers in limbo or some sort of ongoing dispute or fraud that they need to deal with quickly.

But at least Stripe seem to be moving in the right direction and genuinely trying to do better. Our experience of their support is still _much_ better than you'll get from a lot of other payment services if you're only a small merchant.

<comment><USER24> Yes, that thread is four years old, but the latest comment is _2_ days old... So they are still having issues apparently.

<comment><USER2> Given the amount of payments they are processing these days, it seems unrealistic that they would get absolutely everything right every time. You find the same with PayPal, all the major traditional gateways, etc.

Of course, in online forums you see the people who are (sometimes quite reasonably) very upset and shouting about it, but not all the things that worked just fine for every other merchant. There's no way to know whether those stories were the norm or isolated incidents. Importantly, there's also no way to know whether there was more to the stories than the people telling them were letting on, because we only see one side there.

As I said before, Stripe definitely still have room for improvement, and are still often very slow at dealing with things. And I'm sure if anything like some of those stories happened to me, I'd be very aggrieved and warning people off them as well. But I can only comment on my own experience, and so far I'm still inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, because in several years of dealing with them, they generally have fixed any problems eventually and seemed to be genuinely trying to help.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Suicides, Drug Addiction and High School Football - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/sports/opioids-suicide.html <comment><USER2> Ironic that high-school football is being looked to as a solution, while at the same time football is being linked to CTE, depression, and mood disorders. Not to mention the frequent debilitating injuries mentioned in the article.

<comment><USER3> It's not football per se of course, it is belonging to a team, having positive activities to fill spare time, and access to a reliable adult role model (the coach).

<comment><USER4> Then form a community service group, not a sports team. Build housing for the homeless, maintain community infrastructure that has been languishing, participate in agricultural coops, those sorts of things.

Cohesion is built through the journey through a shared struggle or towards a common goal. Build some trade skills while you're at it? Bonus!

<comment><USER5> What you said sounds lame and boring.

Running fast, yelling as loud as possible, and knocking into other people from time to time sounds like a great time.

I'm sure "cohesion built through the journey through a shared struggle" reads very strongly on a resume, but try telling that one girl in class that you're building trade skills on your way towards a common goal.

<comment><USER2> What _you_ said sounds lame and boring.

Snorting a bunch of cocaine and heroin, having unprotected sex with cheerleaders sounds like a great time!

...thus the article.

Maybe we can figure out something fun that won't kill them?

<comment><USER6> Competitive team video games.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sorry, there's better comraderie in a Robotics club than there is getting spinal chord injuries on the field.

<comment><USER8> When I was in highschool and having a rough time (nothing like these kids are going through) then I really liked hockey because for 60 mins only the game mattered, none of the other bull shit. I don't think I could get that at a robotics club, maybe you could.

<comment><USER3> Yeah it all depends on the kid. Some kids love playing football, others love hockey, rugby, baseball, soccer...

Or chess club, robotics, band, theater....

There's no one approach that works for everyone.

<comment><USER7> I highly doubt chess club will give me any broken bones. Band, however, did give me tinnitus (seriously)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One wonders whether opiod decriminalization and treatment, Portugal-style, would have a positive effect on this little town.

They seem to have tried everything else. Maybe it's worth a try.

<comment><USER10> "You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else." \- Winston Churchill

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder that the reasons given for the suicides are. The article doesn't have a single hint as to what they may be. Of course, we can hardly be certain of the motivating factors, but it seems like a place to start in considering solution.

<comment><USER3> I would infer that it's a large number of absentee parents, either working multiple jobs, or drug-addicted, in prison, etc.

Why that leads to suicide I don't know, but teens don't generally have a great sense of the long term. If their future looks bleak now, they don't have the life experience to understand that "now" is temporary and circumstances can and often do change and work out OK in the longer term.</comment></comment>


The Lost Sign Language of Sawmill Workers - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-lost-secret-sign-language-of-sawmill-workers <comment><USER2> This type of thing makes a lot of sense! My friend and I developed a small set of hand signals in a day while working on a project in the desert with high winds that made radios all but useless. We worked together all through the day always at about a distance of 150ft carefully taking linked measurements and barely used words. We also grew other types of standards, like specific things left on/in the ground at the various points so we could communicate enough information to make the measurements accurate.

We didn't develop any jokes or casual language, but I imagine if we had been out there for a few more days it would have happened pretty quickly.

<comment><USER3> You might consider contacting the author. I imagine that someone would be interested to hear the details of your signals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Its truly amazing to me how many places come up with their own version of a language in day to day business. This is one of the extreme version, but I guess when you have to deal with horrible conditions for normal communication you make do.

I worked at place that used to have teletypes between locations and paid per letter. They developed a set of abbreviations that survived well into the e-mail era[1]. Every place at least has a lingo to explain specific concepts and procedures in the business.

This is one reason I am very interested in DSLs, dialects in languages like Red and REBOL, and speech acts in agent literature. It seems like a more natural fit with business to developer communication than API calls.

1) I wrote a perl program to translate at one point in some frustration.

<comment><USER5> Hey, I did my MA thesis on Soeech Act Theory!

<comment><USER6> Do you agree with Searle's classification of speech acts into five different types? Or would you use a different way to classify them?

<comment><USER5> I find taxonomy useful, but I think Derrida is right that Searle was more preoccupied making SAT (and language in general) into a mathematical formula than the "art" of language. I think the only really crucial elements are: \- locutions \- illocution (act/force and [or vs] intent) \- perlocution (act/force and [or vs] intent)

I find very little use teaching or using the 5 categories of Searle for interpretation of verbal or written speech acts.

I find studying a locution from illocutionary intent or perlocutionary intent more useful than Assertive, Directive, etc.

Hope it made sense and it was a useful answer! I still find it a fascinating field that is under-utilized because people try to make it into a programming language (a la Searle) instead of a way to understand semantics and semantic intent.

<comment><USER6> Thank you for your insights, this has been useful! (I was actually hoping to ask this to a linguist for some time now, so I was happy when I saw your message!)

You surmised my current situation well, I've been focusing a lot on the 5 categories and little on the locutions. I shall remedy that :)

One thing in your answer that I'm a bit fuzzy on is what you meant by the confusing thing in the brackets (act/force and [or vs] intent)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >>>>"They could talk about their wives, cars, and colleagues. They could tell jokes and comment on what was going on around them without their bosses every knowing"

These mills were in the pacific northwest (Oregon, Washington and British Columbia). That isn't 18th century england with longstanding social classes. The "bosses" out west, the ones in the mills, weren't posh boys who never mixed with the workers. I cannot believe that supervisors and management wouldn't pick up on these signs very quickly and probably used them themselves.

<comment><USER8> Well, there's still the labor / management divide. I doubt they mixed socially, which is probably where the workers worked out the signs in detail, over beers. Also, the bosses weren't always out on the floor, especially the big bosses. They were in the office where it's quieter, so they had no reason to learn the language in order to do their jobs.

<comment><USER9> "Would you get Andrew into my office, please?" is a great way of not having to communicate on the noisy floor.

<comment><USER2> Yeah but everyone already knows what that one looks like. It's someone pointing at you and gesturing for you to get over there. Also if you're a supervisor in a sawmill, you probably don't ask someone working on the floor in a sawmill to go hunt someone down for you. You either do it yourself or send someone from the office to do it. The people on the floor have better shit to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In the weaving sheds and cotton mills of Lancashire, workers developed an exaggerated form of speech and gesture called mee-mawing to facilitate lip- reading.

[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f6fQAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&lpg...](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f6fQAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=mee- maw+weaving&source=bl&ots=yMnVEU9jiy&sig=mncms_7m4AKnokLIq1awqQxxz-g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiovpCHuonNAhVkDMAKHQvBDgIQ6AEIKDAD#v=onepage&q=mee- maw%20weaving&f=false)

<comment><USER11> Looks like that book/page might be unavailable outside of the UK.

<comment><USER12> s/.co.uk/.com and you're good

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does anyone else get the sense that there is an increasing number of spelling errors and typos in otherwise excellent articles produced by otherwise excellent publications? Most are small and trivial, and exactly what would get past a spell-checker, but not a capable proof reader.

For example:

        > ... without their
        > bosses every knowing.
                 ^^^^^

I'll have to start making a note of every article I read and see just how many do have such errors - it might just be selection bias.

<comment><USER14> It's just lean journalism. Release and iterate!

<comment><USER13> I see it's been fixed. Clearly a case of let your readers find your errors, just as some people release software and let their users find the bugs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Railroad workers have a sign language, but it's intended for use with lanterns at night and at considerable distances, so it's all big movements.[1] It's much reduced from what it used to be; the remaining signals are mostly "stop" and "go" level. But there used to be enough expressive power to say "cut off the the last three cars". This was how engine drivers and brakemen coordinated freight switching. Today, you'll still see simple hand signals, but anything complicated goes over two-way radios.

[1] [http://www.rgusrail.com/manual/baker_fpi_1/baker_fpi_1.pdf](http://www.rgusrail.com/manual/baker_fpi_1/baker_fpi_1.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER16> Not only is it lost potentially due to increased automation but also because we no longer process our forestry products locally, whole logs get shipped to China so we can buy them back in the form of various goods.

Pretty sad to see so many industries cut out at the knees so the forestry company makes a few extra bucks

<comment><USER17> I thought they just got exported 200 miles offshore to floating sawmills run by the Japanese?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The medium shapes/creates the language, in piraha language there are no words for numbers or colors [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOuBggle4Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOuBggle4Y)

<comment><USER19> I dont think medium is the word you wanted. What is it about the "medium" (which I am assuming is 'air' since it is a spoken language) of piraha language that has shaped/created a language without numbers/colors despite the fact that english has colors and numbers?

<comment><USER20> Pirahã has several different channels, such as whistle speech, hum speech, musical speech, yell speech, &c. [http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003175.h...](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003175.html)

The Pirahã also have an unusual counting system (none). [http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001364.h...](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001364.html) ...but this cuts against the argument that the medium very much influences the message.

I've heard the argument that some of these channels may be influenced by the jungle environment (whistled language elsewhere is frequently used outdoors because whistles carry farther). And I think whistled or musical speech is likelier to occur in tonal languages with a simple phonology (Pirahã's is very simple and very tonal). Dan Everett's claim was that a cultural avoidance of indirect references influenced the grammar of Pirahã (to put it crudely).

<comment><USER19> All of these "channels" are just different ways of making sounds. Call them whatever you want they still use the same medium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if this type of nonverbal communication is still prevalent in the large, noisy factories and sweatshops of the developing world! This would be an incredible research project.

<comment><USER22> I learnt BSL (British Sign Language) with my then girlfriend whilst at uni. We used it to chat in the library, talk to each other across the room anywhere it was too busy or inappropriate to shout - very useful.

Given the access to information nowadays i imagine people would be more likely to learn an established sign language due to its wider use. That said we developed our own simplified signs for BSL to communicate with our babies, which quickly became adapted by them, so even this way I feel slangs would develop readily.

<comment><USER23> I once saw some people having a conversation between moving subway trains on different tracks. Awesome!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

I also remember watching the documentary on trading on floor of the stock market and amazed in the hand signs used there as well. It even has a name, Open Outcry, but this includes shouting as well.

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

<comment><USER25> The other one I'm reminded of is Tic-tac, the bookmakers' sign language that John McCririck helped to bring to popular attention on Channel 4 Racing in the UK.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic-tac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic-tac)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Everybody should watch Ben's Mill.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KJbRHO76s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KJbRHO76s)

It has the most photogenic cows I've ever seen. It's an old documentary about a water mill powering a lumber operation.

This is how the industrial revolution began. Cogs and wheels!

</comment><comment><USER27> This headline is such an invitation for a cruel "chopped off all fingers" joke.

</comment><comment><USER28> Within the sport of surfing, some groups of friends might sometimes have their own small set of hand signs for communicating when verbal communication is not always possible out in the ocean.</comment>