VESA HOTAS Mounts for IKEA Markus Chair - <AUTHOR> http://imgur.com/a/8Uybw <comment><USER2> I wonder what games people play with these joystick setups. I haven't had once since Commodore 64, and my PCs have always been too low end for flight simulators. This year I'm planning to make a difference with that trend. Any online competitive WW2 flight sims out there? How do commercial/small plane games compare? Space?

<comment><USER3> If you like combat flight sims I suggest the DCS Series [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Combat_Simulator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Combat_Simulator)

If you want small planes or airliners then you might look into the new X-Plane 11, it has very realistic physics and looks really good even in the basic configuration, i.e. without add-ons, thanks to its last-generation graphics engine.

If, on the other hand, you plan on buying many add-ons (e.g. because you want to fly specific planes or fly to/from specific airports) then I suggest Prepar3d or FSX Steam Edition which are both based on Microsoft Flight Simulator X, which means they are compatible with a large number of add-ons.

Their graphics are not on par with X-Plane 11 though (unless you install scenery add-ons), since they are based on a 10-year-old graphics engine; you can see a comparison here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUtEqgDjjJU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUtEqgDjjJU)

<comment><USER4> Notably X-Plane 11 has extremely bad perf on all but the highest end CPUs. It's currently badly limited by single thread peformance. My 4Ghz AMD 8 core can barely top 20 fps o on minimum settings (and also on maximum settings since it's badly CPU bottlenecked)

<comment><USER3> Yes X-Plane 11 is demanding in terms of CPU but as per comment above, parent is getting a new PC, so I assume the CPU will be at least on par with mine (I have an i5 6500, which is pretty much the minimum for a current gaming PC) and on my machine the game runs smoothly. I agree with you that on slightly older CPUs it might be a bit heavy to run.

<comment><USER5> A high clocked i5 is probably optimal for most flightsims.

<comment><USER6> An i7 will generally be faster. If we're talking X-plane, then the single- threaded performance benchmarks on [https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html](https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html) are a good place to start.

<comment><USER7> Yeah but I read that chart and what it really says to me is that you can spend about $100 more to get a 10% single-thread uptick but other than that it pretty much doesn't matter (on that benchmark).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I did a similar thing: my flight sim chair is an Ikea Poang ([http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/poang-chair- beige_...](http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/poang-chair- beige__19488_PE104775_S4.JPG)) with CH Products throttle and stick attached to the arms with 3M Command tabs. It works amazingly well, especially with a VR headset.

</comment><comment><USER9> There's lots of HOTAS setups for this chair around on Imgur and the r/hotas subreddit. Here's one I used:

[https://imgur.com/a/CsKoY](https://imgur.com/a/CsKoY)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's a nice solution, I was looking into VESA mounts but eventually I went for this one because it allows me to transition from work to play (and vice versa) in just a few seconds. (And also because eventually I want to get a yoke): [http://www.nextlevelracing.com/products/next-level-flight- st...](http://www.nextlevelracing.com/products/next-level-flight-stand/)

<comment><USER10> Can we get a quick review? It looks really interesting but looking around the net I can't find many people talking about it. Does it wobble any? What joystick are you using on it? What kind of chair do you use with it?

(Warthog + Obutto Ozone owner here but thinking of simplifying things)

<comment><USER3> Yes as the sibling comment says it is very very solid, doesn't wobble at all and the best part is that you fold it and free up your desk in literally less than 10 seconds. Next Level Racing makes expensive stuff but there is absolutely no question about build quality.

I am planning to add a yoke in the centre and a Saitek throttle quadrant, mounted in the "under the desk" configuration (so that it doesn't interfere with the stick) on the right, this way I can have, all on one stand, both configurations for the planes that I like (yoke + right throttle for Cessnas and stick + left throttle for Cubs)

I have also the other stand, made by the same brand, for steering wheel + pedals + shifter and that is extremely high quality too. I could not find a review of the flight stand but I have found one for the racing stand which is very very similar, here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb_NjZJvb4E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb_NjZJvb4E)

I am using Saitek X52 HOTAS (the silver one, not the Pro version) + Saitek rudder pedals on the flight stand.

On the racing stand I have Logitech G920 + Driving Force shifter + CSIO SKRS add-on (I'm into truck sim).

<comment><USER10> Thanks, much appreciated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Another Markus chair review.

I think it's an ugly looking thing but surprisingly comfortable, had mine for ~5 years, it has a bit of play where the stem fits in the base that I keep meaning to shim out with some aluminium can but have never got around to.

I score it 5/7

<comment><USER12> What kind of maniac rates things from one to _seven_?! :)

<comment><USER13> One who likes integer ratios and more precision than 7/10 gets you?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There should be more vehicular cockpit VR games designed for people sitting on a swivel chair. Granted, wireless headsets are going to make the experience of this much better.

</comment><comment><USER15> The X52 is a lightweight one. I'd like to see that same solution with a HOTAS Warthog ( 6kg / 13.2 lbs).

<comment><USER16> These mounts can hold 20KG or more, I don't see a problem 6KG at all, especially since you can always tighten the bolts in the articulating parts further if you are having issues.

I have 42" screens hooked up to similar mounts with VESA adapters you can tilt and swivel them with ease and they stay put.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Do righties use the joystick in the right hand? Or is it British/Aus/Japanese/etc pilots using the shifter in the left hand (taken from right hand drive cars)

<comment><USER3> It depends on the type of aircraft.

Aircrafts with yoke: normally you hold the yoke with the left hand and the throttle with the right hand. If you are in the right seat then it will be the opposite, but traditionally the pilot in command is always seated on the left while the right seat is for the co-pilot (airliners) or for the instructor in training flights.

Planes with stick:

Airbus airliners - same as above i.e. joystick left hand, throttle right hand, unless you are in the co-pilot seat.

Most other aircrafts with a stick, including fighter jets, light aircrafts etc.: joystick right hand, throttle left hand; the joystick can either be on the right side of the pilot, or between legs, in either case you hold it with your right hand since the throttle is on the left.

The other primary control on every aircraft is the rudder, which is always controlled with pedals. Some gaming joysticks can simulate the rudder movements by twisting the joystick on its vertical axis but this is never the case in real life, so if you want realism you will need rudder pedals.

<comment><USER18> An older Saitek set i own use a seesaw of sorts built into the throttle for rudder.

<comment><USER3> I have tried that type of system in a Thrustmaster model [http://www.thrustmaster.com/en_US/products/tflight- hotas-4](http://www.thrustmaster.com/en_US/products/tflight-hotas-4) (click on media to go to the gallery, the rudder "rocker" is visible in the 3rd-last and 2nd-last picture, on the back of the throttle).

I have to admit that it is slightly better than twisting the stick, but still nowhere near the accuracy of actual rudder pedals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I guess one must have quite short arms to play comfortably in such a set-up.

</comment><comment><USER20> Shims: Not just for Javascript.

</comment><comment><USER21> A bit off-topic, but for those thinking about buying this chair - its awesome! I've been using it for the past ~4 years and its still very reliable and comfortable. I was moving to another country few years ago and I couldn't bare to get rid of it like rest of my furniture. I ended up driving 1000km with it in the back of my car. It was a hassle but I don't regret it, my back is very happy :)

<comment><USER22> I've had one for 5 years, and I'd like to offer a different opinion:

I find the foam seat too soft and that my bony ass ends up supported primarily by whatever the bottom of the seat is made of. This isn't terrible, but it isn't great. I weigh about 80kb/175lbs, for whatever that's worth.

I also find that the curve on the back protrudes too far forward at the lower back. If I spend a couple hours in the chair, my back inevitably ends up sore. This is the major problem I have with the chair.

I will say that the chair is sound without the arm rests, so if you aren't an arm rest person (I'm not) you don't need to attach them.

As with many things in life YMMV. Unfortunately, this is a hard one to try out long enough without buying to know whether or not this chair is comfy for you.

ETA: I'm about 182cm/6'1" if anybody is curious. I'm mostly tall in the legs.

<comment><USER23> > weigh about 80kb

I'm sorry, it's such a funny professional deformation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> oh man I was literally just looking at this yesterday.

I really want to pick up a HOTAS setup for Elite and such. I wonder if I can just do something like this wtih the amazon basic chair I have. Only problem is I was considering getting the warthog HOTAS and I bet it's way too heavy for this. On the other hand a T.16000M would work fine.</comment>


A Way To Find Movies Worth Watching On Netflix - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/09/finally-a-way-to-find-movies-worth-watching-on-netflix/

<comment><USER2> Rotten Tomatoes has their own version of this: [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/dvd/netflix](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/dvd/netflix)

</comment><comment><USER3> Netflix public API shuts down on Nov 14...

<comment><USER4> I've already seen a few third party API's out and about these past couple of months

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's too bad the website referenced is totally down, I for one would love to use it :)

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

</comment><comment><USER6> Make sure to check out [http://instantwatcher.com](http://instantwatcher.com), you can filter by RT rating, style, year of release, etc.

<comment><USER7> This site is pretty helpful, I agree.

I'm responding to note my frustration with simple filtering by RT rating...a lot of movies have a high RT rating, but with very low confidence (e.g., 75, because 3 of 4 obscure reviewers liked it). You want want to filter by confidence also, but the interface doesn't allow it. It's frustrating because it's so close to solved; all the hard work of gathering the data is done, but the filtering is slightly too simplistic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> [http://netflixroulette.net/](http://netflixroulette.net/) is also an alternative for finding a movie to watch, it's just a roulette. The author also made the API for everyone to use since Netflix shut down their.

</comment><comment><USER9> What I would actually need is a way to _choose_ from the many movies worth watching.... but the hard part is doing so without choosing a movie not worth watching.

</comment><comment> carlos-alberto Anyone know of a website which offers similar functionality but with an option to choose the region you're in?

</comment><comment><USER10> Sad it is down. Well done on the 404 page though.

</comment><comment><USER11> Amazing 503 page

[http://imgur.com/y4KtdcC](http://imgur.com/y4KtdcC)</comment>


The $12.5 Billion Tweet - <AUTHOR> http://www.ted.me/the-12-5-billion-tweet/

<comment><USER2> I hate to pour cold water on this, but the tweet wasn't the value here : It was the announcement itself. Making it in the newspaper (as would have been done in the past) would have been just as effective. Or via Bloomberg (on their terminals).

OTOH, adding the detail about talking to the CEO is a little odd : Is the implication that he's trading on information that he got from a private conversation? The whole area is a little murky, I guess, because the intention to buy a block should also be material market-affecting information, but somehow it's not against the rules.

<comment><USER3> I didn't get your point. Of course the tweet isn't worth a damn, but the information is. Just like newspaper as you said.

But, since he chose Tweeter to disclose those news, his tweet, in fact, is worth $12.5B

<comment><USER3> Just adding another thing: what's to be contested in this article is if the tweet was the only thing that leveraged Apple's stocks to those values. Of course it may have been replicated everywhere, but was really just those few characters that generated that boom?

<comment><USER4> A well known investor saying, "I bought a lot of AAPL because I think it's undervalued," caused the boom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Until the site comes back online, here is the tweet: [https://twitter.com/Carl_C_Icahn/status/367350206993399808](https://twitter.com/Carl_C_Icahn/status/367350206993399808)

</comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone on here know whether this was in fact posted as 'chatter' via Bloomberg terminals before the tweet or not.

Surely there's a Wall Street guy with access to a terminal on HN.

</comment><comment><USER7> Isn't it more accurate to call it a $12.5 billion carefully timed _leak_? Stock market should work on properly assessed value, but more often than not, works on tidbits of info (legitimately derived or otherwise) that extrapolate value.

It's a Kessler syndrome for trades.

Let's see what happens when the market opens tomorrow.

</comment><comment><USER8> Well ok, but how can you prove the correlation ?

<comment><USER9> I think you meant prove the causation. I can prove they're correlated: they both happened!

You're right that it's always good to be skeptical about extreme claims, but I think in this case it's pretty reasonable to assume that AAPL stock jumping when a famous investor announces "I bought a billion dollars of this stock and it's still undervalued" isn't a coincidence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> From Ichan's Twitter bio: "Some people get rich studying artificial intelligence. Me, I make money studying natural stupidity."

Ichan probably foresaw the impact of his tweet. He probably made millions, and will make a few more million by taking a short position on AAPL in the coming days.

</comment><comment><USER11> Someone wanted to one up the 4 million dollar complain call... [http://www.inc.com/ron-burley/4-million-complaint- call.html](http://www.inc.com/ron-burley/4-million-complaint-call.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Fictitious value? Like Dutch tulip bulbs, it depends upon the gullibility of the public.

So he created a bubble. A least he disclosed his position, se he's not liable.</comment>


Startup Quote: Aza Raskin, Co-founder, Massive Health - <AUTHOR> http://startupquote.com/post/11356477287

<comment><AUTHOR> To the user, the interface is the product.

\- Aza Raskin (@azaaza)

<http://startupquote.com/post/11356477287></comment>


Ask HN: How closely does big tech monitor employee laptops? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I can't speak for what "big tech" does, but I can say that when I worked in enterprise IT, we took the stance that nobody should have any expectation of any privacy on their laptops... but then rarely actually tracked any thing. On the rare occasions that we did track, it was due to an investigation of some sort, and there was an audit trail of who were were monitoring and why. It was never about productivity - that is between you and your boss.

The exception to this was web filtering - if you tried to access a site that was not allowed, someone got an email. That someone was pretty reasonable... they understood the occasional hit on a flagged site because you followed a link. They were more concerned about patterns of poor choices.

</comment><comment><USER3> In the case of Google, retroactively by using detailed forensic logs.

> Soon afterward, forensic engineers, led by the Google executive Gary Brown, > began combing Project Chauffeur's databases in search of material that could > be used to block Uber's acquisition of Ottomotto. They eventually discovered > a small lead. According to Google, a month before Levandowski resigned, he > had plugged his work-issued laptop into a Google server and downloaded about > fourteen thousand files, including hardware schematics. He transferred the > files to an external drive and then wiped his laptop clean.

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/did-uber- steal...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/did-uber-steal- googles-intellectual-property)

</comment><comment><USER4> Let's talk about occupational hazards faced by people doing forensic investigations...

</comment><comment><USER5> Monitor in what sense?

<comment><AUTHOR> Track what is being done, productivity etc in a proactive sense, rather than reactively, as part of an investigation, for example.</comment></comment>


Network.framework: A Modern Alternative to Sockets (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2018/715/ <comment><USER2> This is really cool. The telltale sign of a modern, robust phone app is its ability to gracefully handle constantly changing network connectivity. A number of big-name apps are still not very good at this. This framework will make it much easier to offload most of that logic to a well-designed API. I wonder if Android has something like this as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> For a similar take on the problems, but with some different solutions, take a look at the UWP [StreamSocket]([https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/uwp/api/windows.networking....](https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/uwp/api/windows.networking.sockets.streamsocket)) (etc) classes.

Specifically, StreamSocket will happily go through proxies for you, will handle TLS / SSL (either at start up or after the connection is established), does IPv4 and IPv6 transparently. We also do service discovery using DNS-SD, although that's technically in a different class, as is the other network information. The SteamSocket class is designed to be very similar to the other socket-style classes like StreamWebSocket, so your code will (mostly) move from one to the other.

I've found from my own experience that the real key to a smooth network experience is the magic technology called "caring". It's easy to test if your code handles network disconnects; just run your code and yank the ethernet cable (or switch off Wi-Fi).

Source: am PM for the Network Developer Experience team at Microsoft and helped design the socket APIs.

<comment><USER4> Is the DNS-SD API in windns.h under your purview? I have some gripes with it but don't know how to provide feedback.

<comment><USER3> No, but I know the team and will happily forward the feedback to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Documentation: [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/network](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/network)

</comment><comment><USER6> Prev (2018): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17265288](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17265288)

</comment><comment><USER7> A transcript is at [https://asciiwwdc.com/2018/sessions/715](https://asciiwwdc.com/2018/sessions/715). Should we change the URL above?

Edit: never mind; you can click to get a transcript via the submitted URL. I didn't see a way to link directly to it though.

</comment><comment><USER8> Much of this actually seems a bit _more_ complicated than Berkeley sockets :\\. The async features look easier to use...

</comment><comment><USER9> MIME type not found on firefox...

<comment><USER10> Might be this [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580895#c2](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1580895#c2)

<comment><USER11> Yep. Which depends on this:

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1367105](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1367105)

which has been open for... 3 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Offtopic genuine question about self-improvement

This presenter shares a problem I find I have myself: I don't instinctively know how to make sure I'm getting enough air as I talk.

I've historically had a terrible time talking while walking (really hard), talking and standing (uncomfortable, like this guy), and standing and singing (gave up a very long time ago).

I'm usually okay, but on some days it's so bad I just don't have the oxygen and I find I'm predominantly yawns and hot air. Thing is, _I don 't know why_, so while things have improved over the years I have no idea how to shove the needle over to where it needs to be.

Insight appreciated, thanks!

<comment><USER13> There's breathing and then there's breathing.

 _Where_ are you breathing from, in your body? Are you taking small breaths just using your upper chest? Or do you breath from the diaphragm, filling the lower (and larger) parts of your lungs? Aka breath "from the belly". Lungs are sort-of bell-shaped: Image search of lungs: [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lungs&atb=v60-1&iax=images&ia=imag...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lungs&atb=v60-1&iax=images&ia=images)

If you are hunching over and/or tensing up your torso that might be your problem right there?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> can anyone tl;dr? what is this, why is it better than sockets etc

<comment><USER15> From the introduction:

Network.framework is a modern alternative to sockets.

There are three primary areas in which it's very difficult to use sockets well. The first one is Connection Establishment. There's a whole host of reasons that establishing connections can be really difficult with sockets. For starters, sockets connect to addresses, so you have to, most of the time you have a host name, so you're going to have to resolve that host name to an address. When you do that, you often end up with way more than one address. You'll have some IPv4 addresses, some IPv6 addresses, and now you've got this challenge, which address should you try and connect to, in what order? How long do you wait before you try the next one? You can spend years trying to perfect this. I know because we have.

Once you get past the dual stack host problems, you run into a whole bunch of other issues.

There are some networks that use something called Proxy Automatic Configuration or PAC.

On these networks, there's a JavaScript that you get, and you have to pass a URL into the JavaScript, and the JavaScript runs and spits out an answer that says either you can go direct or you have to use this SOCKS proxy over here or that HTTP connect proxy over there.

And now your app has to support SOCKS proxies and HTTP connect proxies, and this can be really difficult to do well. And the most difficult thing is that you may not have one of these networks to test on, so you may get a bug report from one of your customers, and they may complain that it's not working well on their environment.

And you may want to add code to fix the problem, but that once you've got it in there, you really don't have a good way to test it. You have to end up building the whole environment to reproduce the same environment they have. It can be a real challenge. So connecting with sockets is really hard. The second thing that becomes challenges with sockets is data transfers. There's a lot of reasons that transferring data with sockets can be really difficult. The primary problem is the read and write model itself. If you're using blocking sockets, it pretty simple, but you're tying up a thread, and it's really not a great idea to be tying up a thread while you're waiting to read or write data. You can switch to nonblocking, but then you end up with a whole lot of other challenges that you run into.

When you're using nonblocking, you may tell the kernel I'd like 100 bytes, and the kernel will come back and say, I've got 10 bytes for you, why don't you come back later.

And now you have to build a state machine to keep track of how many bytes you read versus how many bytes you want to read. This can be a lot of work, and getting it to perform well can be a real challenge. On top of all of that, you really shouldn't be reading and writing to sockets directly because you should be using something like transport layer security or TLS. Sockets don't support TLS, so you're probably using some other library that is handling TLS for you and reading and writing to the sockets on your behalf, or you're writing the glue code between that library and sockets, and you have to figure out how to get all this to work with all the crazy connection logic that you put in ahead of time. There's a lot here that can be really difficult. Finally, mobility can be really challenges with sockets for a variety of reasons.

Today, we have these incredibly powerful devices in our pocket with multiple radios that may be on at the same time, and some of them are moving from network to network, and your application has to handle all these transitions well to provide a seamless experience to your customers. Sockets does nothing to help you with this.

You can use routing sockets, but it's really, really difficult. We think a transport API should do better. Fortunately, on our platform as an application developer you have a great API in URLSession. URLSession handles all of these problems for you.

It's really focused on HTTP, but it also has stream task that gives you raw access to TCP and TLS connections. You might think that URLSession is built on the same primitives that you would use yourself. But it turns out that's not the case. URLSession is built on top of something we call Network.framework. URLSession really focuses on all of the HTTP bits, and it offloads a lot of the transport functionality to Network.framework.

Network.framework is something we've been working on for a number of years, and in supporting URLSession, we've learned a lot, and we've taken a lot of those lessons to the IETF. A number of our engineers regularly participate in the IETF and meet with engineers from other companies, and they've been discussing a lot of what we've learned in the transport services working group.

And in those discussions, we've got some great feedback, and we've brought that back in and improved Network.framework based on that. We are really excited to announce this year that your applications can take advantage of this same library directly now. Now we know that one of the things people love about sockets is that it gives them very fine-grain control over just about everything, and they're really loathe to give that up. So as we developed Network.framework, we wanted to make sure that it did the right thing by default in the way that sockets doesn't, but it gave you all the knobs that sockets does. And it's kind of got this gradient, so the more knobs you turn, the more complex it becomes.

It gives you all the power you need, but you don't have to pay for the complexity unless you actually need some of it. Network.framework has incredibly smart connection establishment.

It handles the dual stack cases. It handles IPv6 only networks. It handles PAC. It handles proxies. It will help you connect on networks that are otherwise very difficult to deal with. It has an incredibly optimized data transfer path that lets you go way beyond the performance of anything you can do with sockets, and Tommy will cover that in a little bit. It has support for built-in security. It supports TLS and DTLS by default. It's really simple to use.

It has great support for mobility. It provides notifications about network changes that are relevant to the connections that your application is establishing. It's available on iOS, macOS, and tvOS as a CAPI with automatic reference counting, so it's easy to use from Objective C, and it has an incredible Swift API.

<comment><USER16> The dual stack thing is fixed with getaddrinfo. You're probably speaking a protocol, I personally like to use regular languages with a reset byte (or octet or whatever.) at the beginning of every message. Since the data just goes into a state machine you can feed it partial messages and it will reconstruct them. This takes very little code, very little thought (just use Kleene's algorithm) is _extremely_ portable (unlike this which is exclusively apple) and very easy to mock and test.

Yes that still doesn't take care of SOCKS but that (IMO) is heading into the "give the user an option to connect using pipes and netcat" territory (and that's probably the best way to fix it.)

<comment><USER17> It's always hilarious to read the ever-puzzling reply that you see here, which is basically "Why don't you just manually re-build this design into every single application you've ever written, repeating yourself and scope for bugs 50x over, while I also ignore all other possible design constraints", and it never ceases to amaze me. The idea that a better abstraction for a component could exist or should be explored is strictly verboten.

<comment><USER16> Abstraction is great but this one locks your app into a single platform (and not only that, one that you often have to pay for the privilege of developing for.)

Furthermore what I said really isn't difficult, I recently wrote a protocol that way in two languages (C for an MCU and python for Windows) in a week, and as far as I can tell neither program has any serious bugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> An API like this sorely needs async/await.

<comment><USER19> What kind, specifically?

async/await in C# is a flaming tire fire of hot garbage, it's more a virus than a help.

And why isn't an event driven API preferable?

<comment><USER20> Care to elaborate? I've been happily using async/await in C# without realizing how bad it is. It seems great, but maybe I don't just know enough. What should I know?

<comment><USER21> They're probably referring to the warning in VS that async methods should be called from other async methods and aren't a wait able otherwise, which causes async to propagate outward. This is imho not a big deal because you can decide at any point up the chain to make something synchronous by using .Result or .Wait() instead of awaiting it. It still makes everything downstream async. It's a misunderstanding of the await keyword mostly. Await is essentially a yield you can place in a method that's marked async but it's not required for other called methods to have async/await patterns. Ultimately though the better way is to just make everything you can async.

<comment><USER19> There's terrible dangers that await one who casually throws .Result or .Wait() into an existing ASP.NET application.

The intersection between synchronous and asynchronous code is the ugliest.

The most dangerous is how deadlocks can arise because of the execution context of a running application vs the execution context of your unit tests.

If you're already in .NET Core, you're probably fine.

For more, try [https://devblogs.microsoft.com/pfxteam/should-i-expose- synch...](https://devblogs.microsoft.com/pfxteam/should-i-expose-synchronous- wrappers-for-asynchronous-methods/) or any of Stephen Cleary's blog posts [https://blog.stephencleary.com/2012/07/dont-block-on- async-c...](https://blog.stephencleary.com/2012/07/dont-block-on-async- code.html)

<comment><USER22> > If you're already in .NET Core, you're probably fine.

Note it's not quite that simple. It's true that ASP.Net Core uses the default synchronization context, and thus will not generally deadlock if a thread `await`s a `Task` that was started on the same thread (Because it can get resumed on a different one), but that doesn't mean there are no problems with this approach. An ASP.Net Core app is not going to start up as many threads as a ASP.Net one by default, and will do so much slower (And I believe there is also a lower limit on the max number of threads, though I'm not 100% sure. The article you linked says it was 25 for 1.0, but I'm not sure about the limit for 2.X or 3.X versions). Point being, if you're blocking threads by waiting on other tasks, it is still possible you encounter deadlocks or big performance drops because there are no threads currently available to run the task (And none are getting spun up to handle it).

ASP.Net Core is somewhat "worse" in this regard because of what I put above - Even if you're not hitting the deadlocks you would get in ASP.Net, if you have a lot of blocking actions that you haven't converted to be `async` then you're going to potentially hit bad performance issues due to the fact that the starting thread-pool is much smaller, resulting in a lot less requests getting processed (Because a completely `async` pipeline shouldn't require a large thread-pool to process). _And_ , if for some reason the thread pool is exhausted and no new threads are getting created, you can still get deadlocked like before. If you're going to ASP.Net Core, you should really make your pipeline completely `async` to avoid running into issues.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why do you use Python? - <AUTHOR> Projects, web development, scraping, data analysis, etc... <comment><USER2> For data analysis, especially preliminary analysis, the existing ML and scidata packages make it trivial.

</comment><comment><USER3> lower volume micro services, csv generation, low volume web APIs, and just about everything that is not performance critical, mostly because of the ease of programming and you can find a library for just about anything.</comment>


Post-quantum confidentiality for TLS - <AUTHOR> https://www.imperialviolet.org/2018/04/11/pqconftls.html <comment><USER2> I could be reading this wrong but in the article it seems like SI has the advantage of key size and SL has the advantage of performance. I understand the sentiment of subtle bugs in elliptic-curve implementations and the new field of Supersingular-Isogenies, but in general algorithms are optimized and improved, but key sizes don't change too much.

If that's the case, why go with SL over SI?

<comment><USER3> If I am reading this correctly, there is one SI submission, SIKE. Microsoft is intimately involved, although it appears that Amazon, Texas Instruments, and Infosec have made major contributions.

[https://github.com/Microsoft/PQCrypto- SIKE](https://github.com/Microsoft/PQCrypto-SIKE)

<comment><USER4> A bunch of work on making Supersingular Isogeny DH (what SIKE is based on) viable was done at Microsoft Research.</comment></comment></comment>


Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924) - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Why_I_Never_Hire_Brilliant_Men <comment><USER2> Working at a startup helmed by a "brilliant" man as mentioned in the article, I wholeheartedly agree. So much hand waving. So little execution. One month, we were doing one thing that "had to be in the app". Another month, something else. Neither would get the actual attention that needed for them to be implemented properly, and nothing of value was produced.

Society places too much importance on the buds of ideas. True, an idea can change the world. But what gets lost in the shuffle is the fact that what truly matters is in those ideas being executed and turned into something tangible.

The charismatic idea men are a dime a dozen. I'm sure everyone here has worked with some hand-waving, smooth talking salesman who wows investors, then fail hard at meeting promises. It's those who can execute that are truly transformative.

<comment><USER3> This is exactly what I took away from the article.

Execution matters.

<comment><USER4> So does the idea.

It's almost like they both have to be in tandem or something.

<comment><USER2> The any idea will only matter if it is executed upon well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's sad how this sounds so plausible and valid... because even today, we are _incredibly bad_ at managing (or making use of or integrating into a team...) brilliant people and we fail to make use of them and _we let them fail_ because we can only figure out how to make reliable profit by using readily available mediocrity.

We should instead learn to recognize human diversity and accept that besides the "well rounded hard worker" that needs to make up at least 50% of any team, we also need to find ways of making use and helping thrive:

\- the always starters: the guys that always start new things and have new ideas (that actually work!) but maybe never finish anything -- maybe we should stop pressing them to finish, just rotate them from one department to another and then let the rest work to bring his works to completion

\- the motivation dynamites: the people whose minds go up in fire and also set fire to the minds of people around them -- maybe we should use them by rotating them to projects that lack motivation, or use them to launch viral social media campaigns or something

\- the distracted geniuses: the thing with the "distracted genius" is that if you teach him how to "focus", he become way more productive but stops being a genius, and you then have another a-little-above-average-chap -- maybe we should use the "ideas volcanos" as a competitive advantage and stop telling them to focus, like encourage them to publish their ideas that cannot be implemented online on a company blog - yeah, the competition will steal some of them, but your company will become uber-attractive and everyone will want to work for "a company from which so many uber-cool ideas come from"

...and then there's the generalization that most of these types of brilliant people are essentially _not team players_ \-- they shouldn't be forced to work as part of one team or stick to a team: maybe a corporate environment may just perpetually rotate them from one team/project to another, not even bothering to let them finish what they are doing; maybe a startup should stop trying to get them on-board and just keep them as well paid consultants (and allow them to consult for even a dozen other companies at the same time to keep their minds busy).

...and maybe all the ideas above are wrong, but the point is that _we are incredibly bad at making use of brilliant people in business context and focusing on "just use hard working average joes" instead is an avoidance of the problem, not a solution!_

<comment><USER6> A lot of people want to be "the idea guy", because it's cool and relatively easy. The problem is that ideas are cheap.

The value of any given idea is really low - I would argue that for many organisations ideas even have a negative value on average, because you are going to spend a lot of time dealing with the idea without it actually becoming something that generate value in the end.

Even if you have an idea, that works, and that will generate significant value if realised, until that idea IS realised, it is a negative cost.

People who can generate a large amount of those ideas are a commodity.

People who can cheaply identify an idea that can be realised and that have access to resources to realise it, and that can go through the process of actually realising the idea are not a commodity.

The bottle neck for putting new ideas to market is not the idea generation, and so the people who consider themselves "always starters" is not a scarce resource, hence I dont need to rotate them from department to department - every department I have already have access to more than enough good ideas, so adding the "always starter" to that department would be a negative cost.

<comment><USER7> _The value of any given idea is really low_

I would agree if you mean _average_ idea. Really great ideas are rare, difficult, and can change the world. The people who come up with those are rather special.

And, unfortunately, rare, and almost never (in my somewhat limited experience) think of themselves as 'idea guys.'

But this hivemind (nicely crurated by VCs- think that through) that ideas are worthless is very wrong. Unfortunately, discussions about it tend to start conflating ideas and execution- as, indeed, it is hard to separate them when you get down to it.

<comment><USER8> Really great ideas also have low value. Even the most brilliant idea will have been had by countless people before it is known to the world.

The truly rare, difficult and world-changing is the realization (production, enactment, what have you) of a really great idea, and the luck of that realization occurring in the right context.

<comment><USER9> >Even the most brilliant idea will have been had by countless people

It wasn't very brilliant then, was it?

<comment><USER10> Most ideas aren't that brilliant. If it occurred to you, it likely occurred to somebody else. Ideas are a product of your environment. While we pretend to be unique a lot of what we do is pretty common to dozens, if not hundreds, or thousands of people.

Even ideas as earth shaking and complex as Infinitesimal Calculus and Quantum Mechanics were developed in parallel initial by people with little to no communication between each other.

<comment><USER9> That's the point, isn't it? _Truly_ good ideas are rare.

<comment> a-priori We're treading dangerously close to "no true Scotsman" territory here.

<comment><USER11> Only in that _some_ intrinsically good ideas are fairly obvious. Others are not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Alternately, this is the story of a man who hired based on word of mouth, then when that didn't work out, learned the wrong lesson.

<comment><USER13> Indeed, he's definitely talking about SALES people, who use their sales tactics to sell him on themselves. Definitely not talking about "book smarts" brilliance. The author probably intentionally mistitled the story for attention.

That said, there's a good lesson - if you hire sales people, their most attractive target will always be selling themselves to the guy who's writing their paycheck. It will not automatically be the actual customers or whatever you think their incentives are "supposed" to be.

<comment><USER12> The weird thing is, why didn't he hire this person in a way that posed less risk to his business? Why is he handing over a gigantic check worth 140,000 of today's dollars? Isn't this person crazy, or at least a terrible businessman? Yet here we all are, listening to his advice. The longer I think about this the more I dislike it.

<comment><USER14> Um, he's using this whole episode as an example of what _not_ to do, not what _to_ do. He says right out that hiring that person that way was a mistake. The whole point of the article is to help people avoid the mistakes the author made. How many articles that get to HN's front page are basically the same thing?

<comment><USER12> Right, but I'm saying it's the wrong counterexample.

This is "I got fucked up and crashed my Ford into a tree, so I'm never buying a Ford again."

<comment><USER15> I mean,

If I repeatedly get fucked up and crash Fords over the course of my life while having much better luck with other cars, I might start looking for a causal relationship.

<comment><USER14> Exactly: that's what the author of the piece is doing. He's had bad luck with a certain type of person while having much better luck with other types of people, and he's analyzing the reasons for that.

<comment><USER16> Sounds like a rationalization for a gap in management capabilities. Much easier to find fault in tall people or people that talk fast.

An insightful business owner will review their own psychology first and ask others for their impression in a way that doesn't reveal their bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As mathattack has correctly pointed out in a comment an hour ago, this is a parable (a made-up story). The huge salary by that day's standards should make that clear. But the unnamed author makes his hiring methods look stupid, because he should be doing a work-sample test[1] before hiring for such an expensive contract. If he doesn't know what the worker will actually do, he shouldn't put so much money on the line.

[1] My FAQ on company hiring procedures as posted earlier on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5227923](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5227923)

I'm now doing research to update that FAQ for posting on my personal website, a suggestion other HN readers kindly gave me.

<comment><USER18> When was the last time a CEO was (ever) given a work sample test?

Serious Question.

<comment><USER19> Does his or her previous company count as a work sample test?

<comment><USER20> Does previous work experience count as a work sample test for a programmer? That's not what work sample test means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It appears that men labeled as genius were simply men of high charisma capable of convincing and inspiring others.

<comment><USER22> And since those qualities are so out of reach for techies they're looked down on.

<comment><USER23> I think everyone should be highly suspicious of charisma. Charisma is a skill, not a trait, and it's developed by spending a lifetime practicing on people that one thinks are largely beneath one's self.

<comment><USER24> That's a pretty cynical point of view. I've met plenty of charismatic people who wouldn't think they're spending "a lifetime practicing on people that one thinks are largely beneath one's self". And then I've meant charismatic people who are full of themselves as well. Charisma and egotism don't go hand in hand ...

<comment><USER23> Don't confuse charisma with extroversion. Being an open, warm, inviting person is not the defining characteristic of those who others readily identify as "charismatic" rather than a "really nice guy". Charisma is first and foremost about impressing others with your charm, intelligence, wit, etc. The skilled ones hide their contempt and egotism well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> tl;dr: look for integrity.

some of the most brilliant hackers i know are rightfully afraid of going into business with the kind of "brilliant men" described in this article.

just as non-technical founders benefit from learning to code for a myriad of reasons, hackers should do careful due diligence on a potential business partner. ask questions. require them to invest in the relationship. blow away the smoke and mirrors if you see their evidence, until you see that person in a humble light.

most of the time, this kind of salesperson is masking deep personality flaws which you can actually live with in exchange for the benefits, on one condition: the existence of abiding integrity.

so many of these relationships are predatory but they don't have to be if you find ways to get them to show you their character. see how they treat their friends. travel with them. build something together.

something a friend taught me is "H.A.L.T." = hungry, angry, lonely, tired. 1) don't make decisions when you're in any of these states; 2) it applies to choosing a business partner but here, you WANT to see them this way. you can learn a lot about a person when their basic needs are momentarily threatened, including how they treat you and others. so don't be dazzled, find them in a humble light because that's where a person's character is revealed.

the ones you want are comfortable with their humility.

<comment><USER26> I like the acronym!

I think HALT is also useful for introspection. Sometimes you are forced to function and make decisions in this state and you can learn a lot about yourself when this happens.

You can do this through work but it is probably better outside of that, through some sort of pastime that you can make difficult. Mountains, climbing and cycling are what I think of but there are many ways to induce HALT.

Intentionally push yourself out of your comfort zone every now and then and you learn a lot about your personal limits and your character. _If you can 't get on with yourself in a HALT state then how is anyone else going to?_

Stress the organism and it grows.

<comment><USER25> right. the best long-term relationships have gone through stages of HALT, which is nothing more than exposing one's vulnerability.

that's where a person's character resides. and people who manage to be honest, and generous and courageous in those moments, are the ones to surround yourself with. experience character-building through HALT, in spite of it, and you're on your way to being a better man or woman, i suspect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I love the fact that the author makes his points without ever putting down the men he talks about or sounding cynical. That make me take him more seriously than I otherwise would.

</comment><comment><USER28> "The continual use of slang expressions is an evidence of mental laziness, and I will not hire a man who depends upon slang to express his meaning. It is a substitute for exact thinking."

I found this to be an unusual warning. Is "proper speech" really just a proxy for class in that time period? I'm now very curious about 1920s slang, especially its frequency of use in business settings.

<comment><USER27> Compare the comments on this site with the ones you see on reddit, where a sarcastic one-liner or a good meme reference can get thousands of upvotes. From my experience of actually writing comments on reddit that have gotten thousands of points - the less thought you put into them the better they'll do. The same is not true on HN where long and well thought out comments do better, and one-liners often get moderated. In my opinion, HN comments are much more valuable as a whole because of that.

<comment><USER29> I must be in the lower echelons of this secret HN club, because I cannot see the score on any comment. I thought it was the general and public absences of meaningless internet points that kept the comment system of HN in check.

<comment><USER30> You can't see the score on other people's comments, but if you click your username at the top you can see the scores for your own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Good writing and ok advice for someone who wants to run a grocery business. But it is absolutely untrue that "brilliant" men cannot also be careful, detail-oriented and have good business sense and skills. And certainly innovation and risk taking can be just as critical in business as following proven formulas and paying close attention to the bottom line. It depends on the business and circumstance. Overall I think in the context of high technology, the article is dated.

<comment><USER32> His use of "brilliant" has little to do with IQ. It's a conflation of (a) creativity (which correlates, as he observes, with manic-depressive patterns and unreasonable expectations of others) and (b) superficial charisma (which correlates with narcissism and substance abuse). Those are two types of "flashiness" that he makes the mistake of conflating.

I'm category (a): creative, prone to mood swings, basically reliable but bad at the _superficial_ reliability contests that determine advancement in most organizations. Yes, someone like me _can_ be detail-oriented and show business acumen. We can be reliable. We're just not as competitive at being reliable (especially in the superficial ways, which are important in customer service) as others. If you need +3 sigma reliability-- someone who can work 100-hour weeks and not miss details or break rules or even become annoying-- you don't want +3 sigma creativity.

<comment><USER33> Does "+3 sigma creativity" actually mean anything?

(I'm aware enough of the rough technical definition, I mean in the sense that if you think there are 500,000 super special people in the U.S. can you do anything useful to find them?)

<comment><USER32> I was just using it ("+3 sigma") to mean "high-level" creativity and could have just as easily said "99.9th percentile" or some other number. No, I don't know of a good way to test for it.

My point is that there's a strong negative correlation, especially at the competitive upper reaches, between creativity and the sort os superficial reliability that (a) tends to determine a person's ability to advance in organizations, and (b) you'd probably want in someone you put in front of difficult clients on a regular basis.

<comment><USER33> Is this correlation just something you believe based on personal experience, or do you have some more substantial basis?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> "Brilliant" is so broad. Some people are brilliant in a particular subject; some are brilliant in the breadth of their knowledge; some of brilliant socially; some are brilliant analytically; etc.

I like the author's anecdotes and agree with some conclusions because I've run into people with the same personality traits. (We all probably have.) But Newton was both brilliant and stubborn as was Einstein. They didn't understand something in the physical world so they continued thinking about it until they were satisfied.

Human organizations need a balance of brilliance and plodders. I'd say they need many fewer brilliant people because it takes a large number of plodders to bring their ideas to fulfillment. But the brilliant people are looking to the future while the plodders are dealing with today.

</comment><comment><USER35> What if you aren't a finisher? How can you become one?

<comment><USER36> Start finishing things. It sounds trite but it's true. Some of the best advice I've ever been given is: the way you do anything is the way you do everything. So, finish the smallest tasks consistently and that will carry over to the bigger tasks.

<comment><USER37> I really need to work at this. I definitely have always fit the "genius but doesn't finish things" description. I've been working at this hard for 8 years because it really has negatively affected my life. I'm making some progress but it's really slow and if I slack off even a little I tend to lose everything.

It's hard.

<comment><USER38> The old expression "don't bite more than you can chew" epitomizes this. Don't start what you can't finish. It's in deciding what to start and what not to start that you'll make progress.

Read "The Effective Executive" by Peter Drucker, which addresses this in greater detail.

<comment><USER37> Thanks. I really need to either clear more stuff off my plate or sort out my work situation where I don't have post-workday burnout. Between my job, family commitments and working on my vehicle, I have trouble finding time to start anything now. I get a tremendous amount done when I'm not working.

I either have to settle with how things are now or change the work situation I think. I'll look into that book anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> A corollary to this principle is to respect risk. If you never take on volatility that can ruin you, you will grow slow but steadily.

Conversely, if you accept excessive volatility by taking big bets, you can end up broke even if your expected value was positive.

Rule #1 according to Buffett: Never lose money. Rule #2: Don't forget Rule #1.

I learned this the hard way. Maybe I was brilliant.

<comment> FLUX-YOU Man, if only algorithms were that easy.

>Rule #1: O(1). Rule #2: You don't need anything else

Or maybe Buffet just meant don't misplace your money, as in losing a $20 out of your wallet and finding it in your dryer after the laundry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> For anyone struck by the modern relevancy of this piece I suggest you check out Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis. It's also from the 1920s and the American culture that it describes (and critiques) is very similar to today.

</comment><comment><USER41> If you want to run a solid, reliable, mediocre business hire solid, reliable, mediocre workers.

<comment> guard-of-terra This works well running a grocery chain, but not so well designing the new iPhone.

You'll end up with Windows Mobile.

<comment><USER41> True but only one company makes the new iPhone, many companies design enterprise software that need a simple workflow and a solid working database with reliable uptime.

<comment> guard-of-terra And we know nothign about those companies because they're not on HN.

We suspect that they probably have restrictive workplace policies, helpdesk in India and office politics. Those things OP won't like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> If you include Sir Isaac Newton in a case against employing geniuses, your case is pretty thin.

<comment><USER14> Why? From all I have read about Newton, he would have been the employee from hell. A genius as a mathematician and physicist, yes; but a terrible employee.

<comment><USER43> He became Warden of the Royal Mint and became rather passionate about his new role - even to the extent of working as an undercover agent and personally leading the prosecution of "coiners" in court.

[NB For a fictionalized, but hugely entertaining, account of the relevant time in history I can recommend Neal Stephenson's wonderful "Baroque Cycle" \- Newton is a major character.]

<comment><USER44> For a non-fiction account, "Newton and the Counterfeiter", by Tom Levenson.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I come from a HIGH IQ family. My father's IQ is unmeasurable but guesses are between 190-210 my move is over 165 and 3 of my sisters are in MENSA. I graduated Valedictorian in High School and College. I have been the "Jack of All Trades" and can study something and be proficient with it. Did some locally well known good deeds. From my 30+ years of work force experience I have decided that I wish I had an average IQ and that I got a B+ average.

My Conclusion: Perceived Intelligence is a curse. I try to hide my academic accomplishments and cringe when someone says I have some above average brain. Can't tell you how many times I hear, "The best _____ isn't necessarily the straight A student." "We don't higher straight A students."

People with a higher capacity intellectually can take in more information and see more moves ahead. That way there is a different perception on solution and it causes frustration for everyone.

<comment><USER46> I think you're right. There are two forces at work: innate ability and social acceptability. Innate ability tends to harm social acceptability. Therefore, to the extent that social acceptability determines a person's overall ability to succeed, high innate ability can actually pose a greater net detriment to success than a lower innate ability does. In a word, being "smart" or even "skillful" may in some cases make you less successful. The optimum, as you point out, is to have high innate ability but to disguise it in order to reduce the social downside. The trouble with this is that it's harder to disguise than it might seem: people tend to "sense" the intelligence of other people. You don't laugh at the right times. You tell jokes that no one gets. You think the big ra-ra push is crazy and you can't help saying so. The path that you find obviously correct is the one everyone else finds silly.

I'm convinced that the real solution, to the extent it's possible, is for highly intelligent people to find their way into positions that don't require social acceptance. Academics is obviously one destination (one log-jam, rather) for these types. But by all means avoid management, because that's where the attractiveness of your brilliance to employers and the unacceptability of your brilliance to your reports become a trap.

<comment><USER47> I think it's important to recognize that not all innate abilities are created equally. Innate intelligence will make you a social pariah but innate ability in a physical skill that results in you being an amazing basketball player will make you Michael Jordan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I appreciate the author's intentions, but I think the best outcomes happen when you hire brilliant men (and women) and manage them well.

In the case of the sales executive, it sounds like the author allowed his team to basically say "good luck doing this yourself, don't expect help from us." And he allowed the guy to move into an ivory tower far away from where things were happening.

If you decide you're moving in a certain direction, you need to make clear to the team, if necessary, that digging in their heels is not a response you're going to tolerate. Some people will probably have to move on.

I'm not surprised the article is anonymous. The owner sounds like a problem to me, as much as the "brilliant" sales executive. He's good at making a mediocre business, and his comfort zone is there. Trying to shake that up is a losing game for anyone, brilliant or otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER49> Very dated perceptions. We know now, for example, that those who stammer and struggle for words often simply possess brains that are more full of information, rather than possessing less efficient or organized ones.

In a knowledge economy built on creativity, I'll take Different Thinkers over Cogs of Constancy any day.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, but you probably want a mix for your team.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> He bends the meaning of words like 'brilliant' a bit and clearly lives in a time where there are no such thing as protected classes (e.g. medical) but there's a lot of value in remembering that most people develop wealth by managing risk, knowing our limits, and finishing what we start.

<comment><USER51> Given that it's 90 years old I suspect there's some connotation at play here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> "But if you blunder for words, punctuate incorrectly, spell incorrectly, and express yourself clumsily, I'm sure to believe you mind is cluttered and ill- disciplined."

My mind is cluttered and I rely on spelling correction. Hard to say if I would get the position.

<comment><USER12> Ah yes, the school of thought that supposes the ability to distinguish between "your" and "you're" is the essence of intelligence.

<comment><USER14> That's not what the author is saying. He's saying that if you are either unable or unwilling to correctly use "your" and "you're", you are probably unable or unwilling to pay attention to the details that matter to success in his business. I agree that there's a fine line between proper attention to detail and nitpicking, but taking the author's statement in context I don't think he's on the wrong side of it.

<comment><USER12> It makes sense, but that's the danger of it in my opinion.

If you think this way, it's worth going back and examining the writings of people you admired. You might be surprised! Or not.

<comment><USER14> It depends on why I admired the people. If I admired them for their success in business, then yes, I would expect their writing to show attention to details like spelling. But if I admired them for something else, I wouldn't necessarily expect that. I'm certainly not saying that anyone who is worth admiring has to spell correctly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> What if John Carmack is an average programmer, and the rest of us are just lazy in comparison.

<comment><USER54> Carmack is actually a hard worker and writes code. Too often in the tech industry you bump into people who are "architects" and "strategists" and not hands on at all, or what this article may refer to as a "genius".

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> that was fascinating. reminded me a bit of the protagonist in grossmith's "diary of a nobody", but without the petulant self-absorption masquerading as modesty. the author has genuinely sat down and thought long and deeply about who he is, what his strengths and limitations are, and how he can best work with other people, and he's a great writer to boot.

</comment><comment><USER56> Such a shame there is no author listed for that - it would be interesting to hear what happened to him in life.

</comment><comment><USER57> The modern business world is full of people like the author.

People who are asleep. People who are not actually alive. People who are threatened by those who think.

These people hate the thinker, but their dreary little lives rest directly on the foundation that the thinkers provide. For example, the radical who first looked at fire and thought, "hey, maybe I could use that".... now THAT GUY was a visionary who puts Musk to shame.

Really this type of people are just machines. And they will be the ones machines are easily able to replace.

<comment><USER57> That being said... his business advice on who to hire is probably very apt.

A predictable machine is more useful to you than an unpredictable human.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I think there's decent advice here for CERTAIN TYPES OF BUSINESSES. But this is not universal good advice for all businesses.

The business in question, in this story, is a grocery store. It's a business with lots of competition and little innovation, where you're selling exclusively to customers who live very close to you. Furthermore, the fictional business owner isn't interested in taking the risks needed to build a massive chain, he's looking to grow slowly and make small, steady profits. For this business, there's no need for brilliance or big risks, you just need hard workers who are going to execute decently day in, day out.

A tech startup (the interest of most people on HN) is pretty much the complete opposite situation. You need brilliant programmers to build an excellent product. If you're B2C, you need those excellent salespeople who are going to dream big and go after massive deals. If you're B2B, you need great growth hackers/biz dev/marketers who can creatively get your product in front of massive numbers of people for minimal cost. When you're trying to grow from nothing to ginormous in 3-5 years, you simply can't do it with the slow grinding approach, the only way is with risk and brilliance. That doesn't mean there won't be grinding, repetitive tasks along the way, there will be TONNES, and you need people who will execute on them (not the pure "idea guys" with zero ability to execute, who I agree are of little use), but you also need to be dreaming big and taking big risks. Always going after small wins just doesn't work for tech startups, you need to regularly go after the big wins.

</comment><comment><USER59> "But the point I have in mind is this: Business and life are built upon successful mediocrity; and victory comes to companies, not through the employment of brilliant men, but through knowing how to get the most out of ordinary folks."

At a high level, I believe that's the essence of the story (whether is real or made-up).

Today, in a globalized world economy with saturated markets, we are lured into thinking that "the great next thing" will be a product of "brilliance". I think this is a good reminder that it's not. That in fact, on average, sustainable success is a product of a life's work and dedication to a purpose. That in fact, the Jobs, the Zuckerbergs and the Gates of the world are merely outliers and that we should look beyond the expectation of immediate and flamboyant returns.

</comment><comment><USER60> > You have lived twenty-five or thirty years without making a profit on your > life; how can I expect that you will be a profit-maker for me?

Well, imagine that I have all your noble qualities, but I just couldn't get the $20,000 that was paid out to you in your sophomore year.

</comment><comment><USER61> > But if you blunder for words, punctuate incorrectly, spell incorrectly, and > express yourself clumsily, I'm sure to believe you mind is cluttered and > ill-disciplined.

I write and speak pretty well, but am still ill-disciplined as anything.

> You conceive a big idea, get the whole organization on tiptoes to carry it > out, and then you lose interest and go off on a new tangent.

Now that's me.

> You are always living, in imagination, about six jumps ahead.

Now that's definitely me.

> Their active minds can always see two sides to every question; and they > stand still while the debate goes on inside.

Now that's definitely me.

> Does he finish what he starts? Geniuses almost never do.

Good news, I am a genius.

Moral: In an ideal world I will never get hired or get success in business. Hell I am doomed for sure.

</comment><comment><USER62> > My experience is that it pays to buy the best; and what applies to things > applies equally to men.

This is true, but price is a poor indicator of how good something is. You need to understand the product or man, before you can judge which is the best.

</comment><comment><USER63> Jealousy is a natural human emotion. It is notable how many stories bashing smart people (not for being smart per se, of course, but for lacking other important qualities) come up on HN. That, and how unfair the interview process is.

</comment><comment><USER64> "That criticism may be justifiable, for I am mediocre. But the point I have in mind is this: Business and life are built upon successful mediocrity; and victory comes to companies, not through the employment of brilliant men, but through knowing how to get the most out of ordinary folks."

The point of the article. Is this still true? I imagine you do need exceptional people to be able to hit the high notes (10x programmers and all that jazz).

Or am I interpreting this wrong, since the way he's using the word "brilliant" is a bit sarcastic, or at least archaic?

</comment><comment><USER65> Most striking to me is how impossible such a direct conversation would be in this day and age. In a similar situation the manager would be pretty worried about HR/litigation possibilities.

</comment><comment><USER66> Two points:

First, the OP claimed

"Does he finish what he starts? Geniuses almost never do."

but gave no evidence.

Second, on _finishing_ , we can consider I. Newton, W. Mozart, C. Darwin ('Origin of the Species'), R. Wagner (operas, especially 'The Ring'), J. Maxwell (E&M), A. Einstein (general relativity), J. Oppenheimer (A-bomb), S. Ulam (H-bomb), J. Salk (polio vaccine), D. Henderson (Smallpox eradication), J. Heifetz (violin), W. Gates (Microsoft), A. Wiles (Fermat's last theorem), J. Bezos (Amazon).

</comment><comment><USER67> These two are good points:

1\. "There are just two grades of commodities in the world: the best -- and the others."

2\. "...whether he can talk and write effectively... If you write and speak neatly and accurately, it is because your thinking is orderly; if your expression is forceful, the thought back of it must be forceful. But if you blunder for words, punctuate incorrectly, spell incorrectly, and express yourself clumsily, I'm sure to believe you mind is cluttered and ill- disciplined."

</comment><comment><USER68> This story is a cheap attempt to make people with an inferiority complex feel good. There is nothing great about mediocrity. Someone who fails to deliver on their work is not brilliant, appearances to the contrary. But at the top of the world are brilliant people who have delivered, and no amount of self- congratulation for stolid mediocrity can change that.

</comment><comment><USER69> Nowadays these same people would be the characters of a 'Why I never hire Marketing people to run a Tech company' article.

</comment><comment><USER70> The problem with the shoe buying story is that a lot of crap is sold as 'the best' and it can be very hard to tell the truth. Shoes are a great example. I used to buy Brasher walking shoes. They were great, but then they sold out and the shoes are now an inferior quality whilst the marketing is the same and the price if anything has gone up.

</comment><comment><USER71> I like this article.

Something to remember, is you can never finish more things then you start by definition.

I would not like to hire someone who always finished everything regardless of how mistaken they were when they started.

We will we all finish fewer things then we start. By itself it't not that useful of a metric.

</comment><comment><USER72> > victory comes to companies, not through the employment of brilliant men, but > through knowing how to get the most out of ordinary folks.

Definitely my favourite stance. Does that mean Go will succeed, while Rust want? In absolute terms of money, not outstanding iceberg projects??

</comment><comment><USER73> I've seen plenty of stupidly expensive shoes that are only expensive to trick people out of their money, not because they last for a long time. You need a way to judge other than "try it out for x years until it fails".

</comment><comment><USER74> It doesn't seem fair to generalize everyone who is supposedly amazing at what they do as being poor workers. Seems like circumstantial evidence that might almost never be the case. Who really knows based on 1 person.

<comment><USER14> There's more than one example given in the article of a "brilliant" person who failed as a businessman. The author's opinion appears to be a considered one, based on multiple experiences, not a snap judgment based on one unfortunate episode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Every time I see this, I enjoy reading it. It is a good reminder.

</comment><comment><USER76> Beware of following ancient advice—or you may get ancient practices.

"God Almighty, in fashioning his most useful men, often works slowly with quite common stuff. Now and then He turns out a quick job of superfine materials -- a genius who really delivers the goods. But most of His better grade line is ordinary in everything except the extra effort, and dogged determination, which have given it a finer texture and finish."

This tells me of a belief in the innate quality of man, of some who are simply born better than others. Surely only half the story. We know better today.

<comment><USER77> But I think the arguments are sound and clear-cut nonetheless. I believe the inadequacy of the argument to modern employment rests rather on importance of the set of skills that he willingly neglected: a more significant portion of jobs those days are very intensive on creativity and reliant on risky behavior associated with the former.

With a sound internal structure this risk can be controlled and isolated within organizations to get good results -- e.g. spawning research labs, creating "distributed labs" like Google, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> From the magazine of things that totally happened

</comment><comment><USER79> Don't know if this is true story or not. I think the author is trying to cover his incompetence as a hiring manager.

</comment><comment><USER80> I should say that this is interesting chiefly as an example of magazine writing of its time.

</comment><comment><USER81> Anybody else thinks that the 'Adams' character is the typical bipolar ?

</comment><comment><USER82> Such good writing somewhat undermines the author's argument about genius.

</comment><comment><USER83> This is mostly a testament to chose an industry you are suited for.

</comment><comment><USER84> I wonder if OP's firm collapsed in the Great Depression.

</comment><comment><USER85> Well, I'm available then ;).

</comment><comment> UK-AL Highly dependent on the job.

</comment><comment><USER86> tl;dr?

<comment><USER55> seriously? it's an excellent piece of writing and not all that long; just go read it.

<comment><USER75> If they're looking for the short way out, I don't know if they'll get any value out of actually reading it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> _" The letters you brought spoke in the highest terms of your sales genius. The only question which they did not answer to my satisfaction was why companies which had valued you so highly should ever have allowed you to get away!"_

This is a truth that holds today (in the form of things like LinkedIn Recommendations): Outside of exceptional circumstances, people seldom talk up the people they need the most, but they will talk up the people they wouldn't mind losing.

</comment><comment><USER32> One of the things I find irksome about the business world (and this won't seem relevant to the OP till I explain it) is that, while it places a premium on "finishing" and "delivery" (by the way, if you use "deliver" intransitively I will punch you in the face) it also makes it really rare that one can finish _anything_. It claims to have a culture of "shipping" but employs these people called "executives" whose function is usually to get in the way of people trying to do so.

The disorganization of his "brilliant men" (which is a conflation of two types of people already-- the charismatic and the creative) seems to be something the corporate world (at least in 2014 technology) creates.

The "brilliant" just fall hardest, I'd argue, because highly creative people (one subtype he describes) tend to be most sensitive to context, and highly charismatic people (the other subtype) can usually assume the failure patterns of the highly creative.

The not-finishing culture, I think, is a product of the incoherency of the corporate world. It's not uncommon to see people pass years in Corporate America without achieving anything for reasons not their fault: shifting priorities, projects cancelled for stupid political reasons, "re-orgs", unclear direction.

At some point, people learn that Corporate Life is survived not by finishing (in fact, that can be harmful, because now you have support responsibilities) but being able to come up with a story when things outside your control stop you from finishing. The muddling effects of subordination compound this decline of executive function. It's rather sad, to tell the truth. I wish it weren't that way.

I don't think it's just "brilliant men" who fail, in this way, amid the jarring incoherency of most business. I think they just crash first and hardest. The rest tend to drift downward over time and underperform silently.

<comment><USER88> Yes, michaelochurch, you are correct that the shifting priorities of the work place often make finishing anything hard.

But there is another way, and that is to work in secret, and fit this secret work into natural breaks in your normal work. For example, part of my job is running a suite of reports on a monthly basis. Every time I run these reports I do a little work to make them easier/quicker to run next time. Over the space of a year this kind of work can really pay off, and frees up more time to do more satisfying work, but the key is to improve in secret, it's rarely appreciated at the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> While I was reading this almost 100 year old article, I felt nervous and anxious because the writer actually [uncanny pictureI fear that I have never been able to finish any of my projects, I get to about 80% and I am completely burnt out and now I know why after reading this article. It doesn't take brilliance or hacker thinking to complete a project. Quite the opposite, resilience, boring and being consistent is what it takes to finish the remaining 20%. This I see as something I need to work on. I always thought that my quick thinking would get me far and it does give me speed and agility in thinking but my mistake was thinking this mentality needs to be for the entire project.

It makes sense now, marketing, sales, good software practices, these all take discipline, endurance and the need to apply yourself every single day. It's definitely not a sprint and I've built myself to sprint long distances and burning out at the last remaining mile.

If the wisdom is a 100 years old and it still strikes a chord with our modern business environment, it must be important.

Great read, I read the whole thing.

</comment><comment><USER90> Some people slack of laziness. Some of boredom. A brilliant guy needs a lot of infrastructure and support to not steer of course.

It is much easier for me to do 80 hour workload in 40 hours than 20 hour workload in the same 40. Probably I am not the only one. If I have even ounce of non challenging time at work I am always searching for the next great feature/framework/whatever. And shipping slips. I finally managed to find my stride but a few projects ... lets say they were hard on everyone.

</comment><comment><USER91> Why I never Hire Mediocre Men ™

</comment><comment><USER92> He who lives on hope dies farting.</comment>


Microsoft, Icahn offered Yahoo $2.3 bln annual revenue - <AUTHOR> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080713/microsoft_icahn.html <comment><USER2> So Yahoo thinks they can get ~$1.4bln in add revenue besides the amount from Google which they already have? Does there past financial history suggest this?</comment>


Conspiracy theory placed in the middle of a Qt tutorial - <AUTHOR> http://sector.ynet.sk/qt4-tutorial/

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of the example of Henry Kissinger being a war criminal used in an O'Reilly book about Oracle PL/SQL:

<http://oreilly.com/news/feuerstein_1000.html>

Of course, Kissinger is a war criminal.

[http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/CaseAgainst1_Hit...](http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/CaseAgainst1_Hitchens.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's an interesting case. However, is that really comparable?

It was just one subtle sample dataset, and not a big (kind of) ad placed across the book.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure how subtle it is to accuse a prominent government figure of being a war criminal but it's not just that one example, just the one that immediately sprang to mind. The book also covers the following topics in its SQL examples:

Excessive CEO compensation--and excessive, destructive layoffs

Union-busting activities

Positive role of unions in society

Police brutality

NATO bombing of civilian targets in Serbia

Managed Care

National Rifle Association and gun control

The prison industry

Slashing social programs to finance tax cuts

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Although many websites contain some hint to the author's political attitude, this one is really strange.

The political statement (yet another 9/11 conspiracy theory) is placed _in the middle of a Qt tutorial_ , off-topic and completely out of context.

It's like an advertisement, except that the author doesn't even get money for it. Moreover, the stuff reappears on front and bottom of every sub page. Regarding political statements and conspiracy theories, I've never seen an impertinence like that.

Will that become a new trend?</comment>


Show HN: Wsup.today, a Google Reader inspired RSS news aggregator - <AUTHOR> https://wsup.today <comment><USER2> I think the destination webpage could have a bit more introductory text. My assumption is this is intended for more tech-savvy users...because "civilians" may not fully understand what is meant by "news reader"...who knows, maybe they don't even know what "RSS" means...but there's plenty more opportunity to add some text to the page...hey, at least a few, very brief one-liners about what features are included.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, this is indeed a good point, I'm going to work on that</comment></comment>


The FBI recommends everyone to reboot their routers - <AUTHOR> https://www.ic3.gov/media/2018/180525.aspx <comment><USER2> they installed a backdoor which needs a reboot to load

<comment><USER3> welp im certainly glad that I wasn't the only person who had this exact thought. though i would say I think it's a bit naïve to think that they necessarily would require a reboot for the backdoor to start working. but that being said, it's still an interesting proposition</comment></comment>


Uk permanent residency - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/mazzucatom/status/1060448125926735874?s=21 <comment><USER2> When did they try to take payment and process application?

I suspect that they are very busy at the moment hence the delay. I doubt that they sat on her application for 6 months after payment failed...</comment>


Ask HN: What tools do you use for system design? - <AUTHOR> These days, I am doing a lot of high-level systems architecture. I'm looking for a tool that strikes the right balance between speed of delivery and quality of diagram. What do you use? <comment><USER2> Whiteboard and then a design doc [1] on Google Docs.

[1] - [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mffMF9FaUJ3WwRmKNJGMBxfn...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mffMF9FaUJ3WwRmKNJGMBxfnxA4SmOFG2oQ7CcToUMw/edit?usp=sharing)

</comment><comment><USER3> Whimsical [1] is an amazing tool for creating system designs and sequence diagrams.

[1] - [https://whimsical.com](https://whimsical.com)

</comment><comment><USER4> We've started to use PlantUML for diagrams on the systems and software team. It allows for the diagram source to be stored in version control and has built in support in our Wiki and VSCode.

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

</comment><comment> rafael-rinaldi I've been using OmniGraffle[1] for that purpose for the past couple of years. Very satisfied with it.

[1] - [https://www.omnigroup.com/omnigraffle](https://www.omnigroup.com/omnigraffle)

</comment><comment><USER5> This doesn't necessary answer your question but I use an iPad, Apple Pencil and Notability for all design and then usually write a document with included sketches where relevant.

</comment><comment><USER6> I like to use yed! It works for both flow charts and system organization charts.

[https://www.yworks.com/products/yed](https://www.yworks.com/products/yed)

</comment><comment><USER7> I find that sequence diagrams can be really helpful when documenting systems. Here's a nifty web UI for creating them: [https://sequencediagram.org/](https://sequencediagram.org/)

</comment><comment><USER8> Lately I've been using SimpleDiagrams [1]. The sketch look and the simpler UI is a nice change from Visio.

[1] [https://www.simplediagrams.com/](https://www.simplediagrams.com/)

</comment><comment><USER9> [https://draw.io/](https://draw.io/) is great</comment>


Retiring SHA-1 certificates - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/notes/protect-the-graph/retiring-sha-1-certificates/1814716098768533 <comment><USER2> Previous discussion on SHA-1 certificate sunsetting: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12734970](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12734970)</comment>


Wake Up Your Mac Faster - <AUTHOR> http://www.mikedipetrillo.com/mikedvirtualization/2008/12/wake-up-your-mac-faster.html <comment><USER2> This is actually putting your Mac to sleep, not wakng it up, faster. It's going to wake up fast as long as you are reading from RAM. This "hack" makes it sleep faster by skipping the write to disk.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is a reason it's called "Safe Sleep". If you have forgotten to save files or a number of other thing and get powerloss RAM only suspends are gone. That could really suck.

Personally I can live with the extra small delay. I've toyed with these settings before. Suspend only to disk is too unstable because it's trying to write to disk while you are moving the laptop around closing it/picking it up/etc RAM only sucks when you loose power. I'm happy to stick with the default.

I would like it if someone wrote something that suspended to RAM and then copied to disk when the tilt monitored guaranteed it was safe and then turned off the computer. When traveling the power suck from powered suspend is really annoying.

</comment><comment><USER4> What would really be nice is being allowed to say: Suspend to RAM if battery left > n% else, suspend to RAM and disk.

That way, you get the best of both worlds.

<comment><USER5> The discussion on that page pointed to this utility...

<http://www.jinx.de/SmartSleep.html>

<comment><USER6> Yes, indeed, SmartSleep works great. It gives you a pref pane interface for toggling between sleep, hibernate and 'smart sleep' -- which hibernates if the battery is low, but sleeps otherwise. I've been using it for the past ~6 months. Without it, my MacBook would take nearly two minutes of disk activity before sleeping; now, it's sleeping happily within 5 seconds.</comment></comment></comment>


Some things I've learnt about writing - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2012/07/some-things-ive-learnt-about-writing.html

<comment><USER2> As a counterpoint to the Strunk and White recommendation, please take a look at this: _50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice_ [1]. (Note that it doesn't primarily object to the stylistic advice in S&W, which it calls "vapid" but "mostly harmless". The real objections are to the grammatical claims and advice.)

Two books on writing I strongly recommend:

 _Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose_ [2], exerpt here[3].

 _Style: Towards Clarity and Grace_ \- this one has gone through countless versions as the publisher seems to re-release it every academic year. (Make used copies obsolete and raise the price.) I prefer the older, shorter versions to the more recent ones. It was clearer itself when briefer! Anyhow, here's an author search on Amazon - look for older used copies[4]. _Edit_ : Just found this outline of the 6th ed. of the book. A good way to see what he covers in a hurry.[5]

The first is not a standard writing guide; it's a thoughtful analysis of what makes a certain kind of writing clear and persuasive. The second is a more nuts-and-bolts guide to writing. They're both excellent.

[1]: [http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid- Grammar/2549...](http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid- Grammar/25497)

[2]: <http://classicprose.com/>

[3]: <http://classicprose.com/csx.html>

[4]: [http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-M.-Williams/e/B001H6MZ40/ref=nt...](http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-M.-Williams/e/B001H6MZ40/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1)

[5]: <http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/StyleTenLessons.htm>

<comment><USER3> I've read those, which are good, but I think this one is better than all of them put together:

[http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary- Edition/...](http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary- Edition/dp/0060891548/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1342191649&sr=8-4&keywords=on+writing)

<comment><USER2> Without arguing for or against it, I'll just say it's the first book JGC recommends in his linked post. :)

<comment><USER3> I'm just going to fess up and say that I didn't read the linked post, just the comments.

<comment><USER2> We all do it sometimes, and it's no big deal. I just couldn't pass up the smile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > One risk with technical writing is what I call the fog of knowledge. You > know so much about a subject that it's hard to write for someone who isn't > as knowledgeable.

Never heard it described that way, but it brilliantly summarizes the point. I think this is why you sometimes learn better from peers than from profs (or other teachers).

</comment><comment><USER5> My favorite book on writing comes from advertising. Two authors, Kenneth Roman (former Ogivly CEO) and Joel Raphaelson (former Ogivly creative director): Writing That Works ([http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Works-Communicate- Effectively-...](http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Works-Communicate-Effectively- Business/dp/0060956437))

This book has been transforming my long and vague e-mails, letters and blog posts into more crisp and to the point while keeping the tone of the message. Still learning, the book has tons of concrete advice to follow.

</comment><comment><USER6> > Think about the reader -> I've often heard people say "write for yourself"

Here's the truth, everyone who tells you they're writing for themselves is lying. If they were writing for themselves, they wouldn't publish it publicly.

<comment><USER7> It seems pretty unnecessary to call such people liars. Surely they know their own minds better than you.

Anyhow, it is not too difficult to understand the "write for yourself" aesthetic, if you are willing to make the effort. I think Jane Espenson describes it best: <http://www.janeespenson.com/archives/00000619.php></comment></comment>


PRESENT – a mindfulness retreat in your browser - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/present/dlpnlbdnpinnihfpagedakpknojnnjfm <comment><AUTHOR> Hi fellow hackers, Hacked this up during the thanksgiving break. I found myself lost in browsing for hours without taking a break, not drinking a sip of water. This extension helps you keep track of water intake, shows something inspirational and also brings your attention to the present, hence the name. Would love your ideas. This is iteration 1 and many more iterations to come. -RP</comment>