Steve Jobs Book Excerpt: Why he wore the black mock turtleneck uniform - <AUTHOR> http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/11/steve-jobs-book-excerpt-why-he-wore-the-black-mock-turtleneck-uniform/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+9To5Mac-MacAllDay+%289+to+5+Mac+-+Apple+Intelligence%29 <comment><USER3> The point of this article isn't the damned turtleneck -- the lesson to learn is that Jobs was best friends with Issey Miyake. Think about that for a minute: How many other folks who work in tech in the valley have any friends who even work in fashion design? Add to that that this is the same guy who hired Paul Rand the grandfather of American graphic design to come up with the logo for NeXT. This is also the same man who hired I. M. Pei as an architect and powered the team that made the first computer animated motion picture. You can start to see why none of his peers even come close...

<comment><USER4> The point of the article is not the turtlenecks or who Steve Jobs knew. The point is that Steve Jobs was unique and followed his own path. Which other CEO or person do you know which would wear the same clothes every day?? Most people wouldn't and would fear they would get laughed at for doing so.

But Steve was unique. Wearing the same clothes every day made sense for Steve and that is why Steve did that, period. He wasn't concerned about fashion or trends or what others thought - he did what he felt was right. Period.

That is the lesson of the article.

<comment><USER5> _Which other CEO or person do you know which would wear the same clothes every day??_

All the ones who wear suits?

<comment><USER6> That's the answer. At some point in our career, most of us end up wearing some kind of "uniform."

I used to work for a engineering consulting firm. Kevin, the star engineer would wear polo shirts, blue jeans, and sneakers. Everyone one else at his level and above wore suit and tie.

One day the new boss told Kevin that he needed to wear a button down shirt, suit and tie to meet with the client. Kevin told him "You can't make me wear a suit and tie. My clients don't care what I wear." The simple moral of the story was clear: "if you make it rain, you make the rules."

OTOH, he wore jeans, sneakers, and a polo shirt every day. He was hardly a rebel.

<comment><USER7> Well, Sorry at some places. Making it rain won't change anything. Heck, you may make it storm, or cause a earth quake to to happen or even a make Volcano to explode.

Some workplaces are so strict about dress codes, they just won't change for any reason. Especially large corporate bureaucracies. They have a crazy like beliefs that dressing in some way will help their business more than actual work will.

And going against those norms actually will work against you.

<comment><USER8> Surprisingly, most large corporate bureaucracies, except for finance, don't have a dress code. I've seen more dress codes in the medium sized companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was always curious why he would wear such ill-fitting turtlenecks after he lost so much weight in his sickness. I guess his supply of turtlenecks had more of a personal story behind them and it wasn't as simple as ordering a size smaller from the local department store.

</comment><comment><USER10> Many articles have been written lately about how an outsider drop-out like Jobs would have never been given an opportunity to succeed in East Asia.

So it's interesting that here we have a story about how Steve Jobs tried to introduce a company uniform at Apple that emulated Sony. Especially odd given the "think different" slogan of the era.

In any case, I love the idea of a personal brand that doesn't change -- and also the practicality of never deciding what to wear.

<comment><USER11> I actually tried this my freshman year of college: wardrobe of nearly identical shirts, pants and sweaters. I was actually inspired by the idea that whenever cartoon characters opened their closets you'd see it full of just their signature outfit. I didn't use the term 'personal brand' but I had the idea, and also loved the convenience.

Turns out that if you're not Steve Jobs this doesn't work so well. After I had ended the this phase I received a lot of comments from people assuming I just never changed clothes, or at the very least found it to be unpleasantly eccentric behavior. I'm pretty sure that if your true goal is a personal brand, unless you're already a very public figure, you don't want to go this route ;)

On the other hand if you aren't interested in personal brand, or are already branded as eccentric this does make clothes shopping and choosing an outfit much easier.

<comment><USER12> On a more practical note but along a related thread, a couple of years ago I threw out all of my socks and bought a stack of the exact same plain black socks. Now I never have to worry about matching socks, when a hole appears I just throw that sock out, when I'm getting low on socks I throw out the lot and buy them new.

<comment><USER13> Someone wrote a businessplan around you and cleaned up nicely, check out blacksocks.com and the 'sockscription':

[http://www.blacksocks.com/g3.cms/lang/us/s_page/79110/s_name...](http://www.blacksocks.com/g3.cms/lang/us/s_page/79110/s_name/sockscriptionus)

<comment><USER14> Thanks, nice link!

This particular problem appears to be close to being solved for me. I don't see a value in subscription, but reliable source of getting same high quality (providing test socks are going to high-quality) socks of the same color/design in bundles _repeatedly_ is definitely a win.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd LOVE to know any other "failures", however tiny, Jobs had after he came back to Apple. The idea of him getting booed of the stage is not something you hear every day.

He's defined publicly by his old failures and recent successes. I'd love to hear more about more recent failures as well.

<comment><USER16> They are well documented in the many biographies out there. One that comes to mind was his time at Pixar. When he oversaw the designing of the new Pixar headquarters, he had the bathrooms built to be communal (unisex). The employees were mortified and rebelled against the idea until regular male/female bathrooms were put in place.

In fact, Jobs was seen as quite a nuisance at Pixar, and the Pixar employees did as much as they could to limit his meddling. His style of management works at some companies, but not others, it would seem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> A bit of a meta-comment, but I'm starting to think that I'm going to end up reading all the surprising and interesting segments of this biography as blog posts. By the time the book arrives, I fear all that will be left to read is the boring stuff.

<comment><USER18> The thing I'd really like to see in the book (but don't expect to) is why Jobs said no to the Amiga team back in 1983-84 when they were desperately looking for investors. This was prior to the Mac being launched and Commodore eventually buying Amiga.

Apparently Jobs said the Amiga had "too much hardware" which confused chief engineer Jay Miner because all the Amiga's wizardry was handled by 3 custom chips. Wikipedia alleges that Jobs was just nervous about the Amiga upstaging the Mac, but it'd be great to know what his thoughts actually were. I suspect we'll never know...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This reminds me of an interesting story I heard about Honda. Apparently the workers are made to wear white uniforms on the factory floor. If a smudge of dirt is found on a uniform, it is deemed a flaw in the system and supposedly the line is shut down until its origin has been determined.

</comment><comment><USER20> I find it very strange that non-conformist Jobs who hated 1984ish IBM would be pro-uniform. It's a good story in the overload of Jobsian mythology. It shows a different side of him - that he worried about culture in addition to product, that he wasn't always consistent, and that even He could make design mistakes. Much more human a story than the usual fluff.

<comment><USER21> Just when you think a maverick is following the maverick game plan, he deviates.

<comment><USER22> By this definition, there is no maverick game plan.

<comment> ichc-werker Upon hearing this, jarek was enlightened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> >>So it's interesting that here we have a story about how Steve Jobs tried to introduce a company uniform at Apple that emulated Sony. Especially odd given the "think different" slogan of the era.<<

I'd say that to be different in the areas most important to you (usually creative endeavors), you strip all the layers and unnecessary fluff off of your life and boil everything down to pure essence. For that reason, wearing the same thing every day actually liberates your senses and allows you to focus creative energies elsewhere.

This obviously doesn't apply to you if you are a fashion designer =) Jobs was a pretty busy guy, so i'm guessing that removing that extra decision each day actually helped his productivity and creativity.

</comment><comment><USER24> When reading this keep in mind that the Mac was still a skunkworks project inside of Apple when Jobs attempted to institute a uniform policy. Some of the comments have suggested this doesn't jive with the "Think Different" ethos he pushed. The Think Different campaign was initiated in 1997 shortly after his _return_ to Apple. Many things transpired and he matured quite a bit in the intervening ~16/17 years.

<comment><USER25> jibe

<comment><USER24> Thanks. Wish I'd seen that typo before my ability to edit went away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "I have enough to last for the rest of my life."

<comment><USER27> Yeah, that struck me too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> "...its ability to convey a signature style..."

This is important yet overlooked! There is a lot of advice for up and coming founders on HN (and other places) ranging from scalability minutiae to naming your company, which are all important of course, but there is very little advice on how to dress to create a personal signature style.

Why hasn't a site that aims to do this hackers/startup founders crop up, with advice like, what sort of sweater would look good with your Timbuk2 bag, etc.

<comment><USER29> It's funny that it really, horribly clashes with the idea of "Think Different", though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not really - he did indeed Think Different by doing exactly what most other CEO's (then and now) did not, imho.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's the same rationale as the fashion designer Michael Kors and why he's been wearing the same black shirt, black blazer and dark jeans for years - <USER2> become "post-fashion" and have his own signature style that he doesn't have to think about and coordinate every day.

And much like Jobs, he used to dress like a hippie flower child early in his career and he realized sometime later how dated that looked, so he needed a timeless look.

<comment><USER22> There's no such thing as a timeless look. The only look I can think of going back to as late as the 60s - only 50 years - that could reasonably be claimed to be "timeless" is the business suit - and even that is becoming to look... unsuitable in an increasing number of settings.

<comment><USER31> An ordinary black suit, white shirt, black tie and black pants would be about ordinary from 1830 onwards. See [http://lecostumeatraverslessiecles.chez- alice.fr/Costumes/XI...](http://lecostumeatraverslessiecles.chez- alice.fr/Costumes/XIXe/1830-1845_masculin.htm)

<comment><USER32> The cut, fit (tighter or looser) and details such as pant length would date it pretty well. There's no such thing as a standard suit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've read a number of times references to the sweaters coming from St. Croix, for example:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Croix_(clothing)> [http://www.stcroixshop.com/stcroix/default.asp?s_id=0&](http://www.stcroixshop.com/stcroix/default.asp?s_id=0&);

An interesting mystery! A lifetime's supply of Issey Miyake would surely obviate the need to by them from this random shop, right? Am I missing something?

For what it's worth, I hope they come from Miyake, who's a genius in his own right.

Bonus: another person who is staggeringly good at her job, wearing a black turtleneck:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XY3AvVgDns>

<comment><USER34> Unless I've missed it, nowhere on their shop page does it say that Jobs wore their turtlenecks, merely that he was a "fan" of theirs, and the Wikipedia fact is uncited (now marked as such).

<comment><USER33> Another link, from the WaPo:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/arts-post/post/steve- job...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/arts-post/post/steve-jobs-fashion- icon/2011/10/11/gIQA0o6LdL_blog.html)

"Jobs preferred $175 St. Croix cotton and microfiber mock black turtlenecks. According to Bernhard Brenner, the founder of Knitcraft, St. Croix's parent company, Jobs bought about two dozen black turtlenecks each year."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Interesting. I always thought how Jobs made the decision to wear the same clothes was similar to how Feynman made a decision to eat the same icecream (chocolate) all the time. They both thought it was pointless to decide about mundane things and would rather spend time on other more worthy problems.

Interesting to read about how he wore a uniform for better bonding purposes.

<comment><USER36> That's just sad. At least in the ice-cream case just point a random flavor, none or little more effort spent and a whole new world of potential surprises.

<comment><USER37> An affectation really (like wearing a bow-tie). "I'm so important I can't even be bothered to think about what ice cream I want", if true probably done just to be the subject of an anecdote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Very odd. I can find no reference to Sony's uniform having been designed by Issey Miyake, even in Japanese, other than this one anecdote.

Edit: There is some allusion to it, yet no direct reference .. However, it seems he was generally interested in using Japanese fabrics to make clothes for workers in the 1970s, so it is definitely possible.

<comment><USER39> Actually, googling "三宅一生 ソニー" returns a Sony time capsule:

ソニーのユニフォームは何回かデザイン変わってますけど、1981年に採用が決まった最後のユニフォームはなんと三宅一生氏のデザインですよ。

Translation: The design for the Sony uniform has changed several times, but the last uniform for the hiring of 1981 was a design of Issey Miyake.

Ref: [http://www.sony.co.jp/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/capsule...](http://www.sony.co.jp/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/capsule/04/index.html)

Edit: there's an English version here [http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/capsule/0...](http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/capsule/04/index.html)

<comment><USER40> What about any actual pictures of the designs?

<comment><USER39> I googled for a while in both languages and couldn't find one, unfortunately. I did find a book on Amazon Japan with Sony uniform pictures (amongst other companies), but I doubt the specific uniform here is included.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The funny thing is that, watching some of Apple's product announcement videos, some execs wear a similar black-shirt-and-jeans outfit. Scott Forstall jumps to mind.

I actually have, from a friend of a friend, a black long-sleeved sweatshirt made for Apple promoting iMovie. It's not quite a turtleneck but the resemblance is interesting.

</comment><comment><USER42> I always figured he was inspired by Tom Wolfe, who always wore a white suit in public. Wolfe emerged in the sixties and wrote novels about the counter culture movement. Job's references to things like 'the whole earth catalog' and other 60s icons always seem to point to his style.

<comment><USER43> Any book or interview to read more? It sounds interesting

<comment><USER44> This interview from Fresh Air on NPR is really excellent:

[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/12/139383916/tom-wolfe- chroniclin...](http://www.npr.org/2011/08/12/139383916/tom-wolfe-chronicling- countercultures-acid-test)

Wolfe explains why he wore the suit and how it worked in practice when touring around with Kesey. Really great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I don't understand how the turtleneck was the outcome of a design by Issey Miyake, i.e. isn't it just a standard black turtleneck, or are there some design aspects I'm not seeing? I would love some design-centric person to explain this "uniform" in detail.

</comment><comment><USER46> This is something I've thought about for a while. If you find something you're comfortable wearing and eliminate the "what am I wearing today?" process from your daily routine, your mind is that much more engaged in thoughts that matter.

<comment><USER47> I used to feel the way you do, before I met my girlfriend and saw myself through her eyes. She felt about my graphic tees and ill-fitting pants the way I did about her MySpace page's design.

I realized that what you wear affects people offline about as much as your webpage's stylesheet does online. It shows your creativity, attention to detail, and sense of design, or lack thereof. What you're wearing is already influencing what people think of you, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. As with all those local businesses that don't think about their website.

It only matters if you care what other people think. If you can afford not to, or only interact with people virtually, great. But, whether you care or not, if you wear clothes that don't fit or the same outfit every day, people will probably think you have no taste/money/fun. There's a reason Steve Jobs used to dress like this:

[http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BC890_Jobsda_DV...](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BC890_Jobsda_DV_20111009180540.jpg)

You can bet he dressed differently at the Homebrew Computer Club meetings. And nothing wrong with programming in only a towel. Fashion is dynamic. Yes, it's just personal styling, but it's no more "superficial" than your CSS. Wearing a black or white t-shirt/polo/button-down and jeans/khakis is like using the default Wordpress/Posterous theme on your blog.

Does it really take that long to decide what to put on? Vint Cerf found time to dress with style and still invent the internet.

There's a reason software hasn't eaten politics, law, finance, apparel, and hospitality yet. Indochino and Airbnb are certainly a start with the latter two, and no surprise, they dress with style when appropriate[1][2].

[1] [http://www.indochino.com/product/The-Ultimate-Navy-Blue- Blaz...](http://www.indochino.com/product/The-Ultimate-Navy-Blue-Blazer) [2] <http://www.airbnb.com/founding-team>

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Just like Mr. Rogers has a closet full of the same clothes.

</comment><comment><USER49> I think the lesson to take away is not about the designers or fashion so much but to see this as one aspect of Jobs getting past the bullshit to spend more time on the important stuff.

Five minutes less spent thinking about what to wear each morning translates to 30 more hours a year you have to focus on the big things (products, strategy, family, exercise, whatever).

Prolly also has something to do with why he drove a Benz 55 AMG with 500 hp.

<comment><USER50> Although the story begins by describing a search for a team uniform, it seems he adopted the standard dress for convenience and, as you note, personal efficiency.

But you lose me with the last sentence. Nice cars allow busy people a couple pleasurable moments to themselves - moments well appreciated by those of us taking little to no vacation.

<comment><USER49> Was just talking about how he drove fast because time spent in traffic is like time wasted picking out clothes to wear.

There are other more primal things that driving fast delivers too, I'm sure Jobs didn't just drive fast for efficiency reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I see it as: remove focus away from anything but the product. The stage is boring, the screen is boring, the slides maybe not boring but simple, the person is not interessting. Steve was already rock star. Just like the ring in LOTR movies. How you make impact with such a small product. Steve wanted everybody to hunger for creations and his work.

</comment><comment><USER52> I always wondered what the story was behind the outfit. I thought the shirts were made by an European designer though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Kind of fascinating where inspiration can be drawn from.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> What is a brand? It's a symbol that identifies a good or service. The best brands are instantly recognizable, and apple with a bite missing... or a guy in black turtleneck. Both were brilliant moves.

He branded himself as "the" innovator of our times. Was the turtleneck intentional marketing?

<comment><USER54> I suspect it was a marketing decision. The consistency of his clothing choice, helps to reinforce the brand (in this case Steve and Apple) in the public mind via his portrayal in media. For those who are aware he always chose the same clothes it's merely an idiosyncratic trait, however for the wider public who are only dimly aware of leading computer figures, it aids recognition ("ahh that's that guy, who runs Apple") above the background noise. There's a bit of an analogy with brand connection/consistency in choosing similar product names eg - iMac, iPod, iPhone. Consistency, helps cross-recognition and positive association. It's all a carefully crafted narrative for the public mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I'm sorry he didn't get to order another batch from Issey Miyake

</comment><comment><USER56> Does anyone have a photo of the Sony employee uniform?

<comment><USER57> I just spent 10 minutes googling for it and came up empty-handed. Odd that it's so hard to find.

<comment><USER58> So did I. It's odd that something that can't be found in 10 minutes is now considered "hard to find".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Actually, if all I'm going to get from the book is Steve's turtlenecks, I wouldn't buy it. Who planted this link and why does anyone care?

</comment><comment><USER59> I wonder how apple related sites spoil most of the book content before it arrive at my door.

</comment><comment><USER60> As if I needed more incentive to buy the book.

</comment><comment><USER61> A uniform to remind him of his own discipline towards achieving his goals. Interesting.

</comment><comment><USER62> To my mind, the bow-tie Steve and the turtleneck Steve are almost two different people. Long hair, sometimes a mustache, vs. short hair, the and maybe stubble. I've been following Apple and Steve for over 20 years, and there doesn't seem to be a transition between the two in my memory.

<comment><USER41> Steve wore full beards during the early turtleneck era with frightening consistency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> anyone remember the episode from Seinfeld where his girlfriend is wearing the same dress everytime they go out and Jerry suspects if she has closet full of same dress..</comment>


The Story of How the Apple Store Cube Ended Up in Manhattan - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/story-behind-the-apple-store-cube.html

<comment><USER2> > _" Around two in the morning, the group met in front of the GM Building. The > 40‐foot cube was unveiled. They all agreed it was too big. It obscured the > building. Macklowe was grinning. He then gave the signal, and the model was > dismantled — only to reveal a 30‐foot cube he had secretly constructed > underneath. His magic trick worked. Apple was sold on the smaller cube."_

This is a good lesson for software developers who need to convince management. John Carmack had a similar story about convincing Samsung management.</comment>


Repairing a TV with a cool hack - <AUTHOR> http://www.lonelycoder.com/blog/?p=14 "Surprisingly the snooper worked at first attempt. I didn't even care to check that I didn't mixed up SDA and SCL. Apparently Murphy had other things to mess up that day." <comment><USER2> Not knowing much about electronics, I was surprised that it is actually possible to write things to the chip without removing it.

</comment><comment><USER3> That is a nice piece of hacking work. I'd lay 99.9% odds on that write-protect pin being left floating. (Which would mean he'll have to go through the same exercise again. He should have gone ahead and fixed it this time.)

+1 karma to LG for including that schematic. I will remember that little tidbit of information the next time I'm shopping for a TV.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that blew me away. How often do you see schematics for ANYTHING anymore, much less a TV?

Most appliances still include a basic wiring diagram (helped me find a corroded connector in my fridge once), but the circuit boards are usually not diagrammed out.</comment></comment>


Designer's block? Steal your colour scheme from nature - DanI-S http://www.bootstrapp.in/on-colour-and-nature

<comment><AUTHOR> Umm... Pictures of nature tend to look stunning because we self-select for stunning pictures. Most of actual nature is boringly drab greys and browns.

<comment><USER2> I think the idea is more about finding different colors that go well together. If you randomly take a bright green and a bright blue they might not be a good match, but if you take the green and blue from the frog on that picture, they will work better together.

<comment> DanI-S Exactly. For the example images I deliberately chose bright colours that might not seem obvious (at least to my uneducated eye) to put together. However, there's no reason at all why less outlandish colour combinations can't look wonderful; even the most ordinary sparrow is beautiful if you look close.

<http://sdakotabirds.com/species/photos/chipping_sparrow.jpg>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Did anyone else immediately think of the ubiquitous blue and yellow tropical bird that uses the _exact_ shades of blue and yellow that the ugly website example in this article uses? Just do an image search for 'blue yellow bird,' and you'll find multiple examples.

Looking to nature for inspiration is a great idea, but like anything else, it's not perfect. There are still plenty of color schemes in nature that either A) look horrible, or B) look horrible out of their specific context.

</comment><comment><USER4> Looking at nature for inspiration is another fine example of 'going outside of your own system'. However, just a set of colors doesn't communicate much unless it's also clear in which proportions they should appear and for what items or layout elements they're used. To illustrate this: the color paletters at <http://www.colourlovers.com/palettes> don't reveal how they are intended to be used.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you have designers block, write. Write down what you would like to convey. Finding the colors to emphasize this is not the first thing on your list.

<comment> DanI-S I think the 'designers block' part was just my attempt to find a good title. Since this mainly relates to colour, and was aimed at people who are not necessarily experienced designers, it may not have been the best choice!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hmmm... That's like people who know Photoshop call themselves designer. (just an example). Finding good colourful natural pictures is one thing and knowing how to use them is another.

That 'ugly' website is not just ugly because of colours. They are just a part of it.

But anywways, you can have the best colour-scheme in the world and if you don't know how to implement it it's useless. Some colour schemes just don't work on web, some just don't work in print. You got to be wise to know how to use one.

 _Tip:_ You can use Adobe's Kuler to pick shades & combinations for you: <http://kuler.adobe.com>

</comment><comment><USER7> This is always a good idea when dealing with color schemes. More often than not, the colors found in nature are pleasant and easy to link to an animal, place, or situation in nature. Using a photo of a spring sunrise in the mountains or one of a fall sunset surrounded by trees to make swatches can only end up in a beautiful color scheme, granted you use a photo that really evokes the feeling you want to convey.

Of course, color is not enough of a design element to bring your ideas across the internet unscathed... but it sure as hell will mark the mood of your application/website, and should be given some serious thought before committing to any one scheme.

</comment><comment><USER8> I can't believe I've never thought of this before and it's not a new idea. Why haven't I heard this blogged about before?

If I think back to all my good colour schemes they all meet this suggestion. I just never connected the dots before.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is easier said then done, I've tried making color schemes from aesthetically pleasing photos before and the end result was kind of blah. If you take that photo of the frog in the post for example and you want to include the red from the frog's eye in your scheme how do you choose the right red there are probably literally hundreds of different shades you could select. That is to say I agree that nature has awesome color schemes but I don't think it's as simple to go from a great picture of nature to a great color scheme as the author thinks it is, in other words not exactly a shortcut for beginners and the unskilled.

<comment> DanI-S You make a good point - it's not necessarily going to make life easy - but I think it has its validity as a way to at least mask out some possibilities. Decisions are easier when there's less to choose from, so hopefully this can help!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Woohoo! Finally support for implementing the One True Color Scheme: <http://io9.com/5100481/></comment>


Does Work Really Work? - <AUTHOR> http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/l-susan-brown-does-work-really-work <comment><USER3> "The only major differences between a slave and a worker is that a worker is only a slave at work while a slave is a slave twenty-four hours a day"

I'm not a fan of the slave comparison in this context because the word has meaning beyond 'loss of self-determination'.

Moving beyond that, though - it is certainly untrue that a worker only loses self-determination while at work.

What you do, and where you are, during the most productive hours of your life fundamentally shapes you as a person.

It impacts on where you live. It impacts on activities outside of work, because units of time are not fungible. You're less rested, you're restricted to things that can happen after 5pm, etcetera.

<comment><USER4> "nature does not produce on the one hand owners of money or commodities, and on the other hand men possessing nothing but their own labour-power...[this] is clearly the result of a past historical development..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is probably the dumbest thing I've read today. The difference between a worker and a slave is clearly at the end of the day, the worker has more money than at the start, and can exercise buying power over whatever he or she wants to do, including retiring and leaving the company.

This is basically just communism re-wrapped as "changing work."

<comment><USER6> > This is basically just communism

Even the Stoics regarded working for money as a form of slavery

<comment><USER7> > Even the Stoics

You say this like we'd expect the Stoics to be especially unlikely to regard something as a form of slavery. I don't know that to be true. Is it?

<comment><USER4> In my experience a lot of entrepreneurs/entrepreneur literature preaches Stoic philosophies:

[1]: [http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/04/13/stoicism-101-a-practi...](http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/04/13/stoicism-101-a-practical- guide-for-entrepreneurs/)

[2]: [http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/238146](http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/238146)

[3]: [http://mfishbein.com/stoicism- entrepreneurship/](http://mfishbein.com/stoicism-entrepreneurship/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article is nice. But the point about bartering is wrong. The argument seems to go like this:

\- Each thing has a different value based on the person judging it. \- Therefore, we cannot barter.

This is unfounded: The subjectivity of value does not make bartering impossible. Bartering is possible if one judges their own work to have less value or equal value to some other work that they are willing to exchange it for; and vice-versa.

However, I agree with the article that bartering may be undesirable; but the value argument is incorrect.

<comment><USER9> This was one of the worst parts of the article (there were lots of bad parts). The fact that different people place different values on the same object is WHY bartering works at all. If there was a specific value for every object, and everyone agreed on exactly what that value was, then no one would ever trade anything.

I feel like the author of this post does not understand basic economic theory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting article but it fails to answer the basic question, "why do anything at all?"

The obvious answer is that one must do something to stay alive, such as gather food. It's how animals, or more accurately, heterotrophs, live. They find things to eat and try to eat them.

Humans lived like this for a long, long, time.

But then people specialized in things, some learned to grow plants and domesticate animals, others built structures, some specialized in warfare, and so on.

Specialization, which allowed people to become more proficient at a smaller set of activities, came with a price - peole now had to work together because they were no longer self-sufficient. This meant either banding together consciously, for example a tribe, where duties could be allocated somewhat equally, or trading one's specialties for those of another's. Barter was a worthy first stab at trade, but eventually people found using a proxy - <USER2> medium of exchange - much easier. A purse full of coins was much handier than dragging around one's flock of sheep.

Then came things such as contracts, courts, and all the other baggage of a money-oriented society.

This is not to say I agree with the conflation of one's job with one's identity - and maybe in a society that doesn't need everyone to hold a job such questions may become passé or perhaps even become categorized as "too personal", as we consider questions about one's politics or religion.

But back to my original question - the writer didn't seem to consider the trivial case of those who choose to do nothing beneficial for others or themselves. Again, maybe in a world where work is optional that might be moot - but I know several people who would do nothing but eat, drink, sleep, play video games, and breed like rabbits. It's hard to imagine any society being able to produce enough food to keep a rapidly multiplying cohort of parasites fed. And then what?

<comment><USER6> And yet we have hospitals full of health workers, schools full of teachers, and penniless artists and musicians - none of whom chose to maximise their earning potential on wall st or wherever but rather to contribute to society in some way that they felt drawn to

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I did not know wage slavery was a controversial term.

Money is a tool of control, how do you earn money without being controlled by others and following their standards?

How do you spend money without controlling others? Like you donate someone a blanket, that's their burden now and they can be fined for littering if they don't take care of it properly.

We are tightly controlled and tightly control others. The consequences range from minor inconveniences to death.

Death and violence are less frequent per capita, but the threat and control remains.

Freedom and control are both illusions.

I'm free to quit and starve. All the food and land is owned.

<comment><USER12> The term is not controversial, but taking it seriously is, unless you're an anarchist and already assume that all societal constructs are attempts at coercion or slavery to begin with.

<comment><USER11> I am. I do assume that.

What else would they be?

How do you have a societal construct that isn't coerced?

Voluntary participation of 100% of participants ....

<comment><USER12> I would argue that such a definition dilutes terms like 'slavery' or 'coercion' to the point that they become nearly meaningless.

Is this discussion we're having right now really worth considering a form of slavery? Am I attempting to control you, or are you attempting to control me? In this context, can it even be argued that language itself is an act of violence, or that there is even anything wrong with slavery, if it defines human interaction at so many fundamental levels?

After all anarchy itself is a societal construct, with commonly accepted norms, accepted practices, attitudes, cults of personality. What would happen in a perfect anarchist society when someone inevitably questioned anarchy?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This sure stuck a stick in this hive of libertarianism! A better-argued, and far less earnestly argued position is Ellerman's, from "The Libertarian Case for Slavery."

</comment><comment><USER10> I promise to shut up after this. The writer also has a false idea about value and worth. I say the answer is very simple - the value of a thing lies in how much someone is willing to pay for it. That seems circular, but recursive might describe it more accurately. We use a construct known as a market to describe the process.

1) someone (whom we'll call the producer) brings a thing to the market, offering it for a price. Usually the price equals what it cost to produce the things plus a little extra, which we'll call "profit" because it sounds cool. 2) if someone else (we'll call them the consumer) pays the price, then maybe the price of the next item will rise, or maybe it won't. 3) if no one pays the price before the producer runs out of patience, then the producer might lower the price or maybe they'll leave. 4) steps 1-3 continue until everyone is satisfied or runs of of patience.

<comment><USER10> My promise extends only to the original post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> cheesy old-left blather. it seems to offend some people that value is defined by whatever the market will bear, rather than something inherent.

</comment><comment><USER15> Sure wish I could downvote an article. All employment is inherently slavery? That's just male cow droppings.

<comment><USER16> Funny, for a load of bullshit the article offered a much more detailed explanation of their thesis than you have of yours.

Don't you understand that we all inherently have blind spots based on where we come from? The idea that work has to be alright because everyone does it is exactly what people used to say about slavery and overt subjugation of women. People still say it's bullshit that we should concern ourselves with the environmental impacts of what we do.

It's easy to call something bullshit, but philosophers for centuries have suggested that wage labor is better described as wage slavery. It is a legitimate idea and one worth considering. You're quick to dismiss the idea but slow to provide alternative suggestions for how we might be able to end the forced misery of the working class.

<comment><USER15> > Don't you understand that we all inherently have blind spots based on where > we come from?

I sure do. You might have them, too.

> philosophers for centuries have suggested that wage labor is better > described as wage slavery.

I'm sure they have. That doesn't make it "a legitimate idea and one worth considering". Philosophers have said lots of other things over the years, too, many of them patently absurd. You need a better proof than "(some) philosophers have said it".

Can we make work better than it is? Probably yes. Does over-the-top rhetoric make it more likely to happen? No, it makes it less likely. It just gets you classified as a Marxist shill, and regarded as already discredited. If you want anything to actually change, screaming out absurd overheated rhetoric isn't a path likely to succeed. Instead, it gets you ignored.

<comment><USER17> Marx and Engels are hugely influential and popular philosophers. The idea of "wage slavery" is a pretty common and legitimate one. Just because you think it is "over the top" doesn't make it not a legitimate view.

<comment><USER18> Without a doubt, Marx and Engels have been hugely influential in the deaths and enslavement of countless millions over the past century. They have indeed been among the most popular philosophers for several of the most murderous tyrants in human history. A member of my immediate family learned about the evils of "wage slavery" in "classes" taught by Marxists at the Chinese work camp where he was a slave without wages.

I don't know that the term "legitimate" has any real meaning, but when it comes to making a useful contribution, I suspect that Marxist theory will make about the same contribution to employment that it has made to agriculture, industrial production, journalism, civil liberties....

<comment><USER17> That is guilt by association and not really a meaningful argument though. Marx and Engels are used all the time in literary criticism, gender studies, sociology. You just seem to have a really big bone to pick with Marxists.

<comment><USER18> Actually yes, I _do_ consider the horrific, mass atrocities committed by Marxists in the name of Marxism to be relevant to the credibility of Marxism in just the same way that I consider similar consequences when Nazis came to power to discredit _their_ political theories. And, you make a good point about additional fields of Marxist influence: Marxist agriculture's contribution to the food supply, Marxist industry's contribution to national productivity, Marxist political officers on staff at State newspapers and their contribution to journalism, AND literary criticism and gender studies' contribution to academics and free speech on campus.

Marxism has influenced so many fields wherever it has gone, and if you like what it has done to these fields, it's reasonable to assume that it could have a similar impact on paid employment arrangements.

For me, though, that's not an encouraging thought. I've seen enough of the destruction that results when Marxist theory is applied to real people to conclude that whatever the problems with paid employment, good answers will not come from Marxism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > We can understand our own unhappiness as workers not as a psychological > problem that demands Prozac, but rather as a human response to domination.

As someone who has struggled to find enjoyment at a job working on products I didn't believe in, I found this line particularly poignant.

</comment><comment><USER20> If work (in a capitalist system) isn't slavery, couldn't you just choose to not do it?

<comment><USER18> If eating isn't slavery, couldn't you choose to not do it? Needing to do a thing for practical reasons does not automatically make you a "slave".

<comment><USER4> Needing to do a thing for another person for "practical reasons", however, could make you a slave.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't understand how this could've got to the front page.

It was written in 2011. Why front page today? Is this genuinely a popular idea or is HN being manipulated somehow?

<comment><USER21> Hacker News is a site full of entrepreneurs extolling the virtues of hard work and doing four years' work in one year's time -- how can this be so popular?

<comment><USER11> The people working for those entrepreneurs are perhaps less keen on those virtues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The US economy has never had a strong demand for lazy people. You work for a wage because you are to lazy to figure out for your self how to build something or sell something. "But how are you supposed to pay the rent?" \- Well now you are starting to think...</comment>


Animating svg with flubber in react - <AUTHOR> https://sghall.github.io/resonance/#/documentation/animate <comment><USER2> This seems to do requestAnimationFrame animations which are janky during garbage collection rather than CSS animations with 60 fps goodness even under heavy load...?

<comment><USER3> CSS animations do have some limitations on working with shapes rather than data, do they not?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very neat. Loved the state tweeting example.</comment>


Terrible User Experiences in the Spotify App - <AUTHOR> https://uxplanet.org/4-terrible-user-experiences-in-the-spotify-app-947598e4a3f <comment><USER2> Unfortunately the competition (Apple Music) is even worse. I couldn't believe a company that built the iPod and the old, good (pre iOS-7) iPhone music app could screw it up so bad.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Besides what's described in the article I have some other grievances. I find Daily Lists no longer loads new entries when at the end of the list. I don't get many new recommendations in them anyway. Some bug made the list descriptions disappear. And then there are a ton of songs that I _may_ have listened to someday, and Spotify decided to mark the Like button for me on them. I never pressed that button myself.</comment>


Turning a handheld smartphone into a fluorescence microscope - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2019-09-handheld-smartphone-fluorescence-microscope.html <comment><AUTHOR> Here the original paper: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-019-0187-1](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-019-0187-1)</comment>


Ask HN: how much you pay for turning your prototype into web app MVP? - <AUTHOR>

We are based in Europe. We have good skills to appi-fy your prototype/mockups into a web application. How  do we acquire customers for this service? <comment><USER2> so you are basically a software house fishing for clients here?</comment>


Screwing up as a motivator - <AUTHOR> http://agitakis.blogspot.com/2010/07/fucking-up-as-motivator.html

<comment><USER2> _I had no idea what a "sha-bang" is. I've plowed through it and I never noticed it. If you're wondering, it's the "#!" magic number at the start of bash scripts. I know, what the hell, right?_

There are definite geographic variations on that. I pretty much universally encountered "hash pling" early on, and did a real double take the first time I heard it called something else. Why would anybody raise this in a test, I have no idea.</comment>


What "Sent from my iPhone" really means - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2500-lets-be-honest-sent-from-my <comment><USER2> Some ideas:

1\. I has iPhone!

2\. I don't know what an email signature is.

3\. I'm not bothering to figure things out.

4\. Default is great for me!

<comment><USER3> 5\. I'm Steve Jobs

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I usually change mine to "Sent from my mobile" or "Sent from (xxx) xxx-xxxx" I keep a line like this for two reasons, one of which _is_ proofreading related, but the more important is to let them know that the reason for my terse reply is not because I don't care or I'm upset, it's because I'm in transit (or just away from my desk).

<comment><USER5> I wish I could upvote this more. I'm off to change mine to the phone # one now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like it. Then if they're abrupt, I know it's to avoid typing not anger.

<comment><USER7> I agree. I keep it on because I worry that the auto-correct is going to substitute a really unfortunate word for what I intend and I won't catch it when proofreading.</comment></comment>


Charlemagne was a Neuroscientist - <AUTHOR> http://pensees.pascallisch.net/?p=1041

<comment><USER2> Content of the article: Charlemagne was not a Neuroscientist.

Thanks for writing a blog post that tells me something I already knew by appearing to tell me something I didn't.</comment>


US Lawmakers Urge Canada to Snub China's Huawei in Telecoms - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-huawei-tech-canada/u-s-lawmakers-urge-canada-to-snub-chinas-huawei-in-telecoms-idUSKCN1MM2FO <comment><USER2> Notice Telus is issuing Huawei routers to new households here in Canada. Telus, Bell, Rogers - the 3 monopolies here on internet - means you could have about a third or more of the country transitioning to Chinese hardware; that is a lot.

As a Canadian citizen, I urge Canada to snub Huawei too. Doing business with businesses based in China for any reason should be met with extreme criticism simply based on the human rights atrocities that are happening there all the time; not to mention Chinese government's dismantling of free speech in Hong Kong [0] and its continued aggression towards the independent and separate country of Taiwan [1].

China's businesses should fix China's government before they expect to be rewarded with lucrative international deals to the scale that Telus (and Apple, et all) is awarding them.

[https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/10/14/beijing-taking-hong- ko...](https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/10/14/beijing-taking-hong-kong- back-100-years-says-baggio-leung-new-convener-pro-independence-group-hknf/)

[https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/10/11/exclusive-beijing- tell...](https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/10/11/exclusive-beijing-tells- foreign-consulates-hong-kong-refrain-attending-taiwan-national-day-events/)

<comment><USER3> Based on all of that, you shouldn't be doing business with the USA either.

<comment><USER4> US isn't doing anything like what China is doing with the Uyghurs.

<comment><USER5> The US just bomb Muslims with drones instead, much more humane.

<comment><USER6> Scale is a significant differentiating factor.

<comment><USER7> Not to mention intent. The US is ostensibly targeting those drones to attack individuals that their intelligence apparatus has identified as hostile. We can talk about the ethical and methodological problems with this approach, that's fine.

But China's operation appears to have the goal of wiping out Uygher culture and forcibly stripping them of their religious practices. This is all-out assault on the autonomy and dignity of an entire ethnic group. The scariest thing to me is that it might actually work[1].

[1] [https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/zhukov/wp- content/uploads/sites/...](https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/zhukov/wp- content/uploads/sites/140/2017/10/udu_v1.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Apart from U.S pressure, another point to consider is that Huawei is widely believed to have conducted large scale theft of Nortel IP in the 2000s. It's crazy that Canada would think of rewarding such conduct with important telecom contracts.

edit: [https://business.financialpost.com/technology/nortel- hacked-...](https://business.financialpost.com/technology/nortel-hacked-to- pieces)

<comment><USER5> Only one person has made that accusation: Brian Shields, and he does so without any evidence.

<comment><USER9> > _Only one person has made that accusation: Brian Shields, and he does so > without any evidence_

There was a lot of evidence of the hacking [1][2]. What was unsubstantiated was Brian Shields' belief that "the extensive cyberattacks on Nortel contributed to its downfall" [3].

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203363504577187...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203363504577187502201577054?_nocache=1329206812142&user=welcome&mg=id- wsj)

[2] [https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400242,00.asp](https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400242,00.asp)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortel#Hackers_had_free_access...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortel#Hackers_had_free_access_for_years_without_being_detected)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Stupid question, but aren't essentially _all_ routers made in China? Maybe not neccessarily by natively Chinese companies, but for sure in Chinese factories owned 51% by Chinese citizens? Or are there recommendable domestic options? What's the difference security-wise between a Huawei device and, say, a Motorola device made in China?

I've used a Huawei LTE router from a German telco before and thought it was a pretty solid product, but given the recent headlines I find it hard to judge what's a legitimite concern and what's just "red scare".

<comment><USER11> It's hard to tell... China's government has definitely been involved in cyber- attacks to further business interests throughout the world. They've developed better soft skills and fostered a lot of relationships to that end. Some of these actions are entirely natural, others completely unscrupulous. It really depends and it's hard to be objective.

In the end, I think it's been very ill advised for the U.S. Govt to allow so much of its' essential communications and other technical infrastructure to be delivered by foreign entities given domestic capability. I think we're only now starting to realize how much risk has been levied and how dangerous this has really been. Not just to domestic businesses, but to our own security.

The advice to Canada isn't necessarily bad, however I'm not sure that I would trust U.S. entities any further given the amount of cyber-warfare coming from all sides, and spying all around. Larger countries should definitely work to at least form their own assembly plants for most goods if they're able to support that. It can at least minimize a lot of the risks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Given the cozy relationship between the Chinese government and Chinese telecoms, it's probably best to avoid any Chinese made electronics for infrastructure, if possible. Chinese military agents are even implicated in attacks on Western companies to help their own corporations.

The scale at which companies work with the government and how the government funds companies makes it very hard to trust any Chinese company.

<comment><USER13> Fair points, but you can search/replace Chinese with American and the statements are arguably as true. From cozy relationships to telecoms, to compromising electronics for their own ends, to engaging in industrial espionage for US organizations (including against companies of allies -- the CIA and NSA are both engaged in economic espionage, and share useful information with corporate partners).

It is a bit strange seeing the US yelling the warnings about China when really they just gained a peer doing the same things.

<comment><USER9> > _you can search /replace Chinese with American and the statements are > arguably as true_

Not really. American companies can and do defy the American executive branch. Rule of law and an independent judiciary are things in America. They are not in China.

<comment><USER13> _Rule of law and an independent judiciary are things in America_

A rule of law that is profoundly flexible to achieve whatever the US government wants to do. From secret courts and directives that you can't talk about, to the wholesale capture of telco traffic (with telco complicity, of course). And that rule of law allows the massive US intelligence establishment to do virtually anything internationally (which is the context that we're talking about), from sabotaging systems, performing economic espionage and stealing trade secrets, to murder.

Virtually the same trappings and illusions of controls exist in China as well.

Both countries do the same thing, and to an international country are interchangeable. The overall context to these discussions, however, is that the US is somehow good and China is somehow bad, so it's different.

<comment><USER9> > _Virtually the same trappings and illusions of controls exist in China as > well_

Secret courts are a shame. Secret directives, on the other hand, can be compatible with the rule of law and an independent judiciary, provided they're lawfully authorized and can be challenged in a court.

At the end of the day, a private citizen (or foreign government) can challenge the U.S. government on equal grounds in a fair court. That is not the case in China.

<comment><USER14> > Secret courts are a shame. Secret directives, on the other hand, can be > compatible with the rule of law and an independent judiciary, provided > they're lawfully authorized and can be challenged in a court.

I presume you also forgot to add this before challenged in a court...

> ..., whistleblowers are protected, and can be ...

You see, because that's the thing with secret directives, they're redacted from the public eye. The only way we get visibility into them isn't with FOIA requests, it's with whistleblowers who feel the government is doing things wrong, and if they're not protected, they rarely come forward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Based on Huawei's existing presence in Ottawa a couple years ago, I'd say that this ship has already sailed. Canada isn't going to kick out any of the companies that scooped up bits of what used to be Nortel.

<comment><USER16> Note that this isn't about kicking Huawei out of the existing network deployments (2G where it still exists, 3G & 4G/LTE). This is about not letting Huawei compete for 5G network infrastructure bids.

I understand the national security concerns, but it should be noted that real incremental costs will be incurred if Canada agrees, especially for Canadian carriers who already have Huawei RAN[1], Packet Core[2] or GiLAN[3] (or worse, an entirely E2E bundled deal) infrastructure in place servicing their current needs.

Huawei almost always has the lowest RFP bid prices, and through a combination of factors generally ends up on most RFx vendor short-lists. Their success is undeniable, and scares many.

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

[2] [http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords- acronyms/100-the-e...](http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords- acronyms/100-the-evolved-packet-core)

[3] [https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en- us/reference_arch...](https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en- us/reference_architectures/2017/html/deploying_mobile_networks_using_network_functions_virtualization/background#gilan)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> >"grave concerns"

I just want to know what these grave concerns are. If they are such a big deal then the details should be released to the public.

<comment><USER9> > _the details should be released to the public_

Details _have_ been released. The Wikipedia page provides a good compendium of Huawei's intellectual property rights abuses, espionage and security concerns, workforce treatment issues and sanctions violations [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Given all the animosity between the countries at the moment (Made in America, NAFTA 2, Bombardier, boarder delays, the Saudi fiasco, pending legalization of pot) now is not the best time for the US to urge Canada to impose any new restrictions. Canada laughed the last time the US described it as a national security threat (aluminum/steel tariffs) it will laugh at this one too.

Canada needs improved cellular services and it needs them now. Canada's cell networks are much more regulated than those of the US. They cover vastly larger areas and are much more expensive to access. The insertion of national security politics will only slow progress.

<comment><USER16> >> _Canada needs improved cellular services and it needs them now._

In what way does Canada require improved cellular service? I'm nodding my head to the other points you've made but this one puzzles me. If you're talking about pricing, then I would agree there given more numerous and more transparent wireless competition in other countries.

Canada's mobile networks are generally comparable to advanced (but not cutting edge) cellular networks around the world.

<comment><USER18> Yes, in Toronto and Vancouver. But drop a random pin on a map of Canada and it is a different story. There are towns only 50km from downtown Vancouver that lack any reliable cell coverage. I've been involved in a few SAR events, at major tourist spots beside highways, where the lack of cell coverage was a huge issue.

Canada's distances also mean that there remain a great many communities without wired internet services. Satellite is very expensive, and increasingly difficult at higher latitudes. Cellular-based broadband is the only realistic option.

[http://www.comparecellular.com/images/assets/coverage- maps/b...](http://www.comparecellular.com/images/assets/coverage-maps/bell- coverage-map-english.png)

Setting aside the north, take a look at how much of BC lacks any real cell coverage.

<comment><USER16> There's huge demand for cellular-based broadband. I wasn't aware that TELUS' wireless coverage in the Interior was so bad, and slightly surprised that there isn't more negative news coverage when TELUS and Bell tout "national coverage". I'm sure the CRTC's roaming caps[1] will change some of the profitability scenarios per set of cell-sites.

I will note that Saskatchewan (through SaskTel) seems to cover the province quite well even outside of Regina and Saskatoon.

Re. cellular-based broadband - while there is huge demand in rural regions, the pricing is challenging. Basically, cellular-based "broadband" usually operates at a loss, but at least it's a loss that more carriers are willing to shoulder, in (small) part due to the CRTC's renewed call for action to review "universal broadband service"[2] in 2019.

[1] [https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-99.pdf](https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-99.pdf)

[2] [https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/internet/internet.htm](https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/internet/internet.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> All the security concern about Huawei may actually make its devices more secure in the long run. The heightened scrutiny by various players not only deter Chinese government from conducting blatant hacks, but also expose many conventional vulnerabilities that pose a greater threat for most businesses. For example, UK intelligence agency has a joint testing center with Huawei to vet its source code and hardware design. It's really hard to find this kind of capable and independent party to perform such comprehensive security audit.

<comment><USER9> > _All the security concern about Huawei may actually make its devices more > secure in the long run_

This makes no sense. Nobody argues for purchasing a product based on a manufacturer's history of security failings.

<comment><USER19> I didn't say this is a reason to buy Huawei. I'm suggesting a side effect of security concern is improved security. To make secure software/hardware, it is really valuable to have people of different backgrounds to take a look. This is what many other venders do not have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is there any reason info showing this company to be any more evil than any other China based cell company? Just curious why they seem to be targeted more than others.

</comment><comment><USER21> I would not trust a single word coming out of these politicians. they are basically spreading fud.

</comment><comment><USER21> we should buy NSA made routers instead.

</comment><comment><USER22> It really isn't a good time for the US to "urge" Canada to do anything. There is no surplus of good will between the countries after Trump's bullying and insults. Canada can make its own decisions.

<comment><USER23> This is the same Canada they're trying to start a trade wea war wor with, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > As a Canadian citizen, I urge Canada to snub Huawei too.

I'm not a fan of Huawei, but I am a fan of retaining our sovereignty. If the US wants the privilege of suggesting how we should run our country, then perhaps they should work on their end to repair the bilateral relationship. Currently, my vote is to tell them "Mind your own damned business."

<comment><USER24> who's goals are more aligned with yours? neighbors to the south who you share a lot in common with or a totalitarian government on the other side of the planet.

<comment><USER25> Nations don't have friends, they only have interests.

Being overly dependent on "America First, Always" technology doesn't serve the Canadian interests.

<comment><USER26> You realize that there exist major infrastructure-hardware players outside of the US _or_ China, right? Ericsson (of Sweden), for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Urge what now?

Do you know who makes the rules over what I can and can't buy?

Yes, that's right. Me.

U.S. Lawmakers don't get a say, sorry. I'll buy what I want, thanks.

The arrogance is _astounding_.

</comment><comment><USER25> China is creepy and Huawei is not reliable.

But, for Canada, being overly dependent on the US is much worse. I don't want this country to become a Northern Puerto Rico.

<comment><USER28> > China is creepy

Nationalistic slights will get you banned here. Please don't do this again.

Edit: looks like we had to warn you about this once before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> What's this latest trend about evil huawai lately? If there is something to report then they should report it.

<comment><USER9> > _If there is something to report then they should report it._

There has been a lot of reporting on Huawei's sketchiness. The Wikipedia page [1] is a good starting point.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any advice for an older engineer stuck in his career? - <AUTHOR> I am in my mid thirties. I earn decently, but it has been years since I learned anything new or even enjoyed my work. I am not half as good as the HN crowd, but I can build things and be quite useful to a team. I made the stupid move to go from Java (desktop apps) to PHP and am now stuck maintaining a poorly written legacy (15 year old) app and under a lot of pressure to deliver (fixing performance, clean up code etc) and I am not living up to it. Most importantly, I am just not enjoying it.
What can I do to get out of this rut? I absolutely do not want to work on legacy codebases anymore (can't leave the job until July for various reasons) and I'd also like to get out of PHP if possible (go back to Java or learn something new).
I am afraid to apply for jobs that require experience I don't have. I'd totally love to work in graph databases for example (have played with it a bit before), or data analysis, data viz etc.
Any advice? <comment><USER2> You aren't an older engineer.

If you don't want to maintain poorly written legacy code, then you're in the wrong business. Learn Java server-side/web apps, learn D3.js and apply it to some public data set or whatever you are interested in.

See if you can use the new tech you learn at your current gig in some way, then you will have experience with it and can look elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER3> Get up earlier and do your pivot work there (training, applying, research). If you can cut out entertainments (movies, games, dining out) do that too and work in there.

The real question here is inertia, and you're going to need to burn some fuel to get yourself a new vector.

Good luck, the earlier you start the sooner you'll get to your destination.

</comment><comment><USER4> > What can I do to get out of this rut?

Start attending Software Development meet-ups as frequently as you can. That's where you'll plug into new ideas. Nearly every major hub city has an active community worth checking out. > [http://softwaredev.meetup.com/](http://softwaredev.meetup.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> You can use your Java skills to do something exciting like building Android apps, it's easy to learn and doesn't require much experience.

</comment><comment><USER6> PHP rules!</comment>


The First Narco Submarine Ever Seized Off a European Coast Is a Monster - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31248/the-first-narco-submarine-ever-seized-off-a-european-coast-is-a-monster <comment><USER2> Very interesting the lengths the smugglers go through, and how much capex they are willing to invest in the logistics. Just goes to show there is a stable and high demand for this product.

</comment><comment><USER3> Such a badly written article. 'Galacia' is repeated through the text.

<comment><USER4> I assume you mean it should be spelled 'Galicia'.

<comment><USER3> Exactly.</comment></comment></comment>


Running an English speaking company in Europe - <AUTHOR> http://micho.biz/post/66768255943/running-an-english-speaking-company <comment><USER2> This is pretty much standard for most tech startups in Amsterdam, and I suspect several other European cities. The main reason isn't the ambition to expand internationally, but staffing.

However, I've also encountered a lot of resistance, especially outside such international cities. Some people fundamentally dislike the idea of having to speak English if working for or partnering with a local company. It's also heavily associated with pretentiousness.

<comment><USER3> Yep, just yesterday I had an interview at an Amsterdam startup, everything in Dutch. Right afterwards I was introduced to the team, and suddenly everything was in English. I was a bit surprised and unprepared but I don't mind, some other employees and interns are from other countries and I actually love working in English (I do at my current, remote job too).

<comment><USER4> As a company you're constraining yourself so much by requiring Dutch if you want to hire good people. I know many companies that still do so. Better for the rest of us!

One thing I noticed: Dutch people can switch pretty well during "work" discussions, but during lunch or social events, the switch is harder and you have to remind people to speak English.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wish more companies did this. Especially in Sweden, at least would lessen the burden for my partner to get a job. Speaks Mandarin and English fluently. Even jobs that could be done in English requires Swedish.

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately this is a problem in many EU countries. Most of the job descriptions require perfect English + the local language (whatever that is). In the worst case the local language is not mentioned, but then they fire your CV too fast not to suspect language had something to do with it.

It's a real hassle, especially when you don't become "loyal" to any EU country in particular, thus it makes no sense to learn its local language as there are way too many languages around, me the last 4 years: I lived in Denmark (Danish), Germany (German), now I live in Belgium (Dutch AND French).

The whole situation creates "sticky" jobs, where people end up stuck in 1 country, sometimes a very small country, and they can't really embrace the full power of a unionized economic area. I mean, only for this US is so much better than EU, 300ML people all speaking the same language...

<comment><USER7> > The whole situation creates "sticky" jobs, where people end up stuck in 1 > country, sometimes a very small country, and they can't really embrace the > full power of a unionized economic area.

I understand your frustration, but the purpose of the policy is precisely to create 'sticky jobs', and this is really the only way things can work unless countries like Denmark and the Netherlands wish over time to lose their languages, and become more or less undifferentiated provinces of Europe. Labour market mobility is important, but it is not the sine qua non of modern Europe. Small countries accept immigration on the basis that the immigrants will over time learn the language and adjust to the culture, it's impossible for them to maintain the integrity of their state if a major percentage of the population are transitory.

<comment><USER6> Please, if those countries really wanted to keep their identities, their inhabitants wouldn't consume so much US music, movies, style and products (iphones, anybody?).

People are already buying into the "just a province of Europe (I'd say, just a province of US)" with their wallets. I don't see how forcing a local language is helping in counteracting the "provincialization" trend.

Finally, in my ramblings around Europe, especially north and central Europe, I noticed that people really love to keep a "fake" identity. They would wear weird dresses (the Germans), eat weird stuff (the Danish), have a weird Santa Claus (the Belgian, pardon, Flemish), just to think they are "different". They are not different, most of the EU countries are very, very, similar to each other. I really wish we realized that and stopped this craziness about "losing our culture", we already lost our culture, because that was the good/optimal thing to do, please let's get over it.

<comment><USER7> You should try asking the people around you whether they wish to give up their language and culture to become an undifferentiated province. Even in the internationalized circles in which expats move you will find almost no-one (who is not an expat) who agrees with the proposition. It may well be that many people make many small decisions which tend towards that outcome, but that is what democratic, civic decision making processes are for. You might as well say that people vote with their wallets to build on the countryside.

And you only have to look at the way in which the political systems operate in different European countries to see the massive cultural differences which exist. How do you think the Danish would react to a politician like Berlusconi?

<comment><USER6> Interesting discussion, a pity HN is not made for long conversations.

Political system are a complicated beast. We all watch the same movies, buy the same stuff, but, somehow, vote in completely different ways. I think it's because of how incentives are set in the respective countries. They are not really culture, but just something that's there and it is very difficult to remove.

For example, the Italian systems protects pharmacies (you can have only 1 each xyz inhabitants). But the Danish system protects its economy taxing cars 180%. The principle behind those 2 policies is the same (the State can and has to affect the economy), yet the incentive this creates and the impacts on the economy are very different.

<comment><USER7> > Political system are a complicated beast. We all watch the same movies, buy > the same stuff, but, somehow, vote in completely different ways. I think > it's because of how incentives are set in the respective countries. They are > not really culture, but just something that's there and it is very difficult > to remove.

I take your point, although arguably institutional memory is an important part of culture, especially given the cultural norms which build up intertwined with those organizations.

Even beyond institutions, though, I'd say there are still very significant differences. My understanding is that Berlusconi does well partly because people admire his lad-ish lifestyle (fast cars, 18 year old supermodels, etc). Whereas in many other countries his attitude, and level of consumption would be considered vulgar. Berlusconi doesn't just get in because of the electoral system, a lot of people in Italy must like him. And elsewhere in Europe he is simply not liked.

Obviously, that's just one example. I don't mean to pick out Italy in particular.

<comment><USER6> As I am Italian (who never voted Berlusconi), let me say that Berlusconi is not about the ladies and the fast cars, but a lot about a weak, very weak, alternative (a very shitty left wing). Italy is a conservative, right wing, country and Berlusconi was the only leader in that area for 20 years. How this happened and why will take too long to explain.

Yes, you have a point that Berlusconi is a sort of cultural difference. But to be sure of that, we shall put Danes in Italy for 10 years and see what they vote after that period. Yes, institutional memory is a cultural "feature", but for me "culture" is more the day to day of people, what do they laugh at? What are they aspirations? Dreams? What do they buy? Do they travel? Do they like sunny beaches (ie: Chinese don't like sunny beaches, here you have a cultural difference...)? Etc. In this, in EU we are very, very, similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love this idea and I truly hope that more companies see that as a feasible option. More so, because I've been contemplating the idea of leaving London for Croatia for some time, but Croatian is an incredibly hard language to learn.

On a second thought, it's also fair to say that the idea is all well and good, but all you need is a disgruntled employee to ruin it to everybody else. But then, I guess it's all up to what type of people you hire in the first place, and how the company shows those new-hires what kind of culture is expected from them.

There are few rulings in the UK, based on EU's laws, supporting employees speaking they own language even when the nature of the business require them to speak English. The most recent case I recall of, is that of a Polish nurse/nanny/babysitter who would speak Polish to Polish-parents and Polish co- workers. But her managers required there to stick to English at all times, even when approached by Polish speaking parents and co-workers. She sued and won.

<comment><USER9> Well, I don't think you've told entire story. She was speaking at her lunch time in polish and her manager said that this is not allowed.

[http://witnesshr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/polish-worker- sacked...](http://witnesshr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/polish-worker-sacked-for- speaking-her.html)

(Btw, a lot of polish and spanish developers arrived to the UK in recent months)

<comment><USER8> By no means it was my intention to make one side or the other look bad. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was just trying to make it short, since that is a side story and therefore it's likely to be irrelevant to the OP.

But since you pointed out one of the many articles surrounding that particular case, fyi that article is also incomplete. Google a bit and you'll find some extractions of the court case. The speaking-during-break was the pinacle of the story, which had started months before when her boss told her to speak only English even when the clients (parents) started a conversation with her in their shared/common language.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a similar route my company has taken. We are based in Madrid and are just about to break out of Spain in terms of customer base.

We are more a traditional company competing in an existing industry hence Silicon Valley is not a location we compete with in terms of culture or product design.

What has been a big challenge for us after switching to English has really been acquiring local talent that is already here or willing to move here, can speak English well and also have great coding skills (in C# .Net if you want to know)

We have been successful in recruiting people in rural Spain and across Europe but it seems that all the English talent in MAdrid already is quite comfortable in their jobs.

So in summary - I think if you are in non-english Europe and do the switch, be prepared to diversify your operations and look at remote workers or branch offices away from your HQ.

YMMV of course.

</comment><comment><USER11> It might be a problem to keep your best developers working in Barcelona on Spanish level salaries if they are good, young and fluent in English. It's not just the absolute salary numbers: the relative purchasing power of even decent Spanish salaries is pitiful. I only stay here because I'm not so young anymore and have a family, but otherwise I would move somewhere that might be twice as expensive but pay more like 3x.

<comment><USER12> On the other hand, Barcelona is a great place for young people to live.

I know plenty of people here in Barcelona who could earn much more in their home countries, but choose to live in Barcelona for the better quality of life.

A web developer would probably earn twice as much in London (where I'm from) than here in Barcelona, but they would have to spend all the increase on rent to rent a nice apartment. Forget buying in London on a junior- to mid-level salary, but here you could buy a nice apartment in a nice part of the city.

Not to mention the weather, scenery, beach, cheaper restaurants and bars (with better opening hours), lack of violence, and sheer excitement of being in a foreign country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I hate this configuration where development is in one place and suits in the other, moreover when one is way more expensive than the other (often with the suits in the more expensive). I leads to incredible culture divisions.

I'm still struggling for solutions, because having the sales next to the customers HQ makes sense somehow.

<comment><AUTHOR> One of the points in the article is that having your team across timezones, all speaking the same language makes it possible to collaborate when in different locations. Why would it matter which employee is more expensive than the other, in the end it's about the results. Running Marketing and Sales in Barcelona might make it harder to find the clients they have today.

<comment><USER14> OP here. Ditto to that, we like our culture in Barcelona and didn't want to replace it. We don't see it as a matter of cost, but a matter of possibility.

Since we didn't have a solid marketing or sales team, we decided to land it where our main market is. It just made sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Starting an international SaaS company is a beast of an undertaking, kudos.

<comment><USER16> What other options are there?

I am not being snarky. In my head any and all SaaS plays are inherently international. Perhaps that's because I am Slovenian and any endeavour that is not international by default is doomed from the get go.

I could not imagine a SaaS story that is viable in mid to long term without inherent internationalization. Except perhaps US based companies, however there WILL be trouble as soon as you try to enter European market if you assume that US is the world.

<comment><USER14> Many friends of mine have local companies, targeting only the Spanish market. It works well for them, but we have different goals. They want to be local leaders (easier acquisition, lower marketing costs), we want to build a leader in our category (higher investment in development and marketing)

<comment><USER16> But this is the difference.

I would rather be a small fish in a big pond than a big fish in a small pond.

Especially if the first is many times bigger than the second one could ever be.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Fully responsive infinite space invaders entirely in HTML5 - <AUTHOR> http://huw.nu/spacerave2014

<comment><USER2> Bug report: The on-screen controls don't appear if I start in portrait and then follow the instructions to go landscape (iOS Safari).

Looks good otherwise.</comment>


Show HN: A better elance just for designers - <AUTHOR> http://pixelfold.com

<comment><USER2> My biggest problem with hiring designers like this is that it encourages designing for other designers, rather than for the customer. I want a designer that prioritizes something that's easy to use and obvious, rather than something that screenshots well for Dribbble. Sometimes those two goals can align, but not always.

<comment><USER3> I think you can solve that by taking into account customer feedback when curating the designers. That would for sure allign interests.

<comment><USER4> That suggests that our clients know smart and usable design when they see it. I actually think they're half of the problem.

<comment><USER5> Maybe what your clients want isn't high design, but good design delivered on time, within budget, and incorporating the feedback they were given.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you are reading this and would actually like to hire a proven designer today, take a look at [https://scoutzie.com](https://scoutzie.com).

We have a fabulous curated group of designers, many of whom are ready to start today. You can can browse through their portfolio work and past client reviews.

Send messages to as many matching designers are you like; work with the one that matches you best. More on how Scoutzie works here - [https://scoutzie.com/how-scoutzie-works/for- clients](https://scoutzie.com/how-scoutzie-works/for-clients)

Cheers!

ps. I am the founder, so feel free to ask me any questions.

<comment><USER7> How do you feel about [http://99designs.com](http://99designs.com), in particular the competition model in regards to design?

I've personally used them a few times with vary levels of success. It is particular useful for lightweight projects such as logo designs.

<comment><USER8> I used 99designs to get a book cover designed and I was very happy with the results. My designer was responsive, friendly, and made a wonderful design that went above and beyond what I was expecting.

However, I was unhappy with how little the designer actually received. I paid $799 to run the competition, and the winning designer only got $387! Charging >50% commission seems highly exploitative, especially when all the designers who don't get selected receive nothing at all despite spending spending time creating designs.

<comment><USER6> See my comment to the person above, /re why competitions are soul-sucking experiences for designers.

Also, to your point about charging 50%+. Word is, 99Designs used to do very well, up until the point when the founder took on a huge VC investment and left the company. I guess since their business model is pretty much tapped out, they figured that raising margins would fix the slow growth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I showed it to my wife who is a account manager at a branding / design firm. She is someone who would be a potential user of the site as someone looking for a designer.

Her impression was that the site made her sign up and then provided no value. She showed me a very plain looking page that just said "I am looking for a designer." Now she is worried that the site is going to spam her forever.

Hope that feedback helps.

<comment><AUTHOR> They have a waiting list right now for people looking to hire designers. I know the team and I can assure you they have no intentions of spamming you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't mean to offend but your sites theme looks like something I could pickup for $10 on Themeforest. Consider making it easier for users to see the way the system works, examples and use cases, as well as success stories (I recognize you are currently new).

Additionally, consider changing your front page video to someone actually designing something.

Also use margin-bottom: 0 on your about page to eliminate evil whitespace!

</comment><comment><USER10> Dear Pixelfold team, the graph icon above "2\. The community votes" on the site looks like someone's showing a middle finger! You may want to change it, considering the impression you want to create as a community of top designers.

<comment><USER11> And the pencil icon above #3 "Great projects find you" looks like a penis. Sorry, but I looked over the page and definitely saw a graph and a piece of paper/pencil. I think there are a LOT of icons and illustrations that we can look at and see something unintended (not always a bad thing!)but just because this happens doesn't mean the design in question is bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Sounds like a good idea. We used to spend lot of time on dribbble and other websites and its really difficult to figure out which designers are good without wasting weeks... How does the community curates?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not the creator, I posted this because we spent way too much time looking for a designer on dribbble, behance, and elance. Users look at the applications and then vote on whether the designer should be admitted

<comment><USER12> I would recommend www.folyo.me. I posted a job there recently and got 20 high quality leads.

<comment><USER13> > "Posting a project on Folyo costs $99." Is a bit of a turn-off for small > projects where design cost will likely only be $400-500.

<comment><USER14> That's actually on purpose. We try to encourage larger projects with a higher budget, because we don't want to compete with 99designs and other similar sites at the lower end of the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> That could probably work for developers.

All the freelance sites I use have the option to link to github, stackoverflow and others, but not do anything with that.

</comment><comment><USER16> Can you also make a better elance/odesk just for programmers? Seriously; elance isn't it and the average hourly rate on there is about $10.

<comment><USER17> Is this possible? I get the impression that any such websites will always simply draw such rates, because that's what the market is willing to pay. I'm not talking about the market in general. I'm talking about the market that would be attracted to browse such websites. Anyone who's willing to pay more, they do things like browse github profiles. No?

<comment><USER16> I don't know any better than you. But my guess is that if you set a minimum hourly rate and also had peer reviewed contractors, that you would attract clientele willing to pay more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The self-curation is a great idea. It's something we want to implement on our own find-a-designer site (Folyo) down the road.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for Folyo. It was my first time hiring a designer and I am very happy with the results.

<comment><USER14> Thanks, glad to hear that!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How would you go about preventing elitism from creeping in, given its self- curating nature?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that the self-curating aspect is probably better at preventing elitism than an invite based system. That way it is not so much about who you know but more about how good you are.

<comment><USER18> Potentially true, though I would imagine it depends on the size of the initial pool. Otherwise, if its small, I think you'll see bias in the selection of the early members which will carry forward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Does it work for individual designers only or design firms can apply as well?</comment>


Stop building scalable code. - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/what-i-learned-building/38b1ed55d2c7

<comment><USER2> This is very short-sighted thinking - and following this thinking is what got the first startup I worked for killed. We were focused on features; customer XYZ wanted this, customer ABC wanted that. So I coded them. The CEO encouraged me to just push features and ignore the long term plan "Once we make money we'll rewrite - and if we don't make that money we'll fail fast". In the end we added lots of features - and the app got so bogged down into a mire of hacks that I feel I lost the thread of it. I knew that there were ways I could have written better, cleaner, more functional and reusable code - but the push, push, push of getting features out there encouraged me to not act before planning.

And I will never make that same mistake again.</comment>


Accessorize to a Crime: Real and Stealthy Attacks on S.O.F.A Face Recognition [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sbhagava/papers/face-rec-ccs16.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> The title was long; I abbreviated it: S.O.F.A == "State-of-the-Art"

Full Title:

 _Accessorize to a Crime: Real and Stealthy Attacks on State-of-the-Art Face Recognition_</comment>


Facebook Mentions - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/about/mentions/?ref=mentions_bookmark

<comment><USER2> so... Periscope/Meerkat on Facebook?

Actually, at second glance:

 _Facebook Mentions is only available to public figures with verified Pages._

<comment><USER3> That's exactly what jumped out to me as well. Interesting to see them position a product for only the top 1% of Facebook. I'd be curious to see what metrics drive public figure-hood. 1M+ followers?</comment></comment>


S.E.C. Pays Out First Whistle-Blower Reward - <AUTHOR> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/s-e-c-pays-out-first-whistle-blower-reward/?nl=business&emc=edit_dlbkam_20120822

<comment><USER2> This is both a good and bad turn of events.

Good, because we want to send anyone in the financial field to jail and this will satisfy our blood lust. Oh sorry I meant this will send more criminals to jail.

But, it always pays to be the first one to rat out your friends - you can make a deal. The second one to rat out, generally has nothing left to make a deal with.

However, being able to rat out your friends means you were in on it in the first place. And the de facto requirement that the tip must be high-quality (read actionable evidence) means you needed to be recording everything you were doing. So, continue with the frauds, but keep really good records and know the number of the SEC.</comment>


Tay, Microsoft's AI chatbot, gets a crash course in racism from Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/24/tay-microsofts-ai-chatbot-gets-a-crash-course-in-racism-from-twitter <comment><USER2> It also has a thing for hitting on people: [http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/23/microsoft...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/23/microsoft_s_tay_chatbot_for_millennials_is_hilariously_inappropriate_but.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Article intro:

> Attempt to engage millennials with artificial intelligence backfires hours > after launch, with TayTweets account citing Hitler and supporting Donald > Trump

Also, bad decision by Microsoft to allow it to honor "repeat after me" requests.</comment>


BBC IT project to save £17.9m cost it £38.2m net - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/07/bcc_mps_report/ <comment><USER2> Outsourcing to the lowest bidder leads to a massively over-budget, failed project.

Why does everyone have to relearn this same lesson over and over again? Hasn't there been enough massive software failures in this world for _someone_ to start to take notice?

<comment><USER3> There was no cheapest bidder in this case - Siemens got the job without competition, likely as part of the BBC's questionable 10 year contract to outsource pretty much everything to Siemens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hang on a minute. Is it only me or are the conclusions a little disingenuous?

a) Is it fairly normal for projects of this size to be over-budget? If so is their overrun more or less than the norm of projects of equivalent size?

b) Is it fairly normal for large projects, spanning multiple years, to enjoy some feature creep and specification changes? If so did this project exceed that norm?

c) Is there any correlation, with projects in this sort of price bracket, between "in house" and "outsourcing" when it comes to budget or time overruns?

In short - it seems to me the conclusions are easier said than done;

        * A senior leader who has a track record of successful delivery of large, complex software development projects

No doubt there are lots of folk with this on their resume. And I'm guessing they're really cheap. Or perhaps they're really, really scarce and probably don't want to work on a BBC salary. And if they _do_ hire such a person, next there'll be headlines about how he makes more than the Prime Minister.

        * Clear roles and responsibilities

I'm not even gonna comment on this one...

        * Cooperation between, and integration of, the various functions on a project, including development, deployment and support

yeah - exactly - and where do you think most of the overruns came from in the first place. This sort of endless "integration" is code-speak for a shifting specification, not exactly the best way to get on budget.

        * Clear and effective project governance with the appropriate representation on each group or board from across the project, business and suppliers.

yay. Or in other words. More Managers. Yeah. That's the solution - throw more people at it.

Now I know nothing about the project, but something tells me that the fact they have a system at all is because all these things were done to some degree, and the fact that it ran over was because, well, big projects have shifting goals, with plenty of people contributing anything they feel like, while some engineers write a program to keep all of them happy.

And I bet they don't take this team, and give them another large govt. project to work on. Rather than accept that they've learned a lot, and will do better next time, they'll get an all new group in to do the next one.

Of course I, and any other developer reading this, will have huge opinions about how they messed up, and how could _any_ system cost that much in the first place. It's dead easy to design a system when you don't know the specification, or ultimately have to deliver it to the end users.

</comment><comment><USER5> It always baffles me why an organisation with a large number of highly technical staff decide to outsoure things en-mass to suppliers.

I currently work for a company with a large number of highly skilled IT people, but it still insists on outsourcing projects en-mass, despite failure after failure (with a fairly loose definition of failure, which can be very late projects, or unmaintainable code bases, or bug after bug after bug ...).

Granted there may not be enough full time staff to take the project on, but surely things would be more successful by brining in a pool of contracts to work inhouse alongside the full timers?

<comment><USER6> An outsourced project that delivers on time but is unmaintainable _is_ a success... To the executive who gets promoted and leaves a poison chalice behind to scupper his rival.</comment></comment>


Build with React – ReactJS articles and tutorials - <AUTHOR> http://buildwithreact.com/

<comment><USER2> Am i the only one to find that React code looks like a collection of the worst ideas ever ?

<comment><AUTHOR> You're definitely not the only one. [https://twitter.com/cowboy/status/339858717451362304](https://twitter.com/cowboy/status/339858717451362304) as well as other HN comment threads.

Check out [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7738194](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7738194) or this JSConf talk [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cQ3mrcKaY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cQ3mrcKaY)</comment></comment>