Carpool.vc – Carpool with Ludlow Ventures - <AUTHOR> http://www.carpool.vc/

<comment><USER2> For the past 10 months or so I've interned with these two. To say that these guys are not your traditional VC's would be a huge understatement. These episodes do an amazing job of capturing how goofy and approachable Jonathon and Brett are. Their personalities couldn't complement each other more.</comment>


Darkpatterns.org: naming and shaming black hat, anti-usability design patterns. - <AUTHOR> http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/08/16/darkpatterns-org-naming-and-shaming-sites-that-use-black-hat-anti-usability-design-patterns/

<comment><USER2> Here's one "dark pattern": Writing about a site and hiding the clickable link deep within the text of the post, in a way that the text of the link doesn't indicate that it actually takes you to the site, in the middle of a jungle of other links that take you to various other articles on the same blog.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't call it dark pattern but rather an anti-pattern or just a plain-old mistake/oversight. Dark pattern implies the website gains something by misleading the user. In this case, the guy actually loses hits/viewer to the main website he is talking about. So it is more of a usability oversight than usability insidiousness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm not generally in favor of new laws but this should be illegal: <http://darkpatterns.org/silent-credit-card-roll-over/>

<comment><USER4> This exact same thing happened to me while subscribing with _www.1and1.fr_ for a 1 year free domain name + 100mb disk space. At the end of the year, they started charging me, but I never noticed because the credit card I used when I subscribed was expired.

A few months later I got a letter from a bailiff (not sure of the translation: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huissier_de_justice>) saying that I owed like 100$ to 1and1, then I got another letter, and another, I never replied and the story stopped here.

<comment><USER5> For what it's worth, pretty much all major credit card companies impose conditions on merchants who want to have delayed or recurring payments, which form the financial basis for this sort of dubious behaviour.

As a result, if someone is trying to pull a fast one like this, you probably don't need heavyweight legal action to defend yourself. The payment authority on your card will have expired when your card did and chances are that the merchant is required by their card processing service to get a new authority for any further payments. If they didn't, and they didn't contact you immediately but let the "debt" run up for a few months, that's basically their problem, and neither the credit card services nor the courts are likely to give them much sympathy. Whoever they sent after you is probably well aware of this, and gave up as soon as they realised the situation, particularly if they're only receiving a percentage of any money recovered as their fee.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, if you trust any legal comments you read on an Internet forum without independent verification then you're a fool, etc. :-)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the reply, but this story in long over. This happened like 3 years ago, so I think they pretty much gave up by now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Link: <http://darkpatterns.org>

Nice site :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Lump of coal for Ryan Air's purchase ticketing online:

<http://gyazo.com/5355d61b3c732af6424d6c2da6f951f3.png>

<comment><USER8> Yeah - just booked tickets through that site and was pretty shocked by that one.

They really make you work to avoid buying extra crap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think all of us have encountered examples like this.

I consider myself a fairly savvy user, but a few years ago, I was caught by geni.com's invite policy (it _was_ endorsed by Time Magazine, so I trusted it more than I should have).

I entered the email addresses of a few family members, expecting them to be invited to join the family tree. Instead they were automatically opted in to a deluge of daily email updates about family activities/events. It made me fairly unpopular for a while at family gatherings, especially with older family members, who couldn't find the "unsubscribe" link. I think some of them still have to manually delete messages every day.

</comment><comment><USER10> Regarding: <http://darkpatterns.org/hidden-costs/>

Its extremely rare to see an online store that includes all taxes & fees in its line item prices. Such as hotel/air tax, sales tax, or shipping costs.

And when I don't see them in the checkout, I get suspicious. Shipping is never free, please let me know what I'm paying for it rather than lumping it into 1 price.

<comment><USER11> ...in the US. In a bunch of other countries it's illegal for businesses to display prices without all applicable taxes.

<comment><USER10> What about fees only certain customers have to pay?

An example of this in the US is that companies don't know if you're going to pay their sales tax until they know what state you're in. Would they have to collect all required information before they display any products, (potentially being perceived as <http://darkpatterns.org/forced-information- disclosure/>) or display multiple prices?

<comment><USER11> In Sweden, the only real difference is between companies and persons, and the former don't pay VAT, but the latter group should. EU didn't complicate matters, you still pay VAT based on the country you buy from, not where you are located.

So if you make a print catalog and send it to companies, you can print prices without VAT. If you make the same and send to people, you have to include VAT. Same if you have a store, you have to include VAT in all prices.

Webshops usually have a simple global toggle somewhere on the site where you can choose to display prices with or without VAT.

In the US case, you could simply use GeoIP to guess the default and display all prices according to that state, and somewhere on the site have a "We think you are in <state>. Change?" and a dropdown.

It's really not rocket science, and the end result is _very_ nice for consumers since the total you see is always the actual total, not a bullshit number that gets magically larger at the last step.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A "dark pattern" I know about is websites that make it extremely difficult to quit the service. Having to sift through a site design like a maze to find the "quit" button is definitely something that is manipulative and harmful to end users, since we are generally lazy, easily distracted individuals.

</comment><comment><USER13> In getsatidfaction.com you can not delete your profile.

More on my blog [http://chanux.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/how-not-to-get- satisf...](http://chanux.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/how-not-to-get- satisfaction/)

</comment><comment><USER14> LOL @ calling it Privacy 'Zuckering'

<comment><USER5> Zuckerpunch, _n_. A quick opening move that tricks you into compromising your privacy before you realise what's really happening. See also "Facebook, joining".

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was hoping to be inspired, but I don't actually see any new or useful information on this site. All of these entries just come across as whiny complaints about things that are very obvious and in the company's best interest.

Example: "Disguised Ads" Site designers want ads to look like content?? God forbid! Stop the presses!</comment>


The next iMac design looks straight out of Star Trek - <AUTHOR> https://www.tomsguide.com/news/the-next-imac-redesign-looks-out-of-a-star-trek-spaceship <comment><USER2> The ergonomics of this seem terrible, on laptops the sacrifice is made for portability. For desktops there is no reason to have the display so low. I don't see this happening.</comment>


Can 5G replace everybody's home broadband? - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/12/5g-as-a-home-broadband-replacement-isnt-a-slam-dunk-yet-but-it-might-be-soon/ <comment><USER2> 5G will be your home broadband.

* 5G replaces copper in older housing when the last mile when fiber is not present. If you get fast fiber to building, 5G can deliver net to floors.

* 5G and WiFi converge and work together with Multipath TCP. 5G Release 16 includes ATSSS (Access Traffic Steering, Switching & Splitting). Seamless 5G/WiFi handovers are already demoed in Seoul.

* Hybrid 5G home routers can use xDSL/LTE/5G whatever and use all available capacity.</comment>


Dont have a startup that's "built to fund" - <AUTHOR> http://nateberkopec.com/post/10561343700/built-to-fund

<comment><USER2> Really great insight. Being part of an accelerator program/tv show/pageant shouldn't be all that matters. It should be about building real businesses that solve actual problems the founders can relate with. Not building just a feature.

</comment><comment><USER3> There definitely is a beauty pageant aspect to the startup/incubator culture. And TechCrunch is largely to blame. They've keep cheering on anyone who gets a well-oiled slide desk ready, puts some make-up on, and panders to VC's. Meanwhile they completely miss out actual technology news, and don't report true innovation.</comment>


Online research is narrowing the range of modern scholarship - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/11/23/group_think/?page=full <comment><USER2> "Winners are inadvertently picked," says Evans. "It drives out diversity."

That's an important point. I think students learning the art of research still have to learn how to look for prior literature that challenges the consensus of the day.</comment>


PC and Device Requirements For Windows 8 - <AUTHOR> http://www.withinwindows.com/2012/01/16/windows-8-secrets-pc-and-device-requirements/ <comment><USER2> This is interesting. It seems they are taking a page out of the Apple book with mandated resolutions and device. They are trying to dodge the demon of device variation that Android developers wrestle with.</comment>


GooseGooseGo - DuckDuckGo with saner defaults - <AUTHOR> http://goosegoosego.com/ <comment><USER2> That's a bit 'tarded. Why not just use google by default? You confuse me. If you don't like DDG don't use it, write a post about it, the end. This shows nothing. Wish I could downvote.</comment>


TeslaCrypt Shuts Down and Releases Master Decryption Key - <AUTHOR> http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/teslacrypt-shuts-down-and-releases-master-decryption-key/ <comment><AUTHOR> Article also explains how to use the key to decrypt your drive.</comment>


A command line /me utility from IRC - <AUTHOR> http://jdefr.swippet.com Use /me in your terminal. Useless but much needed terminal fun... <comment><USER2> Making it Tweet would be the modern way.

I have one that is simply tweet 'what ever I feel like'

which warns me if I go too long instead of posting</comment>


LESS or SASS? Which do you prefer? - <AUTHOR>

Which CSS preprocessor do you prefer and why?
The reason I have asking this is, I learned LESS mainly because Twitter Bootstrap came with .less files.
But whenever I search, I found more resources (code snippets) about SASS. So before considering the it just wanted to know if there are any advantages. <comment><USER2> I've tried using SASS a few times but keep going back to LESS so I can configure Bootstrap variables. Also, bootswatch.com uses LESS so that's a big motivator is stick with LESS.</comment>


The Death of an Adjunct - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/04/adjunct-professors-higher-education-thea-hunter/586168/ <comment><USER2> Universities treat adjuncts like they do because they can: [https://jakeseliger.com/2016/02/25/universities-treat- adjunc...](https://jakeseliger.com/2016/02/25/universities-treat-adjuncts- like-they-do-because-they-can).

Academia is not a good industry to be in and people should stop trying to go. This is well known and has been for a long time: [https://jakeseliger.com/2010/01/21/problems-in-the- academy-l...](https://jakeseliger.com/2010/01/21/problems-in-the-academy- louis-menands-the-marketplace-of-ideas-reform-and-resistance-in-the-american- university-2).

<comment><USER3> Nice posts.

I've nearly completed a PhD in engineering. A while back I decided that academia is likely a dead end unless you win the lottery. If the adjunct situation won't improve until people stop taking those jobs, I'll do my part. I'd like to periodically teach a class or two, but I would never adjunct as my sole source of income.

<comment><USER4> Yeah. There are good jobs in academia. Get tenure at an elite university and it's a pretty good life. (Although not as rosy as it probably seems from the outside with politics, pursuing grants, etc.) But that's a pretty tiny proportion of the positions PhDs hope to fill.

<comment><USER5> People don't understand how hard it is to get tenure. You have to win grants from the NIH to get tenure. Why? Because for every grant the NIH gives to scientist, the Universities tack on indirect costs (whatever that means) allowing them collect upwards of 50% of the grant for the University. Research grants are a cast cow, and it's really f __* up

<comment><USER6> They take 50% and spend it on flashy buildings and ballooning administrative salaries.

<comment><USER7> It's adorable that people think a research university would settle for just 50% indirects.

Try 90% and almost all of it goes to the football coach or the dean's legal fees.

<comment><USER8> What university takes 90% of grant money for overhead? 30-50% for overhead is what I familiar with.

<comment><USER7> At one point it was typical — looks like scrutiny has driven indirects down massively outside of dedicated research institutes in the past few years.

[https://osp.mit.edu/facilities-and-administrative-fa- rates](https://osp.mit.edu/facilities-and-administrative-fa-rates)

HMS declared rate is 58% but there are a lot of loopholes (as at other R1s with Institutes)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I just don't get it. Where does the money go? Students pay ridiculous amounts for tuition, while schools try to get away with being as cheap as possible by hiring adjuncts, using ridiculously cheap food vendors, giving less and less aid, etc. For regular corporations I'd cite shareholders and profitability, but nominally, schools don't have that. Some people cite administration, but I'm not entirely sure of that either. Even the president gets paid maybe 4 million tops, which is 100 students tuition. And schools did just fine 50 years ago with less than a quarter of the tuition.

My current theory is that administrators have figured out a way to get money out of the school in some form and are squeezing it like cash cows. Or they're just horribly mismanaging schools.

<comment><USER10> > I just don't get it. Where does the money go?

Nowadays mostly to pay for a huge class of administrators that mainly manage other administrators and monitor the violation of rules whose creation they themselves promote.

<comment><USER11> Someone has to administer, grade and maintain of those mandatory "Integrity Booster!" courses and flash based "Digital Security and You! lessons

(Sorry your browser is not supported.)

Oh yea, who else is going to create that "PDF" that only opens on MS running Adobe?

<comment><USER12> I studied for a year in a US university before transferring back to a government run university back in India. My tuition for the latter was about $100/year.

The amount of bloat I saw in US universities was unreal. Software that no one used apart from a couple of features, services that served no one in particular, classes that no one wants, and so on.

Of course, the infrastructure was markedly better. But I can't say that for quality. Most of my classes were taught by TAs, while my classes in my university back home were often taught by associate or even full professors, several of whom had PhDs from top US/UK universities.

And this was at a cheap public university. I can't imagine the kind of bloat a large private US school would have

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Many years ago my neighbor was a woman in debt up to her eyeballs with a sociology degree, who dreamed of working in the nonprofit sector. She got a series of (unpaid) internships with nonprofits around Boston but could never land a permanent position. She wound up taking a job at a local sandwich shop.

Domino's Pizza managers make over $40,000 and don't require a college degree.[0] They also have benefits. In 2007 when I worked at Dominos the manager was salaried and worked about 50 hours a week, but he was an ex- convict and really enjoyed his job. He was a super nice guy who made us excited to work there.

There is no need to pay $200,000 for a worthless degree to make minimum wages as you are overworked and stressing yourself to death. If that was me, I'd go back to Dominos, it was a pretty fun place to work.

[0] [https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Domino-s-General- Manage...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Domino-s-General-Manager- Hourly-Pay-E2770_D_KO9,24.htm)

<comment><USER14> > There is no need to pay $200,000 for a worthless degree

In general, and certainly in my field (mathematics), Ph.D. students don't pay tuition, and they get a modest stipend (around 20K) in exchange for being teaching assistants.

<comment> barry-cotter Ph.D. students outside top tier programmes in the humanities and social sciences often get admitted without funding _and enrol as students_. They might get a teaching assistantship or they might go into enormous debt. Then if they graduate they're competing for jobs against people from graduate programmes in their field that are well known and respected. Most of those people don't get tenure track jobs. The ones from no name programmes are just screwed.

Fredrik deBoer got a Ph.D. in English (Rhetoric) from Purdue, applied to more than 300 tenure track jobs and gave up, eventually becoming an administrator at NYU. Unfortunately he's deleted the essay along with most of his blog but he said that the tenure track job hunt was the worst thing that ever happened to him and he's an orphan.

That's someone with statistical and programming skills graduating from one of the top programmes in Rhetoric.

<comment><USER12> Apparently, the chance to get funding for a PhD in UK is about 1 in 20.

Most startups have a higher success rate than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I did the whole PhD gig, few years as a post-doc and then obtained a tenured position only to quit it and go to industry. While I don't regret all of it, I wish I had quit for industry sooner.

Industry is far, far nicer than academia. The amount of time one puts in for massive amounts of bullshit meetings and form filling and constant justification of how what you are doing is beneficial for society is insane. What I realized was that, in many ways, academia is not that different from the glamour world. Young, naive people see superstars at the top, receiving adulation and sex, and see no reason why they can't be one of them. The superstars are relatively accessible and you meet them and they tell you all you need is talent, hard work, and all of this could be yours too. Grad school, at least in fields like Physics, Math, etc is cheap as long as you don't have family or other dependents. It is an artificial environment with its own rules, and you get sucked in hard. It actively encourages you to not care for yourself or anyone else around you and just focus on research (read, what gets your advisor publications and awards). Over the span of my PhD I saw two suicides, almost every person who was married divorced, and practically everyone was on anti-depressants.

This doesn't end after getting your PhD. Since academic jobs could be anywhere and because the typical post doc grants come for 2-4 years, you can't really settle down and start a family. There is crippling uncertainty about everything. While your peers at this time have had kids, you are still wondering _whether_ your academic career will happen. The senior folks who got their PhDs in the golden period in 70s and 80s are at best oblivious to how things are now, or actively feed you lies because you continuing to work in this system for as long as possible is in their best interests.

When I walked away from the tenured position after going through all that, everyone was like who does that. But, personally, it was a huge relief to me. My first salary in the corporate world was 4x what I was offered in academia (am a physicist, transitioned to AI/ML). Ironically, I have more time to read research papers and actually think about research now.

</comment><comment><USER16> > She had a number of ailments that bothered her—her asthma, her heart—and the > rigors of being an adjunct added to them.

> Two deaths occurred back to back. First, Cooper, her companion. Then, a few > months later, her mother, Grace.

> If Thea had a tenure-track job and access to proper health insurance to be > appropriately diagnosed, she might still be alive, they said.

The factors in her death -- work stress, health issues, life tragedies, and a lack of health insurance -- don't seem more strongly linked to the job of adjunct professor than to any other low-status job.

<comment><USER17> The times we live in, when _university professor_ is considered a _low-status job_.

<comment><USER18> I have a friend who was an adjunct professor for a number of years, and I would describe him as barely above homeless most of the time. He never knew whether he would have a job in the fall, and the pay was barely above minimum wage. He was planning to give up and move back to his hometown before this year when he was hired as a full-time professor.

I learned a lot about modern higher education from him, and I would absolutely describe _adjunct professor_ as a _low-status job._

<comment><USER17> I don't disagree; that's why I decided not to try the academic job market after getting a degree.

But it's a remarkably sorrowful state of affairs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> At least she had the opportunity. Some people through academia their entire lives without ever getting tenure:

"The gig was ideal: It was tenure-track, it was in her field"

She actually had a tenure track position (that's pretty rare and not something to be thrown away). But she felt insulted because a few people had mistaken her for the janitor (and a few parents called the school to complain about her), so she quit.

<comment><USER20> Agreed. Her story is tragic but it's hard to feel sorry for someone who threw away a tenure track position, didn't want to leave NYC, didn't want to leave academia for the sake of her health. All of her self-imposed requirements were ridiculous, and lack of insight is no excuse.

Adjunct professorships are a real problem but this article is below the Atlantic's usual standard.

<comment> xkcd-sucks Actually getting tenure can be pretty tough and very political. Presumably she estimated that her political circumstances were bad and it that it would be better to start fresh than try turning things around, which is a rational decision that many assistant professors should make but do not.

<comment><USER20> The article certainly doesn't make it look that way. She joined in 2004 and left in 2006. Way too short even for a five year tenure clock, especially when she very much needed the health insurance.

<comment> xkcd-sucks It's pretty easy to figure out who's on your tenure committee, who the competition is, and which bridges have been burned

<comment><USER21> Sure, but leaving without securing another tenure-track position? You can't reset the clock, still, leaving early is Not A Good Sign you know how to play the game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't understand how someone can get a professorship but not be tenured. Why would an institution give a chair but not be prepared to give tenure? How would you get close to the point of being considered for a chair and not pass through the point of being tenured?

<comment><USER23> A few things:

* Colloquially, we use the term "professor" to refer to anyone who teaches at a university, but it's probably not her actual job title. For example, at my alma mater, non-tenure-track instructors typically have the title "Senior Lecturer", but everyone calls them professors.

* There is a difference between "tenure" and "tenure-track". It's possible to not have tenure but still be in line to receive it upon a future promotion. If your position isn't tenure-track, though, then you will never get tenure unless you leave your job and find a tenure-track position elsewhere. As there are few tenure-track positions open, this is harder than it looks.

* For actual professors (i.e. tenure-track jobs with "Professor" in the job title), the entry level position doesn't carry tenure, and it comes with a promotion. They start out as an Assistant Professor, get promoted to Associate Professor, and eventually to full Professor. Tenure is typically granted with the promotion to Associate Professor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's pretty simple - the product universities sell ("education") is highly inflated. Thus universities can have someone hardly trained in their field (a current grad student) to instruct it. (Of course if you're being taught by what is an older classmate then how much value are the classes really?)

I feel so much for my colleagues who are in this path.

</comment><comment><USER25> Make it a right and make it universal stop Splitting hais on nature of career.

</comment><comment><USER26> A similar story from 2013: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6429457](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6429457)

</comment><comment><USER27> Decades of state tax cuts. Prop 13 and similar in other states. Higher ed took most of the damage and just raised tuition to compensate.

</comment><comment><USER28> This happens due to administrators trying to get around racial quotas.

</comment><comment><USER25> Make it a right and make it universal stop splitting hairs on careers.

</comment><comment><USER29> > If Thea had a tenure-track job and access to proper health insurance to be > appropriately diagnosed, she might still be alive, they said.

This is a bizarre take-away from this story. What about all the people who weren't fortunate enough to attend Columbia University and live a life of learning? Shouldn't they be able to get a check-up that would have caught fluid build-up in their lungs?

This story could've been written about an Uber or Lyft driver, and the take- away would have been the same: America needs a better health-insurance story for people who aren't poor, but who don't have consistent full-time work. The adjunct angle just adds an ugly layer of classism to that point. ("Oh, this person had a degree from Columbia, she shouldn't have faced the same struggles as an Uber driver.") Everyone should be able to get a regular checkup, regardless of their job. Beyond that, if the market values historians similarly to Uber drivers, well, so be it.

<comment><USER30> Whataboutism, two wrongs don't make a right.

The story is abut inhumane working conditions, inadequate compensation, and access, literally, to the necessties of life, via systemic faiure.

The local failure is on Columbia University.

The broader failure is not.

<comment><USER29> The story is a call for middle class welfare: paying an educated, relatively privileged group more than their market value—and more than what we deem the societal minimum—so they can have a higher standard of living than say food service workers and retail. (Who likely would consider the "inhuman" working conditions of being an adjunct professor quite a step up.) That's not moral. Nothing about having an advanced degree entitles you to a better life than people without one.

<comment><USER30> Let me suggest an alternate summary: The story is a call for _welfare._

Have you read your Marx?

 _No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged._

Or:

 _It may be said that of this hard lot no one has any reason to complain, because it befalls those only who are outstripped by others, from inferiority of energy or of prudence. This, even were it true, would be a very small alleviation of the evil. If some Nero or Domitian were to require a hundred persons to run a race for their lives, on condition that the fifty or twenty who came in hindmost should be put to death, it would not be any diminution of the injustice that the strongest or nimblest would, except through some untoward accident, be certain to escape. The misery and the crime would be that any were put to death at all. So in the economy of society; if there be any who suffer physical privation or moral degradation, whose bodily necessities are either not satisfied or satisfied in a manner which only brutish creatures can be content with, this, though not necessarily the crime of society, is pro tanto a failure of the social arrangements._

Trick question -- Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, respectively.

[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/...](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/Chapter_8)

[https://archive.org/stream/chaptersonsocial00mill#page/264/m...](https://archive.org/stream/chaptersonsocial00mill#page/264/mode/2up/search/of+this+hard+lot)

<comment><USER29> Those quotes express the view that there should be a minimum standard that is adequate. Which I agree with. What I disagree with is the idea that being a professor entitles you to something higher than that minimum standard, which is the premise of the article.

<comment><USER30> Does your minimum standard fall above or below the necessities of life?

I don't see the conditions being described in. the article (or many others of adjunct or even full-time professors) as extraordinary. There's another passage in Smith discussing the constituents of pay I recommend considering.

What do you earn? Is this above that minimum standard?

What of college football coaches? Or VC?

Why should colleges (or any other enterprise) be charities paid for by the sacrifices, and lives, of instructors or workers?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask:HN Best services for sending money abroad - kris-jagasia

I'm based in Canada and pay people (in USD) in both Turkey and Brazil on a regular basis (developers). Would be interested to know what people are using to make international transfers at below Paypal / Bank transfer fees. <comment> kris-jagasia For people that use bitcoin as their international exchange protocol, how do you get your head around the possible changes in Bitcoins value, especially if it's going to take you a week or so to do the transfer (by the time your transactions get processed/validate)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Bitcoin.

Then use localbitcoins to exchange to local currency. Most exchangers do the conversion very quickly from what I've seen.

<comment> kris-jagasia sorry, forgot to post as reply, how do you get your head around changes (often volatile) in bitcoin value, when you're just using it as a money transfer protocol

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> [https://www.dwolla.com/](https://www.dwolla.com/) seems interesting.

Tracking the "money transfer" tools at [http://www.hackertoolbox.com/tags/money%20transfer](http://www.hackertoolbox.com/tags/money%20transfer)

<comment> kris-jagasia unfortunately, dwolla is US accounts only, Xoom, transerwise don't deal with Turkey, xe or Bitcoin may be the only options

</comment></comment><comment> kris-jagasia unfortunately, dwolla is US accounts only, Xoom, transerwise don't deal with Turkey,

xe or Bitcoin may be the only options

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://www.xoom.com/](https://www.xoom.com/) [http://transferwise.com/](http://transferwise.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> [http://www.xe.com/xetrade/](http://www.xe.com/xetrade/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Bitcoin. The cheapest and probably the fastest way.

</comment><comment> kris-jagasia thanks guys

</comment><comment><USER6> www.transferwise.com

<comment> kris-jagasia doesn't deal with Turkey unfortunately, looks like a kick ass product though</comment></comment>


House GOP pushes a bill that lets employers demand workers' genetic test results - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/house-gop-employers-demand-workers-genetic-test-results-2017-3 <comment><AUTHOR> This screams pure evil on so many levels.

The people in power are behaving in a surreal manner. If Russia wanted the US disintegrated, all it had to do is wait.

</comment><comment><USER2> Meh... evil == Republicans

Here is the bill info.

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/1313...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/1313/all-info)

If you voted for any of the sponsors, do something about it. Call them and complain.</comment>


All the best advice we could find on how to get a job - <AUTHOR> https://80000hours.org/career-guide/how-to-get-a-job/ <comment><USER2> The one thing I always tell anyone on the job hunt, which few ever seem to take me up on: Informational Interviews. These are informal "can I take you out to coffee?" talks with people in your industry to see what they are working on, what is happening with them, what is going on in the industry. Every job I have ever gotten is through informal meetings with people I have met through my network (whether its the current newspaper, your friends, parents, relatives, or other).

At the end of every one I ask: "Is there anyone else you think I should talk to?" and "Do you currently have any opportunities at your company for me?". Rinse repeat.

I guarantee investing in 30 informational interviews will yield huge dividends vs. 30 career fairs, a personal pitch deck, starting a blog, dusting off your resume, or God Forbid: applying to jobs through Linkedin.

[http://www.grahamwahlberg.com/book](http://www.grahamwahlberg.com/book)

I wrote a free guide on this if anyone is interested, would love feedback.

<comment><USER3> I've tried advice like this before, and always results in rejection to even talk or after talking a nice referral to a frustratingly useless Taleo application portal. Maybe i'm not asking the right people but in my experience talking to people and hoping for a job goes nowhere.

<comment><USER2> I hear this often, and yes it can be very frustrating to get rejections. I've done 200+ informational interviews over my career, and probably gotten turned down by 2000 requests. I wrote a post about this problem specifically a while back: [https://grahamwahlberg.com/2016/03/22/informational- intervie...](https://grahamwahlberg.com/2016/03/22/informational-interviews- what-to-do-when-they-say-no/)

But summary is:

1) Are you the people you are reaching out to "warm contacts"? By that I mean is there someone you know who knows them? If not you may want to try to start with people you already know.

2) What level of experience are you targeting for coffees? 1-2 yrs experience engineers? 5-10? 30-40 years? I have found that targeting people your own age yields worse results, but people just a little ahead of you in their career are more likely.

3) What kind of people? Some people are intimidated by going to coffee with someone new and some aren't. If you can (and this is tricky) figure out who is more likely to say Yes.

<comment><USER4> > 1) Are you the people you are reaching out to "warm contacts"? By that I > mean is there someone you know who knows them? If not you may want to try to > start with people you already know.

So, people with already a well developed social capital are doing better of people without it. News at 11.

The point is that having this "social capital" is not neutral or random.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One thing in this article that really caught my eye was "Do free work". When I was a young kid I remember my grandfather, who was about to retire from a long career at the power utility having been head of the union, and much beloved by all his coworkers and managers, told me about how he got that job. He had been laid off at a grain mill, and was getting by as a butcher. But a friend of his got him in the door to see the hiring manager at the utility. My grandfather said I'll work two weeks for you for free, and if I make you happy, then you can hire me. After the first day, he was hired. I guess this also touches on the article's point about networking.

<comment><USER6> It's illegal to work for free today, unless you're a Congressional intern, since they exempted themselves from the law. Lots of "my grandfather..." stories are illegal in today's US, land of freedom and such.

<comment><USER7> What about free internships?

<comment><USER8> In the US, unpaid internships are only legal when they pass a six-part test. Generally, if the intern is doing stuff that benefits the company the internship must be paid. [http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-law-and- human-re...](http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-law-and-human- resources/unpaid-internship-rules.html) lists the six-part test

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> More generally about 80,000 Hours rather than this piece in particular: their advice was pivotal to my taking a dev bootcamp and becoming a software engineer, and donating a percentage of my income to highly-effective charities. They did a one-on-one consultation with me (not sure if those are still available or not), put me in touch with other bootcamp grads, and were generally super helpful.

I'd recommend their advice to anyone, particularly people who think they might be in the wrong job, and want to think about how to best spend their working lives.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone,

I'm the author of the piece. If you know any other good resources or statistics we should incorporate, I'm keen to hear about them. If you disagree with something, feedback is very welcome.

<comment><USER10> Please get rid of the annoying "this will only take a second" popup, I was reading but closed the window immediately when that shit started.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that. I find popups annoying too. Unfortunately we just find we get a way higher conversion to the newsletter when we use popups, and since people need to engage over several months to get value out of the advice, getting people onto the newsletter is really important.

<comment><USER11> Just a side comment, these are starting to be called "doorslams," and you may also be interested in alternative views of your "No thanks, I don't want a raise" dismissal link at [http://confirmshaming.tumblr.com/](http://confirmshaming.tumblr.com/)

<comment><USER12> Thanks; some of these are so bad they reminded me of [1]

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I really liked this link that was mentioned deep in this post: [http://cultivatedculture.com/how-to-get-a-job-anywhere-no- co...](http://cultivatedculture.com/how-to-get-a-job-anywhere-no-connections/)

I find that most new grads' biggest problem is not getting the first phone screen.

I could have really used this guide when relocating cross-country. Surprise, the interviews and subsequent offers I got were from direct referrals from my personal network.

</comment><comment><USER14> I've been unemployed for about 14 months since resigning from my most recent role -- a role which my close family and friends characterized as "destroying me."

After becoming unemployed, with enough savings to sustain myself for a long search, I then faced a significant family trauma that required me to move away from Boston (where I had lived and worked for most of the past decade), back home to do basically full-time care for the family situation -- located in a very rural part of the Midwest where e.g. I don't even have reliable access to internet connectivity here.

Despite this, I've managed to start a newsletter/website for one of my interests (by teaching myself simple usage of the Hakyll Haskell-based static site tool), and start a pedagogical side project using Cython to write some stuff using fused types and typed memoryviews. It has been utterly demoralizing to try to do these projects in the midst of my family situation and the lack of resources here in this rural area.

I've done literally hundreds of phone interviews, had 7 different on-site interviews, and received offers from 2 of them (both of which I rejected because they asked me to accept compensation/benefits packages that were substantially worse than what I had when last working).

Most interviews have been OK, but I reject a lot of companies if I pick up on red flags, especially related to start-up culture bullshit or poor work/life balance, to protect myself from the insanity that led to this in the first place.

In my experience, tech hiring is just an unbelievable shitstorm of irrationality. I've been rejected for over-engineering (because I included tests and wrote a necessary sorted dict data structure for a take home submission), for not "focusing enough on product" when submitting statistical analysis code for a data science take home test, for not remembering an obscure fact about GCDs and integer lattice points (even though I had correctly solved two difficult coding problems already in that interview), for not having X years of on-the-job experience in any one of Hadoop, Spark, various DevOps tools, and web frameworks (I am a statistician with lots of scientific computing experience, never applied to positions that list DevOps or web development as important needs, even though I'm happy to learn them on the job).

At this point, my extended professional network has basically given up on me. My grad school friends have recommended me for jobs with biotech companies, Facebook, fairly prestigious finance companies, with endorsements like "he is the best Python programmer I know, and it's not even his primary skill set" \-- most reject me immediately because of the gap on my resume.

I don't have any more people to ask for job leads. I scour Indeed.com for hours every morning, which is extremely demoralizing. I have a reasonably significant amount of Stack Overflow rep (> 17000) and joined their career site long ago but have never found a single realistic lead since it's dominated by web framework jobs. Most employers (or their needlessly combative tech hiring staff, anyway) seem to make a point of saying cutting comments to me about my university degrees (two Ivy degrees) and my Stack Overflow rep -- even though I don't ever try to project pride about these things and fully welcome and prefer to be judged solely by my talents and do not want any form of laurel-resting, especially not based on "prestigious" degrees (though, to be fair, I did work extremely hard in university and accomplished many things that now seemingly no one cares about).

Recently I got rejected by Snapchat literally less than 11 minutes after submitting my resume and application through their online application site. It was a form letter rejection in 11 minutes. I started to wonder if maybe the application portal just sends them a Snapchat photo of my resume, so they have to accept or reject before it gets deleted. But I'm so cynical by now that it wasn't really funny.

Practically the only ways I can stay motivated after such a long and soul- crushing spell of unemployment have been focusing a ton on personal exercise, focusing on my family and continuing to help them, and focusing on creative efforts that are 100% not related to software or coding.

The degree of burnout frightens me greatly, but currently the financial demands placed on me by my family's situation are so great that as I no longer can afford any form of health insurance at all while unemployed, I cannot even see a counselor or anything to help process my feelings.

Much like this elementary school parable I read where the Sun and Wind have a competition to see who can get a man to remove his jacket, I am like the man when the Wind character just blows harder and harder -- he just pulls the jacket tighter and tighter.

The more that interfacing with the labor market causes me to deal with bullshit start-up culture, the _less_ willing I am to take a job. I simply will not compromise my standards, even literally to my own destruction. It reminds me of a David Foster Wallace quote: "I had kind of a midlife crisis at twenty which probably doesn't augur well for my longevity."

I've been surviving this long enough to know there just is no answer to the problem of seeking a job that actually makes your life better, certainly not here in the Hacker News echo chamber -- just look at all of the Who Is Hiring threads, where, for my given skill area, there has been somewhere around a 1% relevance rate (just try searching for NumPy).

I'm not looking for encouragement, sympathy, or (more likely here) unsympathetic market-perspective brass tacks criticism. I just figured it was worth sharing.

<comment><USER15> Wow, I feel for you, having been there myself a number of times. The playing field is so stacked against applicants it's not even funny. One thing though:

> I've done literally hundreds of phone interviews, had 7 different on-site > interviews, and received offers from 2 of them (both of which I rejected > because they asked me to accept compensation/benefits packages that were > substantially worse than what I had when last working).

That might have been a mistake. When nobody's hiring (as is the case today), you kind of have to take what you can get. Plus, being already employed increases your odds of later getting another job, hopefully back where you should be compensation-wise. If I were an unemployed tech worker today, I would literally take the first job I could get, so at the NEXT interview I didn't have to admit that I'm out of work.

<comment><USER14> There are a few reasons why I didn't agree regarding places that I've turned down. First, if the family situation continues to require on-going financial resources from me (likely), then it's literally not sustainable for me to accept an offer where the compensation/benefits are substantially worse than what I earned previously. Yes, if the situation becomes dire enough, I may have to, but until it does become dire, I would be setting myself up right away to struggle to make ends meet in that new job, and I don't feel comfortable doing that.

Secondly, taking a job doesn't fully solve the problems that you claim it does. For one, because I have a short stint on my resume followed by a long gap, that makes employers skeptical. If I just take the first job I can get and it turns out to be mind-trashingly horrible to the point of literally, physically not being sustainable to live with it, then I'll have to quit again, making _another_ short stint and gap on my resume.

Most people think that about the 1-year mark is the shortest reasonable stint, so whatever job I take next, I have to believe _at least_ that it is live- with-able for 1 year (my last job emphatically was not) before I am at the point where I could send my resume out and look again. Based on the experiences I've had, this is a fairly significant risk. Not to mention that my earnest, true goal is to find a place where I actually fit in and can focus on investing time in a real career for a long time frame.

Finally, I know reasonably well what I am worth based on past jobs, offers I got in prior years when I was already working. I suspect in at least one case that a company was intentionally trying to use my situation as leverage to low-ball me, and that just won't work. It communicates up front that they aren't excited about me, don't plan to treat me in a minimally healthy way, etc., and is just a massive red flag that I should avoid them for the sake of protecting myself and by extension also my family from what could happen if I take the job and end up being treated very badly.

<comment><USER16> > There are a few reasons why I didn't agree regarding places that I've turned > down. First, if the family situation continues to require on-going financial > resources from me (likely), then it's literally not sustainable for me to > accept an offer where the compensation/benefits are substantially worse than > what I earned previously.

Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine for the day. However, even if the new job doesn't even cover your expenses, isn't some income better than no income? Unless you are using your current free time to gain something.

<comment><USER14> The current free time is mostly dedicated to attending to the immediate needs of the family situation (which is a complicated mix of medical and legal issues).

If I move, I have to have enough money to adequately cover costs for making arrangements for the situation when I'm gone. If I stay here, I can do most of those things myself, and with little overhead for the ones I can't fully do. Living far away would change it substantially. And there are absolutely zero jobs related to any of my skill sets in this area, and in fact most jobs in this area barely pay a living wage to begin with.

It's not to say I don't want to move -- I very much do and feel it would be best. It just means I have to protect my compensation level and ensure it is adequate for the financial responsibilities that fell in my lap. Earning something close to what I earned previously would be sustainable. Earning something far less would not be, and could easily result in me having to relocate here again once the differential in what could be paid for caught up to us over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Haven't read the article all the way, but the "Hey HN, sorry to do this" dialog caught me off guard (I know that referrer headers can be used for it). Nice touch, BenjaminTodd.

<comment><USER18> That made my day as well. I'm actually debating subscribing — it's not often that you find someone who tends to that level of detail.

<comment><USER19> We hate pop-ups too, but it's the only way we can make ends meet and keep the site running. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For me it comes down to this. Step 1 invest in some skills. That also means skills demanded by the world. In my instance PHP based stuff is fine even if not fashionable. People actually use PHP and there is enough there for me. I have had other skills to get work with in the past but for now I only care about a few code keywords for codebases I use.

As well as a skill in demand I like to have a second string to my bow, this being another work thing. This can be an appreciation of retail sales through working in a shop, this may be useful to a client in retail that has bricks and mortar stores. Having worked in science can also be that second string of related experience.

Then there is the matter of being able to show confidence and enthusiasm in all communication. As per the mocking quote at the top, confidence and showing that does matter. As does enthusiasm.

Also, aptitude is important. You have to actually believe the job is as good as yours and to be convinced of that fact. That has to be as certain as your mum doing Christmas Dinner, not to be questioned or thought negatively about.

I very much believe that self belief is really important and that it should come if you do have in demand skills and acceptable recent experience. Exams etc. matter not in an in demand sector.

</comment><comment><USER21> > it's better to have 2 impressive achievements than 2 impressive achievements > and 3 weak ones.

This is logically false but psychologically true.

</comment><comment><USER22> Project yourself as a highly skilled wage slave

</comment><comment><USER23> "Do free work" "Negotiate after you've started"

Terrible advices, right there.

</comment><comment><USER24> The connections section is both focused entirely on LinkedIn (arguably a worse form of Life Invader than Facebook; I refuse to use either of these or any other such service).

How is someone that values their privacy supposed to get a job or even break in to having a job where they make connections to peers?

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure there is another way. But if you are in IT, and don't mind working with recruiters, LinkedIn is an incredibly efficient way to hook up with tons of recruiters willing to find you jobs doing exactly what you're looking (and qualified) for.

We just lost a guy with barely 2 years experience on a lark response to a recruiter on LinkedIn. He made some ridiculous requests and the recruiter hooked him up.

<comment><USER14> This is not how it works. Recruiters generally spam everyone based on an inventory of jobs they have, and half the time, the recruiter is more interested in pumping you for information about where you currently work or where else you've applied.

When recruiters do put you forward for a job, they require you to give up all negotiation power in advance, and generally they are paid bonuses on top of their commission if they can ensure a candidate accepts a low salary. When they say "my commission is based on the salary you get so I'm trying to get you the most that I can" it is, truly, complete bullshit.

When you make ridiculous requests of a recruiter, they don't help you. They just get off the call and figure you're not enough of a shmuck so they won't be able to fool you, and auto-dial the next possible shmuck.

Even if you're a LinkedIn user (and it is very, very dubious whether LinkedIn adds or subtracts value for users), dealing with head hunters is a terrible idea unless you love being jerked around, misled, and having your time wasted.

The cases such as what you describe are so exceedingly rare as to warrant basically being ignored. That guy won the recruiter lottery, but it was still irrational for him to play.

<comment><USER25> After pouring through your comments throughout this thread I'm kinda left with the following conclusion (take it for what its worth, a random person on the internet): you have a mindset problem, and you're generalizing to the point that you wouldn't be able to accept nearly any job, or be happy in one.

You've determined: Most companies are bad/wrong/awful/burnout machines All recruiters are either spambots or leeches

If you have this mindset, you've set the bar way too high. You say you've turned down many positions, and yet are in a big financial struggle now. Take a job that doesn't sound quite as bad as the others, before you're forced to take ANY job. I'll bet this rubs off on anyone who's interviewing you as well. You obviously have the skills and experience necessary to be a good engineer from what you've said, but engineers are in higher demand now than just about ever. If you can't find a job to your liking, the problem is you, not the industry.

<comment><USER14> I understand where you're coming from, but I also feel there's a serious argument to be made, Moral Mazes / Peopleware style, that most companies _are_ bad/wrong/awful/burnout machines. The fact that open-plan offices are widely used is a perfect example. It's a condition fundamentally at odds with the productivity it is alleged to facilitate. Cost has long been disproven as a favorable factor for choosing open-plan, as the productivity losses quickly destroy any real estate savings. Instead it's about status and affiliation -- accepting non-functional designs in order to seem impressive looking in a superficial way.

And something like open-plan offices are merely the tip of the iceberg. Superficial reasons for big showy tech re-orgs around the latest and greatest trends are very similar. The ambient background of political dysfunction intensified in start-up environments, etc. Huge exposes in major media outlets describing the way e.g. Amazon employees are made to cry frequently at their desks and encouraged to use gossip hotlines to backstab colleagues, followed shortly by their own CEO releasing a statement to shareholders basically saying if you don't like the cutthroat, anti-human environment then just get out. ...

It is a mammoth challenge to find employment that is minimally acceptable for human cognitive health. The way corporations behave, a la Moral Mazes, is just exceptionally maladaptive for human cognitive function. There is real theory behind it.

In my own experience, part of what made my previous employment so disastrous is that it involved an employer doing some substantially illegal things to me -- to the point that I had to hire an expensive employment attorney when leaving that company and go through a bunch of hoops to document things. Maybe you've been lucky to never have been treated this way by a company, but I can tell you it's real, and many, many executives go absolutely unchecked and have incredibly harmful views about how they believe they are allowed to treat people.

<comment><USER25> You're getting all your news and concepts about how to work from one perspective - your reply confirms to me that your assumptions are killing you. Many many companies allow remote work. I have an open office which I dislike, but I can also work at home 2-3 days a week.

It's true, people don't trust companies like they did in the 50s, for good reason. Many many people though have families and work is not the highest priority in their lives. There are entire industries full of people that respect each other and just work 9-5.

You are being taken in by the anecdotes and horror stories and ignoring the vast majority of people who are paid well, go home to their families on time, rarely have to do overtime, and aren't terribly worried about a layoff but could find another job easily. People in many companies are treated with professional and personal respect. It's not that hard to find one even. But you need to believe they exist or your mindset will just be one of trying to find all these triggers and land mines you've set our before yourself.

I have no college degree or any eminent qualifications, and am not the best coder around. But I have had no problem getting hired into good companies that respect me and I think its because I don't allow myself to get jaded after many setbacks.

<comment><USER14> I appreciate your reply, but I also feel you are too nonchalantly dismissing something like e.g. Moral Mazes, which is a significant longitudinal study of bureaucracy and management hierarchy, using tools from academic sociology. It's not just some fly-by-night opinion.

In my experience, it is extremely hard to find jobs that provide a combination of paying well, allowing you a personal life, and having reasonable enough hours to avoid excessive fatigue or burnout. I've interviewed with places top to bottom and had four post-graduate jobs, all of which failed in at least two of those categories while having appeared like they would succeed in all of them when I did interviews. All of my friends and colleagues report similar anecdotes, as do many, many commenters here. The anecdotes describing jobs in which you feel you are well paid, have a feasible work/life balance, and freedom to pursue a personal life, are unequivocally in the minority. That's not "my perspective" ... that's just collecting data in the wild.

And though I think I've had it bad, my experiences have been like a dream vacation or something compared to what my mother has lived through in her job as a court reporter in a small town courthouse. Rampant sexism, ageism, uncompensated overtime which is not allowed for her position, bosses (judges) who demean her, yell at her, do illegal things like carry out their private landlord affairs in their judges chambers during work hours and force her to handle the paperwork for it.

Or my brother, a factory worker in the area whose work stories almost cause me to have an aneurysm out of frustration. More uncompensated overtime, overtly insulting and demeaning bosses, sales staff who make jokes about all the catered meetings they get and how they will leave the day-old food out on the factory floor because the floor workers are so desperate for a free meal that they'll eat anything. He earns just barely over the poverty line, has no vacation, commutes around 40 miles each way plus traffic, and every single other job in the region that he could possibly get is no better. All so he can just barely service college loan debt that has been utterly useless for getting employment.

The problem of finding employment that can sustain human cognitive health is _massive_ and hearing you utterly dismiss it like this makes me feel like you reside in an incredible bubble where you've been shielded from what it's really like, and that while I appreciate your advice, it is just not applicable.

<comment><USER25> Again, I'm just saying you're comparing the perfect vs the better than almost anyone else (by your own admission). Paying well to you might mean 400k a year, I don't know. I think its eminently possible to get 100k-150k/yr as a senior developer and not work over 40 hours a week. Maybe not where you live though, but remote I'd imagine you could easily find something for 80k at 40hrs a week or less.

I do understand the drudgery of work, and how it can hold back cognitive development and just plain be unhealthy at times. I don't understand how you can compare against your mother and brother's experiences and still come out saying you won't take a job. I'm admittedly in a fine place right now, but I remember very clearly when I wasn't.

<comment><USER14> I'm not talking about mere drudgery. Look, I've got a decent amount of work experience. I know the 40-hour grind. I know how to navigate tricky relationships with colleagues. I know how to deal with and succeed in average- case corporate politics. None of that is what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about abject treatment. Being demeaned, discriminated against, yelled at, spoken to in exceedingly unprofessional ways and having no recourse to defend yourself, and being 'punished' for things that the executives may dislike, but for which it is literally illegal to punish employees (like violations of the NLRA).

That's the big stuff. Smaller stuff would be the ubiquity of unhealthy working conditions, bait-and-switch jobs that require incomprehensibly higher quality work experience than what they plan to give out, severe politics, and overwork (which, seriously, I don't know where you are finding these magical 150k jobs for 40 hrs a week. The experience of literally every single software professional I know is completely at odds with that, and my own experience is as well).

That you glibly throw in things like "but remote I'd imagine you could easily find something for 80k at 40hrs a week or less" is frustrating. For example, in my current rural living situation, I do not even have access to stable high-speed internet. I use 4G tethering through my phone just to browse the internet most of the time, and _even that_ is slow and spotty. There is no way I could work remotely here, and even at that $80k would not be enough for basic cost of living _plus_ support for the on-going family obligations (and would be a drastic pay cut for me anyway). To boot, there really isn't a large supply of remote jobs. I frequently check for them at Stack Overflow Careers, We Work Remotely, and other sites, and there's just nothing. Like most other sources, I have to filter our tons and tons of irrelevant web framework jobs, and for what's left, nothing is remote. Even finding jobs that offer adequate (or any) relocation assistance is incredibly hard. Basically, if you don't already live in a glamorous urban area, you get shit on. That's not just some angsty comment. That's just simply what has happened when I search for a job.

Many of the things you say sound reasonable on a surface layer, but there isn't the substance behind them. The reality of the situation is just not within the bubble you've been able to experience. That's not your fault -- indeed it is near impossible to adequately get someone to understand my situation. Many of my friends are used to spending tons on eating out at expensive urban restaurants, buying expensive subscription services for fashion and entertainment, living with ubiquitous public transit and easily available access to high-speed internet, etc. They can't understand life in poor America when you flip all those things and live hundreds of miles from any region which could even remotely offer a relevant or minimally-well-paying job to support your immediate needs.

<comment><USER25> If you live in an area like that and don't even have a reliable Internet connection, then no wonder you don't have a job. Blame yourself for where you have chosen to live rather than the evils of corporate greed.

<comment><USER14> Have you even read any of the rest of the thread? You sound ridiculous.

I had no choice but to move here due to a significant set of family medical and legal circumstances that I am supporting (both financially and by doing full-time care, childcare, and other tasks every day). This is where my immediate family is from (one of them still owns and operates part of some farmland, not here but in North Dakota) -- I didn't choose this, but it's my family's history. I don't prefer living here, but I prefer to make sure my family is OK rather than abandon them for urban entitlement.

The fact that you think people should "blame themselves" for choosing to live here is outrageous to me. At the least the people around here are good-hearted and care about other humans. I'd rather live around here than around people like you, absolutely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Does HN take feature requests? I wish there is a save button.

<comment><USER27> Vote a story up, then go to your profile and click "saved stories". All stories that you've upvoted are listed there.

<comment><USER28> Which is annoying to no end, these should be 2 different things IMO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The article is a bit absurd.

If someone can do all of what they propose, he could as well package his day into some kind of product or service, and then sell that instead.

One reason why people want to be employees and not enterpreneur-cum-salesman is exactly because they do not want to do all of that, or are simply not capable of doing all of that.

Ever since I learned to repackage my hourly efforts into sell-able products and services, I stopped looking for jobs and just sold products and services instead. In the end, an employer is just someone who repackages your hours into sell-able products and services.

</comment><comment><USER30> Don't be "old".

<comment><USER31> But still have "experience"

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > since people need to engage over several months to get value out of the > advice

This is false.

> I find popups annoying too

I do not believe you, if you did you would know that often the first response to popup annoyance is to close the window.

What do your analytics actually say happens when that popup shows? It will show that I was reading your article up until that appeared, then I entered garbage for an email and closed the window.

Will my email firstname.lastname@example.com be counted as a success or failure for your popup?

<comment><USER33> calm down. Newsletters drive Internet business. If you don't know this... Don't walk outside, it's an even scarier place out there.

Don't like pop ups? Close tab, move on.

Or... Throw a childish hissy fit on HN over free content. You know, whichever sounds better to you.

<comment><USER34> When the content owners of something that is annoying you show up in the same thread your in, it is appropriate to voice your complaints to them.

<comment><USER35> Sure, but there's mature ways of voicing your complaints that involve tact and common sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Summary without all this marketing/HR bullshit: have Linus Torvalds' skill and be willing to work for 10k.</comment>


Show HN: Get Anonymous Answers from People You Know - <AUTHOR> http://sure.press/

<comment><USER2> I'm just reposting the comment I've put on the old thread you've done before:

It's pretty unusable for me, here is how it looks like: [http://postimg.org/image/xnl2k7f1j/full/](http://postimg.org/image/xnl2k7f1j/full/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure Thanks! After we rest a bit (we did this in less than 24h), we will start making web more useable and less buggy for everyone :)</comment></comment>


Kiva's warehouse robot system - <AUTHOR> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jul08/6380

<comment><USER2> I know one of the developers there. It's a great company. They actually aren't doing too much technically difficult. It's making it work extremely reliably that is really hard.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Kiva robot Nutcracker video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdmtya8emMw>

</comment><comment><USER3> That's awesome. I remember someone telling me that costco spents a unbelievably high amount of money on its warehouse management. I believe a lot of that goes to paying its employees. This may be able to substantially reduce its costs.</comment>


Ronald Reagan's shameful legacy: Violence, the homeless, mental illness - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/

<comment><USER2> The only thing that's shameful here is that this horribly biased article made it's way on to Hacker News.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." ― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Instead of complaining on Salon that the government should, using other people's money, do something about this problem. Why don't you go out there and do something yourself? Why don't you go out there a make a difference in the world?

<comment><USER3> The government is already taking my money. So, why can't I complain about how I think it should be spent? You are allowed to do the same too.

Of course, in an ideal world we all have the means and the inclination to personally do something about all injustices. But we don't. In fact, I would argue that the person "complaining" about it is being more useful to their cause than you complaining about them complaining :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> He was the start of America's decline

<comment><USER5> America hasn't declined, and isn't declining.

\- The US has a higher share of global GDP than it did in 1890 / 1910, when it became the world's largest economy. It has the same share of global GDP as it did in 1980. That's despite a massive rise in GDP from emerging markets, former Soviet nations, etc.

\- The US output on science, innovation, invention, is as high as it has ever been. US universities continue to be prodigious sources of output. US R&D expenditures are three times higher today (after adjusting for inflation), than in 1980.

\- US manufacturing output is at an all-time high.

\- The US still holds 40% to 45% of all global wealth.

\- The US has one of the top five or six highest median incomes, and median disposable incomes. The strong dollar, much like during the 1990s, has returned a vast amount of purchasing power to US consumers and boosted incomes substantially versus the rest of the world. GDP just punched in at 3.7% growth, drastically beyond that of Europe, despite the strong dollar. While Europe and Japan have been mired in stagnation, the US has grown its economy substantially since 2007.

\- Violent crime has been falling for basically 40 years.

\- Reforms have begun around mass incarceration, with the prison population peaking and likely to begin a long-term decline. The war on drugs is ending. Equality on individual rights is far greater than it was 40 or 50 years ago.

\- More people are covered by health insurance than at any other time in US history. That will continue to get better with gradual reforms and improvements in the system, including the ACA.

\- Life expectancy for the US is at an all-time high, on par with Finland, Denmark and South Korea. Obesity has begun to finally decline, which will improve life expectancy rates further. Death by heart attack and stroke has plunged dramatically over the last 50 years. The US healthcare system is comparable to Canada in terms of quality and outcomes (but not cost) [1]. The US healthcare system is likely to improve a lot as the government bends costs down and broadens access.

\- The poverty rate hasn't changed since 1980, and is similar to the late 1960s when the US was near the all-time peak of its economic power due to WW2.

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s- healthca...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare- ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/)

<comment><USER6> Whoa, whoa this is HN. Here Russia, China, and Iran are amazing powerhouses we absolutely can't criticize in any, way shape or form and the US is the worst nation in history. At least that's what you have to say to get upvotes here. Its pathetic how much anti-US bias gets passed for "fact" here and on Reddit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The long lists of murders by people previously treated for mental illness are scary, but are basically long lists of anecdotes. The attempt to deliver some statistics isn't very helpful:

 _Is there any way to estimate the frequency of these episodes of violence committed by mentally ill person who were not being treated? There was then, and continues to be, no national database that tracks homicides committed by mentally ill persons. However, a small study published in 1988 provided a clue. In Contra Costa County, California, all 71 homicides committed between 1978 and 1980 were examined. Seven of the 71 homicides were found to have been done by individuals with schizophrenia, all of whom had been previously hospitalized at some point before the crime. The 10% rate was also consistent with the findings of another small study in Albany County, New York. Therefore, by the late 1980s, it appeared that violent acts committed by untreated mentally ill persons was one of the consequences of the deinstitutionalization movement, and the problem appeared to be a growing one._

This basically gives P(Schizophrenic|CommitsHomicide), but the number of interest is P(CommitsHomicide|Schizophrenic). Bayes' Rule:

P(CommitsHomicide|Schizophrenic) = P(Schizophrenic|CommitsHomicide)P(CommitsHomicide)/P(Schizophrenic)

P(Schizophrenic|CommitsHomicide) = 7 / 71 (Very rough estimate from a single county 35 years ago)

P(CommitsHomicide) = ??? (I'm having trouble estimating this---the easily available figure is murder rate, but that's not the same as probability of being a murderer) But let's fudge this as being the murder rate of 4.7/100,000, which surely overshoots because some murderers kill multiple people [1]

P(Schizophrenic) = 15.2/100,000 [2]

Then we get P(CommitsHomicide|Schizophrenic) = 0.0986 * 0.000047 / 0.000152 = 0.0305

So very roughly three percent of people with schizophrenia would be expected to commit a murder. This is 649 times the probability of the average person being a murderer, which is quite a substantial difference.

However, in my opinion that increased likelihood of violence would not justify involuntary commitment in all but the most extreme cases. Otherwise we would essentially have to imprison tens of thousands of people for crimes that 97% of them are not going to commit. It's like Minority Report's "pre-crime", but a horribly inaccurate version thereof.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) [2]: [http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/67.full](http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/67.full)

</comment><comment> kuni-toko-tachi Salon is a vile leftist propaganda shop. Reagan turned around a stagnant economy through deregulation. He freed millions of people from the evil of communism. He defeated the Soviet Union and he rebuilt Americas military.</comment>


Rust tips and tricks for newcomers - <AUTHOR> https://thesquareplanet.com/blog/rust-tips-and-tricks/ <comment><USER2> In the first section "Returning values", you need a lifetime specifier like in this example: [1].

Thanks for sharing though, it's well written.

[1]: [https://is.gd/6azJ2J](https://is.gd/6azJ2J)

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point -- it's not really relevant to the example that I'm using a borrow, so I changed it to a u64 instead.</comment></comment>


F Natural – Putting the fn back in functional - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/billhails/PyScheme/wiki <comment><USER2> Of particular interest in this language is the "then" and "back" syntax [0]. It looks like a somewhat different take on iterators, which I can see being more "readable" in certain situations. I haven't had a chance to try it out, but it seems like it may allow for some interesting behaviors.

[0]: [https://github.com/billhails/PyScheme/wiki/Then-and- Back](https://github.com/billhails/PyScheme/wiki/Then-and-Back)

<comment><USER3> It feels something like a generator that has been hoisted up into the language so that it acts like a single value (which defaults to the first element in the generator).

<comment><USER4> It was first written in Perl so that makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've wanted something like this for quite a long time. I've spent quite a bit of time trying to grok OCaml, Haskell, and Lisp syntaxes, and I've never gotten to the point where I "see past the syntax". Even if you like these languages and their syntaxes, you should be excited about projects like these which help to bridge the cognitive gap between mainstream imperative languages and functional languages--more people getting exposure to functional ideas is a good thing for you--learning syntax _and_ functional concepts in tandem is more difficult than the sum of the constituent parts.

EDIT: Sadly, this project hasn't been touched in 2 months.

<comment><USER6> Oooooooh, have you heard of Reason[1]? It's an algol-ish interface for OCaml, supported and used by FB as well!

Also interops with JS (and has superb bindings for React) so immediate results/learning are very easy to get.

[1] - [https://reasonml.github.io](https://reasonml.github.io)

<comment><USER7> It doesn't have bindings for redux. I really wanted to like it but without redux, it's not practical enough with so few bindings.

The messenger people don't know what to do about that either, really.

I really like the language though so it's a shame.

<comment><USER8> What is it about Redux that you need?

<comment><USER7> I need a store layer which scales. Mobx could work too, but reason would work more naturally with redux.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can someone explain [https://github.com/billhails/PyScheme/wiki/Here](https://github.com/billhails/PyScheme/wiki/Here) ?

The example warped my brain a little.

<comment><USER10> It is just call/cc from scheme. Here calls a function with the current continuation which means you can either do an early return, like the example where they "replace" the current continuation with the value 3.

In scheme you can save that continuation and return to it as many times as you want, which people from other languages have a hard time to wrap their head around. I'm rather sad that they chose to implement undelimited continuations, since that is almost never what you want.

First class continuations are a fantastic tool in your language. They can be used to implement coroutines, fibers, nondeterminism and so on. Really no surprise that they are a part of scheme, which usually pick a few well thought out primitives that combine into nice high level abstractions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> F natural is a cute name, but F# will always be a half step above.

</comment><comment><USER12> I never get it when I see things like this (Reason, etc). I love the ML flavored syntaxes. Elm really seems the nicest to me.

</comment><comment><USER13> First written in Perl?</comment>


Startups Lose in a Low-Rate World, and the Fed Is Blaming Itself - T-A https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/startups-lose-in-a-low-rate-world-and-the-fed-is-blaming-itself <comment><USER4> I think that it's because of the simple fact that when interest rates are lower, people borrow more and therefore more new money is created and enters the economy.

This would normally create inflation but because investors are aware of this, they don't want to keep their wealth in cash during times of low interest rates, so they invest in index funds instead... Index funds are historically the safest store of value which can consistently beat inflation. The most popular index funds only invest in the top, biggest corporations.

So basically most of the newly created money flows straight to big corporate shareholders and executives via share price increase (note that the majority of that value is not cashed out for spending on consumables; it stays within the corporate sphere as investments). The inflation only occurs in the corporate sphere and so it doesn't impact consumer prices (therefore inflation appears to be normal from the consumer perspective). All corporate activities become more expensive though; processes become slower, employees become less productive, advertising becomes more important and expensive. Wealthy corporate insiders lose their relative sense of value because they get used to seeing higher operational costs and lower Price to Earnings ratios.

If all corporations have more cash and have nothing to do with it, they will just spend it on marketing... Otherwise they risk losing brand awareness. In a low rate environment, brand awareness is more valuable than cash because it has future value that will be carried through beyond the current economic environment... To a time when cash will have more value.

<comment><USER5> I think in a broad sense you can consider shares (especially within the scope of index funds) "money supply." A company can issue shares and use them to pay people or buy companies with. That's money.

I think that the later points you make about inefficiencies are great, and especially apt/worrying in the large cap tech world.

FB & Twitter are a prime example. They increased headcount and costs by 10X-100X, _after becoming massive platforms scaled to serve everyone in the world._ The product twitter and Facebook serve is still the same product they served with a 10th of the employees.

Sure, the ad-tech grew, but that cannot plausibly obsorb thousands of engineers. What mostly grew is various forms of administration.

If Toyota got swallowed by the earth tomorrow, the world's ability to produce cars takes a real hit. Real investment will have to be made to replace this capacity. If Facebook or Twitter disappeared, a handful of resourceful people would have a clone up in days.

That's a frightening level of inefficiency.

<comment><USER6> So for a counter factual example, what if you could legally download all of Renaissance Technologies source code? How much would your company be worth?

You still need to hire a team, implement the hardware, understand the nuances, and also build up datasets of trade history, etc. What once in theory sounds easy, might not be as simple as you think.

Facebook and Twitter have the users, old content and built social networks. They have data on user patterns, relationships with advertisers, etc. I don't think it would be as simple as you think.

<comment><USER5> I didn't mean you can (or should) clone fb, get the users, etc. thought experiment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Startups get more VC funding in a low rate environment, as money chases deals in search of yields. I've seen many silly startups funded this way, as well as "burn cash to grow" outfits like Uber and Tesla.

<comment><USER8> Sure but the large firms can borrow so cheaply that it makes it easier for them to buy promising startups. Making the startup ecosystem into an R&D arm of a few big companies.

That's bad for innovation overall and our economy in the long term. It's probably the best time to be a founder looking for a quick exit though. Easy funding and lots of buyers willing to pay a _lot_.

<comment><USER9> > bad for innovation overall and our economy in the long term. It's probably > the best time to be a founder looking for a quick exit though.

Aren't these two points contradictory? When acquisition opportunities are plentiful, people are more likely to start/invest in companies, leading to more innovation and development, no?

<comment><USER8> No, because many of those companies are bought before they can hit an inflection point and become dangerous to an incumbent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is very counterintuitive. Startups are valued based on discounting the future cash flows of when they (may) get big. Some of that is risk, some is the underlying risk-free.

Let's say the govt rate is 6% and the risk is 6%. If you're discounting cash flows from 10 years out (when the company is full sized) then every future dollar is 1/(1.12^10) dollars today. If the riskfree rate is 2% then that future dollar is worth 1/(1.08^10) - a lot more! Since startups have no cash flows today, their value is all a risk adjusted bet in future cash.

Another intuition is when you need funds, it's best to get them when money is cheap. (The lower the interest rate, the less you have to pay later for money today)

Note - this isn't precise, and there are exceptions, but generally I've thought that startups do well with low rates.

<comment><USER11> Although the article keeps everything in the abstract, I think an example should compare the interest rates different businesses can get. Say, when rates are low, an established business can get credit at 3%, and a startup at 6%. When rates are high, an established business can get rates at 6% and a startup at 9%.

In this low-rate environment, the established business can take on 2x the leverage of the startup while paying the same interest, but in the high-rate environment only 1.5x.

Low rates encourage all firms to use credit, but the countervailing competitiveness of large/stable firms diminishes the ability of startups to take advantage of it. This is all speculative on my part.

<comment><USER10> You're partially correct. Large firms are less risky so they have easier access to credit. Smaller firms have a higher percentage of their value tied up in the future, so they get a bigger future value than the startup. (Safeway's profits today will be within a few X of their profits in 2029. Slack's could be 50X.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I had thought it was the other way around. Lower interest rates induces riskier bets; the so called: search for yield. Which means more investments for companies with uncertain cash flows. This is the reason why the Ubers, Lyfts, Snapchats and others of the world are able to operate at huge losses. People are lining up to throw cash at these firms with the hopes to become, down the line, the next Facebook, Google or Apple.

<comment><USER13> Me too but the theory they put forward is that big corporations can also get cheap credit and buy start ups.

<comment><USER12> I suppose it makes sense: the Leveraged Loan market has been going gangbusters for a while now.

If the choice was between a startup and an experienced junk-rated company - <AUTHOR> guess for those risk averse investors in this low-yield environment - <USER2> latter would be a wiser investment. One can achieve a much faster profit if the firm borrows for share buybacks, dividend recaps, etc.

But in theory, this is good for startups. While lower-rates are crowded out, there are much more willing buyers (other companies) for the startups - <USER3> supply, limited demand, higher price: higher valuation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article is filled with large claims that run completely counter to all economic intuition and evidence we've gathered over the last century like "low interest rates hurt businesses and cause slower growth", "large companies buying startups for lots of money hurts start up creation".

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but the article provides none, and the study's the article links to are behind a paywall.

<comment><USER15> The shape of the curve matters. In high interest rate environments, large companies borrow at a higher rate rate relative to smaller companies because the curve is flatter. In a low-interest rate environment, the curve is very steep, so large companies borrow cheap but small companies only borrow just slightly lower rate than they do in a high interest rate environments. Large companies are able to borrow at rates closer to the fed funds rate whereas small business borrows at am much higher rate. Low interest rates and cheap borrowing allows large businesses to expand and possibly crowd out smaller businesses, that have to borrow at much more unfavorable rates.

<comment><USER14> Why does the steepness of the yield curve influence the interest rates small versus large companies get?

Are you saying that if a big company can borrow at 'fed rate' \+ 2% and a small company can only borrow at 'fed rate' \+ 6% that as the fed rate gets smaller the relative differences in the borrowing rates increases so 8% vs 12% isn't as big of an advantage as 3% vs 7%?

<comment><USER16> From the viewpoint of the small business owner, I still have to come up with the 4% difference out of my profit margin. If I'm competing with a big corporation, that is a significant disadvantage.

<comment><USER17> It comes out of their profit margin too, though. And I'll bet the margins of good, small businesses are as good or better than large businesses.

Of course, large businesses can generally borrow at lower rates, but that's the way "risk" works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _That financing advantage gives incumbents a big incentive to buy innovative competitors in a low-rate environment, which eliminates startups and leaves the subsuming company with greater market share._

Technology startups that take any type of outside funding were never intended to go public and be an independent company. If the founders had any hope of that, they are blind.

Look no further than YC. Only one company that it has funded has gone public - Dropbox and it isn't looking to good financially.</comment>


How We Use Pull Requests To Build GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/1124-how-we-use-pull-requests-to-build-github

<comment><USER2> Pull requests are great, but I think they don't work well for the example that github provides. This use case sucks for reviewers:

1\. push commits to a branch & open a pull request

2\. get a bunch of comments

3\. push a few more commits fixing some errors

4\. more comments

5\. more fixes

At every step of this process you either have to review each individual commit or the entire diff. You can't see only what's changed between two arbitrary commits. I endure this process so often (and it makes me pine for review board) that I wrote a greasemonkey script to view intermediate diffs: <https://github.com/sbuss/pull_request_intermediate_diffs>

Github, apparently, isn't interested in fixing this ([https://github.com/blog/1124-how-we-use-pull-requests-to- bui...](https://github.com/blog/1124-how-we-use-pull-requests-to-build- github#comment-19295))

<comment><USER3> I think pull requests are awesome, especially where you're making a 5-20 line change on some really important bit of your site. It's really simple to see what's changed and have colleagues do code-review really quickly.

But when you're implementing a major feature, it falls apart. Today, I had to code-review a pull request with 195 separate commits, a 3000-line diff and a combination of css, coffeescript & ruby. Pull requests become pretty useless at this point.

Sure, you can do intermediary pull-requests, but at the end you're left with this huge beomoth and no idea where to start. Intermediary diffs could be the answer.

Perhaps also the ability to filter the pull request (eg. don't show me the CSS)

<comment><USER4> Another great part of using pull requests, is that they allow everyone to see what's going on, mid-stream. They are awesome for major features, especially if you open them early on.

We all collaborate via pull requests as various features are being worked on. This way, when someone leaves a comment asking about the overall design (code or visual), suggesting a different approach, it's done while the feature is in development, not when the author thinks the feature is ready to ship.

Doing a big code review after a feature has been completely built and is ready to ship seems like a mini-waterfall process.</comment></comment></comment>