Why no one is exponentially smarter than others - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/tractatus-logico-universalis/on-why-no-one-is-likely-to-be-exponentially-smarter-than-others-66615846ed97 <comment><USER2> Wait, the whole argument hinges on assuming P != NP correct? Which isn't something that is proven... so by following the author's analogy, I think left with the conclusion that there is definitely a possibility that there are people exponentially smarter than others.

The other assumption was based on the determinism of the machine. As far as I understand, the brain is not a deterministic computer. We don't really understand how our brains work at all, but they definitely don't work in any way shape or form to how we understand a computer to work, this leaving even more possibility for interpretation to an opposite conclusion.

Lastly, what about all the evidence of people who actually did accomplish exponentially more work than others? We have the benefit of the hindsight to check that real quick and, yup, I'd say 100% there are people who have done it. Elon, Jobs, Gates, etc...

However, I'd agree with the author if they argued that we can't predict who will be exponentially smarter. To do that, we would have to simulate the future or have an algorithm that can tell us, which obviously presents some contradictions.

I think we all just sort have to wait and see.

<comment><USER2> Not to mention that smart people usually do amazing things by just changing the rules and making the problem easier to solve (you can only make a horse go so fast or pull so much, but you can invent an automobile or train)

This whole analogy I realized after thinking about it is just computer science baby babble.

Fundamentally it comes down to not formally specifying the problem (not saying I can, I can't and neither can anyone else that I'm aware of)

People always want to cling to quantitative interpretations of qualitative problems, and then declare QED, despite the whole thing being predicated off a false premise to begin with (like the thing we're discussing is an appropriate candidate for an algorithmic interpretation to begin with).

And without a formal specification of the problem, we have no formal way of checking our solution.

<comment><AUTHOR> Firstly, have you read ImaCake[1]?

Secondly, if you're so smart, why didn't you write this essay, and refute it yourself?

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622871](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622871)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think a better model is not that some are exponentially smarter than others, but that some folks are operating close to the problem manifold and the rest aren't.

AKA, some people are solving classes of problems in approximately the most efficient way (or relatively more efficient way) and most people are computing solutions in exponentially inferior ways.

</comment><comment><USER4> To put it real lightly, it's a real stretch to make any kind of analogy between the human brain does work and the way that semiconductor based processors do work. The author's reference to Stephan Wolfram's idea of universality (developed in a prior essay) seems unfortunate: >"The key unifying idea that has allowed me to formulate the Principle of Computational Equivalence is a simple but immensely powerful one: that all processes, whether they are produced by human effort or occur spontaneously in nature, can be viewed as computations."

To borrow a metaphor from a recent HN thread about an eponymous paper called "How to recognize AI snake oil" [1], there's an "incomplete and crude but useful breakdown" on you can apply towards AI problems: genuine and useful progress in perception, imperfect but improving work in automating judgment, and fundamentally dubious attempts to predict social outcomes.

Let's think about where the idea of a theory of mind based on computational complexity to determine "smartness" lands -- it's certainly not stimulus detection, it's certainly not automating judgment, but it is about predicting or modeling social outcomes. I would say that this application Wolfram's idea is fundamentally dubious. Because of this, it's hard for me to say that the premise, argument or conclusion of this essay is anything but fundamentally dubious.

To at least leave a useful suggestion: this essay is missing an adequate definition and exploration of what "smart" is, why it's a facet of human nature and history, and what issues the concept causes. To the author, I'd recommend starting off by building a better foundation there before jumping to conclusions that are hard to take seriously.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577156)

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. ?? You do realize there are self-appointed geniuses who actually make this kind of arguments, right?

2\. That snake-oil AI paper guy, right though he may be here, you know he's jealous of Bitcoin, right? Wrote a whole academic paper trying to justify how Bitcoin wouldn't exist w/o academia. If he was so smart, why didn't he write Bitcoin himself?

3\. If this was so obvious and you're so smart, why didn't you write it yourself?

<comment><USER4> Are you seriously asking me why I didn't write something which I just told you is a worthless thing to spend time writing about? Probably because I think it's a worthless thing to spend time writing about. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

Look, just because I don't buy your argument doesn't mean I buy the premise that "genius" exists the way it's constructed in society. I find that pretty fallacious too, but for different reasons. I don't think you're going to get to the core of why genius is a flawed concept with a strained analogy to computational complexity (which doesn't work) rather than by digging into historical context. I think if you focus on that, you'll probably make more progress on coming up with something interesting to say.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The PhD example late in this essay is one that I have lived. I am a failed PhD student who worked for 4 years on my research with no first author publications to show for it. The professors from my old school always express surprise and confusion that I didn't succeed since I apparently have the right combination of smarts. But, to me, my failure is more down to bad luck and unfortunate circumstance than any inate ability.

I would love to hear other's experiences with PhDs in the context of the essay's example.

<comment><USER6> Luck matters more than we are often led to believe. One can generate luck, to an extent, through persistence.

Leonard Mlodinow has written two books that you might find both resonant and uplifting:

Feynman's Rainbow: A Search for Beauty in Physics and in Life , and The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives.

Furthermore -- if you went to grad school and learned something, either about the subject or yourself, then the effort was not a failure. In the long game, it isn't about the degree nor the piece of paper.

<comment><USER5> Thanks :) I'll check them out. I think leaving was a great choice, academia is filled with madness, and I am happier not climbing up the impossible pyramid to professorship. But I am happy to support and work with those with such ambiition since they can do great things!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Related to the G's essay[1] on genius. AMA!

[1] [http://paulgraham.com/genius.html](http://paulgraham.com/genius.html)

<comment><USER7> I think you're skirting a truly fascinating question: can "higher consciousness" violate complexity bounds?

<comment><USER8> Consider a very fast classical computer is simulating a universe with newtonian physics. There's no concept of quantum mechanics in this universe. You create a black box where people in this simulation can ask you questions. You also have a quantum computer. Now you can answer questions that require quantum computing which they cannot answer in their universe

Next step: we're a simulation in a universe which has ways to violate complexity bounds we hit with quantum computers

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I guess for the same reason we don't have giants walking around either, these are depending upon many random distributions of interactions that ultimately lead to a Gaussian distribution of said characteristic (height or intelligence etc) via the central limit Theorem.

</comment><comment><USER7> Ha! Title so foolish it disproves its own premise.

<comment><USER7> Sorry! I couldn't resist.

Snark omitted, here's an alternate idea of "genius":

The word refers to a kind of spirit or daemon (same root as Genii). Consider the 'daimonion (literally, a "divine something")' of Socrates:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)#S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_\(classical_mythology\)#Socrates)

> In ancient Rome, the genius (plural in Latin genii) was the guiding spirit > or tutelary deity of a person, family (gens), or place (genius loci).

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

> Jinn, also Romanized as djinn or Anglicized as genies (with the more broad > meaning of spirits or demons, depending on source), are supernatural > creatures in early pre-Islamic Arabian and later Islamic mythology and > theology.

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

To be a genius is to be favored or assisted by one of more of these invisible people.

I don't know if they can solve any problem in NP in polynomial time but they can apparently predict winning lottery numbers which suggests to me that there must be something interesting going on from a computational complexity POV.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you're so smart, and this idea so obvious, why didn't you write about it?

<comment><USER7> I apologize, I didn't mean to offend you, I was just making a joke. You're actually making a great point I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> 1\. Author writes and posts article on HN.

2\. Commenters criticize article.

3\. Author responds to criticism with " why didn't you write this yourself" over and over.

Wow..

<comment><USER4> Ironically, the author's defensive responses to criticism seem to be the only thing being exponentiated here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If knowledge and skill is uniformly hierarchically decomposablbe, then everyone can do exponentially more work, over time. Technology's "increasing returns".

But there may be thresholds, such as working memory needed, because the skill or knowledge cannot be decomposed further due to interconnections.

It seems likely there exist some potential skills or knowledge that require more working memory than any human has, had or could ever have.

</comment><comment><USER12> Intelligence is hard to define. I believe that some people are "exponentially" better for very specialized tasks, for instance, solving logical puzzles, or internalizing rhythm in music, but it isn't necessarily noticeable, and doesn't translate to great accomplishments.

<comment><AUTHOR> Define it rigorously. We have, in terms of the amount of computation in m time steps.

<comment><USER13> No part of this is remotely rigorous. It all hinges on a few house of cards- like permises.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Even if the conclusion may be true, I find the argument unconvincing. There exist large differences in intelligence between some species, so it's plausible to think the same could be true within a species.

</comment><comment><USER15> One doesn't have to be exponentially smarter than others in given moment – by compounding smart ideas and decisions one can get exponentially better outcomes in time.

</comment><comment><USER16> Will you say that when an alien being with an IQ of 3,234,876 appears?

</comment><comment><USER17> Gosh I wish people would stop using exponentially as a synonym for "a lot".

<comment><USER18> I had the same reaction to the headline, but in this particular article it actually means exponential.

(It does make a leap from computation to intelligence though.)

<comment><USER19> Exponential in what?</comment></comment></comment>


Peak Mac - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2015/10/peak-mac.html <comment><USER2> I too have been a Apple user since the early eighties and recently been wondering if we might be seeing "peak Mac".

I switched to Windows back in the early '90s and basically hated life until OS X and the switch to x86 provided the incentives for me to switch back.

I'm using a 2008 MacPro, I'm planning on upgrading in the next 12 months, and the current MacPro models don't really fit my needs as well as the pricing would demand.

Now I'm leaning towards a Linux workstation but none of the software I have licenses for and need runs on Linux... and there is no Wine like project for running Mac apps on Linux.

<comment><USER3> I've switched to a Mac 3 years ago. After about 1.5 years I said to people who were curious about my experience with it: "When I started the Mac was great but it seems like I switched at the worst possible point because the experience gets worse with every update". Which is basically saying I switched when Mac peaked.

I for one have lost hope that I'll be able to switch to Linux for my everyday work, simply because most crucial apps in my workflow just run on proprietary systems.</comment></comment>


Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/breaking-judge-grants-apple-an-injunction-against-the-galaxy-nexus/

<comment><USER2> These patent wars don't help anyone but Apple, and directly hurts consumers. I don't think this is what anyone wants. It actually sickens me to see the law enacted in this way.

I really hope this comes back to bit Apple in the ass. It seems there has been a story about Apple doing something shitty everyday for the past few days, and the taste it leaves in my mouth is just getting worse and worse.

<comment><USER3> First, I'd like to note that the article provides a very poor summary of the patents. That said, I'd like to throw this devil's argument out there as to why these patent wars help consumers:

These patent wars might help consumers by allowing Apple to leverage the money they spend on R&D, giving them the traction necessary to invest further R&D, and pushing Apple's competitors to come up with new and _different_ ideas.

Apple has undeniably pushed the entire cell phone industry forward, and in the process had a tremendous impact on the software, entertainment, and game industries.

If everyone is free to copy their work and compete with them on price, and Apple could lose the market position they (in theory) earned through innovation, and may not be able to get it back. At the same time, if nobody else is innovating to do things differently from Apple, all we get are clones.

<comment><USER4> To the contrary, what it tells me is that Apple has lost confidence in its own ability to win on good ideas and good execution and is now being run by investors looking for quarterly returns and lawyers thinking this is actually a constructive way to "leverage the money they spend on R&D".

<comment><USER3> Or, they're trying to prevent Windows 95 all over again.

<comment><USER5> Preventing Windows 95 would have been great for consumers, because competition is bad.

<comment><USER3> Actually, it would have been good because competition is good, and Microsoft proceeded to sew up the market as a monopoly for decades, using a slew of underhanded tricks to do so, and grossly undermining the position of the primary innovator who held a far better product. It wasn't until Windows 2K that MS even began to catch up to Apple's work, and then Apple leapfrogged with the NeXT purchase.

<comment><USER5> > using a slew of underhanded tricks

You wouldn't be referring to IP shenanigans would you?

<comment><USER3> No, I don't mean IP shenanigans:

[http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepape...](http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "A means of detecting and marking up data like a phone number or an e-mail address, and then initiating a phone call or an e-mail when the linked data is clicked" nobody should own a patent on that, what the heck? The patent system is seriously messed up. Don't get me started on the other patent: "A means of searching multiple databases and sources for data." how can anyone be awarded such a generic patent? I'm disgusted.

<comment><USER3> The automatic touch screen-based linkification of phone numbers, addresses, and calendar dates was fairly novel <edit> _for smartphones_ </edit> when Apple introduced it. I don't believe anyone else was doing it <edit> _on smartphones_ </edit> \-- and if they were, there's prior art, and the patent should be invalidated.

What made it that especially interesting was that it alleviated a large part of the need for copy+paste. If you'll recall, the first iPhone OS didn't ship with copy+paste.

I'm having trouble figuring out what "A means of searching multiple databases and sources for data" actually refers to.

<comment><USER7> There was a whole HN thread throwing up prior art about the linkification patent (and also on Reddit). Linkification was being done in the '80s, based on one of the programs that someone managed to scrounge up in the thread, and the '90s as well. No patents issued - people just did it.

The fact that these programs were written tells us that software writers innovate regardless of whether patents are issued for their work or not. That's the nature of software (and technology in general). The difference is, some software makers don't expect to protect their new features from competitors with patents. That's the crux of it, imo.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. I have my own negative opinions about software patent novelty, I just wanted to point out that it was somewhat unique on smart phones.

<comment><USER8> Suffixing an old idea with "on smart phones" is not innovation, even if you do it first.

<comment><USER3> I see your point. My counter-argument would be that it solved a unique touch- screen problem of a lack of keyboard/mouse and a lack of an easy way to highlight text.

I think the thing I'm hung up on is that Apple stormed into the phone market and did a whole bunch of smart things that nobody had thought of, but are obvious in retrospect.

I don't agree with software patents, but I can't help but hesitate before agreeing that it's beneficial to the industry to let Apple's competitors wholesale copy their work (even the small things).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So wrong. When will we have comprehensive reform on software-related patent law? In this age everything is powered by a computer of some sort, and it's very important to the intellectual future of the nation that we secure the right for individuals and corporations to innovate without fear of a patent lawsuit.

<comment><USER10> Why is it wrong exactly?

<comment><USER11> It's wrong because Apple isn't simply protecting their IP, they're waging a litigious war against a legitimate competitor in hopes that the courts will give them the edge in the marketplace and not their _superior_ products.

<comment><USER12> They are using the legal system - an important part of modern business. I can assure you in economies with inefficient or nonexistent legal systems, things get much worse and doing business is next to impossible.

Should apple not do this? This is hardball, we're talking billions... and they know they have a limitied window to take advantage of this before they have to continue. They'll make more than the hundred million they put up to do this in the time it takes to settle things. No fanboy-ism here - but the iPhone DID fundamentally change the close-minded walled-garden ripoff stagnant mobile world to get off it's ass and innovate.

Are the patents absurd? Blame the patent system, not Apple for using it. Be sure their competitors are just _waiting_ for a patent opportunity to come along to smash Apple over the head with. Let the big boys play their game. Apple anted up 95 million dollars that they lose if the case does not go in their favour... this isn't a freebie by a longshot.

So until the legal system levels the playing field and fixes the patent system or otherwise makes this type of action impossible, it's dog eat dog.

And in the end - the courts will decide. Don't like the patent system? talk to your representatives in government. Don't want to do that because it "won't matter"? Then you don't have much standing in my books to argue either way. Think politicians care about money? they care about VOTES, which money really helps buy - but convince them they have your votes and they money doesn't matter, they don't need campaign money if they have their votes locked.

<comment><USER13> > Are the patents absurd? Blame the patent system, not Apple for using it.

I think viewpoints differ largely at this point. While I agree that Apple has every right to use any and all legal ways to defend itself and potentially harm competitors; given that everyone is aware of the absurdity of majority of patents, it does seem wrong to use them offensively. There is no law against being douch-stupid-ignorant; laws are not always moral/right - they follow morality only slowly and caters to only the most easiest morality questions. Rationality allows Apple to do whatever it can, only the current morality doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> When you work for a company that does this, you owe it to your integrity to resign.

The government is too incompetent to fix this mess, and market pressure isn't going to do it either. That leaves us, the actual engineers. It's our job to tell the companies we work for that litigating instead of competing isn't acceptable.

<comment><USER15> Perhaps you should define "this".

<comment><USER14> Uses software patents offensively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a preliminary injunction. It doesn't mean Apple wins against Samsung. From TFA:

"Apple was ordered to post a bond of $95 million to enact the injunction, which would be used to pay Samsung damages if the decision is later reversed."

<comment><USER17> Can consumers sue Apple for denying them the opportunity to acquire Galaxy Nexus?

<comment><USER18> Yes, in the U.S. you can sue for pretty much anything. You'll probably lose, but you can at least give it a go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was here when this all started.

When Android surfaced, it did not look blatantly like the iPhone. That is, until the Galaxy appeared. From the moment I saw a Galaxy prototype it was obvious: they were going to get sued.

Whether or not the iOS vs Android war makes sense at a high level is an interesting discussion, but this is pretty simple: Samsung practically begged to be the first to get sued. There isn't a lot to say about it after that.

</comment><comment><USER18> Too bad, just got one and by no possible stretch of the imagination is it an iPhone. It's not that it's bad or good, just completely different.

</comment><comment><USER15> Without the iPhone, there would be no Galaxy series. If you don't get that, you don't get that.

It's up to those two companies to work it out. Until that happens, this is what we get -- and Samsung, at least, has little to complain about.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm no lawyer. Is this ruling stating that the court believes the patents are valid, or simply that if they are found to be valid that they are being infringed in this case?

There's a huge difference between the two, and the article isn't quite clear on what the finding is. The bond makes it sound like it could be the latter, but everybody here seems to be assuming it's the former.

<comment><USER12> It's a preliminary injunction to prevent damages - the court has been convinced that this will go to court and that the damage done to apple during the time it takes to resolve the case warrants an injunction. They also wanted a bond from apple in case it goes the other way so the opposition doesn't get too screwed over if THEY win.... that's money in their pocket - not sure how common that is... first time I've heard of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> 2,3,4 and seem ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER21> Well, better go out and buy a Galaxy Nexus, now that I am eligible for an upgrade and now that Apple wants to take it away from me.

</comment><comment><USER22> I will never buy an Apple product again.</comment>


The Importance of Industry Contacts - <AUTHOR>

Can a startup use conventional promotion (such as Good Adwords) to accrue a large user base, or are contacts within the field more often than not necessary for success? <comment><USER2> They never see the vision...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I can imagine a lot of purely business-driven connections would not be able to appreciate the startup, but this is exactly why the question is important - how necessary are they, as a necessary evil?</comment>


How Docker helped us keep our run-time environment up to date - <AUTHOR> http://blog.iron.io/2014/04/how-docker-helped-us-achieve-near.html

<comment><USER2> Very interesting case study. We ran into the Fuse issue ourselves, but in our case we were able to drop back to a headless JRE install. Other than that we have run into very few major issues using Docker in our prototype production architecture. We currently have images for quickly deploying elasticsearch, our logstash logging infrastructure, and a number of custom components. The main benefits for us so far have been the improved maintainability and ease of deployment of declaratively configured images, and the strong sandboxing and dependency control.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder how or if docker relates to their provisioning of containers for .net tasks.</comment>


A Goldman Sachs Managing Director Quit for a 12 Month Residency at Google Brain - <AUTHOR> http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/267722/goldman-sachs-md-quit-12-month-residency-google-brain/ <comment><USER2> So the only one not to join Trumpistan.</comment>


SharedCoin: A Coinjoin implementation (Bitcoin mixing) - <AUTHOR> http://sharedcoin.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> The original Coinjoin algorithm description can be found here: [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0)</comment>


Ask HN: Economic health aggregators? - <AUTHOR> (Not sure "economic health aggregators" is the right way to put it...)
I sometimes look at isthestockmarketgoingtocrash.com, which displays estimates of household debt, market volatility, market overvaluation, etc. all in one place.
Are there any similar (or better) sites that you know of? <comment><USER2> I've found [https://tradingeconomics.com/](https://tradingeconomics.com/) to be a good source for a lot of economic indicators for various countries.</comment>


Children lack ability for Dickens, says biographer Tomalin - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16896661

<comment><USER2> I know counterexamples. My second son read Oliver Twist at no more than sixth- grade age (as I just verified by asking him what Dickens he remembers reading). We homeschool all our children, and we make sure that they learn to read thoroughly.

[http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Linguistic-Approach-Leonard- Bloom...](http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Linguistic-Approach-Leonard- Bloomfield/dp/0814311156)

Then they are at liberty to read whatever they want, whenever they want. Fitting today's generation of readers, they all read a lot of "high fantasy" (Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling, etc.) and plenty of nonfiction on favorite subjects (e.g., mathematics, biology, history) but they are also well able and willing to read classic novels. I do get the impression, from observing what children in our community check out when they visit the local library, and from observing how infrequently some of them visit the local library, that Dickens is considered challenging reading in today's world. See also

<http://www.pacinfo.com/~handley/orsig/highschool.html>

for the suggestion that Oliver Twist is a senior-high-level book, which would be surprising to any of my four children.</comment>


How to bring back Chrome's old New Tab page - <AUTHOR> http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57605019-285/how-to-bring-back-chromes-old-new-tab-page/

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought the new tab page was really making Chrome slow so found this trick on CNET.</comment>


Interfacing with the Arduino's bootloader directly from C# to upload a Hex file - <AUTHOR> http://www.diericx.net/post/upload-hex-file-from-csharp/ <comment><USER2> Related question, but has anyone come across code to do this in python?

<comment><USER3> There is a Spanish blog by someone that managed to upload the hex over WiFi, using Python. An English write-up is here [0], and links to the original.

[0] [http://hackaday.com/2014/11/13/programming-an-arduino- over-w...](http://hackaday.com/2014/11/13/programming-an-arduino-over-wifi- with-the-esp8266/)</comment></comment>


Help me build the developers nightmare list: - <AUTHOR>

Let me get the ball rolling....<p>1. HAML 2. Coffee-script 3. Upgrading from bootstrap 2.3 to 3.0 <comment><USER2> Personally...

1\. Naming anything, whether it's methods, database fields, variables, etc. I try all sorts of conventions, but it's always ugly. It's annoying, writing logical code, then trying to come up with creative and descriptive names.

2\. Forms. Big ol' complex, custom forms. Lots of design, html, css, jquery, error handling, validation on the front and back end, and saving to the database.

</comment><comment><USER3> Upgrading from 2.3 to 3.0 isn't so hellish :D, come on!

<comment><AUTHOR> depends on how big your project is. I've been working for hours on this thing :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What's wrong with Coffeescript?

<comment><AUTHOR> Javascript is one of my favorite languages, Coffeescript makes a great language impossible to debug.

<comment><USER5> Really? Source maps lets you debug the coffeescript directly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Naming things

Cache invalidation

</comment><comment><USER7> Object-oriented programming.

<comment><USER8> Care to share why? I've always loved coding in object oriented programming languages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Websphere, lotus notes

</comment><comment><USER10> managers that think they know technology.

</comment><comment><USER11> IE<9</comment>


I'm 14, and I quit social media after discovering what was posted about me - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90315706/kids-parents-social-media-sharing <comment><USER2> I sympathize with this perspective. I too would be livid and mortified if my family shared embarrassing photos of me in exchange for the quick dopamine hit that validation from acquaintances provides.

I'm hopeful that in the next several years there is a pushback against social media and the idea that for an experience to be valid, it must be shared. There's something to be said for having an album of photos that you pull out a couple of times a year to show a select group of others. It makes the experience much more valuable than blasting out content for everyone to see.

Makes me think that Gen Z is much wiser than the Millennials. People coming of age today are much more cautious than those who did 5-10 years ago (lots of drunken party photos on Facebook, etc). They understand the consequences of having information in the world that never goes away.

<comment><USER3> >There's something to be said for having an album of photos that you pull out a couple of times a year to show a select group of others.

My perhaps unreasonable hope for a Facebook killer is just a paid personal archive of your own photos, writings, etc. with the assumption of privacy by default.

<comment><USER4> Have you tried iCloud / iPhone? That's what I switched over to once I quit Facebook and Android. The iPhone is great, it's private by default, I can share photos / albums only with the people that I want, and I create different groups based off of different interests, trips, etc. All together with iMessage and Notes I get pretty much everything I had with a newsfeed / blog, all without the implications of Facebook and giving up all of my privacy.

<comment><USER5> Same here. At first it seems a little clunky, but then I realized that was actually a feature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My wife and I recently had our first child, and we decided we didn't want her to have any kind of social media presence until she was old enough to make that decision for herself.

It's been a challenge ensuring friends and family don't post stuff about our daughter, but reading this reinforces that we're making the right choice.

<comment><USER7> What is "old enough"?

<comment><USER8> 114\. A better question is at what age do social media participants stop being toxic or easily offended?

<comment><USER9> Some never

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Kids realizing they already have an online presence made by the people who were teaching them about being responsible about their online presence is becoming A Thing. Two other stories with similar circumstances:

"When Kids Realize Their Whole Life Is Already Online" [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/when-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/when- kids-realize-their-whole-life-already-online/582916/)

"My daughter asked me to stop writing about motherhood. Here's why I can't do that." [https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2019/01/03/my- daugh...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2019/01/03/my-daughter- asked-me-stop-writing-about-motherhood-heres-why-i-cant-do-that/)

<comment><USER11> That Washington post author is quite the narcisstic scumbag. I feel disgusted reading the writing of someone so extremely self-absorbed.

<comment><USER12> >> My daughter didn't ask to have a writer for a mother, but that's who I am. Amputating parts of my experience feels as abusive to our relationship as writing about her without any consideration for her feelings and privacy.

This part got me. To me that article definitely makes it sound like she's a writer first, and mother second. I just hope her child grows up to be a better person than that, or I hope I'm misunderstanding that article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I cannot imagine posting so much about a child of mine without them being aware of it at all. I talk a lot about my sons. They know. If I feel it is a story with sensitive information, I run it past them to see if they are okay with me saying that.

I can't really comprehend the thinking here of the family members who did this. They talk _about_ her but not _to_ her?

That's the opposite of "social" behavior. That's treating her like an object, not a person.

<comment><USER14> This. She've never seen his mom's Facebook profile in 14 years? It seems fake.

<comment><USER15> How's she supposed to see it if she's not allowed to have a Facebook account?

<comment><USER14> She lives with her mother 14 years and never saw her at any time posting in Facebook. Her mother never show her pictures there from her childhood?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm more surprised by the story telling and narrative of the 14 year old author! Impressed. Pretty sure the only thing I was worrying about when 14 was how to get past the min. word count and not use "however" so much.

<comment><USER17> Indeed, really impressive. It also impressed me to see what she's involved in at school:

> Sonia Bokhari is an 8th grader and a persuasive and narrative writer. She is > also the leader of her middle school's Gay-Straight Alliance and a member of > the school's Environmental Club.

She might not be the average 14yo :)

<comment><USER18> Yeah, she might be the parent-pressured 14yo.

<comment><USER19> wouldn't surprise me considering that she has the kind of parents that post online all the time about their kids

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This seems to me (albeit as a probably completely unqualified person to have a real viewpoint here, as a 50ish male without children) to be much ado about nothing.

Somehow, perhaps because of the pervasiveness of social media, the sense of self has expanded quite a great deal.

In a family, and later in public life, we don't have the right to control how we are perceived in the public. (I know some countries in the EU have differing views on that, but I disagree with them as well).

Just as the daughter has the right to not share herself or her life on social media, I don't believe she has the right to demand approval of her mother's or sister's posts.

I would argue that the mother and the sister have an equal right to share their lives as they wish, that includes things that were given or said to them by the daughter that is now aghast that these items were shared further.

Freedoms are always a balancing act. Every time we expand our personal sphere of control, we are impinging on the sphere of control of someone else.

I mean, I get the sentiment, and I get that a 13/14 year old would be embarrassed by these types of things, but that is unfortunately what life is like. We get to control the things we say and do, but we don't get to control what others do with it.

<comment><USER21> > Just as the daughter has the right to not share herself or her life on > social media, I don't believe she has the right to demand approval of her > mother's or sister's posts.

A legal right? Absolutely not. A moral right? Absolutely.

Knowingly disclosing information about someone that that person has expressly confirmed they would like to remain private is certainly not a friendly act. When the parties involved are in a close relationship, this can feel like (and in my view is) a serious betrayal. Such a betrayal can permanently damage that relationship.

The daughter's feelings in this situation are entirely valid, and she is entirely within her moral rights to demand her mother not violate her privacy.

<comment><USER22> > > Just as the daughter has the right to not share herself or her life on > social media, I don't believe she has the right to demand approval of her > mother's or sister's posts.

> A legal right? Absolutely not. A moral right? Absolutely.

Depends on your jurisdiction. In some regions, the subject of the photo is the legal owner, and absolutely has the right to control distribution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> A few parents have always tried to use their kids as a means for more than attention (fame, money, power). Now that advertisers see the influence that a few parents have, they are rabid with dollars.

On the far left side of the power law curve of that, we have:

"Online and Making Thousands, at Age 4: Meet the Kidfluencers"

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/business/media/social- med...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/business/media/social-media- influencers-kids.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19286701](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19286701)

<comment><USER24> You mean like the british royal family? Politicians? Movie stars? Which the news exploits for money as well?

It's so funny how the media pushes neverending anti-social media stories and yet exploits children themselves for money.

Is it okay when the elites and the news industry does it but not when ordinary people do it?

<comment><USER25> It's important that society maintains the illusion of fame through talent. If we decentralize our entertainment, the established political class has much less authority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I remember years ago reading an article stating that a time will come when young adults will sue their parents for posting pictures of them younger or stories.

Of course it was a bit extreme, but when I read that I'm afraid it might happens.

To my big shame I'm also quoting my kids sometimes on FB. But there are no picture of them online.

And I use FB with a pseudo and quote the with aliases only family know, so I guess it's not as bad.

</comment><comment><USER27> I get mortified about some of the stuff I see parents posting about their kids on social media. It's like they don't even realize they are living beings with feelings of their own and not some lifeless prop. Especially when its complaining about the kid... do you really want to publish that comment? Are you ok with them seeing it one day?

I don't mind occasional non-embarrassing non-inappropriate pictures and stories, but FFS, please don't live stream their entire life, it just seems so disrespectful to the kid.

It's also uninteresting to everyone else but you and perhaps the grandparents to boot.

</comment><comment><USER28> Why quit? Why not just tell your parents to make their accounts private, or remove the images that you're not comfortable with? I feel like there are solutions here that don't involve delaying the parent's participation in social media until the child is old enough to choose to accept it.

As much as this concerns the child's social media life, it's also a matter of the parent's experience. Parents post this stuff to share, and commiserate, and participate with other parents in the experience of parenthood. I find it difficult to accept that this girl will grow up and privately horde all of her children's images and information until they give consent to release it. Teenager tend to struggle with the fact that the people around them have lives as well.

All that said, I operate my social media very differently than this girls parent's seem to. I prune and keep friends lists very inner circle, I never post anything publicly, and I often show my children the pictures that I'm posting and get them involved in the process. they won't be surprised about social media when they become teenagers.

I think the next generation of people are just going to need to develop a thicker digital skin.

<comment><USER29> People have been sharing wallet photos of their kids for generations now, no one has a problem with that because you are basically saying "here's what my kid looks like these days" or "didn't he look like uncle dave in this picture? same nose," all very benign and also maintaining the kids privacy on their daily life, their feelings, and embarrassments and failures that can be so demoralizing when you are a kid. When you start religiously blogging your child's daily life, I'd say you have an unhealthy obsession toward social validation and it's unfair to your kid to use them to further your obsession.

<comment><USER28> I don't think it's (always) about being obsessed with social validation though, it's a new societal norm brought about by social media. In fact it's the _hook_ it's why people use social media at all, because you can _share your life_ with people in a way that wasn't possible before. The raising of children being a major part of that life. I would go as far as to say that the children aren't actually the subject in these posts, the real subject is the parent's life and the posts containing images and anecdotes of their kids are a side effect.

Maybe this is an opportunity for some social media company to get ahead of this and use facial recognition to tag people across ages. If the user decides that they don't want their image to appear on someone else's account, they can go through the images granularly and take them down.

I think what I'm getting at is that this is _new_. It's as new as is the ability of a 14 year old to express their frustration with something and have an audience of millions. I don't think the solution here is to tell parents that it's inappropriate to post about their children online. I think the real solution has more to do with finding a comfortable balance and set of controls so that everyone's interests can be accounted for.

p.s. I shuddered while typing "14 year old to express their frustration with something and have an audience of millions". The next 50 years are going to contain some _hard_ times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm free of most social media. I only have a twitter, which I use to wile away time and keep up with bands going to my local music venus.

I have considered resurrecting my social media presence lately. I live a long ways away from my parents. I think it is kind-of nice to allow my parents to form a para-social bond with my online presence. Just so they can see how I am doing.

However, I keep coming back to the same mantra about social media: There is no wisdom here. I love learning, reading, experimenting with new hobbies. I am lifelong learner. Social media does not enhance that.

I tend to be a spitfire, and chewing out old people on facebook is NOT a good look. I do not want my past social media posts to come back to haunt me.

Also, I get a lot of anxiety when I am on social media. Old friends, old lovers, all of these messy complicated situations and people I have moved away from. Dragging all of that back up... no thanks.

</comment><comment><USER31> We made a rule not to post our children's faces on social media. I just had to ask myself how I'd feel if I grew up and found a bunch of stuff on the internet about me I couldn't get rid of.

</comment><comment><USER32> A 14 year old who is embarrassed by what their parents posted == a 14 year old who is embarrassed by what their parents _did_ == a 14 year old.

When this girl grows up, she'll understand she was being immature and there's nothing embarrassing about your parents posting moments about you that made _them_ proud. Her parents seem awesome that they're respecting her wishes now.

As I write this, I'm reminded of a Louis CK bit when he describes your thought process when you see a woman scolding her kid in public. When you're not a parent (which seems like most commenters here), you're thinking OMG what a terrible parent. When you're a parent, you're thinking what must that child have done to that poor woman.

</comment><comment><USER33> This really reinforces a small conversation I had on Mastodon last week about creating mastodon communities for families (ie a family has their own private mastodon instance). Now mom, dad, gramma, and even younger kids can participate in social media together but not in the public eye. Maybe allow white listing of other families' instances so gram can keep up with other families or other grandkids not in her instance or so parents can plan stuff.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc are too big and too open for kids (heck, I am a father of two and I don't feel comfortable on the platforms because they are too public).

Also, I have no desire to see my children use traditional social media, they are toxic and are breeding grounds for bullying.

</comment><comment><USER34> _even those who post constantly are more aware than people just a few years ago about how much information the internet is absorbing about us._

I'm about 10 years older than the author, and we _were_ aware. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is just the straw that broke the Camel's back. That was Facebook's MO all the way back circa 2010. It was just that most of us teenagers at the time simply didn't care. The adults warned us the same way they warn teens today but for the most part they didn't care about the data mining back then either.

</comment><comment><USER35> I've given up on telling family to not post pictures of my kids on the internet. I just deleted all social accounts and no talk to them. Social media is utter cancer IMO.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is a pervasive problem, where 3rd parties unintentionally emotionally effect other people with their social media posts. I was going to relate a story about how this effects people in polyamorous relationships, but then I realized this effects literally everyone who cares about anything strongly. And the long memory of digital artifacts creates additional opportunities to mess with people down the road.

</comment><comment><USER37> It's pretty apparent the things that a kid would be embarrassed about are not the same thing I as an adult would be embarrassed about. I'm 20+ years removed from those events in my life where these kids aren't. To them this is recent memory and more importantly still stuff they will get made fun of for. How many people do you know who carried a nickname all throughout middle and high school from one dumb thing they did when they were 8? I know some who still have the dumb nickname 20-30 years after the fact.

This isn't child abuse by any means but it's just incredibly dumb on the parts of the adults around them. By writing/posting about kids you make them public figures and open them up to all the abuse anyone on the internet wants to heap on them. And this is all happening at a time when they are going through painfully awkward transitions and just starting to discover who they are and want to be.

There are absolutely going to be lawsuits about this sooner than you'd think.

</comment><comment><USER38> Facebook launched when I was in college, and we were taught to treat it as a way of sharing pictures with your friends. We never got any training on what to share, what not to share, how permanent an online presence is, or anything since we were the first to use that sort of thing. It was just expected that new parents would post everything about their kid on there. Because you had that illusion of that it was "just for your friends". Most other social media sites like Xanga acted that way, and were usually gone within a few years. I think we have a lot to learn from Gen Z about the implications of making everything public and the dangers of social media. Because I can tell you that us millennials never learned any of that stuff except from news reports and by making mistakes.

</comment><comment><USER39> We've always been protective of our young children's presence on social media, because of all of these concerns. (Bravo to the author for articulating them so well!)

One of the big challenges has been other people (family members, etc.) who want to take pictures of our kids or record some funny quote and post it on THEIR profiles. We as the parents don't always have control over that (and we've had to request more than once that somebody take something down they posted). It's awkward all around, and I'm not sure what the solution is other than developing manners as a society (just like people have been trained to write SPOILER ALERT before they blab about a movie in comments or whatever).

</comment><comment><USER40> I love the idea of data locality: your home server contains your trove of photos, videos, music, and you grant limited shares to visitors. The digital equivalent of pulling out the photo album from under the coffee table.

This sort of idea dovetails nicely with the Secure Scuttlebutt concept that the social network graph mirrors the physical network: you swap the latest posts with others as you find yourself on the same local network.

Perhaps someday we will live in a more sophisticated world that relies less on centralized cloud providers and everyone runs a home server. Stories of youth pushing back against social media are certainly a step in the right direction.

<comment><USER41> Commercialise a shiny black box that plugs into the power (like a Wifi Extender), that:

1\. Connects to the internet

2\. uPnPs silently port 80 to itself

3\. Registers a name with a dynamic DNS service (remember those?)

4\. Has ~4GB local storage

5\. Runs a 'newsfeed' type web portal or API.

6\. Has a Phone app for easy sharing/creation of content.

Make this 100% turnkey for non-technical people and you MAY have a chance at getting people to stop storing personal stuff 'in the cloud'. I don't hold out much hope though.

<comment><USER42> > uPnPs silently port 80 to itself

Besides the fact that in the post-Let's Encrypt world we should start expecting port 443 by default for any web service, for many ISPs running a publicly accessible server violates the terms of service unless your contract with the ISP is their business tier.

To make things worse, a lot of people are issued a router by their ISP where uPnP is disabled, and they do not have access to its firmware to change this or other settings.

<comment><USER41> Yeah my bad - should have said 443, with auto-cert from XYZ provider.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is one smart kid for that age. The critical thinking and reasoning skills are on point. Its comforting to know that the younger generations are more informed about the consequences of poor use of technology.

</comment><comment><USER44> Very good article. However, one point stands out:

> _Despite everything that had happened with my mom and sister, I had made one > of the most common mistakes; all of my social media accounts were public._

I've taken the opposite stance and preferred public accounts: that way I don't post anything I'm not comfortable with being seen by the world. IMHO the false sense of privacy setting would end up making me providing a lot more data to networks.

</comment><comment><USER45> When I was a child my parents would consistently tell me that I should never put details about myself on the internet. But when Facebook became a thing it was suddenly okay to share pictures of your birthday party with complete strangers.

Personally, I don't feel comfortable with the idea of my photos being taken out of context and used in a way that I wouldn't agree with. Oddly enough, most of my friends don't see this as an issue.

<comment><USER29> When Facebook first became a thing you only added people you knew, rejecting friend requests from people you didn't, so it didn't feel as weird to share a group photo from your birthday party. When I first joined the site I really only added my friends and acquaintances from school, I wouldn't even add relatives unless they were around my age.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> While I think this 14 year old and story is authentic, I think this will be misused as a motivational story to fuel Zuckerberg's new white-knighting of privacy concerns. It's really important that Facebook be held to account for their negative influence, and not be allowed to distract with lofty future promises, and co-opt innocent peoples stories for cheap publicity.

<comment><USER46> For example, it would be trivial to default content be shared to friends only. If Zuck gave a true shit about privacy, that change could happen instantly, and years ago.

<comment><USER47> It was the initial default before VCs have came in.

<comment><USER48> Yup. I remember the "vote" they held that essentially gave away any further say in how those kinds of decisions are made. "We heard you loud and clear–you didn't vote, you must not care, so we'll do whatever we want with your stuff now." (Paraphrasing) of course they never actually intended it to be a democratic platform and knew full well what the results would be before even announcing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> My wife and I don't use Facebook or Instagram. When we have children I plan to setup an email account for them. I'll document their life by sending them photos and messages as they grow up. If something ever happens to me they'll know how much I cared about them. When they're old enough they can choose what parts of their childhood they want shared with the public.

</comment><comment><USER50> I immediately thought of the discourse surrounding Sally Mann upon reading this. The intent is different, the medium different, but I don't think the questions around her work have been satisfactorily resolved. If anything, they're heightened by the ease with which non-famous artists can gain extensive audience.

"Can a child freely give consent to be photographed, especially in vulnerable positions including nudity, when the photographer is a parent? Do these photographs unintentionally put children at greater risk given the reality of pedophilia in society? Do they unintentionally encourage a sexualized view of childhood? Does such work on any level exploit these actual children?"

[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text- idx?cc=mqr;c=mqr;...](https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text- idx?cc=mqr;c=mqr;c=mqrarchive;idno=act2080.0039.223;g=mqrg;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1)

</comment><comment><USER51> As much as I want to believe it's a good thing for a kid to be away from social media, there doesn't seems to be any compelling argument for it in that article.

It seems like fear is her only justification, which to me if anything, is the worse reason to do anything. Being aware of the risk and mitigating it when necessary is the right way to do it, instead of simply letting fear control us. The strange thing is that she seems to be aware of that risk and did use methods to mitigate it.

Her lack of social media doesn't seems to affect her though, so I guess it's alright in her case. I know personally though that my group of friend and I had ton of trouble to include people without social media in any event organization, and the increased friction slowly pushed many of the ones without it away (while the solution, which did work for some, was simply a fully anonymous account, though I think Facebook now ban theses accounts).

<comment><USER52> Maintaining a circle of friends is a pretty weak justification for social media use. Many of my friends and I don't use social media at all and we have zero issues coordinating events. It sounds like the real issue is that you didn't value the connection to your friend enough to reach out to them. SMS and phone calls are still a thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I share most videos and pics to a family chat group but after reading this I went back and checked there were no embarrassing photos. Also just by posting, even to a private group, who knows if the images and videos are kept forever (whatsapp, instagram, snapchat)

</comment><comment><USER54> reminds me of the onion video [0] on this from a 6 year old.

this is really challenging, I do not not have social media [1] and have not since 2007/8 ish and yet I know that people still post things about me and sometimes forward me an email of a picture posted at an event, dinner, gathering. I really do not know the answer here, I look like the bad guy if I inform others I do not want myself on there so I lose and know no way around it. More and more I feel the only privacy that exists is between my ears.

[0] [https://www.theonion.com/6-year-old-explains-how-messed- up-i...](https://www.theonion.com/6-year-old-explains-how-messed-up-it-is- that-her-entire-1826840659)

[1] other than HN I suppose

</comment><comment><USER55> Being anonymous or more likely pseudo-anonymous is very undervalued. I think there is already a trend but in the future people are likely to have many pseudo-anonymous identities and one public one with as few data possible and as curated as possible.

<comment><USER29> Even Kevin Durant has burner twitter handles for flaming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Thought provoking but ultimately melodramatic. Your family posted the equivalent of your baby book online. There are far worse things. You'll be fine.

</comment><comment><USER57> I think a big part of this is consent. My kids know I post their photo on Facebook/Instagram. They pick which one, and even tell me to "like" it after it's posted.

It brings up the question of how old they need to be (my kid was about 3-4 when she started telling us to put up her photos). But I guess we can always remove it later, and just don't put anything embarrassing up there.

<comment><USER21> I think you're right.

How can a 3-4 year old give meaningful consent to having her biometrics irrevocably recorded by one of the world's most aggressive and pernicious surveillance corporations? How fully did your kids understand all the implications of posting photos on social media before you agreed to do it?

> But I guess we can always remove it later

No. You can't. Maybe you can ask FB to stop showing the photo to other people, and maybe they'll comply, but FB will still retain it and any data derived from it (e.g., facial biometric data). Other people could have saved that photo and could re-post it at any time. Or FB could have a bug and that photo could resurface.

Once something is published on the www, there are no backsies. This is something every parent these days needs to impress upon their children. I'm honestly shocked that you, fellow HN poster, need to learn this lesson, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I made an X.500 OSI directory services entry for my eighteen month old child. This was in 1993 twelve years later he had to ask me to try and delete it. It was still popping up in searches for his name and he didn't like it. It was remarkably hard to erase since the quipu directory was basically offline then and the data only existed in Wayback style archives.

</comment><comment><USER59> It's almost unimaginable that a 14y/o is so wise. I was going to yell "Fraud!" but Fast Company seems trustworthy and the last sentences suggest it really was a 14 y/o. Amazing, when I was 14 I was like an 8 y/o compared to this girl.

</comment><comment><USER60> I support this, and when I have children i know family will be asking for photos. The plan will be to host a blog and link them to photos, for ultimate control of who has photos of my offspring.

</comment><comment><USER18> > _When I saw the pictures that she had been posting on Facebook for years, I > felt utterly embarrassed, and deeply betrayed._

Well, that's because you're 13, the age when kids turn blase and embarrassed about being kids, and of the childish things they used to like.

It's not like her mother did anything specially wrong, e.g. posting the letter to the tooth fairy, and so on.

It's only embarrassing to her because she's 13. When she's older, she will cringe that she used to be embarrassed about such a thing.

<comment><USER43> I respectfully disagree. Children have a right to their own privacy from the rest of the world and it is a parents' responsibility to respect that. My son is only 11 months old but neither my wife, our family/friends, or myself post pictures of him or any intimate details on social media. They can be shared privately but not on social media.

<comment><USER61> I think it goes even deeper than that. I firmly believe in my own right to privacy, but as an adult, I also have some understanding of the consequences and implications of my actions, and this informs what I do, and what I share.

Children do not and cannot have this luxury. They should not be held responsible for their choices and actions in the way that adults are, and a part of this is ensuring that their life is not documented with the level of permanency that is inherent in the internet.

<comment><USER43> Good point, I should have said "responsibility to ensure that" instead of "responsibility to respect that". Parents have the responsibility of protecting their child's privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Do we think this is maybe more of a mom trait than a dad trait? I know I have posted maybe a couple images of my children (2, 7, and 11) over the last 11 years. My wife on the other hand posts at least twice a day with images and quotes. I wonder if woman sort of use Facebook as a sort of "shared" baby book for their little cubs?

<comment><USER63> Twice a day? Don't want to be offensive but that seems very excessive. Even for people I know on Facebook that post regularly their kids' photos I think the maximum I see is once a week. I'm not from the US and don't follow that many people so that might be why.

<comment><USER27> My sister in law posts baby pics, no joke, 5 times a day, minimum. It's outrageous (IMO)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I feel sad that making friends online has turned into "contacting strangers".

</comment><comment><USER24> She quits social media and writes a public article in traditional media so that people can talk even more about her?

Is this her idea or the idea of her mother who probably is friends with someone working at fastcompany?

I'd be interested to find out how a "random" 8th grader got to write an article for fastcompany and if she or her family has any ties with anyone at fastcompany or even Mehta, the editor.

Also, couldn't this also be viewed as fastcompany exploiting an 8th grader for money and agenda? And is this girl's parents any better than the social media parents?

The internal contradictions and hypocrisy in this article is quite something to behold.

<comment><USER65> The difference is consent. She (presumably) gave permission for her essay to be published.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Anybody caring to take this micro-process manager for a test ride? - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/FrodeRanders/muprocessmanager <comment><AUTHOR> This piece of code was part of a proof-of-concept.

I am curious as to whether the failure state model is sufficient and kindly ask you to take a look.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the best books on startups that discuss failure? - <AUTHOR> I'm currently reading "Founders At Work" and the most interesting chapter (so far) is the one on Phillip Greenspun of ArsDigita. Phillip was forced out of his own startup by his board and he eventually maneuvered behind the scenes to regain control. He's very open and honest about his failures and what he did wrong.
I find that many business books aren't that candid about failure and don't really discuss in-depth about mistakes the founder(s) made. I think learning about what not to do is often as important about learning what to do.
Are there any books on startups that discuss failure and mistakes candidly? <comment><USER2> I really liked Ben Horowitz's "The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers" [1]

The book is not focused on failures, but it's full of really good advices on what to do when a company is moving into disaster.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Hard-Thing-About- Things/dp/0062273...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Hard-Thing-About- Things/dp/0062273205)

<comment><USER2> Another couple books for inspiration. I read them one after another (huge contrast in a way to run a company):

\- Brad Stone's "The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon" [1]

\- Richard Branson's "Everything I Know About Leadership The Virgin Way" [2]

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Store-Jeff-Bezos- Amazon/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Store-Jeff-Bezos- Amazon/dp/0316219282)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Everything-About-Leadership-Virgin- Har...](http://www.amazon.com/Everything-About-Leadership-Virgin- Hardback/dp/B00OBKV3EW/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I highly recommend all of the following:

\- 'DEC is Dead, Long Live DEC' (one of the best books I've read on the failure of a tech firm)

\- 'Dealers of Lightning: Xerox PARC and the dawn of the computer age'

\- 'The Supermen: The Story of Seymour Cray and the Technical Wizards Behind the Supercomputer'

\- 'When Smart People Fail' by Carole Hyatt and Linda Gottlieb (I have the 1986 edition, I believe a later edition is also available; this book is well written but it is so good, complex, and mature that I had to read it several times to fully understand it, and I still try to read it at least once every year to refresh my memory)

\- 'The Anxious Organization' by Jeffrey A. Miller

\- 'The Soul of a New Machine' by Tracy Kidder

\- 'How to Get Rich' by Felix Dennis. (The title is misleading, this is not one of those books containing superficial, useless advice -- the book offers highly useful, in-depth, practical advice on entrepreneurship, including a brutally honest discussion of Dennis's many business failures [as well as his personal failures], and even a list of the most important business mistakes that entrepreneurs, including Dennis, typically make, and how to avoid them.)

\- 'Starting Something: An Entrepreneur's Tale of Corporate Culture' by Wayne McVicker. A little-known book, but absolutely excellent.

\- It appears that another user (bhamguy) has suggested 'Startup: A Silicon Valley Adventure' by Jerry Kaplan. Good choice, I support that selection, definitely one of the best books I've ever read on startup failure.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's an interesting question, but I don't know of any books that specialize on the mistakes of founders/projects, save for the Mythical Man Month [1] by Fred Brooks. HN does get a lot of "X is closing down" submissions, and some of them give interesting reasons for why the company didn't make it.

On a general level, there are usually more ways to make fatal mistakes than there are ways to make things successful.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man- Month](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the book recommendation! The books I'm looking for don't have to 100% focus on failure, but just include it in the overall story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> In Search of Stupidity: Over Twenty Years of High Tech Marketing Disasters

[http://www.amazon.com/In-Search-Stupidity-Marketing- Disaster...](http://www.amazon.com/In-Search-Stupidity-Marketing- Disasters/dp/1590597214)

</comment><comment><USER6> "The hard thing about hard things", by Ben Horowitz, best by far.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great, I'll check it out!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Startup: A Silicon Valley Adventure</comment>


New Zealand's War on Rats Could Change the World - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/new-zealand-predator-free-2050-rats-gene-drive-ruh-roh/546011/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> The province of Alberta, Canada (more than twice the land area of New Zealand) is free of rats.

In their case, it was largely by stopping rats entering from the east (Saskatchewan) in the 1950's - there are natural barriers on the other three sides.

History: [http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agd...](http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex3441)

Still, NZ could be divided into areas that have natural barriers, and peninulas (plenty of them), and start intensive poisoning barriers in those areas, expanding towards the sea.

Doesn't need gene editing, which certainly has unknown risks.

</comment><comment><USER3> >In its raw power, some conservationists see a way of achieving impossible- sounding feats like exterminating an island's rats by spreading genes through the wild population that make it difficult for the animals to reproduce.

How can a gene drive which prevents reproduction spread to the whole population? And wouldn't it be self limiting? I kinda of seems like me to be the opposite of a gene drive.

</comment><comment><USER4> _In 1997, farmers illegally smuggled a hemorrhagic virus into New Zealand to control rabbit pests._

Interesting. [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/798d/8b6f9874ae41d0105b012b...](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/798d/8b6f9874ae41d0105b012b8ac61a24f97221.pdf)</comment>


Split user stories ruthlessly and get value earlier - <AUTHOR> http://mikeborozdin.com/post/split-user-stories-get-value-early/ <comment><USER2> If I create my own company, I will try really hard not to hire people who adopted buzzwords like - scrum/agile/user story/spike/standup/sprint etc.

These people tend to create bureaucratic nightmare, an environment which demotivate creative people and promote mediocre people, an environment where you get rewarded to look busy instead of actually get things done.

Please, do not point me at agile manifesto.

To me agile looks like _totalitarian sect_ which constantly preaches _flexibility_ and freedom while swiftly punishing anybody who ever dare to deviate from _strict_ daily rituals and mantras.

Dry definitions in agile manifesto means nothing in real life. What's actually important is a _context_ which created by people who adopted it.

Agile/scrum is biggest cargo cult I've ever seen in my life.

<comment> UK-AL You haven't seen cargo cult until you've worked in an organisation with a pmo, and tranditional project management.

I had to literally write a 5 page business case for relatively small features that takes more than 5 days. You then had to get it approved by the pmo board. These people have no product management skills either.

Once it's a approved I have to write a full plan and schedule.

Companies like this exist.

This is what agile was a reaction to.

<comment><USER3> This can actually be very useful as it insulates your dev team from some VP wandering across and demanding a pet feature be implemented. The VP has to negotiate the PMO board first

<comment> UK-AL A product owner in agile can do exactly the same without the overhead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> With a lot of agile stuff I feel like you tend to end up with a result like a PT cruiser car. Some years ago I rented one and they had done everything right: Interesting design, cool features on the inside, analog clock on the dashboard and everything else. They had checked off all user stories of the car.

But the end result was a crappy car. A lot of features were implemented in a subpar way. Nothing really fit and the car just didn't "feel" right.

With strict agile structures I feel the same happening. You check off stuff and on the surface you are doing everything right in a methodical way. But there is no mechanism to check if the overall result feels right and has cohesion.

<comment><USER5> Following your metaphor of the PT Cruiser: it seems like they followed a waterfall process. They came up with a list and then built a car that fulfilled that list without evaluating what they were building st every step along the way. If they'd done it agile-ly, the crappyness may have surfaced much earlier in the development of the car... Maybe early enough to have done something about it. Alas, agile doesn't really work well with design of expensive tangible products like cars.

<comment><USER6> Agile doesn't work with cars because you can't deliver value incrementally by designing additional features. Producing a brake pad this week doesn't help if the chassis is still unfinished. Similarly having the entire car except the brake pads complete doesn't deliver any value. It's all or nothing.

<comment><USER7> Not sure I totally agree that it can't be done. I have no idea whether it's at all realistic/sensible/pragmatic to create a car via agile but taking your brake pad example it would seem very alright to have a set of stories such as:

"As a driver, I can stop the car at a reasonable pace" \- ok, maybe you get some awful brake pads to begin with (or maybe if you are cheeky you just say...well, air resistance does that!)

"As a driver, when the car is travelling fast, I can stop the car extremely quickly" \- ok so now we probably need some reasonable brake pads.

"As a driver, I don't need to replace the stopping mechanism all the time" \- ok so maybe now we need to make sure the brake pads fitted are of a certain quality.

I think you can see where this is going. Sure the car probably needs brake pads...but assuming you didn't know much about cars (something agile is suited for), at each stage you could decide you need to do something different for the stopping mechanism. Additionally, many of the qualities of the brake pads demonstrate that things are not "all or nothing" necessarily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > You read articles that say it should be possible to complete a user story > within a single sprint, ideally within a few days. That's entirely accurate.

I'm surprised by that, as I tend to break down stories even smaller, to the point where they can be completed in a day or two. Anything that takes longer I consider risky and potentially a rogue story that could end up eating a lot of time.

Smaller stories are easier to manage, easier to refactor, it's much easier to review the resulting code and they usually have less complexity. I think it's sometimes easier to clear blockers with smaller stories as well.

Downsides are that it can be harder to get an overall view on the progress being made during a sprint, and sometimes tasks can have more dependencies or it can be harder to work on things in parallel. It also takes more time to prioritise the backlog.

</comment><comment><USER9> Where I work now they have attached too much overhead per story. Time tracking, statuses in jira, separate confluence page with stringent rules about the content etc. So we now make huge stories in order to actually get to spend some time implementing stuff.

<comment><USER8> I imagine when something about the project changes, it takes a really long time to rewrite all those stories? Or you end up never re-assessing because it takes too long.

<comment><USER9> We often end up reusing the stories for completely different stuff, as they then have already been approved so we can skip some of the boilerplate, haha.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is all correct, and following this advice will improve your project planning. BUT it skirts the problem that Agile makes people think they can plan a project without knowing what's a functional spec, what's an implementation plan, and what of those things is implied by a user's desires. You can't arrive at a really good plan just writing more-concise stories that don't span too many hidden requirements. It helps, but it isn't a substitute for domain knowledge and systems analysis training.

<comment> UK-AL The hard part for agile projects is that you only loosely know what is the desired end result.

Specs should and will change.

<comment><USER10> That's the good part about agile. The bad part is that the idea of a "story" goes a bit too far in trying to make specification creation accessible. Decomposing stories into smaller pieces is a solution that's palatable to many because it avoids the hard work: Gaining more domain knowledge, and developing critical thinking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Grooooaaaaaaannnnn. The amount of developer hours that go into micromanaging user stories and story points is infuriating

<comment><USER12> I agree. Also the way user stories are written just makes me want to throw up. "As a _user_ I want to _open the about dialog_ so I can _see the version number_." Blarghf.

Why not just "Implement about dialog with version number.".

I'm pretty sure 99% of 'user stories' are just feature lists written in a really really awkward and annoying way.

<comment><USER8> The biggest problem with user stories for me, is that the amount of text often ends up making the board view in JIRA hard to read!

<comment><USER13> Number one thing I do-- titles need to be scannable:

Admin :: Roles :: Multiple Roles)

And the "story" part goes in the body:

"As an adminstrator I assign multiple roles to users so they have access to all the parts (and only those parts) of the application they need to do their job."

..with additional context, exceptions, rules, examples, etc, in the body.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Following a chain of links and a google search, I landed at this podcast episode which I really liked: [http://talkingcode.com/podcast/episode-14-jeff- patton/](http://talkingcode.com/podcast/episode-14-jeff-patton/)

It's an interview with Jeff Patton, who seems to be a pretty well-known name when it come to user stories and story mapping, and I really enjoyed his take on this matter.

</comment><comment><USER15> "As a developer, I want to be able to log time spent on projects. So that the company could analyse [sic] time spent on different projects."

This user story is utterly absurd.

In this case, the "user" is actually the company, not the developer. The developer usually wants to provide business value by adding new features, or fixing bugs. And this is a feature, but it's not a feature for the developer. It's a feature for the company.

The fact that it got broken down into manual data entry features like:

"Users (read developers) select a project and enter hours spent for each day"

Makes me question whether the users were involved in making the stories at all.

This article feels like an illustration of what is wrong with Big-A Agile, not an exemplar of how to do it right.

</comment><comment><USER16> I love the discussion happening here. I am into projects which "follow agile model" more than last 5 years, however every time I bring up such questions to folks who are die hard fan of these buzz words (mostly non-engineers), I am threatened to be sent to days long Agile/SAFe training again and looked down upon blaming I have "Old school waterfall mentality".

I am not saying Agile does not have any value at all. I think it helps middle management (top management only see some high level slides) get some numbers to measure how much work has been done and how much time is remaining to complete the features in the road map (epic progress). On the flip side everyone else forced to make those numbers good (either by working on weekend or taking short-cut with tech debts or in worst case compromise quality). This becomes obvious when managers set rules like - 90% of the stories must be completed at the end of two weeks sprint (if there are less than 10 stories, you have to close all of them). I see all stories coming to code review , merged, deployed , tested & closed on the last day of the sprint. Even if engineers believe do not believe its going too fast (superficial review, lack of manual testing) scrum master end up make it happen as his job is to make sure "sprint commitments" are met.

Now enter the world of SAFe. You plan for 3 to 5 months and can't do anything different in this time period (Where is the agility ?). You can't prioritize tech debts that you carried when you took shortcuts earlier to deliver MVP as "things are going alright". Hence, no iteration , only look ahead deliver more features. Spend a week on just planning and trying to accommodate feature based on "High level estimate" which is usually 50% accurate because you have not broken down to stories yet or has not done any experiments to check if some technology or recipe works or not. In addition to this you have hours of grooming, standups planning, retro , review in each up coming sprint involving the whole team.

I think every time you fit a process which may have worked in auto-mobile industry to software industry trying to "get more value " (lean is a new thing) you cease to be an innovative company.

<comment> ju-st Your company isn't doing Scrum at all. Your management is only using agile vocabulary and that's where the parallels end. And that's how Scrum gets a bad name.

<comment><USER17> This is the inevitable and unwinnable argument in any thread that dares to question the value of Scrum.

<comment> ju-st Sorry, I have clarified my point with an example in another post: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15004260](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15004260)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's easy to spot when agile webdev types don't do this... you end up with a responsive mobile site that is missing half the features that you want.

It's easy for sharpie commandos to sort interactions by priority and build a user story that hits most of the priority interactions. Splitting isn't natural especially when the designers aren't very experienced.

IMO somebody representing the business who isn't a designer needs to be in the approval process to throw back work when all of the necessary interactions aren't captured.

<comment><USER19> _> IMO somebody representing the business who isn't a designer needs to be in the approval process to throw back work when all of the necessary interactions aren't captured._

Critical in my experience. I usually call this the "smart ass SME" (subject matter expert).

Or, "Go out on the floor and find me someone who does the work every day, has been doing so for a decent amount of time, and who still complains when things are broken and has no problem speaking up."

I can tease out issues from a generic complaint. I can't from silence.

The other thing you'll find they're useful for is throwing out ass-backward use cases that seem logical to management (and me) but are stupidly inappropriate for some obvious reason to an actual person doing the workm

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I approve of this, but I come at it from an I-just-want-to-be-an-engineer point of view.

When looking for velocity, the first thing to optimise is the feature list. Too often the idea of doing something useful quick and dirty devolves into writing bad code that looks like it covers a feature set until you scratch the surface and find the whole thing is made of bugs.

But if you reduce the feature set (that's the first kind of dirty) then you can build a system that really does what it says on the tin. And the second kind of dirty (code), deosn't matter so much, because in a smaller system the total technical debt is less.

</comment><comment><USER21> Reminded me of Paul Hammant's posts:

\- [https://paulhammant.com/2012/04/24/call-to-arms-average- stor...](https://paulhammant.com/2012/04/24/call-to-arms-average-story-sizes- of-one-day/)

\- [https://paulhammant.com/2012/11/12/smaller- stories/](https://paulhammant.com/2012/11/12/smaller-stories/)

<comment><USER21> And Mike Cohn's SPIDR tips for splitting stories:

\- [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBuzze5XsAA2Zbt.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBuzze5XsAA2Zbt.jpg:large)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I generally advocate this approach, but there is a limit. Each new story is a context switch for everyone involved. It's easy for a product manager to lose track of the holistic POV if they are tracking too many stories. The dev has to stop and start or worse yet, split very tightly coupled work among more than one dev.

</comment><comment><USER23> Has anyone had good success with enterprise level projects managed in jira?

Background: each story has deliverable value to the stakeholder/

Ask: Download file from vendor, process file with error and success counts, save results in X datastore, email report with stats to specified DL...

<comment><USER24> Jira is just a ticketing system with a lot of fancy (and optional) features built on-top of it. Or are you asking specifically about the Jira Agile feature?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Okay, I read the article but why is this thing called "user story"?

<comment><USER26> A user story is basically a feature. It is higher level than a use case. Read Alistair Cockburn [http://alistair.cockburn.us/Stop+confusing+use+cases+and+use...](http://alistair.cockburn.us/Stop+confusing+use+cases+and+user+stories).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Looks like someones been drinking too much of the agile kool-aid...</comment>