Ask HN: What do you use to manage dotfiles? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I use:

        git init --bare $HOME/.myconf
        alias config='/usr/bin/git --git-dir=$HOME/.myconf/ --work-tree=$HOME'
        config config status.showUntrackedFiles no

where my ~/.myconf directory is a git bare repository. Then any file within the home folder can be versioned with normal commands like:

        config status
        config add .vimrc
        config commit -m "Add vimrc"
        config add .config/redshift.conf
        config commit -m "Add redshift config"
        config push

And so one…

No extra tooling, no symlinks, files are tracked on a version control system, you can use different branches for different computers, you can replicate you configuration easily on new installation.

<comment><USER3> Can you write a blog post on your workflow? I would love to learn more on how you to use it :P

<comment><USER4> I'm trying to reproduce it and documenting it as I go... ok I got it working now and I have notes. Stay tuned.

<comment><USER2> It's probably better if you do it then :-) I would probably skip some important parts trying to explain because I'm too much used to it already.

<comment><USER5> Finally got mine working, it does need some figuring out especially the replication part. I documented the needed commands here: [https://github.com/Siilwyn/my-dotfiles/tree/master/.my- dotfi...](https://github.com/Siilwyn/my-dotfiles/tree/master/.my-dotfiles)

<comment><USER4> I'll check how you did it. I wrote my notes and a couple of scripts down in a post: [https://developer.atlassian.com/blog/2016/02/best-way-to- sto...](https://developer.atlassian.com/blog/2016/02/best-way-to-store- dotfiles-git-bare-repo/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ansible and my own python script.

I use ansible, to template my gitconfig for different unix machines, and to install software that might be referenced in a dotfile

[https://github.com/berdario/dotfiles/blob/master/setup/roles...](https://github.com/berdario/dotfiles/blob/master/setup/roles/common/tasks/main.yml)

[https://github.com/berdario/dotfiles/blob/master/setup/feynm...](https://github.com/berdario/dotfiles/blob/master/setup/feynman.yml)

(I have a separate branch for windows, but I found out that branches are not a good solution for this, since unlike feature branches, they'll never be truly merged... and unlike maintainance branches, they'll never stop being touched due to being out of maintanance)

And I use my own script, to also support Windows (since ansible supports windows targets, but cannot be used from Windows)... I defined this table with the destination for the symlinks (or, in the case of .ghci the destination where to copy it, since symlinking it wouldn't work)

[https://github.com/berdario/dotfiles/blob/master/deploy.py#L...](https://github.com/berdario/dotfiles/blob/master/deploy.py#L91-L107)

</comment><comment><USER7> GNU stow and git, per this tutorial:

[http://brandon.invergo.net/news/2012-05-26-using-gnu-stow- to...](http://brandon.invergo.net/news/2012-05-26-using-gnu-stow-to-manage- your-dotfiles.html)

<comment><USER8> I do love stow. My only hurdle (and it's not unique to stow is the chicken- and-egg of a 'setup.sh' that builds out my Mac the way I like (creating directories, installing packages etc), when my SSH keys are in stow's SSH folder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I just rebuild them by hand whenever I need to.

It helps weed out the crap I've accumulated since the last machine rebuild, and makes sure I don't end up with an ever-growing hairball of dotfile madness.

<comment><USER10> Agreed, backup is great, but only if you are backing up the right stuff. Sometimes, _not_ backing something up is the right call.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think no one has mentioned rcm[1]. I just maintain a private git repository cloned in .dotfiles in each system I own, and use rcm to set up symbolic links properly. It works pretty well with directories and lets you choose between creating and populating it with symlinks, or just symlinking the whole directory. For example, I can symlink the full .vim directory (including git submodules) and only link some files inside the .ssh directory (link the config file to my .dotfiles repo but leave ssh keys alone).

1: [https://robots.thoughtbot.com/rcm-for-rc-files-in- dotfiles-r...](https://robots.thoughtbot.com/rcm-for-rc-files-in-dotfiles- repos)

<comment><USER12> I've tried the other ones, but rcm is by far the most user friendly. I maintain a public and a private repo, and link them both into rcm. It works wonderfully.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Git and Xstow. I have a small shell script that parses the xstow.ini file and creates all the directories I have listed under the [keep-dirs] directive in order to prevent it from deleting empty directories or replacing them with links.

      #!/usr/bin/env bash

      #Read the keep directories from xstow.ini
      ini="$(<'xstow.ini')"
      IFS=$'\n' && ini=( ${ini} )
      ini=( ${ini[*]/\    =/=} )  # remove tabs before =
      ini=( ${ini[*]/=\   /=} )   # remove tabs after =
      ini=( ${ini[*]/\ =\ /=} )   # remove anything with a space around =

      #for each keep dir make sure it exists in the home dir
      for i in ${ini[@]}
      do
            if [[ $i =~ ^\ *dir ]]
            then
                    eval $i
                    mkdir $dir
            fi
      done

</comment><comment><USER14> Emacs Org-mode's org-babel functionality. I have a few org-mode files storing all the dotfiles, put under version control. I can update and deploy them from within Emacs.

<comment><USER15> Interesting approach! Think you can provide us with a small working example, especially the 'deploy' part?

<comment><USER13> This is what I came up with over lunch. I'm going to try keeping all my dotfiles in one org file. I have an init hook that runs org-bable-tangle to re-export all the dotfiles after saving.

      ** Meta
         If you place the following code into your emacs init when saving the
         ~/.dotfiles.org file the dotfiles will all be exported.

         #+BEGIN_SRC emacs-lisp :tangle yes
           (defun dotfiles-hook ()
             "If the current buffer is '~/.dotfiles.org' the code-blocks are
           tangled."
             (when (equal (buffer-file-name)
                          (expand-file-name (concat (getenv "HOME")
                                            "/.dotfiles.org")))
               (org-babel-tangle)))

           (add-hook 'after-save-hook 'dotfiles-hook)
         #+END_SRC

      ** bashrc
        #+BEGIN_SRC conf :tangle ~/.bashrc
          export PATH=$HOME/bin:$PATH
        #+END_SRC

      ** tmux
        #+BEGIN_SRC conf :tangle ~/.tmux.conf
          unbind C-b
          set -g prefix C-t
          bind C-t send-prefix
        #+END_SRC

<comment><USER15> Thanks. Upvoted your solution, but I see some problems with this approach for my workflow:

1\. I run emacs-server, so the init file is run only during restarts OR when I manually load it from emacsclient.

2\. Re-exporting all dotfiles seems rather redundant. I prefer to selectively export individual dotfiles only when I have made changes to it. That's why I was interested in the 'deploy' part.

I am not familiar enough with Babel, but it definitely seems to offer a more centralized way of managing my dotfiles. It's going into TODO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Git. Look for "homegit" on this page: [http://chneukirchen.org/blog/archive/2013/01/a-grab-bag- of-g...](http://chneukirchen.org/blog/archive/2013/01/a-grab-bag-of-git- tricks.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> I have all my dotfiles in Dropbox and create symlinks to those. I require some 'quasi-secrets' in my configs and therefore I do not use Github.

</comment><comment><USER18> Heard good things about stow[1]. Haven't moved to it personally. I'm still stuck with manual symlinks.

1\. [https://www.gnu.org/software/stow/](https://www.gnu.org/software/stow/)

</comment><comment><USER19> I've probably spent hundreds of hours across all my configs over the years. In the old days, I'd rsync config files manually. Having frustrating times where I had to start everything over again.

I have a lot to say on the subject.

1\. Like other users here, git is a great way version your files. Not just that, it handles the issue you have with keeping the configs of various systems in sync.

1b. It doesn't have to be GitHub, but understand pushing to _some_ remote gives you a backup, and a way to keep the latest configs you have in sync across multiple machines.

2\. As a rule of thumb, the more POSIX compliant you are, the more cross- compatible your dot-configs will be. In my case, a great deal of my config works superbly across Ubuntu, FreeBSD and OS X with no modification whatsoever.

3\. dotfiles ([https://pypi.python.org/pypi/dotfiles](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/dotfiles)) is very helpful for building those initial symlinks.

4\. Tangentially related is PATH's. Definitely be sure you're not accidentally appending multiple one's over again or omitting ones you want to search. For this, I recommend a pathappend function like one used at [http://superuser.com/a/753948](http://superuser.com/a/753948).

5\. As for managing vim / neovim, I'm coming to the realization the amount of time I've spent trying to configure completion / fix tiny things over the years probably makes me lose the net benefit vim has given me. Too bad there is no intellij for the CLI. In any event, I keep a vim config at [https://github.com/tony/vim-config](https://github.com/tony/vim-config) which I document extensively. It has quite a lot of bells and whistles, but lazy loads and checks the system before installing certain plugins. It should work with neovim too.

I keep my central dot-configs (along with its submodules) at [https://github.com/tony/.dot-config](https://github.com/tony/.dot-config). Its permissively licensed, so feel free to copy whatever you'd like.

</comment><comment><USER20> I have everything in ~/dotfiles which is a git repository here: [https://github.com/dmarcoux/dotfiles](https://github.com/dmarcoux/dotfiles). Basically, I use GNU Stow to symlink what I need. I have master which contains common config and one branch per computer. Everything is explained in the README, in more details if you want do know more. It's not perfect yet, I still have some small irritants, but I'm quite happy with this setup.

</comment><comment><USER21> I use homeshick ([https://github.com/andsens/homeshick](https://github.com/andsens/homeshick)), a - as I understand - rewrite of homesick (ruby) in bash.

It needs to be sourced in .{bash,z}shrc and has features like tracking files from multiple repos (so called "castles"), auto-linking, auto-update every X days.

We also use it in our dev team to share some config (and ~/bin) files, works fine.

</comment><comment><USER22> I have a modular family of git repos with a 'dotfiles' one that pulls in the dependencies via bower and handles various bootstrapping and install steps. I also have one for my system config which works similarly. Vim, zsh, and tmux have their own standalone repos with one step install and updating scripts. They are written as normal plugins that load other plugins.

I want to avoid vendor lock-in to something like chef for this. The idea is that everything is either defined in a tool-agnostic config file, and bootstrapping / installing / updating the dependencies is handled by simple shell scripts. Down the road I can always swap out the tooling (bower, config_curator, archutil) without updating code in my repos since state is defined as data.

I don't like syslinks or putting ~/ under git as I don't want my working tree to affect my dotfiles until I run an "install" command.

[https://github.com/rxrc](https://github.com/rxrc)

[https://github.com/rxrc/dotfiles](https://github.com/rxrc/dotfiles)

</comment><comment><USER23> I see a trend of people maintaining a GitHub repo called `dotfiles` for their public configurations, myself included for zsh/tmux/vim/git. I haven't found a satisfactory way to sync secrets between machines other than via sneakernet.

[https://github.com/jamescun/dotfiles](https://github.com/jamescun/dotfiles)

<comment><USER24> Have you tried syncthing perchance?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> My entire machine is setup using Ansible, Homebrew and Homebrew Cask. It works pretty well.

[https://github.com/arianitu/setup-my- environment](https://github.com/arianitu/setup-my-environment)

[https://github.com/arianitu/dotfiles](https://github.com/arianitu/dotfiles)

</comment><comment><USER26> I keep all my dotfiles in a repo at ~/cfg, and have a script to perform tasks such as creating symlinks (e.g. ~/.emacs.el -> ~/cfg/emacs.el) and installing brew, antigen, etc.

[https://github.com/andreis/cfg](https://github.com/andreis/cfg)

<comment><USER27> Same here

[https://github.com/qznc/dot](https://github.com/qznc/dot)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I try not to deviate from configuration default so that I don't need to manage any dot files.

</comment><comment><USER29> I use a git repository, cloned in .myconfigs, with a script that create a symlink for any file in it (apart from .git and a couple more)

[https://github.com/riquito/configs](https://github.com/riquito/configs)

The usage is

        git clone firstname.lastname@example.com:username/configs.git ~/.myconfigs
        cd ~/.myconfigs
        ./reinstall.sh

Whenever I update the repository, maybe adding files, I run this in the other computers:

        cd ~/.myconfigs
        git pull --ff-only
        ./reinstall.sh

which simply refresh the symlinks (I should remove stale symlinks now that I think about it, for removed configurations - never happened yet)

</comment><comment><USER30> Just git and Github.I have two folders, a .dotfiles ([https://github.com/Arc0re/dotfiles](https://github.com/Arc0re/dotfiles)) that contains stuff like .emacs (for each OS), .bashrc/.zshrc, etc, which I symlink into my $HOME folder, and an elisp ([https://github.com/Arc0re/mac- elisp](https://github.com/Arc0re/mac-elisp)) folder that contains my Emacs themes and plugins.

</comment><comment><USER31> I have a GitHub repo with a script that sets everything up. [https://github.com/charlieegan3/dotfiles](https://github.com/charlieegan3/dotfiles)

Seems to be quite a common pattern: [https://github.com/search?o=desc&q=dotfiles&s=stars&type=Rep...](https://github.com/search?o=desc&q=dotfiles&s=stars&type=Repositories)

</comment><comment><USER32> I have a little Makefile that symlinks everything (WIP) [https://github.com/trengrj/dotfiles/blob/master/Makefile](https://github.com/trengrj/dotfiles/blob/master/Makefile).

I was previously using an automated Ruby script but found it inflexible and so have switched to a hand coded Makefile.

</comment><comment><USER33> I use bash based dotfiles manager "dot".

* [https://github.com/ssh0/dot](https://github.com/ssh0/dot)

And I have dotfiles repository at GitHub. Some files are hosted in Dropbox (for API keys and etc.).

my dotfiles:

* [https://github.com/ssh0/dotfiles](https://github.com/ssh0/dotfiles)

</comment><comment><USER34> I use vcsh and my, I even wrote a blog post about it: [https://srijanshetty.in/technical/vcsh-mr-dotfiles- nirvana/](https://srijanshetty.in/technical/vcsh-mr-dotfiles-nirvana/)

<comment><USER35> Me too! Here's my blog-post about it: [http://blog.tfnico.com/2014/03/managing-dot-files-with- vcsh-...](http://blog.tfnico.com/2014/03/managing-dot-files-with-vcsh-and- myrepos.html)

I also interviewed the developer some years ago here: [http://episodes.gitminutes.com/2013/06/gitminutes-13-richard...](http://episodes.gitminutes.com/2013/06/gitminutes-13-richard- hartmann-on.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I use Homesick ([https://github.com/technicalpickles/homesick](https://github.com/technicalpickles/homesick)).

It's basically a dotfile manager. Symbolically links your stuff and runs scripts.

<comment><USER21> There's a fork called homeshick which is a plain-bash rewrite of homesick, so it doesn't have the ruby dependencies (for those who care about that). There might be few differences, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> [https://github.com/georgewsinger/drop- dot/blob/master/README...](https://github.com/georgewsinger/drop- dot/blob/master/README.md)

</comment><comment><USER38> I don't use anything, to be honest. My good friend wrote and uses this however: [https://github.com/ncraike/dither](https://github.com/ncraike/dither)

</comment><comment><USER39> Just git.

      cd ~
      git init
      git remote add origin https://firstname.lastname@example.com/sgtpep/dotfiles.git
      git fetch
      git checkout -ft origin/master
      git config status.showUntrackedFiles no

</comment><comment><USER40> I a Syncthing directory called "Data/" where my personal files are. Then I have a script which creates symlinks between ~/.dir and Sync/Data/dir and that's it, simple but works.

</comment><comment><USER41> Obsessive Compulsive Directory [http://wiki.eater.org/ocd](http://wiki.eater.org/ocd)

It is a very simple system for keeping your dotfiles (and other files) in Git.

</comment><comment><USER42> git + symlinks ([https://github.com/gfarrell/dotfiles](https://github.com/gfarrell/dotfiles)). I use a makefile to set everything up

</comment><comment><USER43>
        cd ~
        git init

And add this to a .gitignore:

        # Ignore everything
        *

        # Except the dotfiles I explicitely want to share
        !.vimrc
        !.tmux.conf
        # ...

<comment><USER44> Fun fact! `cd` is equivalent to `cd ~` -- that is to say that the directory is optional and defaults to $HOME.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> dotfiles repo on Github + GNU Stow

</comment><comment><USER46> Git repos + [https://github.com/AndrewVos/slink](https://github.com/AndrewVos/slink)

</comment><comment><USER47> Git! [https://github.com/Fizzadar/dotfiles](https://github.com/Fizzadar/dotfiles)

</comment><comment><USER48> [https://github.com/majnemer/davesdots](https://github.com/majnemer/davesdots)

</comment><comment><USER49> My ~/.config directory is a git repository. I use some environment variables for utilities (like vim) that do not support the XDG spec.

</comment><comment><USER50> [https://github.com/RichiH/vcsh](https://github.com/RichiH/vcsh) \+ myrepos

</comment><comment><USER51> [https://github.com/lra/mackup](https://github.com/lra/mackup) \+ dropbox

</comment><comment><USER52> Payday loans are fleeting cash propels intended to get you through to the following payday. You round out an application giving data about yourself and your salary online for moment endorsement [http://www.1monthloan- uk.co.uk/](http://www.1monthloan-uk.co.uk/). Once affirmed, a cash development is kept into your financial records the next day. The loan organization will charge installment from your financial records on your next payday.

</comment><comment><USER53> I put several of my dotfiles as gists on github's gist site, in addition to storing my home directory in a repo.

</comment><comment><USER54> I only semi-regularly tar my dotfiles and dotfolders and then move the archive to an external drive.

</comment><comment><USER55> tar, scp, and a VPS server I've had for longer than I can remember (it's still running Lenny, if that helps -- its OpenSSL was _too old_ to be vulnerable to Heartbleed...). Every new install, I scp the tarball and extract it to my home directory.

</comment><comment><USER56> nobody mentioned mackup? [https://github.com/lra/mackup](https://github.com/lra/mackup)

</comment><comment><USER57> git and [https://github.com/buildinspace/peru](https://github.com/buildinspace/peru)

</comment><comment><USER58> git + symlinks

[https://github.com/yoshuawuyts/dotfiles](https://github.com/yoshuawuyts/dotfiles)

</comment><comment><USER50> mr + vcsh</comment>


Fitting Big-Picture UX Into Agile Development - <AUTHOR> http://uxdesign.smashingmagazine.com/2012/11/06/design-spikes-fit-big-picture-ux-agile-development/ <comment><USER2> Helpful advice if your scrum process is run literally by the book.

In my experience, though, I've found that it's very natural to integrate graphic and UX design into sprints along side programmers. As the Product Owner, my goal has been to keep a rough roadmap of issues and features. I often schedule design or graphic work a sprint or two ahead of when we want development to occur. In this way, the requirements become more fully baked in advance of coding. If design or UX uncovers issues that cannot be solved by the end of the month that's okay. Just reevaluate during sprint review and determine next steps. Usually giving them another sprint provides enough time to figure things out.

Another trick is to have developers create a working "wireframe" version of features in the template language. (Think HTML with CSS turned off in your browser.) Then when it's working, hand it off to the designer to make it pretty in the next sprint. Doesn't work for every feature, but small to medium sized ones can benefit from this. This also provides a good way to handle scheduling contention so that the designer doesn't have to handle every issue before developers do.

Your milage may vary, but I've have 95%+ success with this technique.

<comment><USER3> "Then when it's working, hand it off to the designer to make it pretty in the next sprint."

I hate how some engineers think that's the role of a designer. It feels so condescending.

<comment><USER2> I'm a designer and an engineer. There are some pages where the UX is clearly defined, is simple, and it just needs to be pretty.

I agree that this is a larger problem in the industry, but I meant no offense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I feel the heart of this article is here:

 _For many designers, the process often feels like an effort to design an engine, wheel or windshield without really knowing in what kind of car these parts will need to be integrated._

If people are designing in sprints without a clear idea of what they are building then something has gone horribly wrong. I think Agile works best when you have a clear understanding of what you're trying to do. If a design strategy hasn't discovered this in Sprint 0 then I think there will be ongoing problems.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that the whole nature of Agile is that at the end of a sprint you've got some self-contained feature working. I don't think their is anything in the agile philosophy saying that what you have in sprint n will continue to exist in spring n+10. Like code you may refactor as more information comes in. As designers we need to accept that when designing in Agile that what we do 2 weeks ago may not exist tomorrow.

I think as designers that's a hard thing to do because we don't like 'waste', we want to avoid re-work and we also like to design the best solution with ALL the information we can get, but doing so requires a lot of upfront thinking and is just taking us back to waterfall.

</comment><comment><USER5> While I appreciate the author has tried to take a good stab at the whole big- picture-design problem, this to me looks like a Scrum-but.

"We do Scrum, but... every so often we stop doing Scrum and get our design hats on"

Perhaps I've been fortunate in the projects I've worked on so far, but we always managed to get the UX designs done one sprint in advance. Sure, things need to be reworked as new discoveries are made. But isn't that the whole idea of iterative development?</comment>


Callbell: Chat with visitors using messaging apps (WhatsApp, Messenger, etc.) - <AUTHOR> https://www.callbell.eu/en/chat-widget-for-messaging-apps/?et_fb=1 <comment><AUTHOR> Hi! We have just released our free chat widget to facilitate and boost customer communication through messaging applications. To install the widget, you will just need to create an account, connect your Facebook page, add your WhatsApp number, your Instagram and Telegram username.

You can choose which channels you want to add and if you want them to appear on desktop, mobile or both. If you like it, you can also change the widget icon with a picture or a GIF .

Copy and paste the script into your site and you're done! To do so, you can use Google Tag Manager or paste the code in before the end of the section of your website.

After 24 hours, you will be able to see statistics on unique visitors / visitors, clicks on the widget, clicked channels, devices and localization straight from your dashboard.</comment>


State data to be used to limit child gamers in China - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45432863 <comment><USER2> heh. easier to cause random outrage "think of the children" to escalate State influence than to address the problem that parents have no time or means to properly raise their kids. bonus points for the children eyesight falacy, as studies already proved its mostly caused by reading/studing long hours in poor light.

china is learning well with the west.

<comment><USER3> > studies already proved its mostly caused by reading/studing long hours in > poor light.

Huh, I thought the current prevailing theory was that it was caused by lack of bright daylight, not by too much reading or to many hours in dim light. So a certain number of hours outside a day should have a protective effect.

<comment><USER4> I would have thought it was obvious that it's not the lack of bright daylight, but the lack of far away objects to focus on indoors. And this would clearly be exacerbated by constantly focusing on objects 12 inches away, like screens and books.

<comment><USER5> You'd think so, but that's not what research suggests.

[https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia- boom-1.17120](https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120)

<comment><USER6> I think it's both. Taken from the article you linked to: "greater viewing distances outside could affect myopia progression, too"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hrm, I think this is just mobile gaming catching up. World of Warcraft had this built in as long ago as 2012, all gaming cafes had a timer in their top- right corner of their screens as well.

Edit: in China

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17900613](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17900613) A related discussion on this, in case people are interested. The article itself is focused on Tencent's value loss as a result of this announcement.</comment>


Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/technology/jeff-bezos-climate-change-earth-fund.html <comment><USER3> After reading Winners Take All my level of cynicism is through the roof with headlines like this.

$10b of his own personal fortune? That won't results in tax breaks / deduction because can be considered a donation? Or does that include money Amazon-the- company is spending on "climate change" efforts, such as buying electric delivery trucks instead of gas ones? Investments in "green datacenters"? Is any of this new investment that's needed anyway for Amazon-the-company to operate, but now it's green so it gets added up to the $10b?

Is Bezos, worth $130b today be worth $120b tomorrow because of this? Or do we have to add up a hundred different things with some creative accounting and lots of goodwill?

<comment><USER4> I frequently see the "they're just doing this for the tax breaks" sentiment for these kinds of donations (especially when the donor is a corporation or hyper-wealthy individual) but I don't understand the reasoning.

From what I understand of tax deductions, a donation of $X basically means that the donor can skip paying taxes on $X of income. This results in a savings of tax% * $X, which is always < $X. Since tax% is always < 100%, it seems that the donation is always negative-sum for the donor.

The tax deduction also seems like a boon for the beneficiary, since they receive $X instead of (1 - tax%) * $X.

Can you help me understand the cynicism? How does the donor benefit here (aside from PR etc)? It seems like they do not come out ahead financially, and the tax breaks benefit the recipient of the donation.

<comment><USER5> I think ultimately this cynicism is born out of envy/jealousy for the good will that such a donation engenders.

As you've pointed out, any logical analysis would conclude that, even in the most extreme cases, there's still a sizable positive benefit to society.

People have a problem with "undeserved" good will as if good will is some scarce resource that's limited in supply. I think the reality is they're envious.

<comment><USER6> Angry. The word you are looking for is angry.

Its just a constant reminder that we live at the mercy of these elites, that our tax dollars don't appear to have any effect in bringing about the change that we want because these scumbags have rewritten the laws in their favour so that the money only concentrates towards them.

What can we do about it? Absolutely nothing, but I'm sure as hell not going to pander to their 'benevolence'

<comment><USER7> Is there anything Bezos could do at this point that would NOT make you angry?

<comment><USER8> Somehow use most of his filthy amount of wealth, much of it acquired in filthy ways, to things that are not him?

I'm perpetually baffled at how one person having this much wealth is somehow considered okay. Sure, we can argue about where it goes instead, but jesus christ is this an unfathomable amount of wealth that really shouldn't be in one person's control.

<comment><USER7> I honestly cannot understand this attitude. It sounds like pure jealousy. You are saying that we should stop people from being too successful.

Bezos earned all of his wealth honestly. He offered products and services for prices that people were willing to pay. He did not steal. He did not force anyone into anything. If he is stupid rich, it is because he was able to provide things people wanted more effectively than anyone else.

How can you possibly justify punishing success? What right do we have to give him money for doing what we want, and then turning around and taking it away. What sort of message does that send to other people?

"Work hard and be successful, but not _TOO_ successful..."

<comment><USER8> I could go into the broader problem I have with a single person having that much wealth/power.

But really, mostly it's that Bezos is a giant piece of shit. His company has a long history of controversy and anything good he does doesn't erase that. That has nothing to do with all the upstanding people in the world who are trying to be 'successful'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> These comments do surprise me yes.

The amount of conflict in the remarks is because both parties are right. It's very wonderful for Jeff Bezos to donate $10B dollars. But also it's right about private jets, which generate much carbon pollution.

It's fair to say that everyone has to do their part against climate problems. I for one make personal sacrifices yes. Less meat, less consuming, trying for local purchases as often as possible so the cheese I eat is not from France, driving a lot less, and also I fly much less. This year only one trip home instead of two.

For us to lift out of poverty many more people, it's worrying about the carbon costs of this. But now we have to behave smarter and people for whom sacrifices are easiest should make them first.

<comment><USER10> I recently did some calculations on car vs plane travel. For commuter flights, it surprised me to find out that for gasoline cars, car travel isn't better than a flight until you get to a carpool of four passengers. For electric cars, a solo driver is about the same as air travel (in an average airport flight) - a second passenger makes it better than air travel. (This was for a flight halfway across the country.)

So yeah, limiting long distance travel is the way to go. I just found it surprising because I think a lot of people might choose to drive instead of fly, thinking it's better for the environment - usually not unless you're carpooling.

<comment><USER11> Care to reproduce your calculations here? I'm certain you're off by a factor of 10 (at least). Flying is probably the worst thing you will do _in your entire life_ as far as the environment is concerned.

<comment><USER12> Aviation Emissions, Impacts & Mitigation: A Primer

FAA Office of Environment and Energy

January 2015

Aviation stands out among transportation modes, however, in terms of improving fuel efficiency over the past decade. As shown in Figure 1: Comparison of Vehicle Fuel Efficiency, in 2004, automobiles and airlines operating in the U.S. had very similar energy intensities, with automobiles at 3,496 BTU/passenger mile versus airlines at 3,505 BTU/passenger mile. Between 2004 and 2012, auto energy intensity fell to 3,193 BTU/passenger mile, for an 8.8% improvement. For the same period, aviation energy intensity fell to 2,654 BTU/passenger mile, a 24.3% improvement and is now significantly lower than automobiles.

[https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/env...](https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/Primer_Jan2015.pdf)

In addition to being more efficient flying is wildly safer. You have a 750x better chance of surviving a commercial flight than a car trip the same distance. (2000-2010)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> $10b is an _insane_ initial endowment. That's about a quarter of what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have after 20 years.

It would be nice to have more details about the goals or objectives.

<comment><USER14> It's a huge initial endowment for sure. It would be a little more fair to include the other $50 billion the Gates Foundation has already given (ie they're up around $100 billion so far, with perhaps another $250 billion yet to come).

The Gates Foundation has ~$45-$50 billion in assets currently and has given away more than $50 billion thus far (~$23 billion of that giving is from Warren Buffett's contributions; Buffett's donations have to be used rapidly after they're given to the foundation (within the year or such if I recall), that money isn't allowed to pile up). The foundation as it's known today - <USER2> Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - got started with $16 billion in 1999/2000.

Gates + Buffett = $210 billion currently. Due to the Buffett money pouring in, they basically can't give it all away as fast as Bill & Melinda had originally planned, so they're likely going to miss their timeline for giving the Gates fortune away (in their lifetimes was the first goal; that shifted to now being within 20 years after their passing).

<comment><USER13> Thanks! Those are some really interesting numbers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> On one level this is to be applauded.

On another, shipping cheap plastic junk from China all over the world, to finish up in landfill a few years later, is the very definition of environmental vandalism and is Amazon's core business model.

<comment><USER13> Climate change is an order of magnitude bigger deal than plastics and garbage.

<comment><USER16> the churn of those plastic products and the net cost adds up

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Do we know how much emissions can be attributed to Amazon / AWS? I'm curious if this $10 billion fund could offset that or if it's too small to cover their own use.

Though, to be fair to Amazon, this is at least a good goal:

> Amazon expects 80% of its energy use to come from renewable energy sources > by 2024, up from a current rate of 40%, before transition to zero emissions > by 2030.

<comment><USER18> It's kind of irrelevant how much harm a single company does, since that company exists to serve a demand that would simply be filled by other companies if it didn't exist. Maybe those theoretical other companies would have marginally better business practices vis-a-vis the environment, but it's not like they would operate in a wholly alternative economic system.

<comment><USER19> simplifying down complex issues to fit "the curves" narrative often misses a lot of really important nuance.

to wit, let's imagine there's an incumbent company that serves out the demand in an incredibly efficient but environmentally harmful manner. further suppose this is a large national player that's willing to eat some losses in order to crowd out the whole "efficient allocation of resources" type new businesses that may spring up and serve that demand in an environmentally friendly manner.

according to "the curves", there's no room to displace that incumbent because they're stuck in a local maximum when it comes exclusively to satisfying demand. but it's pretty clear that there are externalities that, when considered, make it an attractive target for change by different players.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This says he "commits" 10B to a new initiative named after himself. What do terms like "commits" and "pledges" mean? From the article it looks like all he did was post on Instagram.

Is there more to this than an IG post? Is there anything legally binding, anything that actually moves the money outside of his control? Did his networth just drop 10B?

</comment><comment><USER21> Well, F yeah!! Thank you, Mr Bezos. Mad props to you.

 _(To cynicism and idealism, I say: know when to take a win.)_

</comment><comment><USER22> Couldn't he just buy out the major coal energy companies and force them to become 100% wind+solar+etc within x years.

<comment><USER23> Presumably the minor coal energy companies would quickly become new major companies in the vaccuum left behind.

<comment><USER24> Not really. Coal is not economic to make new plants. New plants are generally natural gas or renewable. So shutting down old plants shifts demand to NG or solar/wind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Related: "Against Against Billionaire Philanthropy" ([https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against- billio...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire- philanthropy/))

<comment><USER26> Based on that article, Bezos just pledged more money to fight climate change than the U.S. government has spent on it in the past 25 years.

<comment><USER14> How do you get to that figure? As one example the US Government spends billions of dollars per year subsidizing renewable energy, ie fighting climate change. $6.7 billion in 2016 alone. I'm not arguing that's an appropriate sum, however your 25 year premise is drastically wrong.

Since 2010, I'd bet the US Government has spent in the neighborhood of $60-$100 billion on renewable energy subsidies. The EIA reports that for 2010 and 2013 the figures were a combined $30 billion.

Then throw in nuclear energy subsidies over the last 25 years, which is comparable to the Bezos figure by itself.

<comment><USER26> > $154 billion on climate-change-related activities since 1993 [but] 94 > percent of the money was going to programs that weren't primarily focused on > climate change — things like nuclear energy. The money marked as climate > spending wasn't going to new initiatives. Instead, "it's a bunch of related > things we were already doing,"

So 6% of the money being actual new money focused on fixing climate, times $154 billion, is $9.24 billion.

I think that's an appropriate comparison since the Bezos money is new money specifically for fixing climate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Well, better to take part of the money you made storing carbon in the atmosphere, and use it to mitigate carbon in the atmosphere, than to use it for something else..... riiiiight?

</comment><comment><USER28> I think this money could be used much more effectively by attacking other more pressing issues (like child nutrition). Climate Change is not such a cut-and- dry situation, it's difficult to parse out the facts from the political commentary/posturing. Bjorn Lomborg articulates all this better than I ever could.

</comment><comment><USER29> The money is great, of course, but a piece of me wonders every time I see this sort of thing if spending time managing these endeavors directly would be more impactful towards the goal.

</comment><comment><USER30> [https://archive.md/eb3kq](https://archive.md/eb3kq)

</comment><comment><USER31> I am a little worried that this initiative will only do things that don't cost Bezos too much money. I feel the same when Silicon Valley guys push UBI. It often seems a way for them to keep their money while pretending to do something.

Maybe I am too cynical but these guys got to where they are by always looking out for themselves first.

</comment><comment><USER32> What are the tax implications of this wealth-transfer? Who are the winners?

<comment><USER33> We don't know the structure of "The Earth Fund" so here are some possibilities:

if its an actual fund then it can make more investments, no immediate tax consequences, but any long term capital losses, because nobody has a sustainability solution that makes any money, will serve to offset any taxes that he would have to pay on the long term capital gains of his Amazon stock sales.

if its another charitable foundation, then the whole $10B will offset up to 50% of his whole tax bill any year, rolling forward till there is no more to deduct. not just limited to any particular type of capital tax. he can also just donate his amazon shares without selling them first, gaining a charitable deduction on the entire value and no capital gains tax event, but depending on the type of charitable foundation the donation could be limited to his cost basis, instead of the current fair market value, another consequence being that a lower % max deduction is possible. Actually this could be genius because his cost basis might have become pegged to the fair market value in the divorce. The IRS _allows_ divorcing couples to keep their original cost basis on split property but could be optional, given the nature of their settlement where it seems there were modifications onto what the stock contract actually is - with some shares transferred but voting rights retained.

So for example, there is almost no scenario where Jeff Bezos has to pay any taxes on the $4Billion in Amazon shares he sold earlier this year. Whether he converts another $10B shares to cash or not.

So even though he 'spends' on a cause and theoretically doesn't get to use that money for himself, even though its not paying the government either, he doesn't actually lose any money he ever actually had.

It's nice that a transaction towards this cause is occurring.

<comment><USER34> It's technically only 30% of his tax bill for gifts of appreciated capital, which Bezos will almost certainly prefer to 50% of the cost basis (approximately 0 for his shares). See IRS pub 526. Depending on the specifics of how qualified the donation is, the limit might be as low as 20%.

<comment><USER33> yes, I think I covered my bases on the topic

> another consequence being that a lower % max deduction is possible

It is fun to think about. Ever since I read that part of the tax code I've been taking a dim view on the 401(k) statutes since the 501(c)3 and 509(a) statutes are like supercharged tax deferrals and shelters if you have 6-figures annually to put into them

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Be smarter to just back a political movement, but that would actually work, and diminish Bezos's own power.

<comment><USER13> I don't understand this. Backing a political movement is probably the _worst_ thing he could do. He's completely distrusted politically, and polls terribly with the general public. He would only taint any movement he backed.

<comment><USER36> If he had backed (now suspended) Presidential candidate Andrew Yang early enough he could have aligned himself with Yang's message: highlighting too that Amazon paid $0 in taxes + is closing 30% of malls, etc. - which would be him acknowledging and responding to the issues at hand that Yang; allowing him to acknowledge the current system's structure - that all companies including Jeff's - must compete within, but that it's ultimately a problem for society (even if it's good for the economy/GDP).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> A nice way to keep 10 billion out of reach from the tax man.

</comment><comment><USER38> Let's see, Jeff.... Cautious optimism here. I'll hand it to you when you're putting this money in to fix the world - not your taxes.

</comment><comment><USER39> Is this just another Gates-foundation style tax swindle?

<comment><USER40> Step 1: Cure polio

Step 2: Donate 99% of your remaining money before death

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Profit, when the world is a less shitty place

It's really the most devious tax swindle of all time.

<comment><USER39> It's more like

Step 1: Place fortune in a large tax-free foundation

Step 2: Invest that wealth as normal, but without the need to pay taxes

Step 3: Spend charitable funds in such a manner as to increase the value of investments from step 2

<comment><USER40> Can you walk me through how it ends in anything other than Gates having given his money away through the Gates foundation? Also, for what it's worth (and I don't think this is even essential to the point), the Gates Foundation has an explicit mandate to spend down all reserves within 20 years of their death:

> Also announced was the decision to spend all of the foundation's resources > within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths.[177][178][179][180] This > was later lowered to within 20 years of their death.[181][182] This would > close the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust and effectively end the Bill > & Melinda Gates Foundation

(source [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Lifespan))

<comment><USER39> He doesn't 'give money away' no-string-attached. He uses the donations to control the way the economy deals with the externalities of capitalism. It's fundamentally anti-democratic for that share of the world's economy to be driven by the whims of one man.

<comment><USER41> It is, but perhaps unfettered democracy isn't a great system in the first place

<comment><USER39> Not saying everyone needs to have the same level of say in the outcome of the economy, but there's a minimum below which the system becomes unresponsive to real human need and a maximum above which diminishing returns sets in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Billionaire invests $10B dollars to virtue signal and control the behavior of the poor, while not changing his lifestyle at all. 165M dollar environmentally excessive mansion, private jets, and a rocket program that dumps carbon into the air.

I'll be impressed when billionaires actually make sacrifices themselves, rather than just write checks.

Checks are important, but let's be real about these people.

<comment><USER43> I know this is completely not your point, but do rockets actually dump a lot of carbon? I thought most rocket exhaust was mostly water.

<comment><USER44> Yes, relatively speaking, each launch contributes a "large" amount, but it is completely irrelevant when looking at the overall picture. There are ~100 launches a year, compared with 7 billion miles driven by automobiles per year [1] for example.

I don't have a source handy, but I remember hearing that each launch is the equivalent of the annual output of 2 passenger vehicles. So all rockets launches worldwide = 200 drivers.

[1] [https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171113006466/en/Fut...](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171113006466/en/Future- Cars-2040-Miles-Traveled-Soar-Sales)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Worlds richest man continues to pay zero tax while making fatuous annoucnements.

That should be the preface on every single Bezos article. Every time his name is mentioned, it should explained as follows "Jeff Bezos, who is the world's richest man and neither he nor is company have ever paid any tax at all."

Then people can effectively make their own mind up about whatever his PR team is pushing this week. It's impossible to be cynical enough, in my opinion. YMMV.

Disagree? Write down what you think this announcement means. Review it in a year and see if you were misled.</comment>


Why firms don't want you to be brilliant at your job - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29617115 <comment><USER2> TL;DR: -Top employees use top large corporations as springboards to their careers rather than as 30-year destinations, a marked change from the past.

-Top large corporations reward interpersonal skills and getting along more than brilliance, causing top employees to seek employment elsewhere.

-The advent of the internet has heightened the communication gap between the generations, making it hard for "partners" and "new associates" to communicate.

The author didn't provide evidence for much of what she claimed, and did not build towards a conclusion. More, the above themes did not seem like new news to me. Also, the first two themes did not clearly related to the third. The article felt like meandering observations -- which is fine insofar as it goes, but, while I enjoyed the read, I wanted more to conclude it. Maybe I'll find that here in the comments?

<comment><USER3> I've seen this phenomenon myself, though I have no hard data either.

Personally I think a big reason is that the promotion is dead. There's a palpable sense in every large organization I've worked for is that working hard simply won't get you rewarded and that there's a hard glass ceiling on your ability to rise through merit.

I've found this to be true when I look at my own earnings as well. I have _never_ experienced a significant jump in earnings or responsibility except by switching jobs. _Never._ I've worked very hard in some jobs, but I have never been rewarded for it except through an ability to cite my present work as a springboard to somewhere else.

<comment><USER4> That seems to be the case for most people I know, switching jobs is the new promotion. I've had minor raises, entirely remittance, but the few major pay increases and job title changes always have been entirely attributed from leaving an organization for another.

I found it surprising when I worked for a company (more than number years ago) that was primarily a retailer preferred to hire externally for new store managers instead of hiring from its pool of mostly college educated sales staff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think she's missed the obvious. Employers want the McDonald's system, where the brilliance is in the system, not the employees. If it's in the worker, it's perishable; in the system, it's not. When I hire a machine operator, brilliance isn't a useful asset, so I'm not paying for it. Some brains, yes, sure, but not above a 120 IQ. That's all the job requires, and I keep it structured that way.

<comment><USER6> Is this really the assumption you operate with? I'm not trying to sound condescending because this is pretty much what I observed at a certain major tech company. The whole thing wasn't very far from a giant meat factory and it was exactly why there hadn't been any innovation in decades.

You can argue that if your business model is so good that you don't need to innovate to stay in business then by all means milk it for what it's worth but that doesn't feel like a long-term strategy. Microsoft and friends have R&D departments that rival the best research institutions in the world and they pay a premium for it. If some of that was a natural byproduct of their core business operations then maybe they wouldn't need to pay a premium for it.

<comment><USER7> It's close to the assumption I operate with.

For a sufficiently large business, it's important to be stable/robust -- that is, to be able to withstand change. A business that's heavily reliant on individual brilliance across the board has the disadvantage of potentially collapsing if enough brilliant people leave without training equally brilliant replacements.

Yes, you want _some_ brilliant people specifically in R&D / innovation. You want brilliant people overseeing the entire system. Brilliant people in key positions might improve your overall efficiency by an order of magnitude on a particular project -- but you don't want the whole project to fall apart just because Joe moved out of state or Jane went on long-term maternity leave or Jake was hit by a bus.

Microsoft does have a world-class R&D department, but they also have a lot of average code monkeys and average janitors and average HR people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Years of drudgery and late nights in the office have a way of taking the > shine off any brilliance, and, in any case, there is no incentive to hang on > to it as the corporate world doesn't rate it.

> Rather than reward brilliance, it prefers skills that graduates can't see - > good judgment, a nice way with clients, and an instinct for when to bite > your lip.

This is a curiously cynical perspective. "Brilliance" alone doesn't necessarily create value or pay the bills. The combination of high IQ and low EQ can be harmful to customer relationships and co-workers. The corporate world values soft skills just as much if not more than raw intelligence because soft skills can often make or break a business.

Notwithstanding the fact that a lot of young employees overestimate just how clever they are and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that smart ideas won't always be viable in the real world, instead of pretending that "brilliance" is some sort of panacea that companies should cling to regardless of the cost, the author should consider that pragmatic, well-rounded employees who can perform consistently might be better contributors than the brilliant, intense employees who become disillusioned whenever they don't get their way.

<comment><USER9> > The combination of high IQ and low EQ can be harmful to customer > relationships and co-workers.

Citation?

The last I read about it[1], it turned out that EQ is vastly overrated, accounting for only 1% of overall job performance, whereas IQ accounted for 14%. That's more than an order of magnitude.

[1] [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140930125543-692440...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140930125543-69244073-emotional- intelligence-is-overrated)

<comment><USER10> That EQ takes primacy over IQ is pretty well-established in the consulting industry. In fact, this is emphasized on day one for new hires. And you move into more client-facing roles in large companies, this becomes even more important.

Of course, you need the raw cognitive power to solve problems. But at the high-end of consulting, clients already assume this to be this case (otherwise they wouldn't be spending $200+/hour for people fresh out of college). What clients are looking for is more akin to a 'trusted advisor'[1]. Someone they can trust and rely on.

Yes, you can be socially awkward and still get the job done. But you probably won't be considered when the next opportunity arises; what people value are relationships. If you've got that (and you have the technical chops), clients will tend to keep calling you back for years to come. Or perhaps mention you to their peers.

For anyone considering working independently, I highly recommend David Maister's books. He writes clearly on earning trust, the art of listening, providing advice, establishing relationships, and so on.

This is really what separates the engineers who can command top dollar for their skills in the marketplace--versus those who are viewed as just another number on a spreadsheet to minimize (in the eyes of management at most large companies).

[1]([http://www.amazon.com/The-Trusted-Advisor-David- Maister/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Trusted-Advisor-David- Maister/dp/0743212347))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sounds exactly like something a fresh college grad would say. All brilliant people jump from company to company, all people who stay at one company are dull.

I say, if you're enjoying yourself at one company, learning a lot, and moving up, why not keep it up?

Not to mention once you have a family / kids, me thinks you are much less likely to jump.

"The main thing that had struck him so far was that people seemed to get dimmer the higher they went in the organisation. I asked if he had any explanation for this and he said it was self-selection.

Really smart people don't stay at the institutions they have fought so hard to get into. The best leave within two or three years - the slightly less good stay a bit longer, and only the also-rans and the terminally unimaginative are in for the long haul."

Also, I used to work in consulting firm, so by this definition, all of the partners are also-rans and terminally unimaginative - I'd say some partners fit this definition, but many others were bright-eyed, bushy tailed, and full of interesting ideas / perspectives.

</comment><comment><USER12> Working in such an organisation and being in the middle ranks (Manager), I may have a reconciling view to offer. These huge organisations (I see partners mentioned so I will assume big4) are not pioneering innovators (even if they try to appear so) but powerhouses of mediocrity. You can be brilliant and it will be appreciated to some degree, but most probably the passion that comes with your brilliance will be subdued by the layers of mediocrity between you and the mediocre leadership.

In partnerships, this is even more accentuated by the fact that there is division of power by design, so even if a visionary leader appreciates a vision you still have to convince the partnership which is mostly a matter of PR rather than quality of idea. I can relate to the graduate, but the fact is a brilliant graduate will be too anxious to demonstrate their skills which does not help them see the reality. It is not a matter of personal skills, there are brilliant people sprinkled in the organisation at different levels, but a matter of organisational culture that builds on commoditising ideas.

In a big organisation the skills are averaged out and it is the greatest common divisor that can be commoditised. There are more brilliant partners than graduates but the aggregated soup is tasteless. And by the time you are a partner you make enough money to not care about the spice you add to the soup but about the measured KPIs that make up your contribution (sales.)

It reads more like a rant, but I am glad to give more details on specifics. Just to address the title, it is not that firms don't want you to be brilliant at your job, it is that they could not care less unless it is a client that focuses on your brilliance. And the situation with clients is very similar but I will not address it here.

</comment><comment><USER13> BUT (and this is big one) in many instances, such as Google and Facebook, you do have to be brilliant to get in.

<comment> bjelkeman-again That puzzles me. Why would one want to get into Facebook? Do they pay that well?

<comment><USER14> They pay well and if you leave the HN/Reddit bubble, there are CS students out there (that are pretty smart) that really would LOVE to have jobs at Microsoft/Facebook/Yahoo/ (insert any company unpopular on HN here).

<comment><USER15> Graduating CS student here, Google is my dream job. I would also be exceedingly happy to work at any of the following: Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Amazon, Intel, etc.

Starting my own startup sounds cool and all but it would be too much work for me and I just because I don't agree 100% with a companies policies doesn't make them an undesirable workplace.

<comment><USER16> I'm curious, why is it your dream job and why would you be exceedingly happy to work for any of those companies listed?

Is it the money? Prestige? You think you'll learn more at one of those places than others? Stability?

<comment><USER15> Mainly the prestige but all four of those are good points. There aren't many places where you have an opportunity to do things for the sake of doing them, most places either don't value technology or don't have to budget to investigate new and interesting technology. I love the place I currently work and love the people I work with, however I don't want to be doing line of business crud apps forever. If I could get a good wage in academia I would but it seems much less likely than getting a job at one of those companies I listed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The article raises a good point about the 'diagonal' transfer technique. Horizontal would be moving about in your own pay grade to a different job, vertical would be up or down in pay in your own company. Diagonal is very much something that occurs with frequency. You company may not have a position for you to move up into but another fir does, so you jump up and over. Job hopping is not that bad and I really dont see a stigma anymore as people just plain are not retiring and companies are so fragile as is.

<comment><USER18> So, in the new reality, how often would you have to change jobs to be characterized as a "job hopper"?

<comment><USER17> Every quarter I'd think. If you can't stick around for the quarterly numbers to pop through and then get punishment or reward, then you'd be a job hopper. If/when we change to a sub quarterly financial system, then the job hopper meme would adjust to that as well.

<comment><USER18> But there's no way you could do any big project in a quarter.

<comment><USER17> Who says that you need a big project done to get a new job? It just has to LOOK like you did a lot of work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is an interesting point, but I think the source (the graduate now working at one of the "most prestigious employers in the world") may be affected by a healthy dose of the Dunning-Kruger effect[1].

First of all, as a 22-year-old it's easy to feel like 2-3 years is an eternity. It's also easy to undervalue the attributes that the more senior employees possess, as one simply can't see them.

"Brilliant" and "Best" are not necessary synonyms. The first seems to me to mean standing out from the crowd, thinking differently, challenging the status quo.

Those are valuable, possibly even essential traits. However, one can easily waste a lot of energy spinning wheels trying to do those things at the wrong times -- a mistake I am very personally familiar with.

My sense is this graduate will spend a few years disrupting things a bit with mixed success. In 5-8 years, if they are as bright as they think they are, they'll have a lot of insight on new skills that they weren't even aware of at play in their seniors' interactions. I hope also that the graduate retains most of their original brilliance, so that they can begin to make a serious difference with a matured, balanced perspective on what their peers and seniors have to offer.

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

</comment><comment><USER20> Americans don't get irony, do they?

Lucy Kellaway writes a humorous column for the FT, the main subject of which is management nonsense.

The twist of this piece is that a new graduate considers her to be one of the dumb management that she has been mocking since the early 1990s (when I started reading her column), if not before.

<comment><USER2> It's impossible to appreciate the irony without that context. Thanks for providing it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think while this point of view is indeed very true for the large majority, larger companies combat this job hopping, by encouraging internal job switching; ie. going from one area of business to another, which is closer to getting a new job, than getting a promotion. This ensures that the company doesn't waste time in getting a ext. employee to get accustomed to the culture. But that's really the essence Human Capital Management (HCM). I am however not so sure, how widespread this practice is, maybe you guys know?

</comment><comment><USER22> The title of the article exploits our narcissism ever so well.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think this is too SV-centric (or even tech-centric). For instance, the major oil companies still offer pensions (and 401k's) and many employees stick around for decades. They also higher senior management internally. Marissa Mayer figures are relatively rare in the industry.

</comment><comment><USER24> I work for a company that promotes on average every 14 mos with average raise of over 14%. If you're a software developer looking for an unparalleled career path, let me know.

<comment><USER25> That sounds pretty slow - by job hopping, it can be quite feasible to raise your salary by 200+%, and learn more to boot due to progressively increasing responsibilities. The market for software engineers is quite cutthroat.

<comment><USER26> Again, this is only in SV. In canada, its pretty difficult to get a $100k+ job.</comment></comment></comment>


Network Effects That Don't Look Like Network Effects - <AUTHOR> https://a16z.com/2019/07/29/hidden-networks-effects/ <comment><USER2> Wow, this is a pretty poor article. Mixing up intentional (throttling) vs unintentional (unfinished) decisions and describing these as "hidden networks" which is supposed to be the intersection of "Seems like network effects" and "Doesn't seem like network effects."

Is this a joke?

Telling that the biggest conclusion I came away with is that rich people are mostly rich due to luck and circumstance.

</comment><comment><USER3> The article doesn't really have enough examples or analysis to justify its categorization of network effects. It deserves a more clickbaity title like "6 runaway startups you won't see coming".

<comment><USER4> Yup, it just seems like some random unsubstantiated theory being touted by VCs who want to show they're smart.

<comment><USER5> It's impossible that everyone out there blogging actually knows what they're talking about, and figuring out which ones do is getting to be a lot of work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Pretty sure the left side of the Venn diagram should say "Has network effects", otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Although even then it's confusing.

<comment><USER7> This is what happens when you outsource graphics to people without making sure they understand what you are talking about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting points, but they forgot to include one category: "We thought we would have network effects, but it turned out we didn't". Which, you know, can be really hard to distinguish from the others.

I am too cynical, I guess, but part of me was wondering while reading this, "Is this a piece intended to convince investors that some not-ramping-as-fast- as-we-thought startup is actually what they need to invest in?"

<comment><USER9> I'm wondering "Is Lambda School one of those startups?"

<comment><USER10> Well they haven't invested in Lambda School, so it's not like they have an incentive to say we have a network effect we don't have

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A claim that the prestige/name recognition of a school is a network effect is just plain wrong. More than half these examples are not network effects. Don't dilute the term in to uselessness by making its borders infinite.

</comment><comment><USER12> This article conflicts with A16Z earlier article on the "lack of data network effects as moats"

[https://a16z.com/2019/05/09/data-network-effects- moats/](https://a16z.com/2019/05/09/data-network-effects-moats/)

One of the cited examples of slow network effects is lending. Even if you draw a line saying "it's acquisition, not data"...due to nature of underwriting and acquisition in lending, there's no way around ignoring data there.

Which essentially means that this article is implicitly making the case for data network effects.

<comment><USER13> Yeah a16z is probably not best viewed as a monolithic entity, but rather a loose connection of people. They've contradicted themselves other times too. For example, Ben Evans has said that autonomous taxis will likely lead to more bland, commoditized cars, since fleets will buy cars like corporations buy PCs [1]. Frank Chen has predicted the exact opposite, saying that autonomous taxis will likely lead to a wider variety of cars, because it will enable weird designs to be shared across people to serve the long tail of needs [2]. Kinda hard to trust their logic on what's true when they have people arguing both sides, as in the example you highlight regarding data network effects. I guess we each have to come to our own conclusions and then let reality be the judge.

[1] [https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2015/7/27/ways-to- th...](https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2015/7/27/ways-to-think-about- cars)

[2] [https://a16z.com/2018/02/03/autonomy-ecosystem-frank-chen- su...](https://a16z.com/2018/02/03/autonomy-ecosystem-frank-chen-summit/)

<comment><USER12> Sure. Wasn't pointing out an organisational contradiction. I was pointing out that specific fact, since the previous article was much debated here on HN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is a great article but that ven diagram is really distractingly off. "Seems like" and "doesn't seem like" really shouldn't have an intersection. If you must use a ven diagram for this juxtaposition, make it "things that have network effects" and "things that don't seem to have network effects". (Still want that ven diagram?)

</comment><comment><USER15> That attempt at a Venn diagram makes my head hurt.

<comment><USER16> /r/dataisugly is a pretty good resource for similar charts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> A very insightful article by AH!

The only thing is that you can hit network effects after someone else and still win. Like bacteria cultures in a pond. By the time you lock horns you're both worth a lot.

PS: @dang please fix HN to not zoom during doubleclick on iOS 12+! It's one meta tag, but without it we iOS users can't select and edit text!!

<comment><USER18> Double-tap-to-zoom is standard web behavior. I (and I think most people who are familiar with touch behavior) would be surprised if it wasn't there. Hold- to-select is the more standard method of text selection.

<comment><USER17> On iOS, tap-and-hold brings up a black menu where you can click Select. That works but is far longer than just a double-tap.

All HN has to do is put one meta-tag <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, maximum-scale=1, user- scalable=0"></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Quiet/cheap study havens around San Francisco? - <AUTHOR>

So I'm planning on going to SF soon (coming from O/S) for a job interview. The only problem is I have to get into the US a couple of weeks earlier to present some research at a conference in Wisconsin, and am at a bit of a loss as to what to do with the time in between. I really just want to find a quiet place to study up on Coursera so that I'm fully prepped for the interview, and to just make good use of the time.<p>Can anyone think of somewhere to stay that's quiet and not too expensive (and accessible by public transport)? Eg. a decent cabin in a caravan park or something like that. The closer to SF the better but it's not an absolute requirement, I guess technically it could be anywhere between Wisconsin and California. Doesn't have to be anywhere touristy. My plan otherwise was to just hang out at the Hayes Valley inn for that duration, but it seems like an expensive way to spend all day on the computer! Airbnb would also be an option I guess (can be risky tho...). <comment><USER2> Um, a library?</comment>


Ask HN: Been toying with a model for running a company. Critique me please - <AUTHOR> I've been running a SAAS company for the last 13 years. Its successful but stale due to being too old.
We're relaunching it from scratch now, using our experience from those years. All that is just background.
I've been toying with an idea on how to run the new incarnation of the company, drawing from my 20 years experience launching and working with Internet start ups, and I've
drawn up a set of ideas that I think could make this fun and successful. None are ground breaking or never been done before.
1. There is no office. Temporary shared space (e.g. WeWork and co.) can be arranged. Saves lease/rent etc.
2. No geographical boundaries. You can be anywhere on the planet.
You can be traveling through India as much as I care.
3. No fixed working hours, but you do have tasks and those  are measurable.
I don't believe working 8 hours a day equates to 8 hours of productivity.
Its half that at best. More important that a task is done by a agreed date.
4. Once or twice a year we can bring everyone together, to sync up and have some fun.
5. Foster an appreciation for work/life balance.
6. An employee's contribution to the company is directly related to these guidelines being successful.
7. Rules are important but rules that cannot be broken if needed are not worth having.
Including those above. Pragmatism should always prevails.
The ideas is that this requires the right people who can actually work under those conditions but when found, I believe they would like this arrangement to continue
and will contribute just the best of their productivity to make this a success.
I also think hiring should be done on as needed basis and not to accommodate some
grandiose dreams of uber growth or without a solid requirement for the role.
What do you think? I've been thinking about this so much I probably can't spot
my own pitfalls here. Could this model work? <comment><USER2> I guess the devil is in the details: 1\. How is a task estimated? What if it's wrong? How many misses before you fire the person? what if that person is taking more risks and taking on more responsibility and challenging tasks?

2\. Usually you need some kind of process and task dependencies. What if there is a total bottleneck of "progrmmaing tasks" or "QA tasks" does someone go a week with pay to "work" for you?

3\. what about benefits? Is this 1099 or W-2 work?

4\. What about team based contributions? I help team mate X out with something is that a task? Do I get any contribution from it?

5\. Who pays for training and education time? reviewing code?

6\. What kind of rate are you targeting? What would my monthly pay look like?

7\. what about strategic types of contributions. I know guy or I want to take sub market and run with it? or did you ever think about xyz? If your piecemeal-ing the work is there an allowance for that?

8\. is there an opportunity to "buy-in" via time or contribution or even real money and get % of the profits or company?

9\. how does the system evolve over time? fix problems? do "workers" have a say?

Sorry I'm really into the idea of marketplaces and using technology to build hyper-efficient eco-systems.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. Task estimation depends on the task really. I always thought a feature is debated, decided upon and the outcome speced to some degree, wireframed etc. Duration can be estimated by the developer. Over time people learn to estimate more accurately. I don't want people to overstretch. I want realism in estimation. Under those conditions, if I have to fire someone, I'd be pretty pissed off that they put me in that position after I'm really trying to make something that works for everyone. You'd have to take the piss quite blatantly for that to happen.

2\. Some positions are task based, like development. Some are continuous like QA or admin etc. The flexibility on hours and deadlines is extended where it makes sense. Its unfortunately not 'every role gets same conditions' situation. Fairness is the keyword here.

3\. Not sure about that part yet. I'm not American, but my partner is. This is to be figured out still.

4\. You don't get paid by your contributions. You get paid your salary like you would in any full time job. But that salary doesn't buy your soul.

5\. You're an employee as every other employee. You were hired when the role made sense to have. Training is part of the job.

6\. I want to pay well. Above market rate. But I want to hire only when the money for that person is allocated and put aside a year in advance. If I need 1 developer and can afford one dev, I hire one dev. I've been in scenarios where I had a budget and was told to buy resources. Those end up with hiring more resources than you know what to do with and that's not good either.

7\. One thing I want to stop is white labeling and and bending backwards because client X said they want a feature that makes sense only to them. sub markets etc. are built into this product. If it makes sense - why not. If it deviates the product too much, i rather not.

8\. I guess share options would be a thing at some point. We're privately owned, never took a penny from anyone. Also something to be figured out.

9\. I am open to evolution, hear what everyone has to say, fix what needs fixing. This is why I've posted this here. This plan has been in my head for a long time now. I'm not ready to go with it just yet ,and a lot is balancing on the relaunch and its success. But I rather be prepared for that eventuality.

Thanks for all your points here. It gave me a lot to think about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Assuming you have a reasonable means to peg pay to productivity and you hire people who are capable of hitting those marks within a reasonable time frame, I think this is a great idea.

I worked for a Fortune 500 company that began allowing people to work from home. They decided people working from home should do an extra 20% or 30%. It was a number pulled out of thin air and based on nothing whatsoever. The result: People began working 10 or 12 hours a day to hit that number. Then they had to make some changes to the program because this was in violation of labor laws.

So, my point is that if you have ridiculous expectations and want too much out of people, then what you propose is going to be a problem. But if you structure it well and hire the right people, this has a lot of positives to it.

I do something similar. I make money doing "gig work" and I can work where I want, when I want, and this works far better for me than my corporate job did. But you will need to be careful that you aren't expecting too much for too little, basically.

<comment><AUTHOR> My expectations are not unrealistic. I don't even care if someone who can achieve a task in 20% of his time is paid for 100% of his time. The task was completed, that's all I care about. That, and that the person is happy and s/he has done the task the best possible way. This is not a scheme to get more out of people - its an idea to get exactly what is really needed and at the best quality. This at least is how I work and I don't think I'm alone. I'm aware this has been done before though the examples of 37 signals and automatic are the only ones. I would have hoped the idea of a company where the needs of the company and the needs of its employees are of the same value, is not so rare that only those two companies come up...

<comment><USER3> Fwiw, I was not leveling an accusation. I think this kind of work is the wave of the future and I hope to blog more about it at some point. It can be done badly and cause problems. When done well, I think it gives ordinary people some of the perks usually only enjoyed by the jet set and well off retirees.

I sincerely hope you pull it off and wish you the best.

<comment><AUTHOR> wasn't taken as accusation at all :) I am looking for critique and holes, caveats and best practices. That's why I posted. I really appreciate your reply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Isn't this how Auttomatic (wordpress.com) and 37signals already operate?

You could learn from their success

[http://smile.amazon.com/The-Year-Without-Pants-WordPress- com...](http://smile.amazon.com/The-Year-Without-Pants-WordPress- com/dp/1118660633)

[http://smile.amazon.com/Remote-Office-Required-Jason- Fried/d...](http://smile.amazon.com/Remote-Office-Required-Jason- Fried/dp/0804137501/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457895700&sr=1-1&keywords=remote)

</comment><comment><USER5> The good thing is that you can find more easily good people at low work cost. However, it might be hard to evaluate the value of the contribution of each "employee". What if some people throw unreasonable estimates?

One idea to overcome this is: you work by small increments of features. You put each feature on the table and people bid the time to complete it. You assign the task to the one with the best reasonable estimate and with good track on the delivery - depending on the risk of failure. People that don't offer reasonable estimates can be replaced. The thing is that you know that without understanding the code, because someone else will bid less time and do it.

A variant is per-project, "last feature is free". After each feature, you pay the previous delivered feature, based on hourly time counted by the programmer. When you find the bill to be overcharged, you just pay the previous feature and close the collaboration. You might guaranty to pay a reasonable but fixed sum, in advance or at the end, to reduce the risk of the programmer to not be paid after too few tasks.

People should also have some stock or bonuses by global performance, otherwise they would not be also team players. And more than this, they should share a minimum motivation to be proud of the global outcome, for example because of how their work is making the world a bit better. Money if not always enough for people to really want to make it work.

<comment><USER6> > "The thing is that you know that without understanding the code, because > someone else will bid less time and do it."

This, one of the fallacies of programming project management. What if I avoid developing a good architecture and full testing, in order to make it appear I have done the same work in less time and cost?

I see this all the time, the fact that something seems to "work" just now does not necessarily mean the job has actually been done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So I think all of this is good, and am all for work from home and work remote. I work remote, and don't see going back to an office ever.

I assume by you posting this that you come from a more traditional setup? Office of a bunch of local people? I suspect the biggest surprise you will hit will be with

> No geographical boundaries. You can be anywhere on the planet. You can be > traveling through India as much as I care.

If you get async communication down, you can work this. However for async communication to work well, I find you need to all be on the same page. If you start in an office with 6 people then go move apart.. you still have the same brain space and same goals. If you just hire 6 people in 6 random countries? You will all have VERY different worldviews and ways to work and end goals in mind. One guy may just want to make crap work. One guy may just paste stack overflow code. One guy may like to write really high performance code. One guy wants to write very concise code. etc.

So I think your biggest challenge will be getting all people on the same brainwave. Even with a meeting or two a year in person, what keeps you looking for the same goals? In person we generally hire people very much like us. Which is good from the same brainwave view, but bad for a diversity point of view. Your worldwide company will have a lot of diversity and unique ideas, but also a lot of people fighting and clobbering each other as you head for disparate goals.

So my best ideas is maybe start with 1-2 local guys, get a tight bond... and then use them to hire future guys, to try and keep the culture the same as you grow.

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually come from multiple backgrounds. In the last 20 years I've done mostly startup environments and a bit of corporate in 3 countries/cultures. I've also done a fully remote startup which later evolved (and died) into a more traditional office based situation. I started thinking about it based on observations on how I work and how productive I am, as well as people around me. I never understood the 8 hour workday, not to mention those who go over it. Not that I didn't pull all nighters or the rare 48 hour work day but I never liked it. I worked with people for whom this setup would simply not work, and those who will find it liberating and will be hyper productive.

I like the idea of starting local and expanding. Its a good point and it makes sense. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This sounds like a culture that prioritizes work-life balance, independence, and self-motivated employees. You're not aiming to measure butts-in-chairs time but delivery of working software as far as performance is concerned.

Focus on those specifics when hiring and not something like specific technology stacks. Once you narrow your talent pool to that philosophy and then narrow it further by tech stack you may end up with so few people to choose from that you will end up with people that match the tech stack but not the philosophy and they won't work out long term.

It's SaaS, which means web application, which means your tech stack really doesn't impact success||failure. So choose smart, agile learning people that match your work philosophy and they can learn whatever stack needed. You say "we" so maybe you already have a team - in which case they may not agree with your new philosophy or they may not want to change tech.

Make sure the compensation, HR stuff like benefits, etc. match this philosophy. By that I mean make employee contributions tied to something like profit sharing, equity, bonuses, etc. That can help motivate and enforce the delivery of value priority over hours worked (aka here's a salary for 40 hour weeks).

Also have legal/HR stuff figured out in case - employment laws differ by country and if someone decides to work/travel through Europe for a couple months, does that have tax/finance impacts on your company or employee? Do they need a work visa? How will internet be funded? How will pay be handled for work locations with different costs of living ... will it be "fair" if someone chooses to live in SF area and gets higher pay than someone in Belize?

These are all rhetorical questions but if you have this stuff figured out, people might want to hear the approach.

</comment><comment><USER9> It seems to be working for Basecamp (formerly 37Signals, creators of the Basecamp project management software). Read their two books REWORK and REMOTE,where they explain how they did it. You can also find the basics reading around their founder's blog ( [https://m.signalvnoise.com](https://m.signalvnoise.com) ), where they also lists some other companies that share this approach (buffer, zapier...)

</comment><comment><USER10> 2\. No geographical boundaries.

Reading this always feels wrong to me. Face to face communication is higher bandwidth than text or video.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that is always an ideal but the right kind of people make it unnecessary. I've been involved with hiring for other companies as well as working with remotes. Its very hard getting the right people for both scenarios. In fact getting someone who is invested in your project half as you are is rare in my experience. Most of the time I see people are invested in their colleagues and environment more than the product itself (from my feedback post employment with those I stayed friends with).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like what you have, but feel something like this would be helpful for your employees to know how their contributions ultimately benefit them long term.

[http://slicingpie.com](http://slicingpie.com)

</comment><comment><USER12> Mokriya works this way. We work with companies like Intel, Google, Twitter, SanDisk, Salesforce etc, with workforce spread across the globe with no set timings and very little management or bureaucracy.

<comment><AUTHOR> And what's your impression of this arrangement? What does your colleagues think?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This sounds ideal to me. Where do I apply? :P

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately nowhere at this point. Its not ready just yet... :)

<comment><USER14> IMHO, there are a two things very critical for your plan — Finding people who are articulate and communicate really well. In remote teams this is very critical. Secondly getting people who share the same passion as you do. You should hire them only if they can be the CEO of your product/ company. Anything less, do not even think. You need a team with lots and lots of passion and self motivation. And there aren't many people out there actually. Let me know when you begin.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. I'll ping when ready :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft Preps Alternate JavaScript Engine for Node.js - <AUTHOR> http://thenewstack.io/microsoft-chakra-javascript-engine-node/ <comment><AUTHOR> The one thing ChakraCore has going for it is support for the ARM Thumb-2 instruction set (16/32-bit hybrid with pretty good instruction density.) But I suspect that V8 could support it without an unreasonable amount of effort.</comment>


One-time treatment generates new neurons, eliminates Parkinson's disease in mice - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200625102540.htm <comment><USER2> It should be noted that many treatments for these types of diseases in mice models have sadly not translated to humans. Actually I can't recall any that have...

</comment><comment><USER3> A close family member died of Parkinson's. It's an awful way to go, especially if you get it young. Godspeed.</comment>


Zynga's IPO filing shows utter dependence on Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/07/zyngas-ipo-filing-details-risk-dependence-on-facebook.ars <comment><USER2> I would say that on the other hand Facebook is also dependent on Zynga: They get a big part of their revenue from them and the games are a big reason people come to Facebook.

Also Google owns a big part of Zynga and G+ will soon launch developer tools. They are probably already on it.</comment>