Bipolar 1, job search of over 2 years. Looking for suggestions - <AUTHOR> Hi,
I've been searching for a role for well over 2 years now. During my search, I was diagnosed with Bipolar 1 which allowed me to get professional help and narrowed what I need in a workplace to be healthy. I moved out of my previous state (reason was personal). I'm out of all money I've saved up from my previous jobs and survive off of contract work I sell locally (usually basic IT work).
I'm a quick learner, am very good at reading body language, contribute to open source, and attend meetings.
I dropped out of college and am almost through with an online program but am unable to pay tuition currently. I can do loans but am struggling with bills (especially health) so I'd rather establish stability first.
I feel extremely agitated at the majority of conversations in interviews (I prefer genuine connection) and refuse to do another damn coding assignment.
All I want is a role that will accommodate my mental disorder, provide growth, operate ethically, and pay market rate. Feedback (if any) is usually I don't go with the flow (I'm stubborn), lots of passion but lacks experience (I have a diverse background), or "skills/qualification doesn't match".
I'm not willing to compromise on what I need in a workplace as I don't want my disorder to impact my physical health as it has in the past with hostile environments.
Stories? Advice?
Looking for feedback that is helpful for advancing the status quo besides roll over and deal with it.
EDIT: I have 5-10 years of experience, go to conferences, and present when I can (public speaking <3). <comment><USER2> I've interviewed for a number of programmer jobs over the past 20 years; if there is one fact about them that should be engraved in stone, it is this: NO TWO EMPLOYERS USE THE SAME CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO HIRE YOU. Some employers won't use coding tests, some will, and of those that will, they'll all be different, with some the coding test will be 100% of the reason you get in or are rejected, with some it will be less, like 50% or 20% with the other percentage points going to the interview, what you say, past experience, if you connect, etc., etc.

Advice: Don't sweat the coding questions if they exist, just do the best you can, try to explain the way you think, and realize that they don't count for 100% of the hire/no-hire decision at all of the companies that give them...

Also, I like to point potential employers to Joel Spolsky's "The Guerrilla Guide to Interviewing" [https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the- guerrilla-guid...](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla- guide-to-interviewing-version-30/)

If they read it but disagree with it, I don't count it against them.

If they read it and agree with it, that's a huge positive. I might be able to overlook other flaws in their software development process and take the job...

If they don't read it, BIG RED FLAG!!! What else are they not going to listen to if/when you propose it? A job should be a two-way street with employees doing what they are told, but at the same time constantly proposing ways to improve their employers' processes! Even if employers do not accept those proposals (totally OK, they are the employer after all), they should at least have the common courtesy to READ anything reasonable, and RESPOND to those things, with the EXACT REASONS as to WHY those proposals are unacceptable!!!

If a potential employer, pre-hire, won't read a web page you send them, and won't comment on it in such a way as to provide actionable intelligence one way, or the exact reason WHY on the other... that's a BIG RED FLAG!!!

Also... for an alternative viewpoint on Mental Illness, you might wish to read "The Myth Of Mental Illness" by Dr. Thomas Szasz, M.D. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness)

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" -Albert Einstein

<comment><USER3> >Also... for an alternative viewpoint on Mental Illness, you might wish to read "The Myth Of Mental Illness" by Dr. Thomas Szasz, M.D.

I might check that book out because it sounds interesting, but the Wikipedia article makes him sound like an idiot.

More specifically, this strikes me as absolutely stupid:

"instead of treating cases of ethical or legal deviation as occasions when a person should be taught personal responsibility"

The brain operates through electrical signals and chemical reactions. I'm not an expert, but I think I recall hearing that certain mental illnesses show signs of different activity when we view brain activity. Different parts of the brain can also be shaped/sized slightly differently with disastrous results. Illnesses or even lifelong habits can cause physical changes in the size of different parts of the brain.

Furthermore, as a person with a mental illness, in some ways it seems like its partly a way to categorize people with different personality traits, ways of processing information, etc.

I think there's more to it than assuming that everyone that ever does anything wrong just has a discipline problem. I haven't read the book so I have to withhold judgement, but I'm guessing he's going to turn out to be a quack.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right about the brain differences. Scans, autopsies, and blood level studies have demonstrated there is a correlation in observed behavior.

Here's one example of many

2010 study regarding lithium and brain grey matter growth: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055479/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055479/)

It's insulting for Peter to insinuate that people with mental disorders lack discipline. Most people who know me would never guess I have a mental disorder as I keep my promises and achieve results in projects.

Any symptoms I have are usually chalked up to personality traits. I searched for help when my physical health was at a risky state.

 _1961 era level of ignorance_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >I feel extremely agitated at the majority of conversations in interviews

Last summer in an interview I was asked "what is your superpower" by a SAAS company. Having never been interviewed by a tech company, let alone a company out of the midwest, I just looked at the guy on the other end of the video call like he was a bit off

"I don't know what you are asking"

 _What is your superpower?_

(repeating the question doesn't really help me) "Is this role playing? I'm not a comic book fan, I'm not sure what you want"

 _What 's a super power you have?_

(hi, hello, stop repeating the question, rephrase it please) "I don't have one" (I'm not mentally ill and don't believe I'm some sort of meta-human).

And pretty sure that's where I was disqualified in the interview process.

Earlier in the interview they kept asking what I have done at a certain place, what sort of projects I've worked on "I can not answer that, I've signed multiple NDAs"

 _but what do you do, what do you work on there_

"I can not answer that question, I have signed multiple non-disclosure agreements"

but what sort of projects, like what do you do

"I can not comment on this question at this time outside of what is listed on my CV"

And same company, earlier interview (had me talk to 3 different people over a couple of weeks), asked me to describe what I do at my primary job. This requires several minutes because I have to provide a basic frameowrk, about 30 seconds in

 _We try to keep these interviews short, can you get to the point_

"I'm a Senior Entry Clearance Operations Import Agent, I clear international freight through Customs and Border Protection as well as any other applicable government agencies using the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and other resources"

 _So you look at packages?_

"no"

 _Then what do you do_

(I was trying to %@#$@#% give you a very basic background so I could tell you) "Every good that comes into the country has a 10-digit code, not unlike a telephone number, example a cellular telephone is 8517.12.0050 and..."

 _Again we try to keep these pretty short so let 's move on_

headdesk-headdesk-headdesk-headdesk-headdesk-headdesk-headdesk

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, that's flabbergasting.

Exactly the type of lack of conversational etiquette I've encountered.

<comment><USER4> Coming from the Midwest it was so bizarre and alien. I'm quite convinced Silicon Valley, and startups in general, have no idea how the rest of the world works. Absolutely none.

Never mind the fact that all 3 people interviewing me, were clearly working on their computers while conducting the interview as you could see them typing way more than I was saying as well as obviously moving to other windows and reading text based on hand and eye movement. Like, hey man if you're going to interview me at least give me the respect of paying attention.

<comment><AUTHOR> I echo that.

Guess they lacked the super power of respectful human conversation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm seriously medically handicapped. I currently do freelance work.

I have a comment here that links out to a list of freelance platforms:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18829691](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18829691)

<comment><AUTHOR> You're amazing, thank you for the resource

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hey there, I'm on the tail end of this exact scenario (also BPI, heyoo). I don't think I'm qualified to give advice but I can share thoughts on what worked for me.

Remember this always: this world isn't meant for us. It's shitty but it's true. You are still fighting the fight and you should be damn proud of that. Keep it up, it never ends, and that makes you a strong human being, no matter what your brain tells you today or the next.

\- Changing my expectations for what I can reasonably expect was the first step. Unless you're working with others who have BP or are close to someone who is, you just can't expect anybody to understand, or care. After accepting this, I found it easier to recognize a path forward within the scope of what's reasonable. Freelance as you are doing is a great path. We absolutely require a high degree of autonomy simply because of our on-again-off-again abusive relationship with that thing others fondly call sleep.

\- Coding challenges are a pain, but the ones you can do from home are your best friend. Yeah I know they're repetitive and don't really motivate anybody, but work is not a great rainbow party of love all day either. I've found it's mentally stimulating to play around with them, and if solving a puzzle ends in a job, well right on!

\- You qualify for disability. Yes, you qualify. You probably qualify for unemployment if you find yourself without a paycheck one month. It's there for exactly this reason! Don't listen to your brain telling you some weird tax misshap from 10 years ago will be brought to the surface and ruin things. You qualify. Figuring out what I needed to have on hand, and what the timeline for submission -> rent/food money was in the event jobs slowed or a particularly extreme episode knocked me on my ass one month, likely eliminated 60-70% of stress I didn't even know I was carrying around. You have a support network, but it does take some bureaucratic boring stuff. Having that sorted helped my peace of mind more than any other thing I think I did.

\- Learning the signs of toxicity in a workplace or people I talked with when interviewing has payed major dividends. I was far too naive and trusting for too long. I eagerly got sucked into an interesting project and ignored the giant screaming shitshow just outside my head all day until the job became more insanity than annoying workplace quirks. No more amigo, workplace toxicity is very prevalent (especially in tech/startup worlds for some reason, not sure why or if its anecdotal), and it WILL come back to fuck you over. It's like the show Silicon Valley but not funny, just really sad and miserable to endure. Identifying shitty situations before getting involved has stabilized my life quite a bit.

\- For me, my "redemption" in terms of finding a comfortable work situation, was by finding a way to apply my software/research background at companies largely removed from the "tech scene". Hip starups and beanbag massage chairs are cool, but being able to leave my job at 5 every single day is SO NICE.

Stress is the archenemy of BP, I'm sure you know well by now :) The goal of my life is now just to reduce stress any way I can. I can still dream of making it big and doing something great and all that jazz, but we both know if the universe handed us something that spectacular, our brain would find the most contrived way to blow it all up. That scares me, and sometimes just getting out of bed scares the shit out of me. I'm not gonna try to convince myself I'll work hard and do something great because of it.

The only thing I expect from hard work now is that I don't yell some insane shit at my neighbor this weekend. BP is a nutty thing. Keep strong!

This is a throwaway but if you want to chat about anything at all let me know, I'll keep checking the comments here for a few days, and we'll figure something out. You're not alone! You're never alone! There are literally thousands of us :)

<comment><USER6> I can't for the life of me figure out how to successfully submit an edit. Apologies in advance for this wall of text, it's meant to be a list (the dashes mark the bullet points more or less)

<comment><USER7> We've edited the comment for you—I hope you don't mind! You have to use a blank line in order to get a newline ([https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc](https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc)).</comment></comment></comment>


Airpnp: Airbnb for finding a place to pee - <AUTHOR> http://airpnp.co/

<comment><USER2> I was going to add some in my area but have no facebook.</comment>


UTorrent Native Android Client On The Way - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/utorrent-native-android-client-on-the-way-120225/

<comment><USER2> There are native torrent clients for a staggering variety of devices. If you can get an IRC client on it, why not a torrent client? Even your old J2ME dumbphones have one[1].

____________________

1\. <http://amorg.aut.bme.hu/projects/mobtorrent>

</comment><comment><USER3> If I may ask; how many are there that downloads using torrents on mobile devices?

<comment><USER4> There is tablet Android device. If tablet is the way the world going for, a bittorrent client for that makes sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article sounds like there aren't already torrent apps on the Android Marketplace.

[https://market.android.com/search?q=torrent&c=apps](https://market.android.com/search?q=torrent&c=apps)

The first two are native clients.

</comment><comment><USER6> Could Google ban this app from the Market? I mean even if they change their policy to say that, would it be legal for them to ban it? I suppose if Apple can ban political satire...

<comment><USER7> It's their market, they can ban whatever they want. Whether it would be an idiotic move or not is an entirely different discussion...

<comment><USER8> And the app can pop up on the Amazon market or other markets, not to mention that you can download and install .apk files directly to your Android.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Cheap and Reliable API for Building a Bank? - <AUTHOR> Hi,
I'm looking for some more information on what people think are the best banking setup APIs. I'm considering a few different options:
1. Stripe - I've used it a bit in the past. Easy to use but I'm a bit worried about costs, 2.9% is high.
2. SynapseFi - I'm curious if anyone has used this product/API? I couldn't find any pricing on their site either.
3. Any others people can recommend that I can check out.
I'm looking for the cheapest API to quickly spin up a financial service (and hoping to avoid larger fees) and thought people here might have some suggestions. Thank you. <comment><USER2> What product(s) do you want to build? Your submission suggests it might be one or more things.

"API for Building a Bank?"

Do you want to take customer deposits?

"Stripe"

Do you want to sell stuff to people, and allow them to pay you by card?

"SynapseFi"

Do you want to engage the services of another company, which is a bank, so that you can, e.g. issue payment cards?

Based on the lack of specificity in your post, maybe one or more of the following applies?

A) You aren't sure what you want to build yet?

B) You want to provide a wide range of retail banking products?

C) You're still getting up to speed with what banks, card networks, processors etc. each do?

Feel free to email me (address in profile) if you don't want to share here. I've only recently moved to the US, but have launched financial products (covering payments, deposits and loans) in the UK, which is somewhat similar.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll shoot you an email.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Search for BaaS i.e. "Banking As A Service" and you will find lot of startups already offering an API to start neo/digital banks.

</comment><comment><USER4> Check out Dwolla and KeyBank KeyNavigator.

<comment><AUTHOR> How do you like using Dwolla versus Stripe? Specifically around pricing too. Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You could try the blockchain

I'd be skeptical of anyone building a financial platform on the cheapest things money can buy

<comment><USER6> I'd be skeptical of anyone trying to build regulated financial services on a technology that is still unregulated in large part of the world.

Getting a financial service license is possible, getting a blockchain-based banking service recognized by you financial authority might be a stretch. And you'll likely spend __a lot __in accountants and lawyers fees, not even talking about KYC and Anti-Money-Laundering requirements.

Disclaimer: I work in blockchain (not for finance) and used to work in financial services in particular gearing up financial systems for new regulations (Basel III [1], EMIR [2], KYC, Anti-Money-Laundering...)

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

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Market_Infrastructure...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Market_Infrastructure_Regulation)

<comment><USER5> I was being a bit facetious w.r.t. blockchain :]</comment></comment></comment>


Why WTFPL is bad for you - <AUTHOR>

If you ever find yourself needing to choose a license for your software project, and you think of WTFPL, don't. Use the MIT License instead.
The motive behind using WTFPL is obvious: It's novel, it's a bit whimsical, and it dispenses with the stuffiness of normal licenses — but besides the fact that it's becoming an old joke, WTFPL really isn't much better than no license at all, and here's why.
Google Code provides a good explanation[1] of why releasing your code into the public domain is bad for your project. First, people in certain countries (e.g. France) won't be able to fork your project. But more importantly: "it's somewhat risky to release code without explicitly disclaiming liability or warranty; you're potentially opening yourself to lawsuits from accidental damage that may result from somebody using your software."
This is the key, and it's why most software license include an all-caps disclaimer of warranty and liability. The WTFPL doesn't have this, which is why you should choose an equally permissive (but more protective, for you) license, e.g. MIT.
Here's a good comparison of different licenses: http://web.archive.org/web/20090317083515/http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licenses_summary.html
[1] https://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/FAQ#Can_I_host_code_that_I_have_placed_in_the_public_domain? <comment><USER2> Re: warranty clause

The FAQ has a section explicitly addressing warranties with a free WTFPL sample snippet to use. You are free to modify your WTFPL, or specify warranty separately. I don't see this as a big issue, but I suppose it could be easy to miss too.

[http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/](http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/)</comment>


Be nice. It's a fscking gift - <AUTHOR> http://www.turnkeylinux.org/blog/be-nice-its-a-gift <comment><USER2> It's funny how often software is priced according to the anticipated support burden, but users feel entitled to support regardless of the price. I once worked at a financial analytics software company and our end users were non- technical, but paid about 2K a month for a username and password, and very often the users were kind and apologetic in their support requests. I also have a personal software product that costs $5/mo with a free trial, and many people trialing it are quite impatient and high maintenance. My take-away: if you are setting yourself up for an end-user support role, make sure it's priced accordingly.

<comment><USER3> It's a bit of a long leap but I've noticed that the clients we do discounts to always end up being really high maintenance, some even destroying their websites. On the flip side, the clients spending big money are always great to work with and generally let us do our thing. They always require less support.

There must be a deeper basis behind this. Some kind of psychology behind pricing. I've noticed it everywhere I turn.

One particulary interesting case was the packaging on Tesco (large supermarket chain the UK) branded toilet paper. It said it was just as strong and soft as Andrex, the leading brand. Andrex is much more expensive but still remains the leading brand!

I've actually been toying with this thought for a while and now it warrants much further investigation.

<comment><USER4> Good point. My thought is that, the $5 budget apps are actually paid for by the person using it whereas the big budget items (say $2000 software) are paid for (or negotiated) by the indirect purchasing departments. The end users don't actually pay it themselves which could also be part of the psychology as to why they aren't so 'demanding' so to say.

<comment><USER5> True, but there is another thing. With big deals you normally define support very clear in the contract. With smaller deals companies don't feel the urge to do this.

But it's very simple to say: "This product is cheap because it lacks quick response times for support". Most customers won't have a problem with that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Back when I worked at a small retail computer store, I never ceased to be amazed by silly old men (and they were almost complete carbon copies of each other) who would drive an F250 pickup for an hour to save $5 on a mouse (our loss leader) and then do it _again_ to come back and complain.

My favorite incident was when my boss offered the guy a cash refund. That wasn't good enough. My boss offered him the refund, _and let him keep the mouse for free_ just to get him out of the store. He smiled, finally satisfied, _and then asked to buy another one_.

<comment><USER7> I hope your boss said "no."

<comment><USER6> It gets funnier. The loss leader was one per customer. The guy actually argued that because he had gotten the refund and was given the original for free, it didn't count as a sale and he was still entitled to buy the "one per customer".

We had to pick up the phone and start "calling the police" to get him out of the store. He lectured us on how there was no way we could stay in business by refusing to accept people's money.

There are some days I wonder if all humans are sentient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If a person appears, offering me a solution to get me to my destination, leads me down their ally, taking my time and attention and meaning I lose the opportunity to check other solutions, and at the end of the ally I fall into a muddy riverbank and see a sign saying 'TODO: build bridge', we wouldn't call _that_ a gift, we'd call it deceitful and cruel (or worse).

You don't owe me your work, but I don't owe you gratitude for it either. It's not a gift, it's not even that transactional. (Although that's no excuse for being nasty or threatening!)

<comment><USER9> With an open source project, it's unlikely that a person will appear and offer you anything and lead you down any alley. If you're trying to cross a river and come by a raft and start whining about the lack of a bridge, let alone saying that someone wasted your time, you're ungrateful.

"TODO: build bridge" means that the author thought that it's a good idea to build a bridge, however the author has other priorities and has postponed the bridge building to the time that it's actually needed (perhaps by someone else). Now you stumble by in need of a bridge, what should you do? Build the damn bridge, of course.

You're not owing any gratitude to anyone, but badmouthing someone for not doing exactly what you want is plain bad behavior.

<comment><USER8> There's a difference between finding a raft (here's some source on github which takes a few minutes to look at) and being enticed by a bridge (here's a homepage showing up in search results, presenting a packaged solution as an answer to the problem I'm having, which doesn't turn out to be a problem until hours or days of integration work).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> 'Gift' is a word I wish I saw more often in the vicinity of 'open source'. I love open source software. I love that there can be a community around any project, no matter how small. It's a powerful philosophy.

But I wish more people would understand the differences between 'free' and 'open source'. Open source software is not free. Huge companies invest millions of dollars into open source projects that you probably use. Time is money.

Looking at is as a gift not only makes you understand the generosity with which the author(s) has open sourced their code, but when I think about it like that I see that there are real people behind the code and that they should be treated as such.

A good lesson.

</comment><comment><USER9> I am always disappointed when I see people complain (with a negative tone) about a library, whether it's missing documentation or an unstable API or whatever, without contacting the author of the library and asking how's the project doing or would the author need some help. Sometimes the author is burdened by other projects or paying work but would probably appreciate any contact from fellow developers or potential users to discuss/plan ahead the project. A little positive feedback or a few pull requests from strangers makes good things happen.

in short: It's open source. You're a coder. Fix it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Honestly I'd like to see the e-mails that were sent if only for personal amusement.

I have so much respect for those that work on open source projects. If you think about it there isn't much on the web today that isn't in some way touched by some open source code.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have to admit, by the end, the OP's responses were classier than mine would have been. Kudos to you.

I'll never understand the sense of entitlement that says you must drop everything you are doing and pay attention to me and only me.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've been once on the other side of the "be nice, it's a f####ng gift" situation.

I had a subscription at a local telecom company, which provided both telephony and broadband internet. I went and cancelled the subscription in July 2010, and almost a year later, in June 2011 I get called by a repo company asking for $20. After a few calls, I find out that the telecom company issued one more bill, 3 months after I cancelled. Apparently, they gave me for free when I cancelled another 3 free months of phone subscription, which automatically extended the broadband internet connection. Arguing with them over the phone (I had left the country by then) I got this exact reply: "It's a f####ng gift, be nice! What's your problem?"

The way this works in my country (Romania), if you don't pay up, you either have to sue them to prove you don't have to pay, or you get reported to the credit bureau so you won't get any loans from any bank for the next few years. Sadly, I ended up paying ...

<comment><USER14> Disgraceful, and I'm sure illegal. Now that Romania is in the EU, you should see how much of the EU Customer rights laws have been implemented into your national law. Since Romania joined the EU recently, most of these laws are probably new, and hence companies probably not be aware of them.

(Probably no help to you now in this case, but for future reference)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> One time, on my (free) browser game, we banned a user for gross misbehaviour. A few mails went back and forth between him and me, ending up with him threatening to "sue us into the ground", and his dad was "a lawyer" so he was sure he'd win. I replied something along the lines of "sure, whatever" and never heard back.

</comment><comment><USER16> I suspect you'd also have this sort of thing with a paid product. The only difference is that you'd have to go out of your way to placate the person, as he would be a customer.

<comment><USER17> Sometimes it is OK to fire a customer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> In a way, it does make sense. In web design and developer communities; there's a saying that if you give an inch, they want a mile. They are not good clients to work with.

While it's very appreciated what those guys did, they should've ignored the aggressive support request.

I value such free support and very thankful even if it was a ruthless "Go check maxmemory" response to "How does Redis handle bigger data than memory assigned?". Thank them for the response, even if it wasn't the solution. It's appreciated.

</comment><comment><USER19> I admire the respectful way that he handles communication with the difciult party, and becomes helpful on another level. I'd like to be better at dealing with the world like that.

</comment><comment><USER20> There's a nice collection of the kind of demands customers come up with: <http://clientsfromhell.net/>

<comment><USER21> This site is also pretty good and in the same vein <http://notalwaysright.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This doesn't even apply only to software, generally. My company sell specially tailored storage servers, and we almost gave up on cheaper systems ( < 2000 euros) because they concentrate most of the support problems, questions and rants.

In fact, we have one customer buying us cheap systems (1500 euros) by the hundreds. We have very, very little problems with them. We have another customer with a whole bunch of big systems and a couple of small ones for tests, etc. No problem either.

So it confirms that it's not so much the cheap system _per se_ than the cheap customer which comes with problems.

</comment><comment> T-hawk I wonder how much of the anecdata being relayed here is a result of selective perception? We don't really remember the cases where a freeloading customer went away at the first "no", or where a well-paying customer received the red carpet service treatment. The high-maintenance cheapskates stick out in mind because they're the exceptions, but perhaps they're not quite so common as they might seem.

</comment><comment><USER23> Nice article, thanks.

My first job out of college was in a support centre, supporting voice recognition software: an early ancestor of Siri if you like! One weekend without our knowledge, the parent company stuck a prior version of the software onto a free bundle cd that came with a PC magazine in the UK... a great marketing move sure, but the amount of calls we got as a result of that free software was incredible. People can get irate when voice recognition software doesn't work as well as they expect (for a variety of reasons, generally either hardware or accent related!), but with this free version, people really lost the run of themselves altogether... some of the calls we took that week were from some very angry people indeed!

The writer of this article summed up this confusing paradox quite well by offering a refund... for this free item... which was a gift!

</comment><comment><USER24> This is really interesting in the context of the whingeing about Ubuntu 11.10 and Unity. One part of me absolutely agrees with the OP, but another part of me thinks that in a specific case like Ubuntu 11.10, Canonical, with their Ubuntu gift, do have a responsibility to their installed base. Is there some line related to project size (or something else) that means users _do_ have a legitimate expectation of adequate support?</comment>


Hackers are holding a California hospital's network hostage for $3.6M - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/15/11004794/california-ransomware-hospital <comment><USER2> It'd make a great story if it were to improve the health care system.</comment>


If Ruby is object-oriented Perl, then Reia is object-oriented Erlang - <AUTHOR> http://www.unlimitednovelty.com/2010/06/reia-everything-is-object.html

<comment><USER2> Besides Ruby-like syntax how does it differ from parametrized modules?

From his example:

= Reia:

      class Foo
        def initialize(value)
          @value = value
        end
        def value
          @value
        end
      end

= Erlang:

      -module(foo, [Value]).
      value() -> Value.

And it's actually prettier.

Can you do some crazy pattern matching and type overloading like with Scala? Or is it just syntactic sugar for parametrized modules?

<comment><AUTHOR> Parameterized modules don't have constructors. That doesn't matter in a trivial case, but it does when you want some complex state set-up which you don't want to repeat every single time you "instantiate" a parameterized module?

Also, Reia has inheritance. Parameterized modules don't.

<comment><USER2> They certainly do with -extends(). As for constructors… there's probably way around that too. Point is Reia's OO-revolution doesn't introduce any fundamental changes besides syntax.

<comment><AUTHOR> -extend() is another half-assed solution. It's closer to mix-ins than inheritance.

Object orientation in Reia is baked into the core language itself. Like Ruby, all of its core types are objects. In Perl and Erlang they are not. Reia factors the core language types into objects, instead of amalgamations of the core types with arbitrary and poorly factored functions which act on them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wonder about " _The canonical approach, Erlang records, are a goofy and oft reviled preprocessor construct with an unwieldy syntax._ " After writing a bit of Erlang code, I don't mind records that much. They're not prefect, but I would never call them bad, goofy, etc. They're also used in pretty much every situation where a state in a predefined form is needed (config files, server state, etc.) so that proplists are not needed (no need for dynamic list).

So... what is the complaint about records really?

<comment><USER4> i agree, you get used to them. but what i don't like about them is that the way you have to specify the record every time you reference the object. so

Bar = Foo#foorecord.bar, Baz = Foo#foorecord.baz

it feels unnecessarily redundant. Shouldn't we already know Foo is a record of 'fake type' #foorecord? It's like a poor man's type system, and it's ugly.

Also, probably more importantly, since they're a compile-time trick you can't use them in the console, which makes experimentation and sometimes debugging harder.

<comment><USER3> > _Bar = Foo#foorecord.bar, Baz = Foo#foorecord.baz_

#foorecord{bar=Bar, baz=Baz} = Foo

Readability depends on what does your brain process, when you see "=" ;)

> _since they're a compile-time trick you can't use them in the console_

Check the `rX` commands from <http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/shell.html> You can use the records just like in normal code, but you have to load them explicitly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The title is correct, albeit vacuously.

</comment><comment><USER6> Clearly the author knows Erlang almost as well as he knows Perl.

<comment><USER7> LOL - Ruby is Smalltalk, not object oriented PERL. PERL has had objects for quite a while.</comment></comment>


Review of 737 Max Certification Finds Fault with Boeing and FAA - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/business/boeing-737-max.html <comment><USER2> The NTSB does a fantastic job and should be held up as a model of how to include post-failure analyses and actions into your process. When the report is released, it should be good reading for many in the tech and engineering world.

>The Joint Authorities Technical Review, which produced the report, was led by Chris Hart, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, and included representatives from the F.A.A., NASA and aviation regulators from Europe, China, Brazil and other countries.

<comment><USER3> Sometimes I read NTSB reports for fun. It's a pleasure to read such well- thought-out analyses that perfectly straddle technical minutia dissection with layman accessibility. In my opinion, it's the pinnacle of technical writing. It's also incredibly important work: these kinds of reports have made air travel magnitudes safer than it was just 50 years ago.

<comment><USER4> Are there any particular reports you found most interesting? Can you provide a link?

<comment><USER3> The Galloping Ghost is one of my favorites: [https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAB1201.pdf)

It's a terrible accident (that happened during an air show/race), but the work that went into figuring out exactly what went wrong and where is awe- inspiring. Also a very interesting (but tragic) story from a human standpoint. Here's the video of the accident: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyWUTXuXjr0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyWUTXuXjr0)

(No gore, but still: viewer discretion advised. Eleven people lost their lives and sixty-nine were injured.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The more I think about this, the more I think that the top levels of management and anyone who was just trying to "get this plane out the door" needs to be held accountable. Fear of competition shipping before you is no excuse to cut corners especially when the consequences of doing so are so grave.

<comment><USER6> Do you also feel we should hold the regulators who let it happen accountable?

<comment><USER5> Sure- but I think that there are differing incentives for regulators than Boeing management. The only situation I can think of that would hold them equally accountable is if there were collusion/corruption. I think in this case it was lack of resources/laziness or overly trusting/naive to what Boeing was telling them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "The task force said the certification documents that Boeing provided to the F.A.A. "were not updated during the certification program to reflect the changes" made to MCAS. It added that two critical documents that describe the potential dangers of a system like MCAS, the system safety assessment and the functional hazard assessment, "were not consistently updated."

<comment><USER8> Don't think anybody involved in this is coming out looking good except maybe the aviation authorities who grounded Max's early.

From outside the US it's shredding the soft power the FAA has world wide.

Decades of earned trust burnt so quickly.

<comment><USER9> Did anyone ground the max after the first crash or was it all in response to the second?

<comment><USER10> Only after the second.

Interesting tidbit: after the second crash, the Ethiopian authorities decided to send the black box to Europe for analysis, apparently not trusting US investigators with the data.

<comment><USER11> > Interesting tidbit: after the second crash, the Ethiopian authorities > decided to send the black box to Europe for analysis, apparently not > trusting US investigators with the data.

William Langeweische [0] describes lack of airmanship as contributing to the 737 Max crashes and cites another reason for distrust:

"In the case of the Ethiopian investigation, we have an airline and an investigative body that historically have not been able to isolate themselves from the country's dysfunctional political life."

"After the cockpit voice recorder was dug out of the wreckage, it was shielded from the N.T.S.B. and whisked to Paris. There, for reasons unknown, French accident investigators agreed to download its contents in private onto a drive for an immediate return to Addis Ababa, where the information remains mostly locked away today and has been withheld in full form from any outside observers."

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max- crashes.html)

<comment><USER12> This is not an insignificant point. MCAS was flawed, no question. As a pilot of an airplane with enhanced stability control, I have found that anything that tries to "help" by nose down or nose up during times of unusual flight attitudes is unwelcome and honestly scares the hell out of me when the autopilot kicks on and overrides my inputs. Disengaging the autopilot works for a moment, then it kicks back on: the solution is to pull the breaker when that happens. Granted, in my case, I was attempting to intentionally stall the airplane during familiarization training in a Cessna T206. However, an autopilot with "stability protection" can theoretically fly you into the ground if you aren't trained correctly. So I am not a fan of the airplane trying to "protect" the pilot by taking over control. However, reacting to system anomalies is a critical part of training. Meaning knowing how and when to react to such situations is fundamental to flying the airplane.

If we stipulate the MCAS system was faulty, that still doesn't relieve the pilots of responsibility. The Ethiopian copilot only had 300 _total_ flight hours — so it's fair to say that copilot wasn't experienced with flying in general, let alone type-specific experience in an airliner. Since the captain would have been flying the airplane, the copilot would have been the one running through the checklists. Airliners require two pilots for a reason; that copilot had no business being right seat in a technologically advanced airplane. Both pilots specifically failed to follow the procedures. First, they didn't adjust the throttle at all during the event — throttle remained at climb power throughout, secondly, they re-engaged MCAS because while they pulled the horizontal stabilizer trim cutout switches correctly, they failed to realize that they had to use the manual trim wheels since the electric yoke-mounted trim would be inoperative at that point.

Yes, MCAS was deficient, however, 90% of aviation training is learning how to respond when things go wrong. Complaining about one issue while ignoring the other is disingenuous. Good pilots wouldn't have crashed that plane. There is a reason that airline pilots in the US must have 1500 flight hours before being allowed in the right seat; there is a reason that airliner crashes in the US are so exceedingly rare. The 737 Max incident revealed plenty about Boeing and system design, but it also shined a light on the effects of substandard pilot qualification in places like Indonesia and Ethiopia. Considering the US flew the 737 Max vastly more than anyone else, a broken airplane would have statistically resulted in a US crash, yet the two crashes we did have were with airlines from countries with debatable pilot qualification processes. Attempting to obscure the cockpit voice recorders from public view and giving them to France (home of Airbus it might be added,) means that Ethiopia had something to hide regarding their pilots' actions. If it was clearly 100% "Boeing's fault," then Ethiopia would want all data surrounding the crash to be on the front page of every newspaper if only to bolster their case that their pilots weren't at fault. But instead, they hide the data. Why hide supposedly exculpatory evidence? Because it wasn't exculpatory at all.

I get it, MCAS bad. But those passengers would still be alive if it weren't for bad pilots. Given that Ethiopian Airlines is a crown jewel of the country and a vital marketing tool of the country, it's clear why they wanted to hide any hint that pilots of the flag carrier were questionable.

<comment><USER13> The pilot's did not perform ideally, but to say their actions were outside of what could be reasonably expected is foolish. This is a system for which they received no training, acts in an obscure and intermittent fashion, and is accompanied by a slew of cabin warnings.

Furthermore, with the overspeed and extreme trim, the trim wheel was likely inoperable, or else required so much force that the pilots reasonably thought it was inoperable. Due to the overspeed, the pilots were in an impossible situation where they concluded they needed electronic trim control while also knowing that this system was threatening their demise.

To place blame on the pilots is to plan to fail.

<comment><USER14> The pilots did the best they could. They increased airspeed to have at least some lift despite the excessive mistrim, and they turned electric trim back on because in the 737-NG autotrim stops when the yoke is pulled. No one told them about MCAS and how it behaves different from the model that they knew.

<comment><USER15> I think there is a lot of misinformation in your post.

The pilots didn't follow the airspeed unreliable procedure, and oversped the aircraft. Maybe it's the best they could do, but definitely not what they were expected (and trained) to do.

Electric trim is not turned off "when the yoke is pulled" \- it's momentarily turned off when electric trim thumb switches on the yoke are pressed.

And they switched it back on because they couldn't manually re-trim due to very high speed that the plane was travelling at that point.

BTW the airplane was a 737 Max, not 737-NG.

<comment><USER16> > BTW the airplane was a 737 Max, not 737-NG.

I believe the parent's point was that they did what would have made sense in the NG, not realizing it wouldn't have the same result in a Max.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> AA seems to trust the recert process. [http://news.aa.com/news/news- details/2019/The-Latest-Informa...](http://news.aa.com/news/news- details/2019/The-Latest-Information-About-737-MAX-Operations/default.aspx)

That would make one of us.

<comment><USER18> Given how much they have at stake (they've cancelled ~10k flights so far due to the grounding), it's hard to perceive them as neutral.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The corporate spokesperson should be automated. Just have a robot do this job. It's boilerplate language. It requires no adaptation or creative thinking. And it'd be no more or less credible if delivered by a robot.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if publishing this just to get a headline before everyone else is a ethical move by the NYT.

Couldn't the publicity conjure a lot of lobbying/political pressure to change the report?

<comment><USER20> Possibly, but I don't think there was much of a risk. Boeing already had-- presumably--at least a pretty decent idea about the review's contents by piecing together hints from document requests and questions or maybe even someone calling in a favor to get a draft copy. The Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR) involved a _lot_ of agencies and personnel from multiple countries.

On the other hand, that also poses a problem for any attempt to change the report. There are a _lot_ of iterative copies out there, with both Reuters[0] and the Times obtaining copies independently. Pressuring the JATR team to change its findings would leave an absolute _ton_ of fingerprints, and be instantly obvious once reporters start reviewing a diff of the report.

0\. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-boeing-airplane- faa/f...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-boeing-airplane-faa/faa- failed-to-properly-review-737-max-jet-anti-stall-system-jatr-findings- idUSKBN1WQ0H8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nice to see the rest of the world isn't content to let Boeing/the FAA off the hook. I'm also seeing every indication I was confident would be found back in March...

Poignant points follow.

>The report found that while the F.A.A. had been made aware of MCAS, "the information and discussions about MCAS were so fragmented and were delivered to disconnected groups" that it "was difficult to recognize the impacts and implications of this system."

>The task force said it believed that if F.A.A. technical staff had been fully aware of the details of MCAS, the agency would probably have required additional scrutiny of the system that might have identified its flaws.

This troubles the crap out of me. I was under the understanding aviation used a radically different development process specifically designed to avoid this type of thing. However, this rings of a bad attempt at courting with some sort of Lean or Agile process methodology. I certainly hope that's not the case, but I've seen those same exact symptoms when pressure is put on not properly documenting/analyzing things beyond the bare minimum required by law.

>A broad theme of the report is that the F.A.A. was too focused on the specifics of the new system and did not put sufficient effort into understanding its overall impact on the plane. In certification documents that Boeing submitted to the F.A.A., MCAS was not evaluated as "a complete and integrated function" on the new plane.

>The report also said Boeing had failed to inform the F.A.A. as the design of MCAS changed during the plane's development. A New York Times investigation revealed that the system changed dramatically during that process, making MCAS riskier and more powerful, and that key F.A.A. officials were unaware of major changes to the system.

>The task force said the certification documents that Boeing provided to the F.A.A. "were not updated during the certification program to reflect the changes" made to MCAS. It added that two critical documents that describe the potential dangers of a system like MCAS, the system safety assessment and the functional hazard assessment, "were not consistently updated."

These three points are consistent with a regulation scheme where the primary regulator is no longer the primary driver of the regulation process and is dependent on the regulated to raise awareness of "there may be issues here." Active participation of an adversarial regulator is absolutely essential.

>Boeing also failed to thoroughly stress-test the design of MCAS, according to the report, which found that "the design assumptions were not adequately reviewed, updated or validated."

This is straight up unwillingness to test, "Steve says this'll never happen" cultural attitude. There is always a push against testers to minimize the cost of their testing as much as possible. This reinforces for me how strong that pressure really was. The single-event upset testing they did back around June- ish, while an admittedly highly unlikely occurrence is a textbook bog standard test case in any aerospace/safety critical design. To not have it accounted for, is tantamount to heresy from this humble tester's point of view. Lord only knows what other tests were shot down because everyone else in the management chain were more interested in getting the plane out the door.

>In addition, the report criticized Boeing for not adequately assessing the extra effort pilots might have to make to deal with MCAS, and it noted that Boeing had removed mention of MCAS from a draft of the pilot's manual. As a result of that decision, some key F.A.A. officials were not fully aware of MCAS and were "not in a position to adequately assess training needs," the report found.

This and the previous statements w.r.t tests undone, and documentation/awareness raising failures constitute for me sufficient evidence of a potentially deliberate regulatory hack. I'm glad we have Attorney's General conducting a criminal probe in this case. The convenient way the failures just happen to fall into line and that everything just happened to go off without any of the people who could have stopped the process of this error chain from propagating seems to me a bit far-fetched. Accidents happen, yes. This represented too many disparate failure modes in the process to not have been the result of a deliberate optimization decision made by someone; and that decision maker needs to be held to account.

>To address some of these shortcomings, the report recommends that the F.A.A. update the certification process to allow the agency to be more involved in the design process early on.

>Overall, the report found fault with the process for certifying a new plane based on an old design, saying that it "lacks an adequate assessment of how proposed design changes integrate with existing systems."

These two points revolve around the grandfathered certification process in general, which has been a big motivator in terms of disincentivizing designing new planes. I'm fairly sure that there needs to be a greater threshold of proof tacked onto a grandfathered design after this point. I understand the intent to streamline by utilizing already proved design elements, but it is fairly obvious it invites in design complacency from the ground up as it were, and encourages the financial side of the house to feel emboldened in attempts to pressure engineering into skipping large portions of the work needing to be done.

>It recommended that the F.A.A. confirm that the Max is in fact compliant with regulations having to do with the plane's flight guidance system, flight manual and stall demonstration.

This last point may doom the MAX depending on how accommodating regulators are willing to be.

Without MCAS, the airframe fails FAR 25.173 from the pilot's point of view. Period. That is beyond contention at this point. There will need to be a judgement call with regards to the delta in control forces as to whether or not a regular pilot, through training alone can be educated to safely compensate for those longitudinal stability prescriptive behavior divergences. In the end, it is left to the certifying authorities.

If it were me in that position, with the authority to make a binding proclamation on it; my answer would be no. Absolutely not.

I've dug into the history of aircraft certification enough to agree with some of the older school regulators from times before electronics were a given for flight control systems. We must make flyable planes first. If we let the viability be compromised by economic factors compensated for by gadget wizardry, then we're walking down the path where pilots are not "flying" the plane. This is unacceptable in my eyes. If we are going to put as much trust in pilots to the point that we lock the occupation behind years of education and draconian requirements for physiological conditioning and educational refresh, then the pilot should be as much a design consideration in the flying of the plane as possible. Which means at a minimum, the pilot needs to be able to fly the machine with minimum automation functional by virtue of passive flight characteristics. I'm not against fly-by-wire as a means of control signal translation to provide common interface for the pilot, mind, but the computer should not have to be resorted to to mimic passive longitudinal stability. That is a sin that cannot be pardoned in aerospace design for Civil transport, and yet we've had more than enough history of attempts to do so to make it clear it's a bad idea.

First the MD-11, now 737 MAX.

It needs to stop.

<comment><USER22> There is a precedent for "flight envelope protection" for fly-by-wire airliners, which has been applied to all modern larger airliners except for the 737. (directly competitive A320, as well as A350, A380, 777, 787, 747-8, ...)

Small problems with the fly-by-wire system on the A320 get found and fixed on a routine basis. Bigger problems have been found in the past, but how to manage the risks in this kind of system is well known and that knowledge base was entirely ignored in the development of the 737 because Boeing couldn't be bothered to bring the 737 into the 1980s, never mind the 21st century.

<comment><USER21> Given, but flight envelope protection has it's warts too, and I don't wish to (and probably chose my words poorly to convey my true meaning) turn this into a Boeing v. Airbus design philosophy flame war.

Where your examples pass my test of acceptable fly-by-wire, is that even in their most automation crippled state, (direct law), the airframe demonstrates longitudinal stability, and the automation doesn't induce undesired behavior detrimental to flying the plane. Thereby it can be thought of as a Hardware Abstraction Layer between the inputs and the control surfaces that faithfully represent pilot inputs to output behavior.

Boeing's MCAS fails this sniff test. If the input sensor breaks, it actually generates dangerous input that actively detracts from the flyability of the plane. The airframe itself necessitates this dangerous subsystem because uncorrected, no test pilot would be willing to sign off that it was consistent with the older 737's handling characteristics.

Just wanted to be clear: I'm not anti-Airbus. I'm anti-"Hey let's automate this, but do it with minimum scrutiny and reckless levels of awareness building for the end operator."

Which is what happened with the MAX, and seems like a page torn out of McDonnell Douglas playbook.

<comment><USER22> It is not Boeing vs airbus, it is the 737 vs all other modern airliners.

FBW on the 7x7 (for x>3) is not that different from Airbus airliners except Airbus has sidestick controls that are not mechanically connected whereas Boeings have jokes that are mechanically between the two pilots.

If Boeing used the same flight controls that they use on all post 1970 planes it would be ok, Airbus has nothing to do with it.

<comment><USER23> >FBW on the 7x7 (for x>3) is not that different

FBW refers simply to the lack of a hydraulic/mechanical connection between the flight controls and the control surfaces. The 747 has such a connection. Thus, the 747 is not a FBW aircraft (although I think some control surfaces on the 747-8 may be FBW).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "In a statement, the Boeing spokesman Gordon Johndroe said "safety is a core value for everyone at Boeing,""

If that were true, such a critical feature would have _redundant sensors_. There is no reason not to have them except costs. Even more so if one considers that other sensors ARE redundant, they even feed either the pilot or co-pilot displays, never both.

<comment><USER21> The costs in this case was $1000000 per airframe sold if Class D simulator training was required, which resulted in the decision to go with the single sensor design.

This was discussed in the 60 Minutes Expose.

[https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc](https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> > The review also said there were signs that Boeing employees who worked on > behalf of the F.A.A. to certify the Max had at times faced conflicts of > interest.

LOL. 100% of the time they have a conflict of interest.

But from the article it sounds like they plan to continue with the employees regulating their own company.

<comment><USER21> If I recall they've restructured things a little.

>[https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/industry-...](https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/industry- news/boeing-management-restructures-to-improve-safety-oversight.html)

The Engineers now report those concerns to the company Chief Engineer, who reports to Mullenberg/the CEO. There is also a committee tasked with oversight and investigation of anonymously submitted concerns.

<comment><USER25> So the engineers are not even allowed to report concerns directly to the FAA.

<comment><USER21> Ah. Found the Seattle Times article.

[https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/boein...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/boeings-board-calls-for-revamping-company-structure-in-wake- of-737-max-crashes/?amp=1)

Relevant pieces:

>The board called for revamping oversight of a controversial program that delegates Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authority to company engineers and technical experts, allowing Boeing to help certify its own airplanes as safe and airworthy.

>That recommendation calls for Boeing experts, known as "authorized representatives" under the FAA's Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) program, to report to a new aviation safety organization within the company, called Product and Services Safety, rather than to business and program managers.

So this would be the FAA "blessed" folks reporting to an internal board separate from sales/business/project management. So technically, yes. The FAA is not directly in the loop.

>Boeing said the new internal organization would be headed by a vice president who reports directly to company leadership. It also would be tasked with overseeing Boeing's Accident Investigations Team, safety review boards and investigations of "cases of undue pressure and anonymous product and service safety concerns raised by employees," according to the announcement from CEO Dennis Muilenburg and board members detailing the recommendations.

>The new structure "should increase awareness and reporting of, and accountability for, safety issues within the company," Boeing said.

 _cough_ That's an unfortunate acronym... Boeing Accident Investigations Team, henceforth known as B.A.I.T.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The question is: Conspiracy or incompetence?

I normally favour the latter all things being equal.

However in this case, I sense that the battle with Airbus was ( and the key role of the 737 Max in that ) considered strategic and failure possibly an existential threat for Boeing and hence the US aviation industry.

<comment><USER2> Thinking along those lines isn't helpful.

Big complex systems fail, sometimes there is a good target to point fingers, sometimes there isn't.

Fear of punishment is a really bad way to reduce future failures, and being satisfied having found somebody to punish makes you stop looking for systematic issues which caused and will continue to cause failures.

The FAA/Boeing oversight process failed or more correctly happened much too late (this report being a part of that, post mortem)

<comment><USER27> > Thinking along those lines isn't helpful.

It is though. It isn't enough to have strict regulations. You need to have regulators that are willing to enforce them and companies that follow them. We have neither, thus it's time to punish the people who are responsible for not only what lead to the accidents, but the people who are responsible for the state of these agencies and companies.

<comment><USER2> You do though, air travel is very regulated and incredibly safe, and definitely is not by default.

Focus on punishing people and one, you teach people to be better at avoiding punishment and two, you keep punishing new people for doing the same thing over and over.

<comment><USER27> Air travel is very safe and regulated because of behavior that persisted until recently. It's clear that systemic deviation has happened since the 90s that is leading to a system that can't be trusted in the same way that it could be historically. It's just that these are changes in a complex system that take years to surface as real problems that affect people. As long as financial incentives are so high that they override regulatory concerns as they do now, punishment is certainly in order.

It's not the kind of thing where you make a change and planes fall out of the sky. No, you make small, gradual changes in processes and in safety margins until at some point in the distant future, planes fail catastrophically as a direct result of decisions made as an organization 1-3 decades ago. It's the same set of behaviors that led to the Challenger disaster.

<comment><USER28> > Air travel is very safe and regulated because of behavior that persisted > until recently

Air travel is very safe because the entire world of aviation has focused on analysis and improvement rather than infighting and blaming. If anything, I worry more about how the aviation community worldwide seems to be fragmenting right now, and the effect that may have on safety going forward.

But then I do read stories about the FAA and EASA still cooperating very tightly and respectfully, realize most of the infighting is by armchair quarterbacks on the Internet and the pros are still doing the Right Thing, and I sleep a little better.

<comment><USER27> > Air travel is very safe because the entire world of aviation has focused on > analysis and improvement rather than infighting and blaming

Except you have one institution, the FAA, and one company, Boeing, who clearly no longer have a focus on maintaining regulatory processes to keep safety the main priority. While Boeing is cutting corners everywhere in order to save a buck, the FAA is looking the other way and letting Boeing do what they want. This is something that has already had serious consequences, and will continue to unless there are serious changes on a systemic level _and_ there are punishments for those who are responsible for allowing these systemic changes to have occurred.

Also, I don't appreciate your underhanded insult. This isn't the place for it.

<comment><USER28> > Also, I don't appreciate your underhanded insult. This isn't the place for > it.

Sorry you took that as an insult, it was not intended as such. It's a generic observation that on places like HN we've collectively lost our shit and started acting like we are aeronautical engineers. It's actually one of the big factors that has recently caused me to lose a lot of confidence in the HN crowd. Thought we were above it. Even in middle age it seems I'm still capable of wide-eyed naivete.

<comment><USER21> >Sorry you took that as an insult, it was not intended as such. It's a generic observation that on places like HN we've collectively lost our shit and started acting like we are aeronautical engineers. It's actually one of the big factors that has recently caused me to lose a lot of confidence in the HN crowd. Thought we were above it. Even in middle age it seems I'm still capable of wide-eyed naivete.

Things are getting a little heated, so I just figured I'd chime in, because I've unintentionally become a bit of an expert on this.

It is correct that blameless postmortem has been a major contributor to the culture of aviation safety. I don't necessarily question that culture so much as the prevailing executive culture at Boeing since the McDonnell Douglas merger.

[https://www.mymoneyblog.com/boeing-engineer-dream-job- nightm...](https://www.mymoneyblog.com/boeing-engineer-dream-job- nightmare.html)

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-05-09/former- bo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-05-09/former-boeing- engineers-say-relentless-cost-cutting-sacrificed-safety)

In that case, the aviation safety culture is being undermined by executive pressure, which has been a more recent thing as far as I'm aware from my aviation history deep dive. Boeing only after the merger showed signs of trying to "financially engineer" the company into a vessel of shareholder value growth over and above it's primary mission of making safe, high quality aircraft.

In regards to >It's a generic observation that on places like HN we've collectively lost our shit and started acting like we are aeronautical engineers.

They who grapple with questions and issues of aeronautical engineering, who run down facts, find evidence, employ sound reasoning to make predictions are, de facto aeronautics engineers in the sense of people doing tasks normally being associated with the responsibility of a practicing aeronautical engineer.

They are not a protected class of people, and anyone willing to pick up the tools and use them correctly, basically is one. The protected class is a Professional Engineer (U.S. not sure about anywhere else), who has been granted authority by the State to sign off on Engineering projects.

The elitism communicated by calling someone out for not being a practitioner in their day job is not desirable or conducive to fruitful discussion, and is regularly frowned upon.

One doesn't pop out of the womb an engineer after all, so drawing such lines only serves to discourage inquisitive minds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> My consumer confidence in civil aviation is shaken. I think there should be a way to opt out of flying on aircrafts that I deem unsafe. Additionally, airline and travel websites should be required, by law, to display the safety record of the airplane that will fly me. Finally, if the airlines pull a bait and switch at the airport, the airline should be required to put me on a different flight that meets my aircraft criteria.

<comment><USER30> Every time you buy a ticket, it says what type of plane you'll be on. You already have this information available to you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The content of this article is paywalled.

<comment><USER32> Alternative source of pretty much the same news: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-boeing-airplane- faa/f...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-boeing-airplane-faa/faa- failed-to-properly-review-737-max-jet-anti-stall-system-jatr-report- idUSKBN1WQ0H8)

<comment><USER31> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If an article gets published behind a paywall does it still exist?

<comment><USER34> Here: [https://outline.com/UpA4Gy](https://outline.com/UpA4Gy)

<comment><USER35> That just shows a blurb for Outline on my iPhone.

<comment><USER36> Try reloading. The first request doesn't always work.

Outline had previously blocked (or been blocked by) the NY Times, but now seems to work.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How did you build your current work ethic? - <AUTHOR>

In all of my reading of motivational literature and other productivity related material, I have never seen a concrete method of maintaining a sustainable work ethic. Most books/essays/articles I've read have mostly broached this topic with methods to improve your productivity, however they all skim over a holistic approach of how to actually get work done.<p>Furthermore, since the audience on HN is diverse, I thought it would be very interesting to see how people deal with stress or other distractions in their day to day life, and how they actually formed their work ethic (from being a kid who does not produce "work" to an adult who does both enjoyable work as well as the typical "grunt" work). (As a young adult who has now been in university for two years, it seems like the work ethic cultivated here is mostly organic in nature, and could definitely benefit with insight on experiences of current working professionals.) <comment><USER2> I grew up in a place I don't want to return to. Also, I have two handicapped kids, one of whom will need round-the-clock care long after I'm dead. I got sick (at 21) of crappy bosses. And finally, I chose a good field to work in (programming)

I became highly self-motivated at 21 because I was a dropout & knew I had to be better than my degreed peers to get an equally good job. It was either go to college, then get some crappy job as a teacher, or find an area of programming so challenging that it scared other programmers (back then, it was embedded systems and compiler implementation).

Ever since I decided at 21 to become a programmer (despite having absolutely no tech background) I have studied for my next job while I'm working the current one. At 34 Microsoft hired me with no resume despite the fact that I was old and the last thing I graduated from was middle school.

One thing I always keep in mind is this: are there people dumber than I am doing better than I am in whatever I happen to be doing at the moment? If the answer is yes, then I know I can be just as successful simply by working as hard as I need to until I'm as good as they are, or maybe a little better.

Have been CEO of my own company for 14 years now, but continue to study current programming practices and to do interesting projects with them. No matter what job I have had, no matter how good, I have always operated under the assumption I could lose it all tomorrow, and that I would be facing stiff competition for jobs.

I avoided Silicon Valley because it was too much of a pressure cooker. Instead I lived in more laid back areas that still had some tech presence. This let me live a moderately balanced life despite essentially working 2 jobs at all times. Had I gone to Silicon Valley I knew, even in the late 80s, I would be slave to an 80 hour-per-week job and end up, in all likelihood, with nothing to show for it.

I read the industry and business press carefully from afar & kept a close eye on what was doing well and where the market was underserved. I tried to match my skills to holes in the market. My approach can be scary because I have to take on more risk, but the rewards have been better.

Because of this I invested lots in Microsoft stock in the late 90s when everyone said they were dead. Their past, and their P/Ls, said something very different. The stock I owned went up 1300% during this time because everyone else, including Microsofties, was trying to get out if it. (I exited at the peak.) This money helped me invest in the business I own now. It was also a risky buy at the bottom of a market.

I have more than one paid-for house and no debt but I still keep up my skills.

Though my income is very good, even in my 50s I am ready to work as a developer or architect if my company shuts down tomorrow.

</comment><comment><USER3> The most proactive step I take to get things done is to go somewhere where I'll feel guilty if I don't do work. I've learned not to trust myself when I'm alone in a room with no oversight...I'll just end up getting distracted or playing games or going on social media, and I very easily lose track of time this way.

It's much easier for me because I'm in college right now and the library is only a few steps away from my dorm, so the activation energy isn't as great. But I've found that I get very self-conscious about what's on my screen if I move to an open spot in the library where people can see my laptop screen as they walk by. What also helps is seeing my friends be productive; it pushes me to begin work as well.

An unintended benefit of constantly going to libraries or cafes to work is that it makes me separate my work from my dorm room, which is advantageous in itself. Returning to my room now allows me to put my work behind me and truly relax, something that hadn't really been possible before. Of course, all this is psychological, but I find it really helps me.

</comment><comment><USER4> As a kid/ green hand, firstly, get used to new enviroment, and understand what is your job. After that, enjoy your work. Then try to get a promotion.

</comment><comment><USER5> note: I work in freelance, so my view might be a bit different than what you are looking for.

I basically work whenever I feel like it. Obviously if I'm on a tight deadline, I just work till I'm done (putting your phone in airplane mode helps). While I try to work on a regular schedule, I've only found it to be counter-productive. Let me give you a recent example.

I was working on creating an email template for a local startup and wasn't really in to it. I opened up Hacker News and read a couple posts and saw the Vinod Khosla interview with Sergey Brin and Larry Page. I watched the longish (45 minutes) video and went back to work.

About half an hour later, I got into a really nice flow and finished my two day project in about 3 hours.</comment>


The GhostWriter, a JavaScript 2D Game with Canvas - <AUTHOR> http://codepen.io/marco-ponds/pen/gawVZY <comment><USER2> Doesn't work :/ OSX Chrome Version 45.0.2454.101 (64-bit)

</comment><comment><USER3> It tells me to type but type what? I press all the keys but can't manage to kill a single ghost.

</comment><comment><USER4> Works on FF,but not chrome.That's interesting

EDIT: well there you go : Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'toLowerCase' of undefined

EDIT2: a relevant bug[1] and it even suggests a work around.

[1]:[http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/15220](http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/15220)

chrome apparently does not have event.key ; you could try event.keyCode or event.keyIdentifier

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your thoughts. This 'game' has been created in just a few hours as a personal experiment, and it'n not designed to be completely cross platform. However, I will edit the code, trying to get a more nice experience.

A major issue is that codepen doesn't automatically focus the frame of the game, and this causes the keyboard event to be missed.

</comment><comment><USER5> Tried to type actual words but didn't work for me either. Tested with OSX Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER6> Pressed all my keys, didn't shoot.</comment>


Apple confirms iOS kernel code left unencrypted intentionally - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/22/apple-unencrypted-kernel/ <comment><USER2> A move like this fits with a more general ideology Apple has been advocating for the last three years. Privacy, security, and ultruism. Tim Cook has put is mark on the company. One of the first things he did was apologize, (for maps) something unheard of in Apple's culture. I haven't drank the cool-aid and Apple has a lot of issues. I do see they however are making attempts at differentiating from the general corporate behavior of the telecoms and Google. Cook is differentiating from Jobs as well.

<comment><USER3> >altruism

Then why does Apple avoid paying taxes?

Let's not kid ourselves: Apple is a company, and companies are only "altruistic" if they expect that it will help their bottom line.

<comment><USER4> Billings Learned Hand once said:

> Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as > possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the > Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.

If we want companies to pay more taxes (which I think we do want) we should change the laws. You can't blame anybody for only paying the legally required amount of taxes.

<comment><USER3> _> You can't blame anybody for only paying the legally required amount of taxes._

Of course I can (and I do). Apple and various other companies go to great lengths to pay the least amount of taxes they can get away with.

<comment><USER5> Why would anyone - individual or corporation - pay more taxes than they are legally obligated to pay?

Don't get me wrong: I believe that corporations _should_ be obligated to pay much more in taxes than most currently do, but I'm going to assume that you don't knowingly pay more in taxes than you owe. If I'm wrong about that, then I'm interested in hearing your reasoning as to why you feel like the government is entitled to money to which they have explicitly stated that you aren't required to pay if you meet certain conditions.

<comment><USER6> > Why would anyone - individual or corporation - pay more taxes than they are > legally obligated to pay?

Because they can't afford the accountants and lawyers required to pull of the funneling of funds through various bodies and countries to get said reduction in tax burden?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there _any_ modern kernel in widespread use that runs while encrypted in RAM?

What kind of attacks would encrypting a running kernel prevent? The kernel and hardware work together to enforce memory safety, so it can't be to prevent a rogue process from reading kernel memory...

 _Edit:_ Is this talking about encrypting the kernel image in permanent storage, or encrypting a running kernel in RAM? When booting Linux for example, the boot loader will load the Linux kernel image into memory as a gzip-compressed blob. The kernel's first instructions are a small decompressor program that unpack the rest of the kernel image into memory and then jumps into the uncompressed kernel. Did previous iOS versions do something similar to their saved kernel image?

<comment><USER8> > encrypting a running kernel in RAM

How is that supposed to work? Ok, the CPU can fetch an encrypted instruction, decrypt it and execute it, but when it needs to jump, how is it supposed to know where to jump? Also encrypting each instruction separately and independently would be trivial to reverse.

Is there any system that really runs encrypted code from RAM? Any papers describing such a system?

<comment><USER9> A company that Facebook acquired a couple of years ago (PrivateCore) realized that the L1 cache had grown large enough that you could run a hypervisor out of it. You use a TPM secure boot chain to ensure you are booting the code you need into the hardware you expect, load up the hypervisor and its keys, and then this hypervisor is used to encrypt _everything_. Now you have encrypted RAM, so physical possession of a running device gets you nothing at all.

<comment><USER10> L1 had grown large enough? What do you mean? L1 was 32KB in the Pentium II days, and for the last ten years of Intel chips it's been an unchanging 64KB. Why would it have to fit into L1 specifically, rather than L2/L3? (If you do use L2/L3, that's also been big enough to spare the space for a hypervisor since the Pentium II, which had 512KB.)

<comment><USER11> Looks like they do use L3, alongside an number of other intel x86 features (not surprisingly things like AES-NI)

[https://privatecore.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/pr- privat...](https://privatecore.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/pr-privatecore- vcage-general-availability.pdf)

Sorry couldn't copy/paste relevant section; formatting went horrible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I suppose this is the only way to definitively stop any three-letter agencies from asking you to backdoor your kernel.

<comment><USER13> Also, all you need is one insider kernel developer to get all the source code anyways. I always find these kinds of initiatives silly -- A lot of companies think that an insider is a side-channel attack when really it's the main vector.

<comment><USER14> Also, given enough money available, why ask people to build vulnerabilities in ? Does anyone seriously think Apple's (or anyone's) kernel team doesn't have a single guy/girl that made at least one mistake ?

<comment><USER15> Of course there are bugs, but they are hugely expensive to find.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "The kernel cache doesn't contain any user info, and by unencrypting it we're able to optimize the operating system's performance without compromising security," an Apple spokesperson told TechCrunch.

"Apple confirms iOS kernel code left unencrypted intentionally"

Which is it, cache (of what?) or code?

<comment><USER17> The spokesperson is talking out of their ass regarding performance. The kernel is decrypted by iBoot once at boot, using the hardware AES engine. It remains decrypted until the device is shutdown/rebooted. Decompressing _and_ decrypting the kernel takes less than a second at boot.

Also, TechCrunch fails to note that the kernelcache keys for most 32-bit kernels (and all iOS versions) are publicly available. Private individuals have dumped the keys for 64-bit kernels but they are not available publicly. Even without the keys, any jailbreak allows for dumping of the kernel. However, a kernel dump is missing very helpful MachO headers (handy for kloading) and, for 64-bit kernels, the EL3 TrustZone Watchtower module aka Kernel Patch Protection.

<comment><USER18> > The spokesperson is talking out of their ass regarding performance.

I'm fairly certain that this statement was vetted by Craig Federighi himself or, at minimum, a high-level engineering manager.

<comment><USER19> Both statements could be true - I wouldn't be too surprised to see Apple stretch the truth; yes, it's true, performance on a 25 second boot (my iphone 6s) from cold was improved to 24 seconds. Doesn't really move the needle, but still true, to some degree. A second here, and a second there - starts to add up though, particularly on boot up, for those of us who end up doing that multiple times a day.

Also, in general, any time you can remove code from a system, that isn't contributing in any meaningful way, is just a good thing to do - both from reducing attack surfaces, as well as general reduction in code size, and the advantages that come along with that.

<comment><USER20> iOS 10 running on my iPhone 6S Plus is currently booting in about 5 seconds. Not sure how though...

Also that's when I hold down the home and lock buttons, in order to force- reboot. Perhaps now that doesn't fully reboot the phone.

<comment><USER17> I was curious so I benchmarked "decrypting" kernelcache.release.n66 on an iPhone 6S and it took about 60 milliseconds to decrypt. It wasn't encrypted in the first place so the decryption results in garbage, but it should be a valid benchmark. The quick boot time with iOS 10 sure is nice, but it isn't because the kernel isn't encrypted.

[https://gist.github.com/jevinskie/40df60e3e9d76ad05304be9bd5...](https://gist.github.com/jevinskie/40df60e3e9d76ad05304be9bd550d6ad)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Could this be an invitation for researchers to find a backdoor the NSA required Apple to put in there? Or are they just utilizing the crowd to help secure against NSA attacks?

<comment><USER22> That would make sense. They have been on the offensive for protecting their customers.

Trouble is auditing TrueCrypt cost $25k and it took massive rumors of a backdoor to raise that. I'm not sold that auditing this will happen anytime soon.

<comment><USER23> Slightly off topic; but does anyone have any resources that go into a higher level detail (I'm not very knowledgable of low-level programming type stuff) of how an audit like the one done on TrueCrypt or a hypothetical security audit on the iOS kernel works? How can anyone know with that degree of certainty that software is secure and someone else won't find some exploitable bit?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The kernel and the root FS are now unencrypted - but not other things, such as the bootloaders (iBoot, LLB) and the firmware for the SEP (Secure Enclave Processor, used to handle things like Touch ID).

</comment><comment><USER25> "The kernel cache doesn't contain any user info, and by unencrypting it we're able to optimize the operating system's performance without compromising security,"

This is probably the only true part of the article, it means that they disabled a kernel feature of cache encryption to speed-up performances.

It has nothing to do with source code nor binaries of the kernel.

<comment><USER26> Does the same count for the watchOS kernel? I mean, the performance enhancements they claim to have realized have to come from somewhere.

<comment><USER27> > the performance enhancements they claim to have realized have to come from > somewhere

Even in the first beta, the performance enhancements are real. Numerous Apple folks, including Craig Federighi, have said that with WatchOS1 and 2 they 'overshot' how conservative they needed to be with RAM and CPU (out of respect for battery life), and with WatchOS 3 they have rebalanced that.

Time will tell how much of a hit battery life will take from this, but for a beta things look good so far.

<comment><USER28> This, and they also realized they had leftover RAM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hopefully they didn't tie their integrity/authenticity enforcement to their encryption...

Although I'm guessing the whole segment is loaded into ram and verified by the bootloader at boot then never touched again.

</comment><comment><USER30> In other news: Google admits source code used in Android kernel can be accessed by hackers

<comment><USER31> I do not think they are talking about source code, rather about some compiled code cache. I am not completely certain that the author of the article knows what they are talking about (but I am quite confused myself and I will appreciate an explanation).

Also, I thought a lot of the Darwin MacOS kernel had already publicly available source code.

<comment><USER17> Some of the kernel is released months/years later as open source. You are correct about the releases being macOS only, iOS xnu has never been open sourced but it is, for the most part, identical. Apple has also been moving code out of the open source kernel releases and into private, closed source kexts. Kernel extensions like Sandbox have never been released.

<comment><USER17> I forgot to mention launchd. It was open source then was closed and split into launchd/libxpc. It has always been a critical security component of macOS/iOS. Many CVEs have been written about it even after it was closed via binary reversing and fuzzing. Having the source again would be nice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > This would have been an incredibly glaring oversight, like forgetting to put > doors on an elevator

You mean a paternoster? :)

<comment><USER33> For the not familiar/lazy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> > The kernel manages security and limits the ways applications on an iPhone or > iPad can access the hardware of the device, making it a crucial part of the > operating system.

The kernel technically _is_ the OS, TC! Come on... :)

</comment><comment><USER35> This is stupid. Anyone interested in writing jailbreaks for iOS would have already had access to these binaries. People are blowing this way out of proportion.

<comment><USER36> not true. 64-bit kernel was previously not possible to examine.

additionally: we now know what Watchtower looks like, something that was previously a mystery and even incorrectly thought to be something that ran on SEP instead of the AP.

<comment><USER35> If Stefan says it will you believe me?

[https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/745922795977187329](https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/745922795977187329)

You just used a kernel privesc that you probably already had to read it. NOT A BIG DEAL.

<comment><USER17> That gets you a kernel dump, a decrypted kernelcache gives you very handy MachO headers. And as Will said, the well known kernel dumping methods do not dump Watchtower. I'm not sure if anyone has privately been able to dump Watchtower with a kernel privsec or if it has only been possible with the kernelcache keys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Must be a revolutionary new feature called "jailbreak bait"...</comment>


Show HN: Follow GitHub Organisations - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/follow-github-organisation/follow-github-organisation <comment><USER2> I made [https://cantor.bubbleapps.io/](https://cantor.bubbleapps.io/) to address the same issue. It emails you when an an organization you follow creates a new repo.

</comment><comment><USER3> How does this work?

There are a few other solutions to this problem at [https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/50](https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/50)

<comment><USER4> \- You create an issue with the link of the organisation

\- Using GitHub webhook, an event is triggered to see if the org is already being followed

\- If not, a record is created (organisation name, public repo count, issue id etc)

\- Every 6 hour, (for all organisations) a cron job checks if the org has any extra public repositories

\- In case of any new repository, a comment is created with the links to the new repositories

<comment><USER5> Do you plan to publish the source code of your cron script and related stuff? I was expecting to see it under the same GitHub organization but found nothing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is there a way to get Atom feeds of a single issue in Github?</comment>


Ask HN: How did you get your first Sponsor? - <AUTHOR> Question: How did you get your first sponsor for your blog/podcast/platform/website? <comment><AUTHOR> Hey OP here.

I started looking around for sponsors yesterday.

I don't really know the ropes yet, but I feel like I have good enough stats to show to land a sponsorship deal.

I was wondering if anybody here went through this process? If yes, how did you approach it and how did you land your first sponsorship deal?

Stats for context: \- 100K+ pageviews this month \- 6000+ subscribers</comment>