Firing and being fired - <AUTHOR> http://philosophically.com/firing-and-being-fired <comment><USER2> The last paragraph suggests that it is ideal to fire within the first two weeks or even the first day. I understand the importance of culture in a startup, but I'd be wary of a company that fires in such a short timespan. This may maximize efficiency, but hurts people who relocate families, give up other opportunities, etc. I don't see how an employee could pass interviews but be such a terrible fit that you'd fire on day one. It suggests that there is something wrong with the hiring process or the culture of the company.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. I don't know why more companies don't do moonlighting to confirm that the person is a cultural fit first.

<comment><USER4> Well, probably because it doesn't work.

In our experience, the overwhelming majority of potential employees either have jobs already (and so don't have time to work on contact for you while you determine fit), are getting a job soon (and understandably don't want to turn down a full time position so they can contact for you and maybe get a job later (or not)), or just are offended that you won't commit to them and wasn't too try before you buy (which may be silly, but I admit I felt exactly that way when someone wanted me to do contract to hire).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe this is a tangent, but isn't it strange that programmers accept that a competent person could, and _should_ , be fired, if their personality doesn't gel with whoever happened to join the company earlier than they did?

If we were digging ditches, how likely would it be that you would fire an above-average ditch-digger, for "cultural fit"? I mean, maybe it does happen (I've never worked that sort of job) but it seems to me there's a cleaner separation there between work product and the contents of one's mind or one's personal associations.

It seems to me this is an unacknowledged downside of software jobs; despite our apparent autonomy, our minds have to be very open to being molded and harnessed.

<comment><USER6> Cultural fit tends to be code for the firee (or firer, one or the other) being an asshole. Nobody wants to work with assholes, no matter how above average they might be. I have never heard of a kind, well-liked person being fired for cultural fit issues. (Which is not to say it never happens. But it's pretty rare, I guess, that that is the actual reason a nice person is fired.)

<comment><USER7> It can also nicely hide ageism, racism, sexism, conservatism, liberalism etc. Basically any reason to not like a person.

<comment><USER8> Whatever the people think of these -isms being bad, I am convinced that a person has a sort of right to not having to deal with people he doesn't like.

<comment><USER6> Not in the us, not as an employee of a corporation. If you don't like someone because they are in a protected class, you just have to deal with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Culture fit can be a perfectly valid explanation for low performance, for example:

\- You are cautious and methodical but the company needs to experiment and swing wildly.

\- You excel at focusing on a project but the position requires you to multitask frequently.

\- Your understanding of the company's goals has become more complete and it turns you don't find them as motivating as you expected.

\- You don't adapt to some general work practices re: hours, remoting, scheduling & tracking, deployment, meetings.

\- Personality clash with other team members due to age, personality, lifestyle or (dare I say) some demographic factor.

However, 'culture fit' is a reason for low performance, but low performance should still be the reason why the employee is getting fired. If the company has not identified the problem and tried a recovery plan before actually firing the employee, that company has a serious HR problem.

<comment><USER10> And if performance is the issue, why even mention cultural fit during the firing? Items 1,2 and 4 are perfectly justifiable reasons for firing without invoking the "cultural fit" clause. Why not simply stick with the observations of (non-)performance rather than offering your judgements of the cause(s) of the non-performance? I can understand _quitting_ because of reason #3, but not being fired because of it, _unless_ it leads to poor performance. So again, fire me for poor performance, not because you believe - rightly or wrongly - that I'm not as motivated by your goals as I used to be. As long as my performance does not taper off _one iota_ , it should not matter to you. And yes, for some people, loss of passion for company goals would lead to decreased performance. But other people might have additional motivating factors that allow them to maintain enthusiasm and _continue_ to perform at a high level. Why should that be a problem?

Yes, I recognize that my refusal to accept that we must all have the identical motivating factors is a prime example of why I would be a poor cultural fit with many start-ups.

<comment><USER9> Exactly, that's what I mean when I say that "cultural fit" should never be considered or offered as the cause of firing. However,

> Why not simply stick with the observations of (non-)performance rather than > offering your judgements of the cause(s) of the non-performance?

Because I expect any decent manager & company to at least try to (a) identify the reasons for low performance, and (b) discuss possible correction plans together with the employee. Actively identifying and correcting causes for low performance is in my opinion essential to maintain perspective on how and why your company works. This perspective is necessary to understand and strengthen the practices and pillars that increase your team's performance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > From the start, it wasn't a good cultural fit. It's not that you aren't a > good programmer.

"Not a good cultural fit" is such a passive-aggressive way to justify firing someone. It's basically saying "You can do the job, but we're stopping you from being able to do that job, and we're going to justify it to ourselves by invoking 'cultural fit'".

> When you're in a job that you're not a good fit for, you'll start feeling > things like "nobody listens to me," or you'll notice that your manager > doesn't seem to appreciate your work or your work ethic. Sometimes your > manager seems to be acting weird around you. Sometimes your manager asks you > to change your attitude, and you do change, but it's like they can't see it.

In such a situation, I have to question whether it's the employee who's doing something wrong or whether it's the company that's doing something wrong. I mean, if your manager gives you feedback, you take their feedback, and they don't notice the difference, it certainly sounds to me like the manager _wants_ you to fail.

I'd recommend the OP read about "Set Up to Fail syndrome": [http://hbr.org/1998/03/the-set-up-to-fail- syndrome](http://hbr.org/1998/03/the-set-up-to-fail-syndrome)

> We've let go of half a dozen employees and kept only as many, and in every > case where we let someone go, that person has gone on to work on things that > they are more passionate about and where they have excelled and been happier > at.

Wait, so you fire half of your staff and they're happier afterwords? Again, I have to question whether it's the employees' fault or the company's fault. If half of your staff is leaving to places where they're happier, what does that say about the company?

> Sometimes you can detect a cultural mismatch within the first two months, > sometimes in the first two weeks, and perhaps even on the first real day of > work. It can be so easy to justify keeping the wrong employee on staff that > a decision to fire an employee can drag on unresolved for months or years.

It can be so easy to justify firing someone when all you have to do is throw around the words "bad cultural fit". How about giving concrete reasons why the employee wasn't working out? That way, you don't have to sit around and guess when you're actually going to "detect" a "bad cultural fit".

<comment><USER12> > Wait, so you fire half of your staff and they're happier afterwords?

I've known people who were laid off or fired, and of course they were pretty unhappy about it at the time. But I know some who took it as the kick-in-the- pants they needed to fix their lives for the better, and find a better job, start the business they'd been talking about, etc.

A year or two later, and they'll freely agree that being laid off was good for them.

<comment><USER13> > A year or two later, and they'll freely agree that being laid off was good > for them.

It strikes me as dangerous to conclude too much from this. In fact, I worry that this particular sort of statistic could be completely meaningless. People often try to find positive interpretations of events which are too painful for them to accept. It's a very powerful form of cognitive dissonance. Being fired from a job you enjoy can be a nearly traumatic hit to your perception of yourself, and it is necessary to reconstruct your self-image in some way. Most likely the person will exercise some creative freedom in this reconstruction process.

<comment><USER14> You won't necessarily find yourself happier - it's a choice. If you go right back and make the same mistakes at a new job, you'll hate that one too.

I got fired a few months ago and it was the best thing that could have happened to me. Until then, I'd changed jobs every so often because I never liked where I worked. But when I got fired, I thought long and hard about what I _needed_ in a job. Only after acting on some well thought-out conclusions did I find an excellent job that's absolutely a perfect fit for me. I probably wouldn't have thought that hard about my next step if I wasn't fired.

So while that comment is true for me, I can't imagine that it's always true. If I was a dumbass and took a job exactly like the previous one, I'd hate that one too. I might not get fired - I might quit before they fired me. Honestly it doesn't matter which happens first. If you don't put in the introspection to find a place that fits you and vice versa, you'll hate it in no time.

Figure out what you need, figure out what you can do well, and find a job that matches that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There's an angle to this which never seems to be addressed in articles like this. If someone is fired purely for reasons of cultural fit, i.e., "we didn't like hanging out with him" as another poster puts it here, then surely the person being fired would have felt the lack of fit and would have themselves been looking for another job. It just seems to me that if an employer finds the cultural fit to be bad enough to let someone go, then surely the person being let go would find the cultural fit bad enough to be looking for another job in the background. But in the anecdotes that accompany these articles, the person is always caught completely off guard, as if they didn't see it coming at all.

This poster even laments the great friendships with his coworkers which he felt were wasted upon his firing; how did he have such great friendships if his cultural fit were evidently so terrible as to be fired over it? It's for reasons like this that I always feel these articles are fishy and are leaving out important details.

<comment><USER15> Not everyone is self-aware.

<comment><USER10> Or the individual is self-aware and feels that it is a good fit, but is unaware that others don't. Or they define cultural fit differently. Or they define it the same way but have different tolerances for a "good" fit. For example, the individual may be comfortable with say, an 80% cultural fit, while the team requires a 99% cultural fit.

<comment><USER16> Or, they're in a comfort zone and trying to fly under the radar as long as the paychecks keep coming. Not everyone is self-aware... neither is everyone passionate about putting their employer first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> To paraphrase Hanns Johst, "whenever I hear 'culture fit', I remove the safety from my Browning."

Whenever I hear that someone has been fired due to culture fit issues, when I really try to question the motivations behind it, it almost always comes down to a politically correct version of "we didn't like hanging out with him/her". It is _such_ BS.

<comment><USER18> It could also be that they were simply difficult to work with. Not because they were lazy or incompetent, but just because their style didn't fit with the team.

For instance, somebody who is only productive in absolute silence and prefers working from 6am to 2pm, will have a very difficult time working with somebody who needs to listen to heavy metal at full blast and likes working from 1pm to 9pm.

Especially if they have to work on the same team and need to closely collaborate to get their work done.

<comment><USER17> So then which one gets fired?

<comment><USER18> Depends. Which one fits better with the rest of the company? Is either of them _so_ good you are willing to make everyone else put up with them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _We've let go of half a dozen employees and kept only as many_

Wowzers. Firing every-other person you hire? Leaders should be ok to break big-problems down into simple ones, with the purpose of expanding the funnel of people who can be effective at solving the problems. This is the basis of leveraging resources. While it's legitimate to require a threshold tests of quality for building a team, a failure rate is this high with onboarding staff indicates something else is a problem. Imagine any sports team who mistakes talent at this percentage? While the players may get traded, the coach would be likely getting fired. There has to be more to the story?

 _A true artist never complains about his tools._

<comment><USER20> Just the latest trend me-too startup founders are chasing, so they can be seen as 'elite' ("fire fast!"). I'm glad I don't have to work for some 20-something nerd without social graces or empathy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Personal anecdote;

At one of my previous jobs, where I had worked for a year or so, my employer had to let me go due to cutbacks. I was the first in a wave of about 20 that were made redundant in the following two months. This equaled about half the company.

It was a pretty intense 30 minutes.

He called me into his office, and told me he would have to let me go; today, without severance or pay for this month. By the time I got back to my desk 5 minutes later, my work email account had already been blocked, which rendered me unable to say goodbye to about half of my colleagues, since they weren't in that day. I was stumped. After cleaning up my computer I made a round in the office, saying goodbyes and telling everyone I was made redundant.

As my employer showed me into the photo-studio next door, where I wanted to say goodbyes to the rest of our team, I told him I'd be having a long hard look at my contract, because I didn't believe he could just let me go without pay. 15 minutes later, still in the photo-studio talking to my colleagues/friends, I got a phone call. My employer had looked at my contract and found that he: \- had to give me a months notice; \- had to pay me my severance (a month's wage); \- owed me my un-used leave; \- already revoked all my access to all internal/external processes.

That last one meant that I didn't have to come back in again.

The other employers that were made redundant, were told they had the choice of leaving that day (and get paid for a month), or finishing the month of work, all receiving their severance normally.

My bet, is that it was the first time he ever had to make someone redundant. He seemed genuinely upset too. I never blamed him on a personal level, even though I disagreed with many of his executive decisions.

He did end up giving me a glowing recommendation when I applied for a new job, so there's that.

</comment><comment><USER22> In theory firing fast is the way to go. Sometimes you really can tell within a few weeks that a person is just not working out. However, at least in my industry, doing this repeatedly will likely earn your company a bad reputation. Fired employees who don't agree with your decision will spread rumors and it'll earn you a black mark, reducing the flow of qualified candidates.

The ideal situation is for both employer and employee to come to an agreement that it's not working out. An employee that understands why they are leaving and why it's a bad fit will often remain a vocal supporter. Unfortunately, in my experience, this takes time and energy far beyond the point of noticing the issue... I wish I knew of a solution!

<comment><USER23> _> In theory firing fast is the way to go._

Why? Why is this more "the way to go" than "hire with deliberation so you don't have to fire half your employees"? 'Cause from where I stand that hurts less people. Your "fire fast" hurts them inequitably, it hurts them much more than it does you or Your Important Business--it deprives them of their previous job, it magnifies the opportunity costs they incurred to _trust you_ to come work for you.

Firing for "culture fit" means _you fucked up_. Your judgment failed. It's on you and the hurt and pain you cause is your responsibility. So it strikes me that it's being a minimum-level human being to hire carefully and with deliberation to minimize the times you fuck up and the people you hurt. Because they're _people_ , and in every case--even the asshole ones--they deserve better than to be hurt because of your poor judgment.

<comment><USER24> It seems to me that it is because the hiring process is a short-term one. The rationale for firing someone can happen over hundreds of hours. Sometimes you don't know that someone will be a bad coworker until they've been a bad coworker.

Hiring processes optimize for people who are good at getting hired. Working with someone (if you're willing to prune the bad coworkers) optimizes for people who are good colleagues.

<comment><USER22> This is really the meat of the issue. Nothing short of actually working alongside a person for a week or two will tell you what it's like to... well, actually work with them. People are nervous, friendly, energetic, and all manner of things at heightened states during the interview process. Most of the time this provides a good indication for who this person is but rarely it does not.

In those circumstances, when yes a fundamental mistake has been made, I believe that in theory it's best to end the relationship quickly, for both parties involved. In practice it's obviously not that easy or simple.

I've heard of companies instituting mandatory work days or even work weeks for prospective hires to vet how they will fit into the workplace. That sort of thing is attempting to solve the issue but how on earth do you convince anyone, especially someone already gainfully employed, to go through with that process? I suppose I'd do it for a company I absolutely, positively, had to go work for (very few if any)... realistically it seems hard to accomplish if not rude to request.

Ultimately I think the hiring process is one in which mistakes can happen. What's the most equitable way to resolve them when they do?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I almost quit my last job because of culture fit. The other programmers were almost impossible to work with. Being new to all their products, business model, and source code, there are a lot of questions to be asked when things aren't document and done in very strange ways.

The office had all the stereotypical 'bad' co-workers: the guy who turns every discussion into an hour-long argument, the guy who's never in the office, the guy who doesn't check or reply to emails, all backed by the boss who doesn't make anyone accountable.

I got along with the rest of the staff great. Graphics, sales, customer service... But the developers were just un-socialble, bad at communicating, and full of bad habits.

I felt so frustrated, there were a few times I almost walked out the door. It'd take me 2 days of chasing something around a product (that could have been answered by myself, a year later) to find a fix or answer a 'why?'

But I stuck it out. When we hired our next developer, I was put in charge of getting him up to speed. The boss was impressed with how much information I had prepared from him and that he knew I started with 'nothing'.

It may have backfired because he never really go to the point where he didn't need handholding, but at least he didn't feel as frustrated as I did for the first 6 months.

</comment><comment><USER26> I agree with some of the points in this. However, many are just a matter of poor management not selecting the right candidate. I have been on both sides of the fence many times over the past 20+ years. I can tell you if you are firing someone its because either "they" did not perform to expectations repeatedly or "they" are no longer engaged in the project or projects they are on.

As for the "strange" boss behavior. That is "always going to happen" in smaller companies or companies where managers where promoted from within. This is mainly because those managers tend to have little to no experiencing managing people. Managers that have years of experience and have worked at a few companies should not have these behaviors. They tend to "curve" the ball a bit early in the process. Meaning, if they see a problem they address it immediately.

It is on "you" the manager to make sure the person does a great job and succeed. If they fail, you failed to identify the person you need to complete the task at hand.

On the otherhand, people who do not show for work, do not do what they are told repeatedly, are candidates that I believe fall in the "fired" category.

Currently I have a boss that pretty much fits the description that would give me red-flags that maybe im not a good fit. However, I am very engaged in the projects, hitting all milestones, and well liked by all the people I interact with including my boss. Yet he is still "strange". And I believe this to be because he has no experience prior to being promoted within to be a manager.

</comment><comment><USER27> > in every case where we let someone go, that person has gone on to work on > things that they are more passionate about and where they have excelled and > been happier at.

Ok, I believed it until then. B.S. No way he knows that. Plenty of unmotivated developers out there. It is not all roses when you get fired, even for a boss that "understands your pain and wants what's best for you". The fact is- if you fire someone, you want to feel like you are doing them a favor. Well, you aren't. You likely made a hiring mistake, and your mistake as a manager is going on that person's permanent record. It may be 80-90% their fault, but the employer shares in the blame for failure. Admit you fucked up, and try to help the person if you can. Then improve your hiring and early evaluation process.

</comment><comment><USER28> "Good cultural fit" is code for "white, male, and willing to take a smaller salary than they would get anywhere else, and willing to work copious overtime without pay."

</comment><comment><USER29> "Culture Fit" is just code for "You don't seem to care about what we care about, and you don't work as hard as us, and we're not sure but you may just not be as intelligent/creative/inspired/ambitious as us, or whatever, but we think your salary and the overhead of dealing with you could be spent more productively on someone else."

<comment><USER23> "You don't _seem to_ work as hard as us."

Agree with the overall point, but I think that's important to stress. My experience with people who embrace this "fire fast" thing has generally been people who don't understand the difference between their perceptions and objective reality; likewise I don't think that all (or most) understand the ramifications of their actions upon other people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I found this sentence surprising:

> We've let go of half a dozen employees and kept only as many

Of all the departures I know of from software companies, much fewer than half are firings. That is to say, the vast majority are employee-initiated.

</comment><comment><USER31> Culture is not a function of an individual, it is a function of the group. It is not valid for someone to say "you are not a cultural fit" ("you" referring to a human being).

On the other hand, it is valid for a person to say a group is not a "cultural fit". For instance a company that is full of greasy nerds who work 10 houra a day and play video games the other 14. Thats not my bag so I'm not going to work at that company because its not my culture.

For the company to say to me "you're not a cultural fit", is like Germany telling me I can't visit their country because I'm not "german enough".

</comment><comment><USER32> I wish I had learnt long ago that sometimes it's not me, it's not them, sometimes it is just us - sometimes people do not gel and all the HR friendly "no such thing as a bad student" is only so much horsecrap. if it is not working and cannot be fixed easily, quit trying and find other people to work with.

in large companies which are really lots of small companies in same buildings this did not look like firing / hiring on the cv but generally was the same thing..

<comment><USER33> I've always thought it odd that a CS Degree doesn't address this...

<comment><USER34> As an undergrad, we'd often do programming projects as groups and a part of the value of such an exercise was to gain experience in working within teams.

Although technically, CS degrees are for learning about computation rather than how to use a particular language or how to develop software.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Knowing myself, I have my finger on the trapdoor button in my office.

That said, it's better to find out if there's a fit based on casual (usually paid) work, contracts and eventually FTE. The goal being giving everyone an out, because the world's a small place.

</comment><comment> sans-serif Maybe startups find it more difficult to fire okay-but-not-great employees just because they don't have that much resource to focus on hiring in this super competitive job market.

</comment><comment><USER36> What do you think the rationalizations' content were in Morocco before all those Acamdemics hit the streets ?

</comment><comment><USER37> > We've let go of half a dozen employees and kept only as many

This sounds like the worst employer I've ever heard of. A 50% chance of being fired? There's no way I'd take an offer if I knew that statistic.

<comment><USER38> Yeah, this set off alarm bells for me as well. That's far too much career risk for me, and I imagine for many others.

IMHO firing, especially early on, should be viewed as a failure of the recruiting process; it's expensive and time-consuming to hire an employee and then fire them compared to just saying no before an offer is made. I find it strange that the author seems to think that a high firing rate is something to be proud of.</comment></comment>


Facebook launches standalone Messenger for web browsers - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/8/8371349/facebook-messenger-web-browsers-now-available

<comment><USER2> Facebook is/was primarily a web app. That web app has a messenger in it. Why does Facebook need a standalone web app?

WhatsApp's web app is fantastic and I use it heavily, but that's because WhatsApp didn't have a desktop client or any non-phone/tablet alternative.

This is just totally unnecessary.

<comment><USER3> Facebook is planning to make its messenger a standalone platform. This view could help in making sense of messenger.com

Also, they are going off xmpp or whatever its called. When they do, pidgin and other third party clients would no longer work.

This site would placate desktop users who don't want the full Facebook.com experience - users like me.

However, I don't like messenger.com and web.whatsapp.com because they waste my bandwidth. If they made use of chrome's offline app capabilities, I'd be happy.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should I forgo my CEO pay during coronavirus - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> To me, forgoing your own CEO pay exudes privilege. Instead, fight tooth and nail for your workers first and foremost.

</comment><comment><USER3> TLDR; yes.

Nuanced Answer: it depends, but probably yes.

<comment><USER4> CEO and CTO at the company I worked for during the 91 Recession didn't take a Salary for a year to keep their workers employed and the company going.</comment></comment>


So you created a living organism engineered to produce a specific molecule for an intended use? - <AUTHOR> http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=968

<comment><USER2> What amazes me about this, is not the science (old news; undergrads are doing this stuff today, and I imagine a fair number of his bio-science readers were yawning at the description), but the fact that he's so _shocked_ about it.

Much of the described method relies on technology that is 10-20 years old. Has biomedical research done such a poor job of marketing itself that people are basically clueless about what's possible, or is this just another example of routine technological illiteracy?

<comment><USER3> This is the tragic fate of scientists and technologists. You work like a dog for your whole life to achieve a seemingly impossible goal -- eradicating polio, cloning sheep, storing the Library of Congress inside a cigar box, traveling to the moon. Against the odds, you succeed. Ten years later... everybody just yawns. Custom-designed organisms are, like, soooooo boring. What's on TV?

It's like Feynman said: "Mathematicians can only prove trivial theorems, because any theorem, once proved, is trivial." And he thought he was kidding!

<comment><USER2> Well, of _course_...taken from the broadest possible perspective, it's obviously amazing that we can engineer living things to do our bidding. Whoopty-doo.

From that perspective, it's also freaking amazing that we can keep our food fresh in mechanical ice boxes, that we can flush our onesies and twosies into oblivion at the flick of a lever, and that we can fly around the sky in our _giant metal birds._

I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to expect people to be familiar with a technology that is almost old enough to drink.

<comment><USER4> I'm in school now, and this is new information to me. Where do you go to learn about the envelope of what's possible in biotech? EDIT: Preferably without having to digest the whole curriculum.

Also, how do I get one of those giant metal birds, and what do you feed them?

<comment><USER2> If you just want to read, there are a few books that are detailed, but still accessible. Any one would give you a much better understanding of what's possible:

* Human Molecular Genetics by Strachan and Read -- this is a tome, but it's a great introductory reference to the field. (A lot of first-year grad students read this book when coming to molecular genetics from engineering and CS, incidentally.)

* Molecular Biology of the Cell, by Alberts et al. -- an even bigger tome, but one you'll find on every researcher's bookshelf.

* Genes NN by Lewin (where NN is an ever-increasing roman numeral; you can estimate the amount of time someone has been in the field by the size of the roman numeral on their copy) -- this is more of an undergraduate introduction to molecular genetics. The other books (especially MBC) are more useful as references, but this book is fairly accessible to newcomers.

* Recombinant DNA by Watson et al. -- I hesitate to include this in the list, because it's now sadly outdated (written in 1992), but I still think it's one of the best-written, most accessible introductions to things like transgenics, genetic engineering, etc. Describes everything in a friendly, Scientific American style. It's also small. If you want a quick, friendly introduction to what was state-of-the-art 15 years ago, this is a great book.

I know that most of these books are kind of thick, and that you said you didn't want to digest the whole curriculum, but I don't tend to read pop- science books in this field. I don't have much of an opinion on any particular popularization of molecular genetics. But if you want to gain a real understanding of molecular biology, these are the books you'd most likely be told to buy for molecular genetics 101 at your local university.

PS: the giant metal birds eat Acme brand exploding bird seed, naturally....

<comment><USER5> Any good sources for all the sciences?

Also, is there an overview of how computer science impacts all the other academic disciplines?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The technique described in the comic is the creation of hybridoma cells to make monoclonal antibodies.

Wikipedia has a nice introduction: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibodies>

Jerne, Koehler and Milstein got the Nobel prize for this in 1984: <http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1984/>

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't get it... was this supposed to be funny?</comment>


Ask HN: Why does a pizza app know my location and 911 doesn't? - <AUTHOR> I know I don't have all the facts. But apparently the system 911 is using to find your location, depending on where you live can have a 10% to 95% chance of finding your exact location; and by 2021 they still won't be able to find 1 out of 5 people.
Can someone tell me, if we're talking about bold people tackling the world's biggest problems, is there anyone working on this? It seems to me like an obvious, ripe place for disruption.
Here's a source of the problem explained in more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-XlyB_QQYs <comment><USER2> I understand the technical limitations.

But here's what I don't understand at all...

Has anyone ever been sailing? On yachts we have radios, but these radios are designed assuming the person operating it might be completely ignorant.

So we have this literal red button, you lift a flap, hold down the button and the radio sends an SOS with complete GPS coordinates and boat name on Channel 16. Then it leaves it on channel 16 so you can describe the emergency.

So back to smartphones, on smartphones we have dialer apps, these apps know when you dial 911. Why in holy heck don't they have a big red button on-screen which when pushed sends your current GPS coordinates USING VOICE over the open line?

Here's what we need to do that:

\- Dialer app. CHECK.

\- GPS. CHECK.

\- Some kind of UI. CHECK.

\- Text to voice system. CHECK.

We have all of the components to roll out a system TODAY which tells 911 via voice where you are calling from. It would almost be free, but we haven't, and nobody is suggesting it.

Everyone is talking about these crazy complicated standards that will, best case, be available in 2021 and cost ungodly amounts. I am talking about using voice which the operator themselves can type in.

Am I mad here? Why isn't this a thing? Why doesn't the dialer even DISPLAY GPS coordinates when you dial 911?

Seriously I bet if someone made this a big deal we could get Apple and Google to sign on almost immediately and this would be available within a year. All smartphones already have all of the prerequisites to do this!

<comment><USER3> My android s6 active has pocket dialed 911 a handful of times in the past month. I called dispatch to apologize, they took down my info and confirmed my address. They were only a couple of houses off. Not too bad.

I must say I hate the emergency button on the stock lock screen, and how glitchy replacement lock screens are.

<comment><USER4> A couple houses off could mean life or death in a real emergency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You'd be really surprised how well the humans in a 911 center cope with antiquated technology. Visiting the center in Cambridge, Mass, I watched a dispatcher -- calm enough to almost seem disinterested -- do everything perfectly by being the "human layer" on top of the old system.

She entered scattershot information from a frantic caller, and using a combination of keyboard shortcuts, foot pedals (yes, foot pedals), and stand- up-and-hand-signal-to-a-colleague-while-keying-a-mic, dispatched an ambulance within seconds. Way faster than the caller would ever realize.

You're not just replacing software/hardware, you've also got to make allowances for the humans in the system. Little things make huge differences in those situations, so throwing the old system out is painful. Evolving the current one (as davismwfl pointed out) is challenging for its own reasons.

Doesn't mean it isn't important. Just hard to do.

</comment><comment><USER6> So having done a lot of work in the 911 systems for years, I have some first hand experience here.

First, most pizza apps are just that, an app. That app has access to your phones location data through GPS and some even use WiFi location services. Hence it can send a nearly exact position to where you are standing.

Contrast that to the standard phone network and systems ANI/ALI solution, which still does not (completely) support GPS coordinates at this point. In addition, while there were phases (phase I and phase II) of cell phone location compliance put into place by the federal government, most networks and phone companies lagged far behind in implementation of those standards. On top of that, city and county 911 dispatch centers (PSAP and secondary centers) also have to upgrade their phone and CAD integrations to support better location services.

As for why it isn't being disrupted. Simple, looooooooong sales cycles for an extremely limited market that is vigorously defended by the incumbents. Seriously, it isn't rare for a 2-3 year sales cycle for a lot of 911 components and systems. 18 months is about the normal when it involves critical systems with 12 months being probably the fastest you see anything change. Not to mention, the partners you need involved to make a solution work and be palatable to the 911 centers are the exact same companies who want to keep you out of their market, so it isn't easy. Not impossible, just not very probable without seriously deep pockets to support what would likely be a 3-5 year development to first sale. It makes selling to enterprises look like a fast process and cake walk.

<comment><USER7> Why don't Android, iOS, WP, etc. utilise GPS/WiFi when the dialer app dials 999/911/111/etc. and encode the caller's location in the call?

Sure, there'd need to be a standard for doing that - if an obvious choice (or combination of choices) doesn't already exist - but to the naïve observer (me) that would seem far simpler than massive legacy hardware upgrades.

Hell, it wouldn't even have to be encoded: it could just `say "caller is at $LOCATION"` prior to connecting the caller - giving the person in the call centre clear and precise information right away.

<comment><USER8> Then everyone here would complain about privacy/big government/orwellian dystopia

<comment><USER9> For 911 only? I seriously doubt it.

<comment><USER10> If it's possible, the government and eventually private companies will have access.

<comment><USER11> That's the thing, the government and private companies _already have access to your location data_ so it should be a no-brainer to extend that access to emergency response - a use of location data that would actually benefit the owner of the data, unlike gov't and private use of location data, which has a high benefit for gov't/private sector and marginal if any benefit for the data owner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Because 911 was designed for ordinary landline telephones, before GPS existed, before computers existed. It's just a telephone call, not an app running on your phone.

Granted, it could rely on the software running on your phone to add information for the dispatcher, but not everyone has one, and not everyone who does has the same kind. And that's a good thing!

So it takes standardization, and government regulation. Standardization can work pretty well when there's a nice tight feedback loop with customers who are interested in the results (web browsers, for instance). How many telephone customers would switch phones based on the details of how well the phone supports 911-related features? It's not like we can test them without actually calling 911.

Government regulation can also work, provided you're willing to pay the costs: time and money. Lots of time, and lots of money. In fact, it costs so much for the government to regulate things like this that we end up in this exact situation. Phones have completely changed since the last 911 regulations were updated, requiring telcos to provide location information to 911 when the caller is using a mobile phone. It took years after that regulation was introduced before the telcos were compliant, and before all the local dispatch operations could use the information.

The same would happen today if new regulations were introduced requiring the phone itself to send this information; it would take years for anything to happen. (Though I bet Google and Apple could move faster than the telcos, they've certainly proved to be capable of that.)

And that's all ignoring the inaccuracy of GPS when inside of buildings, the time it takes for the phone to determine the location, etc.

Still, in spite of all of that, now is probably a decent time to start making those changes. It's been long enough since the last updates to the regulations, and new phones are capable enough now, that you'd have a decent chance of getting it done eventually.

</comment><comment><USER13> Because pizza apps use the GPS chip in your phone to get the Lat/Long of your location, and sends it via HTTP(S) to the pizza shop. Currently, cell phones/cell networks aren't able to access the GPS chip on your device and send that data to the receiving party.

</comment><comment><USER14> Maybe a possible solution (and startup idea) would be to have an app for initiating emergency calls, which puts the user into a conference call with an assistant operator at the app's developer company and a 911 dispatcher.

\- If the user doesn't know the location, and they have given the app permission to read GPS data the assistant operator could check the phone's location data and chime in with the correct address in the conversation.

\- If the user is unable to speak, they could send text messages to the assistant operator, who would relay them to the 911 dispatcher.

\- If the user is unable to do anything more than pressing a button, and if they've given the app permission for this, the assistant operator could check the messages or other data on the user's phone to try and find out what the issue is (e.g. domestic violence.)

\- The user could initiate a video call with the assistant operator who could theoretically be able to more accurately describe certain issues (assuming they are better trained medically) than the user themselves could.

</comment><comment><USER15> I live in Milan, Italy. A few months ago I had to call 112 (our 911 equivalent) after witnessing a bad car accident while looking outside of the window. The dispatcher on the other side of the phone gave me my location (which was 100% correct, both street name and number) and asked me to confirm. I suppose this was possible thanks to E112 [0], but I am not 100% sure.

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/112_(emergency_telephone_num...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/112_\(emergency_telephone_number\)#E112)

</comment><comment><USER16> Actually, in Finland the local 911 equivalent (112 Suomi) knows your location: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fi.digia.suomi...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fi.digia.suomi112&hl=en)

"The 112 Suomi application enables the automatic delivery of the caller's location information to the emergency service dispatcher (in Finland). Continued use of GPS running in the background can dramatically decrease battery life.

By using this application you agree to the following terms and conditions: [http://www.digia.com/PageFiles/112](http://www.digia.com/PageFiles/112) 20Suomi/112-Suomi-app-user's-licence-agreement.pdf Registry extract according to the Personal Information Act: [http://www.digia.com/PageFiles/112](http://www.digia.com/PageFiles/112) Suomi/112-Suomi-app-registry-extract.pdf"

</comment><comment><USER17> It isn't just 911 in the states :: It is similar here in Norway and gives me a bit of worry... if I ever need emergency services, that is. I guess they can look it up, but it takes longer.

Here there is an app that will send that information to 911, without worrying about giving special permissions at the time of the call. I'm not sure why that isn't standard on cell phones everywhere, especially since phones generally come pre-loaded with apps. I know that landlines in the states send the information to 911, so I would think some people much smarter than I would be able to make an interface to go between the two. I suppose that would take some time, given how well the government seems to work together to get important things done these days.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't know many details about the problem, but I might suspect there's also a "perfect is the enemy of good" issue here; there are serious consequences for getting a 911 call _precisely_ wrong, so it's better to be _approximately_ correct and let humans do the work of narrowing-down. With a pizza delivery, if they drive up to 1234 Somewhere Lane and knock on the door asking for 1236 Somewhere Lane, someone's going to point out the problem (and if not, the cost is relatively low), so it's okay to be _precisely_ incorrect.

</comment><comment><USER19> Yet another example of capitalism run amuck letting people die in the name of profits.

The phone companies COULD upgrade to newer technology right now, but that would cost money.

Or...

They could wait until it is a crisis and then DEMAND that municipal governments pay for the upgrade.

Which would you do?

<comment><USER20> Why would it become a crisis? Crime is down so access to emergency services at least isn't becoming more urgent over time. And the necessary technology is slowly being deployed and integrated, so in that respect time should improve the situation, not make it worse.

<comment><USER21> I think those people who really needed 911 services and died because the services couldn't get to them would disagree slightly with you if they could and so would their families. But it's not a crisis; it's just a bunch of people dying. No big deal.

<comment><USER22> This question came up because of a John Olliver segment about this in which he said that emergency services claims they cannot pinpoint 20% (1 in 5!) people via existing systems.

He emphasized that number and tried to make a big deal of it, neglecting to mention that it really only matters in situations where the person can't describe their location anyhow.

He gave an example of someone who was in a car in a lake, and gave the 911 operator the names of the streets from the nearby sign and they were unable to find one of the streets on their map. The person died.

So people _are_ dying from this already. And I'm sure the families are already making as much noise as they can.

In the end, the answer is: Despite our crazy headlong rush into technology, not everything is as advanced as we'd like, and there are various reasons why not. From conspiracies to capitalism to good old fashioned privacy, it just isn't there yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sounds like a privacy nightmare. Phone can override all settings and send my location.

Not to say you cant make money off it.

</comment><comment><USER24> Government vs private enterprise.

</comment><comment><USER25> Because human society values selling pizza more than saving lives. If we really cared, we would have a 911 app as well and it would know exactly where you are if you use it to dial 911. But, nope, we don't actually care that much.

(This is not snark, in case you are wondering.)

<comment><USER26> I think your point is basically correct - this is an economics question rather than a technical question.

My conclusion isn't that society doesn't value human lives; it's that the government isn't very efficient, and 911 dispatch is usually in the realm of government rather than private industry.

I wonder if there are any examples of privatized ambulance/emergency response service outperforming public services.

<comment><USER25> No, I really think it boils down to screwed up priorities. You can frame that any way you want, but it boils down to valuing pizza sales (or any other kind of sales) more than solving this.

On the other hand, I have been homeless for nearly 4.5 years. Putting up with classier bullshit has made me question my high ideals. Caring about doing the right thing seems to only bite me in the ass. It neither makes money nor gets respected. Just today a project of mine created to be helpful to people was described as _sponsored content._

I am pretty fed up. We live in a shitty world. Trying to make things better gets nothing but shit in response.

I wish I could just check out and stop caring. But, unfortunately, I am not likely to win the lottery, so I am failing to find a path forward on taking the position of "Fuck you, got mine."

Anyway, this was perhaps bad timing on your part for posting this here. My grumpiness about the world isn't intended as a personal attack.

Take care.</comment></comment></comment>


Android Nougat Proves How Good Google's OS Already Is - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2016/08/android-nougat-proves-good-android-already/ <comment><USER2> > Personally, I'm sold on the whole thing just because I can pin Google Keep > and Inbox to the top of the sharing menu.

+1</comment>


Ask HN: How are Mac programmers different from Windows programmers? - <AUTHOR>

I keep on hearing that, even non-Apple, Mac programs are more elegantly made (clean, focused, and with attention to details) than their Windows counterparts. Why is that? Are Mac programmers adhering to some design principles that their counterparts are not? Does the OS X environment encourage better development? or is the premise faulty to begin with? <comment><USER2> This premise is faulty. The programmers are the same, it is simply what sells well and what qualities are emphasized that are different on each platform.

</comment><comment><USER3> I bought my first Mac ever back in September 2010. Prior to this I was a Windows and Linux user, and now routinely use all 3 platforms.

My immediate perception was how important design was in Mac software. It's common to see the beauty and simplicity of a UI being used as a major selling point, which is not the case on Windows.

Though both Windows and OSX have HIG guidelines, they are routinely ignored by their creators _and_ 3rd party developers. I think the fact that Apple/Microsoft ignore them gives a license for 3rd party developers too also. It was quite a shock to me when the first time I updated my Mac, the close/minimize buttons in iTunes rotated by 90 degrees!

I believe part of the reason that people like to have beautiful apps on OSX is that if you are a Mac user, you probably _chose_ to be; whereas Windows is almost the default due to its ubiquity.

I agree completely with evanmoran; the developers are the same, but what sells on each platform differs.

</comment><comment><USER4> Part of it is the customer base; you probably buy a Mac because Windows doesn't do what you want, and so the programs have to be different enough. One way to justify using a different machine is to have apps that put in more effort to be really good.

But also, it's a matter of copying what you see. When learning to program for the first time, a developer seems to do most of his or her learning on one platform, and copy that style for the most part (both the good _and_ the bad, in everything from the design of GUIs to programming APIs). Regardless of what you think of either company, is there any doubt that Apple is better at coming up with good examples of design, than Microsoft? I consider Windows to be mediocrity breeding mediocrity; while this isn't 100% true, it's true enough for me to hate using the average PC.

Diversity is also a good indicator of quality; the more methods a programmer is familiar with, the more likely a program is to be well-designed. As a single platform, Mac OS X is pretty diverse; it comes with lots of tools, and is influenced by many different roots (Unix philosophy; NeXT/IBM with Objective-C/Smalltalk; classic Mac OS GUI elements; etc.).

</comment><comment><USER5> Some Mac developers would argue that Mac development, being marginalized for so long, led to a distinct subculture with an emphasis on artistic values, community, and high production quality.

There's a quite lengthy study of this subculture called 'Indie Fever' (<http://www.madebysofa.com/indiefever/>), which is worth reading, although I'd argue the gold rush environment created by iOS and App Store has weakened this community quite a bit.

Unless you go to conferences, you now can most easily see the 'indie Mac developer' aesthetic reflected in snark, like Read The Fucking HIG (<http://readthefuckinghig.tumblr.com/>).

</comment><comment><USER6> I think Apple's Human Interface Guidelines helps push developers in the right direction:

[http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserEx...](http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGIntro/XHIGIntro.html)

<comment><USER7> The HIG is dead (at least according to gruber [http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/uniformity_vs_individualit...](http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/uniformity_vs_individuality_in_mac_ui_design)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think it's something of a faulty premise - both platforms have UI design guidelines (Ribbon interface, Chrome, etc...) - Apple's are more extensive IMHO, but that's a developer guidance issue and not a platform capability issue.

I think the perception of comes from a bunch of legacy Win32 apps that are still lingering around which have the crusty old design.

Newer apps made on Windows using WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) look great - like the Zune client, Visual Studio, Expression Blend, and third party apps like MetroTwit and Paint.NET. WPF uses a mark-up language to build UI elements and is thus more designer-friendly than WinForms and older Windows UI technologies - this fact in combination with the Aero UI leads to more elegant-looking Windows apps imho.

Apple has a longer-history of offering designer-friendly tools and UI guidelines to go with it, so that's probably where the perception comes from, but I'd argue it's a dated premise now.

<comment><USER7> The thing about WPF apps is that none of visual studio, expression blend, or the zune client use a standard windows UI – cocoa makes it fairly easy to create an app that looks like xcode, and WPF seems that it makes it easy to style controls in a CSS fashion (I don't know; I haven't used it). I'd prefer consistency, even ugly consistency, over something nonstandard. Apple's gotten a little lax about this... see app store and iTunes.

<comment><USER8> Rchowe, I agree with your criticism actually. The ribbon UI is really the only thing that's standard other than the parts of the experience enforced by the Aero engine itself.

One of the things I like about making WP7 apps are the Metro UI guidelines - it makes it a lot easier to build great looking applications when you have to follow conventions in order to publish.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Mac programmers programme on Macs, Windows programmers programme on Windows. Any other differences between them are not related.

<comment><USER10> a) "Are not related" to what?

b) Really? You have never heard of a programming _culture_ , and how that could differ in Mac vs Windows vs UNIX programmers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I would think it's false, even with the surging popularity of Apple computers recently there are still far more people using Windows and far more developers writing Windows applications. With more applications being developed comes a much greater number of unreliable, slow applications with poor user interfaces.

Though I wonder if the use of Objective-C, and lack of any safety scissors- esque programming environments like Visual Basic, is helping keep out cruft like Bulk Rename Utility (<http://bulkrenameutility.co.uk/Screenshots.php>).

<comment><USER12> > _"poor user interfaces_ "

<http://www.militaryfactory.com/cockpits/imgs/f16.jpg>

Interfaces designed for experts tend not to hide important information and high performance features.

This Mac based product (<http://www.publicspace.net/ABetterFinderRename/>) apparently doesn't allow search and replace operations at the same time as sequential numbering even though it almost certainly allows both.

<comment><USER10> > Interfaces designed for experts tend not to hide important information and > high performance features.

That you want "not to hide important information and high performance features" does not imply the interface has to be poorly designed. A well designed interface can accomplish both.

Most interfaces "designed for experts" are poorly designed crap --and make the work of the "experts" needlessly hard. That some swear by them is mostly "Stockholm Syndrome" (or it gives them a false sense of accomplishment to use something so badly designed, er, I mean "designed for experts".

<comment><USER12> When you're flying an F16, you don't want "drop flares" and "launch sidewinders" on two different menus and the radar on a third, so the interface isn't designed with grandma in mind. That's the difference between the interface for the Windows utility and the one for the Mac...the Windows utility allows you to drop flares and launch sidewinders at the same time.

The Mac interface uses modes for crying out loud.

<comment><USER10> > The Mac interface uses modes for crying out loud.

You'll find out that a well designed F16 interface also uses modes. You don't want to "launch missiles" and "adjust height" in the same menu.

Oh, and the "expert interface" par excellence, Vim, also uses modes..</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mark Zuckerberg Thinks We're Idiots - <AUTHOR> https://mondaynote.com/mark-zuckerberg-thinks-were-idiots-638c64dfab12 <comment><USER2> "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."

-Upton Sinclair</comment>


Hookworm Stealth PHP Backdoor - <AUTHOR> http://www.madirish.net/?article=489 <comment><USER2> Poster is spot on that C99 is not very stealth. I remember getting hit with this guy a few months ago -- very easy to diagnose and clean up.

<comment><USER3> How did you get hit by it? I don't understand the attack vector, unless you are allowing php file uploads?

<comment><USER4> A common way is just script vulnerabilities, allowing execution of arbitrary code. I work at a popular webhosting company, and I've seen cases where apps will execute PHP code inserted as a sooofed User-Agent, POST data, and other weird places. The idea is that you send a payload that executes on the remote host, GETs your shell from some free webhost or another compromised account, and then saves it on the target machine. At that point, you're set.

mod_security can help for people running Apache, and so will using maintained and up to date scripts.

<comment><USER5> Another is don't run PHP scripts in the uploads directory. [0].

[0] "Pass Non-PHP Requests to PHP." <http://wiki.nginx.org/Pitfalls></comment></comment></comment></comment>


April 28th in Menlo Park – Mattt Thompson of NSHipster.com and Kat Li of Stripe - <AUTHOR>

I wanted to let everyone know about an upcoming tech talk that we'll be hosting at SendHub in Menlo Park on Monday, April 28th.  We have two great speakers lined up for the event along with free food and drink (and a few raffle items).  The speakers are:
- Mattt Thompson (iOS/Mac developer, author of AFNetworking and NSHipster.com) sharing "Secrets of Objective-C"
- Kat Li (Growth and Community Development at Stripe, previously at Quora) will be speaking about building a loyal community to drive growth and build your brand
The event will be at 7:30pm on Monday, April 28th in Menlo Park, below is a link to sign up along with the more details about the event. (Be sure to register early as spots will be limited.)
http://try.sendhub.com/techtalk/ <comment><USER2> The register button does not work with my Firefox OSX 28.0. Works with Chrome.</comment>


Text of Chinese official comments on Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE62L05G20100322?type=marketsNews

<comment><USER2> _[Google] must follow Chinese law and international custom, and responsibly handle the aftermath_

Momma always told me, "Pick your battles." I am not sure this is the right battle to be picking. The Chinese don't play around. They recently executed a British national for drug crimes: [http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,669573,00....](http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,669573,00.html) They sentenced a corrupt business woman to death: [http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/12/18/china-to-execute- woman...](http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/12/18/china-to-execute-woman-for- corruption/) According to that same article they also execute for tax evasion. Also, the food safety guy for taking bribes: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia- pacific/6286698.stm>

I'm no fan of Google and I hope my bias isn't clouding my rationale here, but I'm not really sure this is the right battle to pick. China isn't Microsoft. They aren't Apple. China is a sovereign nation with _laws_ that should be respected. If you don't respect their laws, don't do business there. Can it be any simpler than that? Is there a moral justification for Google's behavior that I'm missing?

I can't help but think our government's wishy-washy attitude toward the enforcement of law has convinced our business leaders that they are _above_ it. In many ways, they _are_ above the law in the U.S., but not in China.

Google has unfairly threatened the lives and freedom of their employees in China. There's no bluffing in a game like this. Even rationally speaking, I think it's quite irresponsible of Google to do this.

If Google thinks they are going to change Chinese society or Chinese law or get away with behavior like this, they're _delusional_.

I'd like to suggest a book for Google executives, it's called _Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands_ <http://www.kissboworshakehands.com/2004GTC/index.html>

<comment><USER3> Many Americans lack respect for cultures that are not considered European. They have been brainwashing into believing that their culture is "the best". They do not study history and know little of social studies. I think this stems from a disease called "the white man's burden." American's must understand and respect that their "way" is not the only "way" or the best "way".When you try to use false pretense to further your own private agendas that looks bad; and to insult the intelligence (disrespect) of the Chinese it looks really bad.

<comment><USER4> _Many Americans lack respect for cultures that are not considered European._

I am an exception to that generalization. I have devoted much of my life to the study of Chinese culture and language, and have lived overseas for years at a time. But what I know about the Chinese people I know is that they too like good governance and freedom, and I hope they get more of each in the coming generation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The original Xinhau article can be found here: [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-03/23/c_132...](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-03/23/c_13220853.htm)</comment>


Ask HN: If you were in college, what do you want to hear in a 'career' talk? - <AUTHOR> I'm giving a talk to a class of senior IT college students regarding career path. I have a few topics in mind.<p>Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> Along with telling them your own personal career path story, I'd sell the personal challenges and non-monetary rewards of being in the profession. Maybe tell some quick funny, entertaining stories from the battlefields. Be sure to emphasize that if they want to move into management - that they need a plan for doing so. Also, how they don't know as much as they think they do. Good luck!

"If all you get from work is a paycheck, you're underpaid." -Jim Rohn

</comment><comment><USER3> 2 things:

a) Learn soft skills - that will contribute more than they think to career progress

b) Learn transferable skills. If your chosen career doesn't work out, is there something you have that can be used by any industry? (e.g project management skills, marketing knowledge)</comment>


GAE XMPP app tutorial (GAE added XMPP support today) - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/intl/it-IT/appengine/articles/using_xmpp.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Also see: [http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2009/09/app-engine- sdk-1...](http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2009/09/app-engine- sdk-125-released-for-python.html)</comment>


To All the Introductions I've Loved Before - <AUTHOR> https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/01/22/to-all-the-introductions-ive-loved-before/ <comment><USER2> I always read introductions. There seems to be this popular idea in America that any text is comprehensible without prerequisite knowledge or proper framing. This is also coupled with the idea that introductions will somehow "spoil" a work—the notion that all a story is good for are its spectacles and surprises (a pretty shallow appreciation of narratives, especially considering nearly all of said surprises have been done to death). I never quite understood this myself. I don't know where anyone gets this idea that they'll just understand a work without any additional rigging to help them—it's similar to a belief that one can and should climb a mountain without equipment. I would not be surprised if adherents of this philosophy also don't look up definitions for words they don't know but probably just breeze over them. It's laziness! There's a lot that goes into crafting a quality interpretation of a text, this includes a great deal of theoretical exploration, and historical tidbits that aren't covered in the text itself. And no, reading an introduction does not somehow make your experience of the work "impure" nor are you bound to blindly accepting everything an introduction claims is important as such—in fact you may find through your reading that what the introductory text emphasized seemed in fact wholly irrelevant to the work (in which case you might consider it a poor introduction).

Obviously if you're reading strictly with the intention of passing time/being entertained and not with the intention of understanding or comprehending what you're reading and experiencing through the text, I can see why you might skip the intro.

</comment><comment><USER3> A lot of fairly dry computer books have touching, emotional, wonderful introductions. Shaw's prefaces are usually longer and more interesting than the plays they precede. G.K. Chesterton wrote a book on Shaw, a close friend, to which this was the entire introduction:

 _MOST people either say that they agree with Bernard Shaw or that they do not understand him. I am the only person who understands him, and I do not agree with him.

G. K. C._

My favourite preface is to Théophile Gautier's _Mademoiselle de Maupin_ , which is savagely funny, categorizing the types of critic and introducing _art for art 's sake_ to combat the 'utilitarian critic' who complains of art not being useful.

</comment><comment><USER4> There is a song "to all the girls i've loved before" [https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lf-RGql11Xg](https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lf- RGql11Xg)

</comment><comment><USER5> I read introductions but usually only after I've read the work that they are 'introducing'.</comment>


Fibonacci Numbers in the Real World - <AUTHOR> https://lee-phillips.org/lispmath/ <comment><AUTHOR> Great read. Includes plot twists.</comment>


Reinventing the remote for iTV - <AUTHOR> http://interuserface.net/2010/08/rethinking-the-remote/

<comment><USER2> I've been using a PS3 bluetooth remote, with Remote Buddy, on my Mac Mini. Nice to have lots of programmable buttons to avoid the need for a keyboard and mouse (for the most part), but I really miss the elegance of the Apple iR. Hopefully, whatever they come up with for iTV will be usable on Macs as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> The remote works just the same on ITV as it does on the BBC, surely?</comment>


Ask HN:How do I keep "Stay signed in" unchecked by default on gmail login screen - <AUTHOR>

Earlier, it used to be unchecked by default. But for some time now, it is always checked when I open gmail.com. It's highly annoying as I have to uncheck it every time. Appears in incognito window too. Any solutions? Or should I take it as given? <comment><USER2> With the Firefox add-on GreaseMonkey [1] you can create a script to change whatever you want.

[1] <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/></comment>


Yo Forbes, Fuck You - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/27/fornicating-under-consent-of-the-king/

<comment><USER2> Techcrunch is getting pretty desperate now. What's the purpose of this article?

</comment><comment><USER3> Both Techcrunch and Forbes need to realize that no one cares besides them.</comment>


Java (or JVM Lang) Based Startups - We Want To Hear From You  - <AUTHOR> http://java.dzone.com/articles/are-you-java-or-mobile-based <comment><USER2> Here's one: Fogbeam Labs[1]. Our stack is JVM based, mostly being Groovy / Grails, and some plain old Java. There may be a place for some Scala and/or Clojure down the road, depending on how things shake out.

[1]: <http://www.fogbeam.com></comment>


Designing blogs for readers - <AUTHOR> http://mattgemmell.com/2013/05/22/designing-blogs-for-readers/

<comment><USER2> "Writing is inherently about its author, and is a product of their personality and opinions – that's not something to be shy about, and we shouldn't try to change it either. So, write for yourself – and hold yourself to an appropriate standard, because you'd better believe that others are judging the person as well as the piece – but as soon as you publish your views, you're inviting readers to take a look."

Matt comes very close to one of my beliefs about writing... Creative writing is a way to give yourself an opportunity to think through an topic or story and give the rest of us an insight into how your mind works. That's the kind of writing I love -- the kind where I can see the gears moving to a certain degree and I know the author is honestly putting an effort into analyzing a subject or putting something difficult into words.

As an example, I think this is why the recent "Hyperbole and a Half" ([http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2013/05/depression- par...](http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2013/05/depression-part- two.html)) about Allie's experiences with depression is so valuable and compelling.

And it's why I find listicles and articles that purport to be delivering glorious nuggets of truth from the top of Mount Bullshit to be boring, frustrating, and obnoxious. (If you look at my comment history, you'll probably find a fair amount of bitching about articles that are nothing but (often wrong or over-simplified) conclusions with no evident thought process behind them.)

I think it's actually something that's hard to fake. Like Matt says, your personality and opinions are integral. And it almost forces you to start writing about something you're not so sure about, which can seem uncomfortable. Because you might come to wrong conclusions. But if you write to edify yourself and to give yourself the chance to meditate and process the world around you, then suddenly sheer audience count will matter much less _and_ (if you're a good thinker) you might find yourself writing much more compelling pieces, anyway, since, like I said, I think people appreciate being able to see the mental processes of another person at work.

So. I've diverged a bit from Matt's initial point, but his words made me think of this so I thought I'd share...

(Before someone else says it: No, I'm not talking about technical or instructional writing. That's different.)

<comment><USER3> Stephen King[1] relates a similar idea:

"Write with the door closed, rewrite with the door open. Your stuff starts out being just for you, in other words, but then it goes out. Once you know what the story is and get it right -- as right as you can, anyway -- it belongs to anyone who wants to read it. Or criticize it. If you're very lucky, more will want to do the former than the latter."

[1] Stephen King, "On Writing" (chapter 20)

</comment></comment><comment> chestnut-tree I disagree with the opinion that comments are completely unnecessary. It does depends on your readership, the topics you discuss and the popularity of your blog. If you find too many of your comments to be rude, or that you're overwhelmed by the sheer number then, sure, consider turning comments off.

However, many blogs don't attract comments in their hundreds. For me, disabling comments would feel like saying to blog readers that I'm not interested in what they think about my blog post (and I am). You might write for yourself as you compose posts, but when you publish your post you want others to read it. Are there blog authors who can honestly say they aren't interested in the views of their readers about what they've written?

I would rather a conversation take place on my blog than telling users to take the discussion elsewhere. (You can't really discuss things in a 140 character tweet).

Related to this discussion is another viewpoint about getting rid of social media buttons <http://ia.net/blog/sweep-the-sleaze/>

</comment><comment><USER4> I couldn't agree more with his claim that comments are an unnecessary feature for a modern blog. Back in Web 2.0 times comments were an absolute must-have. I think the web in 2013 has largely moved on from the notion that "everything must have a comment form below it".

People generally don't put as much work into their comments as you did into your blog post, so the comment section is a tangible dive in written quality. And they tend to be quite "fire and forget", because although somebody might disagree with something in the five seconds after reading a post, they are unlikely to remember that disagreement two days later and return to see if anyone responded.

Personally, if somebody felt strongly enough about something I wrote to want to say something to me something about it, I'd prefer an email anyway.

<comment><USER5> _I think the web in 2013 has largely moved on from the notion that "everything must have a comment form below it"._

It's definitely true that a lot of people don't put much energy into their comments, but when they do those comments can be very valuable. For example, I wrote a post about why physicians assistant or nursing school is a smarter choice for most people than med school ([http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/why-you-should- beco...](http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/why-you-should-become-a- nurse-or-physicians-assistant-instead-of-a-doctor-the-underrated-perils-of- medical-school/)), and some of the comments are really good. Do I delete the dumbest? Yes. But the occasional really good comment outweighs the many really bad ones, at least in my experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I disagree with two points:

1\. Comments are still necessary. Tweeting a link and a short comment doesn't cut it; not everyone has a blog (or wants to make a public post to a different audience about another blogger's post) just to respond - to assume people will blog about you is sheer arrogance. Maybe Matt doesn't care what others think, or want a discussion and discourse, but I certainly do.

2\. Opening links in new windows or tabs _is_ OK if your blog has a very non- technical audience. Most people don't know the keyboard shortcuts for opening in a new tab, and even though they can right click... don't. It's always fun to see people's enthusiasm when I show them the shortcuts, and to watch them start opening links in multiple tabs!

<comment><USER7> I had Disqus comments on my blog for a while. However, I noticed that the good discussions took place on Hacker News and Reddit.

<comment><USER8> Yes, which suggests that what the Web needs is proper support for aggregating / merging comments on a story when those comments are spread across multiple domains. Ideally, you should be able to go to

<http://www.example.org/blog/a_post_about_something.html>

and see in the "comments" section the comments from HN, reddit, G+, and elsewhere.

From what I remember when I started looking into something like this a few years ago, from a technical perspective, SIOC[1] and FOAF[2] give us some of the building blocks to do something like that. But it'll probably never catch on just due to the economics...

At least if you blog on Blogger, they have integrated G+ discussions now, which turns out to be kinda nifty.

[1]: <http://sioc-project.org/>

[2]: <http://www.foaf-project.org/>

<comment><USER7> Microformats are a more pragmatic approach.

<http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-in-reply-to>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _Don't make links that open new windows or tabs; it's grossly hostile to the reader._

I don't really agree with this one. From my perspective as a reader, I prefer when links have target="_blank" set, because it means if I forget to (or couldn't be arsed to) ctrl+click or right-click -> open link in new tab, I still don't lose my place on the current page, and can go poke around at the linked content at my leisure.

Maybe I'm weird (OK, obviously I'm weird in some regards) but I prefer to open links as I go, but read the main text-stream first, then go back and read linked articles, posts, citations, etc. If they are conveniently opened in a pile of tabs, it makes my life easier.

Curious how the rest of the HN readership feels about this...

<comment><USER9> Same here, I pretty much open every link in a tab, but then when I'm ready to leave I want the last link in the same tab. So I prefer they all open in the same tab and I decide when clicking.

<comment><USER8> Fair enough. What would be nice would be if there was an easier way of making the behavior optional, besides:

A. making the user right-click and select from a context-menu

B. making the user remember (or not) to ctrl+click / middle-click

C. putting the infamous Here Is A Link (open in new tab) parenthetical thing next to the link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've independently come up with the same decisions on many of these points and, weirdly, a very similar blog design:

<http://jmoiron.net>

I decided even to dispatch with the header bar, putting navigation at the bottom of the main page; presumably, people will only care to see more of my writing if they've read the article. Not as good for people revisiting the page, but they can likely remember <http://jmoiron.net/blog> or bookmark it in order to get to the search.

My fonts are slightly smaller and slightly less contrast, and after looking at Gemmell's blog I wonder if I should change that decision. I wanted to have emphasized elements of the text easily distinguishable from the body while not distracting.

Also, I agree with Gemmell's "The basic tenets of hypertext should be left alone". One of these basic tenets, to me, are the semantic meanings of Blue, Purple, and Red text for normal, :visited, and :active hyperlinks. If you want to chose a link color, do not invert or violate these classical meanings.

<comment><USER7> Nevertheless, you seem to disagree with Gemmell about underlining links. In my opinion the underlining is more important than the color.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I think that bold looks better with sans serif typefaces than underline, so that was a design rather than an ergonomic decision; perhaps not a correct one. I think underlined blue text is probably the "most linky" looking text, given the history of the web.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Somewhat off-topic, but as long as this discussion is on blog design:

What are good options for presenting significantly longer works? For example, a 30-page paper, or a 100-page book?

Is it best for readability / usability to break things out into short blog posts? Or ditch the blog format altogether and just upload some HTML files that use a totally different style? Or something else?

<comment><USER12> (off-topic to off-topic) For long papers / books, think about learning LaTeX and compiling your files to PDF (unless it must be an HTML).

LaTeX and its packages/templates have man-years of development invested into readability. All the scientific papers are produced with TeX/LaTeX. The program and packages for it solve numerous problems like proper spacing, citations, bibliography, dealing with orphan paragraphs etc. etc.

<comment><USER11> This is from 2001/2003:

[http://www.nngroup.com/articles/avoid-pdf-for-on-screen- read...](http://www.nngroup.com/articles/avoid-pdf-for-on-screen-reading/)

Still true? Or are users okay with PDFs now? When browsing the web on my iPad, PDFs seem quite acceptable.

<comment><USER12> I prefer websites to PDF, but when we're talking about 100 pages, PDF is the way to go (unless you want to split into chapters and subchapters).

<comment><USER13> If you're on a tablet, I think you would much appreciate an ePub. I most definitely would. It's mainly for reflowing text. I know reflowable PDF is possible but I have never seen one in the wild.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To my mind even this contains unnecessary elements, and I hate fixed-width narrow columns. I've tried to push the limits of the absolute minimum of distraction in my own blog (<http://m50d.github.com>); I'd be interested to hear of people taking similar approaches.

<comment><USER4> A couple of Matt's complaints might apply to the design of your blog: tiny fonts and long lines. Long lines are a readability problem because the eye tends to get lost when jumping from the end of a line to the start of a new one. Small fonts are a problem for obvious reasons.

The very first thing I did when your URL loaded was to increase the browser text size. A good rule of thumb when it comes to typography on the web these days is to be very cautious about setting a font-size smaller than the usual 16px browser default.

<comment><USER15> Agreed. The second thing I would be forced to do it shrink my window so the lines aren't so long.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I applaud the emphasis that is given to written text, that definitely is something that deserves the attention and has been lacking on many sites.

But I kinda feel that this goes a tad over on the minimalistic side, which isn't too bad, but I wouldn't like if applied in dogmatic way to all sites.

I don't know if the "most popular posts" lists are the most optimal for content discovery, but having none seems a bit harsh. No, I'm probably not looking for blog posts on specific date, but I often look couple previous or next posts and the latest if they happen to relate to same subject, or if there is more interesting content to be had.

Comments, I'm torn over them. I feel like it's an lost battle to have discussions coherently in one place, but still many times I've found comments on top ranking posts about problems I've had to be invaluable, with corrections, alternative suggestions and updates to later versions of software. Also doesn't mesh well with statically generated sites unless something like disqus is used, which I generally don't like that much..

Social media buttons I value just about as much as I value any random ads on pages. Even if I share page I do it by copying the address anyway — but I guess it's a bit different on more mainstream oriented sites where the median user might find address bars exotic and intimidating.

Also I would be interest on thoughts on how images relate to this. Should they also be constrained within the text column bounds, should they be lightboxed or link directly to the original picture? I find myself a little conflicted on good use. This author seems to like linking to non-working flickr pages.

Hmm, I sound perhaps a little negative, but my overall impression was still on the positive side.

</comment><comment><USER17> I find that page hard to read due to its huge font-size. Also when I am somewhere in the text and there is a headline, I have a hard time guessing its level. Some additional decoration or indicators on the side might be nice. The screen highly limits the overview as you cannot scroll away and quickly refind your position, you lost the position. So additional marking of the place in the text would help a lot with those "very few of many lines visible on the screen" pieces.

edit: There is a similar problem on several of the namedropped sites too, <http://www.marco.org/> <http://shawnblanc.net/> and <http://www.loopinsight.com/> all have a weird mixture of title formatting of the posts. Sometimes it is big, sometimes small, I have trouble seeing where are post starts or ends and what are just smaller headings within one.

</comment><comment><USER18> Differently, did you know that readability is not always good for all types of content? If an article requires some thought and concentration then less readability is preferable - see this video of Adam Alter on something he calls 'disfluency' - <http://edge.org/video/disfluency>

</comment><comment><USER19> Agree with most of his points. Unknowingly, my blog has followed the same kind of timeline. My current design is not quite minimal, but the content has nothing on the side, I don't have a huge header with a calendar and god knows what else. The worst thing I have is a single ad in the header, but this actually works quite well for content because usually the beginning of content will be at the upper-middle of your screen, where the eye is usually resting..

The one thing I disagree with is comments. Comments are hard to get right, but they're not replaceable by social media alone.

</comment><comment><USER20> Completely agree with everything. That's also why I use readability ( [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/readability/oknpjj...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/readability/oknpjjbmpnndlpmnhmekjpocelpnlfdi?hl=en) ) which transforms the article I want to read into a very well designed and readable format. Just by pressing `.

In addition it has an Android app which is done very well. About 80% of the posts that I see here on HN, I simply safe for later and read at home in the garden with this app.

</comment><comment><USER21> I agree with almost all of your points, the exception is the sidebar.

Not in the traditional sense, but in the sense of quotes, images, supporting items - that are called left, right, or full width.

Using your site as an example and lets pretend its 12 columns with 3 empty, 6 for the blog, 3 empty. That space could be well served with links, resources, images, quotes that serve to enhance the writing. These resources could stretch into the 6 for the blog or remain isolated in their sidebars.

<comment><USER22> I get a lot of people reading my recent 5 posts and my top 10 (by readers) posts so I kept the sidebar. But there isn't much else in it. I considered having it slide in or something but this is simpler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I love the readability of your blog. Is there an equivalent theme for WordPress?

</comment><comment><USER24> Sound advice...I'm viewing the OP from a tablet so I don't know if I'm seeing something different than the norm, but whatever sparked the trend toward single column content design...thanks! When I was mucking about in my original blog's CSS, I wasted a ton of time thinking I needed multiple columns (in the blog content) for floating images, boxes, etc.

Now I'm happy with just single columns...much less work to maintain, much more readable for users, and more time to think about the actual words rather than CSS.

Moving to Markdown helped expedite my preference for simplicity, too.

As our viewing surfaces only get more diverse, I hope single columns are a long lasting trend</comment>


On{X} let's you hack your android instantly via JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://www.onx.ms/

<comment><USER2> It is annoying that facebook login is required.

<comment><USER3> it is, but still you gotta hand it to MS, they made script environment in javascript on andorid with device api. I already made fake facebook account just for this :)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What to do when the .com is too expensive? - <AUTHOR>

We have found a new name for our company, the .com is parked (I mean do you know any good .com that's not?).
We have exchanged maybe 10 emails with the domain broker and he is asking us almost $20,000. We have make a proposal for $1,400 (Similar domains sell for this price), and the broker told us that our offer is too low to even be taken to the actual owner. Sic.
We try to find an alternative of the .com, like alternative domains as .io, .net, .ly ... or to add a prefix (my, your, get, the...) or a suffix (app, service, hq...)
I wonder what's the best practices?
PS: We are a web-based SaaS for businesses. <comment><USER2> I will be counter-intuitive here and ask you this.

Is the domain worth 20k for you? If it is, and you think in the long run it will add 20k to your bottom line, then buy it.

If for any reason the startup won't succeed (knock on wood), if that is an appetizing enough .com, it will still be worth its asking price.

I recently read the examine.com guys bought it for 42k. I thought that was a very big risk for a starting blog. But in fairness, i think a domain name like examine.com could be re-sold for a very similar amount in short time.

If you think the .com is not worth 20k for you, or if you don't have 20k - then go for a prefix/suffix.

Buy cheap brand PPC campaigns on Googlee for your brand (I assume the parked domain isn't doing it) so that when people Google the name, they get to you. And eventually if you have constant Ads on top, and your site has a content as opposed to a parked domain,it will rank better in google too.

<comment><AUTHOR> We can put 20k on a domain name if we really want to.

But from my experience, a domain name is a domain name and it's usually not worth that much of the money. 20k can be spent in a marketing campaign that will out weigth the benefits of having the "pure" .com

<comment><USER3> That's a bit simplistic.

Having "Examine.com" as our brand brought us weight - the domain is easy to remember, easy to understand, has a link to what we're selling, and so forth.

BUT - that 42k was never _all_ we had. It was maybe ~25% of what we had. We decided that the brandability of the domain was more important than buying ads.

As you have a SaaS business, buying ads may work out. On the other hand, having a non-.com may backfire.

YMMV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _We have found a new name for our company_

Since you are rebranding, you might be better off finding a name where the .com is available just to avoid the hassle of being shaken down if you get big later. Companies that just ponied up the money when they got big are dropbox (formerly getdropbox.com) and facebook (formerly thefacebook.com). It seems like recently you don't even need the .com (e.g. famo.us and socket.io), so you could go that route if your name is short and easy to remember.

<comment><USER5> > It seems like recently you don't even need the .com (e.g. famo.us and > socket.io)

Keep in mind that these examples are websites that target developers, which at least in the past were more willing than others to go to non-.coms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You're best off prefixing (to get a .com) or going with an alternative TLD. Don't get a .net or .org though, because they just don't have the same appeal. Maybe try one of the new TLD's (.academy, .guru, .sexy, etc)? Also, don't worry about the effect your domain may have on SEO. Focus on solid content marketing and the SEO will come - use paid traffic and a good autoresponder series if you have to spend money on marketing.

<comment><USER7> Maybe I'm biased because I'm in the same situation, but I really do think .net has almost as much cachet as .com. Some people even _prefer_ the .net domain to the .com. (daringfireball.net)

<comment><USER3> Very uncommon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The only other TLD that i see could possibly rival .com is .web. But it is plagued with all sort of stupid copyright issues.

As a developer or businesses SaaS, i dont think tld matters. Because you target audience are unlikely to give a damn about it. However if it was a public facing website then I think .com matters a lot. A lot of people still think of everything in .com on the Internet.

</comment><comment><USER9> Is there any way you can find out who the real owner is?

The broker doesn't want to take your offer because he won't make much commission. He'd rather hold out for a bigger offer later on.

Circumvent the broker. Owner may be more likely to take your offer.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will do that without a blink of eye, but I don't think that's possible. Both the website and the whois redirect to the broker.

I can double check whois history or website history on archive.org but I don't think I will find anything of value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Find another one.

Don't get fixated on things. A business must evolve and adapt in order to succeed. If you are stubborn about a simple name, the web domain is the least of your worries.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, we are working on that.

But, the odds that the other ideas we can have in a .com are still already taken are pretty high. I will be thinking that's a common issue.

<comment><USER11> Yeah in all likely hood any other .com's will be parked but as you mentioned in your post similar domains are selling for $1400 or around the price you are happy to pay. If this one broker is asking way to much move on and find a different .com that you can afford.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How about .co?

<comment><AUTHOR> I was thinking they have bad reputation. Have they not?</comment></comment>


Teach someone least squares - least squares learning tool - <AUTHOR> http://statgadgets.student.iastate.edu/teaching/LinearRegression.html

<comment><USER2> I find the "correlation" number confusing. The interface presents it alongside the RSS, yet one is affected by the line I'm manipulating while the other isn't.</comment>