Amazon sues employee for taking Google cloud job, in new test of non-competes - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekwire.com/2014/amazon-sues-employee-taking-google-cloud-job-new-test-non-compete-laws/ <comment><USER2> I was just talking to a friend of mine at amazon, who said that a lot of people (including some pretty high-level people) thought prosecuting the one- click patent was a mistake because it actually made it harder to recruit.

That's nothing compared to this. Seems like a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

<comment><USER3> I think the "must relocate to Seattle" makes it really hard to recruit.

<comment><USER4> Not Really, considering that they have opened offices in the bay area exclusively for AWS openings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazon, sorry, but unless you're paying his salary to sit at home, you're just whining because Google offered a better job.

You could have kept the guy, if he was so important to your business.

I'm not a happy Amazon Prime customer today.

<comment><USER6> Exactly right. The best way to keep your talent from working for the competition is to keep them working for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a pattern for Amazon: I work for a competitor to Amazon, and they went after us for violating a non-compete after we hired an AWS engineer. Our counsel had reviewed the non-compete before we hired the engineer, and concluded that the non-compete didn't _actually_ prevent an engineer from working for a competitor, but rather prevented much narrower activity like poaching customer lists or supplier relationships. We were somewhat surprised that Amazon aggressively pursued the matter because it seemed so obvious to us that they wouldn't prevail. After Amazon sent us (and, it must be said, the engineer personally) a very nasty letter claiming that the non-compete was being violated, we retained local counsel and sent them an even nastier one back, making clear that we had no intention of backing down. Ultimately, they backed off, but in this process, I learned that Amazon has pursued this particular non-compete "hundreds" of times, and has never (to the best of the knowledge of our local counsel in Seattle) prevailed once. In part this is because Washington allows non-competes, but also doesn't like to infringe on the free flow of labor -- temporary restraining orders preventing an individual from working for a company are extraordinarily rare. (This is in contrast to states like Texas and Massachusetts, where non-competes are infamously enforceable.)

So if Amazon never prevails, why do they do it? One of the peculiar attributes of Amazon's action against us is that it was well publicized _within_ Amazon -- and was apparently a result of outrage by a high-ranking executive after he learned that the former AWS engineer not only was working for a competitor, but had the gumption to open source a technology that he developed here. (Ironically, the executive only learned of all of this when the technology itself became a top story here on HN.) My conclusion from this: this action wasn't _actually_ directed at us -- Amazon is smart enough to know that nothing would come of it with respect to our actions -- but rather at _their own_ employees. That is, Amazon's pursuit of the non-compete against our engineer was their way of shooting an escapee in the back -- and sending a sharp message to any other AWS inmates with similar ambitions.

In terms of an immediate effect, Amazon's move worked to a degree: our next few hires from AWS were slowed a little bit by fear of similar action. That said, the fact that we had prevailed against Amazon also gave these engineers the confidence that we could and would do so again -- and ultimately, it didn't prevent anyone from matriculating. It did, however, have one lasting effect: the engineer that was pursued went from thinking fondly of his years at AWS to hating AWS and Amazon with a white-hot passion that still burns today. In the end, enforcing a non-compete is like erecting a Berlin Wall: if you feel you need it, you have much deeper problems...

<comment><USER8> I still can't believe Americans are ok with non compete clauses in their contract if you accept that crap somebody will eventually try to enforce it.

I personally think it should be illegal unless amazon volunteers to pay the employee his regular salary for the period he is not allowed to compete.

The same way that if you're not paying for a service you're the product if you're not paying your employee you should have no right to demand anything from him anymore.

<comment><USER9> > I still can't believe Americans are ok with non compete clauses in their > contract if you accept that crap somebody will eventually try to enforce it.

These and other anti-employee clauses (e.g. excessive IP assignment) persist because many programmers simply don't care while others who do care are awful at negotiating compared to their interlocutors who do this for a living. When you try to push back, the standard response you will first hear, an outright lie, is that this is a non-negotiable mandate from their legal counsel and that no-one has ever complained before. If they do budge on their initial terms, they will make it seem like an unprecedented concession that warrants concessions on your end. It's a truly absurd game of back and forth.

<comment><USER10> _When you try to push back, the standard response you will first hear, an outright lie, is that this is a non-negotiable mandate from their legal counsel and that no-one has ever complained before_

I'll agree they'll act like it's totally weird you are complaining. Standard salesman techniques.

And companies will usually negotiate these. Usually.

I once had an otherwise nice job offer where the employee agreement contained the following three poison things:

1\. you cannot work for any competitors or customers for a year (it was a consultancy, so potentially every employer in the country was off-limits)

2\. you assign us your IP rights while you work for us _and for a year after you leave us_

3\. you agree this will not limit your ability to find work.

They totally stuck to their guns. They said legal wouldn't let them change it. I had concerns and they "took the matter seriously" which amounted to telling me, really hard, that these clauses didn't _really_ matter and they wouldn't enforce them, and, y'know, they probably weren't enforceable anyway.

I walked away. Apparently many other people don't because they continue to get new employees. I heard the horror story here on HN a few weeks ago [1] about someone who no one would hire because he signed something with clause 2. I'm more satisfied than ever I was right in walking away.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7921325](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7921325)

<comment><USER9> Turnabout is fair play. If they pretend a clause is non-negotiable, call their bluff by asking for fair compensation. "Sure thing! That means I will be off the job market for one year, so I will require an unconditional severance payment of one year's salary. If my employment ends before an agreed-upon period, neither the severance payment or the non-compete will be binding." I'd only consider this kind of hard negotiation for mercenary jobs. If you're joining a normal company as a normal employee and they stonewall you on reasonable concerns, take it as a sign and walk away, as you seem to have done.

<comment><USER11> If everyone is aware of these clauses, their implications, and their enforceability (in the hypothetical world where computer workers have any sort of group that represents and publicizes their interests _as workers_ ), they'll end up priced into wages as long as employers don't collude.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Governments are always trying to find a way to steal a bit of the magic of Silicon Valley, yet little attention is paid to copying California's stance on non-competes. It allows for a free-flow of talent that is just as important as the free-flow of capital. Washington State should copy _that_.

Hilariously, in Washington State, you can even enforce a non-compete when you _fire the employee_.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure what the laws in CA are exactly, but here (EU) non competes don't work generally. If you are a programmer and you go work as a programmer for the competition then even if you signed stacks of non-competes, they cannot be enforced. Simply because you are a programmer and not allowing you to take that job would mean you are potentially without a job which is about the worst thing that could happen. Most non-competes refer to you resigning and taking clients with your but even that is hard to enforce. The basics are ; if you are a nice company to work for and with, you have nothing to fear.

<comment><USER14> I know first hand of a few cases of non competes working (in France), and they all involved the ex-employer paying substantial amounts of money for the time the ex-employee was prevented from working for the competition.

<comment><USER15> Also known as garden leave. You're basically still 'employed' but you're kept out of the office with all access revoked. It's to put some distance between any time sensitive info from one job before you move onto the next. In the UK, I think the banks do this for three months.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave)

<comment><USER10> From discussions on HN, this is also common in the US finance sector.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Apparently working at Amazon is damaging to your career.

<comment><USER4> Ex-AWS employee here. I tend to disagree with the above statement. Though, their retention numbers are pathetic to say the least, but it was an awesome place to work and learn and most of the people who do leave tend to go to the high flying places.

<comment><USER17> Ex-Amazonian here also. Sadly, Amazon looks _great_ on your resume, it's still considered in the "AAA" tier of tech employers, standing side by side with the likes of Google, Facebook, etc.

Realistically I'd argue it's more on the high end of the "B" tier, but that's neither here nor there.

Amazon's attrition rate is insane. Not high, _insane_. This should tell you a lot about what it's like to work there. I too learned a lot, and it continues to pay dividends on my resume, so I guess that's how they get away with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One key item:

"The suit, filed June 27 in King County Superior Court in Seattle, seeks to take advantage of a more favorable climate for non-compete deals in Washington state, where the terms of such deals have generally been allowed, if considered reasonable. Non-compete clauses have repeatedly been found invalid in California, where Google is based."

The article doesn't say Szabadi was or currently is geographically employed (is his current contract with Google in California or Seattle?), which I assume would have a bearing on the suit's strength

<comment><USER19> There's likely to be a certain element of race-to-the-courthouse here. If Szabadi is about to move to California, then Google could file a lawsuit in a state court there, seeking a declaratory judgment that under California law his non-compete is unenforceable. A California court likely would rule in Google's favor --- and if that were the first-filed lawsuit, then it might take priority over any later-filed lawsuit Amazon might bring in Seattle. Something akin to that happened in _Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc._ , 61 Cal. App. 4th 881 (1998) [1] [2].

[1] [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1290227502038697...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12902275020386975222)

[2] [http://www.whitecase.com/files/Publication/dcf3d85c-1c1b-4bf...](http://www.whitecase.com/files/Publication/dcf3d85c-1c1b-4bf5-9806-7a04e2b0e214/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d734c538-402d-4648-b778-80e6a224b192/article_enforceability.pdf)

<comment><USER20> Don't agreements like this typically include language to the effect of:

"This agreement is entirely enforceable under the laws of the state of ____, under the jurisdiction of a binding arbitrator chosen by the employer, except for injunctions which are handled by the ____ District Court in ____ County?"

<comment><USER21> Those clauses might not be enforceable though, if they contradict local labour laws.

<comment><USER10> Yes, otherwise it would be trivial to override labor laws via contract. For all they seem like dolts to us, this isn't the administrative class's first barbeque. Attempts to end-run around the law are regularly shot down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As much as I am not a fan of non-competes, having read the complaint, it appears that this is the exact reason non-competes exist. This isn't about an Amazon SDE that worked on the amazon.com retail site moving over to work on Gmail; the guy was responsible for working with AWS partners, and now works in the exact same position for a direct competitor, in a position where external contacts and relationships are key. Google even recognized this with their own agreement not to use that information for a period of 6 months.

<comment><USER23> I was under the impression that non-competes were legally implemented _not_ to stop employees moving, but to stop an owner from selling a business with goodwill, and then starting up a competitor across the road and reducing the goodwill be retaining their old customers. I have no evidence, but had assumed that the modern non-compete enforced on employees by employers came out of a precedent based on this law and has slowly gained acceptance. Happy to be educated if somebody knows more.

<comment><USER24> Nope, provisions for _that_ are in M&A agreements and part of the reason why acquiring companies takes so much money and [lawyer]time. And it's in no way a "precedent based on this law" \- what do you mean by "this law"? All of these provisions are in private contracts, not in legislation.

The classic use of non-competes is for salespeople or high-level service people (lawyers, consultants, etc) not taking their customers with them when leaving.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've heard a lot of negative things about Amazon as an employer (mainly from current or ex-Amazon people), which is depressing because they're an awesome vendor and I want them to continue to be able to get great people and thus produce awesome stuff. (I've also heard "but X group is awesome and not like that" too, though.)

This really doesn't help things on that front.

<comment><USER26> they are a great vendor by facade, they bully and collude with their suppliers to drive up prices on consumers. they systematically bury competitors with a trojan horse strategy on their marketplace. using dirty tactics and infringing on anti-trust, they can always appear to be the best vendor to consumers.

<comment><USER25> I go to a relatively well designed website and get products delivered in 1-2 days for cheap. From that perspective, I really like them.

AWS, while absurdly expensive vs. metal IMO, is also something a lot of people have built on, and it's evolving so fast that no one has caught up to it, even when companies like Rackspace, IBM, etc. recognize it as an existential threat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> TLDR of my comment: always ask to see employment agreements you'll have to sign before accepting an offer and resigning from your (now current) company, otherwise you may not know what you'll be expected to sign until your first day.

In response to several comments stating or implying that you can simply not sign or negotiate a non-compete, I agree, but I think it's worth pointing out that, at least in my experience with several (East Coast) companies (I have no experience with Amazon), none of them sends you a copy of their non-compete with your offer letter. What I have always seen happen, instead, is that after you've fully resigned your previous employer and show up for your first day of work at the new company, HR hands you a stack of 100-200+ pages of employee handbook, travel policy, IT policy, etc., and various employment agreements, requiring you to sign all the documents before you can start working. Buried in there may be a non-compete, potentially disguised as another type of agreement. Yes, you're free to read them all (and you should), and you're free to reject them. But if you reject them you're rejecting the job, and now you're stuck with no income until you find another job. Admittedly I think that's better than agreeing to a bad non-compete which could last a lot longer than the time to find a new job, but it's not an easy thing to do.

I strongly recommend what I do now: after receiving and before accepting an offer even verbally, request to see all employment agreements that I'll have to sign upon starting with a new company. All have been fine with sending them to me (and if not I would immediately reject), but I would not have known about them and had time to review them if I hadn't asked in advance.

One company I interviewed with years ago, which had a terribly restrictive non-compete that I rejected, took the attitude that: 1\. I had nothing to worry about because they said verbally they'd never enforce it. 2\. I had to sign it anyway because everybody has to sign it, no exceptions (but their verbal assurance of non-enforcement should be good enough for me). 3\. They questioned my integrity and belittled my concern because (in their words) I was planning to leave the company before I'd even started. Glad I avoided that company - with that attitude, probably would have been a terrible place to work. Back then (unlike today) I'm not sure I would have had the self- confidence to fight that fight on my first day.

<comment><USER10> _1\. I had nothing to worry about because they said verbally they 'd never enforce it. 2. I had to sign it anyway because everybody has to sign it, no exceptions (but their verbal assurance of non-enforcement should be good enough for me)_

First, I feel your pain here, word for word. I didn't have the same experience as you did in clause 3, but clause 1 and 2 were _exactly_ as I've experienced.

I'd like to say this means we were dealing with the same company but I know we probably weren't.

Second, IANAL, but there is a difference in case-law between making someone sign a non-compete as part of a job offer, and having someone sign a non- compete as part of _continuing_ employment. I'd try to argue that making you sign an agreement on your first day counts in the latter class. But IANAL.

Also, dropping an IP agreement on someone after they quit their old job is unconscionable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Note to self, given the choice, work in finance rather than Amazon. They apparently treat their employees better. At least they have the decency to offer you salary while you wait out a non-compete.

</comment><comment><USER29> Way to win the battle and lose the war! Never hire anyone that goes to work at Amazon at the senior exec level from this point forward because they're clearly clueless.

</comment><comment><USER30> Maybe Google can win back some karma they lost for participating in the "No Poaching" deal with Apple et al by defending this guy.

<comment><USER31> This! Yes, why does it even go to public press? In France 60% of programming jobs are through consulting companies, they constantly play the game of no- poaching, and those get solved after commission between the two employers. Either one is also customer of the first, either they pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> eBay Inc tried this a few years ago when Osama Bedier left PayPal for Google's Wallet team. ([http://www.wired.com/2011/05/paypal-sues-google- wallet](http://www.wired.com/2011/05/paypal-sues-google-wallet))

I have no idea what the outcome of the case was, but Bedier spent almost 3 years at Google.

</comment><comment><USER33> The details are different, but s/Amazon/Microsoft and you have a headline from 2005: [http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-sues-over-Google- hire/2100-10...](http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-sues-over-Google- hire/2100-1014_3-5795051.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> Does anyone know how such clauses apply in the EU?

<comment><USER35> No. They will ofer a "garden leave". This means, you get paid and stay employed as much as the grace period is over. I think the only restriction is not entering the company's premises.

For executives, is not uncommon that they stay one year in the "garden leave", having all the perks too.

When I left Autonomy, I had such a "garden leave" for 3 months. I stayed at home and received normal salary. Was nice, but boring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> They should take better care of their employees so they have an incentive to stay and not sue them when they find a better job.

</comment><comment><USER37> I hope this comment does not get me down voted into oblivion, but just to play the devils advocate here, the guy did sign the non-compete agreement, which, setting aside legal aspects, is kind of like giving your word. I agree, non- compete agreements are stupid, but you don't have to sign them, you can always take a different job that does not require one, probably for less money. What is your word worth?

<comment><USER38> I'm not a fan of down-votes, but I will try to (kind of) refute your central point according to the argument pyramid. (Not fully disagreeing with you, just some thoughts on the matter).

The central question is: did he really knowingly sign a non-compete agreement and is it lawful in the jurisdiction?

Yes, he signed the contract, which was likely a 20 page standard issue paper that was mostly written by Amazon lawyers in small print.

Now most of us don't send a copy of employment contracts to our layers and discuss it with them for hours before signing (that's kind of expensive).

That's why there are some limitations on what can go into a contract in some places (at least in Europe, but I assume the U.S. has something similar). For instance they can't write in there that you will be their slave, providing unpaid work without the ability to quit, be beaten as motivation and lawfully enforce it, even if you sign the paper.

Other things need to be explicitly clarified to be accepted at court. For instance, if a big software corporation would add a clause to their license agreement on page 25 that your house belongs to them if you click on "I Agree", it would most likely not hold ground in a court. If they explicitly explained this to you (with a few witnesses), it might be heard in court.

The question here is (and it's far from clear cut) is if this contract holds it's ground in court.

Back to the central point: this means, that Amazon might have to prove that they made a good effort to clarify this clause in the contract explicitly and it's lawful in the state he worked. That's up to the court to decide.

Now if they can prove that they did make a good faith effort to clarify his contract, he agreed and then went on and willfully broke it, then he is in a troublesome spot.

INAL, this is not an advice for anything and I'm not liable for any of the above.

<comment><USER37> Good point. I did not think of that, legal agreements can be made to obfuscate, much like those online agreements. If that is the case then I am with you completely, it is unfair. But if he signed it knowing the consequences then he should live them in my view.

<comment><USER39> "But if he signed it knowing the consequences then he should live them in my view."

Why? It is not immoral to break a contract. It happens all the time in good faith. The "wronged" party is only entitled to provable damages. Which as long as he isn't running away with trade secrets, or cold calling his old clients, then what provable damages are there?

Contracts are a civil matter. It is immoral to write a "punishment" clause into a contract and nobody should have to "live with them".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The best way to stop this is not taking jobs that require a non-compete agreement. By signing offers with non-competes, you're literally acknowledging this is acceptable.

<comment><USER41> > The best way to stop this is not taking jobs that require a non-compete > agreement

Easy to say, and then one day you get an offer for a job you really, really like.

> By signing offers with non-competes, you're literally acknowledging this is > acceptable.

Not at all. Very few (if any) of these terms are legally binding. The only way to actually find out is to have them challenged in court.

If anything, the only way to stop this is for people to keep accepting jobs tied to non compete agreements so that we can finally see how legally viable they are. Seems like we are about to find out.

<comment><USER40> > Easy to say, and then one day you get an offer for a job you really, really > like. Then weigh the cost/benefit of accepting it or negotiate with the > company to change it.

My point is not whether non-competes are legally binding. It's the fact that when you sign a contract, you and your employer are agreeing with the terms set forth in good faith. You shouldn't sign employment agreements that you have no intention of fulfilling.

Starting a new job should be a good thing for both the employer and employee. Both should be on the same page.

<comment><USER10> As someone who has walked away from a really nice offer because of the malicious (and I used that exact word when talking with the hiring manager) terms in the non-compete, not everyone can afford to walk away.

Oddly, before that incident I was in the "man, just negotiate them, it's all right" camp. Like the joke about a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet, it really changed my outlook, and I'm now in favor of legislation nuking those things from orbit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I am pretty shocked to see this. For sales jobs or executives, I can understand. But for your average tech guy? Are they kidding?

<comment><USER22> Except he's not your "average tech guy." The very first page of the complaint lists him in a "business development role." Going on, "[i]n this position, he was responsible for developing and growing Amazon's relationships with partners who utilize and sell Amazon's cloud computing services."

<comment><USER43> that is such broad statement it could apply to any one from the company's top sales guy to a junior customer support rep</comment></comment></comment>


E la Carte (YC S10) to Deploy Restaurant Tablets in 113 Airports Nationwide - <AUTHOR> http://pandodaily.com/2012/08/02/e-la-carte-partners-with-hmshost-to-deploy-restaurant-tablets-in-113-airports-nationwide/ <comment><USER2> Tried out a similar service at NYC's La Guardia while waiting for a flight. Not a fan -- a few gripes:

(1) Cleanliness is a concern. If I'm going to be eating a burger or something else with my paws, you'd better believe I'm going to want to clean my hands after touching one of these bad boys.

(2) Novelty for novelty's sake. I have no problem interacting with another human being when I'd like to order a glass of wine or dinner during a trip--in fact, it's often a welcome break from a long day of traveling alone.

(3) Poor functionality. My friend and I were prompted to enter our flight information under the auspices that we'd be "alerted" with updates about our flight--boarding, delays, etc. No such luck... We arrived at our gate and were scolded for being the last ones on the flight. If only they'd known we were distracted by the future of airport dining!

There's no real pain point here. I suggest that E la Carte pivot toward creating more edible food in airports... That's a disruptive mission that I can get behind.

<comment><USER3> Well, keep in mind that this is a pretty innovative idea, so it takes time to figure everything out... I think what they do is actually pretty awesome. Especially when it comes to paying the bill - it save a huge amount of time.

<comment><USER4> You can circumvent this problem by asking for the bill in the moment your food arrives.

<comment><USER5> This is the my tried-and-true method for my meals in a rush. And I imagine that restaurant staff in airports are particularly well accustomed to customers wanting to move through their dining process at an accelerated clip.

Given all the inhumanity now part of modern air travel, it's nice for me to have a little personal interaction to look forward to in between security screenings and boarding processes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The Presto is a rugged 7-inch tablet with a built-in credit card reader

I'm eagerly awaiting the first malware reports.

<comment><USER7> Looks like you had your haterade this morning.

<comment><USER6> I don't mean to badmouth their product, it looks interesting and I'd love to be able to pay-and-go as soon as I want instead of waiting for a waiter to come around.

But at the same time, these things will be laying around for customers to play with them, unattended, for long periods of time. The security implications are important.

<comment><USER8> How do you think the malware will be installed?

I doubt you can access a web site or use USB port on it.

<comment><USER6> I don't know, I haven't seen one in the wild yet, hence the lack of any technical speculation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Slightly different business model:

Airport food is mediocre and overpriced. So you build a website so people can order off-airport food and have it delivered. You team with a nearby restaurant, run a van back and forth, send delivery people with bags of food to designated waiting areas.

The airport authorities won't like it though.

<comment><USER10> Is this really feasible? I don't fly a lot, but the last time I was at an airport, the only areas that invited you to sit down/have a meal were on the far side of the TSA checkpoint, etc.

<comment><USER6> Random terrible brainstorm idea: purchase the cheapest available airplane ticket for your delivery person for late in the evening. They can now pass through airport security.

Obvious problem #1 is that ordering drinks is now impossible, but what does a delivery service offer that in-airport restaurants don't?

Another obvious problem is that the TSA agent may arbitrarily claim that you can't bring in X pounds of food, all pre-packaged, into the airport - especially since it rapidly becomes obvious that you're handing it to a total stranger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I used one of these at a restaurant in Palo Alto and the experience was bothersome at best.

      Sharing it at a table is impossible.
      The UI is laggy and annoying (jumping shopping cart).
      There's no quick way to scan the menu.
      It does not display the total cost before placing an order.</comment>


Gertrude Elion's "antiviral odyssey" - <AUTHOR> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/08/gertrude-elion-antivirals-coronavirus-remdesivir/ <comment><USER2> Not sure what to think of this article, it reads like science version of Buzzfeed.

> Meet the woman who gave the world antiviral drugs > Then Gertrude Elion > showed the doubters "what I could do on my own."

It totally disregards the role of some dozens of scientists in the process who came before her. It doesn't even mention Dr. Howard Schaeffer who actually discovered Acyclovir and went on to develop it with the help of Elion. Sadly, Schaeffer doesn't even have his own wikipedia page.

From wiki page on Aciclovir:

Nucleosides isolated from a Caribbean sponge, Cryptotethya crypta, were the basis for the synthesis of aciclovir. It was codiscovered by Howard Schaeffer following his work with Robert Vince, S. Bittner and S. Gurwara on the adenosine analog acycloadenosine which showed promising antiviral activity. Later, Schaeffer joined Burroughs Wellcome and continued the development of aciclovir with pharmacologist Gertrude B. Elion ...

</comment><comment><USER3> The Wikipedia page has many of the details (though not the narrative) of this article, as well as some more:

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

Also, it says she was Jewish; The meaning of her last name, Elion, in hebrew is "Superior" \- apparently a fitting name given her achievements.

</comment><comment><USER4> Not "a woman". "The woman"

<comment><USER5> That's a software thing. Most titles that say "the man who" or "the woman who" use the definite article as a clickbait trick so HN's debaiter rewrites them. Occasionally it ought to be the other way and we correct those back.

Btw if you submit a title and the software rewrites it in a way that damages the meaning, you can always change it back using the 'edit' link. Just please don't use that to make it baity again.

Edit: I've changed it again to include the actual name of "the woman" and the phrase that (according to the article) she used to describe her own work. That seems much better than "the woman who gave the world", and also more respectful.</comment></comment>


Windows Live Calendar Coming Soon, Yeah Sure - <AUTHOR> http://startupmeme.com/2007/05/02/windows-live-calendar-coming-soon-yeah-sure/ <comment><AUTHOR> It would be nice if we could search for previously posted stories on news.yc

I came across the metrolive article when pg submitted it here, but to find it again had to search Google and then fetch the link from Google's cache. Too much work.</comment>


Historian Says Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1348080701-RyMTSbcCwyzF+LsStNN4Eg <comment><USER2> while I think this is very interesting and would probably be a net plus to the world if it were true, I do not have high hopes for this given that the document was written in the 4th century.

from article:

"She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said. "</comment>


Computer chaos as antivirus IDs Windows as threat, shuts down systems - <AUTHOR> https://drudgenow.com/article/?n=0&s=2&c=1&pn=Anonymous&u=http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/popular-antivirus-program-mistakenly-ids-windows-threat-creating-chaos-n750521 <comment><USER2> Story at _The Register_ , [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/25/webroot_windows_wip...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/25/webroot_windows_wipeout/)

</comment><comment><USER3> "The glitch first manifested itself as customers complained that Webroot was mistakenly flagging Facebook.com as a dangerous identity-fishing site."

Mistakenly flagged? Pretty sure that would have been intentional.</comment>


Theatrical Cues – Shakespeare Plays Reactive Scrabble with Java Queues - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nqzero/reactive-bench <comment><AUTHOR> It's a JMH benchmark of the capability of several Java queues to process tasks in parallel, Reactive to:

* heavy lifting: a few (eg, 100-200) larger tasks, no latency, no back pressure * waiting: efficiency of a few small tasks with latency, no back pressure * mixed load: many small tasks and a few large ones interspersed, no latency, no back pressure * back pressure: many small tasks, with back pressure which may induce latency * throughput: many small tasks, no latency, no back pressure

The data sources are unsized iterators, and the payloads are scrabble scores (small tasks) and repeated sha-256 hashes (large tasks). Implementations include Conversant, JCTools, Kilim, Quasar, RxJava, the fork join pool, and Java 8 streams.

It's based on Jose Paumard's kata from Devoxx 2015 and David Karnok's (RxJava) refinements. I've been looking for a decent reactive benchmark for a while, and the kata [got mentioned]([https://www.reddit.com/r/java/comments/cacgmu/choosing_a_rea...](https://www.reddit.com/r/java/comments/cacgmu/choosing_a_reactive_framework_for_the_jvm/et98i03/)) in this subreddit a couple months ago so I added in the various conditions and did some runs. More details in the readme and the full JMH output is available in [the release]([https://github.com/nqzero/reactive-bench/releases/tag/jmh- re...](https://github.com/nqzero/reactive-bench/releases/tag/jmh-results)). Hoping for contributions of tuning, new implementations (esp Akka and Vert.x), new modes (or just ideas for new modes), etc.</comment>


The Pmarca Guide to Startups, Part 7: Why a startup's initial business plan doesn't matter that much - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/07/why-a-startups-.html

<comment><USER2> He makes a good point but I'm not a great fan of Edison. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison#Criticism>

<comment><USER3> [http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/originals/originals_archive/...](http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/originals/originals_archive/stoddard/)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should/how can I open source my new SaaS project? - <AUTHOR>

I've had an idea for a new SaaS project which I'd like to open source if possible, but I don't want anyone simply duplicating my work and undercutting my pricing! (though I'd have no problem if people wanted to self host it for their own use).<p>Does anyone have any tips for to how I can achieve this, or any pitfalls that I can expect to come across if I try and open source it? I'm really hoping that someone'll say that there is a licence that'll give me the protection that I'm hoping for while also freeing me to release my code to the public. The GPL licence looks like it _could_ be what I'm after, but I could do with some advice! <comment><USER2> You might consider the AGPL:

[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero- gpl.html](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html)</comment>


Simulation hypothesis - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

<comment><AUTHOR> having watched inception recently, i thought this could be interesting to others.</comment>


Ask HN: Why Settle Down? - <AUTHOR>

I have been on this site for about 6 months now and been a lurker longer. I keep seeing posts about getting hired at startups and posts about freelancing for this or that.Why do people with great programming skills,design skills,etc settle down with a company? If you have great programming ability why not just create apps your whole life or just start startups and bolt? I personally don't like the idea of being tied down(I am about to 19yrs old) so maybe I am not getting something. Can someone please explain why people settle down? <comment><USER2> Perhaps every story is different in some way, but there will be common themes running through them all. I almost feel like your question is really "why might I want to settle down when I'm loving what I'm doing right now?"

Here's the thing though: you don't _have_ to settle down and there's no reason why you _should_ if you don't want to. If you feel better running your own show and make it work, continue doing that.

I'm completely unsold on working on someone else's ideas rather than my own, and I'm not really a fan of being a little worker bee in someone else's business either -- it feels deeply unsatisfying for me. Perhaps this is just how I'm wired up (and, without meaning to mangle Ben Franklin's words), I value freedom over job security. I just can't get excited about the idea of "settling down" with a company.

Try to do what makes you happy if at all possible. If you end up in a situation that's no longer making you happy, work to change it. Bonus points if you can choose the option that makes for the better story.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am of a similar age(just turned 20) so I do understand your sentiment. However I think what you miss is that in a work environment that is a proper fit the company does not tie you down but rather empowers your ability to do what you want to do. If you have ever seen a work environment where there is a high level of skill, everyone fully believes in what the company is doing, and everyone is pulling in the same direction it really is something incredible.

If what your goal is is to be able to pick up whenever you want, move where ever you want, change what your doing on the drop of a hat then ya joining a company doesn't make sense. But I would argue then you're using programming as a means to a type of lifestyle. I would much rather commit to an idea and team that I believe in and make something special happen.

If your on the same page as the company you are working for then having more man hours, capital, resources and connections made available by the company can only help you do what you want to do better and faster.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you're 19 everything's still new and exciting. After the novelty wears off, stability and predictability acquire greater value (not least since they free up your mind from day-to-day uncertainties). Same way people have a lot of casual/brief realtionships when they're younger but tend to settle down with a long-term partner later.

</comment><comment><USER5> Funny, I am often curious from the opposite tack and wonder why some people want to do serial project or freelance work and never join a firm.

Thinking up apps and launching prototypes is fun, sure -- but it's also the easy part if you're a little creative. The hard -- and valuable -- part is growing it into a business, successfully scaling it, building a company, and all that goes with those things.

I think if you looked on average at people who "just start startups and bolt" vs. people who help build startups beyond their first phases, the latter tend to participate more in the equity upside. I can't imagine the appeal of being the former.

To the OP -- you don't actually say why you don't like the idea of being tied down. Can you elaborate?

<comment><AUTHOR> I like being able to come and go as I please. That's why.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This might seem like a useless comment but trust me, you will not understand this right now no matter how much we try and explain to you. You are 19. When you are 10 years older, you will get some idea. All I will say is that settling down is not necessarily a bad thing and it does not just mean that you settled for less. It is just about priority in life but like I said, at 19 it is very difficult to understand this. I cannot even tell you what I used to think like at 19 about life and settling down

</comment><comment><USER7> Also. As you advance in your career working at a larger company can provide unique challenges that a smaller company cannot.

For example, Amazon's suggestion feature is a brilliant implementation of K-means (or something like it). The small group of developers that implemented it probably got to face unique and intellectually difficult challenges that not many other people have had to face. Sure, I can imagine how they did it, but I didn't do it.

One person's small company is another's large.

</comment><comment><USER8> The freelance life is fun until you have kids around, you start to value security and predictability a bit more when a family depends on you i guess

</comment><comment><USER9> If you can start startups and bolt, or any other freelance work and still pay the bills, do that for sure. People settle down mostly to pay the bills. Social stuff you can get at meetups nowadays, for a wide range of topics, in a more casual setting than work of course.

</comment><comment><USER10> You're 19. A lot is going to change in the next 3, 6, 10 years. And you're going to learn a lot along the way.

Enjoy where you are right now and every moment as it happens.

</comment><comment><USER11> There are social reasons for working for a company. For some people it's nice to be part of a group. If that doesn't matter to you then don't worry about it.

</comment><comment><USER12> One reason in the U.S.: Health care insurance. All the more so if you have a family.

Individual insurance in the U.S. is a recipe for disaster. (It may not befall you, but the odds are far greater than miniscule that it may. And as you get older, individual insurance -- or no insurance -- becomes increasingly risky, along with the likelihood that you will have a family including dependents.)</comment>